Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
575 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 573 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,918 Year: 3,564/14,102 Month: 184/321 Week: 44/59 Day: 5/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 420 of 1486 (733731)
07-20-2014 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by OS
07-20-2014 5:51 PM


OS writes:

Luckily for humanity, both the K/Ar and Ar/Ar methods only start working after the magmatic phases.
What's your proof?

Pressie is merely calling your attention to a very well known fact, that some rocks contain minerals that take on the orientation of the existing magnetic field as they form. This can happen in volcanic rock, sedimentary rock, and metamorphic rock. The study of such rocks and their layers is called paleomagnetism. This field is how we know the position and orientations of ancient continents over past eons, as shown in videos like this:

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 5:51 PM OS has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 423 of 1486 (733736)
07-20-2014 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by OS
07-20-2014 6:21 PM


Hi OS,

You're correct, sorry about that. I misread "magmatic" as "magnetic" and thought he was making a different argument.

But Pressie is still just providing simple factual information. Gas escapes easily from molten rock, resetting the K/Ar and Ar/Ar clocks.

It works like this. Say there's a buried rock layer containing K, some of which has decayed to Ar. If we had access to this rock layer, maybe by obtaining a core sample, we could date its age. But now let's say the layer becomes heated and molten, so all the Ar escapes. The K/Ar and Ar/Ar clocks are now reset since there is no accumulation of Ar left. When the layer cools and solidifies then Ar will again begin to accumulate and these clocks will begin again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 6:21 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 712 of 1486 (827122)
01-17-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by creation
01-17-2018 9:54 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
creation writes:

The failed prophesies of cosmology are failed religious prophesy.

What "failed prophesies of cosmology"?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 9:54 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:58 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 717 of 1486 (827202)
01-19-2018 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-19-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Reply to creation
creation writes:

coyote writes:

There is no evidence for a global flood at 70 mya or any other time. The global flood is a religious myth.

How about the stuff that comes from deep under the earth...

What "stuff that comes from deep under the earth"? You mean ancient and now exposed sedimentary layers? Magma? What? Anyway, there's no evidence of a global flood, not 4500 years ago, not 75 million years ago, not ever.

...and space (iridium) such as the flood waters came from?

Again, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood ever, and the iridium layer is about 65 million years old.

The original date claimed was ca. 4,350 years ago but when the evidence showed there was no flood at that time claims were made for other times, all the way back to 70 mya and beyond. There is solid evidence that there was no global flood at any time.

Same thing. Imaginary so called science years never existed in reality. So 70 million imaginary years has no real currency.

The evidence that we find in the real world says says the years existed.

You see, the only dating methods that exist all involve our laws and nature.

Yes, the same laws of nature that we observe when we look out into the universe and back in time have existed unchanged for millions and billions of years.

The imaginary years claimed are only as good as the belief they rest on.

Actually, the ages revealed by radiometric and other forms of dating are only as good as the data and evidence they rest upon, which are of excellent quantity and quality and are conclusive.

...godless science...

Since science only includes that for which there is evidence, and since there is no evidence of God, and since you're in a science thread, what other kind of science could there be? I'm curious. Is the absence of God in science any more a detriment than the absence of God in plumbing or knitting or auto mechanics?

Easy. It only works in this nature and as long as our forces and laws have existed. How long that is is not known.

You keep saying this, but the evidence described to you shows this wrong and hasn't gone away.

So how about you prove that any radioactive decay at all existed long long ago?

The evidence from astronomical and cosmological observations proves it, and the radiometric decay products here on Earth prove it. The most dramatic example is a natural nuclear fission reactor at Oklo in Gabon.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:52 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 718 of 1486 (827204)
01-19-2018 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by creation
01-19-2018 3:58 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
creation writes:

percy writes:

.....

Gee, did I really say, "....."? I thought I said, "What "failed prophesies of cosmology"?" Oh, what do you know, I did say that! Having finger or keyboard problems? Too lazy to cut-n-paste? What?

How about failing to predict the rings of SN1987a?

How is not making a prediction a "failed prophesy"? We still aren't sure of the cause of the rings, so why would you expect them to be predicted?

How about having to go back and computer model after the fact about what sort of star actually exploded, since it could not have been the one they thought was there?

How is not knowing as much in the past as we know now a "failed prophesy"?

How about the predicted black hole not existing from the event?

