A lie that science is a religion and more gibberish in reply to A spate of nonsense from dad.Yes, we know the religious story....
More nonsense not addressing my post: The dating of fossils is science producing real dates.You accept imaginary godless ....
A spate of "godless" nonsense starting with abysmal ignorance of not knowing what fossil dating is (science not religion).The only thing basically against it is the religious dating schemes and dreams of same nature past based so called dating methods.
...
An insult of the Christians who have worked on or trusts in evolution .Evolution is not knowledge, it is contrived blasphemy.
That is not what anyone says, Justatruthseeker.Why do you people expect things in the past to be the same as they are now?
Or climate in general (Ice Ages!).Even longer term records exist for few sites: the recent Antarctic EPICA core reaches 800 kyr; many others reach more than 100,000 years. The EPICA core covers eight glacial/interglacial cycles. The NGRIP core from Greenland stretches back more than 100 kyr, with 5 kyr in the Eemian interglacial. Whilst the large-scale signals from the cores are clear, there are problems interpreting the detail, and connecting the isotopic variation to the temperature signal.
Wrong. There is no burden of proof on people stating textbook science because the "proof" is in the textbooks !Trying to deflect the burden of proof for science claims on a science forum eh?
The Creation & Evolution Forum is a discussion and debate forum and is open to non-believers to address the similarities and differences of creation and evolution. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs
If you could prove science knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than religion. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were science. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.No, just trying to get you to provide some proof for your DSP claims. As I've always done.
If science claims a certain nature and laws and uses them for models of the past, it must solidly evidence the claim.Wrong. There is no burden of proof on people stating textbook science because the "proof" is in the textbooks !
However this is Creation & Evolution with a statement of purpose
If the truth insults people, don't blame me. I trust God, thanks. The theory of evolution has no creator.An insult of the Christians who have worked on or trusts in evolution .
Show me the definition of whatever you are talking about?Nonsense in reply to dictionary meanings !
I know what fossil dating is. Religion.A spate of "godless" nonsense starting with abysmal ignorance of not knowing what fossil dating is (science not religion).
Rather than a mere statement of faith you need to show how your religious nonsense dates are 'real'. They are based on a belief in a same nature in the past. Or, if you want to try and include cosmology 'dates' that is based on a belief that the fishbowl represents all the universe in regards to what time and space are like. I can see why you avoid the issues and spam false bravado posts.More nonsense not addressing my post: The dating of fossils is science producing real dates.
Maybe deep ignorance that Christians and other theists do accept the dating of fossils?
If you could prove science knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than religion. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were science. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.
I was born of people who were born ...from Adam and Eve who were created.
No more than I could believe Noah was 45,000,000 years old.
In science time, no. They place the time of the flood at 70 million years ago! Of course they have no clue there even was a flood, but the geologic area where the flood probably was (KT) is dated something like 65 or 70 million years.Well, that was before homo sapiens so you're ok there . . .
If mine was the science claim, your plagiarized claim might apply.If you could prove you knew what nature existed on earth in very ancient times, you would have more than just a DSP idea. Your quest was not to look at other beliefs, but to defend the beliefs you thought were real. In every post you have ever posted so far, you have failed to do that.