Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Perpetual_student

If the Earth is only 6.000 years old...

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, popoi said:

Here's me in a more recent thread providing the list and your previous responses to it.  It wasn't completely 1 through 10 but as I said there, you seemed to have trouble even arguing the first item on the list.

Even if you think this list is incorrect, it has been provided, now at least 3 times.  I didn't find it but I think piasan posted one as well at some point.

I recall one time suggesting a possible first 3 or 4 on his list of 10 but the whole argument is based on irreducible complexity so I give it little attention.  It's also based on a fallacy that if we don't know everything, we don't know anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"Science is built on the assumption of the regularity of nature"  WRONG... If the "regularity of nature" were to be assumed, Planet Earth WOULD LOOK LIKE MARS.....

 

But we have INFORMATION.. And Information  ALWAYS comes from a mental source... without exception.....

 

It is a fools errand to pretend that self replicating DNA molecules were able to somehow emerge, uncaused, from heat, water, and random chemicals.... TRYING TO PRETEND that it happened "Naturally" is intellectually dishonest to an extreme and takes MUCH MORE FAITH then believing we were created by a supernatural intelligence agent for a reason!!

You can hide behind the word "Naturalism" But it fails miserably when confronted with the face of reason....Good luck with Chuck...

 

"The likelihood (probability) of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." 

Sir Frederick "Fred" Hoyle  Considered the greatest British physicist of the 20th century

This thread is about archaeology, more specifically the cave paintings of Altamira, not evolution, the origin of life or anything else. 

Let us keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, indydave said:

You might like to wear the emperor's fine new clothes and pretend that naturalism has good answers for everything but I believe someone who is not the dedicated adherent to naturalism you are, and who has instead ruled IN the possibility of a supernatural creator, would say that some things are not very well explained naturalistically. I can think of two examples right off the top of my head but I'm sure there are quite a few others.

I would agree that there are some things that are not (presently) very well explained naturalistically.  That's why scientists still have jobs.  What I don't agree with is this tendency for people pushing for a supernatural explanation to declare any gap or failure no matter how temporary as the final death of naturalism.  The problem is that they've been doing that since people started trying to find explanations for things, and I would guess that the majority of the number of times someone has said "Aha!  You can't find a natural explanation for this because there isn't one, only God/Zeus/Loki/whatever can explain this!" a natural explanation was subsequently found.

29 minutes ago, indydave said:

Naturalism can give good answers but they are only the next best answers. (Yes I know Mary Schweitzer herself is not a naturalist but her work is under the scrutiny of many who are naturalists.)

The only sense in which a supernatural explanation is better is if it happens to be correct.  As I mentioned before, supernatural explanations fall short in basically any other measure, including the ability to know whether the explanation is correct or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 3:46 AM, Perpetual_student said:

I know what a scientific paradigm is. But the scientific community has in the past been able to see what when the paradigm of that day was wrong, and adapted to a new paradigm -- reluctantly sometimes, but it happened.

It discarded the geocentric model for Galileo's heliocentric model.

It accepted Newton's physics.

Later more and more data showed flaws in newtonian physics and both quantum physics and the theory of relativity were accepted.

The reliability of dating methods don't fall under the concept of what Karl Popper meant with a scientific paradigm.

So my questions stand. If these dating methods are unreliable -- assuming for a moment that Killurbluff's is correct -- , then why do archaeologists still use them?

 

"I know what a scientific paradigm is. But the scientific community..."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY" ISNT THAT CLEAR NOW?

 

"So my questions stand. If these dating methods are unreliable -- assuming for a moment that Killurbluff's is correct -- , then why do archaeologists still use them?"

 

The answer to your question is a PHILOSOPHICAL / PRACTICAL one. Not ALL archeologists use those dating methods (That are well known to be flawed) Many use them, and many

of them do so because they have an A Priori commitment to Methodological Naturalism..  I already told you, Many of them share the belief of "We cannot allow a

divine foot in the door" A few of them were honest about it, you didn't like it when you were quoted one of the more prominent ones, you said that his comment was

"Stupid", but it wasn't "Stupid"  it was HONEST..   I seem to get the impression that you have been assured that Scientists are these righteous paragons of virtue that

are purveyors of unbiased conclusions and are only interested in the truth, WHETHER OR NOT the truth suits their worldview, interests, beliefs, status, credibility, or ability

to pursue or advance their career... DONT BE FOOLED...  

