Spearthrower wrote:

I don't have a SCACBE - that's your model, not mine.

Agrippina wrote:It would help if Rodcarty actually kept off up with the thread instead of disappearing for days at a time and then discussing posts that are long forgotten, and then answering them with "presupposition" and "fallacy of my own invented interpretation of a fallacy" I agree. SO to Rodcarty, just ignore all the previous pages and please reply to only the last two, let's get back on track or you'll end up fallaciating yourself.

THWOTH wrote:I think he dipped out before he had to deal with the issue of an immaterial material god.

Rumraket wrote:
One can of course hope that somewhere along the way he at least came to consider many of the issues discussed here at a greater depth.

Rumraket wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I think he dipped out before he had to deal with the issue of an immaterial material god.

If he truly has left us forever, I still wouldn't speculate that it was any single issue in particular that made him leave. It might simply be the case that he felt it was a waste of his time, since it was just him against several of us and he got further and further behind.
One can of course hope that somewhere along the way he at least came to consider many of the issues discussed here at a greater depth.

Rumraket wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I think he dipped out before he had to deal with the issue of an immaterial material god.

If he truly has left us forever, I still wouldn't speculate that it was any single issue in particular that made him leave. It might simply be the case that he felt it was a waste of his time, since it was just him against several of us and he got further and further behind.

Rumraket wrote:One can of course hope that somewhere along the way he at least came to consider many of the issues discussed here at a greater depth.

rodcarty wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rodcarty wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
You'll have to reference the dating of the wood before any judgement can be made.

The fossilized wood was found in the Marlstone Rock bed in the UK. Index fossils found there were interpreted by evolutionary scientists to date this rock in the Jurassic, but because there was wood there as well, a creation scientist sent samples of the wood out for carbon-14 tests. The samples were sent to two different labs. The labs were not told what age range to expect, nor were they told where they came from so as to not bias the tests. The two labs' results agreed quite well with each other but of course wildly disagreed with the millions of years assumed by the evolutionary interpretation. The estimate according to the Jurassic period was 189 million years, the results of the carbon-14 testing was in the range of about 20,000 to 29,000 years.

A.A. Snelling, Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, Creation Ex Nihilo 22(2):44–47, 2000. (Now called Journal of Creation)
http://creation.com/geological-conflict

ROFL. You're asking me to trust a source with this statement in their mission:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Suffice it to say, to claim adherence to that statement immediately destroys any credibility Snelling had.

So in your opinion anything that doesn't support evolution has automatically lost all credibility. Why are we even bothering to try to have a discussion then?

Onyx8 wrote: having provided no answers whatever for his rigid and foolish positions.

hackenslash wrote:We should introduce you to Stevebee; you'd get on famously.

Paul wrote::thumbup:

Post #967 in this thread

hackenslash wrote:We should introduce you to Stevebee; you'd get on famously.