The order of fossils in the geological column

[AV1611VET]

If you want to be a Christian you must learn to take magic on faith,

Let me guess:

While scientists explain Chriss Angel's magic with ease ... right?

IOW, we need faith, while scientists don't.

Is this correct?

... the more magic performed the more faith you need.

Magic can take a hike.

It'll take more than smoke & mirrors to earn my faith.

Try blood.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, not even Chriss Archangel could do it.

Don't underestimate smoke & mirrors.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It'll take more than smoke & mirrors to earn my faith.

Looks like it took a lot less.

Try blood.

No thanks, already got plenty.

 

[Queller]

Of course not.

Then why did you claim it did?

Nor did it start as imaginary crash up dust from earth as science claims!

Evidence?

Regardless of that, they extrapolate it's movements backward, till it starts off FROM earth as supposed dust.

That is the current accepted theory yes.

I think they had to claim another moon also existed from that crash, because they need one to explain some things we see now!!

Source??

False, they mean IF there were a same state past.

Like I said the RATE project was actively trying to disprove long ages and a same state past and they could not do it.If you want to claim their findings are false then it's up to you to explain why those findings are false.

Looking inside a box, or a lab and then projecting our laws and time and space and nature out to unknown space and time is worthless.

If space and time were unknown then you might have a point. Since that is not the case, you're out of luck.

Science has no such experiment for ANY state past. One must look elsewhere.

I didn't ask about science. I asked about YOU and YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

God disagrees. he told us some thing about the past and future. Your made up nonsense does not resemble it in the slightest.

Yes, He did, and nowhere in all the things He has told us is there anything about the laws of the universe being different 6,000 years ago.

Science is not based on God's truth or reality of the universe or past. It is a made up universe and past based on applying their desired laws from the present state, in a God rejecting carnival of freaky fables!

Umm, no.

Science isn't up to the task.

Again, I'm not asking for science to provide an experiment. I'm asking for YOU to provide evidence for YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

They can only test and falsify things inside their little realm of physical only nature.

Exactly, and that is why science makes no claims whatsoever about whether God exists or not. Science cannot study the supernatural.

 

[Queller]

Are you sure you're not thinking "God of the Gaps"?

OK, That's what I thought you were referring to.

That's what GAP theory is, the ruin/restoration of the original creation.

Too bad there are major theological and scientific problems with the theory.

The Gap Theory - An Idea with Holes?

 

[Queller]

In my bible it did. These verses show a progression of the extent and depth of the flood. It took forty days for the water to reach and float the ark. The waters increased steadily over 150 days to cover the mountains.

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

And yet when you read the rest of the chapter;

"17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

we see that the waters don't prevail upon the earth for 150 days until AFTER every living thing has been destroyed and the mountains are covered by 15 cubits of water.

 

[Queller]

Remind us again where I say science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle?

I have no idea what this means or how it is supposed to relate to what I asked.

 

[Queller]

I have no doubt you guys have it justified with some fancy algorithm.

None whatsoever.

I guess if you call observing different rates of ice and snow build up in different locations a "fancy algorithm," then sure.

Let me guess, "fancy algorithms" can take a hike?

As I have pointed out before:

If rabbits were found in the Precambrian, they would probably justify it by pushing the timeline back until the Precambrian became the Cambrian.

Even if they had to rig a vote behind locked doors to do it.

You can point out anything you like, that doesn't make what you say true or correct.

Remember Pluto?

So if a new planetary classification had not been developed, we would have more than 9 planets in our solar system. I'm sure you would object to scientists changing that number wouldn't you?

 

[Queller]

The waters were still increasing after the 40 days of rain.

That's not what the Bible says.

 

[Queller]

As I've often said, life itself is physically impossible (without God that is).

Prove it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK, That's what I thought you were referring to.

Too bad there are major theological and scientific problems with the theory.

The Gap Theory - An Idea with Holes?

I have no problem with it.

 

[Queller]

The purpose of the flood was to flood the land that existed, not the sea floor. Therefore the sea floors could be raised high enough to actually expose them. They would then become the 'land' and the land would become the sea floor. Because there is twice as much sea area the water depth over the land would be twice that of the present seas, which average 14,000 feet. Therefore the depth of water over the land would be 28,000 feet.