 

ARCHEOLOGISTS WILL USE WHATEVER DATING METHODS THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST!!!   IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE!  (HUMAN NATURE!)

 

By the Way.... Instead of "Peer Review" I call it "Peer PRESSURE Review"  (Much more accurate)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

Nice.

Now If I compare this with a previous post of you

Tell me how or why the current scientific paradigm has brought the teams of archaeologists to measure an age of 36.000 years for the paintings in the Altamira cave.

As for the part in red. The "old ages" are not assumed, but measured

 

But is that not rather obvious from what I had already posted. The archaeologists did not measure age (who claims that?), did you think that radiometric dating methods did measure time?

The archaeologists conducts experiment with equipment and interpret the results. And the paradigm tells them how the experiments should be conducted, what kind of equipment they should use and also how the results of the experiment should be interpreted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

The answer to your question is a PHILOSOPHICAL / PRACTICAL one. Not ALL archeologists use those dating methods (That are well known to be flawed) Many use them, and many of them do so because they have an A Priori commitment to Methodological Naturalism..  I already told you, Many of them share the belief of "We cannot allow a divine foot in the door" A few of them were honest about it, you didn't like it when you were quoted one of the more prominent ones, you said that his comment was "Stupid", but it wasn't "Stupid"  it was HONEST..   I seem to get the impression that you have been assured that Scientists are these righteous paragons of virtue that are purveyors of unbiased conclusions and are only interested in the truth, WHETHER OR NOT the truth suits their worldview, interests, beliefs, status, credibility, or ability to pursue or advance their career... DONT BE FOOLED...  

ARCHEOLOGISTS WILL USE WHATEVER DATING METHODS THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST!!!   IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE!  (HUMAN NATURE!)

By the Way.... Instead of "Peer Review" I call it "Peer PRESSURE Review"  (Much more accurate)

I have to sort of agree with Blitzking on this. Not because I think archaeologists are incompetent or a sad lot. And not because they are all anti-theistic, even if some are. 

But because of how funding of such work usually work. I listened to the Nobel prize winners and they said that a problem today is that much of the scientific research are quite short sighted. And that is because you usually only get a research grant for at most 3 years, and after that you are expected to produce some sort of report that ensures your next research grant. In the light of that it's easy to see that you tend to look for things that stands out, in order to secure further funding.

It might not be about money per se, but about career and scientific acknowledgement. And to achieve that it's much easier to work within the given paradigm. Those who try to break the paradigm will probably be called pseudo-scientists and loose their funding. So it could be quite a lot at stake for the individual scientist if he/she wants to think outside the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, indydave said:

Thanks much,Pi, for that welcome! It's pretty great that we developed a good friendship even though we have been sometimes even a bit harsh toward each other here.

By the time that happened, we'd been discussing Brown on CoCBanned for several years.  We've probably had less than a dozen really testy messages to each other in literally thousands of communications.  You've always had my respect for your efforts to learn a difficult subject (physics) in order to defend Brown's model.   One of the things about friends is that they can occasionally get a little frustrated and vent a bit.

 

8 hours ago, indydave said:

You've been really great to keep in touch with me even though I haven't posted  for a long time.

Over the years, you have become an internet friend.  You had shared that you were going through some really tough times on multiple fronts.  I was concerned.

 

3 hours ago, indydave said:

I still don't know whether I should be using the remainder of my life to do more writing or less but I still have hopes that our discussions will be fruitful.

One of the things being a teacher has taught me is that we never know when some offhand comment or minor deed will impact someone and possibly change their lives.  Lurkers outnumber participants in these forums.  They are the ones who are most likely to be fence-sitters who are seeking information and/or open to persuasion.

We never know when we might happen on something unexpected.  I stumbled on this website when I was doing research on Brown.  What I ran into was someone in this forum citing my work.  A few years ago, a friend from my high school days who I hadn't heard from since my first wedding contacted me out of the blue .... again, having seen the Brown analysis.

There are fruits, but most likely we'll never see them.....

 

4 hours ago, indydave said:

 I think it would be beneficial to perhaps let the atheist evolutionists battle the theistic evolutionists for a while. It seems like that would be a more significant battleground on which to fight.  Has there been any of that here?

