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.
Is god not "something from nothing" the whole "self existant thing" is the same concept. God is supposedely something that came from nothing because he was always there. Same thing different brand. Kinda like coke and pepsi.
Note to the OP: I know; the following comment is slightly off your intention, but as with many of us, I just can't let this one slip on by, esp. since the poster also wasn't following your requested format:
In response to kd's opinion, highlighted in blue above, I'll just add this short one-liner:
And yet, we did! With evidence and everything! Neat, huh?
___________________________________
Then, to NIKK's obtuse and purposefully misleading obfuscation, where he says:
"Why? Because the layers have been pre-determined and the lab needs to jive the numbers."
Hardly. Or, better yet, you could provide us with the details of the lawsuit or case where you know this has acually ever happened. Or is it just defensive tripe & wishful thinking from AiG, saying what they so desperately HOPE is the case?
Science wants to know the surrounding substrate so as to specifically avoid over-reaching on their dates. It's called the "Reservoir Effect", and has, for instance, created known errors with the oft-mentioned El Toro / Acambaro, MX, clay figurines, where they actually ended up dating the contaminanats smeared onto those recently made toys, but then wanted to say they were older, much older. Sorry; no sale there.
Contamination from the surrounding strata will potentially generate an errant date too old. Science is nothing if not conservative and overly careful, given the rat-pack of nay-sayers waiting to bite at their ankles over any mis-step. Rather, they go out of their way to avoid over-reaching on such findings. Hardly the pack of bilious and biased morons they're depicted to be!
So, frankly, the artifacts so dated in the manner described (isotopic analysis) are usually older than the stated dates, not younger as you'd so desperately hope.
You know, you could always actually read up on the latest techniques and their stated shortcomings and how those are compensated for before you just blat out the predictable (but also technically incorrect) AiG speaking points. You know; try to get it right , from a well-educated perspective before posting your errant positions and accusations here?
Interesting concept, huh?
To that point, doesn't it bother most Christians to realize they are believing and then regurgitating wildly incorrect stuff from these apologist acolyte websites, and that, in fact, the accusations from those very biased and combative people are completely out of date or just plain wrong?
Is that OK with you, as long as it defends your Christian position?
Hmmm... interesting, if that's so. Intentional self-delusion.
Let's stay on topic rifleman! This forum is for Arguements use by creationist, not psudo-scientific conjecture or postulation!
Creationists keep on regurgitating the same old, overused, thoroughly refuted and horribly illogical arguments over and over to the point that neo-Darwinists can tell you each and every single argument used by them and the variations that come from people who copy and paste from other websites without understanding what the argument is about.
Creationists keep on regurgitating the same old, overused, thoroughly refuted and horribly illogical arguments over and over to the point that neo-Darwinists can tell you each and every single argument used by them and the variations that come from people who copy and paste from other websites without understanding what the argument is about.
Hi, I'm new here, so be nice. I think the most irritating argument by creationists I've seen is Darwin was racist/sexist therefore the theory of evolution is wrong. But also their, mutations can't add information to the genome ................ then flatly refuse to define what they mean by information.
Creationists simply can't define what they mean by information for the following reasons:
a) They do but are immediately given an example that proves them wrong and have to redefine it.
b) Their definition is based on a strawman of evolution and are promptly called out on that.
c) They didn't understand what the creationist website they took it from said.
Hi, I'm new here, so be nice. I think the most irritating argument by creationists I've seen is Darwin was racist/sexist therefore the theory of evolution is wrong. But also their, mutations can't add information to the genome ................ then flatly refuse to define what they mean by information.
All Darwin and Huxley were doing was to express what they could actually observe and see. Though their views describing the Negro sounded negative, the same things they expressed are said by science and scientists today through all their pictures and illustrations in all the books, journals and other publications. Although today the terminology is a might more sophiticated and scientific. I see both sides here attempting cut N paste science. Creos from religious sites and Atheists from Atheist sites. Both debating mysterious things observed by neither side and applying personal interpretation on it's meaning. But I again say all you have to do is actually look at the living examples science points out to us in Africa for proofs of evolution. All the pictures and cartoons show Africans as living proof of transitions. Europeans as the superior animal. Course most these scientists are of European descent and front Euro descent countries, still is no bias, only pure observations of facts. I challenge anyone to show otherwise in the journals out there that Early man started out from Africa from monkeys to apes, Apeman to Africans and from there north to middleeast and finally Europe. Again, this is what science has taught me everytime I open and read the books and journals and no one can deny it. As Richard Dawkins said that when things began there was no purpose, no good, no evil, just evolution at work. Only man puts definitions on good and bad and they all do it difeerently from each other so you have to choose to what to believe.
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.
.
