Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[Mikeenders]

Since I never said that it's you who are the bare-faced liar. Again. The work on radiometric dating has been done and verified 100x over. It is not in doubt even a little. Only a liar or a complete ignoramus would say its veracity has not not confirmed.

Yawn. You are only proving you will just lie and keep on lying to save face for your lying . I never said that Radiometric dating was not confirmed. I said as is obvious that with science you should always be open to examining an issue not pronounce it unfalsifiable particularly when it is a historical science. You can't comprehend but then what else is new?

[Roy]

which the evidence of the rock strata has demonstrated that the earth is billions of years old and there is no evidence of a flood as portrayed in the Bible.

Sure there is particularly since the Hebrew word for earth is eretz and it does NOT have to be a worldwide flood spoken of in the Bible.

Not that you're going to actually provide any evidence, right?

Already did for anyone that has learned how to read - the word is eretz - means land not the whole world as anyone who can use Google can verify.

Thought not.

[HMS_Beagle]

You haven't provided any facts rogue. Your entire thesis is that your YEC brothers and sisters in Christ are more evil than you because they attack you on the issue of your Christianity and you attack them in other ways. Theres nothing sadder than watching someone name the name of Christ trying to navigate themselves around a direct command of Christ to love all brothers and sister in Christ.

Meter pegged.

340339-hypocrisy-meter.gif

[Mikeenders]

It was a conclusion based on limited observation and extrapolated to situations which had never been observed or tested. This is a recipe for making wrong conclusions.

lol......so in other words like anything that measures millions of years ago which has never been directly observed and has limitations (being historical) of being tested.

...and off he scoots, with a swift goal-post move and a passing suggestion to read links he hasn't posted.

Roy we are on page 13. Anyone can go back and see mutliple links to the original publication about soft tissue and the scientific consensus such a thing was highly unlikely due to what was known about decay. Your being blind as a bat is now confirmed.

[HMS_Beagle]

. I said as is obvious that with science you should always be open to examining an issue not pronounce it unfalsifiable particularly when it is a historical science.

Then go ahead and examine the issue, publish your results. Quit just running your mouth with lie after lie.

[Roy]

Total gibberish Jim. the claim that biological material does not last that long was not an outlier hypothesis made up by creationists.

Yeah, you said that before - but when asked for published references you skedaddled like an interrupted cockroach. Are you going to provide any references this time, or just scuttle under the door again?

If you don't have the brains to read the links that show the many publications that discuss why the find was controversial who even needs to bother with you Roy? scurry along like the cockroaches you referred to.

...and off he scoots, with a swift goal-post move and a passing suggestion to read links he hasn't posted.

What a waste of time he is.

[Mikeenders]

Thought not.

If thats all you got then you got to go with all you got.

[HMS_Beagle]

lol......so in other words like anything that measures millions of years ago which has never been directly observed and has limitations (being historical) of being tested.

Please quit with the dishonest word-twisting of what people actually said. It makes you look like a clown.

Unless you enjoy looking like a clown, in which case you're doing a fine job.

[JonF]

lol......so in other words like anything that measures millions of years ago which has never been directly observed and has limitations (being historical) of being tested.

Ah, the old "Were your there?" calumny.

[Mikeenders]

Please quit with the dishonest word-twisting of what people actually said. It makes you look like a clown.

Unless you enjoy looking like a clown, in which case you're doing a fine job.

to whom? You can go into mental wards where the crazies will think your sanity is crazy. Only difference is instead of walking into one My browser took me to visit with you....lol

Ah, the old "Were your there?" calumny.

no the old if you claim limitations for one understanding based on lack of access to verify it you logically must apply it across the board. Its known as the the old logic thing. You should try it some time.

[HMS_Beagle]

to whom?

To everyone reading this thread and I do mean everyone.

Your call Bozo.

[Mikeenders]

Your call Bozo.

Like I said - you got to go with all you have. If all you have in your wit and vocab resources is that then can't wrong you for using all you have the capacity to use.

[HMS_Beagle]

Like I said - you got to go with all you have.

That's why I go with decades' worth of the professional science literature, millions of peer-reviewed technical papers, and you go with Ham and Hovind's YECkie follies.

Bozo. And you're still too cowardly to give us your explanation for angular unconformities.

[Mikeenders]

That's why I go with decades' worth of the professional science literature, millions of peer-reviewed technical papers, and you go with Ham and Hovind's YECkie follies.

LOL...... I am not a YEC. Like I said its so hilarious - you have no idea how to handle anyone that is not a 6,000 year old entire world flood YEC. Unable to come up with anything substantitive you have to try and claim I am because you are too incompetent to deal with anything else (talkorigins doesn't cover that apparently). Give me another joke to brighten my day!

[HMS_Beagle]

LOL...... I am not a YEC.

Doesn't matter. You're arguing YEC points using YEC moronic PRATT claims, YEC scientific ignorance, and YEC cowardly evasions of scientific data. You're not really an idiot, you just play one on the web.