I have been acutely aware that science never proves anything 100% for a long time. Since grade school. I don't know what kids are being taught differently, but I know I never was.
In the real world, they spew out future prophesies from science as if they were true, as well as fantasy drivel about creation and the past.
well I think that is a little dramatic ... and aren't you supposed to forgive? Tsk tsk.
They that offend little ones are better off not living on earth longer, Jesus said.
Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I didn't say our orbit SHOWS slow formation, I said it was consistent with it. I would bother tracking down better sources of information, but you are going to dismiss anything I present anyways.
But it is consistent with more than a fantasy same state past. You have no monopoly on orbits.
If gravity shifted 4000-6000 years ago, the orbits of the larger planets would not have stabilized by now. Evidence, I hear you cry. There is no way I am going to bother going through all the math to show that the orbit of something like Jupiter would not stabilize in a few thousand years for someone who has proven capable of ignoring any evidence presented. I doubt I would find anyone else who has that math already done, because I have never heard a serious scientific conversation concerning YEC and changing gravity.
I do not say gravity changed. Whatever forces were in place before the change are what changed. If gravity was not the lone kid on the orbit block, then we cannot assume only one kid changed.
know in English - Google Dictionary
"know" does not have a single definition. You can not hijack the world to only mean absolute certainty. I am openly admitting, and am well aware, of how I use the word.
"know (n
)
v. knew (n
, ny
),
known (n
n),
know·ing,
knows
v.tr.1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
6. a. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
b. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
9. Archaic To have sexual intercourse with."
No one knows there was a same state past, or that there will be a same state future.
Radiohalos. There are uranium halos that are well formed. That would have taken millions of years to do.
Look at your statement.."would have"..! Would have IF the present were in place. Get it?
Now here come the links from INSANELY uninformed (or simply lying) creationists about radiohalos. Let me jump one step ahead of you on this.Po-218 halos are likely caused by migrating radon gas from near by uranium decay. And the hole polonium thing does nothing to answer the existence of rings consistent with millions of years of radioactive decay.
Looks like nothing more than a parent daughter thing. If a daughter takes more than 4500 years to decay, I would think, generally, that indicates it was here already at the change.
Interestingly enough, all rocks containing those rings have shown to be consistently dated through other methods as old enough for the rings to form. Again, if God tweaked the laws of physics, he sure did it in a consistent and universal way to make the earth look old.
The dating method is merely to associate same state causes to material relationships. Any correlation within that sort of thing is inbred.
You know, the only reason I am still discussing this with you is that I am hoping other YEC might be reading this and I don't want them to think there aren't valid responses to your statements. But if there any out there reading this, I think I have done my fair share.
You have your thoughts. Fact is, that when you fail, some may think about stuff.
When you give yourself free reign to change the laws of physics without the need for pesky things like models (how did the forces change, when did they change ... blah blah), there is no reason carrying on a debate.
False. The change was not IN the laws of physics. They are the change from whatever was.
Because in that case, your view of the world has been completely dislodged from reality. When the whole of knowledge is claimed to be useless whenever it doesn't suite your world view, you have crossed into fantasy. I would say you are one step away from needing medication of some kind.
Science is dislodged from any reality that is not in this present temporal physical only state.
And to think that you are personally smarter than the whole of the scientific community also proves a degree of arrogance that is astonishing (another thing you aren't supposed to do, oh boy you are in trouble dad).
The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. Really.
When I was a Christian, I was ashamed of people like you in the faith.
You ain't exactly a flaming example of something I would be proud about either. Moving on..
And now I am simply empathetic for all of those Christians who have faith and believe in a reasonable and supportable world view.
Come on back, science was wrong after all, God was right all along. Be ashamed of them now. I am.
