Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I NEED HELP
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 33 (435137)
11-19-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
11-18-2007 8:20 PM


reversespin writes:
Don't forget to include no evidence of anything older than 9,500 years old...
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?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 11-18-2007 8:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 1:24 PM Taz has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 17 of 33 (435156)
11-19-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
11-19-2007 11:42 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 11:42 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-19-2007 1:31 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 11-19-2007 2:26 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 3:48 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 31 by nator, posted 11-19-2007 9:59 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 33 (435157)
11-19-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 1:24 PM


What made up Russian study are you referring to?
-x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 1:24 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AdminWounded, posted 11-19-2007 2:17 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 33 (435164)
11-19-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by EighteenDelta
11-19-2007 1:31 PM


Lets reserve judgement on the quality of the supporting evidence until we know what it is shall we?
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-19-2007 1:31 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 33 (435165)
11-19-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 1:24 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 1:24 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 33 (435168)
11-19-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 1:24 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 1:24 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 4:15 PM Taz has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 22 of 33 (435171)
11-19-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
11-19-2007 3:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 3:48 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 4:53 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 24 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-19-2007 5:16 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 33 (435177)
11-19-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 4:15 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 4:15 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 5:40 PM Taz has replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 33 (435178)
11-19-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 4:15 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 4:15 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 5:30 PM EighteenDelta has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2007 5:46 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 25 of 33 (435180)
11-19-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by EighteenDelta
11-19-2007 5:16 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-19-2007 5:16 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 26 of 33 (435182)
11-19-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taz
11-19-2007 4:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 4:53 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 7:27 PM johnfolton has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 33 (435185)
11-19-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by EighteenDelta
11-19-2007 5:16 PM


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.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-19-2007 5:16 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 28 of 33 (435203)
11-19-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 5:40 PM


reversespin writes:
If the C-14 dating would of come back 6,000 years or younger then it would of conflicted with 2 peter 3:8.
You didn't answer my question. I know what 2 peter 3:8 says. Where did you get the numbers 6k and 9k?
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:
The first forest appearnce in the Seyaha River valley can be dated to about 9000 BP, according to the oldest date in the Seyaha valley (No 6 in Table 6).
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 5:40 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 8:02 PM Taz has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 29 of 33 (435213)
11-19-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
11-19-2007 7:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 7:27 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 11-19-2007 9:55 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 33 (435220)
11-19-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by johnfolton
11-19-2007 8:02 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 11-19-2007 8:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024