The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

---

You will notice my usage of quotations when I called it my theory. This is because people on here acted like it was my theory. So you really should take this up with them, not me. I know you will not do that because they agree with you and you are not an objective person.

I am thinking you are the one who got ripped off. Maybe you should hop on out of the weak historical sciences and jump on in with those of us who practice emperical science. My employer would disagree with you that my education was not any good. They hire more people out of my school than any other school in the state because of its high credintials. I will be honest, I was a little worried when I saw you were a Geologist because that is not my strongest field. However, after seeing the arguments you have presented I am no longer worried. You seem to make the same baseless assertions and personal attacks as most of the other guys on here, so maybe you should have skipped paying for a degree and saved yourself some time.

I took it up with you because it was your statement that I was responding to. If you didn't believe it was your theory, you should have made it clear.

Any time you want to go on a little geology field trip to see what it is really all about, let me know. By the way, here is a little bit of irony in all of this. That Creation Museum (the one from which you've yet to acknowledge that you've been plagiarizing)? That Creation Museum is built on top of a 475 millon year old marine fossil bed. Talk about ironies!

---

Anytime you want to go on a tour of what the World and Life is really about let me know. How do you know it is that old? I think it is built on a 4300 year old bed of marine fossils, which would be cool- not ironic. I have always been honest about where I get my information, never claimed to be getting it from talkorigins. It was not from the Creation Museum though, I have not been there. Kind of arrogant to assume you know where I get my material better than I do.

---

If a flood took place, then that pyramid would not date to being as old as you just claimed it was because the methods used to date that pyramid assume no flood took place. So to argue against the flood by using dating methods that assume no flood is inappropriate.

So, basically, your line of reasoning amounts to "you're wrong and I'm right" without actually giving any reason to doubt the veracity of Egyptian historiography than that.

Maybe I need to use smaller words. Egyptian Hystoriography is based on anti-flood assumptions, so it cannot be used to argue against a flood. It's not that hard to understand. Using this to argue against what it already assumes is untrue would be committing the "Assuming the Proof" fallaacy. If you want to be lillogical be my guest, but I will not play that game.