If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

Good question, BreezeWood. Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe. However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.

Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

Good question, BreezeWood. Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe. However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.

Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.

.

However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relativ

This includes the age of the earth ...

this begs the question where biblicist believe the Earth is only 6000 years old ...



This is another evidence for the existence of God.

sure, as long as the biblicist denies the obvious they have their belief in not knowing as proof of their God, how self rewarding can it get.

but James, do you notice the pyramid is complete - it would not be if the Apex of Knowledge were not attainable, that is the true sign the Almighty exists and that a Spirit to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting must ascend its summit and to do so in Purity as the message of Noah is demanded or to perish in time with its physiology.

.

 

[james bond]

Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny. I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.

The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible. Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics. However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea. Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years. There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor. The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment. Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance. What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?

I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.

You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong. Science has no proofs. That is the nature of science. Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science. Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives. If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics. How does it do that? What happens to the rocks that are formed. Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct? And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim? You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to? Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion. The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers. People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist. He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory. Convenient you left this part out. Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year. Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science? That's why you continue to look bad.

-Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1 God, then there was 1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
-I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.

• Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
• Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
• A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: craie bleue) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]

that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
Oh look more chalk lol.
-So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
- Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.

Again, you are wrong. Absolute proofs do not exist in science which you seem to religiously adhere to. Certainly absolute proofs exist in the world. There are facts and historical truths which I state. There is also reasoning which I adhere to in the form of many good logical arguments like I think therefore I am or mathematical proofs. In court cases, we can sometimes arrive at absolute proof using evidence and investigation. One can indeed prove a negative. What I was stating was in science, it does not and scientific hypothesis can be way wrong. Scientific principles and laws are pretty much absolute, but I can't say the same for what they call "scientific facts" today. Dinosaurs going extinct because of volcanoes and then asteroid were taught as fact in some elementary schools. In the near past, a whole generation believed in the Piltdown Man fabrication as the missing link from apes to human by evolutionary scientists. Like it, evolution is BS.

And much of the ocean floor does not turn to rock because of sediment. What you are subscribing to is what uniformitarianism tells you. We know that catastrophism has much to do with the subduction as well as the moving of the plate tectonics. We are interested in our oceans because 3/4 of the earth is covered by it and we have not been able to explore its vastness. Isn't that evidence for Noah's Flood? If that isn't, then I do not know what is. What other planets have the kind of situation of water covering 3/4 of the planet? Today, atheist scientists want us to believe that the universe and the earth is made for life. To the contrary, it isn't. Again, they are wrong. Yet, you continue to spout your science without it being something close to the truth. If the sediment turns into rock, then where are the diamonds underneath the oceans? Most of it isn't rock, but crust. There are some diamonds, but they are rare and the diamonds goes to show there is more water, an oceanful, underneath the crust. Also, diamonds found in our coal deposits can be radiocarbon date to thousands of years. They should not be able to be radiocarbon dated if they're really millions of years old.

And the chalk of the White Cliffs of Dover was formed in short time by catastrophism. Not millions of years of pressure as you and the evolutionists believe.

"For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.

With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.

Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean."

I didn't say the Biblical verses were vague. They're pretty clear if one subscribes to the young earth as I understood it when I read Genesis. It's the old earth creationists and believers of evolution who have made it vague. It wasn't that long ago that most scientists believed in the eternal universe. However, that changed with the findings for The Big Bang Theory and that backed up what the

 

[james bond]

Einstein of course was jewish but it still applies of course.

Huh?

Einstein probably was pantheist and believed in an universal God or one described as a Spinoza God.

"God does not play dice." Albert Einstein

 

[james bond]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

Good question, BreezeWood. Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe. However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.

Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.

Ho hum. More atheist science bias from its wrong conclusions. See my diamonds statements above. Also, dinosaur fossils have been dated to a young earth.

 

[james bond]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

Good question, BreezeWood. Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe. However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.

Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.

.

However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relativ

This includes the age of the earth ...

this begs the question where biblicist believe the Earth is only 6000 years old ...



