Question for young earthers, hint: RJ

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am saying that it is not possible that I could be wrong. There are too many different dating methods that are in agreement. It is not possible for them all to be wrong.
So, how about answering my question regarding written history. Why do you not seem to think that that too could be wrong? Why the exception to the rule? What is special about that method?

Well there you go twhitehead when I want to know something that cannot be
wrong I'll ask you. I have to admit you shocked me just now saying that it is
not possible for you to be wrong, I would have thought you'd said you cannot
think of anythiing that could effect everything on this planet the same way,
or that any number of other things...but who knew.

There isn't any need to continue our discussion, nothing said to you will matter
those are some huge blinders you have on there.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But with regards to dating tests, we are not talking about lies, we are assuming that the data is accurate and the scientists in question are being honest. If you think there is some grand conspiracy between all scientists to prove an old earth then come out and say so. Until now you have been saying the data is correct it is only the interpretation that ...[text shortened]... it is possible that world war I never actually took place and it is all just a grand conspiracy?

People lie, results are the work of people, you do the math since you cannot
be wrong about dates I'm sure you'll be right about math too.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have read that some anthropologists now recognize that the Neanderthal's
brutish appearance was due to the disease of rickets and arthritis caused by
the dark, cold and damp climate of the region at the time (post-flood ice age).
Their lack of exposure to sunlight, which stimulates vitamin D synthesis
necessary for normal bone development, and poor die ...[text shortened]... yptian and Babylonian civilizations that lived
in the lower regions unhindered by the ice age.

I have read somewhere about this boy called James who flew around in a giant peach. Must be true yeah?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have to admit you shocked me just now saying that it is
not possible for you to be wrong, I would have thought you'd said you cannot
think of anythiing that could effect everything on this planet the same way,
or that any number of other things...but who knew.

2+2=4. There is really nothing to discuss. It will always be 4 and thinking of reasons why it may not be 4 will not change that.

There isn't any need to continue our discussion, nothing said to you will matter
those are some huge blinders you have on there.
Kelly
If I had blinders, then you would be able to explain to me where the blinders were and where the flaw in my reasoning is. The fact that you would rather walk away from the discussion suggests you cannot find any flaws in my reasoning and are stumped.

Originally posted by KellyJay
People lie, results are the work of people, you do the math since you cannot
be wrong about dates I'm sure you'll be right about math too.
Kelly

Why cant you simply say what you want to say? Tell us honestly, do you think it is a grand conspiracy or not?
Do you think it is possible that World War I never took place?
Answer these two questions honestly or admit that you are the one with blinders. Your careful avoidance over many years on this forum of any question that shows up your blind spots shows that you are perfectly aware that they are there, but wont admit it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well there you go twhitehead when I want to know something that cannot be
wrong I'll ask you. I have to admit you shocked me just now saying that it is
not possible for you to be wrong, I would have thought you'd said you cannot
think of anythiing that could effect everything on this planet the same way,
or that any number of other things...but who knew ...[text shortened]... sion, nothing said to you will matter
those are some huge blinders you have on there.
Kelly

He is talking about all the totally different methods in rough agreement. If you took a look yourself you would see the same thing. You don't want to see reality, you desperately want for your religious mythology to be true and will never even study results that disagree with your blinders.

Originally posted by sonhouse
He is talking about all the totally different methods in rough agreement. If you took a look yourself you would see the same thing. You don't want to see reality, you desperately want for your religious mythology to be true and will never even study results that disagree with your blinders.

Dasa called it right, you are being dishonest.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Dasa called it right, you are being dishonest.

You have a peculiar definition of honesty. What I said was in all honesty, I meant exactly what I said. In my mind, dishonesty is saying one thing while thinking another.

Originally posted by twhitehead
2+2=4. There is really nothing to discuss. It will always be 4 and thinking of reasons why it may not be 4 will not change that.

[b]There isn't any need to continue our discussion, nothing said to you will matter
those are some huge blinders you have on there.
Kelly
If I had blinders, then you would be able to explain to me where the blinders we ...[text shortened]... lk away from the discussion suggests you cannot find any flaws in my reasoning and are stumped.[/b]

You cannot be wrong, I don't see how that could have a flaw in it.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
He is talking about all the totally different methods in rough agreement. If you took a look yourself you would see the same thing. You don't want to see reality, you desperately want for your religious mythology to be true and will never even study results that disagree with your blinders.

Each method has the same built in issue, they cannot be proven wrong.
So you compare to another method that cannot be proven wrong.
Your not happy so you use another method that cannot be proven wrong.
Your not happy so you use another method that cannot be proven wrong.
Keep going you'll understand.
It does not mean that your right, only that you cannot be proven wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
2+2=4. There is really nothing to discuss. It will always be 4 and thinking of reasons why it may not be 4 will not change that.

[b]There isn't any need to continue our discussion, nothing said to you will matter
those are some huge blinders you have on there.
Kelly
If I had blinders, then you would be able to explain to me where the blinders we ...[text shortened]... lk away from the discussion suggests you cannot find any flaws in my reasoning and are stumped.[/b]

No need to go on, you cannot be wrong, so enough said.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Each method has the same built in issue, they cannot be proven wrong.
So you compare to another method that cannot be proven wrong.
Your not happy so you use another method that cannot be proven wrong.
Your not happy so you use another method that cannot be proven wrong.
Keep going you'll understand.
It does not mean that your right, only that you cannot be proven wrong.
Kelly

If fifty people pace off 100 paces and then another fifty people pace of 100 paces and they compare, even if they were in different countries, they will find rough agreement between the two. If they then take a roller and make the circumference the same as the length of the average of the first few paces, then roll it out 100 circles, they will be in rough agreement as to the length, different methods coming to the same conclusion.