I'm guessing that you're referring to the missing neutron star, for which one possibility is collapse into a black hole. This yet unexplained phenomenona is not a "failed prophecy," nor even a "prophecy" at all, and certainly not a "failed religious prophesy," since this has nothing to do with religion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 3:58 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 729 of 1486 (827250)
01-21-2018 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by creation
01-21-2018 2:08 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
creation writes:

One needs to do more than believe it was the same and call that science, no?

There is a great deal of data and analysis in this thread. To assert it isn't there is a misrepresentation of the most serious nature.

You were asked about this "former nature." If you have scientific evidence for it this is your opportunity to present it or forever hold your peace.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:08 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:20 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 742 of 1486 (827309)
01-22-2018 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by creation
01-21-2018 2:18 PM


Re: Reply to creation ... off topic again
creation writes:

razd writes:

(1) The iridium layer was deposited on a number of surfaces, from marine to desert, and it was later covered by a number of different deposition environments, some marine and some desert.
This variety negates it being associated with a world wide flood.

Flood waters would cover it all, no?

You mean a global flood? There's no evidence for a global flood across the entire history of the Earth.

How would finding some in what is now desert help you?

Not what is now desert, but what was then desert. The iridium layer is typically found buried in layers of all types that 65 million years ago were deserts, forests, prairies, coastal regions and seas. What type of ecosystem is on the surface now above the buried iridium layers is irrelevant to what was there 65 million years ago.

If evidence of the flood is asked for, and one points to some materials in layers at a certain area of the geologic column, that is off topic? Then why ask? Also, you responded to the same issue, why go off topic then?

Some topic diversion is very common in threads. Moderators try to maintain a sense of when a topic diversion is beginning to dominate a thread, and if this happens they encourage taking that discussion to another more appropriate thread.

Please address the topic without rambling nonsense.

All your supposed correlations are from the same belief. Address that!

The correlations are evidence from the real world. Do you have any real world evidence to counter them? It would seem not. All you've got is this monotonous schtick of, "That's just your belief so I'll ignore all the evidence."

The topic is not just about measuring age, by why there is consistency and correlation between different systems if they are not measuring age.

Already answered, because your correlations all correlate from one belief!

You're offering up the same meaningless schtick, but that's not an answer. Do you have any evidence for anything you claim?

Equals 1,686 posts made since March 2004, and not one creationist has refuted the data, or even mounted a serious challenge to the correlations.

No one needs to refute Santa stories, or your belief based stories! All they need to do is show they are mere belief based fabrications.

Well, yes, that's true, were you able to show that the evidence presented in this thread were merely "belief based fabrications" then you would truly have relevant and effective rebuttal, but you haven't done that. All you've done is repeated (and repeated and repeated) an unsupported claim that science is making stuff up while ignoring all evidence.

To counter scientific results you need to show where the errors are, what the result should be, and why.

Done. The error is that it is 100% belief based.

You're again repeating your unsupported claim while ignoring the evidence.

Same belief used for all yes all and I mean all so called correlations.

The only belief these correlations are based upon is that evidence and observation of the real world combined with replication and consensus building help us understand how the universe works.

The result should be that they admit being belief based and not really knowing after all.

Will you never write anything that addresses actual evidence?

Anything more than religion dressed as science to offer?

So you believe religion can't figure out the laws of the universe, and so can think of nothing worse than to label as religion any science you reject. But if religion is so figuring out the universe, how can you base your beliefs about how the universe works on religion?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:18 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 747 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:18 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 743 of 1486 (827310)
01-22-2018 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 731 by creation
01-21-2018 2:20 PM


Re: Still no evidence or cause to believe imaginary magic time flux
creation writes:

If you can prove your same state nature in the past do it now of forever hold your peace! Or, if you can prove time in the far universe exists the same as here, do it!

You're referring to a discussion in another thread. I did offer evidence that the laws of the universe hold true throughout the universe across all time. I haven't read that thread yet today, so if you have any responses there I haven't seem themyet, but it would be surprising if you break your pattern and actually address any evidence.

Name any 'analysis' in this thread that is not based on that belief?

RAZD began this thread with a number of messages detailing the evidence and analysis for an ancient Earth. See Message 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4, Message 5, Message 6, Message 7, Message 8, Message 9, Message 10, Message 11 and Message 12. A number of his other messages contain additional evidence and analysis, see Message 21, Message 22, Message 92, Message 257, Message 274, Message 452, Message 548, Message 573 and Message 663.

