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.
Ya ... that kinda vacuums, doesn't it?There is no evidence.
Like Colin Humphreys?The Exodus story is fictitious, and nobody believes this story as factual history with the exception of religious adherents.
Faith is believing something, even when science says otherwise.Faith is the reason you give when you don't have good reasons.
First off, LastSeven, I don't know why you feel that a few bones in the Red Sea proves that Pharaoh's forces all died there. People drown. It happens a lot. It's no big stretch of the imagination to say that, even if the Exodus story were true, it wasn't the first time someone died in that particular body of water, nor was it the last.
Also, about that picture of the wheel - here's an interesting video that deals with it.
Biblical Archaeology VI - YouTube
To sum up, archaeological pictures typically are taken with markers that give you some indication of how big they are. It's more than a little telling that this picture is missing such a marker. There are several other problems with it, and I have to wonder why whomever took this picture didn't take it out of the water for closer inspection.
Yes, I agree, he did have some fallacious beliefs. It is his science that we are discussing, not his flaws.
And to assume that creation is true is the opposite of science. Science makes no assumptions ahead of time as to what is true or not, it only follows the evidence. Even Newtons's science shows that our solar system is billions of years old. and yet YEC's deny this. Therefore they deny Newton's physics.
I am no scientist but have read enough to know that these theories have huge holes in them. If you really cared to know you could spend a few weeks doing your own research.
Carbon dating assumes that the carbon that has been entering the earth's atmosphere has been doing so at a consistent rate. This is a huge assumption. It also assumes that the ratio between C12 and C14 has always been a constant. Without knowing the correct ratio, you can not know the correct age. Some scientists have even referred to the state of carbon dating as a crisis due to its unreliability and inaccuracy.
The founder of carbon dating himself even believed it would take no more than 30,000 years for the atmosphere on earth to reach equilibrium. Yet it still has not reached that state, which means the atmosphere can not be more than 30,000 years old.
For evolution, the onus is on the evolutionists to prove their theory correct which they have yet to do. The simple lack of "the missing link" should be enough to make you question evolution.
No creature has ever turned into anything new. Even the extremely fast life of the fruit fly has never yielded any evidence of evolution. Though there may be variations in creatures they always remain the same creature. A fish does not turn into a reptile. It's physically impossible. The odds of all the necessary molecules mutating at the same time to create legs are incredible and statistically impossible even over billions of years. It just wouldn't happen.
The theory of natural selection is supposed to explain "survivability" traits, yet humans have the ability to be artistic and musical and thoughtful for no apparent useful reason. Everything about the creatures on earth screams intelligent design, but I guess that's too obvious for the "scientists".
I don't even want to get started on global warming. There's just not enough information. And the fact that it's such a hugely political issue makes it incredibly susceptible to tampering, as we've seen with climategate and other UN sanctioned "studies". Personally I doubt that man made CO2 could affect the planet in such a drastic way that some people are predicting.
Foolish, as in pertaining to atheism?That would be foolish.
Wyatt's fellow evangelicals have also been critical: Answers in Genesis called Wyatt's claims "fraudulent,"[14] and one Seventh-day Adventist professor of archaeology sums up Wyatt's Noah's Ark and anchor stones claims in these words: "While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, [it is] ... too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes."
Foolish, as in pertaining to atheism?
Or foolish, as in silly?
Abiogenesis → foolishness?Foolish as in pertaining to life.
.....The Greenhouse effect has been accepted as settled science for over 100 years. Do you seriously think that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would have no effect? I used to be skeptical about AGW too, I would debate against it on websites, but like a good skeptic I did the right thing. I studied the problem. The more I studied it the more I found that the AGW crowd has the facts on their side.
Perhaps you should learn how to be a good skeptic. A good skeptic does not go only to the sites that feed your skepticism. You also need to go to websites that support the opposition.
I have no fear of articles in AiG or other creationist sites. I have found that ti is very rare NOT to find an article with obvious lies in them. If creationism was true you think that they would not have to lie.
So go to evolution and anti-evolution sites. Go to global warming and anti-global warming sites. See which ones are honest. If one side lies the other side can usually point it out. Evolutionists don't have to lie since they have the truth on their side.
Abiogenesis → foolishness?
LOLAbiogenesis → foolishness?No. Abiogenesis is only an unanswered question at this point in time. Parts of the answer have been found, but not the whole answer.
Huge move of the goal posts AV. Moving the goal posts is a tacit admission that you are wrong.
LOL
What's that curvy thing at the end of my equation, scientist?
That doesn't surprise me.It does not matter. You still moved the goal posts by bringing a totally unrelated subject to this debate.
That doesn't surprise me.
The fool has said in their heart, there is a god.
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?