Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say what? You thought patterns follow from each other as much as me saying that if the earth is round how come maps are flat?
I told you, he's(metaphorically) describing crocs.
HAHAHA dont make me laugh. You really havent done your research because the soft tissue itself has been fossilized, its stone not living material
Stop making this into a one sided discussion and respond to my questions ive asked before, otherwise ill just ignore your posts. Heres a summary:
Why would the half life of isotopes becomes 7 thousand times greater than today?
How did the creatures get to different continents after the deluge? Because the flightless birds in the galapagos sure as hell didn't swim there
How could the light from the stars reach us if the speed of light is constant and has remained so for a minimum of 168000 years?
Why would all the dating methods who are consistent with each other, based on solid mathematical principles be wrong? and if so why?
And i'd also like your comments on the supposed everlasting destruction of tyre, the creationist lie about the 2.98 byr old carbon dating
If the beast being described in Job 41 and 41 are crocs. Why do they say its skin has scales? And do crocs have tails the size of a cedar trees? Does a crock eat grass like an ox?
What kind of Croc is this? LOL
How did flightless birds get to the Galapagos Islands?
It is very possible that man in the past brought them there. In 1485. Incas There is archaeological evidence that people from the Chimu Incan tribe from northern Peru sailed to the Galapagos Islands on balsa rafts. This voyage would have taken place during the rule of the Incan Tupac Yupanqui.
Also from 1593 to 1710: Pirates often used the Galapagos as a hide out and as a resting place after looting the coast of South America.
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~JMERCK/GALSITE/RESEARCH/PROJECTS/GOOKIN/ (broken link)
I have already told you that some of your own people are saying light my not have aways been constant, and at one time may of traveled much faster than it does Today. So pick whatever scientist works for you. It all comes down to a guess anyway, especially if you can't get your own people to agree on that. Which one of your scientist should I pick that agrees with you? LOL
As far as the prophecy of Tyre verse three states that God would cause many nations to come against Tyre. Another words, its destruction would not come about at the hand of just one King. Also the orginal city is no longer there but has been covered by the sea. The only thing that did survive is Alexanders landbridge which has a lot of sand and silt that accumulated around it.
I stand corrected on this, im actually quite interested on what the new explanation for how soft tissue can be preserved for so many millions of years will be
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
If the beast being described in Job 41 and 41 are crocs. Why do they say its skin has scales?
And do crocs have tails the size of a cedar trees? Does a crock eat grass like an ox?
What kind of Croc is this? LOL
My comment is based on ainulinale comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
How did flightless birds get to the Galapagos Islands?
It is very possible that man in the past brought them there. In 1485. Incas There is archaeological evidence that people from the Chimu Incan tribe from northern Peru sailed to the Galapagos Islands on balsa rafts. This voyage would have taken place during the rule of the Incan Tupac Yupanqui.
Also from 1593 to 1710: Pirates often used the Galapagos as a hide out and as a resting place after looting the coast of South America.
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~JMERCK/GALSITE/RESEARCH/PROJECTS/GOOKIN/ (broken link)
woah stop right there, if that species of bird was living in those other areas then we would see plenty of skeletons of them there. This raises more questions such as how did the incans get to south america and you still havent answered how a 450 ft long ark could carry 2-100 million different species and keep them alive for 150 days which is pretty much impossible because you'd need several hundred times their weight in food(bear in mind too that lions need meat) and the amount of crap would be incredible
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
I have already told you that some of your own people are saying light my not have aways been constant, and at one time may of traveled much faster than it does Today. So pick whatever scientist works for you. It all comes down to a guess anyway, especially if you can't get your own people to agree on that. Which one of your scientist should I pick that agrees with you? LOL
Yes its possible but thanks to our little supernova we have shown using this thing called mathematics(trigonometry in particular) that the speed of light has not changed for a minimum of 168000 years. You seem to ignore this detail every time. Argue the issue, not the people
You still haven't made a comment on the annual ice caps or the super increases in the half-life
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
As far as the prophecy of Tyre verse three states that God would cause many nations to come against Tyre. Another words, its destruction would not come about at the hand of just one King.
It doesn't matter because tyre was never destroyed. which is contradictory to the quote:
Quote:
...I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken..
Think objectively here. The city was never destroyed and in the case that it had your god plainly stated that it would never be rebuilt. Tyre exists today so this is wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Also the orginal city is no longer there but has been covered by the sea. The only thing that did survive is Alexanders landbridge which has a lot of sand and silt that accumulated around it. Apologetics Press - Tyre in Prophecy
Alpha, you're not going to believe this! Several pages back when RoaminRed posted the link about unicorns I was going to make a smart remark that somebody will probably come up with the rhinoceros as being the unicorn and then as I read more posts I finally came to yours that actually posted that very statement.
I didn't say that the rhino was the unicorn, National Geographic did.
I'd also like to say that this was taken out of context, but hey anything to make your point, right?
Also, the NT wasn't written in Aramaic anyway.
Where did I say the New Testament was written in Aramaic? And no, the quote is not out of context. The problems with YOUR beliefs are the beam. Mine are the mote.
As far as proof? My beliefs have facts and hard evidence to back them up. Yours on the other hand, do not. Show me your FACTS and your EVIDENCE and we'll talk. Oh, and just for clarification FEELINGS and FAITH aren't facts and evidence.
