Really? So saying ‘here is a list of attacks you have made’ is attacking you for believing Genesis? “Here is a list of attacks you have made” has nothing to do with Genesis, your belief in it, and is not an attack but a list of what you have said.
Oh joy! Another list of things you want to criticize me for.
Mm hm. The rant is incoherent? “The idea that things that are gases today were gases then.” Sounds like another way of saying ‘physical laws and constants haven’t changed.’
Gases today are like gases as long as there have been gase=physical laws and constants have not changed. Hmmmm, so are you seriously proposing that constants are constant and gases have always been gases. Your point?
“If there were a problem with any assumption, then why would the methods agree with each other, even the non radio-active ones”? Really? That’s completely coherent. If assumptions had problems, then the methods based on differing flawed assumptions would not agree. Since they agree, the assumptions must either not have problems, or all have the exact same problem that makes them all give the exact same wrong time in every case. That’s not incoherent at all.
They don't agree and they are not constants, radiometric dating is notoriously unreliable and if it were are were not there would be no way of proving it either way. What they do is measure the decay rate for weeks months or maybe years and project it over eons.
That's not my problem with the statement, the problem is that it rambles in circles. All that is being said is that gases are gases and always were, constants are constants and assumptions that have problems are reflected in the methods would not agree. They don't, let's move on.
And so, we have Papais being mistaken about Henry Morris’ non-biology education past the 30s means that Papias is a troll, always has been a troll, never brings up any points, has a puffed up idea of his own points, and cannot make coherent statements. Yes. Totally warranted, not an attack on Papias’ character in the least. Good thing we have you to show what behavior that ISN”T attacking looks like.
Papias does not make honest appraisals of the qualifications of Creation scientists because people like you encourage him not to. I do think his statement was dishonest but it's perfectly ok with you for him to say Henry Morris got his education in the 30s when he got his PHD in the 50s.
No reason to think his statement was erroneous are dishonest, no reason at all.
Well, here are three links. And if you don’t like that it’s talk origins, you can go to the sources linked at the bottom. You’ll even notice that some of the things they are refuting are from Morris.
I'm not chasing your links in circles and this isn't about Henry Morris. It's about theistic evolutionists insulting Christians for believing the Bible as it is written.
Uh huh. So the only reason Papias and I have EVER come to this forum is to insult Creationists. NEVER in the years we have been here have we ever tried to have an actual conversation, done any sort of actual theological talk, done any sort of respectful scientific thought, EVER on this board. The ONLY reason we ever post in threads like this is to insult you and other YECs over Genesis. You REALLY believe that? I’m seriously curious if you honestly think that. You keep saying it over and over.
It's all you have done in these two posts. There is no theology in your discussion and if you have ever had a kind word for a Creationist I have yet to hear it. Why do you come on here?
Of course I honestly think that, do you deny it?
Well, I’m Catholic. That should tell you a lot. You also might not have encountered a lot because this is the creation v evolution subforum. Surprise, surprise, not much else comes here.
Then you should know that worshiping Christ as Creator is essential to being a Christian. Instead of denouncing the atheistic materialism you instead want to attack Creationists for believing the book of Genesis as it is written, aka literally. Let you in a little newflash here, the RCC teaches every Easter and at every baptism that Creation and the resurrection are inextricably linked. Like I keep telling you guys, creationism is a New Testament doctrine.
Actually, no, you don’t even know that. I don’t hate creationists. I hate what some creationists have done to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] science, and how many hundreds of thousands of people they’ve turned off of science, and how many millions of man-hours actual scientists have to waste in pointless court battles and debates and defenses against lies and all that jazz. But I don’t hate the people that do it. I don’t hate that people believe YEC. I hate that it so often comes out as attacking actual science.
I have never attacked science, I have demanded a definition for science, but never attacked the genuine article. I do not attack evolution, I argue that the a priori assumption of universal common descent is not evolution, its atheism. I really don't care if you are a Christian or not, words mean things and Creationists are not opposed to science or evolution, they are appealing to those disciplines. My problem is with the categorical rejection of God's special creation based on naturalistic assumptions and you know that.
Uh huh. And your refutations are so clear that all of Christendom should go by them as absolute truth, or are the refutations that reflect your way of thinking about it, that have convinced you personally? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter. Otherwise, all of Christendom would already accept it.
Do you realize, you didn't really say anything in that short paragraph?
And that does NOT make Assyrian:
not a Christian
a disbeliever in the Bible
someone who thinks God cannot do miracles
Someone who never makes sense
someone who actively mocks Scripture
I showed him from the Scriptures and authoritative Christian resources that Adam is 'the first parent of the human race' every time he is mentioned in the New Testament. He continues to chant that Adam is a figure of speech. I showed him again and again that his equivocation of figurative language with parables is a perversion of the clear testimony of Scripture and he continues to mock them with childish disdain. It does not matter if he agrees with me about origins or not, it does matter that he is twisting the Scriptures to his own ends.
