: : Evolutionists love to cite their dating methods as "proof" that the earth is old. Yes, we do, and I note that Gotch offers no reason to think that K/Ag, Ag/Ag, TL, OSL, Uranium series, or any of the other methods for dating old material are problematic. We love to cite them because, of course, they are correct. It's only an added bonus that they make literalists look like fools. ;-)
: : Can you explain these?
[snip]
Gideon, you did a brilliant job here. You're my new superhero.
: Care to cite your sources?
Gish, Morris, maybe a bit of Jack Chick thrown in for good measure, I'll bet. Anybody who makes a blind, unsupported assertion (I believe "Lying for the Lord" is the technical term) is acceptable to these folks.
[snip]
: Again, to quote the page I cited (which I did mention 3 days ago; had you read it, you would not be advancing these old points with such carefree abandon...);
Unfortunately, yes he would. Gish, for example, has repeatedly been told that these assertions are bunk, and yet he continues to use them in his "debates." It's only recently that he's stopped using the Paluxy man-tracks as "evidence." The thing is, liars for the Lord never let the facts get in the way of a good anti-evolution rant. If they did, they'd have nothing to rant about!
: Try and come up with something slightly better next time; and do read the page I mentioned a few days ago; it will save you from being shot down like this again.
He won't come up with anything original, of course. He'll never offer an argument that you haven't already heard, probably dozens of times. If he takes your advice and actually does look at the site you posted, he probably won't learn anything because he's convinced we're trying to seduce his soul to Satan or some other nonsense. The higher brain appears to be wasted on these people. A spinal cord would be sufficient. Still, in case he's the one in a million that actually is capable of thinking for himself, he should also look at this site and this one and all of these. He won't, of course.
-floyd