You say god exists? Prove it. Show me scientific evidence and I'll immediately fall to my knees and beg his forgiveness and convert on the spot. Just prove it, and you can chalk up one more soul on your "saved" list.
As far as proof? My beliefs have facts and hard evidence to back them up.
So your belief that there is no God is a fact? What did I miss in Philosophy class!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoaminRed
Yours on the other hand, do not. Show me your FACTS and your EVIDENCE and we'll talk.
But, you still haven't shown me your facts. Also, I never said that every belief must be based on facts, but if your going to believe something that is solely based on propositional knowledge, then yeah, you kind of need facts. To compare belief in a scientific theory to trust in God is a categorical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoaminRed
Oh, and just for clarification FEELINGS and FAITH aren't facts and evidence.
Certainly experience is evidence. You're right--feelings and faith aren't evidence, but I don't remember saying that they are. It is through experience that you learned the English language.
No such thing as God versus science. Only competing explanatory models seeking to explain a multilayered complex reality. Some are atheistic and some are not. Both kinds (of which by the way there are many under each heading including subgroups of the latter) incorporate science.
I stand corrected on this, im actually quite interested on what the new explanation for how soft tissue can be preserved for so many millions of years will be
My comment is based on ainulinale comments.
woah stop right there, if that species of bird was living in those other areas then we would see plenty of skeletons of them there. This raises more questions such as how did the incans get to south america and you still havent answered how a 450 ft long ark could carry 2-100 million different species and keep them alive for 150 days which is pretty much impossible because you'd need several hundred times their weight in food(bear in mind too that lions need meat) and the amount of crap would be incredible
Yes its possible but thanks to our little supernova we have shown using this thing called mathematics(trigonometry in particular) that the speed of light has not changed for a minimum of 168000 years. You seem to ignore this detail every time. Argue the issue, not the people
You still haven't made a comment on the annual ice caps or the super increases in the half-life
It doesn't matter because tyre was never destroyed. which is contradictory to the quote:
Think objectively here. The city was never destroyed and in the case that it had your god plainly stated that it would never be rebuilt. Tyre exists today so this is wrong
I have lied to you a few times? Please point this out to me where you believe I have lied. Most information I have passed on was documented, and I can repreduced. My faith is not built on lies.
I have lied to you a few times? Please point this out to me where you believe I have lied. Most information I have passed on was documented, and I can repreduced. My faith is not built on lies.
Sure, with pleasure.
the first lie is here:
Quote:
It takes a lot of faith to believe in a dating system that requires you first to make three arbitrary assumptions. (1.) You must know for sure if over time there has been a constant rate of decay. (2.) You must know if the element being tested came from an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element has been added or lost. And (3.) you must know for sure the exact amount of the daughter element present initially. Does science know these as facts, of course not. So these three unknowns are based on assumptions. And here is where we leave science behind and enter the world of faith based science.
not only did these assumptions turn out to be wrong but the same website you copy and pasted from actually say that these things aren't assumed with isochron datings. From here i can infer that you either didn't read the website and just copied whatever sounded appealing to you or you left out the bit where it is mentioned. Conveniently leaving out those important details pretty much counts as lying
then we have this:
Quote:
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large, One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.
My last search of the words "Kaupelehu" "Flow" "Hualalai" and "volcano" only gave me 2 pages ALL from creationist sites which would be ok but one needs to ask where did they get that from? a wider search involving only Kaupelehu and flow double the amount of pages but still no news or scientific articles. These people seems to have gotten this claim from thin air
my second reason to believe that they are bogus comes from comments found in those pages such as how carbon dating gave a date of a few billion years. To put this into perspective its like claiming to have measured a fever of a million degrees when your thermometer can only go up to 100
I've pointed it out to you and rather than commenting on them you just ignored them.
Lastly with tyre:
Quote:
Also the orginal city is no longer there but has been covered by the sea. The only thing that did survive is Alexanders landbridge which has a lot of sand and silt that accumulated around it.
The pictures i have contradict this. Furthermore it wouldn't even matter because the bible says it would never be rebuilt. This means that even if it was destroyed, the city would never be remade. It is still there. Your initial response was also a copy and paste which is pretty irritating
Im not sure why you are trying to argue this. If you say that london will be turned to ash and it will never be remade, rebuilding london a mile to the left of where it was before still counts as rebuilding it
Lastly is the comment about bringing evidence that shows the age of the earth, you claimed that all the evidence points out to a young one(ie ~10k old one). I challenge this by bringing polar ice caps, radiometry, simple cosmology and you just ignore it or ignore my rebutals to your responses(as in the case of the constancy of light speed). If you can't defend them then don't make the claims because people notice when you ignore pressing things
I challenge this by bringing polar ice caps, radiometry, simple cosmology and you just ignore it or ignore my rebutals to your responses(as in the case of the constancy of light speed).
Not to jump into you guys conversation, but when you mentioned this 'constancy of light speed' it caught my eye, so I thought I'd share this link and info that I've shared here before. I love this stuff.
Are you sure about the constancy of light speed?
Quote:
The horizon problem
OUR universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you'll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.
Get that?
A 14 billion year old universe that spans 28 billion light years??!!
As Ricky used to say "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
