Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yup, Gentry assumed polonium and ignored haloes that didn't match his claims. He never even passed peer review.
This argument is also a PRATT and is among the refuted creationist claims of Talk Origins.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
This argument is also a PRATT and is among the refuted creationist claims of Talk Origins.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Which I think is probably the only reason I've ever even heard it before.
I think Kent Hovind likes to try it out as well, which makes sense given that his entire screed against evolution was written like 40 years ago and hasn't been changed one iota since.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As long as we were discussing it I looked up the article. Some of Gentries "Precambrian" samples were shown to be much more recent than that. He called anything that even resembled granite "Precambrian". He took samples from anyone that sent them to him. As a result he made some huge mistakes. Newer sources demonstrate that they could not have been from being created in the "primordial" basement:
There you go @SavedByTheLord another one of your questions answered and your implication refuted.
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
www.talkorigins.org
There you go @SavedByTheLord another one of your questions answered and your implication refuted.
Obviously....
That is not an example of 'evolution' but of change caused by environmental conditions.
Cancer is simply the bodies own cells that have changed eventually killing themselves and their own organism (home).
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The result of the fall through sin.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Still God's fault if one believes that Genesis myths and that God is omniscient and omnipotent.
What's a sin if there were no commandments?
And who was even capable of words back 'in the beginning' to record what any god said?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
God said not to it from the tree and they did.
See Genesis 3
Just because the man-made book claims that does not mean, that is how it occurred
I mentioned, who was there to record the conversations with god? The first man and woman could not even speak word before eating the fruit.
That is why it was after that, that the man the mother of all of the living as Eve. He became conscious and capable. The story is exposing a good day of evolving from instinctive life to consciousness. A transition (evolution).
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
it was inspire by God.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is the Bible saying so. And not only that, it is your interpretation of the Bible saying so. Other Christians treat that as a morality tale. It is a pity that you are so literal. It keeps you from understanding the Bible.
Do you realize that the parables were not stories that actually happened? There are even verses about it. They were stories that were told to teach a lesson. It only shows that you do not understand:
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
That does not say or imply that the Bible is literally true. It only says that it is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training." Genesis and Exodus still work if one treats them as morality tales. They do not work if one treats them as being literal. Then you are once again calling God a liar.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? Again, that does not mean that it is literally true.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I already proved that the Bible is true.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No,, you only proved your own ignorance of logic and demonstrated an inability to reason rationally. And you even admitted that you did not do so when you ran away from reasonable questions. Only a person that knows that he failed would do that.
In other words, you don't even really believe your false claims. If you were not terribly afraid that you were wrong you would not run away.
Lots of books are claimed to be inspired. Look at Ezekiel that book represents that HE was the 'son of man'. Did you forget that?
But what human being can quote gods words of a story thousands of years prior.
To combine the histories of the time period of torah (genesis specifically), Moses was in egypt. Moses lived in the house of god (pharaoh) for that era, per torah, per him, per se.
Not even close. The books do exist, that is true.... but the bible has had many revised revisions over the last 1000 yrs. Even you revise the material to fit your narrative.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
That is not true .
Which part.
A.... that the books have been revised
b..... that you change meaning(s) for your own narrative
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is true. We even know of at least one parable of Jesus that was not by him. And do you know how this is scholars found this out? Do you have any guesses?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I got my scientific toy with the water and different size sediment this morning.
And they always settle into the same layers every time.