Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While open-mindedly checking out the good doctor, I came across this letter. Yes, on the surface he has excellent credentials, so why would he tarnish himself by doing bad research, or by ignoring the stated warnings and limitations from GeoChron Labs in his conclusions?
"Self-Serving" glory-seeking revisionism? Say it isn't so!
This interesting letter, coming from a dedicated YEC minister no less, is "telling" to say the least. Even Kevin Lea, the minister in question, realizes if YEC'rs are hoping for any technical & rational credibility, they can't be quoting known scoundrels and liars as proof of their nutto mystical theories.
Plagiarism is not well thought of in any academic endeavor, especially in science. His "discovery" of a lake near the Grand Canyon, which, it turns out was a blatant plagiarization and revision of the results of an earlier researcher's work, is unacceptable. At least by honest folks.
As is the subsequent hand-waving dismissal and sweeping of the issue under the table by Dr. Austin's defenders. So they too get the official "raspberry salute" from those they tried and failed to fool.
So: we couple Austin's (I'm unofficially revoking his doctoral degree. He doesn't deserve it; what else has he lied about?) mis-guided, purposefully errant methodologies, his failure to mention that the GeoChron results were stated by them as completely unusable for rocks under 6000 years old, his attempts in other research areas to claim others' results as his own, his subsequent revision of those results to suit his own agenda, and what are we left with?
Yep. Another fraudulent ICR / YEC piker.
Quite the credible group for a poster here to hang their own reputation on, huh.
No I can't and as you well know, I'm not talking about "chapter and verse" but Bible chronology. I can give you that if you want?
...but they can't be...otherwise the Bible time-line wouldn't be "up for debate" would it? Your cherry-picking comes to the fore here brother. "The Bible stories are accurate" you claim, then tell us that the time-line is debatable. Which is it Tom..the Bible is accurate and reliable or the time-line in the Bible is not accurate and up for debate.
So we can't rely on the Bible for accurate information...that will do for me. Thanks for confirming that the Bible can't be trusted old fruit!!
Oh btw! As a matter of interest. On what basis do you claim that the Earth is young and how old do you think it is?
As I have told you, the Biblical timeline will always be debated, yet the Bibles message and its history are both accurate and true. So to suggest the Bible can't be trusted for accurate information, would not be accurate. The Bible also does not tell us how to do open heart surgery, yet this does not make it's other information less truthful. The Bible continues to give us information about the past, and historical discovery continues to confirm that the Bible has been speaking the truth. Now, at the top of Mt. Ararat they have discoverd the Ark of Noah, and it was found on the very mountain where the Bible said it landed. Soon, the world will see the Ark. I believe Bible chronology is not an exact science. Yet based on it, I believe the wolrd has existed for about 13,000 years.
As I have told you, the Biblical timeline will always be debated, yet the Bibles message and its history are both accurate and true. So to suggest the Bible can't be trusted for accurate information, would not be accurate. The Bible also does not tell us how to do open heart surgery, yet this does not make it's other information less truthful. The Bible continues to give us information about the past, and historical discovery continues to confirm that the Bible has been speaking the truth. Now, at the top of Mt. Ararat they have discoverd the Ark of Noah, and it was found on the very mountain where the Bible said it landed. Soon, the world will see the Ark. I believe Bible chronology is not an exact science. Yet based on it, I believe the wolrd has existed for about 13,000 years.
You know Tom! I sometimes get the distinct impression that you really are a troll.
...and you didn't answer the questions........
"On what basis do you claim that the Earth is young and how old do you think it is?"
and...
"Then how do you come to the conclusion for YOUR date being accurate?"
Well,while waiting for the battery on the 2nd one to charge,I'll answer.Your analogy,like so many others,is completely false.The US was settled by what,hundreds of thousands of immigrants up til 1776.To make them similar,go with this.Send 10 people over on the Mayflower,and ONLY 10,and then from those 10,with only the tools they make themselves in a pre-industrial America, form the current US and go to the moon in 193 years.This,of course,doesn't even begin to deal with the fact that the America was settled on the cusp of the Industrial Age,while Egypt was obviously not.But don't let rational facts get in your way.You haven't so far.Of all the silly @ss stuff you have claimed,this has to be the silliest.I really have trouble understanding how anyone,even you,could seriously accept that the pyramids were capable of being built by a non technical people who 240 years earlier just crawled off the Ark.In fact,I don't think you do.I don't think even you are capable of fooling yourself this bad.I think you inadvertently presented evidence of which you had no idea what the consequences would be,and although you probably wonder how it could really be that Noah's descendant's could do this,you still must "fight the good fight" and defend the flood story.
Sad,dude.Sad.
It hasn't.Simple as that.You keep asking this question as if it has been conclusively proven it has.It hasn't,and your repeated claims that it has do not make it so.Once again,even most ark explorers who believe in it deny this is the ark.You are grasping at wisps of smoke.So please,quit asking this stupid question as if it is a fact that it has been found.
The explorers who deny it's the Ark, have not even been to the site. And it should be obvious they wanted to discover the Ark for their own personal glory. Thankfully, God allow Christians of faith to find it. Can you tell me, what do you believe that large structure is? And how did it get there? And I don't have to fight the good fight, I only have to believe what I see with my own eyes. I suspect, you will have to believe something else to continue to support your belief system.
And any decendents from the Ark would be very technical people. And they would have hundreds of years to perfect their trade.