I'm the only active TE here.  Gneiss lists as TE, but ID seems better suited to her position.  In a half dozen topics on theistic evolution, the atheists haven't commented much on matters of philosophy or theology.  Since TE is in agreement with mainstream science (as far as it goes) there has been no "battle" with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, popoi said:

I would agree that there are some things that are not (presently) very well explained naturalistically.  That's why scientists still have jobs.  What I don't agree with is this tendency for people pushing for a supernatural explanation to declare any gap or failure no matter how temporary as the final death of naturalism.  The problem is that they've been doing that since people started trying to find explanations for things, and I would guess that the majority of the number of times someone has said "Aha!  You can't find a natural explanation for this because there isn't one, only God/Zeus/Loki/whatever can explain this!" a natural explanation was subsequently found.

The only sense in which a supernatural explanation is better is if it happens to be correct.  As I mentioned before, supernatural explanations fall short in basically any other measure, including the ability to know whether the explanation is correct or not.

"supernatural explanations fall short in basically any other measure,"

Trying to explain supernatural events by using natural explanations is even worse... and counter intuitive...

 

The Big Bang for example.. In the beginning "Nothing" expanded for no reason by accident and "Naturally"

created all of the matter in our finely tuned universe and all of the elements of the periodic table to boot is NOT

a satisfactory explanation for ANYONE but extremely insulting to everyone's intelligence...

 

Then we can move on to how DNA arrived on the scene.... Oh well... forget it...

 

See the source image

See the source image

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

"supernatural explanations fall short in basically any other measure,"

Trying to explain supernatural events by using natural explanations is even worse... and counter intuitive...

 

The Big Bang for example.. In the beginning "Nothing" expanded for no reason by accident and "Naturally"

created all of the matter in our finely tuned universe and all of the elements of the periodic table to boot is NOT

a satisfactory explanation for ANYONE but extremely insulting to everyone's intelligence...

 

Then we can move on to how DNA arrived on the scene.... Oh well... forget it...

 

See the source image

See the source image

This thread is about archaeology, more specifically the cave paintings of Altamira, not evolution, not nucleosynthesis, not the Big Bang, not the origin of life or anything else. 

Let us keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, indydave said:

Hahaha! That was what took me so long. I pondered long enough to become an atheist and then LONGER to realize how wrong I was...and becoming of sound mind again!

 

I've have had to deal with some personal challenges including a pretty difficult downsize move, and adjusting my lifestyle to living on a smaller retirement income, as well as dealing with learning I had colon cancer, which now seems to be in remission. But I am not out of the woods yet about that. I still don't know whether I should be using the remainder of my life to do more writing or less but I still have hopes that our discussions will be fruitful. I think it would be beneficial to perhaps let the atheist evolutionists battle the theistic evolutionists for a while. It seems like that would be a more significant battleground on which to fight.  Has there been any of that here?

I personally have seen no such back and forth in regards to any Atheistic Evolution vs Theistic Evolution... But it would indeed be interesting to see if any major contentions arise, other than 'God'...

I do not think there would be any at all as i do not see any differences between the 2.....

I must say i have read literally hundreds of your post here along with M.T.W.s, Bonediggers, piasans, Blitzkings, Mr. Willams, Bob Enyarts, Enochs and a few others.

I first came across your renderings on youtube at a Abiogenesis video by James Downard, and appreciated your concise rebuttals along with Blitzkings (Jim's).. That is how i 1st came to this most appreciated and needed site (IMO)...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tirian said:

I have to sort of agree with Blitzking on this. Not because I think archaeologists are incompetent or a sad lot. And not because they are all anti-theistic, even if some are. 

But because of how funding of such work usually work. I listened to the Nobel prize winners and they said that a problem today is that much of the scientific research are quite short sighted. And that is because you usually only get a research grant for at most 3 years, and after that you are expected to produce some sort of report that ensures your next research grant. In the light of that it's easy to see that you tend to look for things that stands out, in order to secure further funding.

It might not be about money per se, but about career and scientific acknowledgement. And to achieve that it's much easier to work within the given paradigm. Those who try to break the paradigm will probably be called pseudo-scientists and loose their funding. So it could be quite a lot at stake for the individual scientist if he/she wants to think outside the box.

Although the search for grants is a nuisance in the scientific endeavor, this does not apply here. Artificially dating archaeological findings as older than they really are will not make research institutes open their wallet. Archaeologists, just like any other scientist seeks to uncover the truth. In acquiring grants completely other criteria are applied, like how much new knowledge about ancient civilization will be gained, not just how old the site or civilization is.


