Post Any Evidence For God Here

by **Lionz** on Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:23 pm

Neoteny,

What exactly is it from, if you are claiming something is out of context?

by **Neoteny** on Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:26 am

If I recall correctly, it's from an article about how to appropriately explain the more controversial aspects of evolutionary/geological theories. This is what makes your quote mining a little more ironic.

by **Lionz** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:41 pm

One or more of those is from an American Journal of Science article and I found a place where I need a subscription to get to see a pdf of it or something. Either he poked holes at questionable practice or he didn't? How about post more as opposed to accusing of me of being a liar if you claim I quoted something out of context? Did he not also claim that radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first?

by **CreepersWiener** on Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:31 pm

jimboston wrote:Though I believe it's actually a misquito... I still like it.

Yes, I agree. God could indeed be a misquito.

by **Neoteny** on Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:35 pm

Lionz wrote:One or more of those is from an American Journal of Science article and I found a place where I need a subscription to get to see a pdf of it or something. Either he poked holes at questionable practice or he didn't? How about post more as opposed to accusing of me of being a liar if you claim I quoted something out of context? Did he not also claim that radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first?

Lionz wrote:The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply." (J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)

J. O'Rourke in the actual AJS wrote: The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.

Then he goes on to explain why this is bad. Poorly, but whatever. The point is that you have misrepresented O'Rourke. I don't know why you insist on lying to me, Lionz. I think he may have talked about how important stratigraphy was for calibrating and empirically testing the accuracy of radiometric dating, but until I see how you want to scramble his words around in an effort to mislead me, I think we should stick to a single issue for simplicity's sake.

by **jimboston** on Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:31 pm

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175837&start=0

GBU56 wrote:

I would like to present this as Exhibit 2. for the existence of God.

by **Gillipig** on Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:19 am

This must be the most absurd thread I've ever seen here. Evidence for God? :lol:

Good one mate.

by **Lionz** on Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:52 am

Neoteny,

What do you have a problem with if I quoted him criticising it like it was bad and he goes on further to explain why it is bad? Did you think I was trying to claim he was a young earth creationist? And what can stratigraphy tell us if dates rely on index fossils and radiometric dating techniques that are based on faulty assumptions in the first place?

Gillipig,

Do you figure that all matter is self created and that inorganic self created matter somehow managed to create life and consciousness and intelligence?

by **Neoteny** on Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:19 pm

Because it implies that geologists do not have a reply. They did then and they do now. And I have given it to you in other threads.

by **PLAYER57832** on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:21 pm

So have I, so have I... and more than once.

by **jimboston** on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:54 pm

Exhibit 3.

There are actuall two pieces of evidence here...

1) Star Wars

2) Cookies

by **Lionz** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:23 am

Is there a reply someone can point me towards that doesn't call on tree rings or a radiometric dating technique based on a secular view of history in the first place that assumes a starting point and constant rate of decay through all time?

by **MeDeFe** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:24 am

Lionz wrote:Is there a reply someone can point me towards that doesn't call on tree rings or a radiometric dating technique based on a secular view of history in the first place that assumes a starting point and constant rate of decay through all time?

Yes.

by **heavycola** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:28 am

Lionz wrote:a radiometric dating technique based on a secular view of history

See, this is what's wrong with science. Measuring stuff is essentially godless. What was so wrong with good old superstitious terror, anyway?

by **Lionz** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:05 am

MeDeFe,

Where?

HeavyCola,

Why assume something was created or assume it was not created if that is essentially what we are trying to determine in the first place?

by **heavycola** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:07 am

Lionz wrote:Why assume something was created or assume it was not created if that is essentially what we are trying to determine in the first place?

"Do - or do not. There is no try."
Gandalf

by **Neoteny** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:31 am

Lionz wrote:Is there a reply someone can point me towards that doesn't call on tree rings or a radiometric dating technique based on a secular view of history in the first place that assumes a starting point and constant rate of decay through all time?

You want a form of dating that hasn't been calibrated or checked against any other known forms of dating? Why?

by **jimboston** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:13 am

heavycola wrote:
Lionz wrote:Why assume something was created or assume it was not created if that is essentially what we are trying to determine in the first place?

"Do - or do not. There is no try."
Gandalf

Really?

... or are you just being a wise ass?

by **heavycola** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:16 am

jimboston wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Lionz wrote:Why assume something was created or assume it was not created if that is essentially what we are trying to determine in the first place?

"Do - or do not. There is no try."
Gandalf

Really?

... or are you just being a wise ass?

Really what?

by **jimboston** on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:17 am

heavycola wrote:
jimboston wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Lionz wrote:Why assume something was created or assume it was not created if that is essentially what we are trying to determine in the first place?

"Do - or do not. There is no try."
Gandalf

Really?

... or are you just being a wise ass?

Really what?

Yoda... not Gandalf!