A 'very few', doesn't sound like a viable mechanism for 'adaptive on an evolutionary scale'. Or do you have some better insights?
For example moon is "light" according to the Bible, but in reality its just a big, dead object. You cannot land on "light" and put a flag there.1: So stars only appear to emit light but really do not? and you call the bible unscientific.
Most of times, its in error.2. but yet where the bible speaks of science subjects- it is infallible!
"Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it. According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:3. the firmament is not firm- you should look at the original word to understand the modern word. or a simple dictionary would do as well:
fir·ma·ment
/ˈfərməmənt/
noun
LITERARY
- the heavens or the sky, especially when regarded as a tangible thing.
4. where does the bible say to think with kidneys???
"...scales have the capability to form feathers given the proper molecular signals."Evolutionism says that raptors evolving to birds is a fact! So show me the evolution of the scales of a raptor to the feathers of a bird and you win! This is a fact so the evidence must be there to support this supposed fact!
ICR, AIG, and CRS now also admit the evolution of new species (but they say it isn't "real" evolution, ignoring the meaning of the word) So they have modified their religion a bit over time, to accomodate reality.
I'm merely showing you that life was not created from nothing; it was brought forth by the Earth as God intended.
No. Neither of those say 'the whole earth' or even suggest it.
Theologians who know more than you or I, have said the language reflects a parable. Which is why a literal worldwide flood has never been Christian orthodoxy.
No, that's wrong. It's why so few people believe in a global flood today; the evidence doesn't support it. Would you like me to show you why?
You didn't ask. Would you like to learn how it works?
As you learned, the variation in rates, (if they exist; the changes are so small, they might be instrument variations) would not change billions of years to millions of years, much less thousands of years. And of course, if it somehow did, the massive increase in radiation from earth, air, and water would have killed all living things.
And yet, it accurately identified the date of the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii.
Doesn't matter. That's the funny thing about reality. It keeps right on going, even if you try to ignore it.
No, you merely cited a place wherethe claim was made, but no evidence provided. If you do find it, by all means, show us. Checkable source.
Water contains radioactive elements, as does air and earth. Can't get away from it. If you accelerate radioactive decay by a factor of tens of millions (which is what you'd need to get from billions of years to thousands of years) it would have killed all living things.
For example, it was tested by dating the age of the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii. It's easy to record how much an element decays over time. That excuse won't work.
A researcher in Rome presented this finding. However, no one to date has been able to reproduce it. So there's a problem. Morever, if the atmosphere of the Earth had experienced such huge pressure waves, very little but microbes would have survived.
Clay, shale and slate are rocks that do not allow water to pass through and are therefore classified as impermeable. Unlike permeable rocks that absorb water, impermeable rocks can support and change the beds of rivers and streams, are prone to erosion, and can prevent the flow of groundwater. The latter is commonly referred to as an aquiclude. Composite rock materials such as concrete or brick are porous and allow for the seepage of water, unless treated with a water-proofing substance.
Substances That Are Impermeable to Water
Nope. You can't use sedimentary rock for radioisotope dating. I bet, if you thought about it a bit, you'd realize why.
See above. I'm not trying to make fun of you. But you don't understand a lot of the things you would need to understand to make a reasonable conclusion.
Yep. It's not all that complicated in principle. The devil is in the details. There are entire books written about things that you can do to mess up an analysis.
1. All radioisotopes decay at known rates.
2. This is calculated as half-lives, the time it takes for half of the isotope to decay to a daughter isotope.
3. The relative amount of the parent and daughter isotopes will give the date at which the rock "closed"
4. If there are more than two datable isotopes in the rock, one can check the results by an isochron.
That is, if you plot the relative amounts of three parent and daughter isotopes on a graph, the three points should lie on a straight line.
The analysis is straightforward. Argon-39 has a half-life of 269 years. Which means that in 269 years, half of it will be gone and converted to Potassium-39. In 538 years, three-quarters of it will be gone and converted to potassium, and so on.
Well ICR AIG and CRS believe in speciation they always have. But we are talking Darwinian or big E evolution and not just generic change evolution.
Speciation is due more to Mendels Law
But speciation is still in the biblical decree of kinds stating kinds. A mouse who becomes a different mouse is still a mouse- you need to demonstrate how a fish mutates to an amphibian or a reptile to a bird.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day!
It appears that ar40/ar39 is not a new methodology to replace k/ar dating. then.
don't tell geologists that!
Well at least we are on the same page as to how radio dating works!
What pressure waves.
The massive rains? the fountains spewing open? The massive tectonic activity?
As to the reproduction by other labs or scientists I know not if it was tried to be reproduced.
And we can only speculate what would and would not survive-
For example moon is "light" according to the Bible, but in reality its just a big, dead object. You cannot land on "light" and put a flag there.
Most of times, its in error.
"Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it. According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:
The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse"
Firmament - Wikipedia
Job 19:27, Ps 16:7, Ps 7:10, Jer 11:20, Jer 17:10, Jer 20:12, Rev 2:23
"...scales have the capability to form feathers given the proper molecular signals."
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-modern-genomics-alligator-scales-birdlike.html
Also, many dinosaurs were feathered.
Speciation is all that happens. Two populations will diverge farther and farther. Hence many creationists now allow for the evolution of new species, genera, and families. But there's no boundary out there; it can go on indefinitely.
No. Mendel offered no idea why species evolve. He did realize that they did, but did not say why.
Not hard to do. As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise shows, there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory in the numerous series of transitional fossils. He mentions both of those series. He doesn't believe they evolved; he just notes that the evidence indicates that they did, and supposes that eventually, a creationist explanation will be possible.
Barbarian, regarding an important test of radioisotope dating:
"And yet, it accurately identified the date of the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii."
But here we have a choice not of 12 hours, but billions of years. And the method got it within seven years on the first try. So we know it works.
It's typically used for isochrons to check the findings of other isotopes. Not surprisingly, those work, too.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. You can't use sedimentary rock for radioisotope dating. I bet, if you thought about it a bit, you'd realize why."
They would tell you that. You can't use sedimentary rocks for radioisotope data. Would you like to learn why?
Not if you suppose that sedimentary rocks can be used for the method. You still don't get the idea.
Cavitation produces huge forces, not seen on the surface of the Earth on a geological scale.
Nope. None of those.
That's the problem. So far, no one can reproduce it. And that's a huge problem.
No, that's wrong, too. The levels of radiation you're supposing are far too high for any living thing on Earth to survive.
Speciation is all that happens. Two populations will diverge farther and farther. Hence many creationists now allow for the evolution of new species, genera, and families. But there's no boundary out there; it can go on indefinitely.
No. Mendel offered no idea why species evolve. He did realize that they did, but did not say why.
Not hard to do. As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise shows, there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory in the numerous series of transitional fossils. He mentions both of those series. He doesn't believe they evolved; he just notes that the evidence indicates that they did, and supposes that eventually, a creationist explanation will be possible.
Barbarian, regarding an important test of radioisotope dating:
"And yet, it accurately identified the date of the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii."
But here we have a choice not of 12 hours, but billions of years. And the method got it within seven years on the first try. So we know it works.
It's typically used for isochrons to check the findings of other isotopes. Not surprisingly, those work, too.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. You can't use sedimentary rock for radioisotope dating. I bet, if you thought about it a bit, you'd realize why."
They would tell you that. You can't use sedimentary rocks for radioisotope data. Would you like to learn why?
Not if you suppose that sedimentary rocks can be used for the method. You still don't get the idea.
Cavitation produces huge forces, not seen on the surface of the Earth on a geological scale.
Nope. None of those.
That's the problem. So far, no one can reproduce it. And that's a huge problem.
No, that's wrong, too. The levels of radiation you're supposing are far too high for any living thing on Earth to survive.
You've never heard the story of Jesus healing the blind men? Wow.Please give the scriptures you are calling into question and I wil look them up!
Nowhere in Genesis does it say anything came out of the body of God. Where do you get this unbiblical idea?point 2 Yes it came from the ground but the earth was not pre seeded. the plant life came ex-Deo.
Only appear to be, scientifically, moon is not a light in the sky. Also, flood was not global and man is not from literal dust.Point one- and yet there they are- giving light in the night sky!
Thinking with kidneys, tower built to reach heaven, a mountain from which you can see all kingdoms of the world, flat earth, the smallest seed, the value of pi, geocentric worldview, the idea that the heaven is "above" etc.Point 2: name one time when the bible is in error about science.
Yes, kidneys were thought to be the center of feelings and thinking, thats my point.Point 3- you need to learn how language was used. strictly it is a kidney- but it was also used to declare innermost thoughts and feelings. Once again context defines which is which!
Also explain... [scientific xyz].
You've never heard the story of Jesus healing the blind men? Wow.
Mark 10:46-52
Luke 18:35-43
Matthew 9:27-31
Here's a great page where you can read all three version of the story on the same page.
Source
Only appear to be, scientifically, moon is not a light in the sky. Also, flood was not global and man is not from literal dust.
Thinking with kidneys, tower built to reach heaven, a mountain from which you can see all kingdoms of the world, flat earth, the smallest seed, the value of pi, geocentric worldview, the idea that the heaven is "above" etc.
Yes, kidneys were thought to be the center of feelings and thinking, thats my point.
Sorry, I am not a scientist. I am just a layperson. If you are not satisfied with what scientific community says, you must address them, publish some study, create a new working model etc.
You can talk about the Bible with me, though.
Just from the location of the verses ( I will read them later) I am pretty suire they are different events.
I wanted to know what you were referring to and not think of the verses I know. so i would not misrepresent what you are thinking.
Scientifically the moon is a light in the sky- it reflects sunlight and lightens the sky it is a planetoid yes but it also gives light to the sky!
YOu: "Thinking with kidneys, tower built to reach heaven, a mountain from which you can see all kingdoms of the world, flat earth, the smallest seed, the value of pi, geocentric worldview, the idea that the heaven is "above" etc."
Some of these are idioms of language (like kidneys and a mountain) some are opinions forced on the bible by its detractors.
But though geographically the earth is not the center of the universe- from gods spiritual perspective it is the center of the universe! If you refuse to look beyond a very narrow look you will not recognize language usage.
I wonder if you never heard of it- would you think that wne one says its raining cats and dogs- you would immediately go to thinking cats and dogs are falling from the sky.
JOb declares the earth is an orb and Job is considered the oldest book.
Sorry but there are three heavens spoken of in the bible and all three are above!
And Babel was a tower built unto heaven- It was a temple to worship the gods behind the stars- not necessarily to be a huge skyscraper! When you look at the hebrew it becomes much clearer.
Well you are th eone writing about science and not not the scientific community. I am simply addressing you because you are writing. If someone from the "scientific community" writes here I will address them here.
You've never heard the story of Jesus healing the blind men? Wow.
Mark 10:46-52
Luke 18:35-43
Matthew 9:27-31
Here's a great page where you can read all three version of the story on the same page.
Source
you do realize that firmament means something hard enough to walk on and the people who wrote the Bible actually thought the sky was a hard dome with lights stuck to it . Modern English usage of firmament to mean the sky is poeticStraining at gnats. Look into the sky. are those stars lights? Are you mad at God for not going into a textbook definition of the stars?
There is a firmament where the sun, moon, and stars are- it is called outer space in todays language .
Evolutionists should think with their kidneys- they might come up with better solutions!
you do realize that firmament means something hard enough to walk on and the people who wrote the Bible actually thought the sky was a hard dome with lights stuck to it . Modern English usage of firmament to mean the sky is poetic
They are wrong. Nothing about fossils or species or anything else contradicts the truth of the bible.I have heard people argue that the Bible and science contradicts, e.g. along the lines of claiming that there are many species of a certain type of animal (I am not saying I believe the Bible and science contradicts, I am just saying this is what some people claim) "contrary" to Noah's ark?
What are your thoughts on this?
No. Since the sun and stars were in the firmament, obviously no one seriously thought any such foolish thing. In fact the ancients had great wisdom regarding the heavenly movements.you do realize that firmament means something hard enough to walk on and the people who wrote the Bible actually thought the sky was a hard dome with lights stuck to it . Modern English usage of firmament to mean the sky is poetic
lol to the point that they accepted astrologyNo. Since the sun and stars were in the firmament, obviously no one seriously thought any such foolish thing. In fact the ancients had great wisdom regarding the heavenly movements.
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?