Flood Evidence [sic] True Facts #7
>DR> What? Where? How? When? Who says? Ron calls this "Evidence?!"
>DR> This Bold, unsupported assertion. Where's the evidence? How does
>DR> this support "Noah's Flood?"
RS> This is the bulk of you asserive [sic] "truths" [sic]. Many of
RS> the statements you answered such as the first "Grand Canyon"
RS> statement asnwered [sic] you first accusation... In short- you
RS> response amounts to a silly little godless humans "IS NOT".
Oh, this is also so rich! I knew you'd refuse to address the facts.
Why did you UTTERLY ignore the facts?
Listen Ron. -Please- attempt to understand. At no time did I assert
"truths!" Science IN NO WAY deals with "truth!" It deals with what
is evidenced and what is most probable. I will once again point out
what is SO DAMNED OBVIOUS that anyone with a working brain should have
caught on: what you called "evidence" lacked any kind of support and
were BOLD ASSERTIONS. You left it up to the reader to rely completely
upon *your* *word* *alone*. This isn't evidence; it is called being
RS> David you bring up dating methods which I have shown to be
RS> incosistent hence the need for MANY different methods of dating.
RS> When one fails quick-resort to another.
Oh, so cleaver Ron! You fail to note the fact that different methods
of radiometric dating produce the SAME RESULTS. Instead of speaking
from ignorance, why don't you look up the references on radiometric
dating I included? Instead of taking my word for it, why the bloody
hell don't you perform the experiments yourself? Take a class at your
local community college and get some lab time. Pulverize a rock and
put a sample in a heat inductor. Measure K-Ar ratios of one sample,
and Sm90 in another sample, and a few other ratios in other samples.
Vac the gasses into a spectrometer. Run a Radon222 baseline. Do this
with many different rocks. Plot a line between K and Ar peaks. Plot
a line between valleys. Calculate the volume. DO IT YOURSELF! You will
PROVE to yourself that various dating methods yield the same results
for the same sample.
Are you afraid?
RS> The bottom line what science believes today they will change in
RS> ten years so any argument from a purely science direction is
RS> inadequate and ineffective.
Science doesn't believe anything. It isn't in the business to believe.
The Scientific Method assigns a probability to what it knows; every
time an observation demonstrates a hypothosis is correct, the more
likely it is going to be correct the next time---- but science will
never say that the very next observation "must" meet the hypothosis.
The very next time you drop a hammer, it very likely will fall to the
ground: but science also admits it may fly off into orbit around
Saturn--- it's just so damn unlikely. Science doesn't PROVE anything;
that's not its goal.
RS> What I presented frm the scientific perspect is reason to believe.
RS> In fact there is more reason to believe then not to believe.....
RS> even from you own inconsistent methods.
Find. Produce the evidence you claim you have, instead of bold,
Why did you utterly *REFUSE* to address the facts presented to you?
Explain how limestone is evidence for your "Noah's Flood." That is a
simple request. What are you afraid of?
Are you aware of the fact that Big Name Creationists mave called the
submarine turbidity theory of some Grand Canyon formations FALSE? And
that you didn't get your story straight? You said submarine turbidity
is responsible, just as most scientists do, while Creationists say it
isn't. Care to revise your assertions? (Press & Siever, _Earth_, 1974,
pg. 429) Dr. Walter Brown, director of the Center for Scientific
Creation, in his series "New Departures in the Origins Debate for
the 90's," sponsored by Citizens for Origins Research and Education
(CORE), says you're full of SHIt. He says submarine turbidity currents
are =NOT= responsible for some canyons (they are). You say they are.
Are your masters going to be pleased with you for going against
standard Creationist dogma? Will they send you to hell?
I'm here to help you gain your freedom, Ron, but you have to meet
me at least a step or two along the way.