Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why YEC leaders should not be believed without checking sources
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AnEmpiricalAgnostic" data-source="post: 19965635" data-attributes="member: 112284"><p><span style="color: black">Eye witness isnt all its cracked up to be and really has nothing to do with what this thread is about. What we are dealing with here is tangible, material, empirical evidence. Sure, if there are no eye witnesses and no evidence of any kind then all there would be is interpretation and conjecture. In this case however we have something tangible and (what should be) pretty apparent but has been misrepresented by the YEC to further their agenda. The issue being that although one sample was made of layers that accumulated at a faster than annual rate, the difference between them and the regular annual sample is blatantly apparent. The YECers would like everyone to believe that they are the same and since one developed faster than the other then we cant use any of them as a measuring stick of sorts to tell the age of the earth. The reality is that we can tell which one is an annual deposit and which is not so there is no need to discredit using it for dating purposes. No interpretation, just YEC deception.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AnEmpiricalAgnostic, post: 19965635, member: 112284"] [color=black]Eye witness isnt all its cracked up to be and really has nothing to do with what this thread is about. What we are dealing with here is tangible, material, empirical evidence. Sure, if there are no eye witnesses and no evidence of any kind then all there would be is interpretation and conjecture. In this case however we have something tangible and (what should be) pretty apparent but has been misrepresented by the YEC to further their agenda. The issue being that although one sample was made of layers that accumulated at a faster than annual rate, the difference between them and the regular annual sample is blatantly apparent. The YECers would like everyone to believe that they are the same and since one developed faster than the other then we cant use any of them as a measuring stick of sorts to tell the age of the earth. The reality is that we can tell which one is an annual deposit and which is not so there is no need to discredit using it for dating purposes. No interpretation, just YEC deception.[/color] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why YEC leaders should not be believed without checking sources
Top
Bottom