Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I figure the "science" of radiometric dating is about as reliable as the "science" of covid vaccines and their safety as as well as the efficacy of masks as demonstrated by the 'irrefutable" but rarely correct and ever flip floppin' Fauc-meister.

 rofl rofl rofl
2
I figure the "science" of radiometric dating is about as reliable as the "science" of covid vaccines and their safety as well as the efficacy of masks as demonstrated by the 'irrefutable" but rarely correct and ever flip floppin' Fauc-meister.
3
General Discussion Forum / Re: Creation scientists
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Today at 15:45:33 »
He told us...

Gen 6 :7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

If all was not destroyed, save Noah, whose account we have and why, and the other references you make say that all was not destroyed.... God did not tell the truth.

UNLESS.. He changed His mind????
Genesis is a collection of historical and mythicological documents that come from several different cultures.  While many of them are not literal, none of them are meant to be mis-leading; they are not lies.  But whoever edited them together in such a way as to portray them as a single chronological record... that guy screwed up.

Anyhow, the stories of Noah and his sons come from the civilization of Urartu.  You can read the exact same story in the Matsya Purana, which is one of the sacred texts of the Hindus of India and Sri Lanka.  This is because the descendants of Urartu migrated to the Indian subcontinent and brought their myths with them.

Honestly, Genesis is one of the hardest books in the Bible.

Jarrod
4
Christian Politics Forum / The man who would be Senator.... from PA
« Last post by Rella on Today at 14:26:37 »
He has only 1 suit and 1 tie. Wears it only to preside over state senate.

This should make a statement on the US Senate floor. Especially if he keeps the yellow neck wrap.

Of course the tie is loose and likely the shirt collar so that might be to conceal that as well as the big hump on his neck.


john-Fetterman-office" border="0
5
Guys, as you noticed I stay free of these threads knowing it is out of my league, and I do not have knowledge in such things to even discuss these things with you. I have a grandson who is now a scientist just out of school, and in his field, he knows so much more than I have time to learn. I know just enough to get me into trouble with anyone who has average knowledge and I certainly would not even discuss these things with Alan or 4WD, who are so far ahead of me and seem to be very knowledgeable and I believe trustworthy.

I'll post some this week been too busy debating on another forum on things I feel I do know and have given myself to it with almost fifty years under my belt.

6
How much some guy sneers about it doesn't change the facts of what radiometric dating is.
Nor does anything you might say about it. Knowing my friend a lot better than I know you, I will go with what my friend said about it. And there is considerably more to it than a mathematical model and assumptions of proliferation of an isotope in the atmosphere.  I can point you to a number of technical papers on it if you would like. But then you should be able to find some on your own.
7
General Discussion Forum / Re: Creation scientists
« Last post by 4WD on Today at 13:40:13 »
Perhaps not the best way of putting it.  I have never said, nor suggested, that the flood didn't happen, that it wasn't real; I have only argued against a global extent and I have argued that the Bible doesn't require it to be so.
8
True enough; but it can mean 99.9...9% correct.  I had a friend in the church who worked in the field of radiometric dating at UC San Diego.  He is gone now, but he would sneer angrily at any who might challenge the validity of his work in radiometry. It is a well-established technology.

Based upon a mathematical model and assumptions of proliferation of an isotope in the atmosphere.  How much some guy sneers about it doesn't change the facts of what radiometric dating is.
9
The best data we have no does not mean 100% correct. 
True enough; but it can mean 99.9...9% correct.  I had a friend in the church who worked in the field of radiometric dating at UC San Diego.  He is gone now, but he would sneer angrily at any who might challenge the validity of his work in radiometry. It is a well-established technology.
10
General Discussion Forum / Re: Creation scientists
« Last post by Texas Conservative on Today at 13:31:58 »
I don't think Alan was suggesting that any of the Genesis account was not true; rather, it was not necessarily to be taken as literal. Not literal does not mean not true.

The words of Jesus seem to imply some sort of literalness.  Jesus more than once references Genesis in the Gospels.  Positing the dates might not be exactly 6,000 years is one thing, but "a borrowed tale from writings that predated Genesis?" 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10