AbE: You requested tree ring images at one point, and the The Science of Tree Rings has a number of them. See:

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:20 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 744 of 1486 (827311)
01-22-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by creation
01-21-2018 2:23 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux
creation writes:

I propose they offer their beliefs as the anti bible religion they are, rather than some con job pretense of being known, or real science!

You still haven't introduced an ounce of evidence for your claims, while ignoring all evidence that counters your claims. It would seem that you believe as you do because of religion and not because of any evidence, and that your basis for choosing which science you accept and which you reject is based upon which science contradicts your religious beliefs and which science does not. Evidence, the foundation of all scientific understanding, is not part of your method.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:23 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 749 of 1486 (827514)
01-26-2018 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 747 by creation
01-26-2018 4:18 PM


Re: Reply to creation ... off topic again
Responding to several of your messages...

Responding to your Message 745 to Jar:

creation in Message 745 writes:

Insults aside, calling God an ignorant liar is blasphemy. You allude to evidence we do not see posted.

This is the Dates and Dating forum, a science forum. If you're talking about God here the only one committing blasphemy (discussion board blasphemy) is you.

Responding to your Message 746 to RAZD:

creation in Message 746 writes:

razd writes:

..

From post 735.

"The iridium was deposited, following the meteor impact.."

You have a quote region that says only "..", then although you're replying to RAZD's Message 741 you quote from his Message 735? Using this discussion board is really rocket science for you, isn't it. Or is it that you put about as much thought into your formatting as you do into your content?

The crater may have been a fountain of the deep with the impact coming from below to above. You are entitled to your beliefs. Don't pretend your beliefs were not addressed.

RAZD's just telling you what the evidence tells us. What's your evidence? Or is this "that's just your belief" stuff just another version of your "fishbowl" nonsense.

percy writes:

You mean a global flood? There's no evidence for a global flood across the entire history of the Earth.

Not if you expect some undisturbed uniform recent layer or something.

I don't have any expectations. I just follow the evidence where it leads. If you think there was a global flood sometime during Earth's history, what evidence are you looking at?

The actual flood was probably before mountain building and drift, and a lot of things that disturbed the bejinkins out of the earth.

And you know this how?

The flood was not some act of nature, but of a Scientist, who planned it all with precision.

If you've got religious answers you should take them to the religious threads. This is a science thread. If for religious reasons you believe the Earth is young and there was a global flood 4500 years ago then I think that's fine, but you should leave those beliefs out of this thread. This is a science thread where you should be discussing the scientific evidence behind your views.

Not what is now desert, but what was then desert. The iridium layer is typically found buried in layers of all types that 65 million years ago were deserts, forests, prairies, coastal regions and seas. What type of ecosystem is on the surface now above the buried iridium layers is irrelevant to what was there 65 million years ago.

The question remains...so what??

"So what" is a question?

You think there was none of that pre flood?

What I think is that that's an incredibly sparse explanation - no evidence of a flood and no explanation for how the worldwide iridium layer got there.

What I also think is whatever the evidence indicates. The iridium layer is the same age as the asteroid crater off the Yucatan Peninsula. Iridium is a very rare element on Earth, but not in asteroids.

The correlations are evidence from the real world.

Only if we limit the meaning of real to the present nature world. The correlations are all based on one belief. Nothing else. Therefore any internal agreement (however forced) is of no relevance at all. The only thing that matters is the belief they all rest upon.

Well now you're just producing word salad. If you'd like to try repeating this explanation in understandable English, if indeed it has any meaning, I'd be glad to reply.

You're offering up the same meaningless schtick, but that's not an answer. Do you have any evidence for anything you claim?

Having the correlations based on one belief is of utmost meaning. That means you must forget the smoke and get to the fire.

More word salad nonsense. Do you have a real argument?

Well, yes, that's true, were you able to show that the evidence presented in this thread were merely "belief based fabrications" then you would truly have relevant and effective rebuttal, but you haven't done that.

Well, easy to demonstrate that I have indeed done that.

Interesting delusion.

Name any one of the correlations that does not sit solely and exclusively on the same nature in the past belief!!? Unless you can, I claim total victory.

