Re: I'd like a better understanding of the debate


tsquare21 wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
tsquare21 wrote:
HI Diego

Interesting point about the age of man being only 6000 years old. This
is one of my infalibles (there are three), disproving evolution and
proving G-d.

As I attempted to point out many months ago (never could establish an
acceptable criteor) that to disprove one of these infalibles disproves
G-d.

So Deigo if you are serious in your inquires all you have to do (and
any one for that matter) is discover any evidence of man roaming this
earth longer then 10000 years. Sorry but carbon dating is not
acceptable.

Because it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

If you read that Web page, then you will find clues to how to prove the
dates of prehistoric events without using radiocarbon dating, which you
can use to refute tsquare. However, you then must PERSONALLY go out
and find the archaeological evidence with which to prove that tsquare
is wrong, which will take you a few years, probably. And then tsquare
will say "Well done Deigo."

Now let me get this straight, are you saying that archaeology has never
been at any time performed by anyone. That's what you said when you
claim that I or someone in here has to go and find the evidence.
Carfull here, before you can in the positive answer be prepared to back
your statement "If you read that Web page, then you will find clues to
how to prove the events without using radiocarbon dating, which you can
use to refute tsquare"

So even if you do have to proove through means other then carbon 14 it
shoud be evident. after all were only talking a few thousand years
when you know for a fact of billions of years of evolution. It's a
simple, resonable and should be provable fact of man existing more then
10,000 years, other then carbon 14.

But how do you know, you weren't there!

It's possible that tsquare is an anticreationist posing as a
creationist to make a joke...

However, he called on /you/ to "discover any evidence of man roaming
this earth longer then 10000 years" in order to settle the question,
either to your satisfaction or to his - I'm choosing to interpret it as
his, since he lays down the rule about "no [radio]carbon dating". From
this I infer that he is dismissing any archaeological evidence that has
been obtained up to now. Justification for this is up to him; I
suspect he doesn't have any.

I didn't want to mention oxidative phosphorylation dating, for
instance, because it would allow him to declare in advance that
oxidative phosphorylation dating is also invalid, as he may do now.
This game is played by school playground rules, you see. Perhaps we
will be told that oxidative phosphorylation did not happen in
prehistoric times because of the vapour (vapor) canopy that ultimately
produced the Flood. I do not think this is the most effective
criticism of oxidative phosphorylation dating, but I may soon regret
bringing it up at all.

Having said that... how do we know that all the life on earth wasn't,
for instance, brought here in flying saucer space-ships at different
times from another similar planet, with modern humans maybe arriving
6,009 years ago (to 4004 BC)? It is a fanciful idea, of course, and
something like that could have happened without leaving detectable
evidence besides the fact that we're here. The answer is to look for
other evidence. Hmm... fossil human bones could have been imported by
flying saucers as well. The whole thing could be fake. However,
science does go by evidence. For an extraordinary idea, a scientific
answer is not "It is not so" but "There is not significant evidence
that it is so" or even "There is significant evidence that it is not
so".

(Another example. Perhaps God made the universe and then destroyed it
and then created another universe which was identical to the old
universe when he destroyed it, with all living things on earth.
Obviously we couldn't possibly find this out with science. Perhaps God
only did this to planet earth.)

"Circumstantial evidence" is not so useful for proof, but it does point
in one or another direction.

Do you think that tsquare knows that he is a liar, and not very good at
it? I do.

One more note - The bible is written for man and only concerens the AGE
of man. This fact suports the different priestoric timlines we see in
the fosile record. Does this sugests that evolution is evidend with ID
over sight, never. It just proves that G-d re-created it all many
times. Need proof of this fact just go out most nights and look up.
Of course this test doesn't work for 90% of man because we try to erase
all majestic evidence of G-d (city lights are very effective erasers
:-).

Aha! Street lighting was created by darwolutioists in order to prevent
God's creatures from seeing the glory of God in the sky, such as the
sun and moon. Darvolutionianists clearly are also responsible for
smog.

Of course not, just out of curiosity where do you live and have you
ever been to alaska or even the heartland Iowa, Kansas, Montana, sorry
but ANY where east or west won't do.

You're learning the technique! Well done! "I will not accept evidence
which uses the letter t! Now presenf your argumenf!" :-)

Goodness, does that account for the bible belt and the flyover
states...

In fact, I live just outside Glasgow, Scotland, and so the stars, which
seem to have been claimed as evidence that God created life on earth
many times over - that is an idea proposed by creationists before
Darwin, which has been carefully examined and thrown out, that
dinosaurs and other things came and went before the first day of the
bible - the stars are not very visible here, because of street lighting
in the city.

I am not sure how stars prove this theory of successive creations, as
claimed. Perhaps it's because some of them are 10 billion years old or
more, so the whole universe can't possibly have been created as
recently as the bible implies. Perhaps it's because God actually means
for the constellations to represent the shapes of extinct species which
we should recognise in fossils. Or perhaps it's a confused argument.

I must fairly admit that it came with a ":-)" and so it cannot be taken
as seriously as the more important points that tsquare made :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Id like a better understanding of the debate
    ... is one of my infalibles, disproving evolution and ... any one for that matter) is discover any evidence of man roaming this ... can use to refute tsquare. ... Does this sugests that evolution is evidend with ID ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... >> rather than to a Biblical flood exposing people to radiation. ... > covered and protected the earth, and that this covering was destroyed at the ... >> geological processes are insufficient to have swept that evidence away. ... >>> Fossils don't form under normal circumstances. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: This may be the most important aticle I have ever written.
    ... In October 2007 I wrote an article titled "Evidence for an ... edge of new discovery. ... Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly ... There is unambiguous evidence that Mars, the Moon and Earth ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: This may be the most important aticle I have ever written.
    ... In October 2007 I wrote an article titled "Evidence for an ... edge of new discovery. ... Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly ... There is unambiguous evidence that Mars, the Moon and Earth ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Time for your weekly dose of creationism lack of evidence strawpoll
    ... >> There is plenty of hard evidence that shows the earth is very old. ... This is the nature of science. ... > God. ...
    (talk.origins)