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.
Ask yourself this:How could we even tell? A lot of what you post contradicts what other creationists claim.
As I've told you before, the Word of God written in the cosmic background radiation, the nucleosynthesis in stars, isotope geochemistry of rocks and meteorites, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography and a score of other fields and disciplines declares that you are mistaken.
How could we even tell? A lot of what you post contradicts what other creationists claim.
This is why creationists need to get together and sort things out amongst themselves first, before trying to argue with everyone else.
Is that like all the different cosmological theories and multiverses????? i guess they just need to get together first before they argue with anyone else....
yah lol, tell that to those that seriously challenge the Big bang or their belief in expansion. But you are correct, you can propose anything, including multiverses, strange matter, etc, as long as the Big bang is not seriously questioned....In the context of this thread, I'm only concerned with biology.
On top of that science doesn't present any hypothesis for the origin or nature of the universe as strictly definitive.
Ask yourself this:
1. Do other creationists HAVE to resort to speaking in tongues (Hebrew says this, Greek says that) in order to make their points stick?
2. What do they say God's name is?
3. What version of the bible are they using?
yah lol, tell that to those that seriously challenge the Big bang or their belief in expansion.
I'm under the impression they contradict each other.If you're trying to make an argument for validity, you first need a way of determining that validity. For example why is it relevant which Bible version one uses? How can you objectively demonstrate that is even relevant?
Just don't though, or you may be accused of glorifying tragedies for egotistical pleasure.Everything in science can be challenged.
No it doesn't. It works by majority vote in the good ole boys club...Everything in science can be challenged. That's how science works.
If you're trying to make an argument for validity, you first need a way of determining that validity. For example why is it relevant which Bible version one uses? How can you objectively demonstrate that is even relevant?
No it doesn't. It works by majority vote in the good ole boys club.
Why would it be relevant as to which definition of species we use? perhaps because without a precise definition one has nothing defining at all????
So then you agree the scientific definition of species that I choose is the absolute correct one since it doesn't matter which one we use????? Bet i see backpedaling now....
You mean like a rigged Pluto vote?Again, perhaps you can explain the history of scientific inquiry which has been based on overturning or supplementing prior ideas?
Just don't though, or you may be accused of glorifying tragedies for egotistical pleasure.
No.Does it not take computers nowadays to correlate all this data into one explainable picture of the past?
Since the data are not being correlated within some giant program the question is irrelevant. That said:Any data that would run contrary to this picture (depth of moondust, strength of magnetic field, ocean salination, etc.) would be automatically excluded from input, would it not?
It would depend on whether or not its name was Edgar Rice Burrows.What would happen, for example, if a rabbit were to be found in the pre-Cambrian?
Unfortunately, your opinion on scientific matters is of limited value.In my opinion, they would reprogram their computers and recalibrate the date of the pre-Cambrian era, so as to keep intact the "fact" that there are no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.
I take it you also believe in the value of homeopathy, clairvoyance and the honesty of all politicianes.What background radiation?
The one that doesn't produce shadows from the foreground galaxies???? Showing it is actually a local phenomenon?
The one that has both red and blue shift? Showing it is a local phenomenon, since no other radiation from any distant source beyond the local group shows any blue shift.....
people lack the ability to apply logical conclusions. But we do have a fairly recent source of radiation yet to be accounted for, the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere discovered not too long ago. Which would occur in a 360 degree sphere around the sun, produce no galaxy shadowing as it is foreground, not background, and produce both red and blue shift due to the earth's motion around the sun.....
The logical conclusions and recent discovery of the deceleration of the solar wind point towards the so-called background radiation far more strongly. radiation which by all know physics and electromagnetic theory would necessarily be in the microwave bandwidth. No special pleading or fantastic scenarios needed to avoid why it produces no shadowing and has red and blue shift.
The blue shift alone is enough to discount any background radiation from long ago, since not a single solitary known source of radiation at vast distances has any blue shift component whatsoever due to any motion of us or the galaxy..... but i guess we can ignore the actual observations if you all prefer.
And besides applying fantastical neutron stars, when neutrons immediately repel one another, the 100 year old model of nucleosynthesis has been laid in its coffin..... So I am not sure when you people are going to let it die....
In your scenario the terrestral fossils, once washed away by the sea water, will end up somewhere on the sea floor, getting mixed up with the marine fossils. But we simply don't observe such mix up.
Your scenario also doesn't work when the opposite happens: when former sea beds elevate and become terrestrial again. But we do not only observe many instances where terrestrial layers are alternated by marine one but also the other way round. And when a sea dries up and becomes land area again, there is no known mechanism that would cause the land animals and plants to "move out".
Or, put in othe rwords, fossils, once buried, do not move out or in. they sit in often hard and solid rock formations.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that. Again, perhaps you can explain the history of scientific inquiry which has been based on overturning or supplementing prior ideas?
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?