Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[Hespera]

Yet there is no evidence macro is just micro on a greater time scale. Evolutionists have faith that it is, but can't prove it scientifically. We only observe minor variations and mutations, not things 'evolving'...dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish etc. Evolutionists however believe dogs sprung from non-dogs and fish from non-fish. Theres the fairytale.

There is in fact an enormous body of evidence that it can and did happen.
no 'faith" needed.

You really need to tell us why "micro" cant just keep going.

Micro erosion of mountains cant keep going till the mountain is gone?

The fairytales are in your book, so you might want to stay off that word.

 

[Split Rock]

My friend, you're talking about science here -- a philosophy that has five different theories as to how we got our moon, and not one of them has ever, nor can be, observed.

Who observed the Garden of Eden again? Oh yeah... some angels. Got any testamonials from them angels?

Don't think that, just because they can't directly observe something, they are going to let that stop them.

Of course not. If it was up to you Internet Creationists (I.C.s for short), most criminals would go unprosecuted because no one directly observed their actions.

All they need to see is a shadow of something -- (or five shadows) -- and then look out, anyone daring to disagree with their shadows is uneducated at best, and a liar at worst.

Go ahead and disagree. But give us some logical reason. "My Holy Book says you is wrong," doesn't count.

Internet scientists usually go for the later first -- we're automatically a liar, until proven uneducated.

Usually it is the other way around here. We usually assume you are ignorant (remember how proud that makes you?) and then assume you are lying only after repeated corrections and attempts to educate are ignored.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should know something about the things you claim knowledge about before making a fool and liar of yourself.

Chris, since you're displaying a cross as your faith icon, and since I'm assuming you're a Christian, let me make couple of points here:

1. Calling another brother out in a public forum is frowned against in the Scriptures -- (1 Corinthians 6:1).
2. Calling another brother an atheist is as well -- (Matthew 5:22).

 

[Research1]

You really need to tell us why "micro" cant just keep going.

It can - hence its name...

Micro meaning small.

These small changes though will never amount to macroevolution since they are just minor variations in a fixed type or kind. As i said dogs will always be dogs, but evolutionists believe that dogs sprung from non-dogs... for that you need faith - a religion...

 

[Hespera]

So since you admit macro is not observable or testable, its not science is it? If you change the definition of science to what is non-observable, then i guess you believe pixies and ghosts pass the requirements for the scientific method?

Could you get off this word 'admit'? There is no confession to be made.

you still didnt answer what i asked about micro / macro erosion.

Your idea that it is not science is just silly, as ToE is accepted as science by the entire world scientific community. You really are off on that one.

Dont try to get snarky ok?

 

[AV1611VET]

Problem is, everything from "Basic Theology" down to "In my opinion" is all just an opinion.

I take it that's your opinion? I also take it you don't know the difference?

 

[Hespera]

It can - hence its name...

Micro meaning small.

These small changes though will never amount to macroevolution since they are just minor variations in a fixed type or kind. As i said dogs will always be dogs, but evolutionists believe that dogs sprung from non-dogs... for that you need faith - a religion...

now that would be true, if it were true.

But there is no "fixed type or kind". A mutation changes it, and more mutations change it more. you would have to show us where there is a barrier to change that keeps it from going past a certain piont.

There is 'faith' that there is a fixed kind, but no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which "basic theology" are you referring to.

Oh, my -- after five years, you still don't know?

One church's "basic theology" is another's blasphemy.

This isn't about church vs. church though, is it?

History has shown that churches do tend to unite against major threats to our freedom to worship.

 

[Matthijs]

So since you admit macro is not observable or testable, its not science is it? If you change the definition of science to what is non-observable, then i guess you believe pixies and ghosts pass the requirements for the scientific method?

You are misrepresenting the points being made a bit there.

Go back to the examples in geology:

You say (at least I think it was you?) that we observed mountains form. This is not strictly true. We have seen mountains grow - ie change slowly over time. We have inferred that this in time has created the mountain. No-one has observed a mountain-range coming into existence - it takes too long. Same with the hills you mentioned - we observe the slow, slow working of a glacier, and infer that this is where erratic boulders and drumlins come from. No-one has ever observed boulders being picked up during a cold period of earths history and deposited miles away from a mountain. No-one has ever observed an expanding glacier pushing dirt into a hill of relatively soft material that quickly erodes into one of those nice rounded hills that England is so famous for.