You write some nonsense, then claim total victory. I don't think that's going to take you very far. You're going to have to address the evidence other people have provided, or produce some evidence of your own, before anyone will take you seriously.

Will you never write anything that addresses actual evidence?

Will you ever post any evidence that is not smeared and drowned and painted with your big belief? You see, molesting evidences with beliefs is not presenting evidence, it is denying that you are using beliefs.

This is a science thread. If your discussion isn't going to be based on evidence, there's no point in you being here. If you have issues regarding the philosophy of science (your "big beliefs" claims) then this is the wrong thread for that discussion. You should propose a thread for the Is It Science? forum, which you can do over at Proposed New Topics.

So you believe religion can't figure out the laws of the universe, and so can think of nothing worse than to label as religion any science you reject. But if religion is so figuring out the universe, how can you base your beliefs about how the universe works on religion?

There is no need to figure it out God already told us. All I ask is that fake news so called origins sciences stop pretending that they have anything but beliefs. They could never figure it out. Impossible. They are shooting blanks. They are playing with a deck of 2 cards!

Again, you should leave your religious beliefs out of the science threads.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 4:18 PM creation has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 758 of 1486 (827559)
01-27-2018 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by creation
01-27-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
razd writes:

Curiously, this thread is about age measuring systems, not religion.

Curiously, this thread is about religion,...

This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum, so this is a science thread. If you go to the forum list page you'll see that the Dates and Dating forum is listed among the science forums.

...and your same state past belief that you failed to support in any way.

What are you, blind? This thread is full of copious evidence, all of which you've managed to ignore while repeating ad nauseam your unsupported claim about belief.

The time for denial is over.

It isn't possible to deny evidence that doesn't exist. You have as yet not offered any evidence for your position, so there's no evidence for anyone to deny.

You are now asked to show any one of your correlations that does not depend on there having been a same set of forces and laws on earth in the past?

There's Oklo here on Earth that shows natural physical laws a couple billion years ago were the same then that they are now. And when we look out at the universe we see the same natural physical laws out there that we observe here.

Tree rings...no. Fast growing trees would not have rings that took a long time to grow, however similar the rings may look to you.

That's all you got? You've offered no evidence that trees grew spectacularly faster in the past than they do today.

Corals? No. Similar reasons to above.

Again, that's all you got? You've still offered no evidence. All the evidence we have points to past life growing at normal rates.

Radioactive decay in the past? Prove there was any then as there now is?

Oklo.

In all cases, you appeal to belief.

That's a gross misrepresentation. We've offered evidence for all our claims.

Period.

Yes, period, as in once again you end a post without offering any evidence at all for your position.

Regarding your Message 754 to RAZD:

creation in Message 754 writes:

razd writes:

So your claim is that all three different systems occur in perfect synchrony in less than a day,...

Now looking at the text before you say things were not answered, I see you claim it was formed in less than a day?

Can't you read? RAZD clearly said that the "less than a day" claim was yours.

that makes a different kind of crater, one that isn't lined with fused glass

Impact force from either direct would fuse glass.

Are you daft? There are so many things wrong with your idea. The Earth is solid, so there's nothing moving around within the Earth to impact the surface. The asteroid was moving at an estimated 12 miles per second. An object striking the Earth from above leaves a crater, and what you're thinking of (which is impossible) would not. Fused glass such as is found at impact craters can't form from geologic processes here on Earth.

Walt Brown envisioned massive explosions of water from below if I recall.

Walt Brown has as much evidence for his ideas as you do for yours, in other words, none.

So, if you can rule that out, fine. I don't need it to be so. You see I have many options.

The only option you've chosen so far is to completely eschew evidence.

But since you claim something maybe you better show that it is known that the impact was from above?

Again, are you daft? The Earth is not hollow. There are no objects bouncing around inside and impacting the surface.

I prefer not to take a fixed stance on an issue until the evidence is clear.

Nobody's going to believe that - you've dismissed or ignored all evidence so far.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:42 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:46 PM Percy has responded
 Message 762 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 773 of 1486 (827673)
01-29-2018 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by creation
01-28-2018 4:46 PM


Re: Imaginary magic time flux delusions vs reality
Replying to a number of your messages...

Regarding your Message 760 to me:

percy writes:

This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum,..

Except the content and OP are belief based only. That is not science.