This is another evidence for the existence of God.

sure, as long as the biblicist denies the obvious they have their belief in not knowing as proof of their God, how self rewarding can it get.

but James, do you notice the pyramid is complete - it would not be if the Apex of Knowledge were not attainable, that is the true sign the Almighty exists and that a Spirit to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting must ascend its summit and to do so in Purity as the message of Noah is demanded or to perish in time with its physiology.

.

I didn't jump to the conclusions you did. See how atheists are usually wrong? I can only present the evidence for a young earth versus an old one. This does not mean I can pinpoint the exact time and date and where the universe began. Only surmise the how which is more believable than the evolutionary theories of 14.7 billion year universe and 4.7 billion year earth.

You have to explain what you mean by the pyramids and Apex of Knowledge. What I gather is the ancient Egyptians were the first civilization to believe in life after death (unlike the first atheists who may have been pygmies in Africa).

 

[BreezeWood]

You have to explain what you mean by the pyramids and Apex of Knowledge.

the pyramid is the Almighty's symbol to humanity that all things are attainable and that knowledge has an apex as a final conclusion, not that any knowledge would be withheld but that the true and final knowledge must be attained through effort - energy.

God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

the above is a fundamental flaw for biblicist, it is not that all knowledge is not attainable but that their scriptures have yet to reach the summit and are therefore incomplete -

the evidence of Gods existence is out ability to know and understand what they have accomplished in order to appreciate their existence and is realized at the Apex of Knowledge.



Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'

this is where in fact the bible diverts from the real path leading to the Admission to the Everlasting and will remain incomplete as long as biblicist believe the final answer is unattainable by their own flawed scriptures and not the reality Jesus confronted and new to be true.

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

well, I can offer an answer to the question, at the same point of singularity.

.

 

[forkup]

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny. I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.

The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible. Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics. However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea. Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years. There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor. The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment. Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance. What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?

I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.

You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong. Science has no proofs. That is the nature of science. Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science. Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives. If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics. How does it do that? What happens to the rocks that are formed. Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct? And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim? You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to? Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion. The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers. People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist. He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory. Convenient you left this part out. Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year. Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science? That's why you continue to look bad.

-Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1 God, then there was 1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
-I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.

• Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
• Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
• A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: craie bleue) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]

that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
Oh look more chalk lol.
-So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
- Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.

Again, you are wrong. Absolute proofs do not exist in science which you seem to religiously adhere to. Certainly absolute proofs exist in the world. There are facts and historical truths which I state. There is also reasoning which I adhere to in the form of many good logical arguments like I think therefore I am or mathematical proofs. In court cases, we can sometimes arrive at absolute proof using evidence and investigation. One can indeed prove a negative. What I was stating was in science, it does not and scientific hypothesis can be way wrong. Scientific principles and laws are pretty much absolute, but I can't say the same for what they call "scientific facts" today. Dinosaurs going extinct because of volcanoes and then asteroid were taught as fact in some elementary schools. In the near past, a whole generation believed in the Piltdown Man fabrication as the missing link from apes to human by evolutionary scientists. Like it, evolution is BS.

And much of the ocean floor does not turn to rock because of sediment. What you are subscribing to is what uniformitarianism tells you. We know that catastrophism has much to do with the subduction as well as the moving of the plate tectonics. We are interested in our oceans because 3/4 of the earth is covered by it and we have not been able to explore its vastness. Isn't that evidence for Noah's Flood? If that isn't, then I do not know what is. What other planets have the kind of situation of water covering 3/4 of the planet? Today, atheist scientists want us to believe that the universe and the earth is made for life. To the contrary, it isn't. Again, they are wrong. Yet, you continue to spout your science without it being something close to the truth. If the sediment turns into rock, then where are the diamonds underneath the oceans? Most of it isn't rock, but crust. There are some diamonds, but they are rare and the diamonds goes to show there is more water, an oceanful, underneath the crust. Also, diamonds found in our coal deposits can be radiocarbon date to thousands of years. They should not be able to be radiocarbon dated if they're really millions of years old.

And the chalk of the White Cliffs of Dover was formed in short time by catastrophism. Not millions of years of pressure as you and the evolutionists believe.

"For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.

With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.

Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean."

