Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh my gosh dude - try Googling a few of his quotes - he is a busy little PRATT&dubious quote beaver (or he just C&Pd someone else that is)....Wow, even more PRATTs.
Now is the OP going to stick around and try to defend this PRATTland they've built or is this just another copy paste drive-by?
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
“Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. “ -Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.
‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’ Professor -Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
“evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
-F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york
“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
-Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph,
“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley
I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
-Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.
"evolution is a anti-scientific fable intended to avoid accountability to god"
-2011 Dr David stone laser physicists with 5 degrees including PHD in mechanical endangering from Michigan state U creation mag 34 [1] 2012
“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017
“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978
“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge
“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017
“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth
“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017
“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university
“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994
Ill go ahead and do the math.
57 million square miles * 27878400 square feet per square mile = 1.6*10^15 square feet.
1.6*10^15 square feet * 15,000 feet = 2.25*10^29 cubic feet.
2.25*10^29 cubic feet *167 ibs/cubic foot = 3.76*10^31 ibs
3.76*10^31 ibs / 2000 ibs / ton = 1.88*10^28 tons.
1.88*10^28 tons divided by 20 billion tons per year = 9.4*10^17 years.
Which, in case anyone was wondering, is 940,000,000,000,000,000 years.
Which basically means that rivers of the planet will never erode away continents because continents are vastly larger than the rivers that erode them.
Continents are orders upon orders of magnitude larger than the amount of sediment that is washed off of them each year. Theyre continents. They're huge. Even the largest of rivers pales in comparison to the landmass of any continent.
The idea that rivers would just erode continents away really is just a dumb suggestion.
Ok the rate of denudation for the US as a whole is 2.4 in / 1000 years.
If you have 15,000 feet of paleozoic bedrock, how many thousands of years would it take for your rock to erode away?
Can you do this math?
What if I told you that proterozoic and archean rock has been exposed at the surface and makes up a large portion of north america as well?
If you take 50,000 feet of rock, and you eroded through that rock at 2.4 inches every 1,000 years...
50,000ft * 12 inches per foot is 600,000 inches.
600,000/2.4 inches = 250,000
250,000 inches * 1000 years = 250,000,000 years.
So assuming no uplift ever occurs, we might expect north america to not exist after 250 million years?
Well, uplift has been occurring over the last 250 million years.
Really, this argument you're making sounds like something a preschooler would come up with, because nobody in their right mind would ever be able to simplify something like the water cycle into such a simple argument.
Its just silly.
Ok, 15,000 feet * 12 inches per foot - 180,000 inches. Divided by 6.5 and multiplied by 1000 years = 27.7 million years.
Actually, here, lets look at a map together.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/se...4~5523586:Geologic-Cross-Section-of-the-Grand
From the kaibab limestone down to the vishnu schist, there is about 6-7,000 feet of rock by which the river has cut through.
So, 6500 feet * 12 inches is 78,000 inches. 78,000/6.5 = 12,000. Multiplied by 1000 years is 12 million years.
How old has anyone ever claimed the Colorado river to be? Ill give you a hint, its less than 12 million years.
Now, the colorado river doesnt erode away land that it doesnt come in contact with. But just taking into account the rate of erosion that you provided, there is nothing abnormal about the research.
The article above has doesn't suggest that entire continents are washing away, as you seem to think it does.
We really have already covered this subject.
"Before the proliferation of dam construction in the latter half of this century, rivers probably discharged about 20 billion tons of sediment annually to the ocean"
Ok, if granite weights 167 poudns per cubic foot, and we have 12 million (width) * 7 million (height) * 15,000 square feet, then we get 1.2*10^18 square feet of rock.
At 167 pounds per cubic foot, thats 2.1*10^20 pounds.
divided by 2000 pounds per ton and we have 1.05*10^17 tons.
If 20 billion are eroded each year, thats still 5 million years.
But wait...i only factored in the united states. And the research paper is regarding rivers of the entire planet.
Dare I actually do the calculation with the 57 million square miles of the surface area of the entire planet?
