Search results

Of course God is real. Are you saying that you believe otherwise?

So you admit that you've actually witnessed biological evolution? It must be real, then, for you to have witnessed it.

Congratulations, and welcome!

Ugh. If there's one particularly dishonest tactic that creationists need to drop yesterday, it's this one.

:wave: Welcome, and congratulations!

Psalms 136:3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures forever;

You know what? I'm washing my hands of this thread. The OP has presented no evidence for their case, and has resorted to mincing other people's statements, taking quotes out of context, arguing semantics and just otherwise demonstrating a lack of intellectual honesty in this discussion. This...

You're being dishonest by omitting part of his post, thereby misrepresenting his position. I'm calling you out on it. Yes, I can. If you want to discuss what he does or does not accept, though, why not take it up with him instead? If you want to believe that the diatoms are trillions of years...

:wave: I'm doing quite well, though with as low as I'm carrying this one, I'm eagerly looking forward to my delivery in January.

<staff edit> He didn't say that he rejected radiocarbon dating entirely out of hand. He said that radiocarbon dating, when applied to diatoms, gives erroneous results -- which it does, due to the reservoir effect.

Sigh. We just keep going around and around, don't we? Where in those two statements have you used the papers previously listed to actually support your argument? Elaborate in detail. Where in Mexico? Which excavation sites? Which dating methods were used, specifically? What sort of...

See, what I'm asking is for you to explain, in your own words (that's the big thing here, in fact) how these papers make your case. As it is, you're simply asking me to take it on your authority that, buried in that stack of papers, is something which supports your argument. Of course, if...

Wow. Every reliable dating method? That's quite a claim. Do you have a citation for that statement? I don't think anybody actually says this, aside from yourself. Do you have a citation for this? And these are not scientific arguments. Try again.

I'm not. Can you point out where I'm disputing them? The given dates are outside of the range which the specific dating method can reliably produce. Therefore, they are suspect. Is there something about this which you don't understand? Please point out to me where I've done this. I don't. I...

238U/235U, the decay of which are what creates the tracks, spontaneously decays at specific, known rates. Put simply, a sample which is older than a certain date will be too dense with tracks to produce any meaningful data, while the uranium in a sample which is too recent will not have had...

Another strawman. It's progressed a long way since the Victorian period. You've also, as of yet, not shown how it contradicts anything. And I don't consider it 'beloved'. It simply is. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. A foreword is hardly authoritative, I'm afraid. I see...

And you're missing the point -- I said that the claim is suspect. It would therefore behoove you to produce a source for it, as I don't believe that a nuclear chemist would be ignorant about spontaneous fission and decay rates, and the limits that they place upon certain dating methods.

My university's library isn't accessible at the moment, so I can't retrieve the text of the full articles which were posted. But the bolded bit of the above claim is... suspect, to say the least, since fission-track geochronology generally doesn't produce useful data for samples which are...

Okay. Show us the evidence which falsifies this claim, then. No. Nobody said this. What was said was the following: Just how you got 'humans evolved from viruses' out of that (or the supporting journal article) is, frankly, quite baffling.

<staff edit> What you've done in this thread so far is akin to a non-Christian saying that there's no way Jesus could have existed because Adam couldn't possibly have parted the Red Sea after hearing Jonah deliver his sermon on the mount. In other words, while your argument does have a few...