Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
107 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Parasomnium, PaulK (4 members, 103 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,293 Year: 4,939/14,102 Month: 537/707 Week: 92/176 Day: 1/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 1486 (547649)
02-21-2010 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Brad H
02-21-2010 4:55 AM


Re: special invitation just for Brad H ...
You make a lot of points there - not all of which are on-topic. (Some of them belong in the PRATT's topic like the magnetic field decay argument and the ludicrous population growth argument).

Perhaps it would be best to pick out one or two for more detailed discussion in this thread and go to other threads for some of the rest that don't belong. What do you say ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:55 AM Brad H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 8:41 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 37 of 1486 (547654)
02-21-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Brad H
02-21-2010 8:41 AM


Re: special invitation just for Brad H ...
Well it isn't true that you were invited to discuss any age of the Earth argument here. In fact you were invited here to address the evidence presented in the earlier posts. And the reason for that was beacuse the topic you were in was getting too fragmented already. And now you are insisting on fragmenting this one Sorry, I'm not going to be part of any attempt to bury the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 8:41 AM Brad H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 9:48 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 40 of 1486 (547660)
02-21-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad H
02-21-2010 9:48 AM


Re: special invitation just for Brad H ...
It's not my memory you are disagreeing with. It's RAZD's special invitation just for Brad H ... (Message 33) above which I carefully read to check before posting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 9:48 AM Brad H has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1012 of 1486 (842883)
11-09-2018 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1011 by Faith
11-09-2018 4:14 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
To sum up your post, you are claiming that the correct way to investigate the past is to take a superficial view of the evidence and jump to the conclusions you wish to reach.

Looking at the evidence in more detail and finding out that the evidence does not support you at all is “absurd”, “guesswork”, “building castles in the air”

To rational people the methodology employed by scientists is obviously far superior to yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1011 by Faith, posted 11-09-2018 4:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1017 of 1486 (842904)
11-09-2018 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1016 by Faith
11-09-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
quote:

The evidence for the Flood is scientific fact, you know, actual sedimentary deposits, actual fossils in the bazillions, not any of your wacko stuff.

The existence of the strata and the fossils is scientific fact. That doesn’t mean that they are evidence for the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1016 by Faith, posted 11-09-2018 5:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1075 of 1486 (843206)
11-14-2018 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1071 by Faith
11-14-2018 1:12 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
quote:

Best I can do is say I've argued the case for the absurdity of the OE interpretation of the strata many times and am not up to it again.

Because admitting the failures of your arguments would be too much to expect from you.

quote:

Best I can do is say I've argued the case for the absurdity of the OE interpretation of the strata many times and am not up to it again.

Things you’ve made up don’t count as observations, you know.

quote:

The rest of your post demonstrates that what you have and all you have, and I've conceded it at least until further notice, is dating calculations.

We also have the order of the fossil record, erosion between layers - sometimes massive, huge amounts of ancient lava extruded onto dry land, a long history of tectonic disturbances... the evidence goes on and on. Too bad you can’t admit to any of it.

quote:

Timing is of course important, but if the basic absurdity of the standard interpretation and the obvious sense of the Floodist interpretation can be shown then the timing is just going to have to be rethought

And how on earth are you going to manage that ? Claiming that the strata and fossils support the Flood because a ridiculously superficial interpretation of the evidence lets you jump to that conclusion - and attacking anyone who dares look deeper and see the falsehood of your claims hardly does that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1071 by Faith, posted 11-14-2018 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021