4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis is what the young-earth creationist discovered, quote"
Could you explain how the data is false?
"Canyon Lake Gorge, Texas, was carved in 2002 during a single catastrophic flood. The event offers a rare opportunity to analyse canyon formation and test palaeo-hydraulic-reconstruction techniques under known topographic and hydraulic conditions. Here we use digital topographic models and visible/near-infrared aerial images from before and after the flood, discharge measured during the event, field measurements and sediment-transport modelling to show that the flood moved metre-sized boulders, excavated ~7m of limestone and transformed a soil-mantled valley into a bedrock canyon in just ~3days."
In contrast, the old-earth creationists are still believing in the old false data
provided by the evolutionist. The newer data is supporting the young-earh
creationist as is indicated from the above quote.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere were three samples, all of which were dated by scientific methods. I ignored none of them.
See what I mean, he ignores the majority samples and concentrates
on the one doubtful sample that conforms to his world view.
You however chose the totally unscientific method of taking a majority vote amoungst samples and thus ignored one of them.
Then he accuses me of ignoring this one sample, as if it were more important than the others.
They are all important.
Even the scientist himself ignored it as being unimportant to his finding because of the doubtful dating.
That is not true. Please provide a reference to back up your claim that the scientist in question ignored the sample.
Why then don't you ask the expert, that I gave you the link to, if you think I am wrong?
Because it is you that I think is wrong. How can I ask the expert questions about you? He doesn't know who you are.
Originally posted by RJHindsHow does the above quote support the YEC viewpoint? It doesn't make any sense.
This is what the young-earth creationist discovered, quote"
"Canyon Lake Gorge, Texas, was carved in 2002 during a single catastrophic flood. The event offers a rare opportunity to analyse canyon formation and test palaeo-hydraulic-reconstruction techniques under known topographic and hydraulic conditions. Here we use digital topographic models and visible/ ...[text shortened]... he newer data is supporting the young-earh
creationist as is indicated from the above quote.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy are you so determined to prove me wrong? I am not God.
There were three samples, all of which were dated by scientific methods. I ignored none of them.
You however chose the totally unscientific method of taking a majority vote amoungst samples and thus ignored one of them.
[b]Then he accuses me of ignoring this one sample, as if it were more important than the others.
They are all important.
[b ...[text shortened]... t I think is wrong. How can I ask the expert questions about you? He doesn't know who you are.[/b]
I have been wrong many times. Now are you satisfied. Now,
tell me why you don't want to know the truth about God's flood?
Do you thing it may threaten you in some way that will cause
harm to you? Has the truth harmed you in the past? If you
think so, then maybe you need some psychological counseling.
Originally posted by RJHindsDid not see it I'll go back. However one thing to think about is the whole E=mc2 thing would totally change if light were travelling faster in the past then energy output say from the like of stars and such would also have been increased in the past and not just a small amount.
I guess you didn't light my version of the creation of the
starlight on the thread "Atheism and morality" then.
Manny
Originally posted by Proper KnobI can't speak for Mr. Hinds but I think it is a YEC position that things such as the Grand Canyon happened faster than say millions of years. This would also mean a younger earth because things can happen geologically faster than once believed.
So because this canyon was formed relatively quickly, you think that means the world is only a few thousand years old?!
Is that what you're telling me?
Manny
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause you are so determined to pretend you are right when you know fully well that you are wrong.
Why are you so determined to prove me wrong?
I am not God. I have been wrong many times.
Then learn to admit your errors and move on instead of getting deeper and deeper into a web of lies every time you are caught out.
Now are you satisfied.
Are you admitting that you were in error regarding those samples?
Now, tell me why you don't want to know the truth about God's flood?
I do want to know the truth. I just won't take your word for it (you are not God you know) nor the word of someone who you point to who claims to have proof but keeps it a secret.
If someone genuinely has proof of a global flood he will publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal and earn himself the Nobel prize.
Do you thing it may threaten you in some way that will cause harm to you? Has the truth harmed you in the past? If you think so, then maybe you need some psychological counseling.
No I am not afraid of the truth at all. That is just you trying to be a mind reader and not being very good at it.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe article only points out that the earth does not have to
So because this canyon was formed relatively quickly, you think that means the world is only a few thousand years old?!
Is that what you're telling me?
be billions or millions of years old. It could be only thousands
of years old, which would conform to the biblical account.
Before, it was believed that there was no way the earth could
be as young enough to allow the accounts in the Holy Bible to
be correct. Now, the new evidence reveals that it is possible.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not know I am wrong. I was saying what I believed the article
Because you are so determined to pretend you are right when you know fully well that you are wrong.
[b]I am not God. I have been wrong many times.
Then learn to admit your errors and move on instead of getting deeper and deeper into a web of lies every time you are caught out.
Now are you satisfied.
Are you admitting that you were in e the truth at all. That is just you trying to be a mind reader and not being very good at it.[/b]
was presenting. I was concentrating on what I believed was the main
point of the article. This included the two samples that dated about
5000 years old. Although there was mention of another sample
that I believe was obtain at another time that dated much older
but it was stated the dating method used gives false readings for certain
things. This is why the article was about the two samples believed to
be more accurately dated. That is my understanding of the situation.
I do not know that my understanding is wrong and I am not pretending
anything. I am just stating what I read in the article.