This is getting boring. Your answer to any evidence is, "That's just belief." You never address the evidence. That evidence is just belief is just something you need to believe in order to hold onto your religious beliefs, which have no evidential support at all.

You cannot claim a same nature in the past without evidence. You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was.

Again, your criticizing science by calling it religion? Do you not get how that completely undermines your religiously based approach?

Offering tree rings as proof of ages as if they were grown in this nature, without showing why or how is religion. Offering to collaborate that with some other belief based feature of a same state past is religion. It was pointed out that all collaborations here are from the same belief!

Collaborations? Did you perhaps mean correlations? I'll proceed under that assumption.

If the tree rings were grown under different natural physical laws then there would be evidence of that. Where's your evidence? And once again, do you not realize that criticizing evidence by calling it religion invalidates your own approach?

Rather than try and desperately call that science it seems you guys should be addressing the elephant in the room.

We are addressing the elephant in the room. That would be you and your claims completely contradicted by all evidence that natural physical laws were different in the past than they are now. Not to mention that you've presented no evidence yourself. You're just making up whatever you need to to prop up your religious beliefs.

Did I not ask RAZD and others to simply show even one of the supposed correlations that were NOT based on this one belief?! Why are you not capable of doing that?

Why are you not capable of seeing that that has been done, multiple times? Why are you imitating a broken record? Why are you incapable of addressing the evidence provided?

Regarding your Message 761 to RAZD:

creation in Message 761 writes:

No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. No dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief.

Again, this is untrue. We've provided evidence that natural physical laws in the past were the same as today. You've dismissed the evidence without giving it any consideration, calling it mere belief. In reality there is no evidence for your position, which is mere belief.

So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates.

This is not a religious thread. It is a science thread. You should not be mentioning the Bible, though it would be nice if you'd show it the proper respect by capitalizing it.

https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/timeline

You've cited a religious website, the same one Starman cited. Do you have any science you'd like to offer?

Regarding your Message 762 to me (gee, you thought my Message 758 so nice you responded twice):

creation in Message 762 writes:

Great. So the Oklo fable is your defense!!!? So tell us how you know the whole site was dunked miles under the surface of the earth when needed, and then eons later, brought to the surface?? Hint? You can't...you just need it to be so. Correct?

No, that's not correct concerning when the natural fission reactions were taking place, which was near the surface, which we know since the concentrations of uranium and the interruptions of the fission reactions were due to groundwater. I couldn't find anything online about the geological history of the region, but it is very, very common for regions of net sedimentation to become deeply buried and later become reexposed after uplift and erosion. The Grand Canyon region is a great example.

Oklo is not a fable - you can't make evidence disappear just by calling it names. See Natural nuclear fission reactor over at Wikipedia. We can bring as much evidence as you like into this thread.

Regarding your Message 763 to RAZD:

razd writes:

Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review.

That's funny earlier you failed to even be able to post a detailed picture of tree rings from a tree that had more than 5000 rings!? Now we supposedly can touch them?

Yes, of course we can touch them. Here's an image of the stump of the Prometheus tree:

See the Wikipedia article on the Prometheus tree for more details. We can bring as many of those details into this thread as you wish. The tree ring count is currently thought to be 4862, but because of missing rings (apparently not uncommon at that elevation) it is estimated that the Prometheus tree is older than 5000 years.

Then you have the nerve to accuse others of an inability to debate?

It isn't so much an accusation as a statement of the obvious.

Smoke, meet mirror.

Ignorance meet bliss.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:46 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 776 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 12:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 774 of 1486 (827943)
02-06-2018 10:11 AM


Sung to the tune of "Where oh where has my little dog gone":

Oh where, oh where has Creation gone,
Oh where, oh where can he be?
With his facts cut short
And his tales cut long,
Oh where, oh where can be be?

I think he returned
To creationist sites,
To read what he could read.
And what he saw there
Was only belief,
And not a fact to be found.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 775 by jar, posted 02-06-2018 11:21 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 787 of 1486 (840648)
10-02-2018 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by creation
10-02-2018 7:02 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
You're putting the message number of the post you're replying to at the top of your recent messages, e.g.:

creation writes:

to post 781

There's no need to do this. At the top and bottom of each your messages it already provides this information. For example at the top right of your message it says:

quote:
Reply to: Message 781 by ringo

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:02 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 788 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 10:22 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021