Evolution/geology

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_Leatherman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I shall discredit these now. The general short answer to your objections is here or here: abiogenesis is not biological evolution. Please also note where your objections come from. They are not found in the mainstream scientific literature.

Rheins << 12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen >>

Origin of Life is not biological evolution, so it is irrelevant to biological evolution. However, your point 12 is discredited here.

Rheins << 13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen >>

Origin of Life is not biological evolution. Point 13 discredited.

Rheins << 15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen >>

Origin of Life is not biological evolution. Point 15 discredited.

Rheins << 16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides >>

Origin of Life is not biological evolution. Point 16 is discredited here.

Rheins << 25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue >>

Origin of Life, or how non-life got to life, is not biological evolution. Point 25 discredited.

If you want to believe God created the first life, or God created the whale from nothing, or God created coal from nothing, or God created the bacterial flagellum from nothing, etc you are free to believe that as a Catholic.

But those miracles are not scientific ideas, scientific hypotheses, or scientific theory. Science by definition deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Understand this and you will have no problem agreeing with me as a Catholic that: (1) creation by God is a fact (i.e. it is true), (2) biological evolution is a scientific theory that explains how God did it, (3) but Creationism is not a scientific theory since it does not fit the definition of natural science.

Phil P
 
40.png
rheins2000:
Have you ever studied the deposits of a world wide flood? Do you even understand the catastrophic nature of 20,000 ft. of water covering the entire earth?

Floods of recent origin translate absolutely zero information to the behavior of a worldwide flood.

You cannot even comprehend what effect a world wide flood would have on the earth.
Click to expand...

The whole world ? Hardly 🙂​

Let us suppose that it was worldwide:
  • How did the sloths come to the Ark, or the turtles ?
  • What happened if some of them died during the journey to the Ark - did they have to start out all over again ?
  • If the Ark was being built in Australia, that might help them - but how did the elephants get there ?
  • How did Noah and his family - just those eight people - feed, wash, and clean, the animals ?
  • How did they remove all the excrement, liquid and solid ?
  • Or did the animals hibernate ?
  • If so, how does a spider hibernate ? Bears do, but spiders get tetchy if they aren’t fed regularly and often. Morris talks about “baramins” in the Genesis Flood, and striation, and the Moho hole: but he does not so much as mention the removal of waste matter. But, not only would the smell be horrible, it would also be a serious risk to health, so:
  • How did Noah take care of the health risks attending the management of so many living things ?
  • Did the lion become a carnivore only afer the flood - or were there none until after it ? Lions & other carnivores can hardly be expected to keep the Noachide laws.
  • How did Noah avoid stepping on thousands of smaller insects ?
  • Are the micro-organisms that live off us, among the animals he looked after ?
  • Wouldn’t all those billions of tons of water affect the rotation of the earth ?
  • How was Everest flooded ? A body of water 29,000 feet high is a huge amount.
The Flood story is perfectly plausible if one it restricts to part of the Near East; if it flooded the world as we know it, it becomes incredible, even ridiculous.

Tolkien is more plausible - at least no one insists on the necessity of belief in his Flood legend. Give them time… ##
 
Gottle << The Flood story is perfectly plausible if one it restricts to part of the Near East; if it flooded the world as we know it, it becomes incredible, even ridiculous. >>

We’re getting way off topic of COAL 😃 but since you and others mentioned worldwide floods, here is something Christian geologists recognized over 150 years ago:

Hugh Miller (1802-1856) was a highly respected and devout Presbyterian who was gifted with an elegance, grace, wit, and clarity of written expression matched by few. In his capacity as editor of Witness, the voice of the evangelical wing of the Church of Scotland that ultimately formed the Free Church of Scotland during the Disruption of 1843, Miller gained a reputation as a zealous, eloquent, and trusted defender of Christian orthodoxy.

Miller laid out the biogeographical evidence in more detail than anyone else had before. The migration of the wild animals to the ark would have involved “a miracle nowhere recorded,” he maintained, and the burden of proof for such a miracle lay on those who asserted a universal deluge. Setting aside the issue of whether carnivores could have ceased being carnivorous during the flood time, Miller noted that of “the creatures that live on vegetables, many are restricted in their food to single plants, which are themselves restricted to limited localities and remote regions of the globe.” Many insects had no wings and feeble locomotive powers, some gnats could live for only a few hours or days after losing their wings, and other insects lived only upon single plants. Getting all the animals to the ark posed staggering difficulties, and getting them all back after the flood posed equally staggering difficulties.

How would the insects have returned, for instance? As wingless grubs? Miller warned his opponents that “the expedient of having recourse to supposititious miracles in order to get over a difficulty insurmountable on every natural principle, is not of the nature of argument, but simply an evidence of the want of it.”

