Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2126 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 93 (608010)
03-08-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:57 AM


Dating
Its been a great gain for YEC creationism to have the impact thing arive to explain the great fauna/flora change in the world suddenly.
this creationist sees the k-t line as the flood line.
so what did for us is to demonstrate a instant die off and a dramatic and different recovery in a point in history.
We simply say this was the biblical flood.
A great die off and different recovery in fauna/flora.
The impact is simply misunderstood as to when it happened.
The global flood is placed about 4,350 years ago.
The k-t boundary is about 65.5 million years ago.
Scientists would be embarrassed to make a mistake of that magnitude.
How can you justify supporting such a massive error?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:57 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:26 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2126 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 59 of 93 (608424)
03-10-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Robert Byers
03-10-2011 2:26 AM


Re: Dating
its well known creationism doesn't accept these dates. So no error from here.
Creationism demonstrates it's intellectual bankruptcy by statements such as yours.
The fact that creationism doesn't accept those dates doesn't magically make them go away.
Facts can be stubborn things sometimes, and awful inconvenient. And they don't disappear just because somebody doesn't like them.
Care to try again?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Robert Byers, posted 03-10-2011 2:26 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024