You know Tom! I sometimes get the distinct impression that you really are a troll.
...and you didn't answer the questions........
"On what basis do you claim that the Earth is young and how old do you think it is?"
and...
"Then how do you come to the conclusion for YOUR date being accurate?"
My very last sentence states. I believe the earth to be about 13,000 years old. And I base that on the Biblical account. I can't say it is 13,450 years, or 12,280 years. Yet as a ballpark figure, I believe it to be around 13,000 years. In the six days of creation some believe these were 24 hour days. I do not. In the New Testament, it states that one of God's days are equal to 1000 years. So based on that alone, I believe Gods creation took 6,000 years. And then you would have to add to that.
Your Biblical date for the flood was based on speculation. I can give you numerous accounts of biblical dates that far exceed the date you posted. And that would be based on even more speculation.
I bet you can, but that proves nothing as your 'evidence' is a nothing but a collection of short stories, fables, urban legends, and some absurdly outlandish stuff, and some porn also.
We hear the term "bibilical scholar" which really means one that can prove anything, anything at all, by selective quote of snippets and out of context passages. The words are in there, they just need to be arranged to provide anything you want to prove.
I also have a book, and can "prove" anything I chose to with my book also, but that doesn't provide any validity to my proof either.
My very last sentence states. I believe the earth to be about 13,000 years old. And I base that on the Biblical account. I can't say it is 13,450 years, or 12,280 years. Yet as a ballpark figure, I believe it to be around 13,000 years. In the six days of creation some believe these were 24 hour days. I do not. In the New Testament, it states that one of God's days are equal to 1000 years. So based on that alone, I believe Gods creation took 6,000 years. And then you would have to add to that.
By 13K, do you mean he started work 13K ago, and the 'finished' earth is only 7K old, or he started 19K ago?
Did man an dinosaur walk the earth together?
Who buried all the bones we find? When was all the plant and animals buried miles deep so that we have oil and coal deposits today?
How can we measure light that has traveled 14 BILLION years, when nothing is older than 13K old?
We know that at some point, life existed and most of it was killed by some cataclysmic event, lots of evidence supporting a big meteor, but whatever something major happened. And the earth recovered to the point we have recorded history more than halfway back.
My very last sentence states. I believe the earth to be about 13,000 years old. And I base that on the Biblical account. I can't say it is 13,450 years, or 12,280 years. Yet as a ballpark figure, I believe it to be around 13,000 years. In the six days of creation some believe these were 24 hour days. I do not. In the New Testament, it states that one of God's days are equal to 1000 years. So based on that alone, I believe Gods creation took 6,000 years. And then you would have to add to that.
Where are you getting your date for the flood from?
The explorers who deny it's the Ark, have not even been to the site. And it should be obvious they wanted to discover the Ark for their own personal glory. Thankfully, God allow Christians of faith to find it. Can you tell me, what do you believe that large structure is? And how did it get there? And I don't have to fight the good fight, I only have to believe what I see with my own eyes. I suspect, you will have to believe something else to continue to support your belief system.
And any decendents from the Ark would be very technical people. And they would have hundreds of years to perfect their trade.
This post is so laughable on so many counts.
First,on what basis do you deem the ones who now claimed to have found it trustworthy?Do you know them?On what basis do you label the Christians who don't believe they found the ark as untrustworthy?I know you didn't use these terms,but that is what you are saying.This is what makes your position so ridiculous.You automatically label people you very likely don't have a clue about as trustworthy because you want to believe them,and dismiss disagreement within your own ranks on the basis they are jealous and untrustworthy.My,my,my.The only basis for this is you want to believe in what one side tells you.And if the ones denying it are capable of lying,which is what you are saying here,that one Christian group is lying about another Christian group,then what makes you think the other group is any more trustworthy?If one group is capable of deceit,what makes you confident the others aren't as well?
That "large" structure could be anything.A herders hut,a hoax,anything.What it is not PROVEN to be is the ark,and it will not be.Because there is no ark.Because there was no flood.You don't seem to understand that someone finding a structure at the North Pole with a sleigh harnessed up will not make me believe in Santa Claus.Likewise,someone finding what they claim is a big wooden structure on Ararat will not make me believe in something that never existed because there was no flood to make it necessary.
Two things on the pyramids.On what basis do you claim that Noah's group would have been technical enough to figure out the geometry of the pyramids and how to transport blocks weighing tons into place?You have none.This is the wildest speculation from you yet (OK,with your record,maybe not the wildest).And even if it was so,it would not matter.You do not seem to be capable of understanding numbers and population growth.It would have been impossible for 8 people to repopulate the country fast enough to create the people we read about in the Bible AND another complete country's worth of Egyptians with enough manpower to build the pyramids.No way,no how.You have gone waaayyy off the deep end of reality here,and you are fast showing yourself to be a waste of time for anyone wanting to deal in even the slightest bit of reality in this discussion.You need to educate yourself on the number of people it would have taken to
A)Build the pyramids by hand,with no technology (slaves)
B)grow enough food to support the country ( I should not have to say this,but you are aware that people building pyramids are be definition then NOT growing food for all those who need to eat)
C) Create the ruling class and military capable of securing and enforcing the slave labor necessary to build them.
Building pyramids is the effort of a civilization advanced enough and wealthy enough to waste time and resources doing so.New civilizations trying to survive from scratch would not have the time or resources to do this.
You are now officially not worth paying attention to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