Vastly expanded knowledge of the fossil record made the biogeographical argument far more persuasive than it had been only a century earlier. Animals in various parts of the world had been preceded by similar animals. The sloths of South America had been preceded by the extinct megatherium, known only from fossil remains. The kangaroos and wombats of Australia had been found as fossils only in that region. The birds of New Zealand were found as fossils only in New Zealand. The problem of the migration of species to and from the ark could not be evaded by recourse to an interchange of land and sea. Miller claimed with devastating logic spiced with biting humor that, on the supposition that a continuous tract of land stretched between South America and Asia,

“it is just possible that, during the hundred and twenty years in which the ark was in building, a pair of sloths might have crept by inches across this continuous tract, from where the skeletons of the great megatheria are buried, to where the great vessel stood. But after the Flood had subsided, and the change in sea and land had taken place, there would remain for them no longer a roadway; and so, though their journey outwards might, in all save the impulse which led to it, have been altogether a natural one, their voyage homewards could not be other than miraculous.”

One would need miracles for even less well-traveled species. How could Great Britain and Ireland have been restocked with their original inhabitants? While “the red deer and the native ox might have swam across the Straits of Dover or the Irish Channel,” such an effort would have been “far beyond the power of such feeble natives of the soil as the mole, the hedgehog, the shrew, the dormouse, and the field-vole.” But the biological distribution problem was even more serious. Freshwater fish and mollusks would have been killed. Given the spawning habits of salmon and trout, would not the flood have destroyed them? Invertebrates of the shores would be destroyed. Few of the more than 100,000 species of plants or their seeds could survive submersion in water for a year. Without another miracle, three quarters of the globe’s vegetation would necessarily have perished.

History of the Collapse of “Flood Geology” and a Young Earth

Phil P
 
it boggles my mind that this conversation is even taking place…in the 21st century…on the Internet

I try to be charitable but I just can’t begin to understand
 
There will be discussion and debate as long as there are apparent conflicts in either the data or the interpretation of the data.

Evolution is still a theory.

So… patience, patience, patience.

The essential thing is not to try to overpower people who have conflicting points of view but rather to explain why the apparent conflicts occur in the data or in the interpretations.
 
Al Masetti:
There will be discussion and debate as long as there are apparent conflicts in either the data or the interpretation of the data.
Click to expand...
An apparent conflict does not mean actual conflicts 😉
Al Masetti:
Evolution is still a theory.
Click to expand...
Well it is both a theory and a fact

Germ theory is still a theory but I will still insist that my dentist washes his hands before he puts them in my mouth 😉
Al Masetti:
So… patience, patience, patience.
Click to expand...
I try……

It was hard enough to get beat up as a kid because I was the only one to pay attention in class
But when adults still act like this……give me strength :gopray2:
Al Masetti:
The essential thing is not to try to overpower people who have conflicting points of view but rather to explain why the apparent conflicts occur in the data or in the interpretations.
Click to expand...
I like to think that I’m open to other’s points of view but sometimes “It’s not even wrong.”
 
Jason Meyers:
Now, this sounds almost like a testable predication that might be able to distinguish between evolutionary theory and your model of creation. If the fossils in Queensland were based on a flood, which caused water to rapidly come over land in the modern era, one should expect to find modern animals (e.g. cows, sheep, koalas) buried alongside (or actually below) the Pleiosaurs (water dwellers) that were buried from the flood.
If the fossils were based on evolution over hundreds of millions of years, the prediction would be that no modern animals would be found in any layers below or near those of the Pleiosaurs. Instead, there would be a progression of fossils through the layers that reflect changes of species and environment, and species most closely resembling modern species would only be found in the uppermost layers, substantially after the aquatic species.
Does this sound like an appropriate test to distinguish between the evolution model and your creation/flood model?
JRM
Click to expand...
I like this idea.
It should be possible to poke your finger into any one part of the earth, and concentrating hard on that point, understand the one and only way it must have formed.
So, why not pick…say…the geology of Queensland, as JRM suggests, from the bottom up, precambrian to the present…sediments, minerals, fossils etc. It surely would be the quickest and kindest way to settle the question.
Anyone to stray from Queensland geology could be excommunicated forthwith… :bigyikes:
 
Yep this Rheins2000 guy is definitely going on my site with this comment from April 2005:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=584074
Please show evidence…scientifically proven evidence. Otherwise, my advice is to research where this theory came from and ask yourself if people gave their lives for this belief, as did our great Saints for the deposit of faith given to us by Christ himself in the flesh. CreosMary is right on in her essay. How can you just throw what she said away, but accept the enormously flawed logic and proofs of the Godless so called ‘scientists’ out there.

