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.
That is why I said no human can write the Genesis 1.
Water was NOT listed as being created since it came from the air for it is a combination of oxygen and hydrogen within the air.
Genesis said:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Where did ancient man write that water was formed from air?Can anyone tell us HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, could have possibly known and written this Scientific Truth?
Let's me get this right. You admit to not knowing what the evidence for evolution is. You are too lazy to make the effort to find out what the evidence is. But now you want us to provide the evidence for you so you can see how the theory of evolution was formulated , tested and verified. Seriously?
You have a lot of reading to catch up on.
We've never directly observed a plate moving, and we certainly can't repeat it. But the theory of plate tectonics states, among other things, that the movement of such plates causes earthquakes. Are plate tectonics not science?
What about atomic theory? No one has ever directly observed an atom. Is atomic theory not science?
You say you took chemistry? I'm sure they taught you about reactions. Did you ever directly observe elements reacting? Actually see the atoms reacting? Did you actually see chemical bonds breaking with your own two eyes? No, of course not. But you still call that science, right?
No one's ever been to the center of the Earth, or even more than a few miles below the surface.
Nonetheless, we have things like this that tell us what the Earth is made of right to the core. We know what composition of our planet all the way through, even though we haven't and likely never will travel beneath the upper layers. Is that not scientific?
Would you say that, just because we've never been to the center of the Earth, that this depiction of the Earth's insides is as valid as the one above it? There are people who genuinely believe the Earth is hollow and that it has a star at its center. Since it can't be directly observed, should they be taken seriously?
No need to bother with all that science stuff you just stick with goddidit and you won't go far wrong, you'll get by.
Didn't you know that thick was the new cool? smart people are thought of as the new dumb dumbs,
especially by the new cool people.
China is training more scientist than there are white people in the US.
Oh my my my.
Yes, isn't that a reason for debate? You still haven't explained it to me!!! What are you waiting for?
Have you caught up on your reading?
I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, the origin of life!!
Most things mentioned above have been observed and tested.
I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution, the origin of life!!
How is that observable and repeatable?
Do you realize that Evolution is trying to narrate the past and explain where we came from???
Ok, I have to address this.
The Geologic Column absolutely, 100% positive, exists. It may not exist in the way you want it too, but it is there.
In simplified terms, the Geologic column is stratum. If you want a picture just Google Stratum or go to the grand canyon, or many other places that they are exposed.
Due to natural processes such as erosion you will not always find every layer together at once, but how we determine the layers is through Radiometric dating. The dating of stratum is what makes up the Geologic Column.
If you want a better example Google the K/T Boundary, this is found throughout the world and is made of shocked quartz and iridium (a very rare material on earth)
Now that we've covered the Geologic column, let's discuss radiometric dating. There are many isotopes that we can choose from to date many different things, some isotopes are better suited for some things.
Carbon-14 is used to date organic material with an approximate limit of 60,000 years. We know c14 dating works because we can test it by dating organic materials of a known age. With that said, Carbon-14 is never used to date stratum.
The better isotope for rock dating is Uranium-Lead. Despite what some creationists say about decay rates, there is no known mechanism by which the rate of decay changes.
Radiometric dating wasn't something someone just pulled out of thin air. We can directly measure decay rates and when crosschecked against other known methods of dating, the results are consistent.
I'll grant you that. Apparently you read it using your own dictionary.I read it differently from you do.
I don't read it literally so mine has no problem with the fossil record.Yours can not answer the fossil record.
Evidence free assertion.Mine can.
It does if it wants to defend something.Common, that is what wisdom is. It does not need understanding.
Unfortunatly radiometric dating has a lot of flaws.
1. It's based on assumptions and biases and if the dating doesn't fit the scientists theory, it is discarded.
2. If there is no known beginning to life, how can scientists date a rock without knowing what it was composed of before?
It's kind of like a swimmer swimming a race. We know the time he starts, because we were there and we recorded it on a wristwatch. We saw how long it took him to finish the race, and we timed it with out wristwatch. So we know the beginning and the end.The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
If you only saw the end of the race, how would you know how long it took him to finish the race?
The starting time! Yes, but that's not enough! And niether is the accuracy of the wristwatch.
Without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.
You cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
3. Creationists however have a beginning to start with, with witness accounts, written records, and geneolegies, to record the beginning, middle and end. They were there to observe what happened, such as the Flood.
There you go again. Adding to the Bible in direct defiance of the what the Bible says.If I refer to each of those in the subset (trip), I do say "every student" but not "all students"
If God created 100 fish kinds in Day 5. At the end of the Day, God can say: EVERY one of the fishes is good.
Since God is going to create more fish on Day 6, so at the end of Day 5, God does not say: All fishes are good. Because some are not created yet.
You have to admit, a hollow earth would be an interesting place to live. I'm not sure it would have enough gravity to maintain an atmosphere but hey, what a little thing like breathing matter, right?We've never directly observed a plate moving, and we certainly can't repeat it. But the theory of plate tectonics states, among other things, that the movement of such plates causes earthquakes. Are plate tectonics not science?
What about atomic theory? No one has ever directly observed an atom. Is atomic theory not science?
You say you took chemistry? I'm sure they taught you about reactions. Did you ever directly observe elements reacting? Actually see the atoms reacting? Did you actually see chemical bonds breaking with your own two eyes? No, of course not. But you still call that science, right?
No one's ever been to the center of the Earth, or even more than a few miles below the surface.
Nonetheless, we have things like this that tell us what the Earth is made of right to the core. We know what composition of our planet all the way through, even though we haven't and likely never will travel beneath the upper layers. Is that not scientific?
Would you say that, just because we've never been to the center of the Earth, that this depiction of the Earth's insides is as valid as the one above it? There are people who genuinely believe the Earth is hollow and that it has a star at its center. Since it can't be directly observed, should they be taken seriously?
I agree with that one, to write something like Genesis 1, a person has to unlearn everything he/she knows and think like someone who lived 3,000 years ago. That is not easy to do.
Now, how about we go back to topic? Why are there no cows in the Devonian? Or no fruit trees in the Cambrian?
Unfortunatly radiometric dating has a lot of flaws.
1. It's based on assumptions and biases and if the dating doesn't fit the scientists theory, it is discarded.
2. If there is no known beginning to life, how can scientists date a rock without knowing what it was composed of before?
You cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
3. Creationists however have a beginning to start with, with witness accounts, written records, and geneolegies, to record the beginning, middle and end. They were there to observe what happened, such as the Flood.
You have to admit, a hollow earth would be an interesting place to live. I'm not sure it would have enough gravity to maintain an atmosphere but hey, what a little thing like breathing matter, right?
Well actually this thread isn't on this topic, but I just would like to mention that hell is located there, it is a physical place, and its hard to breath!!
No I don't think its a good place to live lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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?