Step 1: Read it.....Money Better Spent.....Re: Peer-Reviewed
- --- In email@example.com, "Bill Robinson" <debatebill@...> wrote:
> > > From Rodger, Laurie surly then you can provide the evidence that was
> used, by the creationist to win. Just posting references to these debates is
> not evidence. Without evidence only makes your messages meaningless!
> > >
> > >
> > LA> I suppose you have got to write something here just so as you can join
> in with the others. However, if you will not accept the admissions of noted
> evolutionists themselves that the Creation scientists beat the evolutionary
> debaters on the scientific questions, then leaving you or anyone else more
> details is pointless. However here is something from that Creation science
> book about those debates;
> > -----------------------------
> > NOTHING BUT THE FACTS! p.45
> > In the Van Nuys debate, Morafka (evolutionist) brought up an argument
> > against creationism which had been seldom used. Gish had
> > emphasized the tremendous explosion and diversity of life
> > appearing suddenly in the Cambrian Period. He contrasted
> > that with the remarkable absence of life in the
> > Precambrian Period.
> > Even if one grants the legitimacy of the Precambrian
> > microfossils, the gap between the microscopic fossils of
> > the Precambrian and the highly organized and diversified
> > life of the Cambrian is immense. The evolutionary
> > ancestors of the Cambrian animals simply are not to be
> > found. This fact is continually emphasized by Gish.
> > Although Gish has not actually said it, the implication
> > of his remarks is that the Cambrian Period represents the
> > time when creation took place -- disregarding, of course,
> > the evolutionary time scale which Gish would not accept.
> > Although all of the animal phyla were found in the
> > Cambrian except the vertebrates, Morafka jumped upon that
> > fact emphasizing that since no vertebrates -- fish,
> > amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, or men -- are found in
> > the Cambrian, the Cambrian could not be used as evidence
> > for Special Creation. It simply did not fit the creation
> > model. Neither Gish nor Morris responded to Morafka's
> > argument because when the Van Nuys debate took place in
> > 1973, there was no answer for it.
> > This all changed in 1978. John E. Repetski of the United
> > States Geological Survey reported finding fish fossils
> > in the Upper and Middle Cambrian. Although it has not
> > caught the imagination of the general public like the
> > finding of Lucy in Ethiopia by Carl Johanson, the finding
> > of fish fossils - -vertebrates -- in the Cambrian is without
> > question the most significant fossil discovery in the
> > last twenty years. It lends additional credibility to the
> > creationist position and presents additional problems for
> > the evolutionist. Morafka can't use that argument
> > anymore.
> > (From Fish to Gish, Marvin L. Lubenow, 1983, p.45)
> > ==================
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
>Tin: Name one scientific discipline that entirely rejects the dating technques ?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rodger43212
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:18 AM
> Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Step 1: Read it.....Money Better Spent.....Re: Peer-Reviewed
> > Gabor
> > Laurie, Rodger our devoted evolutionist friend isa strong, faithful believer in those "dating methods" what those who do them are full of doubts regarding them. Rodger, ALL those methods are loaded with assumptionsm uncertaintiesm contradicting result. That is proven as a real time fact. You of course still have the freedom to accept them or reject them It is your choice. But forget to be rational and trule scientific if you consider them as "facts"
> > Not a singel one of them is ever proven. But lots of them are completly disproven by showing actual measurments from present-time events which clearlyshow thae absurdity of those "dates". Check it out for yourself. Thanks and greetings.
> > >
> > From Rodger, Maybe you can explain if there are so many problems with these dating method, why are they accepted by all the sciences? From archaeology to physics to geology, use these dating methods on a daily basis. Can you explain why human settlements across the world have been dated well before the world was created 6000 years ago as you claim? Why do we not get dates in the 3000 years ago? After all these settlements could have been settled after the so called flood. What dating method would you use?
> LA> You are mistaken. Those dates might only appear to be accepted in textbooks, but textbooks are often very misleading and oversimplified and questionable.
You can't because there aren't any.