Occam's Aftershave
Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
AFDave the Cowardly Lyin’ sobs
| Quote | | They don't? This was one of the points I was going to discuss regarding the RATE project. Apparently, the RATE team thinks they support 6000 years. But again, we shall see when we get there. I won't make any firm statements until I examine the evidence myself. |
No, they don’t. The RATE findings on C14 only say that coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old. They say nothing about the span from 58,000 YBP to 6000 YBP. And you have made many firm statements that there is no evidence for humans older than 6000 YBP, even though evidence was held up right in front of your face. Another day, another batch of lies from AFDave.
| Quote | | Hey now ... surely people here can take a few jokes, no? Like I twisted Steve Story's statement about his friend and the meteor analysis a little while ago, but it was an obvious distortion meant to simply poke fun. You can dish it out, but you can't take it? |
Oh, like Dembski’s street theater bit. You can lie and twist people’s words, but when you get caught it was all just a silly joke.
| Quote | | Now why don't you back up your claim of me lying and give me an example. |
OK Washout. On June 04 2006,23:24 AFDave wrote
| Quote | | Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in. Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in |
That’s a lie Dave, pure and simple. It’s not you joking around, it’s not an honest misunderstanding, it’s a lie. It’s a lie on your part to avoid responsibility for admitting the fact that the RATE results you champion were not properly peer reviewed by qualified, unbiased geologists. Want to prove it’s not a willful lie on your part? Then provide a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs.
| Quote | | This probably ranks up there as the supreme example of the 'pot calling the kettle black.' As for proselytizing, I'm not. This applies to religion and I'm not religious. We've been over that. Religious people are about rituals and candles and robes and homina-hominas. I'm about the truth about Origins. I'm simply here to show you why the ToE and billions of years is incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and why the Biblical model of Creation and the Flood is much better supported. |
“I’m not religious, but….
| Quote | Posted by AFDave: April 18 2006,08:32
I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.
Posted by AFDave: May 01 2006,12:06
This is exactly what I see in this one critical area of science today, i.e. the area of Origins and the Nature of Mankind and the issue of God. |
…I just want you to believe as I do in a literal Bible, especially the Biblical model of Creation and the Flood”
(OA shakes head and chuckles) THAT piece of AFDave “logic” needs no comment. You’re really gonna make Baby Jesus cry now.
Time to be a man and ‘fess up Dave – You got caught lying, and you keep trying to wriggle out by telling more lies about the data that’s been presented, and your motives, and your desire to learn.
Did you look up “thou shalt not bear false witness” and the Golden Rule in you Bible yet?
--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."
- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
|
