Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243
Results 421 to 425 of 425

Thread: What do creationists say about "Old Tjikko"?

  1. #421
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,209
    Thanks
    1,867
    Thanked 2,236 Times in 1,903 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    No, you distorted it. Finches are mentioned just two or three times, in passing, in Origin.

    What does that even mean?

    It is not.

    Your misrepresentation goes on and on and on.
    If life sprang from non-life, it had not the slightest relevance to his theory of evolution.

    What level did you get to in English?
    Ah, "condense". The new word for lying.

  2. #422
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 169 Times in 156 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    what on Earth has geology got to do with evolution?
    YEC's have to believe carbon dating is wildly inaccurate, they have to believe the ice in the polar ice caps can't be relied upon to denote great passages of time, they have to believe that varves do not provide an accurate record of passing seasons, they have to belief that every system which is used in science to determine the passage of time (and all of which lead to similar conclusions) are completely unreliable, else the Bible is not the true historical record they are obliged to believe it is.

    And their dating technique?

    Ask a YEC to date anything which isn't accompanied by a document saying when it was made and the answer will be "Well, I know for a fact it can't be more than 6,000 years old!"

    The extent of YEC knowledge is the same as it was in Judea in 700BC.
    Well YEC believe C-14 is wildly inaccurate because dino tissue has shown c-14, supposed 300 million year old coal seams have c-14 in it and on and on and on the evidence shows how c-14 is inaccurate.

    ice samples.--It has been shown that one season can lay many "layers" in an ice sample! Without knowing the history of the seasons (which would give the age and sampling not needed) then ice cores just tell us how many layers are there.

    Well as their is no reliable dating technique other than observed history- YEC scientists do not attempt to date things that went unobserved.

    But I am interested in the evidence you propose that invalidates the Noahic account which is said to be an eyewitness account!

  3. #423
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 169 Times in 156 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    How inaccurate, exactly?


    I'm an "evo".
    Ask me to date something and I'll tell you to take it to a laboratory which specialises in dating things.
    Well unless we know when the rock was formed how can we know how inaccurate.

    Known age rocks from Mt. St. Helens and Hawaii (so less than 1.5 centuries by observation and research ) test out at upper limits of several million years!

    It is obvious you do not know the assumptions used in radiometric dating.

    It is also obvious you reject the research shown and empirically demonstrated by both evo and creo scientists that many, many outside factos can affect the decay of isotopes. So without knowing these assumptions and how many events that changed the decay rate of the sample- we are left with answers that are just guesses.

  4. #424
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 169 Times in 156 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    what on Earth has geology got to do with evolution?
    YEC's have to believe carbon dating is wildly inaccurate, they have to believe the ice in the polar ice caps can't be relied upon to denote great passages of time, they have to believe that varves do not provide an accurate record of passing seasons, they have to belief that every system which is used in science to determine the passage of time (and all of which lead to similar conclusions) are completely unreliable, else the Bible is not the true historical record they are obliged to believe it is.

    And their dating technique?

    Ask a YEC to date anything which isn't accompanied by a document saying when it was made and the answer will be "Well, I know for a fact it can't be more than 6,000 years old!"

    The extent of YEC knowledge is the same as it was in Judea in 700BC.
    [
    I]have [/I]to believe carbon dating is wildly inaccurate, they have to believe the ice in the polar ice caps can't be relied upon to denote great passages of time, they have to believe that varves do not provide an accurate record of passing seasons, they have to belief that every system which is used in science to determine the passage of time (and all of which lead to similar conclusions) are completely unreliable,
    You also forget that even the same dating method when used without knowing the estimated age of the sample gives wildly varying dates and differing methods producer even greater dates when they do not know the estimated age. This has all been well documented in what you consider "reputable" science journals.

  5. #425
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 169 Times in 156 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John53 View Post
    On the tablet at the moment and my fingers are too fat to answer each individual point so you'll have to excuse that but considering your woeful quoting techniques I don't feel too guilty.

    Para 1 and 2 contain too many contradicting statements of the one point to make any sense.

    Para 3. I believe very little of what you say because most of it is wrong.

    Para 4. So you willingly break rules to suit your agenda. No suprise, something I've come to expect from YECers.

    Para 5 and 6. You didn't put it in qoutes and I forgot I wrote it, I probably had 1 too many beers (a bit like now). So turns out it was me I agreed with so the suprise I had at you being right was wasted.

    Para 7 and 8. Such dribble that I couldn't be bothered commenting on it other than suggesting you actualy read Darwins book and stop parroting ICR propaganda gibberish.

    Para 3. I believe very little of what you say because most of it is wrong.
    And yet you cannot produce any evidence to rebut what I say is wrong.

    Para 4. So you willingly break rules to suit your agenda. No suprise, something I've come to expect from YECers.
    So when someone willingly tells a lie and you say they told a lie we should do nothing? How about I start a thread saying that there is evidence you engage in monstrous sexual deviations. Is that lie ok as well???

    I called your action not you- but I think you know that saying what you did is not the same as a personal attack.

    So far there is so little discussion here . I think the only thing all the evos on the boarf are capable of is just mocking their opponents and are incapable of answering objections even the evo side has and are posted many times by me.

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •