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.
Scientists have repeatedly answered those and other creationists' objections. That creationists are not happy with the scientific evidence is not a reason to continue the debate.I thought I gave two good examples: ocean salinity and the earth's magnetosphere.
According to Hebrews 6:18 he can't (unless he declares that's what he's doing). And that's where you run into problems with your embedded age nonsense. Can you see the problem?Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?
Yes. God could have even created the universe in one gigasecond; but I believe He "dragged it out" over a six-day period so as to create a template for the workweek as stipulated in one of the Ten Commandments.
Thanks for the correction!One gigasecond is actually about 31.7 years.
My pastor says there are some 70 different ways to date the earth, and scientists only use four of them that make the earth look old, and deny the rest.
He said something about scientists accepting radio carbon dating
, argon [something-something], krypton this, and something else that (geology and deep space, I think).
Everything else like ocean salinity, strength of the magnetosphere, and others, they find ways to invalidate.
You better do. And otherwise I advise very good hand hygiene.I don't know litmus paper from toilet paper.
Ar-Ar and Kr-Ar would do better for dating the earth.
I wonder what those are and how they use it to arrive at a young earth.
This should be K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating, not Kr-Ar (krypton-argon) dating.
Your pastor was either lying or did not know what he was talking about. There are examples of "dating" done by creationists where creationists either ignore or pretend that certain factors do not exist. A favorite of theirs used to be the amount of salt in the oceans. They only count how salt is added and ignore how it is removed. And most of these arguments were refuted over forty years ago. Your pastor is without excuse.Deny anything that dares contradict established scientific paradigms, right?
My pastor says there are some 70 different ways to date the earth, and scientists only use four of them that make the earth look old, and deny the rest.
Like through evaporation, ocean spray, and hydrothermal circulation?A favorite of theirs used to be the amount of salt in the oceans. They only count how salt is added and ignore how it is removed.
Chemical reactions are probably the top way that sodium is removed from the sea. Evaporation plays a minor role. Though at times it may have been more significant. Right now isolated shallow seas do not exist. And yes, hydrothermal circulation is one of those processes.Like through evaporation, ocean spray, and hydrothermal circulation?
No, you wouldn't quibble over anything He did. The question is, what did he do? And now we're back to the interpretation of ancient texts as Ponderous Curmudgeon pointed out.
It landed in Williamstown, KY!Well, surely also by physical evidence. If someone
interpreted it that Mt Ararat is in Kansas, a review of
state geography would reveal that God didn't land an ark
on mountain in Kansas.
And how would a review of state geography reveal that God didn't land an ark on a mountain in Kansas, when a review of world geography can't reveal that God landed an ark in the mountains of Ararat?Well, surely also by physical evidence. If someone
interpreted it that Mt Ararat is in Kansas, a review of
state geography would reveal that God didn't land an ark
on mountain in Kansas.
It landed in Williamstown, KY!
How did you word your question to them? did you ask them for "evidence," or for "references"?Proof of collusion, right there.
I don't understand the formatting of your post.I'd already extensively researched that
very facr, but found I was stinewalled at every turn.
I wentvso far as to inquire of the
League of Nations, but my letter only
elicited the following response, here quoted
in full:
"We are unable to find any reference to the
so- called 'Ark of Williamstown' , no more than
we can to the alleged 'South African diamond fields'
also so much lately in the news."
Proof of collusion, right there.
Eddie Cochran took his concern to the United Nations, with the same result: nothing.I don't understand the formatting of your post.
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?