Originally posted by scottishinnzReally, you made a claim, all I wanted was the list and the dates you
A list of 20 or 19 or 200 has nothing to do with the argument. Get on topic or shut up.
said you had, you didn't even have to at the moment prove they were
real, just give me a list of methods and the dates they all agree on.
If you cannot do that, I'll just write off your statement as something
fabricated to make a point, or worse just laziness on your part.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, no I didn't make the claim that the age of the earth had been verified by 20 different methods. Let's look at my exact words.
Really, you made a claim, all I wanted was the list and the dates you
said you had, you didn't even have to at the moment prove they were
real, just give me a list of methods and the dates they all agree on.
If you cannot do that, I'll just write off your statement as something
fabricated to make a point, or worse just laziness on your part.
Kelly
"Not when it's 2 tests. When it's 20 independent tests, with different assumptions, giving the same result, I'd trust it though.
The latter is a more correct representation of the situation."
You'll note I only ever claimed this to be a representation of the situation. I never even claimed it was an entirely accurate representation. HOWEVER my representation was far closer to the truth than yours, since you attempt to say that our numbers are based on only one or two measurements using only a couple of techniques. Whether as our position (reality) is multiple techniques (7 in the still unrefuted Zhang paper) being used, on many different samples, giving results accurate to within 2% of each other.
Originally posted by scottishinnzokay
Actually, no I didn't make the claim that the age of the earth had been verified by 20 different methods. Let's look at my exact words.
"Not when it's 2 tests. When it's 20 independent tests, with different assumptions, giving the same result, I'd trust it though.
The latter is a more correct representation of the situation."
You'll note I o ...[text shortened]... ing used, on many different samples, giving results accurate to within 2% of each other.
KJ
Originally posted by KellyJayKeep going KellyJay the more you write, the more you discredit yourself. People have provided you with many peer reviewed articles and it seems you have ignored them all. Go on reply with "I want 20" one more time, its laughable! You would gain much more respect from everyone if you could constructively explain why these articles are inconsistent with there claims.
I wanted to see 20 methods with the dates, you have links, I'm
impressed, but not what I wanted.
Kelly
Can you do that? or will you again ignore the debate and spout more rubbish aiming to distract from very valid evidence.
Prediction of KellyJay response:
1. Assumptions blah blah
2. Give me 20 examples with dates blah blah
3. Your evidence is based on faith blah blah
4. Another pointless unconstructive comment just to avoid the debate.
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedIf I was interested in links I would not bother with you or anyone
Keep going KellyJay the more you write, the more you discredit yourself. People have provided you with many peer reviewed articles and it seems you have ignored them all. Go on reply with "I want 20" one more time, its laughable! You would gain much more respect from everyone if you could constructively explain why these articles are inconsistent with th ...[text shortened]... ased on faith blah blah
4. Another pointless unconstructive comment just to avoid the debate.
else here I'd simply go after the information myself. So with respect,
I don't care one wit that someone sends me a link if the dicussion
was here, I'd like the information to be covered here. Anyone can
goggle information, it does not mean that they grasp what they
are claiming is true in their links, it only only shows they have a
grasp of how to use a search engine.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, what you are effectively saying is that you won't tackle any of the information provided in an effective manner, because you are condescending enough to assume we don't understand it?
If I was interested in links I would not bother with you or anyone
else here I'd simply go after the information myself. So with respect,
I don't care one wit that someone sends me a link if the dicussion
was here, I'd like the information to be covered here. Anyone can
goggle information, it does not mean that they grasp what they
are claiming is true in their links, it only only shows they have a
grasp of how to use a search engine.
Kelly
I wonder Kelly, would you have done anything with a list of 20 methods and dates? Or would you have assumed that we don't know what we're talking about and ignored it?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI guess we will never know since no one seems like they are
So, what you are effectively saying is that you won't tackle any of the information provided in an effective manner, because you are condescending enough to assume we don't understand it?
I wonder Kelly, would you have done anything with a list of 20 methods and dates? Or would you have assumed that we don't know what we're talking about and ignored it?
going to give 20 independent methods with the dates so we can
start looking at them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThought you'd be interested in this, Kelly
If I was interested in links I would not bother with you or anyone
else here I'd simply go after the information myself. So with respect,
I don't care one wit that someone sends me a link if the dicussion
was here, I'd like the information to be covered here. Anyone can
goggle information, it does not mean that they grasp what they
are claiming is true in their links, it only only shows they have a
grasp of how to use a search engine.
Kelly
"1642
John Lightfoot (1602 – 1675)
Constructed a chronology from biblical genealogies and calculated that
the world was created at the equinox in September of 3298 BC.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science5.htm
1650
James Ussher (1581 – 1656)
Calculated a creation day of Sunday 23 October 4004 BC.
Correlated various texts.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science5.htm"
So, we have multiple methods which come up with the same age, plus or minus 2%. Christianity can't even get 2 estimates within 10% of each other!
Originally posted by scottishinnzCome on KJ, the man has clearly provided you with evidence which he believes adequately support his claims. Why is this not good enough for you to consider? Or is it because you know it's adequate evidence which you have no scientific way of disputing..... so instead you try (badly) to cast doubt with meaningless rants.
Come on now, don't be shy, tackle the Zhang paper I sent you.
I'll keep on at you until you do. Or leave.
If he gives you his opinion - you reply prove it..... so he does..... and then you rant that it's not proof? Round and round you go in your little circle trying to disprove claims with....... basically nothingness.
I think everyone can see who's winning this debate :0)
ScotNZ - excellent sources they argue your point very well.