Enoch2021 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 17, 2014 ========================================================================= Your "crack" at radiometic dating is laughable. Unsupported Baseless Assertion. Somethings laughable alright. Here's a couple more just from a cursory review of this thread..... "overwhelming body of evidence" "No, the problem is science lets the evidence tell the story, while creation science is telling the evidence what it is saying." Then this..... "then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence." ALL your Claims are either: Baseless Unsupported Assertions, Anecdotes, Bumper Sticker Refrigerator Posty Notes, Sweeping Unsupported Generalizations. Will you support ANY of your Claims anytime soon? Seriously? Please just one for starters. Start with your next Claim....Please provide CITED REFERENCES. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 17, 2014 How would you? ============================================================================= It's your CLAIM for Cryin Out Loud....R Ya Kiddin Me?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 Actually, I was an atheist and evolutionist until I was 19 when I became a Christian. I realized that everything I believed and studied before didn't match up with what I read in the bible, so I started to study alternatives. The more I looked at it, the more I felt kinda dumb. I'm not calling anyone who accepts evolution as dumb...just sharing that I felt dumb for ever thinking the universe and everything within could've ever come to be by itself without the help of a Creator. And if an all-powerful Creator Being exists, as I believe He does, He shared with us how He did it. And He could've done it by speaking everything into existence in a process that scientists would say took millions and millions of years. That's the only way they can come up with those kinds of figures...because it would take millions (or billions) of years to happen on their own without God. But I now don't believe it could've happened at all without God and that changes everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 so, ae How would you? ============================================================================= It's your CLAIM for Cryin Out Loud....R Ya Kiddin Me?? So, are you saying all fossils are the same age? How can you tell which are older? You give me to much credit for claiming some are older than others. Seems time would determine that. Are you saying you cannot answer that simple question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 There's no way to determine which are older. Have you ever seen pictures of the frozen waves in Antarctica? Some have been found in my neck of the woods here in Michigan in the Great Lakes. Apparently, this water was below the current layer of ice, but was pushed upward. So what was on the lower portion of ice is now on top. That's why I don't trust ice cores. Ice shifts, breaks, melts, re-freezes, pushed, moved, etc. Same with rocks and sediment. The ground at Yellowstone has risen ten inches. The whole earth is a living organism it seems, moving and shifting under the ground. We've found man-made materials encased in coal deep down inside where it shouldn't be. What does that tell me? It tells me that when the flood happened, a man-made object got mixed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 17, 2014 ======================================================================== So, are you saying all fossils are the same age? How can you tell which are older? You give me to much credit for claiming some are older than others. Seems time would determine that. Are you saying you cannot answer that simple question? Too funny. Are you trying to irritate me? LOL Would you like me to define your claim? OK...... Jerry says the way we differentiate "Older" vs "Younger" fossils is that..... When we take the temperature (Mercury Thermometer) of each fossil's Left Corpuscular Lobe of the Thoracic Cavity, after eating 3 ounces of Fruity Pebbles, the Temp of the Younger Fossils is 84Kelvin or above. If its Less than 84K, then those Fossils are Older. If we don't have a Thermometer, but we have the Fruity Pebbles, we just guess; then play Lynyrd Skynyrd songs.....Pre-Crash Ones till it's time to go home. Good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 There's no way to determine which are older. It is astonishing you think that. There are simple experiments... Have you ever seen pictures of the frozen waves in Antarctica? Some have been found in my neck of the woods here in Michigan in the Great Lakes. Apparently, this water was below the current layer of ice, but was pushed upward. So what was on the lower portion of ice is now on top. That's why I don't trust ice cores. Ice shifts, breaks, melts, re-freezes, pushed, moved, etc. Same with rocks and sediment. The ground at Yellowstone has risen ten inches. The whole earth is a living organism it seems, moving and shifting under the ground. We've found man-made materials encased in coal deep down inside where it shouldn't be. What does that tell me? It tells me that when the flood happened, a man-made object got mixed in. Sorry, but ice is not analagous to the conditions to create fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 ======================================================================== So, are you saying all fossils are the same age? How can you tell which are older? You give me to much credit for claiming some are older than others. Seems time would determine that. Are you saying you cannot answer that simple question? Too funny. Are you trying to irritate me? LOL Would you like me to define your claim? OK...... Jerry says the way we differentiate "Older" vs "Younger" fossils is that..... When we take the temperature (Mercury Thermometer) of each fossil's Left Corpuscular Lobe of the Thoracic Cavity, after eating 3 ounces of Fruity Pebbles, the Temp of the Younger Fossils is 84Kelvin or above. If its Less than 84K, then those Fossils are Older. If we don't have a Thermometer, but we have the Fruity Pebbles, we just guess; then play Lynyrd Skynyrd songs.....Pre-Crash Ones till it's time to go home. Good? So, you are unable to determine if one fossil is older than another? Can you answer without Flinstones references? How are they helpful to a meaningful discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 Not really. It's based completely on bias. They tested the age of a dinosaur bone, not realizing it was a dinosaur bone when it was sent in for testing just to see what age the fossil would get without millions of years being assumed and it came back at around 5,000 years. They add into their calculation what they think the age SHOULD be based on the kind of bone, which species it belongs to. They then say that the layer must be X millions of years, so everything found in that layer must be around that age. And the ages I've seen are massively broad generalizations. "This is between 2-to-4 millions of years old." Really? That's not a very good prediction. There's no accurate dating method beyond 50,000 years. And the data is skewed because scientists assume they know the amount of stuff was in the atmosphere at that time, which they could be VERY wrong about. There could've been an abundant amount of carbon in the air pre-flood that would mess up all dating methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 18, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2014 Not really. It's based completely on bias. They tested the age of a dinosaur bone, not realizing it was a dinosaur bone when it was sent in for testing just to see what age the fossil would get without millions of years being assumed and it came back at around 5,000 years. They add into their calculation what they think the age SHOULD be based on the kind of bone, which species it belongs to. They then say that the layer must be X millions of years, so everything found in that layer must be around that age. And the ages I've seen are massively broad generalizations. "This is between 2-to-4 millions of years old." Really? That's not a very good prediction. There's no accurate dating method beyond 50,000 years. And the data is skewed because scientists assume they know the amount of stuff was in the atmosphere at that time, which they could be VERY wrong about. There could've been an abundant amount of carbon in the air pre-flood that would mess up all dating methods. Can someone explain to me why something so momentous as dinosaurs did not make it into Genesis; which were presumably roaming the earth when Adam named the species, and which made it into Noah's ark (take 2 of EVERY SPECIES)? And please don't quote from the poetical books about Leviathans--if an OEC used anything from them to support OEC it would be rejected immediately on grounds of the genre. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts