Posted on 03/09/2005 10:19:19 AM PST by ZGuy
As the story goes, on a flight across northern AZ a pilot told a blond flight attendant to take a look out the cockpit window to see the meteorite crater way down below. "Wow, that was a close one" she said, "that darn thing almost hit that highway!"
I haven't lied. Stop making baseless accusations. You can't prove it happened 50,000 years ago any more than you can prove it happened yesterday. It's a matter of faith in other men and their assumptions.
It wasn't a wide scattering of multiple meteorites...what they're saying is it wasn't a coherent big block when it hit; it was a grouping of pieces that were all right next to each other.
Where are all the meteor pieces now? Wouldnt they be close by?
[newgeezer:] It's a matter of faith. Good luck getting them to admit it, though.
[Ich.:] Please stop repeating lies.
I haven't lied. Stop making baseless accusations.
I didn't say that *you* lied, I said that you were repeating lies (lies told by others) which you made the mistake of believing. I stand by that statement.
You can't prove it happened 50,000 years ago any more than you can prove it happened yesterday.
If you mean "prove" in the common sense of the word, yes I can, actually.
If you mean "prove" in the strict mathematical sense, then I can't, but then by that standard almost nothing can be "proven". It can't be proven that the Earth is actually not flat, for example (all the apparent evidence of its roundness may be misleading in a way we haven't yet realized). But that doesn't mean that it would be accurate for some stubborn Freeper to post something as clueless as "the round-Earth view is a matter of faith, but good luck getting them to admit it."
Hint: Just because something can't be proven with 100.00% certainty in a mathematical sense, that doesn't mean that it reduces to being nothing but a "matter of faith" either.
There are multiple, independent lines of evidence, involving well-understood and repeatedly tested methods based on principles that are very well-established and verified, all of which produce an age of close to 50,000 years for the crater.
So far from being a "matter of faith" or a "guess" or an "assumption" as others here have incorrectly claimed, it's *way* up there on the scale which has "untested matter of faith" at the bottom, and "something proven beyond all doubt" at the top. The age of the crater is based on independently confirming lines of evidence and well-established principles. It has a great deal of *support*, a very firm foundation. So as I said earlier, it's repeating a lie to dismiss it as being nothing more than an unsupported "matter of faith".
It's a matter of faith in other men and their assumptions.
No, it isn't. Since you don't understand the procedures and methods and how they have been repeatedly verified and independently confirmed countless times, please don't post your presumptions about them as if they were fact. There's enough of that from the liberal side.
"Arizona Meteorite Crater Mystery Solved"
Funny, I figured "Meteorite Crater" pretty much solved it right there.
But the details are interesting.
That's not what I said, but since you're in the mood to confess, I hear it's good for the soul.
thanks for dredging up and old thread to point that out to me.
The thread has been active for the past couple days. But if you don't want your errors corrected -- even a month or so later -- then don't post your misconceptions, stick to facts next time.
Really made my day. Thanks.
I was more concerned with ensuring that your falsehoods were challenged so that they would not mislead others, than I was about your preserving your feelings. If you don't like having it pointed out when you post inaccurate fantasies as if they were facts, then perhaps you should resolve not to do it in the future.
So you say.
We'll see.
Two issues with your statement.
Genesis and the four of the first five books of the Bible are generally believed to have been written by Moses. One of the five books that Moses wrote says that God told Moses to record certain historical facts. The "presumption" therefore is that Genesis and the history of the earth which predated Moses, is part of those historical facts.
That Moses was raised a prince in Pharoah's court also lends credence to the fact that Moses would have been literate and able to write.
As far as the overwhelming evidence, it really boils down to two evidences.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Authur C. Clark
Two issues with your statement.
Genesis and the four of the first five books of the Bible are generally believed to have been written by Moses. One of the five books that Moses wrote says that God told Moses to record certain historical facts. The "presumption" therefore is that Genesis and the history of the earth which predated Moses, is part of those historical facts.
That Moses was raised a prince in Pharoah's court also lends credence to the fact that Moses would have been literate and able to write.
As far as the overwhelming evidence, it really boils down to two evidences.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Authur C. Clark
"Genesis and the four of the first five books of the Bible are generally believed to have been written by Moses."
Weeellll, ec-tually, that ain't 'zactly true. See "Asimov's Guide to the Bible."
"The "presumption" therefore is that Genesis and the history of the earth which predated Moses, is part of those historical facts."
As I tried to argue in the note to which you reply, God gives us explanations we can deal with. I very much doubt that people in Moses' time could deal with light years or units of a billion years.
"That Moses was raised a prince in Pharoah's court also lends credence to the fact that Moses would have been literate and able to write."
Which doesn't mean that he was in any way equipped to deal with some of the things we now know that God did. Moses had no idea, for instance, just how big the universe is. He didn't even know what the stars are.
"As far as the overwhelming evidence, it really boils down to two evidences."
No, there's a lot more than that. For instance, there is the matter of second- and third-generation stars. There is the matter of the sheer numbers of layers of fossil rock. For all of those to have occurred in 6,000 years would shrink the era of the dinosaurs down to, I don't know, a day or two, probably.
