Christian "Science" continues to embarass... itself

[nw843x]

I just learned something new.

They're building a creation museum near Red Deer, Alberta.

Any Alberta skeptics want to go check it out?

Go here.
http://creationtruthministries.org/ctmfees.html

sigh .......

 

[The Grave]

Long on questions. Short on answers!

so dating things such as stalagtites or say the earth may be very inaccurate...correct?

No

 

[Beerina]

Stalactite Stalagmite

The mites go up and the tites go down.

"g" for ground.
"c" for ceiling.

Cheers,
TGHO

Yeesh, both of you get a D.

One always says "Stalactites and stalagmites", not the other way around, and the ones hanging down are the first ones you think of.

I recall way, way back in 2nd grade, and we were reading a weekly reader. I was chosen to read the next paragraph, which included "stalactites and stalagmites". I read merrily along, and when I got to that phrase, the teacher thought I'd be a typical non-sentient 2nd grader, and pronounced "stalactites and...", but did it at the exact same time I did because I hadn't paused whatsoever. I gave her a look and she looked surprised.

 

[Beerina]

so dating things such as stalagtites or say the earth may be very inaccurate...correct?

No

Any one measurement may be inaccurate, but we have tens of thousands spanning everything from geology to biology to astronomy to archaeology to chemistry to physics to actual written history.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Furthermore, Jesus himself was wrong when he said he'd return before that generation had passed away, of which we have ample evidence they thought it meant literally. Only a hundred years later, when they were all dead, did people start coming up with the "hey, it must have been metaphorical" thing.

Furthermore, did you know the Bible doesn't actually have a way to calculate the age of the Earth? Adding up the "begats" and so on was a goofy notion some monk had a thousand years ago. To try to support it with Biblical analysis is, itself, a faulty endeavour just on the face of it, to say nothing about actual detailed analysis.

 

[joobz]

Any one measurement may be inaccurate, but we have tens of thousands spanning everything from geology to biology to astronomy to archaeology to chemistry to physics to actual written history.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Furthermore, Jesus himself was wrong when he said he'd return before that generation had passed away, of which we have ample evidence they thought it meant literally. Only a hundred years later, when they were all dead, did people start coming up with the "hey, it must have been metaphorical" thing.

Furthermore, did you know the Bible doesn't actually have a way to calculate the age of the Earth? Adding up the "begats" and so on was a goofy notion some monk had a thousand years ago. To try to support it with Biblical analysis is, itself, a faulty endeavour just on the face of it, to say nothing about actual detailed analysis.

So, dating things based upon stuff written in the bible may be very inaccurate....correct?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

So, dating things based upon stuff written in the bible may be very inaccurate....correct?

With all that frowning upon fornication, I'd say the problem with biblical dating is not accuracy but dullness.

 

[elliotfc]

Dating the earth is a completely different matter to dating a stalactite. And no, it's not inaccurate.

Cheers,
TGHO

I would never date the earth, I tend to date things that weigh less than I do. And as for dating a stalactite...I wouldn't date a phallic object, it case it wanted to probe me or something. -Elliot

 

[Elizabeth I]

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqztite.htm

Stalactite Stalagmite

The mites go up and the tites go down.

"g" for ground.
"c" for ceiling.

Cheers,
TGHO

...and stalactites are the ones that hang from the ceiling because if they don't stick "tite" they will fall on your head.