Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman
Either of these possibilities shows that the "young earth" and "creation some 6000 years ago" ideas are wrong.
They contradict your own theory, that's about it. It does not disprove or prove young-earth either way.
And even if both of these possibilities were subsequently shown to be wrong, that doesn't make your particular religious belief true.
By itself, this point does not further creationism a whole lot. It's just another two-pence tossed into the vault of evidence turned sour for evolutionists.
Why don't you try to visit your college library, and really look at a few dozen or a few hundred of the technical journals dealing with evolution.
Some time I should share with you some of the recent materials I have been perusing from scientific journals the past few months while the crevo wars here have been quiet.
You are not getting a straight story from AnswersinGenesis.
Did I detect a subtle twitch when you said that? Coyote, listen to me. This has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham didn't call me up and ask me to post this story, I didn't get any marching orders from Kent Hovind. (Well, he did ask me to help him break out of jail, but that's another story.) AiG may not even be aware of this story yet.

Bringing them into this as a personal attack against me hints at a psychological obsession.
22 posted on 04/02/2007 8:18:21 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: DaveLoneRanger
Either of these possibilities shows that the "young earth" and "creation some 6000 years ago" ideas are wrong.

They contradict your own theory, that's about it. It does not disprove or prove young-earth either way.

My theory? Debating the out-of-Africa theory (160,000 years ago) vs. the more recent China data (multiregional, probably both 160,000 and 40,000 years ago) does not contradict a 6000 years ago earth? You really need to read some science. Two different theories of out-of-Africa migration, both of which deal with hundreds of thousands of years of time don't contraindicate a 6000 year old earth?


And even if both of these possibilities were subsequently shown to be wrong, that doesn't make your particular religious belief true.

By itself, this point does not further creationism a whole lot. It's just another two-pence tossed into the vault of evidence turned sour for evolutionists.

It doesn't further YEC creationism at all. It contradicts it.


Why don't you try to visit your college library, and really look at a few dozen or a few hundred of the technical journals dealing with evolution.

Some time I should share with you some of the recent materials I have been perusing from scientific journals the past few months while the crevo wars here have been quiet.

You are cruising the internet looking for articles which, in your limited understanding, may serve to cast some doubt--any doubt--on evolution. That does not amount to an understanding of science.


You are not getting a straight story from AnswersinGenesis.

Did I detect a subtle twitch when you said that? Coyote, listen to me. This has nothing to do with Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham didn't call me up and ask me to post this story, I didn't get any marching orders from Kent Hovind. (Well, he did ask me to help him break out of jail, but that's another story.) AiG may not even be aware of this story yet. Bringing them into this as a personal attack against me hints at a psychological obsession.

Not interested in Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. They don't post here. You do. And you post anti-science nonsense, which you have admitted you get from AnswersinGenesis. And you have admitted you are doing apologetics (defense of religion), not science.

Post in the Religion Forum and you won't get any challenges from me as long as what you are posting is religious belief and does not pretend to be science. That's where you and I tangle. (Note tagline.)

26 posted on 04/02/2007 8:35:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson