Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 217 (524431)
09-16-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Archangel
09-16-2009 9:46 AM


Radiometric dating.... when it's convenient.
Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old? Now, by all means let the excuses fly as you attempt to explain to this innorant christian why he just doesn't understand what you secularists see so clearly.
The first problem you have is that you are still using a tree that is well over 2,000 years older than the oldest accepted biblical chronology. That serves to refute your own case, not strengthen it. A solitary old tree just brings the whole concept of a young earth in to disrepute.
Secondly, trees are organic matter. That a tree does not survive for more than 10,000 years, or whatever, doesn't mean by default that the earth must be less than a few thousand years old. It just means that trees don't live billions of years just like all organic matter.
Lastly, why is it that Young Earth creationists only accept carbon dating (or other forms of radiometric dating) when it is convenient for them? Isn't that cherry picking? Either C-14 dating is flawed or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Archangel, posted 09-16-2009 9:46 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 217 (524568)
09-17-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Archangel
09-17-2009 8:36 AM


Re: A second explanation
From what I see of RAZD's thesis is that trees are used in order to determine the minimum age of the earth. What is also painfully obvious is that evolutionists make some dramatic assumptions later on in order to extend their dating of the earth as far back as possible. Never coming even close to 4.5 billion years though, of course, but only making it to the estimated 400,000 year age from his evidence. In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality.
So let's say that it is impossible to assume or definitively prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That would suggest that you have evidence to the contrary to support that it is much younger.
In your estimation, how old is the earth and by what means have you determined this?

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 8:36 AM Archangel 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