Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 20:14 (3906 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> Tony: Maybe i shouldn't accept atheist sites, but I do, as long as the science is sound and they are not mucking around with the data and interpretations. I work in applied geophysics. While that does not qualify me as an expert, it's safe to say that I have had fairly extensive training in it. The number of ways that the Earth's layers can be formed, changed, twisted, and generally mucked about are many and varied.-I understand how well trained you are and I am a novice trying to learn, but I still have my point of view. -> Tony: Ok.. 
> 
> Non-Volcanic natural earth layer transference.
> http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lahars/description_lahars.html
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Hydrology/framework.html
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood-Of course sites like these quoted will get mucked up, but what I have been taught is that the layers are all over the Earth and therefore can be compared and reasonable assessments about them can be arrived at through the comparisons.That makes good sense to me.
> 
> 
> Tony:Is 20 million years a big enough difference? What about 45 million? What about when they discard the data they don't want to see?-> http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/123_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr123_30.pdf-For the sake of your argument I've reviewed a number of articles on radiometric time measurement. They make perfect mathematical sense to me and are very useable. Do they fully agree, pretty much. Can they be misused, like using carbon dating for something too old, of course. 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony: Another example of discarding evidence that doesn't fit the theory. Notice how 'early dates' were considered contamination and discarded because they didn't fit the theory.
> https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1439/1443-This is again a single example of carbon dating problems. I don't think it supports your point of view since it is an isolated example of struggling with data. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture of the science, but finding disconnects to prove a point of view.
> 
> Tony: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027737919290063E
> 
> 
> Now, tell me again why I should trust this garbage?-I could only see the abstract. I understand your point that they were looking at ways around the problem, but I don't think this evidence destroys a whole scientifc approach to radiometric dating.
>> 
> Tony; As for the other, no, I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation some 6000 years ago. As you rightly pointed out, the word used in Genesis means 'period of time' not a literal 24 hour period. In fact, it absolutely states that it does not mean a literal 24 hour period since those weren't established until the 'fourth day'.-Exactly correct. Thank you for the discussion. This website of dhw's is dedicated to avoiding fundamentalism. The Bible needs proper tranlation and interpretation and you have done just that.