Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Appearances are that the bulk of the creation side are young Earth.I think many would love to see a one-on-one (or few-on-few) "Great Debate" on this issue, between the young Earth creationist side and the not a young Earth creationist side.Feel free to propose such, or Private Message me about such, if you wish.But such a (sub)topic does not belong in this topic.Please, no response messages to this message, in this topic (such WILL trigger a 24 hour suspension). Go to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') topic if you feel you must publicly reply to this message.Adminnemooseus

I'm pretty busy in the real world, so I'm not following things closely, BUT...I'LL MAKE THIS AN OFFICIAL WARNING - ANY MESSAGES NOT HAVING SOME SORT OF CONNECTION TO THE TOPIC THEME MIGHT JUST TRIGGER A 2 DAY SUSPENSION OF THE POSTER.Adminnemooseus

1) Message should somehow touch on the age dating science.2) At the minimum, message should at least touch on scientific methodology.3) Message should not be irrelevant snark.1450 and 1451 BARELY qualifies as meeting (2), but it would be nice if it had any real connection to (1).Your new 1467 qualifies as being (3). Might you find the most recent message in this topic, that actually does (1)? The recent quality of topic sure seems quite dismal to me.dad is pretty much (understatement?) blathering nonsense. I think other members should post something of (1) or not respond at all. dad makes Faith look like a towering master of scientific reason. Is dad being successful at dragging the sciece side down to his level of discourse?Maybe we need some activity at EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')Adminnemooseus