Does this mean you don't believe in geology either?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if you are blind to the brainwashing, even you must recognise that the stuff you have to post on here as a result of it is plain embarrassing.

Embarrassing to whom? you?

You guys ask me where the Flood waters went, for example, and I give you my opinion.

And I'm supposed to feel embarrassed?

You guys automatically agree with a vote from the IAU, then find out later it was basically rigged, yet you still agree with it; despite more knowledgeable scientists who disagree.

Yet you don't feel embarrassed?

I think I'll take your opinion with a mole of sodium chloride.

 

[Matthijs]

Yet there is no evidence macro is just micro on a greater time scale. Evolutionists have faith that it is, but can't prove it scientifically. We only observe minor variations and mutations, not things 'evolving'...dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish etc. Evolutionists however believe dogs sprung from non-dogs and fish from non-fish. Theres the fairytale.

We infer that mountains grow from very small changes. We have not been able to directly observe chemistry, but no-one tries to deny that it works, unbiblical as bio-chemistry may be. My son the astro-physicist assures me that we infer a whole lot of information about the sun and the stars from indirect information. What is your exact objection?

We infer evolution from the changes we can see, the changes we see in the fossil record (which incidentally does not feature rabbits in the precambrian! Why not?) and what we can see in the DNA of both extant and extinct species. All of these make a coherent, credible whole in the framework of evolution and look like a galactic joke outside of it.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Embarrassing to whom? you?

You guys ask me where the Flood waters went, for example, and I give you my opinion.

And I'm supposed to feel embarrassed?

You guys automatically agree with a vote from the IAU, then find out later it was basically rigged, yet you still agree with it; despite more knowledgeable scientists who disagree.

Yet you don't feel embarrassed?

I think I'll take your opinion with a mole of sodium chloride.

Dr. deGrasse Tyson has a good explanation for Pluto's reclassification. What he has to say does not support your statements.

YouTube - Authors@Google: Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[AV1611VET]

Dr. deGrasse Tyson has a good explanation for Pluto's reclassification. What he has to say does not support your statements.

Well whoop-dee-legume! good for Dr. deGrasse Tyson.

He can just take his disagreements up with the California state assembly, New Mexico's House of Representatives and the Illinois State Senate.

Not to mention this: 32

 

[Tomatoman]

Embarrassing to whom? you?

No. To you and those who like and care about you.

You guys ask me where the Flood waters went, for example, and I give you my opinion.

You said, I believe, that the flood waters went to Neptune.

And I'm supposed to feel embarrassed?

If what you said was serious, then yes. Very.

You guys automatically agree with a vote from the IAU, then find out later it was basically rigged, yet you still agree with it; despite more knowledgeable scientists who disagree.

I have no idea what you're on about.

Yet you don't feel embarrassed?

Difficult to feel embarrassed about something I know nothing about, especially when it is clearly an attempt by you to change the subject.

I think I'll take your opinion with a mole of sodium chloride.

Just like you take the rest of the real world.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well whoop-dee-legume! good for Dr. deGrasse Tyson.

He can just take his disagreements up with the California state assembly, New Mexico's House of Representatives and the Illinois State Senate.

Not to mention this: 32

Any idea why these states might not want Pluto reclassified*?

Hint: has nothing to do with science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hint: has nothing to do with science.

You got that right --

Maybe they should put a sign over their door: Science can take a hike.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You got that right --

Maybe they should put a sign over their door: Science can take a hike.

They did just that (metaphorically speaking of course). It would seem politics and religion have much in common.

 

[AV1611VET]

They did just that (metaphorically speaking of course). It would seem politics and religion have much in common.

I certainly hope so.

As we teach, God has set up three institutions on the earth:

1. the home
2. the church
3. the government

All three should work in harmony; and labs can take a hike.

They say there is no such thing as separation of church and state; but in my opinion, there should be a separation of church and science.

 

[Tomatoman]

I certainly hope so.

As we teach, God has set up three institutions on the earth:

1. the home
2. the church
3. the government

All three should work in harmony; and labs can take a hike.

They say there is no such thing as separation of church and state; but in my opinion, there should be a separation of church and science.

Science isn't an abstract concept one can separate from anything. It describes the real world. Your rejection of the real world is your basic problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science isn't an abstract concept one can separate from anything. It describes the real world. Your rejection of the real world is your basic problem.

I don't reject the real world, despite how many times I get falsely accused of it.

Your rejection of my Boolean standards make you think I do -- (as it should).