VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:33:53 06/10/99 Thu
Author: daniel
Subject: Re: Time CHECK
In reply to: David C. Wise 's message, "Re: Time continued" on 08:38:40 06/10/99 Thu

>
> >
> > >

> In the meantime, could you please answer question #2
> and explain exactly what it is that you are trying to
> say with this claim? Are you indeed trying to say
> that the amount of rate change is sufficient to make
> 10,000-year-old rock falsely appear to be billions of
> years old?
>
> > >

As I have stated many times, especially to you, I do not claim to be a scientist. In the above case, Keven brought up RMD and I knew that Gary said that there are certain conditions that can cause changes to RMD. That is it. You can draw any conclusion from my writings as you desire.

There is significant problems with the overall aspect of dating, and that you are not ignorant of. I do not care if we focus on C-14 or K Ar or any other number of isotopes. As far as I know the parent daughter ratio cannot be known, and there are assumptions made to even allow the process of RMD to move forward.

I do not claim to KNOW anything about RMD. I calim to KNOW biblical hermeneutics. If you look at the title of this forum, you can see that nothing regarding the purpose of this forum has been brought forth by someone claiming some level of expertise.

> > > Does this mean that you have finally seen the light
> > > about creation science?
> >
> > Yes, I have seen the light. It is clear that you do
> > not understand sarcasm. I will not write in this
> tone
> > again. If you honestly believe that ALL articles in
> > Creation Ex Nihilo are false, then your prejudice has
> > seen fit to blind you.
> >
> Darn. And here you almost had me believing in
> miracles. <gr>
>
(@ @)

Bunch o stuff removed about metalanguage....

> >> If you honestly believe that ALL articles in
> Creation Ex Nihilo are false, then your prejudice has
> seen fit to blind you.<<
>
> Complain not about the mote in my eye until you have
> attended to the boulder in yours.
>
> I did not say that I believe that ALL articles in
> Creation Ex Nihilo are false.

I did, and that should have been evidence of my sarcasm. ALL is a big word, and so extreme that NOT EVEN YOU, would except the proposition. That should have been sufficient, but for those that require additional metadata I will add the appropriate :^P

> Daniel, do I need to remind you that I have said that
> there are a number of serious creationists who are
> making honest attempts to find actual scientific
> evidence supporting YEC? And I believe that I have
> also told you that most of them are very bothered by
> the ICR and its ilk (which I believe includes the
> Australian creationists who include the Ex Nihilo
> people) and by they damage being done through their
> creation science.

Please provide a list of these "creationists" so that I can learn from them.

In the end Dave, I believe that your intellectualism will be your one downfall. I assume that you are someone who actually accepts absolute truth.

Do you believe that all truth is relative? Do you believe that absolutely?

If you are a truth seeker, and honestly desire truth...

Then you ought to seek truth from those that not only claim to "know" the truth, to have "heard" the truth, but most importantly you ought to seek out the one that claimed, not to know it ot to have heard it, but to actually be it.

Has anyome ever claimed to BE the truth?

If so, then one who cares to know the truth and literally claims to be a seeker of truth, should prove the authenticity of their beliefs by confronting the one that claimed to BE truth.

If the one that makes such an extraordinary claim can be proved a fool, then the foolishness can be forgotten, but if truth is absolute then you will find HIM. Prove you are a seeker of truth. Ask..., Knock...., Seek....

Daniel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.