|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I NEED HELP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
reversespin writes:
Aren't you moving the goal post in this statement? Every creationist statement in the past has been that Earth and the rest of the universe is 6,000 years old (more specifically around 5,700). Aren't you guys moving the goal post? If your goal post is this flexible, why not just conform with the scientific community? Don't forget to include no evidence of anything older than 9,500 years old... Oh, by the way, it's arctic. The last time I saw someone repeatedly making this mistake was when I was in 6th grade wink wink. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Aren't you moving the goal post in this statement? Every creationist statement in the past has been that Earth and the rest of the universe is 6,000 years old (more specifically around 5,700). If the russian study would of found nothing older than 6,000 years or everything older than 9,500 years it would of been a problem with taking the bible literally 9,500 years fits fine. 2 peter 3:8.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
What made up Russian study are you referring to?
-x
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Lets reserve judgement on the quality of the supporting evidence until we know what it is shall we?
TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
9,500 years fits fine. 2 peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. So the world was created a week past Friday!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Care to explain to me how this makes sense? Could you also reference the russian study you are talking about?
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Here's a link an interesting unbiased study showing nothing dating older than 9,640 years.
Enjoy !!!!
14C DATING OF PEAT AND 18O-D IN GROUND ICE FROM NORTHWEST SIBERIA (Vasil’chuk et al., 2001) Click here for html version. Edited by AdminWounded, : Linked PDF and tidied up non-PDF link. Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Could you give a link to the pdf file itself? I'm having a terrible time trying to read it.
Added by edit. Nevermind. Link to pdf file. Added by edit again. Could you also explain to me why the following thing you said made sense?
you writes: If the russian study would of found nothing older than 6,000 years or everything older than 9,500 years it would of been a problem with taking the bible literally 9,500 years fits fine. 2 peter 3:8. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
What part of "Holocene peat deposits" are you having a hard time understanding?
Holocene - Wikipedia This is about the equivalent of postulating that since all these WWII artifacts are less than 100 years old, the earth is 100 years old or less. The article doesn't say that 'nothing in Siberia is less than 9,500 years old'. The article is about a specific strata, 'Holocene peat deposits' grew faster than previously estimated. Your spin on this article is incredibly deceptive or simply uninformed, possibly both. Edited by EighteenDelta, : toned down "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!" -Stephen Jay Gould
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The article doesn't say that 'nothing in Siberia is less than 9,500 years old'. The article is about a specific strata, 'Holocene peat deposits' grew faster than previously estimated. Holocene is just a word it means nothing given nothing older than 9,500 years found but only younger in agreement with a young earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
If the russian study would of found nothing older than 6,000 years or everything older than 9,500 years it would of been a problem with taking the bible literally 9,500 years fits fine. 2 peter 3:8. If the C-14 dating would of come back 6,000 years or younger then it would of conflicted with 2 peter 3:8.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your spin on this article is incredibly deceptive or simply uninformed, possibly both. Both. You are talking to reversespin, aka Simple, Bret, Charley, Craig, johnfulton, the Golfer, Tom, whatever, and a few other screen names used to deceive posters and admins. He originally posted this information on Message 216 where he tried to use it to show that the Greenland Ice Cap was melted at that time. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
reversespin writes:
You didn't answer my question. I know what 2 peter 3:8 says. Where did you get the numbers 6k and 9k? If the C-14 dating would of come back 6,000 years or younger then it would of conflicted with 2 peter 3:8.
Regarding the article, did you even read the article? The article is about the Holocene Optimum, a period when the climate was warmer in the summer and colder in the winter than at the present that allowed the forests to migrate northward. If you are referring to the date, let me quote the section where it says this.
quote:This does not tell us that the Earth is around 9000 years old. It does tell us approximately when the forests began to migrate north. Again, did you read this article at all? Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Brian figured it out that were into the second week since the beginning of the creation week.
The dates of the peat on page 7 & 8 are basically 9,500 or less not 6,000 years or less meaning were well into the 2nd week since the beginning of the first creation day. If you count the days since Adam were approximately 6,000 years but the fossils dates suggest were approximately 12,000 years from the beginning of the first creation day. 12,000 - 3,000 = 9,000 years ago. However the 3,000 figure is based on the end of the 3rd day so add 1000 years and you have 10,000 years ago the beginning of the 3rd creation day. Nothing older than 9,500 years supports genesis 1:11 was not at the beginning of the 3rd creation day but the middle of the 3rd day. Thats my take and I suspect what Brian was hinting at from the sidelines that were into Friday of the second week.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I still don't get it, but I'll take your word for it.
Aren't you going to address about the article? Did you read the article? Did you understand what they were talking about? If anything, some elements in the article confirm global warming, something that creationists are well known to deny. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024