Here is a good website for creationism. I warn you not to accept the theology on this site, but the scientific evidence is enough to convince anyone of the Genesis supported creation viewpoint…www.drdino.com
Yep that’s right, www.DRDINO.com – Enough said.

Here is a site for him www.Kent-Hovind.com

Catholic Creationism at its finest.

And he can make a page for me, in fact, I hope he does, and please include the relevant links to DRDINO.com

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Rheins best comments are going here, probably tonight. Yep immortalized at my site. And I’ll fill in the proper links to Index of Creationist Claims.

Catholic Creationism and Jack Chick Comics

This has got to be the dumbest creation-evolution thread we’ve had since May 2004. This one takes the cake. But perhaps the abcdefg “Giraff” thread from early this month is good competition since it had pictures too. :rolleyes: 😃

Phil P
Click to expand...
Maybe in the end this one took the cake…always…remember, the giraffe took the biscuit. :crying:
But, before this thread was taken over by fanatics, however, - for the record, I’d like to point out that the thread originally was meant for discussing (some might think) the rather stuffy and uninspiring topic of sedimentation.
I like sediment. I work with it.
If this thread evolved into something dumb it was not my creation. 😃 👍 no…no…no…
 
leather << I like sediment. I work with it. If this thread evolved into something dumb it was not my creation. >>

Yes, and on behalf of Rheins2000 I apologize. He should have been absolutely ignored after 1 or 2 posts. Your original post #1 raised a legitimate scientific issue to discuss.

Looks like it was LatinCat’s fault in post #3: “What is the point of this thread? Catholics have no problem with the science of evolution.”

Then the thread evolved from there and became a totally different species (as per usual).

Phil P
 
40.png
rheins2000:
Sure, here’s some evidence. But you wont accept it…

Ill beat you to the punch…you say they are frauds…Others say they are not…you dont know…I dont know…but according to some of your sources, they claim that the iron pot was left there by a worker a short time back and due to coal processing, it found its way into the deposit…Good idea, but the pot looks a little older than 1948.

And, of course scientific journals will not put this in, because they say its a fraud(only use the evidence that supports you), but they had no problem putting in Piltdown man, Sarah, and the like.

creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/ironpot/ironpot.html

homestead.com/davidgoliathministries/Thegeologiccolumndebunked.html
Click to expand...
Now, to continue with the information from the links you had posted.

Your second link also has a discussion of the “London” artifact, an iron hammer surrounded by “stone”. In response, please see the discussion at this site . One of the links is even a response from YEC Answers in Genesis that rejects this a a genuine artifact, per the quote below-
The Texas hammer is an example—it is a classic concretion around an iron artifact, like the ‘fossil pliers’, which we showed in our magazine. It is not buried in sedimentary rock, but a concretion. There are many reasons to think it may well have been a miner’s hammer that dropped down a crack and the concretion formed later. In fact the reason why people say that the rock is ‘supposed by evolutionary reckoning to be 135 million years old’ is apparently because there are some shells in the concretion which are typical of that ‘period’. Unfortunately, the same shells have a range which extends to the present, so they are not at all diagnostic of that age of rock. The allegation about the apparently anomalous metal structure of the hammer has never been, to our knowledge, published in the peer-reviewed creationist literature, e.g. testing the assertion that ‘an alloy of iron with chlorine cannot be made in its present atmospheric condition.’ But in any case there is no such thing—chlorine is simply not an element that can form a metallic alloy, as opposed to an ionic compound with a metal.
Click to expand...
Not me talking here, this is from Answers in Genesis. Even they reject this a a real artifact.

Though not artifacts, the two link you gave also discuss an number of supposed fossil man tracks and a supposed fossilized finger. See the discussion at
this site, and at
this site and at
this site for clarification about the actual nature of these supposed finds.

The reason that your argument is left twisting in the wind here is that you are relying on information supplied by Carl Baugh. There is a very interesting discussion of Baugh’s place in the pantheon of YEC-thought to be found
here.

On the Arguments creationists should not use page there is yet more candor to be found regarding the contributions of Carl Baugh, as shown in the quote below (emphases mine) -

The link to AiG is here
Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.
Click to expand...
I rest my case. The witness to the failure of your artifacts evidence to pass muster, none other than Answers in Genesis, may leave the stand.

Your batting 0 for 2 on artifacts so far. Do you have any other bonafide (or shall be say, “bonified”) artifacts in coal to bring to the table? Hint: Steer clear of Carl Baugh. There is a pattern developing there.
 
