- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
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.
Yes! Otherwise it is ignorant death propaganda.So you require every hypothesis to have Jesus in it before you will accept it?
Nothing is predicted except that which is based on patterns already observed.
If you notice that the ratios of creation tend to be such as that there is more of the one material than the other (what is now daughter and parent isotopes) it is no great feat to 'predict that we will see more parent isotope in several different materials!!!!!!!!! That has nothing to do with your zombie religion that many still call science.
False. Creation produced the earth and universe complete with many rocks, water, and etc. No one can explain why.
Why not? Why would God not create stuff the way He did?? Try to grow intelligent questions.
As I pointed out, once we see the pattern of how God created stuff, how hard is it to 'predict' that the pattern would extend throughout much of creation!?? You can't simply clue into some of the patterns of creation and then try to usurp credit for it all, and ask us to worship your little religion, to which you give credit!!They weren't already observed. The matching ratios for different isotope pairs was predicted before they were observed.
You can have more of one isotope than the other and not have a match for multiple isotope pairs.
No, it is because you obsess over calling the creation ratios 'ages'!!We can explain why different isotope pairs produce the same age. It is because the past state was the same as the present.
No ages are given (save those from up to about 4400 years ago when the state likely changed). Period. You call ratios ages. The question becomes 'Why did God create things with a pattern of ratios'?Try to give intelligent answers. Why would God create rocks so that different isotope pairs give the same age using modern decay rates?
As I pointed out, once we see the pattern of how God created stuff, how hard is it to 'predict' that the pattern would extend throughout much of creation!?? You can't simply clue into some of the patterns of creation and then try to usurp credit for it all, and ask us to worship your little religion, to which you give credit!!
Example...that pertains to the far past?
No, it is because you obsess over calling the creation ratios 'ages'!!
No ages are given (save those from up to about 4400 years ago when the state likely changed). Period. You call ratios ages. The question becomes 'Why did God create things with a pattern of ratios'?
The pattern was predicted before it was observed.
Not years but small amounts of isotopes. You want to claim that all daughter isotopes came into existence not by being created, but by the present state processes of radioactive decay! Admit it.You can have more K than Ar and get a date of 100 million years.
You can have more Rb than Sr and get a date of 50 million years.
You can have more U than Pb and get a date of 25 million years.
There are no dates. Dates are a religious term you use to describe created stuff. Created stuff came created a certain way. That means patterns.Having more of one than the other does not guarantee that they will all produce the same dates.
Now, now, don't get religious on us.The ratios tell us the age.
Ages are a figment of your imagination, based on attributing the wonderful creation of God Almighty to mere current state processes. Shame. Give God the glory, He won't share it with dead zombi science.What you need to explain is why God would carefully balance the ratios of all of these isotope pairs so that they would give the same age based on modern decay rates.
In your own words, tell us what was predicted about what.
Not years but small amounts of isotopes. You want to claim that all daughter isotopes came into existence not by being created, but by the present state processes of radioactive decay! Admit it.
There are no dates. Dates are a religious term you use to describe created stuff. Created stuff came created a certain way. That means patterns.
Never had a drunk say that to me actually. Work on that parable thing.
I don't see atoms, but I do not find it is needed to claim they do not exist. I do not see love, but I see it reflected in the creatures of God. I do not see you, but I do not feel I need to send a drone to your place and take pictures.
I am not familiar with the claims about junk DNA in the 1960's. However, even if they were incorrect, that doesn't make them lies.How did the junk DNA of the 60s turn out. Not very well, did it?
I cannot perform heart surgery on my wife; I trust a doctor to do that because she is trained to do so. I don't go to a homeopathic expert or a plumber.You're placing your faith in the ever changing shifting sands of scienceism/evolutionism. Just don't expect me to do it.
Thanks for admitting that. So we see that zombie science merely reads the creation patterns and tries to take credit somehow.It was predicted that multiple isotope pairs would produce the same dates using modern decay rates.
Not at all. Creation patterns signify nothing of the morbid religious sort.The consilience between multiple isotope pairs demonstrates that the daughter isotopes did come into being due to decay over long time periods. That is the evidence.
The evidence is bigger than the dead pool you thought it had to exist in.The evidence demonstrates otherwise.
We'd need a mortician to separate the godless belief from the corpse of so called science claims.As I said, you lack the tools necessary to examine your own experiences critically.
Thanks for admitting that. So we see that zombie science merely reads the creation patterns and tries to take credit somehow.
Not at all. Creation patterns signify nothing of the morbid religious sort.
We'd need a mortician to separate the godless belief from the corpse of so called science claims.
I am not familiar with the claims about junk DNA in the 1960's. However, even if they were incorrect, that doesn't make them lies.
Do you even know what a lie is? Would you tell a student who gets an answer wrong that they are lying?