So why do they date the oldest paintings back to 36.000 years old

  • will full deceit for grants -- how does that even work?
  • bible hating -- why then specifically 36.000 years?
  • incompetence?
  • Because that's it's true age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Trying to explain supernatural events by using natural explanations is even worse...

Like I said, the only advantage of a supernatural explanation is if it happens to be true.  And that's only if a correctness that's useless and impossible to verify can be said to be a virtue.

6 hours ago, Blitzking said:

and counter intuitive...

You and Lewontin are on the same page here.  The difference is that Lewontin understands that counter-intuitive does not mean incorrect.

6 hours ago, Blitzking said:

The Big Bang for example.. In the beginning "Nothing" expanded for no reason by accident and "Naturally"

created all of the matter in our finely tuned universe and all of the elements of the periodic table to boot is NOT

a satisfactory explanation for ANYONE but extremely insulting to everyone's intelligence...

I'm sure you don't find it satisfactory, but I suspect that's because your sole metric for whether a theory is satisfying is whether it fits with your religious beliefs.

The other problem is that you're only considering theories which you consider to be incorrect.  I'm sure mike will be along any second to chide you for it as he has other people, but I do think we have to consider how this reasoning would have worked out historically.  Suppose we were having this discussion in the mid 1700's.  You might point out that while Newton came up with a mostly natural explanation of planetary motion, he invoked a supernatural explanation for certain aspects he was unable to explain.  With the advantage of hindsight, we know that Laplace was able to offer a natural explanation of those things soon after, but it seems like the reasoning of the supernatural explanation advocates here would indicate we should have stopped with Newton and accepted that there is no such explanation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, popoi said:

He more or less explains it in the lines that follow what you quoted:

Science is built on the assumption of the regularity of nature.  Irregularity of nature is fundamentally incompatible with that.  If you make an appeal to an irregularity to explain something, how can you ever stop?  How can you prove or disprove anything if any claim of "X doesn't work that way" can be countered with "But what if God changed X"?

 

Also perpetual_student already sort of pointed this out, but "look at what this biologist said" is poor support for the idea that archaeologists are out to get creationists to such an extent that they're willing to discard the possibility of producing any accurate results.

If the facts actually supported Genesis, all that would mean is that science isn't a useful tool for discussing origins, and in my opinion anything else.  Genesis is completely unsuitable for scientific discussion.  That doesn't mean it's false, just that we can't really say anything about it from a scientific perspective other than "It's not scientific".  I don't see it as much different than saying "We can't allow any checkers pieces in to this chess game".

"If the facts actually supported Genesis"  

 

They do.. all of the fossils...tightly sifted and delineated strata,... "living fossils" ...Cambrian explosion followed by complete stasis...mans 10 Interlinked VITAL Organs... Dinosaur red blood cells and Carbon 14 ... the existence  of DNA.... (I could go on for a long time here... Believe it!!) Prove that to be the case..

So now you have this "tool" you call Science.. By which you attempt to explain away off of the facts that I mentioned (and more) by way of a "Naturalistic" means..... It would show much more integrity and intellectual honesty if the term METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM Were to be utilized instead, dont you think? 

Remember...

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.  I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology)  

 

"I'm sure you don't find it satisfactory, but I suspect that's because your sole metric for whether a theory is satisfying is whether it fits with your religious beliefs"

NAH.. Sounds like classic Projection..

My sole metric is what the truth is. Whether I like the truth or not is irrelevant.. 

in the beginning "Nothing" created everything from eyes to fall colors by accident for no reason isnt satisfactory to me OR ANYONE ELSE It has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.. But Because it is pure Hogwash and everyone and I mean EVERYONE knows it..

Logic, Memes, and Work: THE HUMAN EYE NEEDS  ABOUT 40 SUBSYSTEMS  ALL WORKING TOGETHER  AND IN HARMONY WITH  EACH OTHER...  LOGICALLY... THEY ALL HAD  TO APPEAR INSTANTLY  TOGETHER OR WE  WOULD ALL BE BLIND SCIENCE!! ~ J

 

Mt Washington Road, New Hampshire. Photo: Getty

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, popoi said:

Assuming there's a naturalistic explanation for things has a pretty solid track record in terms of producing useful explanations.  The problem with the supernatural explanation option other than the havoc it plays with figuring anything out in the first place is that it doesn't really offer any of the good features of a scientific explanation.

