lkeithlu
Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Just to save y'all the agony of loading 275+ posts:
276
Indium
04/12/2011
3:50 am
So radiometric dating, which has demonstrated its usefulness thousands of times, which has been tested for objects with known ages probably hundreds of times, which gives results that are consistent with many completely independend methods, which has an amazingly large body of knowledge and supporting theory behind it, with papers being published almost on a daily basis, which has been the topic of complete text books (Dalrymple and many more) with lots of examples and fully worked out test cases is not a good tool and the incredibly weak “where you there” argument applies.
FSCI however, a term somebody on the internet invented, a term that can´t really be defined let alone be demonstrated for various theoretical or practical test cases and which in any case just calculates the chance hypotheses for the tornado in the junkyard scenario, that is a reliable tool and “where you there” does not apply?
The mind boggles.
Oh, and sorry if I really pushed
“ridiculous things into your mouth that don´t belong there.”
There really is no need to. My apologies.
If you don´t mind, I am still interested in the link to the paper mentioning the 9ky age for the Lascaux cave. Also, please back up your claim that 200y old lava has been dated to be millions of years old. This is a well known creationist misrepresentation as far as I know.
277
Collin
04/12/2011
4:29 am
Indium,
a debater with a strong case doesn’t need to resort to insults.
278
KL
04/12/2011
4:44 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Collin, a debater with extraordinary claims that has the detailed evidence to back it up and a better explanation than the existing paradigm need not resort to evasion, philosophical arguments or changing the topic. I suspect that not only does this paradigm not explain the evidence, the folks here don’t know anything about the evidence. I have yet to see any details about the hominid fossils explained here using any other paradigm, which was the extraordinary claim on the original thread that spawned THIS thread.
The posters here dismiss the work of countless scientists as fantasy and delusion, yet show no knowledge of the fossil record. I’ve had Plato, the Bible, and quotemines from Gould tossed my way but after almost 280 posts, no explanation regarding the specifics of the fossil record. Anthropologists use dating, biometrics, geology, and comparisons to existing species and other fossils in their explanation; I expect nothing less from someone who claims to have a better paradigm.
Oh, and my posts are held in moderation for hours, but that seems to be getting a bit better.
|
