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.
That's not what I, or my pastor, said.
Originally posted by AV: As my pastor says, of the eighty-some methods of dating the earth, evolutionists only pick the ones that give them the answers they're looking for, and discard the rest.
Here's another one, but I'm not going to dig up all 80 methods:
Short-Period Comets
Short-period comets orbit the sun in less than 200 years (the Halley comet orbits about every 76 years). Each time they come close to the sun they lose material (the comet tail) and disintegrate. If no new comets are being generated, it would appear that no short-period comets can survive more than about 10,000 years - implying a young earth. This claim is countered by the fact that the origin of short-period comets is still uncertain and that there may be a source of short-period comets e.g. the Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) in the Uranus-Neptune zone, or the Oort Cloud.
SOURCE
Care to try an actual legitimate science source rather than a creationist site?
We've had this discussion before, haven't we?Yes you did, post # 27.
I think I may have misstated my pastor's position on this.
He basically said, that of the 80 or so methods of determining the age of the earth, scientists pick only those that give them the ages they are look for, and reject all the others that return a young earth age.
He said there are four methods that scientists use:
He went on to say that the other 76-some are rejected for one reason or another:
- Argon [something]*
- Potassium [something]*
- Uranium [something]*
- Krypton [something]*
* He gave the exact names, but I can't remember them.
- moondust
- strength of the earth's magnetic field
- ocean salinity
- a bunch of others
I think the book A Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel mentions them all as well, weatherman.
Incoming: not all methods are radiometric.
Why? are they all lying?Care to try an actual legitimate science source rather than a creationist site?
And how porous does your Arab phone say I claim it is?
Is Rick lying to me, or just confused? in your opinion?What I don't understand is why you keep bringing up the same lies, even though they were thoroughly refuted to you a long time ago.
Again, trying to be clear, when you say that the earth is young because you believe that is what the Bible says you are being honest. When you say science supports a young earth you are either misleading or deceiving.
We've had this discussion before, haven't we?
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
He basically said, that of the 80 or so methods of determining the age of the earth, scientists pick only those that give them the ages they are look for, and reject all the others that return a young earth age.
He said there are four methods that scientists use:
He went on to say that the other 76-some are rejected for one reason or another:
- Argon [something]*
- Potassium [something]*
- Uranium [something]*
- Krypton [something]*
* He gave the exact names, but I can't remember them.
- moondust
- strength of the earth's magnetic field
- ocean salinity
- a bunch of others
I think the book A Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel mentions them all as well, weatherman.
Is Rick lying to me, or just confused? in your opinion?
Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.AV, I would truly like to sit down with your pastor and discuss both radiometric and non radiometric dating methods with you and your pastor, honestly and openly. How about a formal discussion thread?
Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.
People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.
He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.
Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.
People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.
He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.
He is Christ's undershepherd, and one of his jobs is to keep out the riff-raff.Oh how very Christian of him.
Then I stand corrected. You'll go about 30 seconds, instead of about a minute.I have no intention of discussing scripture or religious beliefs with him, only SCIENCE.
Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.
People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.
He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.
He is Christ's undershepherd,
Funny, Christ built his ministry on the riff-raff.and one of his jobs is to keep out the riff-raff.
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?