40.png
rossum:
You are just making things worse for yourself by adding to the heat problems with the flood. Pressurised superheated water at 1000 F will turn into very hot steam as soon as the pressure is released. How did Noah avoid being steamed to death in an atmosphere full of steam? Given the quantities of water/steam involved you are going to have a very large increase in atmospheric temperature. Remember also the millions of cubic kilometres of red hot lava and the kinetic energy of dozens of meteorite impacts. In your flood year everything on earth was steamed to death.
Click to expand...
Rossum,
I was wondering about the 1000 F number too. Turns out that at the evanwiggs site that rheins2000 linked, the author wrote 100 (degrees)F, where for (degrees) he used a superscript “0”. When Rheins copied the text he failed to notice the error introduced by the paste operation.

Doesn’t do anything for the argument though.

Also, I think my post #142 may have mangled your intent for the reply to rheins2000. Sorry.
 
zian << Not me talking here, this is from Answers in Genesis. Even they reject this a a real artifact. >>

I’ll respond for Rheins: you are a liar, you are a swindler. Glen Kuban is a liar, a swindler. Answers In Genesis are liars, swindlers, cheats. They are wrong. Arguments Creationists Should NOT use are arguments Creationists absolutely SHOULD use. Listen to DrDino and Carl Baugh. Evolution is a theory, only believed by godless, atheist scientists. Creation is a theory. Do you understand? Humans and dinosaurs lived and played together. There is massive evidence that the Flintstones are documentaries, not cartoons. Thank you.

OK, I’m done. I’ll try to take February off. 😃

Phil P
 
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
I capitulate !! 😉

Carl Baugh should be head of the National Academy of Sciences !!! 😉

:bowdown:
:rotfl:

Thanks, Phil. I needed that. Long day at work today.
 
In the process of adding some “juicy” quotes by Rheins to my Catholic Creationism article, I found an out of context quote. No surprise. The quote is this from Rheins in post #31 of this thread.

Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’.” [10]

The note [10] is given as the following:

[10]

William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.
William D. Stansfield: Evolutionist / Ph.D. / Biology Department, California Polytechnic State University.

The quote is accurate as far as it goes, but the sentence immediately following the above is not given. The quote as it stands doesn’t really mean much when we’re talking an earth that is over 4 billion years old. A few hundred million years would be a few percent. The earth’s age is known to be 4.51 to 4.55 billion years (or within 1% of the true age).

The quote by Rheins was found here on this fundamentalist Christian site.

However, the full context is found here (pages 80-84). There may be other geology errors there, as the author is a biologist not a geologist. The quotation is this (I bold the missing sentence) :

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.”

HELLO? I can see why that sentence would be cut out by a creationist.

A little on Stansfield, from what I have found, he does have a Ph.D. in biology (not geology, or geochronology, so he is not an expert in radiometric or isotope dating like Dalrymple is), and his book “The Science of Evolution” appears to be a “sympathetic” look at creationism. It is not a study of the radiometric dating methods and results written by an expert in the field such as G. Brent Dalrymple, or Gunter Faure, or Allen P. Dickin for that matter. These are the experts.

In addition, that fundy creationist article begins with total nonsense:

“How old is planet Earth? There are enormous differences of opinion. The most common view is that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Others say it is older or younger. The lowest age defended on a scientific basis is in the 6 to 10 thousand year range.”

I repeat again, there is no “enormous difference of opinion” in the scientific community. The earth has been known to be 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old since the 1950s, and that result has been confirmed hundreds of thousands of times in labs around the world. The age of the earth has been known to be at least millions of years old since the 1800s. Anyone can read Dalrymple (or more technical, Faure, Dickin, and this anthology edited by Lewis and Knell which I found at USF, etc) on the methods and find this information, or books by evangelical Christian geologist Davis Young. A “young earth” is NOT defended on a “scientific basis” as I have shown in post #100 in this thread but by an appeal to the Genesis text even by Ph.D. “creationist geologists.” Can I be any clearer? I think I’m taking February off. Good night. 😃

Phil P
 
Another juicy quote from Rheins in post #85

Rheins << Who in the world do you think you are…Come down off your high horse Mr. Science. Where do you think all your knowledge came from…You were born not knowing how to say a single word…obviously your information comes from other people, as has every piece of information in the History of Science. Do me a favor, stop attacking and start addressing. I use quotes, because these people are experts in the field and could argue you under a table… >>

You can now apologize to Orogeny since your out of context quotation I have just addressed from William Stansfield. He is a biologist not a geologist, so he is not an expert in the field of the age of the earth, and you have taken him out of context by leaving out the next sentence.

