"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[lasthero]

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.

If you have a court case and you lose the evidence that exonerates, that evidence doesn't you much good, does it?

 

[davedajobauk]

That's nice.

Now what would you do if you took your grandson in for a haircut and the barber gave him a sucker afterward, and your grandson asked for another one to give to his sister?

Would you explain that's how Jesus intercedes for us?

If so, are you using a real example to explain a real Truth?

Do you really think so ?
I would have thought that it was more along the lines of common sense
AND... "Do unto others as you would have it done unto you" (of-course !!!)

Each to their own (Y)

dave

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Post away.

If you make claims though, people will ask you support the same with objective evidence

 

[davedajobauk]

"Hayah" is scientific terminology?

I've heard that word before .. in Bruce Lee flicks.

Although, for some reason I feel guilty about my laughing at this comment

LOL

Too funny

dave

 

[AV1611VET]

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

No, sir.

Some post here that won't even proofread their own posts, let alone punctuate them correctly (and this includes me as well).

Yet they are the apple of scientists' eyes because they agree with them.

In short, you don't need a PhD in geology, you just have to be anti-creation.

My Ph.D. is in religion, which means I should be allowed discuss origins.

I'm impressed -- I really am.

My pastor has a Ph.D. in theology, and a DD in religion (or something like that), but he won't let me address him as "doctor".

And for the record, I specialize in creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although, for some reason I feel guilty about my laughing at this comment

LOL

Too funny

dave

Appealing to Wrong's Concordance is a real turn-off with me.

 

[RickG]

Yet they are the apple of scientists' eyes because they agree with them.

In other words, you really hate science.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, you really hate science.

In other words, it's not what he says that counts; it's what he is.

 

[RickG]

In other words, it's not what he says that counts; it's what he is.

He? Did I miss something. My comment was specifically for you. If science can take a hike, I think that pretty much means you despise it. Hmmm?

 

[bhsmte]

In other words, you really hate science.

I think science produces more fear in some, than it does hate.

 

[AV1611VET]

He? Did I miss something. My comment was specifically for you. If science can take a hike, I think that pretty much means you despise it. Hmmm?

I'm sure we've been over this before, Rick.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm sure we've been over this before, Rick.

At least once.

Every discussion you're ever involved in devolves into you telling reality to take a hike. AV's law, perhaps?

 

[AV1611VET]

Every discussion you're ever involved in devolves into you telling reality to take a hike.

Trivia question:

How was reality misrepresented in the Aricebo message?

 

[Subduction Zone]

<sigh> I see AV is still hung up on Pluto.

 

[RickG]

Trivia question:

How was reality misrepresented in the Aricebo message?

I've got an even better trivia question. Can AV actually address the topic of this thread?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

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

And my issue is not factual information but rather the interpretation of said information.

 

[RickG]

And my issue is not factual information but rather the interpretation of said information.

You mean interpretation of dating methods? Could you describe what you mean in a bit more detail so I don't misinterpret what you are saying?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

If you have a court case and you lose the evidence that exonerates, that evidence doesn't you much good, does it?

And if you don't have the smoking gun, but have credible witnesses, you may end in jail!

 

[HitchSlap]

And my issue is not factual information but rather the interpretation of said information.

Yes, creationists have a habit of woefully misinterpreting factual information. Which is exactly what one would expect when unqualified people try to explain data outside their skill set.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

You mean interpretation of dating methods? Could you describe what you mean in a bit more detail so I don't misinterpret what you are saying?

For example the Amino Acid Racemization Dating technique. Some years ago an expert in dating fossils held that said dating method was independent of other dating methods, and an expert in another field of inquiry stuck to his guns that the AARD method was calibrated with the carbon 14 and prevailed. This means that expertise does not warranty the outcome in a debate.