Originally posted by RJHinds The finding of soft tissue in dinoaurs also places doubt on the old age idea.
[youtube]SWDY7GSf6Rk[/youtube]
Notice how the long age people spin the story to come up with new theories on how soft tissue can be preserved longer than some thought and that they actually knew all about this all the time. The evolutionists seem to be afraid to admit they don't know it all and could be wrong about the age of things.
This video did not seem to conclude in a way all that favorable to how you advertized it.
Did you listen to what he said in his conclusion ?
I think you're kind of wild in the "supporting" videos you are recommending.
Originally posted by sonship This video did not seem to conclude in a way all that favorable to how you advertized it.
Did you listen to what he said in his conclusion ?
I think you're kind of wild in the "supporting" videos you are recommending.
If I had given one that supported my view entirely, I would get complaints for not presenting the other side. Of course, there are two ways to look at the data and neither one can completely rule out the other, if the person has a strong worldview bias. Just like politics, the commentators can put their political spin on any event.
By the way, I have presented those other videos in the past and it has not changed the view of the old earther. They are a stubborn bunch for one reason or another.
Originally posted by RJHinds If I had given one that supported my view entirely, I would get complaints for not presenting the other side. Of course, there are two ways to look at the data and neither one can completely rule out the other, if the person has a strong worldview bias. Just like politics, the commentators can put their political spin on any event.
By the way, I have pr ...[text shortened]... s not changed the view of the old earther. They are a stubborn bunch for one reason or another.
And that reason is we listen to evidence. For instance, show us a 400 million year old fossil of a parakeet, evolution is out the window. But all you show is asssholes with an agenda to kill science, and THEIR view is they are right and everyone else is wrong irregardless of evidence. Evidence is put there by your god to fool mankind.
That is the result of people falling for the biggest scam in human history, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, different colors of the same scam. The don't want truth about the universe or Earth, they only want control and have everyone spout dogma.
Originally posted by sonhouse And that reason is we listen to evidence. For instance, show us a 400 million year old fossil of a parakeet, evolution is out the window. But all you show is asssholes with an agenda to kill science, and THEIR view is they are right and everyone else is wrong irregardless of evidence. Evidence is put there by your god to fool mankind.
That is the result ...[text shortened]... 't want truth about the universe or Earth, they only want control and have everyone spout dogma.
Originally posted by moonbus Yes, the biblical account could be correct. But the preponderance of evidence to date does not support this contention. If you restrict the word "prove" in such a way as to make your YEC claim undisprovable, you will, of course, have an unassailable position. But also a meaningless one.
Some things do not depend on belief. Conclusions hastil ...[text shortened]... cs must have changed in the last 6,000 years seriously impeaches his credibility as a scientist.
In order for his failed hypothesis to be correct he also has to dismiss trees already dated, very much alive, but almost 11,000 years old. Therefore, in his world, tree ring data is now taboo.
Originally posted by sonhouse In order for his failed hypothesis to be correct he also has to dismiss trees already dated, very much alive, but almost 11,000 years old. Therefore, in his world, tree ring data is now taboo.
You are mistaken. There are no trees alive that can be dated more than about 4,000 years old and we can't really be sure of those dates, since we must assume things that can't be proven. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds You are mistaken. There are no trees alive that can be dated more than about 4,000 years old and we can't really be sure of those dates, since we must assume things that can't be proven. 😏
Here is one dated 9000+ years old in Sweden. Of course you will jump on that like a dog on a bone with a string of rationals and denials. I expect nothing else from someone as twisted in mind as you.
Originally posted by sonhouse Here is one dated 9000+ years old in Sweden. Of course you will jump on that like a dog on a bone with a string of rationals and denials. I expect nothing else from someone as twisted in mind as you.
There is no evidence presented that proves they even know how old those trees are. They just discovered them so they mignt be less than 100 years old. Do you call taking their word for it science now?
As you have pointed out, they may have a political agenda. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds Trees and rocks aren't clocks.
There is no evidence presented that proves they even know how old those trees are. They just discovered them so they mignt be less than 100 years old. Do you call taking their word for it science now?
As you have pointed out, they may have a political agenda. 😏
The REAL 'they' is the YEC wanting to Iranize the US with christianity. We both know that is the real agenda.
Originally posted by RJHinds Now everyone that reads this knows your real agenda. No God and no intelligence allowed. 😏
I don't need to force anything, your religion will kill itself eventually. Your god is worthless as a god, it cares nothing of humans, but then again, it was all made up by humans in the first place so naturally this cartoon god of yours will be quite fallible.
Old Earth & Young Earth Creationism
26 Jan '16 14:092 edits
YouTube
Back to Top