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


Robert Carnegie wrote:
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!

Thats a joke right. If it's not your claim of lucy being 1.5 million
years old has greater signifcant then my pittence of a time period of
10,000 years.

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

A truth! How do you know anything you where not there.

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.

Excuse me but RADIO or any CHEMICAL dating is not archaeological
evidence and is not confirmable. As your Statement above so
elouquently proclamed only something that has been there is acceptable.


Acceptable method of arechology.

seek out oral, written or mythology and determine if it was a real
place.
find this unknown with confirming records (pottery, consrtuction etc)
from this ARECHOLICAL dig determine the date by confirmation records.
Look for other references, seeking those out with confirmation
contiunue this process untill knowledge is obtained.

That my friends is proper method of confirmation or actualy being
there. No carbon dating or other questionable findings. Facts,
Evidence, and most of all a recorded witness of exactly what we need to
know. Now once we determine the age of something and THEN one may
bring the carbon method to confirm what we suspect.

Again just an simple evidence of man older then 10,000 years old.

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

I realise that you are making up some anology and do not believe that
this is even vaguly possible (at least I hope that is so). However it
may be considered deseterbing that this scenario is more patable to
you. Other then the possibility of there EXISTING a Creator that made
all things.


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.

circumstantial evidence is what we see in evolution. Sure there are
all those bones but to get them together add flesh and then breath life
in them that they may walk is streaching it by evolutionary means.
Then lets take into the fact we need them to mutate and speiciate into
untold diverese types and kinds. Of course there's the fact that life
permiates almost every part of this world they inhabit. Less we forget
that according the fossile records it looks like life had to start anew
a number of times. Here the funniest part as easy as "NATURE" has
performed all this through a process some believ as evolution. ALL
attemps by man has failed to produce the simplest building block that
living things uses to accomplish this wonderfull thing called life.


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 believe that all of scotland may have that problem. Have family in
Iowa (midwest in America) very remote in many places. though I been
there many times It was only once did I see the great milky in the open
skies. WOW, A river of stars, beautifull, to think the milky way is
only ONE galaxie in a billion.

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.

If you would truly look you would understand what I was tring to say.
The stars in the skies and life on this planet have very little in
common, except the AWWH factor. This simple fact should be the only
proof anyone needs of G-D.

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: Sean loses interest
    ... please do present your evidence. ... written on to make it into real life testing much less demonstration. ... radiometric measures of the age of the universe and extrapolations ... of stellar and planetary evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... The first is direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled ... there are Precambrian multicellular fossils, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
    ... God destroyed all of life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the ... Evolution states that everything in the universe came from nothing ... do is study the evidence and see which religion makes the most sense. ... No. Tee geologic timetable proves the great age of the earth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean loses interest
    ... If I'm so ignorant produce a real life example that goes beyond just- ... please do present your evidence. ... earth without being to point to any evidence of its age, ... stellar and planetary evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)