It is you who because of your cognitive dissonance cannot conceive of a truth other than the one drilled into your poor deluded head when you were a child and had no defense against irrationality.

For instance, the age of the Earth has been measured by many different methods and they all agree within reason, some off a few million years but all saying the Earth started out probably from a cloud of dust and rocks 4 and 1/2 billion years ago. If one method says 4.5 another 4.4 and another 4.6 and another 4.3 and another 4.7, they all say the Earth is way over 4 billion years old and the only fight left is the last few million years of counting years. This has been arrived at by at least 8 separate kinds of measurements. Any reasonable scientist will agree the Earth is at least 4 billion years old.

Yet some people refuse to believe any evidence the Earth is over 8000 odd years old, and maybe even the entire universe, in spite of seeing pictures, for instance, of the moon taken with close up probes, Hubble telescope and so forth, seeing literally millions of craters and billions of years ago it was a red hot blob of magma probably whacked off the Earth by some planet the size of Mars hitting Earth and creating the moon. With millions of craters and we have been taking closeups of the moon for a couple hundred years now and we only see meteor hits every now and then, but that person would lead themselves, deluded as they are, to ignore those images and just think to himself or herself, must have been a REAALY big bunch of meteors 6000 years ago hit the moon. Of course they don't go to the part where, if that had happened, the moon would most likely be red hot still but the temperature is cool enough for at least a dozen humans to have walked, hopped, and driven around on the moon. But they can't think that far in advance and if they do they just ignore that small detail, and go back to 'The Lord works in mysterious ways'.

And they will for the rest of their irrational lives, being deluded by a man made religion, made by Paul. It should really be called Paulism, not Christianity. But that's another story.

It doesn't matter if there were 10 different ways of counting years from ice core data or 100, they would not be enough to budge your cognitive dissonance out of it's deluded fantasy world.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If fifty people pace off 100 paces and then another fifty people pace of 100 paces and they compare, even if they were in different countries, they will find rough agreement between the two. If they then take a roller and make the circumference the same as the length of the average of the first few paces, then roll it out 100 circles, they will be in rough ...[text shortened]... would not be enough to budge your cognitive dissonance out of it's deluded fantasy world.

I have a couple of issues with your post, for one your example about the
fifty people pace off 100 paces and compare you know exactly the distances
your looking at after the 100 paces. What we are talking about are periods of
time that are not confirmable except of course by another method which also
cannot be confirmed as correct or wrong. It is assumed correct, but that is the
best honest answer you can give, that does not mean it is correct. You by all
means can accept it as truth, no one is stopping you.

I did not grow up in church, so I didn't get anything about religion drilled into
me growing up. With respect to doctrine and the different fellowships I have
attended since I became a Christain, none of these topics are matters of
doctrine that gets preached about, so again no drilling.

I didn't become a Christian till I was 25, before that no religious training
at all. I imagine a "reasonable scientist" is defined by accepting your beliefs on
these matters so anyone who does not agree I assume is labeled as not being
reasonable so they can be ignored.

In other words you cannot be wrong, and only those that agree with your
beliefs are worth listening too. Sort of like, you cannot be wrong because all
the "reasonable" people agree with you.

Dasa would be proud.

Again, I don't bring my religion into these discussions you do, I imagine as a
means to suggest I cannot be "reasonable" so my complaints about not just
accepting your beliefs about dating methods can be dismissed out of hand with
out effort. Since there isn't any other reason to speak about my faith, why
would it come up? I try to limit my discusion on these types of topics at hand
and the key strenghts and weaknesses of them. I do't use what the Bible says
about this, mainly because that will not hold much water with you or others
in this as an authority.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
If fifty people pace off 100 paces and then another fifty people pace of 100 paces and they compare, even if they were in different countries, they will find rough agreement between the two. If they then take a roller and make the circumference the same as the length of the average of the first few paces, then roll it out 100 circles, they will be in rough ...[text shortened]... would not be enough to budge your cognitive dissonance out of it's deluded fantasy world.

Maybe, the scale of measurement was off or one or more of many other
reasons that could have resulted in an erroneous outcome for their age
of the universe. Can you be certain they got everything right this time?
Your life may depend on it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, the scale of measurement was off or one or more of many other
reasons that could have resulted in an erroneous outcome for their age
of the universe. Can you be certain they got everything right this time?
Your life may depend on it.

Our lives depends on our genetics, the food we eat, the lifestyle we lead, (do we smoke, drink, do dangerous things, etc.) It does not depend on your god's insane views which are certainly man made, no god would be that insanely jealous, it it were such a jealous god, it would be no god. A real god would be above such anthropormorphisms. Man was not made in your god's image, your god was made in man's image because men created the whole insane idea.

You can live your life in your own delusion about being worthy somehow of deserving some kind of life after you expire but I live my live with no such delusion.

I haven't seen anybodies god come down and strike me down yet. If a giant finger comes out of the sky and says, Don Jennings, I want to talk to you, I would probably believe, but until then, I don't need your clearly insane god. Of course it is insane, it was invented by insane people like Paul.