Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, there were different theories. Past tense. Most have been eliminated. I see that you are still applying literalistic standards to the sciences. Scientists do not make that error.
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.
No, there were different theories. Past tense. Most have been eliminated. I see that you are still applying literalistic standards to the sciences. Scientists do not make that error.Whatever you do, don't ask how we got our moon!
There are some seven or eight different theories out there in acadamnia.
Not me, I'm not a geologist. Those who are saying it are geologists, all the way back to the 18th century ago when the study of geology was begun by scientists, most of them Christians, who began searching for evidence of Noah's flood and found something else entirely.Lol, so you say.
I suspect I could look at any old dry lake and come up with a whole slew of hypotheses of how it formed, and none of them could be proven to be impossible. That's a far cry from knowing they are correct.Nope. You live and die by the false dichotomy. No one is "guessing"
I take it you lump the Synestia Theory in with that "past tense"?No, there were different theories. Past tense.
You would then have to test them, and some of them could be shown to be impossible. That is implicit in any properly formed scientific hypothesis--it must include a statement of what evidence would falsify it.I suspect I could look at any old dry lake and come up with a whole slew of hypotheses of how it formed, and none of them could be proven to be impossible. That's a far cry from knowing they are correct.
A magnifying glass. A microscope. A mass spectrometer. A rock drill.I don't believe the Grand Canyon was formed by the Flood either.
But just to make a good point you probably won't understand, let me ask you this:
What specific equipment was used to falsify the idea that the Grand Canyon was not formed by the Flood?
(And I'm asking for specific equipment, like thumper trucks and such; not a screen and a half of vague rhetoric.)
I would love to see how you could fake so many people arriving at the same conclusion based on independent assessment of the physical evidence.Fake history.
Else they wouldn't be able to make it dovetail in other historical accounts, and there would go their consilience out the door.
The fact that the Grand Canyon has existed for as long as it is as old as, is kinda basic reality. The two concepts do overlap.If some think the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old, I won't dispute that.
But what I will dispute is anyone who says that the Grand Canyon existed prior to around 2345 BC.
Give or take a few years.
How than was the Grand Canyon formed?I don't believe the Grand Canyon was formed by the Flood either.
Given that the whole universe is only 14 billion years old...As I said, I can live with that.
They can even say it's a quintrillion years old if they want to believe that.
Just don't tell me it existed prior to circa 2350 BC and expect me to believe it.
Why wouldn't they?I would love to see how you could fake so many people arriving at the same conclusion based on independent assessment of the physical evidence.
It wasn't.How than was the Grand Canyon formed?
Where did you hear that at?Given that the whole universe is only 14 billion years old...
I don't doubt there's a LOT of stuff "evident" to evolutionists.Mr Laurier said:The fact that the Grand Canyon did in fact exist LONG before 2350 bce, is self evident.
Let me see.... Rivalry, Honesty, Grasp of how geology leads to profitable discovery of minerals... etc etc etc....Why wouldn't they?
They all have a desire to better understand the facts.They all have a formulary of what is acceptable ways to employ.
The have computers to help them along.
They have a make-it-fit goal.
Probably. But the Grand Canyon is not a bolt. And the evidence is not a nut that fits.If I held a bolt in my hand and told ten people to come up with a nut that fits that bolt, do you think they could do it?
I've seen it said that the relatively steep sides of the canyonIt is hard to say, the quote has all of the hallmarks of being a quote mine. When a creationist does not supply a link to the original source one could make a fortune by consistently betting that it is an example of quote mining.
Can you give a bit more information? How did it get there?It wasn't.
Hmmmm My parents TV room. The science classroom at the highschool I attended. My home. Etc, etc, etc.... Its rather common knowledgeWhere did you hear that at?
Given the non-existence of your "evolutionists"...I don't doubt there's a LOT of stuff "evident" to evolutionists.
Facts are never wrong.They may be evident, but they are evidently wrong.
Indeed.An ice drill is also useful, look at antarctic
ice to see that there was no flood.
I believe it appeared when God broke Pangaea up into five separate continents.Can you give a bit more information? How did it get there?
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?