Ill go ahead and do the math.
57 million square miles * 27878400 square feet per square mile = 1.6*10^15 square feet.
1.6*10^15 square feet * 15,000 feet = 2.25*10^29 cubic feet.
2.25*10^29 cubic feet *167 ibs/cubic foot = 3.76*10^31 ibs
3.76*10^31 ibs / 2000 ibs / ton = 1.88*10^28 tons.
1.88*10^28 tons divided by 20 billion tons per year = 9.4*10^17 years.
Which, in case anyone was wondering, is 940,000,000,000,000,000 years.
Which basically means that rivers of the planet will never erode away continents because continents are vastly larger than the rivers that erode them.
Continents are orders upon orders of magnitude larger than the amount of sediment that is washed off of them each year. Theyre continents. They're huge. Even the largest of rivers pales in comparison to the landmass of any continent.
The idea that rivers would just erode continents away really is just a dumb suggestion.
I'm sure you would, I would use term "education".
You seem to be grasping for a justification to reject evolution, I notice that you didn't take issue with any of the three statements though.
Are you denying that....
There is mountains of evidence from many different areas of study.
A general overview:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
An article by one of our own forum members (A christian if you feel it's relevant):
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations
Evolution has been directly observed.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
Evolution is an applied science (i.e it has real-world applications in medicine etc.)
Fighting HIV Evolution with an Evolved Therapeutic Agent: Phase I Dose Escalation Clinical Trial of a Potent Broadly Neutralizing Human Antibody
Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases: Exemplars of the Fluidity of Protein Structure and Function through Phylogenetic History
Augmented Infection Control via Practical Pathogen Phylogenetics Based on Whole-Genome Sequencing
A Genomic Perspective on Pathogen Adaptation to Antibiotics and Vaccines
Amino Acid Gymnastics and the Evolution of Influenza Virus Resistance to Oseltamivir
LOL, read the links above. I can't take credit for any of the work contained in them unfortunately.
Quotes seem to be your forte, unfortunately for you they are pretty meaningless in a debate on scientific evidence.
I suggest that you finish what you've started here before starting any new threads - you'll get no peace!
Yep, and when they're demonstrated to be completely and utterly wrong they should be discarded.
Thank you.
People say many things, not all of them are correct though.
I've demonstrated the validity of my statements above.
But sure, go for it.
Edit: If you are going to respond to this post please do me the courtesy of doing so in your own words rather than a bunch of quotes plagiarized from a creationist website.
Well, this one is easy to debunk. Mary Schweitzer herself has debunked it (That's her being quoted). Google Paulogia and Schweitzer, and listen to her.
It is so cool how you sometimes provide a citation to the original source material, even though you copied, verbatim, your blurb from unattributed sources. Like the seal one - you copied that blurb from here, whereas the original source does not contain that phrase.
I'm betting that, like nearly all creationists, you are unable to address any this Gish-gallop copy-paste stuff. I mean, I am sure it took you a long time to compile all of these dubious quotes and my gosh - that is a lot of copy-pasting - but let's be honest - much of that stuff is nonsense, but you copy-paste it without hesitation.
Standard YEC stuff.
I also note that despite the title of this thread, all you have done is paste anti-evolution/anti-science garbage, and have not even tried to sup[ply evidence supportive of biblical creation.
Then again, no creationists (even the professional ones) ever provide supporting evidence for the bible claims. Just PRATTs and gibberish.
So, since creationists like to claim that because there are some erroneous radiometric dates, the earth is really 6000 years old - why do they get a free pass when there are discrepancies in the bible-based 'dating'? And what about the Old Earth Creationists who tell us that they get the age of the earth from the bible, too?
I find it so funny when creationists, pretending to understand things they do not, triumphantly report on literature like this.
Brian Thomas, like David Coppedge and Jeff Tomkins before (or perhaps after) him, seems to think that the "maximum-likelihood" date is 'the oldest possible' date. These creationists propagandists are hilarious! But beyond that, none of them seem to have re-assessed the publications on this topic.