"Speed of Light. We haven't figured out how light can travel the distances, it would have to travel to reach us, unless the universe is very old. But the fact that we can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the timeframe specified in the Bible."
I don't think you've studied Descartes' treatment of the notion that God is an evil deceiver.
Every attempt to explain away the geological evidence and fossil record boils down to an argument that God is an evil deceiver. Since God is not an evil deceiver, those arguments cannot be valid.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Authur C. Clark
"Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Gregory Benford
Are you done ranting now?
Because if so, I'd like to point out that your first post on this thread -- the one I first responded to -- was "mocking and insulting", not to mention arrogant, sarcastic, devoid of any real substance, and entirely lacking in rational debate. And it was *wrong*, to boot. It was just a long-winded exercise in mocking and insulting the people who have spent years of hard work studying things like this, by posting your fantasies about how they "toss out a vague estimate" or what they "liked best", etc. What you *don't* know about this subject would fill volumes, yet that didn't stop you from spouting off your ignorance and insults as if they were established fact.
So don't lecture *me* about "personal attacks", about not engaging in "rational debate", about "how to treat other people", etc., when my posts didn't even equal, much less exceed, the obnoxiousness of your own "contributions" to this thread.
And for pete's sake, if you can't stand some criticism -- and clearly you can't, given your outraged responses -- don't be the first one to throw stones. Sheesh.
It doesn't look like *I'm* the one who needs to "grow up". Don't waste any more of my time with your hurt feelings, and go see to that beam in your own eye.
You got that right!
You should start your own.
False. This has been explained to you before.
and levels of contamination and leaching.
Wrong. This has been explained to you before.
The kind of radiometric dating that was most common was Argon dating, but Creationist experiments, proved false the assumption that all Argon boils out of lava.
Wrong. What they "proved" was that if you're a dishonest creationist who fails to clean his sample properly so that he'll get a bogus "result" he can use to try to dishonestly ridicule Argon dating as "inaccurate", then you'll expose yourself as a charlatan.
Thus much of the dating that has occurred is assumptions built upon assumptions built upon assumptions built upon a technique now known as flawed.
Horse crap. Why are you repeating this lie, when the facts have been pointed out to you previously? Do you do it out of dishonesty, or incompetence? Please answer that question.
Also please answer the question that has been posed to countless of you "dating methods doubters" repeatedly, never with a satisfactory answer (and usually with no answer at all): If these dating methods are allegedly so unreliable and/or based on so many faulty "assumption", then WHY DO MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT DATING METHODS -- BASED ON INDEPENDENT PROCEDURES AND "ASSUMPTIONS" -- ALL GIVE ANSWERS THAT MATCH EACH OTHER? That's a mighty big "coincidence" for what you claim are wildly inaccurate methods, wouldn't you say?
Is the clue phone ringing yet?
Speed of Light. We haven't figured out how light can travel the distances, it would have to travel to reach us, unless the universe is very old.
Because it couldn't, but that's no problem, because it is that old.
But the fact that we can't figure it out, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the timeframe specified in the Bible.
You have a very vivid imagination.
Read some of the physics threads and you will quickly discover that our theories of how the Universe came to be are in shambles.
The fact that the theories seem confusing to you is not the same thing as the theories being in confusion.
We just don't know.
Actually, "we" know a great deal, even if you don't.
Even the best theories today, rely on things like space inflating at faster than the speed of light
...which is a well established fact, and contrary to your mistaken implication, it violates no physical laws whatsoever.
and abundant dark energy.
So?
DannyTN, I've repeatedly asked you to stop repeating nonsense from creationist sites as if it even remotely approached a reliable source on scientific issues, and instead go *learn* some actual science (from actual scientific sources -- creationist tracts don't count). Why have you repeatedly ignored my advice? We really do have better things to do than correct all of the misconceptions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods that you post.
It seems sometimes that we are trying to fit square pegs into round holes when we discuss science type things on a political forum. But, I agree that we should have a science forum and have suggested that also.
"For instance, there is the matter of second- and third-generation stars. There is the matter of the sheer numbers of layers of fossil rock. For all of those to have occurred in 6,000 years would shrink the era of the dinosaurs down to, I don't know, a day or two, probably. "
There was a thread last week where a star regenerated 100 times faster than scientists had thought possible. Mt. St. Helens laid down 25 feet of layered rock in just a few hours.
"I don't think you've studied Descartes' treatment of the notion that God is an evil deceiver."
I'm familiar with it. It goes like this. If God didn't make it impossible for man in his arrogance and in his limited knowledge to misinterpret his observations and conclude that God is wrong, then God must be evil. I think it's bullshit. God is under no obligation to save man from his arrogance. God told us the truth, if man want's to imagine the evidence says something else and that God is evil, that's man's problem, not God's.
God warns us in 2 Peter 3 that in the last days men will assume that everything continued as it has from the beginning and because of that assumption will forget the flood and the creation. And that's exactly what evolution and long age mentality has done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.