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.
Science is based on testing your hypothesis. I read a lot of research. I grew up reading my dad's medical journals. He use to talk about stuff, but chances are I already read the article before he did.Ifn you knew so much about science you would
know not to assume your conclusions.
It depends on whether or not you believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."How can there truth in YEC and OEC when they are diametrically opposite.
No its called completely misunderstanding my posts by thinking "catastrophic plate tectonics" and "plate tectonics" were one in the same thing.This is the first I ever heard that term. They call this a strawman when you knock down your own theory.
Goes to heaven...by being drowned.The parent has to repent. The child goes straight to Heaven. I had a dream about my daughter in Heaven.
Interesting choice of word. It's just as true to state the motivation behind catastrophic plate tectonics is a suggestion of a mechanism behind the biblical flood. Whether or not the suggestion is true is another matter.You seemed to have missed the point I was making about catastrophic plate tectonics.
Where as plate tectonics is now mainstream science supported by observation, the motivation behind catastrophic plate tectonics it to distort plate tectonics so it becomes consistent with the creationist storyline which is not evidence based.
This is the reason why catastrophic plate tectonics is pseudoscience.
Yeah. So that would be every human being (except Noah and his immediate family). Every man, woman and child. Every infant. Every baby.We know for a fact that Noah's flood did not destroy everyone. So maybe you need to go back and read your Bible again to see who was destroyed in Noah's flood. You will need the Holy Spirit of God to be your guide and teacher.
I will give you a clue. In Genesis 6:7 we read: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
Was there a comment directed at me? I'll gladly accept the inconvenience of not
knowing for the sheer peace of mind that 'ignored content' gives me.
What he meant was that he had no answer that didn't make God look capricious.Sometimes Alan Watts had a peculiar way of expressing these types of situations in his talks… in one instance I remember a reference to Divine nonsense. I don’t think he was being sacrilegious, but a way of saying we could not comprehend the answer, or that it was simply unexplainable to us.
You apparently read a lot of his confidential patient files as well. Before destroying them.Science is based on testing your hypothesis. I read a lot of research. I grew up reading my dad's medical journals. He use to talk about stuff, but chances are I already read the article before he did.
OEC incidentally claims God created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, YEC 6000 years ago.YEC covers the last 6,000 years. OEC covers the last 12.7 billion years. dispensationalism covers the last 12,700 years. So they are not even talking about the same thing.
No it depends on whether God created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago or 6000 years ago.It depends on whether or not you believe "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Then why say that there is truth in all of them? If OEC is correct then YEC is catastrophically, unequivocally and undeniably completely wrong.YEC covers the last 6,000 years. OEC covers the last 12.7 billion years. dispensationalism covers the last 12,700 years. So they are not even talking about the same thing.
I admit I peeked.Then I won't tell you for your own peace of mind.(I think you can guess the inane response from my reply to the message you don't see.)
There is no evidence for a biblical flood.Interesting choice of word. It's just as true to state the motivation behind catastrophic plate tectonics is a suggestion of a mechanism behind the biblical flood. Whether or not the suggestion is true is another matter.
I admit I peeked.
The maths is ok. The science, specifically the biology, is abysmal. Nay, non existent. From here: Why populations can't be saved by a single breeding pair.Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach billions of people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?”answersingenesis.org
Wouldn't it be be great in real life. If someone in a bar was spouting nonsense you could just tune him out.I still peak sometimes when I see a hidden response to my post, or what hidden content someone is replying to. (I like this better than the last software version were you wouldn't even know that the post was in response to hidden content.)
What do you think of the population figures for 50,000 years?The maths is ok. The science, specifically the biology, is abysmal. Nay, non existent. From here: Why populations can't be saved by a single breeding pair.
'Fifty effective individuals – the IUCN standard for avoiding inbreeding – equals a total population of 250 to 500. This means that, in a hypothetical apocalypse, humanity would need a lot more than a handful of survivors to repopulate effectively. However, to retain evolutionary potential – to remain genetically flexible and diverse – the IUCN criteria suggest we would need at least 500 effective individuals. That requires a population of 2,500 to 5,000.'
Eight people don't cut it. Especially when 4 of them are from the same family. So interbreeding would take place as soon as the second generation.
What do you think of the population figures for 50,000 years?
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?