One year later (2013), the same team published another paper in which their assessed date now was in the range of 5-10,000 years. They further mention that their analyses are in line with evolutionary hypotheses such as 'out of Africa.'
Also of note is that when Tomkins cited this paper, he laid the results at the feet of fellow former-scientist Sanford's claims re: genetic entropy, the notion that the genome is deteriorating (Thanks for the Curse!). More recent pubs on the same subject throw a bit of a wrench in the YEC works, indicating for example that "One seeming contradiction is that this study reported that following explosive growth each individual carries a smaller number of deleterious mutations overall..." So much for that whole entropy thing...
And in another paper that came out in 2016 on this subject, we see:
"With an updated version of the same ESP dataset, which includes a larger sample size, Chen et al. (2015) estimated the onset time of African population growth to be about 10 (9.6–10.4) kya with growth rate of 0.74% (0.60%–0.88%) per generation... Based on whole-genome sequencing of only 40 individuals from the 1000 Genomes pilot data, Gravel et al. (2011) demonstrated that East Asian populations (Han Chinese and Japanese combined) experienced a mild growth starting about 23 (21–27) kya ..."
Oops. What is the maximum-likelihood that YECs will not be updating their essays on this any time soon?
Man, it would cool if you could just link to one of the other times you C&Pd all these quotes, or link to the original source you copied them from.
I really like this one, because it is so easy to debunk (You've never seen the actual essay, have you? Didn't think so...)
A little context helps - as is the case with all creationist quotes -
With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn’t even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.” Two’s company, but three’s a crowd.
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
So precious - I love the sad apologia regarding people only accepting evolution to 'avoid accountability' - as if this farce regarding 'Christian morality' is even a thing (why, God's Own Anointed President - DJ 'Covfefe' Trump - doesn't seem to care much about the sanctity of marriage!).
Anyway - try this on for size - from the 'Answers in Genesis 'Answers Research Journal' instructions for authors:
"The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith."
And the statement of faith (crazy stuff in bold)?
"In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage [] and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly...
Section 2: Basics
- The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
- The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
- The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
- The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
- The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
- The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
- The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
- The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
- Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.
There is more, but I think that makes pretty clear the fact that creationists are expected to side with Scripture no matter what. And, not support Trump and most of the GOP, but that is another issue of the rampant hypocrisy in the ranks of the creationists...
And what was it you wrote? Ah yes -
"That is why creationist are important, they offer the only real critical look at what is otherwise unquestionably accepted."
The irony is thunderous...
The human heart wants to be king rather than god, this is how i lived and how many lived, evolution is the mental justification to live how we want, i think we are off topic. Yes creationist just like evolutionist have a worldview and are bias. And because creationist [and id] are the only non materialistic naturalistic worldview and bias,
"That is why creationist are important, they offer the only real critical look at what is otherwise unquestionably accepted."
Well, there are Christians who are willing to look at science "critically" and still come away from that scrutiny with their evolutionary view intact. (Like myself, for instance).
And then there's also those like Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley who follow suite in this. (See their book, The Bible, Rocks and Time [2008]). Actually, I follow suite with them.
Really? You think that right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism is the only alternative to metaphysical naturalism? There are almost two billion Christians in the world who will be surprised to hear that, and billions more of other theists.The human heart wants to be king rather than god, this is how i lived and how many lived, evolution is the mental justification to live how we want, i think we are off topic. Yes creationist just like evolutionist have a worldview and are bias. And because creationist [and id] are the only non materialistic naturalistic worldview and bias,
"That is why creationist are important, they offer the only real critical look at what is otherwise unquestionably accepted."
I would more suggest evolutionist are "grasping" to believe. Yes i would disagree that evolution [Darwinian evolution] is observed. The reason i am not responding is this is an age of the earth thread. I fully look forward to future threads on this forum that will deal more directly with your links and questions and thanks.
Yes, and your silly pop psych evangelism is just offensives, so...The human heart wants to be king rather than god, this is how i lived and how many lived, evolution is the mental justification to live how we want, i think we are off topic.
