slevesque writes:
Concerning RAZD's thread, you do realize I could build a similar one, with a bunch of so-called ''PRATT's'' which correlate with a young earth.
Please do that. It would be a first for creationists.
(By the way, correlating "with a young earth" isn't good enough. Your methods have to agree with each other to produce a definite age.)
slevesque writes:
You would then probably start by taking each one individually, and show where you think the reasoning is flawed in each one.
That's why they're called "Points Refuted A Thousand Times". They're refuted over and over again because creationists don't understand the refutations and misrepresent them.
slevesque writes:
Of course, at that point, we would agree that it would be stupid of me to just respond ''Yeah, but why do they correlate together so well then ?''.
The problem is that the young ages
don't correlate to each other. Nobody has ever shown any correlation. The two examples that you gave today don't even come close to the same age.
You have the opportunity to back up your claim but instead you run away.
Edited by ringo, : Splling.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi