Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,428
- 3,005
- 54
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
It's fundies like you that deny this (or don't know this).That means that fundies like him believe that fossils in fact debunk evolution.
It confirms it.Exodus refers back to the six day narrative of Genesis 1. Yes.
No it means that evolution is a belief without proof and weak evidence.I think it means that he thinks fossils TALK!
How would you know? You don't know anything at all, it appears, about the real theory of evolution.No it means that evolution is a belief without proof and weak evidence.
It's a bankrupt 19th century theosophically inspired conjecture.
But hey, they didn't know how complex living nature is, but we do now.
BTW, "red shift" does not represent a change in the speed of light. It occurs because the speed of light does not change, so the frequency of the light has to change instead--per Einstein's theory.
Because we have the evidence of many layers of life forms laid down over many millions of years. Many fossils were preserved by many floods.This has always fascinated me, dinosaurs that is. Many christians have told me satan put those (fossils) there to confuse us. I disagree, I believe satan is only at fault for the doubt of the timeline and of the divine existence of the Lord in general. I also believe the Dino's walked among us and must've been one awesome sight to see.
The global flood, many skeptics say to me "Where did the waters go?" and "Why did God kill all humanity except Noah's family?" and "That can't be what caused all the millions of years of erosion and what created the strata layers." I myself believe there is scientific evidence that supports the global flood, but the scientific community doesn't even consider this evidence at all. Why is that I ask, isn't this a big hypocritical mess? Why is the Theory of Evolution assumed as fact (when its just not, it may have supporting evidence, but that doesn't make it fact) and taught in our school system polluting our youth into thinking in one direction?
The difficulty with that theory is that the Bible presents us with two versions of the flood account redacted together, which argues for a story which derives from oral tradition in various forms.Because we have the evidence of many layers of life forms laid down over many millions of years. Many fossils were preserved by many floods.
The flood story was a creation of the Hebrew priest.
The difficulty with that theory is that the Bible presents us with two versions of the flood account redacted together, which argues for a story which derives from oral tradition in various forms.
Evolution isn't a theory, we have the bones, we have the geological records, we have radiometric dating techniques.The difficulty with that theory is that the Bible presents us with two versions of the flood account redacted together, which argues for a story which derives from oral tradition in various forms.
No it means that evolution is a belief without proof and weak evidence.
It's a bankrupt 19th century theosophically inspired conjecture.
But hey, they didn't know how complex living nature is, but we do now.
Now imagine what the sky would look like if the speed of light DID slow as a function of time. So, all the light you are looking at is coming at the same speed, but when it was emitted, it was moving at a higher speed.
It reminds me of something a famous astronomer once said at a party in response to a woman who has remarked at how foolish people had once been for believing that the Sun revolved around the Earth. He said "Yes, but I wonder what it would have looked like if it did."
Yes evolution is a theory, a scientific theory.Evolution isn't a theory, we have the bones, we have the geological records, we have radiometric dating techniques.
The amount of radioactive material at the start is neither assumed, nor does it need to be known, as with the Isochron or ATTA methods.Do you realize that potassium argon dating (or any radioactive dating methods) are dependent on multiple assumptions, such as knowing the amount of radioactive material at the start,
Besides just naming two methods where that is completely irrelevant whether it was or wasn't, scientists in the fields of geochemistry and geochronology are quite capable of identifying whether or not it was closed or not. Its not guess work.it being a closed system (how can you guarantee that?),
Now talk about assumptions, that one is a real doozie. No, they are not assumed. To begin with it is straight forward physics. Things don't change on their own. Furthermore, not only are decay rates tested and retested ad nausium, decay rates have been measured originating in supernovae hundreds of thousands to millions of light years distant. That is light just now being observed here on earth originated that long ago. Those measured decay rates are the same as we measure on earth today.and that the rate of decay is constant?
Did you even read what you linked???
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?