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.
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.
Who observed the Garden of Eden again? Oh yeah... some angels. Got any testamonials from them angels?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.
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.Don't think that, just because they can't directly observe something, they are going to let that stop them.
Go ahead and disagree. But give us some logical reason. "My Holy Book says you is wrong," doesn't count.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.
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.Internet scientists usually go for the later first -- we're automatically a liar, until proven uneducated.
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:Perhaps you should know something about the things you claim knowledge about before making a fool and liar of yourself.
You really need to tell us why "micro" cant just keep going.
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?
I take it that's your opinion? I also take it you don't know the difference?Problem is, everything from "Basic Theology" down to "In my opinion" is all just an opinion.
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...
Oh, my -- after five years, you still don't know?Which "basic theology" are you referring to.
This isn't about church vs. church though, is it?One church's "basic theology" is another's blasphemy.
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 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.
Embarrassing to whom? you?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.
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.
Dr. deGrasse Tyson has a good explanation for Pluto's reclassification. What he has to say does not support your statements.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.
Well whoop-dee-legume! good for Dr. deGrasse Tyson.Dr. deGrasse Tyson has a good explanation for Pluto's reclassification. What he has to say does not support your statements.
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.
Any idea why these states might not want Pluto reclassified*?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
You got that right --Hint: has nothing to do with science.
They did just that (metaphorically speaking of course). It would seem politics and religion have much in common.You got that right --
Maybe they should put a sign over their door: Science can take a hike.
I certainly hope so.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:
All three should work in harmony; and labs can take a hike.
- the home
- the church
- the government
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.
I don't reject the real world, despite how many times I get falsely accused of it.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.
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?