"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Loudmouth]

Sweet!


Ain't that a shame?


Who ignores more of the universe's population? you or me?

You still don't understand that opinions are not facts?

 

[AV1611VET]

You see dead people?

Yes ... but not in the medical sense.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes ... but not in the medical sense.

Oh, I'm sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This isn't rocket science here, Sub.

We're talking a simple census.

A head count.

Actually you aren't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I'm sure.

Why is that kid crying in that video clip about seeing dead people?

Does that bring to mind the shortest verse in the Bible?

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

I wonder why Jesus was weeping? don't you?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Evidence you can't produce is kinda worthless.

It is not worthless for me! I will try to secure a copy from Dr. Erwin Taylor and it might become valuable for you as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not worthless for me! I will try to secure a copy from Dr. Erwin Taylor and it might become valuable for you as well.

Let me give you a little piece of advice, my friend.

If you meet these people here on their own turf (science), they'll vegomatick you.

If you don't believe me, keep posting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not worthless for me! I will try to secure a copy from Dr. Erwin Taylor and it might become valuable for you as well.

It is worthless in a debate. And once again, they probably are not assumptions. Did you not understand my explanation of how the initial amount of daughter product in K/Ar dating is not assumed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me give you a little piece of advice, my friend.

If you meet these people here on their own turf (science), they'll vegomatick you.

If you don't believe me, keep posting.

That is probably true. Creationists are rather poorly equipped in such a debate.

 

[HitchSlap]

Let me give you a little piece of advice, my friend.

If you meet these people here on their own turf (science), they'll vegomatick you.

If you don't believe me, keep posting.

I can see why those who don't accept reality might think this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me give you a little piece of advice, my friend.

If you meet these people here on their own turf (science), they'll vegomatick you.

If you don't believe me, keep posting.

A creationists will lose debates that are based on evidence found in the universe around us. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[RickG]

That is probably true. Creationists are rather poorly equipped in such a debate.

Especially when they are required to stay on a specific topic and not allowed to Gish Gallop.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

If you meet these people here on their own turf (science), they'll vegomatick you.

Do I need a Ph.D. in geology in order to post here? My Ph.D. is in religion, which means I should be allowed discuss origins.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do I need a Ph.D. in geology in order to post here?

What you need are demonstrable facts, not opinion based assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do I need a Ph.D. in geology in order to post here? My Ph.D. is in religion, which means I should be allowed discuss origins.

There is no requirement of a degree. You are of course allowed to debate here. The problem is that this is a scientific debate and there is no science to creationism. It is a religious belief that is no different from a belief in Hinduism or Islam. That is why it is illegal to teach in public schools. It would be a case of the government advocating for a religion. The theory of evolution on the other hand is not faith based. It is based upon scientific evidence.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

It is worthless in a debate. And once again, they probably are not assumptions.

This is your opinion vs. the opinion of Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. Since I don't know you, I will rather stick with what Dr. taylor said.

 

[RickG]

Do I need a Ph.D. in geology in order to post here? My Ph.D. is in religion, which means I should be allowed discuss origins.

With me, I don't question your religious beliefs; rather, I question secular beliefs with respect to science. If you wish to believe in a 6,000 year old earth based on faith, I have no issue. My issue is basing those beliefs on false information, i.e. "creation science".

 

[Loudmouth]

This is your opinion vs. the opinion of Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. Since I don't know you, I will rather stick with what Dr. taylor said.

Why don't you follow the evidence?

 

[lasthero]

This is your opinion vs. the opinion of Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. Since I don't know you, I will rather stick with what Dr. taylor said.

Since you haven't presented his actual words yet, it's his opinion vs. What you say his Erwin said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your opinion vs. the opinion of Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. Since I don't know you, I will rather stick with what Dr. taylor said.

No, it is not my opinion. You do not seem to understand the nature of evidence in a debate. Evidence that cannot be seen by all is worthless in a debate. You may be misunderstanding the list. The list may be in error. Since there is no way for anyone to test your evidence it is worthless here.

I may even agree with the list. But the most likely answer is that you did not understand the list. I have seen that mistake done quite often by creationists.