Fountains of the deep, new evidence

I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.For example, I believe in adaptation in animals and plants, but not that all living organisms are an offspring to an accident in a swamp.

That's good but not sure why you felt a need to post that bit of info. I don't think anyone believes that. It would be take a very ignorant person to think such a thing, or to think people think that.

I think that if instead of making excuses you directed your efforts at research and explication that you'd obtain a better outcome.In this thread you've had a lot more to say about science and almost nothing about the fountains of the deep. Perhaps you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

You only need facts and reasoning. Faith is required only to believe we live in a rational universe that makes sense and can be figured out, a faith which seems to be supported by the facts. Again, not the topic, and not something anyone believes anyway.--Percy

Since you accepted by faith that somebody had radio-carbon dated a penny, maybe you should be leaving faith out of the equation. Reasoning should have told you how ludicrous that idea was, but your faith seems to let the ludicrous in.

Thanks, I'll give it a go, backing up what I say with evidence from science, I just don't find the usual sites have the info I need to prove a point, simply because there is more than one way that info can be interpreted, but the consensus falls in the direction I disagree with.

Not really, as a kid I believed what I was told to pass exams. Fortunately there never was a Question about dating in the final.

Seeking scientific support for what you're going to say before you say it will prevent you from making misstatements of fact, but it won't help you build a case for creationist views. Many creationists have spent lifetimes trying to do just that (Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, Andrew Snelling, et many al.). If you want a coherent foundation for flood science then I suggest you start with the foundational book on the subject, The Genesis Flood, written over a half century ago by Henry Morris, but it contains little of any scientific validity. Claims of alternative interpretations is a frequent resort of creationists once they see that the facts are not in their favor, but consensuses form within science only after all interpretations but one are eliminated. Still, claiming alternative interpretations is the path most creationists choose, and so many discussions between science-minded folk and creationists become an exercise in trying to convince creationists that the interpretation they're backing is already excluded by the available evidence. My own opinion is that the creationist has no hope of success, but it is nonetheless an extremely valuable educational exercise. Usually people on both sides of the debate learn a great deal.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.

Yet you have never presented any of your alleged evidence.What evidence do you have?

If you had it you would present it. You are no different than the carny barker trying to get people to buy tickets to see whatever wonder of the world they have. Over sell under deliver.

Have you even read the dating thread RAZD has referred you to?Or are you just rejecting any and all evidence, sight unseen, because it might disagree with your pre-conceived notions?I suspect the latter, and I suspect the nature of your pre-conceived notions is all on a par with C14 dating an Australian penny.In other words, you have no evidence against scientific dating methods. All you have is belief.

Is all of your "evidence" as idiotic as carbon-dating a penny? Surely you ought to be embarrassed to even mention any other "evidence" you've seen.What you ought to be doing, instead of sticking to your story, is re-evaluating all of that so-called "evidence" before you make any more pronouncements about dating.

Where did we leave off? What were we talking about last that did not fit?