Strangely, you accuse the majority of scientists in the world of lying because you don't believe their conclusions are correct. On top of that, you haven't even attempted to show that their conclusions are incorrect. You just make an unevidenced claim and then label the scientific community as a bunch of liars.
And you have the gall to complain about someone pointing out, with evidence, your purposeful duplicity.
I cannot perform heart surgery on my wife; I trust a doctor to do that because she is trained to do so. I don't go to a homeopathic expert or a plumber.
At some point you have to trust someone because in this world we cannot do everything that is required to live in this complex society. I trust the people who are educated rather than those who are not.
If you don't trust science, why do you depend on it so much?
Do you take medicines? Why do that if God is the determiner of the length of your life?
Do you use a refrigerator? Why? Won't God provide the fresh food you need?
The junk DNA example is just an indicator that 'scientists' do offer views which aren't true,
Peer reviewed references please.
Then why take medicine or go to see doctors. Aren't hospitals unnecessary for you?My trust is first and foremost in God, with science being a very distant second.
You've shown nothing about junk DNA except your assertion that it is no longer considered junk. Evidence is necessary, preferably from a scientific research paper or record.The junk DNA example is just an indicator that 'scientists' do offer views which aren't true, but those who embrace scienceism will always accept them as true.
Then you believe that once science draws a conclusion that it should stick to its guns regardless of what the evidence shows? Looks like that throws your complaint about the "truth" of junk DNA right into the dustbin. Following your logic, medicine would still be using bloodletting to treat the common cold.Evolution is one of those scienceism beliefs which began changing almost immediately after the errors of Darwinism were found.
Bottom line is that science and scientists do what seems to be an anathema to you....learn from the mistakes of the past. Conclusions change as more information is learned.Bottom line, we cannot trust the 'truth' of Godless evolution for Darwinism has been replaced with neo-Darwinism and changes and adjustments are always being made, thus the junk DNA scienceism debacle.
Strangely, you continue to trust and use things developed using that same strategy of changing what is "true" based on new discoveries.The wishy washy, true today, not true tomorrow character of Darwinist creative evolution, and it's children, isn't something to place one's trust in.
Then why take medicine or go to see doctors. Aren't hospitals unnecessary for you?
You've shown nothing about junk DNA except your assertion that it is no longer considered junk. Evidence is necessary, preferably from a scientific research paper or record.
Then you believe that once science draws a conclusion that it should stick to its guns regardless of what the evidence shows? Looks like that throws your complaint about the "truth" of junk DNA right into the dustbin. Following your logic, medicine would still be using bloodletting to treat the common cold.
Bottom line is that science and scientists do what seems to be an anathema to you....learn from the mistakes of the past. Conclusions change as more information is learned.
Example:
New DNA evidence shows the person convicted of rape was not the person who committed the crime.
US court's response: Absolve the person of the crime and release him.
Justlookinla's response: The conclusion cannot be changed, let him rot in jail.
Strangely, you continue to trust and use things developed using that same strategy of changing what is "true" based on new discoveries.
Do you take medicines? Why should you? Science didn't think those medicines were "true" treatments 100 years ago. How can you trust that wishy-washy science so much?
Every single day you undermine your argument against scientific conclusions by using technology that was developed using the same methodology and the same true-today-may-not-be-true-tomorrow mentality that results in those conclusions.
Either your argument is erroneous or you are a hypocrite.
Yep, start the peer reviewed dance. Next, get down with the 'lying creationist sites' dance.
Junk DNA ain't what it used to be.
Start the peer reviewed dance. And a one, and a two!!
Then why take medicine or go to see doctors. Aren't hospitals unnecessary for you?
You've shown nothing about junk DNA except your assertion that it is no longer considered junk. Evidence is necessary, preferably from a scientific research paper or record.
Then you believe that once science draws a conclusion that it should stick to its guns regardless of what the evidence shows? Looks like that throws your complaint about the "truth" of junk DNA right into the dustbin. Following your logic, medicine would still be using bloodletting to treat the common cold.
Bottom line is that science and scientists do what seems to be an anathema to you....learn from the mistakes of the past. Conclusions change as more information is learned.
Example:
New DNA evidence shows the person convicted of rape was not the person who committed the crime.
US court's response: Absolve the person of the crime and release him.
Justlookinla's response: The conclusion cannot be changed, let him rot in jail.
Strangely, you continue to trust and use things developed using that same strategy of changing what is "true" based on new discoveries.
Do you take medicines? Why should you? Science didn't think those medicines were "true" treatments 100 years ago. How can you trust that wishy-washy science so much?
Every single day you undermine your argument against scientific conclusions by using technology that was developed using the same methodology and the same true-today-may-not-be-true-tomorrow mentality that results in those conclusions.
Either your argument is erroneous or you are a hypocrite.
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?