Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Noah's Ark thread has sunk
Yesterday, 12:44 PM
Post: #51
RE: Noah's Ark thread has sunk
(Yesterday 01:10 AM)The_Squid Wrote:  
Quote:…evolutionists…

What’s an evolutionist?

Someone who believes in the theory of evolution that states we share a common ancestor with apes, and not that a magic sky wizard created us from dirt.

When people ask me if I've found Jesus, I usually tell them they should look the last place they put him.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 07:05 PM
Post: #52
RE: Noah's Ark thread has sunk
(Yesterday 12:44 PM)Alexa Wrote:  
(Yesterday 01:10 AM)The_Squid Wrote:  
Quote:…evolutionists…
What’s an evolutionist?
Someone who believes in the theory of evolution that states we share a common ancestor with apes, and not that a magic sky wizard created us from dirt.

Yes. We are biological things, of the Animalia on this planet, and stinking naked apes to boot. So, there were common ancestors. Yet although we have few silicon atoms in our bodies, our stuff and the dirt we tread on came from the same place: the interiors of exploding stars. And the Good God made us indeed, however he managed that feat.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 09:27 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 09:30 PM by The_Squid.)
Post: #53
RE: Noah's Ark thread has sunk
So if I believe in the scientific theory of gravity, then I’m a gravitationalist?
(11-16-2017 11:52 PM)Tas-10 Wrote:  Hey, this sounds like the familiar jargon of evolutionists ...

Are you one of those gravitationists?

----------------------
Does anyone know where the love of God goes
when the waves turn the minutes to hours?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Today, 12:12 AM (This post was last modified: Today 12:14 AM by Tas-10.)
Post: #54
RE: Noah's Ark thread has sunk
(Yesterday 02:55 AM)Herminator Wrote:  
(11-16-2017 11:52 PM)Tas-10 Wrote:  Herminator wrote (in response to Gerald): “As you may have noticed, the (newspaper!) article is full of "maybe's", "could's", "may's" and so on. There is nothing definitive here. drawing any conclusions from such a newspaper article is nonsense.”

Hey, this sounds like the familiar jargon of evolutionists promoting CD! Let’s see....
“As you may have noticed, the (newspaper!) article on macroevolution is full of "maybe's", "could's", "may's" and so on. There is nothing definitive here. drawing any conclusions from such a newspaper article on macro evolution is nonsense.”

Yep, it fits.

You've now turned to preparing your own evidence? Interesting Rolleyes


(11-16-2017 11:52 PM)Tas-10 Wrote:  Herminator stated in the dead thread (hey, that rhymes!), that all dating techniques agree.
That’s not what I found:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083789/

You don't even know what you found (likely because you merely copy/pasted it from creation.com). The article compares measured dates to calculated molecular data. It's not dating techniques that are being compared, so it is in no way a reaction to my statement. Is it out of a lack of knowledge you are presenting this, or willful misinformation?

By the way, even if you could manage to show one dating technique needs improvement, there's still 25 more left, i.e. those are meaningless attempts.

The point is, you implied they "all" agree. IOW, one is wrong. If they are all in agreement, then they are all wrong, and 'need improvement'.

I do appreciate that link to the various dating methods. Quite interesting.

Here's another referencing 3 dating procedures that I've enjoyed:
http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_14a

Almost all the subjects on this webpage are enlightening.

Take care, my cousins.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Today, 03:57 AM
Post: #55
RE: Noah's Ark thread has sunk
(Today 12:12 AM)Tas-10 Wrote:  
(Yesterday 02:55 AM)Herminator Wrote:  
(11-16-2017 11:52 PM)Tas-10 Wrote:  Herminator wrote (in response to Gerald): “As you may have noticed, the (newspaper!) article is full of "maybe's", "could's", "may's" and so on. There is nothing definitive here. drawing any conclusions from such a newspaper article is nonsense.”

Hey, this sounds like the familiar jargon of evolutionists promoting CD! Let’s see....
“As you may have noticed, the (newspaper!) article on macroevolution is full of "maybe's", "could's", "may's" and so on. There is nothing definitive here. drawing any conclusions from such a newspaper article on macro evolution is nonsense.”

Yep, it fits.

You've now turned to preparing your own evidence? Interesting Rolleyes

(11-16-2017 11:52 PM)Tas-10 Wrote:  Herminator stated in the dead thread (hey, that rhymes!), that all dating techniques agree.
That’s not what I found:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083789/

You don't even know what you found (likely because you merely copy/pasted it from creation.com). The article compares measured dates to calculated molecular data. It's not dating techniques that are being compared, so it is in no way a reaction to my statement. Is it out of a lack of knowledge you are presenting this, or willful misinformation?

By the way, even if you could manage to show one dating technique needs improvement, there's still 25 more left, i.e. those are meaningless attempts.

The point is, you implied they "all" agree.

Correct, and I showed that what you presented as evidence against that statement was poppycock. I'd still like to see an answer to the question whether you did this knowing full well it was no evidence at all, or whether you simply didn't understand what was in the article you presented - which would make me wonder whether you should be in a discussion about scientific methods at all.

(Today 12:12 AM)Tas-10 Wrote:  The point is, you implied they "all" agree. IOW, one is wrong. If they are all in agreement, then they are all wrong, and 'need improvement'.

I agree with this assesment, so now it's up to you to prove that one of them is totally wrong (mind you: the method) if you want to prove all are wrong.

Since these are all well-established (i.e., tested and independently verified) methods, I think you'll have a hard time.

(Today 12:12 AM)Tas-10 Wrote:  Here's another referencing 3 dating procedures that I've enjoyed:
http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_14a

That's not "a reference" about dating methods, that's an opinion article from a site called "The Bible's Internal Proofs of its Authentic History". The reference you gave in your earlier post was a decent one (from a peer-reviewed publication), so it seems you know the difference - no clue why you now suddenly pop up some opinion as "evidence" of anyhting.

Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Noah's Ark Brother Gerald 626 8,911 11-14-2017 11:26 PM
Last Post: Tas-10
  How do the Religious Explain Noah's Ark? Secular Hobbit 67 13,894 10-21-2017 12:31 PM
Last Post: Jayhawker Soule
  Egyptians? The Ark? IMtM 45 5,669 06-30-2010 08:59 AM
Last Post: kevlar



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)