Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dad" data-source="post: 14315132" data-attributes="member: 98011"><p>Scientific evidence i.e. physical universe evidence, as I say is fine for the most part to see how it now goes down. Where we leave you in the dust, is when it is pointed out that this was not always nor will much linger be, the way it is. The only place the physical evidence would apply is in these decades, and centuries sandwiched in eternity. An eternity that has very different decay rates!</p><p> No He created the physical universe! I think it was merged at the time with the spiritual. So by no means spiritual only! It's just that after the split, we have the physical only, and it's processes of decay, etc. You can measure it, but you cannot measure it beyond it's bounds of several thousand years. Before, and after that, the spiritual is merged, and different processes apply! So as long as you stay off the dates, most things are fine, but try and presume the same process before the split, and it becomes irrelevant, because it wasn't the same!</p><p></p><p> No. The word is quite clear there. What you see happening, in my opinion, is that some take science as a certain fact, in the dates, as being older than the bible tells us. Then, they try to understand what God could really mean, to fit in with what we 'know'. So there are some theories, and interpretations they have come up with. I don't consider that really is my problem. So carbon in the air, or elsewhere in context of the split is no big challenge, any more than argon, etc. Just a present decay rate, nothing more.</p><p></p><p> That's what I'm trying to figure out, could you pinpoint one of these distortions you perceive, as to geographic location?</p><p></p><p>How is a tree that's dead going to show evidence of a flood? Anyhow, if htey assume there was no flood thats inaccurate. The guy had a point, if dating was so good, why can't it stsnd on it's own two feet? Why start with a group of things, each with it's own assumptions, and use the group as a 'callibrator'? It's just a bigger pile that way!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dad, post: 14315132, member: 98011"] Scientific evidence i.e. physical universe evidence, as I say is fine for the most part to see how it now goes down. Where we leave you in the dust, is when it is pointed out that this was not always nor will much linger be, the way it is. The only place the physical evidence would apply is in these decades, and centuries sandwiched in eternity. An eternity that has very different decay rates! No He created the physical universe! I think it was merged at the time with the spiritual. So by no means spiritual only! It's just that after the split, we have the physical only, and it's processes of decay, etc. You can measure it, but you cannot measure it beyond it's bounds of several thousand years. Before, and after that, the spiritual is merged, and different processes apply! So as long as you stay off the dates, most things are fine, but try and presume the same process before the split, and it becomes irrelevant, because it wasn't the same! No. The word is quite clear there. What you see happening, in my opinion, is that some take science as a certain fact, in the dates, as being older than the bible tells us. Then, they try to understand what God could really mean, to fit in with what we 'know'. So there are some theories, and interpretations they have come up with. I don't consider that really is my problem. So carbon in the air, or elsewhere in context of the split is no big challenge, any more than argon, etc. Just a present decay rate, nothing more. That's what I'm trying to figure out, could you pinpoint one of these distortions you perceive, as to geographic location? How is a tree that's dead going to show evidence of a flood? Anyhow, if htey assume there was no flood thats inaccurate. The guy had a point, if dating was so good, why can't it stsnd on it's own two feet? Why start with a group of things, each with it's own assumptions, and use the group as a 'callibrator'? It's just a bigger pile that way! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
Top
Bottom