what is your question?
I am using a young earth/global flood paradigm and ancient history and the fossil record
if you use an old earth/slow deposition paradigm it will not make any sense
Upvote
0
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 don't really understand the reasoning in this post, you have made an assumption (preflood is different to postflood) and now you're using science to back it up, using what I assume to be dinosaurs, you also use fossil fuels. All to make it so that you can have a convoluted and shaky idea. Does anyone else want a razor?
Oh good!
What are these assumptions, and why are they invalid. Back your claims with evidence, please.
Boy there are a lot of mays and may nots in that sentence. Care to explain why it's so common for a rock that may be dated by several methods to display the same date for each method, when the 'assumptions' involved in each method are so faulty?
Here is one from the Joggins Formation in Nova Scotia
what is your question?
I am using a young earth/global flood paradigm and ancient history and the fossil record
if you use an old earth/slow deposition paradigm it will not make any sense
Your "paradigm" is convoluted imo and given the choice between the two I have used Occam's Razor to choose the "old earth paradigm"
There is no evidence that I am aware of that indicates otherwise. Please feel free to present that evidence now. If the evidence does not exist, explain why we should assume that decay rates DO change rather than rely on the observation that they do not.
?
if enough other evidence exists for a global flood and a younger earth then those who are convinced such evidence is valid have every right to question 5 billion year ages and how they are determined
Your "paradigm" is convoluted imo and given the choice between the two I have used Occam's Razor to choose the "old earth paradigm"
You haven't cited any evidence yet, though, that I've noticed. The only thing I've seen you post is a link to a "Creationwiki". Which obviously isn't evidence.
i doubt you have much idea what my paradigm is
people will usually go with what they are most familiar and comfortable with - it's easier - doesn't mean it's right
We understand the closure temperatures of the minerals we date using K-Ar (the temperature at which Ar gas can no longer diffuse through the crystal structure), thus, it is not an assumption, but a requirement that the Ar content of a crystal, once below the closure temperature, can only change via decay of potassium incorporated into the crystal's structure.
?
I used to be a YEC and believed much the same as what you are converying, then I opened my mind and started to look at the evidence, there is no reason to accept the convoluted mess of ideas that are contradictory among the beliefs of one YEC, let alone the ideas of every YEC, the simpler and more satisfying explanation is the scientific understanding of how we got here, I have also yet to be given any substantial scriptural evidence for why I should accept YEC on theological grounds.
This is false- magnetic reversals are dated to have occurred over long periods of time-- dated with methods that you have yet to prove inaccurate.
Ah, but you have asserted in more than one post that you don't care about the age of the earth, so no big deal here, right?
pjnlsn said:You mean, not disallowing that equal parts antimatter and matter were at the event we call the Big Bang? Well, I thought you did have some objection to that, but if not...nvm.
SkyWriting said:It is said they were. But where did they source from?
SkyWriting said:Empty will remain empty.pjnlsn said:What will stay this way?
pjnlsn said:This is more like common sense, or epistemology perhaps.
SkyWriting said:Agreed. But Law as well.
A) Law of conservation of matter
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
B) First law of energy (first law of thermodynamics)
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
dU = dQ - dW
Where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, dQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and dW is a small amount of work done by the system.
SkyWriting said:pjnlsn said:I also don't know how science proves such a thing. Or which law of science you refer to? A law which says, or leads to the conclusion, that there is a seperate kind of reality, etc, etc? Or do you mean all of them...?
I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean
The laws above state that matter and energy is impossible
unless it has a source.
SkyWriting said:The source must be supernatural to avoid the endless question
of "....and what was THAT source?".
SkyWriting said:Yes, as in I first believed it based on circumstantial evidence. Like a person would if on a Jury. Based on evidence and testimony of persons who are determined not to be liars. Mostly the latter.pjnlsn said:Faith as in...you believe without proof? So you believe it because.....you believe it? You might be using this word in a different way than I do, but otherwise I'm not sure how to make sense of this bit.
SkyWriting said:Yes. The scriptures are "God-breathed."pjnlsn said:"He" put it in writing? Your god, then?
You may define GOD BREATHED most any way you choose.
Good breath, bad breath, words, or "Hot Air" if that's what you feel is correct.
pjnlsn said:OK. But that's my claim. Some people are insane, some are liars, and some seem to be sane and have no clear investment in the beneficial outcome of their words. Those who are killed because of what they say or write are given special consideration.SkyWriting said:So you're saying you know that there's a special sepearate part of reality, set apart from normal reality, because (a it's written in the book and (b it would be odd for someone to write that? Well, I've met a few odd people in my life, and some of them have said some right strange things, sometimes dealing with what would be called the supernatural, sometimes not. But I don't see how the fact that it's odd for a person to say it makes what they said true.
SkyWriting said:.pjnlsn said:Are you talking about virtual particles? Because I'd like to hear how virtual particles equals a godly being
Being eternal, critical, influential, fundamental, invisible, temporal, and hard to understand, they would have some of the aspects of a god. Missing personality for sure. Maybe enough to have a book written about them like this one:
Higgs Boson
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?