I didn't say the Biblical verses were vague. They're pretty clear if one subscribes to the young earth as I understood it when I read Genesis. It's the old earth creationists and believers of evolution who have made it vague. It wasn't that long ago that most scientists believed in the eternal universe. However, that changed with the findings for The Big Bang Theory and that backed up what the

What historical facts have you ever stated? The only certainty there is in history is dates and even then they might be wrong, because sources might be wrong. I'm still waiting for you to give any logical reasons. Im also still waiting for you to give me a reason why the species appear i chronological order. In other words you see a clear biological record of singlecell to multicell to aquatic, to early amphibians, to reptiles and so on and so forth. What LOGICAL reason is there for that. All species where created togheter, why did they die in such a particular order?
What are you talking about when you say the fact that we can't explore the oceans vastness is a proof of the flood???? First of all man has been at the deepest place in the ocean and the reason it is difficult is because of pressure.
One more thing this is related to your whole bioligical decaying
How did coal get layered? If a global flood happened how did it coal beds to become layered. If everything gets flooded there's no reason it to be buried at different times. You talk about succesive deposits like it doesn't create a huge problem. But this was a single massive event so everything should have happened in one go. Where is the flood strata? Where is the strata that proofs GLOBAL flooding? It should appear somewhere in the geoligical record at the same chronological order to be valid?
And I see you completly dodged my radiocarbon post, simply refused to answer, lol I can't say I'm not used to you not answering direct questions

 

[Militants]

Asa Tor is Swedish God I truely know.

God of Thunder he is also.

Asa Father Oden are Nordic God.

 

[james bond]

You have to explain what you mean by the pyramids and Apex of Knowledge.

the pyramid is the Almighty's symbol to humanity that all things are attainable and that knowledge has an apex as a final conclusion, not that any knowledge would be withheld but that the true and final knowledge must be attained through effort - energy.

God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

the above is a fundamental flaw for biblicist, it is not that all knowledge is not attainable but that their scriptures have yet to reach the summit and are therefore incomplete -

the evidence of Gods existence is out ability to know and understand what they have accomplished in order to appreciate their existence and is realized at the Apex of Knowledge.



Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'

this is where in fact the bible diverts from the real path leading to the Admission to the Everlasting and will remain incomplete as long as biblicist believe the final answer is unattainable by their own flawed scriptures and not the reality Jesus confronted and new to be true.

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

well, I can offer an answer to the question, at the same point of singularity.

.

I would think it's "My science, my science, my atheist friends, my atheist friends why have you mislead me?" Atheists will find this out when they die. If it's not the end, then your consciousness will have to decide on which way to go or which door to open. This is the time right before death or near-death. What happens when one dies, that we do not know. It's when one goes beyond, cannot return and is not on this earth no more. If the atheists are right, then nothing happens. If the creationists are right, then one has to find their way.

As for the point of singularity, that is your "faith" in evolution. To me, it's just more evolutionary BS. It's theoretical. Even if it is real, it is someplace where on cannot reach or know where to go. If one cannot reach or be certain of the POS (fitting acronym indeed), then science backs up what the Bible says.

 

[james bond]

The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible. Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics. However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea. Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years. There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor. The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment. Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance. What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?

I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.

You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong. Science has no proofs. That is the nature of science. Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science. Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives. If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics. How does it do that? What happens to the rocks that are formed. Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct? And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim? You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to? Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion. The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers. People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist. He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory. Convenient you left this part out. Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year. Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science? That's why you continue to look bad.

-Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1 God, then there was 1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
-I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.

• Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
• Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
• A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: craie bleue) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]

that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
Oh look more chalk lol.
-So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
- Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.

Again, you are wrong. Absolute proofs do not exist in science which you seem to religiously adhere to. Certainly absolute proofs exist in the world. There are facts and historical truths which I state. There is also reasoning which I adhere to in the form of many good logical arguments like I think therefore I am or mathematical proofs. In court cases, we can sometimes arrive at absolute proof using evidence and investigation. One can indeed prove a negative. What I was stating was in science, it does not and scientific hypothesis can be way wrong. Scientific principles and laws are pretty much absolute, but I can't say the same for what they call "scientific facts" today. Dinosaurs going extinct because of volcanoes and then asteroid were taught as fact in some elementary schools. In the near past, a whole generation believed in the Piltdown Man fabrication as the missing link from apes to human by evolutionary scientists. Like it, evolution is BS.

