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 the post flood ice age.
Maybe something like deep canyons that could not have formed gradually?
Like how the Grand Canyon developed through a major uplift. The river should have flowed around it, but it didn’t.
You think good forensic science is funny?Hahaha
Yours doesn't.
Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.Geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.
The land under it didn't rise.Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.
Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.
The difference is that it matters if it's designed. If not, nothing matters.
When God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, it was a reaction to the creation of gravity.
The Earth formed around a gravitational singularity.
Gravitational time dilation (GTD) means that the remote regions of the cosmos may be 13.8 billion years old or more, but the earth only 6000 or so years old, at the same time.
I imagine that a few scientists have suggested differently. Do you have any particular scientists in mind?Because water follows the easiest course. Water doesn’t flow uphill.
Geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.
Nope, the RC dates is the strongest evidence. There is no valid explanation of why they are wrong.4/ so the RC date was garbage in, garbage out ignoring all agreed test protocols. The custody of sudarium shows the shroud is way older. Other physiochemical tests suggest 1st century.
You clearly do not understand scientists. Man did not exist millions of years ago. Though I have run across some Christians that are even more extreme than you that make that claim.Only to a point.
I believe if they found evidence of Noah's flood, they would claim it occurred n-million years ago.
Thus heaping more coals on the fire for YECs and Embedded Agers.
The flood claim would leave massive evidence. Geological evidence is only part of it. Biology tells us that it did not happen, history tells us that it did not happen, even mythology refutes it.Again, that leads us in a circle. If it can't be verified by the scientific method and the scientific method and is all we have... it can't be verified, even if it happens to be reality.
White blood cells, tissue and scabs are not living. They are parts of living things, but in and of themselves not life, or defined as being alive.
The quotation isn't correct
“If any life can be shown to have come from other than progressive small change my theory would be disproved”
The quote from the 1860 second edition is:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
This sentence doesn't change in any of the six editions of On The Origin of Species. I know, I just checked. You can compare editions online.
Now, what I want to know is: are your sources lying, or are you lying? And, why tell such a stupid and easily checked lie?
And, if it was from another source, why wouldn't you check yourself?
And, if you're this bad at source criticism, what does this say about your ability to assess the reliability of Eucharist miracle claims.
The land that the Colorado River flows through gained elevation over time allowing the river to cut the canyon. The Mississippi River on the other hand meandered, cutting new channels that look like this:Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.
Where is the peer reviewed paper on this?You think good forensic science is funny?
I don’t.
Blood. Human A/B
Tissue. Human, thin epithelium, eg face.
Nuclear DNA , couldn’t get it to PCR, despite quantity.
Mitochondrial DNA , present. Was not the same as statue owner.
That is what should surprise you. I doubt if it does because i doubt you understand why it is surprising.
Some vegetative matter: corresponds to thorns.
Wept and bled live on continuous film. No possibility of fraud.
Statue CT scan. No possibility of vents or passages
Tested by expert witness pathologists,
One day atheists might look at forensics.
I won’t hold my breath.
end of conversation - you refuse it study enough to make it worthwhile.
Do you realize that there is this thing called "sea level"?Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.
About 40% of Americans believe in a young Earth. Not necessarily 6000 year old--the way pollsters like Pew and Gallup generally ask the question is "...within the last 10,000 years."Most Christians (all stripes) accept earth older than 6000 years. There are multiple independent lines of evidence from science. Written history itself goes back before this.
Why don't you take on the Bleeding Statue with Real Blood,Darwin's theory didn't break down but it was significantly extended (modified) with the new synthesis and punctuated equilibrium. I suspect he is constantly referred back to because his original theory is relatively easy to explain, and was the first (with Wallace) biological theory of evolution
Where is the peer reviewed paper on this?
Do you know why your good doctor most likely did not publish such a paper? Other experts in the field would almost certainly refute it. In case you did not know proper publication is part of the scientific method. One has to provide enough information so that others can check out one's results. Your doctor does not appear to have done so.
When you provide valid sources we will study it.
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?