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: 19:39:54 06/11/99 Fri
Author: daniel
Subject: Re: Time CHECK
In reply to: Kevin 's message, "Re: Time CHECK" on 15:20:51 06/11/99 Fri


> Actually, you are the one who keeps bringing it up.
> The conclusion I draw is that you are trying
> desparately to discredit something you do not
> understand, nor care to learn about, because it
> disagrees with your predetermined conclusions.
>

I did not predetermine if C-14 would date the shroud to be 2000yrs old or 500yrs old, but I have heard both claims. So what should I believe?

> > 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.
> >
>
> C-14 has been checked and recalibrated against tree
> rings (as an example) and you know what - the
> corrected dates were older than the original date
> assumed. Sorry.
>

OK, I am corrected apparently by C-14, but other isotopes are not so friendly.

> > 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.
> >
>
> But we should be able to check our ideas against the
> physical evidence of God's creation - and the Word.
> David is only asking that you check your references.
>

Gee, I thought I was....


> You have asked several times "what was the purpose of
> the flood", I figured no matter what answer I gave I
> would get blasted, so I didn't answer. Now I ask you;
> what was the purpose of the flood?
>

To destroy the entire human race, except for the ones safely protected in the ark. OEC fails to deal with the likelyhood that man would evade a local flood (survival of the fittest).

> By the way, how did the weekend go?
>
One confirmed salvation. Many heard the simple declaration of the gospel.

BTW, before Jesus resurrected, He told his disciples to go and preach the gopsel....hmmm.

How could they preach the gospel without ressurection being a part of the good news?

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.