Yes creationist just like evolutionist have a worldview and are bias [sic]. And because creationist [and id] are the only non materialistic naturalistic worldview and bias,
"That is why creationist are important, they offer the only real critical look at what is otherwise unquestionably accepted."
Really? You think that right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism is the only alternative to metaphysical naturalism? There are almost two billion Christians in the world who will be surprised to hear that, and billions more of other theists.
Did you ever stop and think why it does not contain the phrase from your website? Because i have never seen that site before in my life. But here is the book with the quote from the original source. Not off to a good start.
https://books.google.com/books?id=SjsSugCVvC0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq="Radiocarbon+is+not+quite+as+straightforward+as+it+may+seem.+The+technique+does+not+in+fact+provide+true+ages,+and+radiocarbon+results+must+be+adjusted+(calibrated)+to+bring+them+into+line+with+calendar+ages".+-Dr+Sheridan+Bowman's+book+for+the+British+Museum,+"Radiocarbon+Dating"+Diggings,+August,+1990+p:8]&source=bl&ots=uAXqHPLGXP&sig=0FoJmgpcVK_-90Bv9eZdlK7W75s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX_LWBrsncAhXQo1kKHX0-BHMQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q="Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages". -Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating" Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]&f=false
But how would you even know seeing as how your primary mode of argument is just quotes?Well your mind is made up that is clear and truth does not matter, but If creationist material is so bad, you should be able to refute it easily am i mistaken?
LOL! Like you are? Gish-galloping quotes?Go on and do so rather than have your rant and opinions. Back up your claims.
Then why does your entire premise rest on NOT providing SUPPORT for that claim, and instead is just attacks (PRATT attacks) on dating techniques and the like? Where are your quotes from scientists indicating a fool-proof dating method that tells us the exact date of the Flood (for which there is no evidence)?I think the question of the age of the earth does support the bibles claims on the age of the earth, that is logical.
More quotes, no doubt...Further a thread on the age of the earth [this one] is not about proving the bible [upcoming threads]
Why not test YOUR claims?but really testing its claims vs evolution about this topic.
Yes, and your silly pop psych evangelism is just offensives, so...
You are saying that Trump is the way he is because of evolution?
And yet all you've offered are hackneyed, copy-pasted quotes.
Is that supposed to be your 'critical' look?
No, you are not off to a good start - curious as to why you thought I was only referring to the first one...anyway...
Right - I accept this one. It seems I forgot to cut the quotes I was not referring to - I didn't check them all just like you didn't.
The one I meant to highlight is this one:
Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old.
-Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210
I found the site you copied it from, found the ORIGINAL source, and no, that phrase was not there.
I have to say, if it turns out you did not copy that phrase from the linked source, it wouldn't surprise me - lots of creationists openly allow plagiarism of one another. Hard to figure out who copied from who. Witnessing or something I guess.
But - I do wonder, have you actually read THAT BOOK? Or are you just doing some post hoc double checking?
But how would you even know seeing as how your primary mode of argument is just quotes?
Creationist material IS so bad - that is why they never actually post anything in favor of creation, just attacks on evolution that are all over the map?
LOL! Like you are? Gish-galloping quotes?
Then why does your entire premise rest on NOT providing SUPPORT for that claim, and instead is just attacks (PRATT attacks) on dating techniques and the like? Where are your quotes from scientists indicating a fool-proof dating method that tells us the exact date of the Flood (for which there is no evidence)?
The only point you are proving with your rants
is that you think putting copy-pasted quotes forth as an argument is a legitimate way to score points.
More quotes, no doubt...
Why not test YOUR claims?
Why not test the bible's claims against facts and evidence regarding the age of the earth?
A few years ago, a creationist on a forum like this one declared that he DID have supporting evidence that the earth is only 6-10000 years old. I asked him to present his BEST evidence that the earth was 6-10000 years old. He sent me a paper arguing that the moon might only be 10 MILLION years old, not billions.
That was HIS BEST evidence that the earth is only 6-10000 years old.
Got anything better?
Quotes from creationist journalists or something?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?