303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + + + + Line 38:
Line 42: + + +
no edit summary
::::::It seems to me that radioactive dating is not taken too seriously by mainstream scientists when it suits them, such as when there is conflicting evidence.
::::::It seems to me that radioactive dating is not taken too seriously by mainstream scientists when it suits them, such as when there is conflicting evidence.
::::::I don't follow your point about the fossilised humans. But I've realised that I was on the wrong track there. That there were giants before the flood is based on particular translations of the Bible that were probably mis-translations. In other words, at the very least, we can't say for sure that the Bible even says that there were giants. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I don't follow your point about the fossilised humans. But I've realised that I was on the wrong track there. That there were giants before the flood is based on particular translations of the Bible that were probably mis-translations. In other words, at the very least, we can't say for sure that the Bible even says that there were giants. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::They may declare that they are uncommon in different stratas, but the complete absence of any significant anachronisms represents a clear failure of the flood hypothesis.
:::::::Regarding your comments on radioactive dating, it may surprise you to learn than rocks are actually dated with a number of different decay types. If strata really were Carboniferous then it would be undeniable due if these different techniques gave a consensus time. Of course, this is academic, because there has been a complete failure to find such anachronisms.
:::::::That giants existed in early days is the mainstream YEC position, as taken by AiG and other such organisations. If you do not hold this view then my criticisms on this matter do not apply to your particular beliefs. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, ''real'' scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, ''real'' scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::And I suppose that you would deny that lions once existed in Palestine because there's no fossils of them, but only written records?
::::::And I suppose that you would deny that lions once existed in Palestine because there's no fossils of them, but only written records?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No, they aren't scientists because they have abandoned the proceedures and logistics of scientific methodology.
:::::::Geologicaly speaking your "lions in Palestein" is a clear strawman. A brief period of existance in a small state could be easily missed by the fossil record. An entire order of large creatures would be unlikely to be missed from the entirity of the fossil record. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The link follows, Philip. Remember to keep an open mind. Behold, for [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Creationism| the truth] shall set you free.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The link follows, Philip. Remember to keep an open mind. Behold, for [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Creationism| the truth] shall set you free.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)