- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... Go ahead and prove the bible wrong then.
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.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... Go ahead and prove the bible wrong then.Nope. The document purporting to be God's word is provably wrong.
But feel free to try again: the Vedas are a good read.
censored
censoredY...
zapped
If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... Go ahead and prove the bible wrong then.
Still waiting for you to do what you insinuate you could do. If someone talked filth to you would you reply? That is not childishness, it is manliness.Are you always this childish?
Yes it did. The KT or some layer may be close to the time. You looked on the surface.The great flood didn't happen: no geological record.
That is nonsense.The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old: Biblical genealogies are nonsense.
Open any Mickey mouse comic, and it refutes you...so?Open pretty much any science textbook and you'll find facts that refute the Bible.
You're not very good at this, are you?
False. There is no evidence whatsoever of a single inundation layer. The K/T boundary (more properly known as the K-Pg boundary) is a single, thin layer in the strata. It shows no signs of being laid down by a single global inundation. In any event, the K-Pg layer is around 65.5 Ma - a bit too old to be a consequence of the flood.Yes it did. The KT or some layer may be close to the time. You looked on the surface.
Ussher's computations are reasonably close to the actual "Biblical date" of Adam - which works out to be some six orders of magnitude lower than the real number.That is nonsense.
No Mickey mouse comic says anything about the age of the earth or the geological record, so you are making a false statement.Open any Mickey mouse comic, and it refutes you...so?
Yes, actually, in all humility I am darn good at this. Better flee while the fleeing is good.
False. There is no evidence whatsoever of a single inundation layer.
The K/T boundary (more properly known as the K-Pg boundary) is a single, thin layer in the strata. It shows no signs of being laid down by a single global inundation. In any event, the K-Pg layer is around 65.5 Ma - a bit too old to be a consequence of the flood.
Well, who needs to be good?You really aren't very good at this, are you?
No. It is close.Ussher's computations are reasonably close to the actual "Biblical date" of Adam - which works out to be some six orders of magnitude lower than the real number.
No Mickey mouse comic says anything about the age of the earth or the geological record, so you are making a false statement.
No. If you think you are hot debating stuff, start anytime.You might consider looking up the meaning of "humility" and "good". They don't mean what you think they mean.
No, inundation. Perhaps you should begin this discussion by purchasing a good dictionary. It will help.Undisturbed layer, I think you may mean....so?
I am not offering dream dates. I am pointing out that radiometric dating contradicts you.Meaningless. Dream dates are of no value here.
Actually, they're not.They are present state assumed extrapolations backward.
Apparently you don't know anything about physics or geology?Nothing more.
Of course it wasn't.The state in the past was likely not our present state.
You do, if you're going to try to beat me. You're failing pretty miserably so far.Well, who needs to be good?
False. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it correct. Check the radiometric dates. You'll see that you're wrong.No. It is close.
None. But thank you for proving me right.
Questions?
We've already started. You're not very good at this, are you?No. If you think you are hot debating stuff, start anytime.
No, inundation. Perhaps you should begin this discussion by purchasing a good dictionary.
I am not offering dream dates. I am pointing out that radiometric dating contradicts you. Actually, they're not.Apparently you don't know anything about physics or geology?Of course it wasn't.
You do, if you're going to try to beat me. You're failing pretty miserably so far.
False. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it correct. Check the radiometric dates. You'll see that you're wrong.
None. But thank you for proving me right.
So you admit you didn't know what "inundation" meant? Given the fact that 6k years of disturbance can't disturb the entire layer, obviously a massive sedimentary layer would be the first thing to look for, with an extensive fossil content of all known animal species freely intermingled.If the layers were disturbed after the fact, what evidence of inundation would you like?
We have done the tests; there is no known method of significantly varying decay rates. And we have no evidence that decay rates have changed, and good evidence that decay rates could not have changed significantly enough to account for a 6k year old earth without pretty much vaporizing the crust.Radiometric is dream dates. It assumes that present decay existed in the far past.
I know the science; you apparently don't. And you're the one with "unbeaten" in his sig - apparently winning means something to you.It isn't about beating you. It is about what is known.
Try again. That didn't make any sense.No such thing, beyond when our present state existed.
