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.
I have studied geochronology for 35 years. I am still a YEC.
Do you know what is geochronology? Are you going to tell me anything new?
Make your question sound more humble. so I might consider to answer it.
I have studied geochronology for 35 years. I am still a YEC.
Do you know what is geochronology? Are you going to tell me anything new?
Make your question sound more humble. so I might consider to answer it.
--------
Hey, AV, you tricked me again. I got to be more careful.
But, bless you.
-- Er, in what way, bro!?
I see now -- lol -- sorry about that, bro!The OP author is, probably, already converted.
I have studied geochronology for 35 years. I am still a YEC.
Do you know what is geochronology? Are you going to tell me anything new?
Make your question sound more humble. so I might consider to answer it.
Imagine that! thinty-five years of study and learned nothing!
Well, to be fair, it should be old news.
You are famous for your humility, juvenissun!
Compared to you, his English is good.Whatever "degree of education'" tho, its sure not in English.
u r rite.
so I might consider to answer it.
Would you "consider to answer" a question? How long have you been studying English?
I get the feeling that more than one post under that name.When a bad student asked a question, I gave straight forward answer.
When a good student asked a question, I usually reply: Why? Or: "skip this one, what is the next question?"
I treat you as a good student.
When a bad student asked a question, I gave straight forward answer.
When a good student asked a question, I usually reply: Why? Or: "skip this one, what is the next question?"
I treat you as a good student.
given the OVERWHELMING evidence for an old earth and evolution why do you consitently ignore it? why do you get your points refuted over and over and over but never listen? why don't you do some research? why do you belive things that come from a site such as AIG when they reject any science that would destroy their beliefs? why why why? is your faith really that weak? are you afraid of science? as someone's signature on here says, if your faith is affected by science that is weak faith. now why are you guys so closed minded? why? i want answers.
OVERWHELMING evidence. One of the top 3 fallacies used by evolutionists. Proof by assertion. If you assert that there is OVERWHELMING evidence enough times, people will start to believe it.
Evolution is an origin science and origins science is 100% based on worldview interpretations of data.
Any data that does not support the worldview is thrown out.
Where the conversation starts and ends between young Earth and old Earth view of the world comes down to the worldwide flood of Genesis.
It accounts for the difference between thousands and Billions of years in interpretation of the data.
What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elites is that they say that a flood on Earth is an absurd hypothesis despite various suggestions that such a flood could have taken place, yet on the other hand don't discount a flood on Mars, a planet with no trace of water.
Or the outright ignoring of geologic features we have noticed the last 30 years such as the phenomenon of Mount Saint Helens or the Little Grand Canyon, which show that dramatic alterations to rearrange mountains, form canyons etc can occur in periods of time that can be measured in days not hundreds of millions of years.
So of course you can make claims that there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence
when in reality the only thing there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence for is how incredibly worldview driven evolution is as a theory and how incredibly biased the scientific community is towards that worldview.
??Proof by assertion
What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elite
What exposes the absolute hypocrisy and clearly worldview driven dogma of the naturalist intellectual elites is that they say that a flood on Earth is an absurd hypothesis despite various suggestions that such a flood could have taken place,
yet on the other hand don't discount a flood on Mars, a planet with no trace of water.
Or the outright ignoring of geologic features we have noticed the last 30 years such as the phenomenon of Mount Saint Helens or the Little Grand Canyon, which show that dramatic alterations to rearrange mountains, form canyons etc can occur in periods of time that can be measured in days not hundreds of millions of years.
So of course you can make claims that there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence when in reality the only thing there is "OVERWHELMING" evidence for is how incredibly worldview driven evolution is as a theory and how incredibly biased the scientific community is towards that worldview.
OVERWHELMING evidence. One of the top 3 fallacies used by evolutionists. Proof by assertion. If you assert that there is OVERWHELMING evidence enough times, people will start to believe it.
Well considering that ALL the evidence suggests biological evolution through natural selection eventually gives rise to new species, and that there's NO evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd call that pretty OVERWHELMING, don't you think
ON a loosely based definition of the word evidence preserved only for this theory, then sure.
In reality, there isn't a single intelligible explanation of how a creature could go from one species to one with a completely different set of biological systems.
Because there is variation among dog breeds and bills of finches, taking information like that and inferring that dogs and finches have the same origin is laughable. Even more laughable is what is used as proof.
The evolutionary tree just has lines drawn on it with no actual links or intelligible ways in which those dramatic changes could have occurred in the first place.
Again I bet you a million to one that you get all of your information from creationist web sites and your creationist preacher.ON a loosely based definition of the word evidence preserved only for this theory, then sure.
In reality, there isn't a single intelligible explanation of how a creature could go from one species to one with a completely different set of biological systems.
Because there is variation among dog breeds and bills of finches, taking information like that and inferring that dogs and finches have the same origin is laughable. Even more laughable is what is used as proof.
The evolutionary tree just has lines drawn on it with no actual links or intelligible ways in which those dramatic changes could have occurred in the first place.
Again I bet you a million to one that you get all of your information from creationist web sites and your creationist preacher.
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?