Sean McHugh <seanm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>"swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 25, 12:28 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
[deletions]
>Here is a little problem for you to research, Gladys:
>Some star clusters have old and middle aged and new stars; others have
>just middle aged and old stars. But none are missing old stars. So one
>can reasonably assume, that with the latter kind, the previously young
>stars have become middle aged, the previously middle aged have become
>old aged and the previously old aged stars have expired. If this rapid
>ageing and burning out has occurred in 10,000 years, given the vast
>number of stars visible to us, we should be able to observe a rapid
>expiration rate. We see nothing of the sort. Even the shorter star
>lives would be in the order of hundreds of millions of years.
That reminds me of some rants by Barry Setterfield I read when I was
investigating his claims about the speed of light. He was trying to
establish the date of Hoah's flood, and used his ideas to try to
estimate the pro****tion of carbon which was C-14 just after the flood.
He had dug out an assortment of dates for archaeological remains from
different places around the world. He then "established" the "date"
of the Flood by taking the *average* of all of these.
Since the vast majority of C-14 dates for archaeological remains are
only a few thousand years, he clearly got a date only a few thousand
years ago. He was quite oblivious to the fact that it only needed one
date of around 50,000 years, as shown by his list of data, to indicate
that the "Flood" must have taken place *at least* that long ago.
>By all means, seek the assistance of the Creation 'Scientists'. If you
>can't figure out how to contact them, I will help you.
>> for those who wish to follow other Creationist articles on aspects of
>> this issue.
>>
>> This topic is very pertinent to the inerrancy of the Biblical record;
>> it is therefore pertinent to aus.religion.christian.
>Once again there is no argument or evidence from you, other than
>another spammed Creationist link. In your response to Mark, you add
>yet another Creationist link, a link about dinosaurs, ferchrisaake!
>Apart from your inability to stay on a subject, it is quite clear that
>you are a spammer for the Creationist websites and spammers are
>considered to be pests. This appears in the rules for debating at
>IIDB:
>http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85871
>~ Arguments based solely via "URL link" are strongly discouraged
>~ (e.g., "I challenge you to respond to stuff from this website
>~ link which refutes your entire argument").
>It is an inferior form of argument and it's an inferior arguer who
>employs it - especially one who does it consistently and gratuitously.
>Sean McHugh
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Creationists clearly reject evolution in this case not because there
is
scientific evidence against it but because it conflicts with a
cherished
belief.' Frank T. Awbrey
|