Since the BB, about 13.5 billion years. Since earth condensation, about 4.5 billion.Any idea how long that has been?
I'm glad you like to tell fables to innocent little children, but it has nothing to do with this conversation.Telling fables to kids is what I am talkin bout.
Do you actually have any grounding in any of the science involved?
What will they tell me? That you actually do know the basics? No. Cosmology is story telling. Nothing more...loosely based on how things on earth work, and superimposing that far away in their imagination.
I doubt it. If I did, so would they!
Well, that cinches it then. Why didn't you say so earlier? Impressive letters. Meaningless, but impressive.
Well,
"A free quark is not observed because by the time the separation is on an observable scale, the energy is far above the pair production energy for quark-antiquark pairs. For the U and D quarks the masses are 10s of MeV so pair production would occur for distances much less than a Fermi. You would expect a lot of mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) in very high energy collision experiments and that is what is observed."
Have you seen free quarks, or detected them in some way? Also, what does it matter? Generally quarks are in the form of a hadron..no? Have you some explanation why, or not?
Ah...OK. So God arranged it that way...so?
Hey they just found that there might be a fourth flavour of neutrino. What would I care if there are 6, or 8?? Point?
Of course. Unlike science, that just looks at how things now work, and dreams it will always be so, till a big bad black hole eats the universe, or some such lunacy, the bible is evidenced many ways. And observers from the future have reported what it actually is like.
Well, how would we know if that also deals in the core of the star? Or just the outer layers? In other words, although hydrogen exists in some form, there may be a lot of other things too, that we can't detect. If stars are associated with the spiritual, that is a virtual certainty. So all you have is what amounts to a belief that the stars are pure physical material, in a state that is like ours on earth, regarding laws, and forces!
Well, so? You mean made in our earth nature of the present. Like how?
Well, OK. That is a big gap in knowledge.
Unless some random 'fact' is relative to the discussion why harp on it, and bring it up??
Doesn't change what?
Wait for science to get evidence? Well, they ought to wait till then before telling creation stories.
No, I can take God's word for it, thanks. If you claim otherwise, you prove it. You can't. Welcome to your beliefs. We all have our own.
No. You assume that all known animals were there on the ark. There is a little thing called hyper evolution. You see, in the former state, it appears that evolving happened very fast. Also, your 6000 years of disturbance shows a wrong preconception. It seems that a state change, that is a change in forces and laws occurred after the flood, likely in the days of Peleg, when the earth was 'divided'. That is somewhere, likely about a century and change after the flood year. Mountain building, and rapid continental separation, and ice age, and other events may well have occurred around this time. The disturbance that matters, therefore is not the 6000 years, but that few months, or weeks, or days, or hours when this change came down.So you admit you didn't know what "inundation" meant? Given the fact that 6k years of disturbance can't disturb the entire layer, obviously a massive sedimentary layer would be the first thing to look for, with an extensive fossil content of all known animal species freely intermingled.
We have done the tests; there is no known method of significantly varying decay rates.
I know the science; you apparently don't. And you're the one with "unbeaten" in his sig - apparently winning means something to you.
Right, if you had grasped the concept, you would not be talking old school strawmen physical only science here. OK. So, our present state is governed by our present laws and forces. Can you prove that these were in place and even existed pre flood? No. That has merely been assumed. You do not even know what gravity or the weak and strong nuclear forces or time or etc ARE!!! How could you then, possibly apply them to the far future or past!!!!!??Try again. That didn't make any sense.
There was no fantasy universe stuffed in a little hot soup. That is a fable. Nothing can support that, but religion. The belief system that our present earth rules have existed and applied always, and even before creation!Since the BB, about 13.5 billion years. Since earth condensation, about 4.5 billion.
Referring to Mickey Mouse telling stories to kids was no accident, that is what modern education IS.I'm glad you like to tell fables to innocent little children, but it has nothing to do with this conversation.
You're really not very good at this, are you? Do you actually have any grounding in any of the science involved?
Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.You have to realize that their mentality is that looking at words in a really old religious book is actually considered more solid evidence than actually looking directly at something like archeological or geological samples. It makes no sense and I'm not sure if there's even a way around such stupidity.
Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.
Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.
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?