23 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75Who are you to decided what is 'proven' science and what isn't?! Let me guess, 'proven' science is any branch of science which agrees with your religious beliefs, and the rest which disagrees with your religious beliefs can be lumped together as 'unproven'?!
It was 2370, sorry for the misprint.
And as RJ stated the Bible has never been proved wrong by proven science. But a of a lot of the science community has been wrong. Look at our world toady with the ecological problems we have that could end life on earth if God does not step in soon.
As if you've read enough literature to decide what is proven or not, i bet you've never even read a science book. What shocking arrogance, but that's par for the course with you.
23 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75So, you presented as evidence some plants that were dated near to when you think the flood was.
This is one of many articles that explains the inaccuracy of carbon dating.
You accepted as valid the dating method used.
However, when it is pointed out that the dating method gives a date incompatible with your claim, you no longer accept the dating method as accurate - yet somehow you still think the evidence is valid and backs up your claims. How is that possible?
Simultaneously, other samples with very different dates were also found, but you chose to completely ignore them.
23 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIsn't this what the atheist have been doing for years?
So, you presented as evidence some plants that were dated near to when you think the flood was.
You accepted as valid the dating method used.
However, when it is pointed out that the dating method gives a date incompatible with your claim, you no longer accept the dating method as accurate - yet somehow you still think the evidence is valid and backs up ...[text shortened]... ther samples with very different dates were also found, but you chose to completely ignore them.
23 May 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobhe is talking about moronic middle ages dudes prescribing mercury for ailments and the alchemists or whatever.
Mr Hinds -
Which 'common accepted ideas in science' have been 'wrong so many times'?
he seems to be harboring the idea that science claims to always be right. that whenever someone does bad science, it somehow invalidates other accomplishments. that science isn't an ongoing process of discovery, that sometimes errors occur.
23 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75wrong
It was 2370, sorry for the misprint.
And as RJ stated the Bible has never been proved wrong by proven science. But a of a lot of the science community has been wrong. Look at our world toady with the ecological problems we have that could end life on earth if God does not step in soon.
23 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobLol. Wow. i almost don't have the words to respond to this. In fact I'm not going to. You just lost the respect I did have for you. Take care buddy.
Who are you to decided what is 'proven' science and what isn't?! Let me guess, 'proven' science is any branch of science which agrees with your religious beliefs, and the rest which disagrees with your religious beliefs can be lumped together as 'unproven'?!
As if you've read enough literature to decide what is proven or not, i bet you've never even read a science book. What shocking arrogance, but that's par for the course with you.
23 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI accepted the dates even though I knew even they were off. If anything this is proving that this dating process is flawed that the science community banks on so dearly.
So, you presented as evidence some plants that were dated near to when you think the flood was.
You accepted as valid the dating method used.
However, when it is pointed out that the dating method gives a date incompatible with your claim, you no longer accept the dating method as accurate - yet somehow you still think the evidence is valid and backs up ...[text shortened]... ther samples with very different dates were also found, but you chose to completely ignore them.
The issue that keeps being danced around here is the "evidence" that is being found that had not been seen before and what this is emplying.
Something very cataclysmic happened to do this and this is being found at various sites around the world.
What did this? Why are these plants under this ice? Why is this found in various areas of the planet?
23 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75It is not being 'danced around'. It is simply that you are the only one who seems to see any evidence. Maybe it is us who are blind, or maybe it is you. But a little discussion will easily resolve that.
The issue that keeps being danced around here is the "evidence" that is being found that had not been seen before and what this is emplying.
Am I correct in thinking that so far the 'evidence' you have presented consists solely of two samples dated at a different time from the flood in question?
If there are more samples from other parts of the world, can you give us any references? Yes I know you say that a tv program mentioned it, but do you have more than that, or is it just your word that a tv program said it that we have to go on?
Do you agree that the same scientist quoted for your evidence also found another sample with a much larger date?
Something very cataclysmic happened to do this and this is being found at various sites around the world.
What did this? Why are these plants under this ice? Why is this found in various areas of the planet?
Why are plants under ice? Isn't it obvious? The weather changed, it snowed, the plants were buried. Hardly 'cataclysmic'. Either you know something you are not telling us, or you are making conclusions not warranted by they evidence.
23 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not a scientist. I'm not there on that site or the other sites that Mr Thompson himself says that he's been to and studied for many years to see for myself. So all I can do is present what this respected gentleman has reported on. I would asume if he wasn't a credible sourse of information he may not have been used on this show.
It is not being 'danced around'. It is simply that you are the only one who seems to see any evidence. Maybe it is us who are blind, or maybe it is you. But a little discussion will easily resolve that.
Am I correct in thinking that so far the 'evidence' you have presented consists solely of two samples dated at a different time from the flood in questio ...[text shortened]... ing you are not telling us, or you are making conclusions not warranted by they evidence.
So I have no more information then what you or anyone else here could find yourselves with the resources available.
But with this finding and with other findings that have been found over the years in many parts of the earth, point to a flood and the effects that it would have that are showing up, for instance at these melting ice fields.
Forget dates and carbon dating and whatever else you don't like or think I'm using to fit the bill.
If you can't watch the show in question then I'd suggest you try to find it as it explains what I posted.
23 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75Except that what he has reported does not support your case nor is it what you (or what you report the show claim). You say you respect him as a scientist yet you reject his dates and you reject one of his findings outright. You reject most of his data - one third of his samples and his dating methods.
So all I can do is present what this respected gentleman has reported on.
But with this finding and with other findings that have been found over the years in many parts of the earth, point to a flood and the effects that it would have that are showing up, for instance at these melting ice fields.
So can you tell us something about these 'other findings' you keep mentioning but are never specific about. What other findings are there?
If you can't watch the show in question then I'd suggest you try to find it as it explains what I posted.
I am afraid I do not have a way to watch the show.