Yes; those who emphasize confession and ignore the Lord Jesus’s clear teachings about how to treat their fellow human beings, both Christian and non.
Yes, but resorting to misrepresenting the evidence itself, while lying and claiming that such misrepresentations are merely different interpretations, is not faith. That’s an absence of faith.
How soon you forget. Two months ago I gave you a clear falsification of my radio-dating position using zircons. You refused to address it calling it impossible to find, then belittled my position as if it were my problem. I gave you a clear way to falsify me. So do it.
Then the issue of soft tissue came up, something you still cannot explain. Then when you try to explain it using Mary Schweitzer’s reasoning, you get yourself all confused and turned backwards because she claims no contamination in the bones and you claim that there has to be contamination of C14. So here is a falsification of my YLC position regarding soft tissue >>get your stories straight and come out with a definitive explanation - right now all you have are ideas. I want more than ideas. Falsify me by telling me in no uncertain terms why soft tissue is found in 65 mya fossilized bones (or so-called fossilized).
My memory fails me. Perhaps you could start a thread on the subject?
Gaps in our knowledge are not evidence against our theories. You are pushing an argument from ignorance.
Where does Mary Schweizter claim that there is no 14C contamination anywhere in a given fossil?
If an explanation is found for how soft tissue can survive 65 million years, will you drop YEC?
True so far as working backwards, but I do not accept that YEC even interprets the evidence to suit themselves. For example, radiometric dating cannot be interpreted in terms of a young earth. The YEC RATE project proposes that radioactive decay was miraculously accelerated by orders of magnitude, and that the heat inherently generated was miraculously contained, and that Noah and his cargo were miraculously protected from the radiation inherent to their proposal. That is not an interpretation, that is a dismissal of radiometric dating. This is the classic approach YEC takes to dealing with evidence. Attempt to establish some sort of equivalence in interpretation, suggest that the worldview and bias of the observer determines the interpretation taken, and then somehow twist the evidence as actually more supportive of a young earth.
2 Likes
I could argue for the use of either word, but that is just semantics. The important bit is that they invent processes from whole cloth that have to be true in order for the evidence to fit their conclusions. These are often called ad hoc rescue devices, and are strongly frowned upon in scientific circles.
I agree with the substance of what you are saying. I harp on this because AiG and ICM go on and on with this word game that it is just a matter of interpretation, the matter is decided on worldview. This is the battlefield of their choosing.
Sure…!
Iron allows for preservation of soft tissue.
1 Like
LOL I knew it. Ok, good for you. Let’s give it about 65 million years and revisit this topic.
[that is, Mary Schweitzer’s petri dish, I mean]
So much for falsification.
So let’s ask the question again. What features in an existing geologic formation that can be tested and observed today would falsify a recent global flood if found?
1 Like
Ok, I will stop funning and be reasonable. Let’s give it 10 years to begin with. That is not unreasonable. At that point we will revisit her petri dish and take notes. Then let’s give it another 10 and take notes. I am being very reasonable here with the science.
What about the question I asked?
What features in an existing geologic formation that can be tested and observed today would falsify a recent global flood if found?
2 Likes
Once again you invent motivations in others.
I don’t know who “we” is—but if you start this new topic on its own thread, I would be curious to see.
I hope that you do indeed accurately know the inner motivations of this “we” you are talking about. (Do you?)
I can’t speak for others here but whoever your “we” is, I do hope all of you will “be very careful.” Yes, indeed, it might matter.
If you are start a new thread on this topic, perhaps we will learn specifically what the “you all” people you are talking about have SPECIFICALLY done to “revise the biblical text.”
I was thinking it but I wasn’t planning to say it. Good for you. Introspection is a good thing.
2 Likes
I can’t make sense of this post. Are you claiming that a petri dish in Mary Schweitzer’s lab is duplicating the preservation conditions in the dinosaur fossils she was studying??
Are you entirely misunderstanding the science methodology or are you making a joke? (Seriously. I can’t tell. I’m entirely sincere in this.)
Yes. I am curious about the same question.
I’ve been asking that same question for a half century now and ran out of patience. I applaud @T_aquaticus for remaining persistent.
1 Like
Short list.
- If 70% of worldwide fossils beds were not there.
- No polystrate fossils.
- Method to date sedimentary rock [alone] returned mya
Already done. I believe I’ve cited some papers on that before. Here’s one again.
1 Like
What about angular unconformities with fossils in both the upper and lower strata? You bolted from that discussion when you had no YLC explanation, remember? 
Then she is not performing real science is she. If she has no scientific method to backup her hypothesis, then she is not performing science. That leaves us to simply take her word for it about the iron preservation. I personally cannot do that. I cannot take her word for it. It is preposterous. So sorry, if you cannot perform science, you cannot claim preservation of soft tissue.
Herbert Morrison said it best.
(And Dunning & Kruger said it even better. There’s an ironic Carly Simon song about that.)
1 Like