This comment should be objected to by ALL theists... Including the theistic evolutionists. But we never hear them say a word against atheists because they view the atheists as allies regarding young Earth. So Pi... Please comment on this and tell us whether this statement is true. It's about time for you to make a stand for your creator!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

"If the facts actually supported Genesis"  

 

They do.. all of the fossils...tightly sifted and delineated strata,... "living fossils" ...Cambrian explosion followed by complete stasis...mans 10 Interlinked VITAL Organs... Dinosaur red blood cells and Carbon 14 ... the existence  of DNA.... (I could go on for a long time here... Believe it!!) Prove that to be the case..

So now you have this "tool" you call Science.. By which you attempt to explain away off of the facts that I mentioned (and more) by way of a "Naturalistic" means..... It would show much more integrity and intellectual honesty if the term METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM Were to be utilized instead, dont you think? 

Remember...

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.  I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology)  

 

"I'm sure you don't find it satisfactory, but I suspect that's because your sole metric for whether a theory is satisfying is whether it fits with your religious beliefs"

NAH.. Sounds like classic Projection..

My sole metric is what the truth is. Whether I like the truth or not is irrelevant.. 

in the beginning "Nothing" created everything from eyes to fall colors by accident for no reason isnt satisfactory to me OR ANYONE ELSE It has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.. But Because it is pure Hogwash and everyone and I mean EVERYONE knows it..

Logic, Memes, and Work: THE HUMAN EYE NEEDS  ABOUT 40 SUBSYSTEMS  ALL WORKING TOGETHER  AND IN HARMONY WITH  EACH OTHER...  LOGICALLY... THEY ALL HAD  TO APPEAR INSTANTLY  TOGETHER OR WE  WOULD ALL BE BLIND SCIENCE!! ~ J

 

Again, nothing about archaeology, the Altamira paintings or their measured age.

You have obviously nothing to say about it, and will have to accept that the earth is more than 6.000 years old.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, indydave said:

This comment should be objected to by ALL theists... Including the theistic evolutionists. But we never hear them say a word against atheists because they view the atheists as allies regarding young Earth. So Pi... Please comment on this and tell us whether this statement is true. It's about time for you to make a stand for your creator!

I will affirm this, but as iv'e stated multiple times they can not contest each others 'Evolution' as they are indeed the exact same pea within the pod....
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, piasan said:

It's also based on a fallacy that if we don't know everything, we don't know anything.

I will be sure to remind you of this when there's something I have difficulty explaining regarding YE. Will that be okay with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, popoi said:

I would agree that there are some things that are not (presently) very well explained naturalistically.  That's why scientists still have jobs.  What I don't agree with is this tendency for people pushing for a supernatural explanation to declare any gap or failure no matter how temporary as the final death of naturalism The problem is that they've been doing that since people started trying to find explanations for things, and I would guess that the majority of the number of times someone has said "Aha!  You can't find a natural explanation for this because there isn't one, only God/Zeus/Loki/whatever can explain this!" a natural explanation was subsequently found

I appreciate your admission that naturalism cannot always answer 4 challenges made against it. Of course it would be hard to say anything else but you still should be commended for saying it. If you have a gap in your explanation of something then it is not fair to say that you never will be able to find a naturalistic answer. But it is also not fair to say that ultimately someday you WILL find a naturalistic answer. People refer to the god of the gaps idea and criticize theists who use the concept of God to fix or bridge the gap in explaining things. But atheists also have the same gap-filling assumption when they think that naturalism WILL ultimately explain everything and we just have to give them enough time until they can explain it. However it is just as wrong for them to simply assume that someday they WILL have that naturalistic explanation. And it certainly is MORE wrong for them to expect us theists to agree with such an assumption!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Again, nothing about archaeology, the Altamira paintings or their measured age. "

I am challenging the METRICS by way of how the MEASUREMENTS of the supposed "AGE" was arrived at.

How are the Metrics CALIBRATED? Are there no ASSUMPTIONS that were made. Of COURSE there were!!

Killer bluff laid out many examples of Unverified Assumptions a few posts back. Did you read any of them?

 

"You have obviously nothing to say about it"

 

I HAVE RESPONDED TO IT AND YOU DIDNT TELL MY WHY IT WAS WRONG!  HERE IT IS AGAIN.

