Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 5 of 144 (587363)
10-18-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


Long story short, they brought in a gentleman who has a degree in geography and seems to know a lot about geology.
Obviously he does not know much about geology and his claim that he does is simply false.
There is no way anyone that really has any knowledge of geology could possible believe the Biblical Flood is factual.
His answer was thus, that they already knew the ages of the strata/fossils and so forth from biblical chronology and hence didn't need any new dating methods.
And that statement is all the evidence needed to show that he is simply a fraud.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 8 of 144 (587368)
10-18-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 3:30 PM


Yet they can readily refute science that has been shown to work over and over and over again.
They don't really refute things, they simply make assertions that they have refuted something.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 3:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 44 of 144 (589905)
11-04-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:34 PM


You need to remember that all it takes is one single example of something that is older than your young earth age to falsify your position?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:34 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 11-04-2010 11:01 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 51 of 144 (590060)
11-05-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
11-05-2010 3:21 PM


And even if the zircon evidence was wrong, uranium halos exist.
Once again, a single fact destroys young earth.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 3:21 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 65 of 144 (590219)
11-06-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:24 PM


A suggestion.
Take a look at the threads Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds), How to make sand and Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
Unfortunately, the people that you trust are simply counting on your continued ignorance. The facts though are that all they do is withhold information, try to keep you ignorant.
As one Christian speaking to another, those that claim to be scientists are just not telling you all the facts. I hate to say it but it sure looks like all they want is that continued gold from folk like you.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:24 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 85 of 144 (591269)
11-12-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:11 PM


Buz posts nonsense again.
Buz writes:
Here's the deal. The reason I've been arguing for rejecting conventional dating methodology is that the earth and atmosphere was significantly different than post flood.
Buz, you have never presented any evidence supporting that assertion and you have been shown evidence that absolutely refutes the Biblical Flood.
When you continue to claim the Biblical Flood ever happened you simply show that you are being willfully ignorant or downright dishonest.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 90 of 144 (591275)
11-12-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Assuming Premise, Then What?
Then present the evidence that will allow an accurate alternate dating method or show how any of your imagined Pre-Flood conditions would effect the conventional dating methods.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 99 of 144 (591292)
11-12-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Buz writes:
The non-uniform disaster model implicating a pre-flood vapor canopy premise would necessarily call for an alternative interpretation of observable evidence. No?
No.
It requires some evidence that will show it happened and what happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 109 of 144 (591307)
11-12-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 11:32 PM


Re: Off topic; I'm not going there, Got that? .
Buz writes:
For example, true or false; would a global Genesis flood model, factoring in other Genesis data and observeable physical evidence, such as tropical stuff in the arctics, etc, interpreted on that hypothetical model implicate a non-uniform atmosphere and earth surface?
No.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 11:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 122 of 144 (591686)
11-15-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:32 PM


try truth
Buz, I have to point out that you have been shown evidence on numerous occasions that shows beyond any doubt that the pre-flood atmosphere and environmental conditions were very much like the conditions today.
You keep repeating these falsehoods like the flood or the pre-flood atmosphere or the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan or fulfilled prophecy as though we have not refuted each of them time after time.
So let's deal with your pre-flood crap once again.
Go look at the Oetzi thread and once again it simply shows that your pre-flood premise is simply WRONG!

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:32 PM Buzsaw 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