Until you start referring to the mainstream scientists and mainstream scientific literature on the issue of the age of the earth, your posts on that issue are worthless. Let me see some quotations or evidence or data from Dalrymple, Faure, Dicken, and Lewis/Knell that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Those are the experts in the field of radiometric dating and age of the earth, and those are the only experts I or Orogeny will accept. 👍 Stop with the nonsense from DrDino, AnswersInGenesis, ICR, ChristianAnswers.net, Carl Baugh, and the Flintstones. 😃

Given up yet? Quote Dalrymple, Faure, Dicken, or Lewis/Knell on the age of the earth and radiometric dating. That’s it. No one else.

Phil P
 
Nope, not done yet. 😃 Here is another person you quoted in the dreaded post #31:

“Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years (excluding the carbon-14 method, which is useful for dating samples only a few thousand years old).”

You don’t provide the name, but this was Duane Gish from your fundamentalist ChristianAnswers.net site. Gish is not an expert in radiometric dating or the age of the earth either. I remind you who the experts are: Dalrymple, Faure, Dicken, and the Lewis/Knell volume. Or the U.S. Geological Survey, NOT DrDino, ICR, ChristianAnswers.net, AnswersInGenesis, KolbeCenter, Carl Baugh, Henry Morris, Fred Flintstone, Duane Gish, Barney Rubble, Bam-bam or Pebbles. 😃

And BTW, when I say quote only Dalrymple, Faure, Dicken, or Lewis/Knell, I mean GET YOURSELF TO THE LIBRARY and find these books, reading and quoting them IN CONTEXT.

Further, in case you forgot, this is what Gish says about his own creationism:

“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)

“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981)

Let’s summarize what Gish says about his own creationism:

(1) We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.

(2) We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.

(3) Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory.

Creationism is not a scientific theory according to Gish. Can he or I make that any clearer? I might take a break from the board February. You get me too upset. 😃

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
You won’t find claims of “no transitional fossils” advanced in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.
Phil P
Click to expand...
Notice how all of your posts must have the word “mainstream” in them

Hmmm…why is that?

BECAUSE IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE I GIVE YOU< YOU ARE SO STUBBORN YOU WOULDNT ACCEPT ABSOLUTE PROOF IF IT WERE GIVEN TO YOU.

Of course mainstream will claim they have found transitional fossils…just as they claimed they found transitional humans…LIES LIES LIES…Weve already seen that with all your ape-men. They duped you once, twice, three times…and you didnt learn…now they dupe you some more. They find fossils that they misidentify legs, arms, giraffe necks on fish fossils…whatever…they’ve lied to you before, but now you cling to their new 12 findings…HAHAHA…because NOW you know they didnt screw up, or commit fraudulent identifications…Good luck never accepting Creationist prof, but accepting proof from proven liars and frauds.

The only option for scientists evolution(*non-theistic, which most all scientists are.) is God, so they will never change their minds, they will never claim no transitional fossils exist…if they cant properly identify, and its not completely clear, they will say they have found these fossils…they MUST find them, or else their theory is bunk…so they will…even if its complete misidentification or outright fraud…

Someone like you, who claims evolution is absolute fact, is just to stubborn to even deal with. Im sorry, but you keep saying the same things and discrediting everything I give you because its not mainstream.

OF COURSE ITS NOT MAINSTREAM. I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS. YOU STILL HAVENT ADDRESSED THE MAINSTREAM CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO…THE MAINSTREAM FINDING OF PILTDOWN MAN…ETC… WHAT DOES MAINSTREAM PROVE?

NOTHING…GET OVER IT.

Just remember, you’re scientists(I would say 95% of them), do not believe in God…they are not Theistic Evolutionists, like a lot of you are…so be very careful of what you accept from their mouths…their obsession is to prove God doesnt exist, the same obsession of someone else we know about…He is the father of lies, so Im guessing lies and frauds are not too far from these guy’s vocabularies.

And once again, I do not have a problem with theistic evolution…maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t, but its all a theory…not a fact…which, AGAIN, has been my only contention throughout this entire thread. It cant be proven, and if you say it is for a fact, youre just wrong. Sorry
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Quote Dalrymple, Faure, Dicken, or Lewis/Knell on the age of the earth and radiometric dating. That’s it. No one else.
Phil P
Click to expand...
he he, Thanks for this…thats classic…Are these the only people I can quote. HAHAHAHA. I cant argue with shear ignorance and ridiculous statements like this. This one takes the cake. This goes in my annals of the worst logic and reason I have ever seen.

Well, then sir, you can only quote from Daffy Duck and the Road Runner to prove your side.

Classic evolutionary stuff right here, folks…you have seen it for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top