1. The sea floors raising high enough to spill all the oceans waters into new valleys created by all the current landmasses sinking would not be a gentle event.

2. If the only thing flooded was the previous landmasses, you wouldn't have a global flood as 70% of the land masses would now be above the flood level.

3. The continental plates are not not some kind of fun house tilting floor that just wobbles back and forth like a seesaw.

The flood would raise up the sea floors, flood and sink the land masses.

How would the Flood raise the sea floors?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Prove it.

Follow me on this.


Science says that life is natural, no need for God.

Science is very smart.

Therefore science should be able to create life.

But,

Science has not been able to create life.

In fact,

Science cannot even explain why and how life exists.

But,

They still maintain that,

They are very smart,

and,

There is no need for a God to create life.

Science doesn't know what it's doing regarding the origin of and the meaning and purpose of life, but they are quite certain that I am wrong.

How silly is that?

 

[Dusty Bin]

Follow me on this.


Science says that life is natural, no need for God.

Science is very smart.

Therefore science should be able to create life.

But,

Science has not been able to create life.

In fact,

Science cannot even explain why and how life exists.

But,

They still maintain that,

They are very smart,

and,

There is no need for a God to create life.

Science doesn't know what it's doing regarding the origin of and the meaning and purpose of life, but they are quite certain that I am wrong.

How silly is that?

I pity you, honestly, because men of science can not make life there must be a God.
Because science can not find a God science is wrong.

How do you expect anyone else to find a God you can't find, why does your God hide in believers heads, what good is he there? it is obvious to everyone who can think straight your God does not exist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I pity you, honestly, because men of science can not make life there must be a God.
Because science can not find a God science is wrong.

How do you expect anyone else to find a God you can't find, why does your God hide in believers heads, what good is he there? it is obvious to everyone who can think straight your God does not exist.

The pity door swings both ways.

I can think straight, and I believe in God, therefore you are wrong.

No knowledge or belief stays in one's head for very long. It goes to our heart, feet, and hands.

 

[Dusty Bin]

The pity door swings both ways.

I can think straight, and I believe in God, therefore you are wrong.

You can think straight? then I am more than happy to be wrong.

 

[Queller]

OK, at that rate, where 250 feet equals about per 200 years, that would mean about about 2500 feet equalled 2000 years. Now 4 times 2500 is 10,000. So 10,000 feet would equal about 8000 years.

Which is 3,500 years too long for the Flood.

That seems to admit that frequent laying down of snow or ice destroys accuracy of their techniques.

No s&%! Sherlock. That's why ice cores for dating purposes are taken from areas that DO NOT have wildly varying ice and snow deposits.

That would seem to mean that a flood and subsequent unusual weather pattern (and/or some changes in addition to that) would render useless their dates.

Not even slightly. In fact, had there actually been a global flood, all of those ice layers would have been washed away and they would start over 4,500 years ago. They don't, which provides evidence of the fact that there was NOT a global Flood 4,500 years ago.

To accept the dates therefore would be no more than believing there was no flood and strange goings on, that are beyond uniformitarian expectations?

To accept the dates therefore would be no more than acknowledging that there is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood 4,500 years ago.

 

[Queller]

My Algorithm trumps their algorithm.

Show your algorithm.

 

[Queller]

I have no problem with it.

Well, I guess if you don't mind holding to an unscriptural understanding of the Bible, then I guess not. Of course, if you're going to disregard what the Bible actually says, why hold to something so completely ridiculous as the GAP theory? Why not simply accept that the Flood was not worldwide and the language that describes it as such is simply poetic language?

 

[Queller]

Follow me on this.


Science says that life is natural, no need for God.

Wrong. Some scientists claim that. Science is silent on the matter.

Science is very smart.

Therefore science should be able to create life.

False assumption.

But,

Science has not been able to create life.

Yet...

In fact,

Science cannot even explain why and how life exists.

So?

But,

They still maintain that,

They are very smart,

and,

There is no need for a God to create life.

Show me the SCIENCE that says that. Not some scientist, but the actual SCIENCE that says there is no need for a God to create life. I'm guessing you won't. In fact, I'm guessing you will ignore the request altogether.

Science doesn't know what it's doing regarding the origin of and the meaning and purpose of life, but they are quite certain that I am wrong.

Show the SCIENCE that says so then.

How silly is that?

Pretty silly. Most strawmen are.