Actually, mark, looking by the sheer number of attacks you’ve listed and posted, it looks like YOU are the one out to attack TEs in all sorts of outrageous ways. Are they attacks if they come from your mouth, or only the mouths of others?
I know the Scriptures and offer detailed, carefully prepared expositions of the requisite texts only to see them trampled under foot. There is not mutual exchange of thought, insights and study. There is a constant stream of personal attacks from the first post in these thread to the last.
The difference with me is that it's nothing personal, I don't really care who makes a fallacious argument or an erroneous statement. If you are civil with me I am civil with you, if your trolling the boards hurling insults are every Creationist you encounter, to the point where they have to put you on /ignore, I will tell you what I think of your tactics in no uncertain terms.
I make no apology for that, I believe theistic evolution to be nothing but unbridled hostility toward those who believe Genesis as written. This entire post like the last one is one long personal attack. You only inflicted it on me because your target of choice has shunned you.
Do you ever think that maybe, your the problem.
I poured out YOUR insults, in a list. If you see that as pouring out insults, maybe you should look at your own posts.
I calls them like I see them and I gave him my word I would deal with the trolls. I'll stop when they do.
Uh huh. So now we are all trolls. But CALLING everyone who isn’t on ‘your side’ a troll isn’t an attack, right?
No, trolling is just dredging up a negative reaction on a constant basis. There is one in every thread. Creationists are consistently civil and thoughtful in their posts even if their posts are brief. There is always at least one evolutionist hounding them with as many insults as they can fit into a post. That's what a troll is, they are the ones that constantly hammer the Creationist. It doesn't matter who it is or what the topic is. It's always constant, it's always insulting and it's always encouraged by the other evolutionists.
It will all be in the review, don't worry, you won't be neglected.
Here is the million dollar question:
What could I say to get it back on topic that would NOT be an attack to you?
Now, here is something that *should* be on topic:
The topic is not about me, if you were on topic I wouldn't even need to be mentioned.
Okay. So what do you propose changed? When did it change? Did decay rates suddenly change? The speed of light? What governs chemistry reactions? The nuclear forces? The gravity constant? When did it change? And since it all changed, there must be a ‘zero day’ that is the last day everything was the same. What is that ‘zero day?’
Choose at your discretion, the OP is still available.
You seem to be proposing (if I understand correctly) that pretty much all the laws of physics and everything changed at some unknown point in the past. What evidence do you draw that from?
All I proposed is that the evolutionists on here will turn the discussion to personal attacks and derail the topic and you guys have. I also predicted that the thread would not get back on topic but instead would descend into a barrage of personal attacks.
Everything you have posted has been directed at me on a personal level. I didn't write the OP, go back and read it and if you want to get the thread back on topic comment on the content of those posts.
Actually, this has been discussed before. I could post Youtube videos if you’d like, or find some actual links, or summarize either videos or links AND post the videos/links as well. Whichever you prefer. You know, assuming Mark decides this is not-attack-y enough to pass it on to you, since you’ve ignored me again, and all that jazz.
Who are you talking to?
The MAIN IDEA, however, if that lave is not uniform when it flows up, and may carry chunk of minerals that do not melt at lava temperatures, and dating those chunks provides different dates than the actual lava because it wasn’t in the same state as the lava at the same time as the lava. Also, most dating methods have a minimum age. For instance, C-14 dating generally is not accurate for things less than 500 years old. Dating a 20 year old lava flow, now closer to 30, with something meant to go a thousand times or more further into the past that C-14 seems like using a bathroom scale to measure how much saffron you should put into an 8 fl oz bowl of soup.
Interesting, I don't care much for geology but that was at least on topic. Nice...
I would also talk about the ‘appearance of age’. I agree with Papias that this is deceptive, and no different from Omphalos. You say God doesn’t lie in the Bible, but how would apparent age NOT be lying in Creation? God made both, both must be true, correct?
I don't happen to believe the earth is 6-10 thousand years old so I don't think I will be very helpful with this. It's not my topic but the first meaningful discussion of the subject matter of starts off pretty good and then you start calling God a liar because the earth looks old, or some such.
You were doing pretty good till then.
And also, as you say,
WHY would it have the appearance of age? You say that it must, that it would have to have the appearance of age. Why would it have to have the appearance of age?
Metherion
I think the answer comes down to the false assumption of decay rates being constant but honestly, geology bores me to death.
Those are fine questions though, perhaps if you continue to pursue those lines of inquiry the topic could get back on track. Don't give up and I'll do my best to support the effort. I just spent so much time fielding your insults I'm too tired to start discussing the topic of the thread.
I'll try again tomorrow, hang in there, it was a nice effort.
Grace and peace,
Mark
