"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message news:1119116139.608324.327240@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Glenn wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> Hey! It's Glenn again!
> Now let's get back to a question you have been very conspicuouly not
> answering:
You think too much of yourself, weasel.
>
> You accept that the evidence from the natural world tells us that the
> Universe is very ancient - of the order of 15 billion years - and that
> the earth is over 4 billion years old.
No, I do not accept that the "evidence tells us" anything. We interpret data and make inferences. The data *appears* to support the concept that the Universe and the earth as much older than a few thousand years. I'm not a YEC, and have never given you any indication that I am. That probably won't fix your broken record, however.
>
> Do you think that this is a false impression, or do you think the world
> is truly of this age?
Truth is what science is about, troll.
>
> You have made it clear that you don't know why the earth has this
> appearance of age. Fine. That's an honest answer. However, why should
> anyone believe that the impression given by the evidence of great age
> is false?
>
However, that is not an honest statement. At no time have I said anything about wondering why the earth has this appearance of age. I do know a little about it. At least I'm not as ignorant as you to be continually making statements that are either contrary to what you say or haven't said at all.
>
> Now, my expectation is that you will try to change the subject, go off
> on an irrelevant tangent, resort to invective chosen from your rich
> repertoire of evasive manoevers.
Save the fancy words for someone who you think will be impressed.
>
> So why not prove me wrong, and give a straight answer to the question?
>
> Go on. Dare you.
>
If you're not careful, your head will pop.
|
|