Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

quote:

---

Show me a ghost.

---

I thought they were invisible?

quote:

---

If it is in this universe then it is subject to scientific analysis

---

At least it is subject to being hammered into your fable molds and splattered with your beliefs and added to the impressive list of imaginary things your oversized ego want to take credit for.

You tell me. It's your ghost. How do *you* know it's there?

Science cannot date a spirit, or correlate their ages. They cannot say they exist or do not exist!

That is because they are not real.They are the figments of the weak minded religionist's delusions.

That same logic would apply to leprechauns or orcs.

Watch out, Ringo! Each passing day the news makes it look more and more like orcs really do exist!Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Before I cast off all of ancient history, and Scripture, and testimonies of millions of living people, there needs to be some sort of reason and evidence. You have statements of incredulity. Until then I will continue to think that all spirits matter.

You don't need to cast off your delusions, science already has.You cannot show a ghost, god, demon, or spirit and all those that have been supposed in the past have been debunked or are untenable as fairy tales without any corroboration.Just like your "different nature" , your flud and your talking snake, these apparitions are the fanciful products of weak unsophisticated mental states and carry no reality in this universe.

I'm pretty busy in the real world, so I'm not following things closely, BUT...I'LL MAKE THIS AN OFFICIAL WARNING - ANY MESSAGES NOT HAVING SOME SORT OF CONNECTION TO THE TOPIC THEME MIGHT JUST TRIGGER A 2 DAY SUSPENSION OF THE POSTER.Adminnemooseus

Feel free to highlight some correlation that does not involve belief as the basis. All so called correlations I have seen here so far rest on belief and belief alone.

Oh Great Big Beautiful Moose, inquiry.By topic are we limited to, in this thread, Age Correlations and An Old Earth, or are we allowed the sub-threads like presently Message 1450, Message 1451 as the latest example and other sub-topics that periodically spring from the emergent properties of topic creep?Better yet, it might be instructive if you could give us some examples of offending messages.

Not now, child, the gods are speaking to us.

1) Message should somehow touch on the age dating science.2) At the minimum, message should at least touch on scientific methodology.3) Message should not be irrelevant snark.1450 and 1451 BARELY qualifies as meeting (2), but it would be nice if it had any real connection to (1).Your new 1467 qualifies as being (3). Might you find the most recent message in this topic, that actually does (1)? The recent quality of topic sure seems quite dismal to me.dad is pretty much (understatement?) blathering nonsense. I think other members should post something of (1) or not respond at all. dad makes Faith look like a towering master of scientific reason. Is dad being successful at dragging the sciece side down to his level of discourse?Maybe we need some activity at EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')Adminnemooseus

I have heard the words of He Who Has Antlers and I shall endeavor to comply.

You really need to work on reading comprehension. I said "throughout the sequence". Which means from samples before and after 5,000 years. Do you really think professionals would 14C date only half the range? Why? We know that counting rings yielded many samples more than 5,000 years old. We know that 14C dating samples were taken from some of those trees and the 14C dates agreed with the ring-counting dates within a few percent. What difference would there be or knowledge gained by showing you a picture of a piece of wood? You are forgetting key data. If there was no (or different) decay at the time the Universe would have been so fundamentally different that life as we know it would be impossible.. References given previously. See above. I'm speaking of your fantasy of the most fundamental changes happening in the past, not today. Atoms would not have existed then if decay rates changed that much. Do you realize that atoms are essential for life as we know it?