Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why would you claim this? Common Descent, for example, could be falisifed by finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, a true chimera, a human gene that is more similar to a lizard than to a chimp, etc., etc.You falsify them by running them through pre-programmed software to see if they survive.
I don't believe so, but "creation scientists" have done this with Flood Geology.Have you ever falsified a theory, only to have to come back later and reinstate it?
I don't follow this. How would you potentially falsify "No Death Before the Fall?"Actually, I have done that very thing --- giving in to death of plants before the Fall --- but certainly no death of animals or people.
Evidently the plants were made to die:
Evidently the plants were made to die:
im sure you could put all the animlas on the ark. just theyd be dead.I always like the ones who believe that the universe was once the size of a pixel, yet all those animals couldn't fit on the Ark.
That's always good for a laugh.And a MERRY CHRISTMAS to you too, sir!
Jesus is the Reason for the Season!
Hey, the best defense is a good offence, and the godless evos are sitting ducks. Why not have some fun??!!Merry Christmas, DAD. Good thread.
I studied science in all my life (since age 6). But I regrettably say that at the end, I find everything, truly everything, science has taught me is arguable. Even things as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is self-rotating, or, recently learned, what is music.
They can only deal with the physical noise, not the spiritual inspiration! That means they miss the real meaning, and fulness of it. Music is not an autopsy.Science only makes us know that we do not know anything. Can you imagine that we can make scientific argument on music, so that music becomes nothing but just "sound", and no more?
Well, actually, all you see is red. One might interpret the affected light as how it came to exist in this state, rather than fast moving. It depends on the starting assumptions. Now, if you want to support your claim with details, why, I say go ahead. I just happen to know you can't. Call me a step ahead if you like.Dad, I already explained to you that this is not preposterous because we can see with our own eyes that the universe is in the process of expanding; therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that it was smaller in the past. It may not be the correct conclusion, but it is certainly not "preposterous". However, you persist in your misleading characterisation, which is a form of false witness - see Proverbs 14:5.
I already explained to you that this is not an accepted conclusion of science. Wikipedia agrees with me: "There is no truly 'standard model' of the origin of life ... [there is] a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures". Discoveries and conjectures are not conclusions. It is misleading of you to pretend that science claims to have a conclusion about the origin of life.
False!! the effects on things are only explained in the framework of present laws, and a present universe. If it was something else that affected rotations and whatnot, like either creation, and/or the universe state change, then all bets are off. Since science cannot say, you are stabing in the dark, in declaring darkk stuff the majority of the universe!!! That equals nothing more than saying, 'there was never anything else but the present laws and state'/ That is based on nothing at all, and the huge cunning house of cards built on that foundation, is only as good as the belief in a present state in the past. In other words, worthless in the extreme!!!Dark matter is neither a conclusion of science nor preposterous. Ideas about dark matter are hypotheses that have not been properly tested. It is not a preposterous idea because there is all sorts of evidence (e.g. galactic rotation rates) that strongly suggest there is more matter in the universe than we can see. Therefore, it is misleading of you to call this idea a preposterous conclusion.
Preposterous, weak, and childish godless logic. Looking similar does not mean a similar lifespan, what you kidding???? get serious.My comment was not a question, dad. It was a statement of fact: It is reasonable to conclude that lifeforms of the past had similar life spans to lifeforms of today. This is because we can see, in fossils, that lifeforms of the past had similar bodies to lifeforms of today. Therefore, your effort to paint this conclusion as "preposterous" is misleading.
I am prepared to conceed that you are rowing upstream! Dreaming in the dark. Desperate as a housewife in the US.Are you prepared to concede that your other examples also are either not "conclusions of science" or are not preposterous, as I have explained?
Happy Boxing day. Now get up before the count of ten, will you. There is more fun to be had.Merry Christmas.
Ridiculous misconception. There was plenty of room for the kinds. The evolving came after.im sure you could put all the animlas on the ark. just theyd be dead.
of course there was no life in that pixel either.
Your point, then, is that all life is as knowledable as God. OK. Ok upon what do you base this claim??If god is knowledgeable enough to know the fall will happen, then so is all life.
Ah, so you do believe in evolution.Ridiculous misconception. There was plenty of room for the kinds. The evolving came after.
Yes, hyper evolution. ..As a created trait, in the former state. We don't know the kinds, but I can take an educated guess at several of them. Whales, wolves, oxen, sheep, lion, and asp.Ah, so you do believe in evolution.Good for you. By the way, exactly what is a "kind"?
What's a "stupid state change"? Is that like something that changes, that you guys can't scientifically explain?Did Dad ever give the bible verses where his stupid state change was mentioned?
Considering there is an estimated 2 to 10 million species in the world, that is one very, VERY hyper evolution. To say nothing of an incredibly rapid dispersal to the far corners of the world.Yes, hyper evolution. ..As a created trait, in the former state. We don't know the kinds, but I can take an educated guess at several of them. Whales, wolves, oxen, sheep, lion, and asp.
I think that list is pretty complete. I vote we let it stand as is.So, maybe we can get a list of the utterly preposterous conclusions that so called science (that is, the application of present science and laws to the far past) has come up with!!!!
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
What's a "stupid state change"? Is that like something that changes, that you guys can't scientifically explain?
PLEASE, PLEASE< PLEASE, do NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD
Do you guys remember what happened last time Dad started on one of his rants about science? Jeezus
Please, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, do not appease him, do not prod him, please do not post
PLEASE
For once, just DON'T START ANOTHER ONE
OHH GODD PLEEEAAASSSEEEE
Why don't people take good advice like this?
Why would you claim this? Common Descent, for example, could be falisifed by finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, a true chimera, a human gene that is more similar to a lizard than to a chimp, etc., etc.
Classic circular reasoning! Take some thing we have observed i.e. no rabbit fossils found in a rock layer which with have termed Cambrian and then say common decent could be falsified if we found no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer. Wow we find no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer so common decent is true!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?