sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
And we know they're not. Unless you can present reasons to think they are.
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 are misinformed then. Unless you mean since the laws came to be. That would not be long ago, just after the flood, if the records are correct.
You claim to KNOW that angels did not marry women?? Let's see you show us how....!!??And we know they're not. Unless you can present reasons to think they are.
That is the most basic sort of science.
"laws" (an old fashion term) are just descriptions of what has always proven to be true in all tests.
Bingo, so you admit ignorance. A good start.There is no way to say that it will always apply in all possible situations.
There is evidence they change at the drop of a spiritual hat."There is no evidence that they cant change" is true, but pretty useless.
Strawman, and red herring. The issue is NOT our laws changing...but existing!I think the laws might have changed slightly (I'm talking less than 0.01% since the very early universe). It seems you're aware that the laws could have been different right after the big bang, there's also serious work being done since then by real scientists.
However, even if these ideas become conclusive and gain the scientific consensus, it won't do much for the creationist position as the changes are too small to effect things like radiometric dating, age of the universe, or using light from stars to show a minimum age in any meaningful way (it's like saying the universe is 99.9 years old instead of 100 years old).
Don't know why the laws changed (assuming that they did), but there is evidence that they have based on analysis of quasars (and comparing their spectra with spectra of closer/earlier stellar objects). I can't post links yet (not enough posts yet) but for references look up the work of John Webb and Victor Flambaum on quasars and variable speed of light hypotheses in cosmology.
Well, after the last huge earthquake in Japan it moved slightly, so yes the axis is known to move, at least slightly. That however is connected with events releasing massive amount of energy, like earthquakes. That's what we know. What is your projection into the past?
You claim to KNOW that angels did not marry women?? Let's see you show us how....!!??
Don't be silly; atheists don't believe in women.You claim to KNOW that angels did not marry women?? Let's see you show us how....!!??
Oops -- I shoulda read this first -- sorry.Simple. Angels don't exist.
The dinosaur experience in the past appears to have been different from ours today in relation to gravity:Hmm, I'n under the impression that the laws have stayed constant- at least according to our knowledge of the Universe.
Before which flood? The one in Japan that recently killed a lot of people?I do not project land shifts in this state into the past. Maybe you better start here...prove that the earth rotated before the flood...? I am not saying it did or not,,,just want to see what you know...
The dinosaur experience in the past appears to have been different from ours today in relation to gravity:
Impossible Dinosaurs
"It is a fairly easy demonstration that nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today, and that the largest dinosaurs survived ONLY because the nature of the world and of the solar system was then such that they did not experience gravity as we do at all; they'd be crushed by their own weight, collapse in a heap, and suffocate within minutes were they to."
Poor excuse. When you can't refute the theory discredit the theorist, right? Pathetic.same guys who showed that a bumblebee cant fly?
Poor excuse. When you can't refute the theory discredit the theorist, right? Pathetic.
Any science that disagrees with your world view is rejected, the very same thing you accuse creationists of doing?
Why don't you tell me those "vast implications" since you are seemingly willing to believe there would be?you might try to consider the vast implications for the earth and the entire universe if gravity were to change as drastically as you are seemingly willing to believe it did.
Why don't you tell me those "vast implications" since you are seemingly willing to believe there would be?
Why don't you tell me those "vast implications" since you are seemingly willing to believe there would be?
Poor excuse. When you can't refute the theory discredit the theorist, right? Pathetic.
The whole solar system would be in a non-equilibrium state, sending planets and moons flying all over the place, for a start. So the earth would end up either on a hyperbolic orbit through space, or else a far more elliptical orbit than it's on now, causing huge variation between seasons, and possibly bringing it into contact with many large earth-crossing bodies. The orbital resonance of many celestial bodies would also be thrown out, with complex and unpredictable effects on their speed and direction.
You cannot overrule the many that saw them. You merely echo doubts and limited experience and knowledge.Simple. Angels don't exist.
But they all get laid! (grave)Don't be silly; atheists don't believe in women.
eek: -- Or is it angels they don't believe in?)
In any case, they don't believe in one or the other.
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?