You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.
But you have tried.
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.
You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.You're still talking about religion. I stated in the OP that this thread was to discuss science, and science only, not religion!
No Heiss, this thread is specific to the science presented in the creation science literature and only the science. References to the bible or any religion are off topic.Yes it does. Beliefs is the very base you have placed your natural knowledge upon.
Take a careful look.
You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.
But you have tried.
You cannot separate the Creator from His Creation and say lets isolate natural geology and artifacts.
But you have tried.
Rick, God had all of these natural processes that create depositional environments and depositional layers in Mind before Speaking representation of billions of years of natural geologic history into existence. Yes, bringing forth grandscale existence of a natural world with foreknown representation of billions of years of "natural history" as He brought each part into existence. The Maker of One Intelligent Creation.
The ones stating "the Flood did it" have their premise, as Michael has thoughtfully presented. Include for many "the Flood did it" that their spiritual eyes were open by the Holy Spirit to many verses and things in the Bible, and now Bible believers foundationally they exhibit their strict adherence to "Biblical interpretations", even interpretation of natural science artifacts, which has produce obvious ignorance in many occasions.
For one, they miscalculated the depth of the moondust.So I have to ask: what are they getting wrong? What are men and women who have spent years studying their field, all across the globe, getting wrong?
For one, they miscalculated the depth of the moondust.
Scientists didn't miscalculate the depth of the moondust?You keep saying this, and you keep being told it's wrong.
Scientists didn't miscalculate the depth of the moondust?
Scientists didn't miscalculate the depth of the moondust?
I assume the formula for calculating the depth of the moondust is:Perhaps you might provide a citation for a pre-landing moon dust depth.
I doubt it.As RickG said, if the scientists at NASA had calculated that the layer of moondust was deep, would they have sent the astronauts to the moon?
I doubt it.
What's that have to do with anything?
I assume the formula for calculating the depth of the moondust is:
Depth = Rate x Time
Calculating the RATE (whatever it was) times TIME, would yield a deep floor.
Yet, as I understand it, satellites surprised scientists back in 1965 by returning a shallow floor.
So scientists recalculated the depth by changing the RATE, not the TIME.
To be honest, I don't really care about this because that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about supposed misinterpretations of scientific evidence by mainstream scientists, when their evidence should point to a 6,000 year old Earth.
You can tell the presence of intersteller gas between us and a galaxy by the absortion lines in the spectrum. That's also the effect it has on light. You can compare the view of galaxies with little or not such lines with galaxies that have more such lines.
Except what I've said is entirely relevant to this topic. Imagine, for a rough example, that you encountered a species of animal that you determined upon years of investigation grew exactly an inch every year it has been alive since its birth, with no varying rate. Now imagine that you knew it's ancestor (you had encountered it with it's mother, for example) but knew nothing about the origins of this ancestor to extrapolate the life span or history of this creature before it had died. Being left with only the offspring, you measure it to be 300 inches in length. From this measurement, you infer that the creature must therefore be 300 years old. The problem with this reasoning is that you would have to assume the animal was less than or approximately an inch upon its birth. For all you would know when the animal was born it could have already been several feet long, so that your measurement is highly inaccurate based on this presupposition.
My point is, we have a considerable potentiality as inferred from the Scriptures that the universe was created a comparatively short time ago, with an explicit indication of its mature initial conditions as explained in the 6 consecutive day creation (which must be repeated in case you want to erroneously call this "lying" which requires that you not be provided the information explaining the appearance of age, which we would be by this simpler, more obvious interpretation). If this is the case, then even if the universe is young it will still appear old with the presupposition that extrapolates into the past the accumulation of all matter and energy into its finest potential point. It could more aptly (but still incorrectly) be called lying to say that God made the universe over a long progressive period then oddly described it as six consecutive days divided by evening and morning.
Nice theory stated as fact, but how do you prove it?
None if that is relevant to the topic. The topic is about SCIENCE, not the bible. Do you have any science to contribute?
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?