 

The answer to your question is a PHILOSOPHICAL / PRACTICAL one. Not ALL archeologists use those dating methods (That are well known to be flawed) Many use them, and many

of them do so because they have an A Priori commitment to Methodological Naturalism..  I already told you, Many of them share the belief of "We cannot allow a

divine foot in the door" A few of them were honest about it, you didn't like it when you were quoted one of the more prominent ones, you said that his comment was

"Stupid", but it wasn't "Stupid"  it was HONEST..   I seem to get the impression that you have been assured that Scientists are these righteous paragons of virtue that

are purveyors of unbiased conclusions and are only interested in the truth, WHETHER OR NOT the truth suits their worldview, interests, beliefs, status, credibility, or ability

to pursue or advance their career... DONT BE FOOLED...  

ARCHEOLOGISTS WILL USE WHATEVER DATING METHODS THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST!!!   IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE!  (HUMAN NATURE!)

By the Way.... Instead of "Peer Review" I call it "Peer PRESSURE Review"  (Much more accurate)



"and will have to accept that the earth is more than 6.000 years old."

Yes, it could be 6.100 for all I know..  I don't have a time machine...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, popoi said:

The only sense in which a supernatural explanation is better is if it happens to be correct.  As I mentioned before, supernatural explanations fall short in basically any other measure, including the ability to know whether the explanation is correct or not.

Isn't that true of naturalistic explanations also? You can't KNOW if they are correct or not either! Even if some day man is successful in creating life in a test-tube you have not proven that is what actually occurred billions of years ago! Both of us will only have answers about whether our theory is correct after we die. And of course if atheists are correct, even then they won't get an answer and neither will theists because we will all be dead and gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blitzking said:

By the Way.... Instead of "Peer Review" I call it "Peer PRESSURE Review"  (Much more accurate)

I can vouch for that regarding the peer review of my article refuting Danny Faulkner which I submitted to CRSQ. Although Faulkner was the editor he commendably passed the function of editor to Eugene Chaffin, who seemed fair, but then Chaffin chose as one of the peer reviewers, a strong advocate of the catastrophic runaway subduction flood theory...Baumgardner. it certainly appeared to me that there was almost nothing I could change about my article that would please them enough for it to be published, and it appeared that was because I was strongly opposing their own pet theory about the cause of the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, indydave said:
22 hours ago, wibble said:

Welcome back Indy. That was a very long break you had ! Thought you might have a good long ponder and come back as an evolutionist ha ha

Hahaha! That was what took me so long. I pondered long enough to become an atheist and then LONGER to realize how wrong I was...and becoming of sound mind again!

 

I've have had to deal with some personal challenges including a pretty difficult downsize move, and adjusting my lifestyle to living on a smaller retirement income, as well as dealing with learning I had colon cancer, which now seems to be in remission. But I am not out of the woods yet about that. I still don't know whether I should be using the remainder of my life to do more writing or less but I still have hopes that our discussions will be fruitful.

I did wonder if it was something serious as your departure was so sudden after being such an active participant on here. Very glad to hear you are in remission and hope you get the all clear as soon as possible.

 

19 hours ago, indydave said:

I think it would be beneficial to perhaps let the atheist evolutionists battle the theistic evolutionists for a while. It seems like that would be a more significant battleground on which to fight.  Has there been any of that here?

Not sure we have a battle to fight in terms of the science, and the only TE is Piasan I think. Gneiss Girl although labelled TE is indistinguishable from a creationist judging by her posts, never a good word to say about evolution :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

This thread is about archaeology, more specifically the cave paintings of Altamira, not evolution, not nucleosynthesis, not the Big Bang, not the origin of life or anything else. 

Let us keep it that way.

I guess I don't get how uranium thorium could be helpful in determining the age of paintings. It might tell you the age of the calcium carbonate formation but wouldn't you need to have carbon dating done on the charcoal (or paint) used to make the painting? Otherwise you only know the age of the wall and not the age of the paint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

 

I first came across your renderings on youtube at a Abiogenesis video by James Downard, and appreciated your concise rebuttals along with Blitzkings (Jim's).. That is how i 1st came to this most appreciated and needed site (IMO)...

 

Thanks very much KB. if you can find a link for that YouTube I would like to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wibble said:

I did wonder if it was something serious as your departure was so sudden after being such an active participant on here. Very glad to hear you are in remission and hope you get the all clear as soon as possible.

 

 

Thanks so much, Wibble. Although I don't expect to be as involved as I was previously, I will look forward to having some good discussions with you and the other participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms