Page 4 of 6
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:24 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
BY LOOKING UP A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE THAT'S HOW.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:27 pm
by August
No need to shout, I'm right here
How did those articles pass peer-review?
Ok, whatever, we have to believe that the original manuscripts that tell us all of this was written at that time.
Now do you get it?
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:31 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Don't drag it out, just say it.
It's not just a faith based thing though....
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:33 pm
by August
Say what?
Did you understand the last message?
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:34 pm
by Deborah
You heard lol
IT
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:39 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
I got it, I was just asking, why? WHY? WHY drag it out so painfully slow! Lord Kelvin took less than a paragraph to refute what Darwin took a book to say!
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:43 pm
by Deborah
then may I ask how you intend to rebuke the Old earth theory?
come on your believe in young earth so tell us why!
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:44 pm
by August
How do we know those manuscripts were written 1000's of years ago?
By using dating techniques, you know those things you say are all wrong.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:47 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Which things? And dating techniques are about as accurate as me with any gun at ranges longer than the gun's barrel (recently dead things are dated as hundreds of thousands of years old).
If I'm delegated to peer review articles...then forget it, nothing's getting through that's for a young earth...only articles bashing it and creationism (from experience).
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:48 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Which things? And dating techniques are about as accurate as me with any gun at ranges longer than the gun's barrel (recently dead things are dated as hundreds of thousands of years old).
If I'm delegated to peer review articles...then forget it, nothing's getting through that's for a young earth...only articles bashing it and creationism (from experience).
We are left on Battlefield Bible, but I'm not allowed there.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:50 pm
by Deborah
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Which things? And dating techniques are about as accurate as me with any gun at ranges longer than the gun's barrel (recently dead things are dated as hundreds of thousands of years old).
remarks like these are why Christians are called Lunatics!
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:51 pm
by August
*Sigh*
Please provide a list of all known dating techniques and their shortcomings, confirmed through scientific peer-review and published in an accepted journal or book.
We are left on Battlefield Bible, but I'm not allowed there.
So you admit you cannot find any real scientific articles that prove young earth?
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:52 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Didn't know all Christians used my gun barrel analogy....
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:55 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
No, I said I have not and probably won't find a peer reviewed article. While you're telling me this, find me a peer reviewed article that says how Lucy isn't a missing link, or that Neanderthall isn't.....
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:57 pm
by August
While you're telling me this, find me a peer reviewed article that says how Lucy isn't a missing link, or that Neanderthall isn't.....
Please answer my question first.
So you admit you cannot find any real scientific articles that prove young earth?