And much of the ocean floor does not turn to rock because of sediment. What you are subscribing to is what uniformitarianism tells you. We know that catastrophism has much to do with the subduction as well as the moving of the plate tectonics. We are interested in our oceans because 3/4 of the earth is covered by it and we have not been able to explore its vastness. Isn't that evidence for Noah's Flood? If that isn't, then I do not know what is. What other planets have the kind of situation of water covering 3/4 of the planet? Today, atheist scientists want us to believe that the universe and the earth is made for life. To the contrary, it isn't. Again, they are wrong. Yet, you continue to spout your science without it being something close to the truth. If the sediment turns into rock, then where are the diamonds underneath the oceans? Most of it isn't rock, but crust. There are some diamonds, but they are rare and the diamonds goes to show there is more water, an oceanful, underneath the crust. Also, diamonds found in our coal deposits can be radiocarbon date to thousands of years. They should not be able to be radiocarbon dated if they're really millions of years old.

And the chalk of the White Cliffs of Dover was formed in short time by catastrophism. Not millions of years of pressure as you and the evolutionists believe.

"For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.

With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.

Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean."

I didn't say the Biblical verses were vague. They're pretty clear if one subscribes to the young earth as I understood it when I read Genesis. It's the old earth creationists and believers of evolution who have made it vague. It wasn't that long ago that most scientists believed in the eternal universe. However, that changed with the findings for The Big Bang Theory and that backed up what the

What historical facts have you ever stated? The only certainty there is in history is dates and even then they might be wrong, because sources might be wrong. I'm still waiting for you to give any logical reasons. Im also still waiting for you to give me a reason why the species appear i chronological order. In other words you see a clear biological record of singlecell to multicell to aquatic, to early amphibians, to reptiles and so on and so forth. What LOGICAL reason is there for that. All species where created togheter, why did they die in such a particular order?
What are you talking about when you say the fact that we can't explore the oceans vastness is a proof of the flood???? First of all man has been at the deepest place in the ocean and the reason it is difficult is because of pressure.
One more thing this is related to your whole bioligical decaying
How did coal get layered? If a global flood happened how did it coal beds to become layered. If everything gets flooded there's no reason it to be buried at different times. You talk about succesive deposits like it doesn't create a huge problem. But this was a single massive event so everything should have happened in one go. Where is the flood strata? Where is the strata that proofs GLOBAL flooding? It should appear somewhere in the geoligical record at the same chronological order to be valid?
And I see you completly dodged my radiocarbon post, simply refused to answer, lol I can't say I'm not used to you not answering direct questions

I'm sure I posted how science backs up the Bible -- Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles? . I pointed out the beginnings of uniformitarianism in 1795 and the arguments between creationists and early evolutionists in the 1800s. Along the way, I have been pointing out where the evolutionists have been wrong with their hypothesis such as the eternal universe theory or even the stationary universe theory (pseudoscience), single tree of life (pseudoscience), Darwin was wrong about similar species competing for the same foods and resources, Piltdown Man (fraud), theories of dinosaur extinction has been wrong, and the countless failures of the ToE. Maybe you'll claim birds are dinosaurs next, and I guess you've been too busy trying to back up your hypotheses to listen to what I've been saying.

History has been written down and confirmed by different people so that is the proof. If you do not believe that, then provide the evidence that history is wrong. Surely, there are parts where history has been biased, but it has been corrected. What are you going to claim from this? That Biblicists believed in a flat earth lol?

I think you are referring to species based on natural selection. That is part of what the Bible states. Natural selection is considered to be the survival of the fittest and is often confused by atheists and evolutionists as that which is evolution. It is not proof for evolution and against creationism. Natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment. Genes that are pre-existent are those genes that have always been there but certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable. Hence, those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool. God had the wonderful ability to foresee the need for a process that would ensure the continuing survival of life on earth which He continues to care (Psalm 24:1; Job 12:7-9).

I keep answering your doubts over and over. It's catastrophism vs uniformitarianism. The layering of coal is just in certain parts of the earth. It shows that layering or fossils or even coal happens where the conditions brought it to be. In this case the global flood. The flood uprooted the entire pre-flood biosphere and buried it with huge quantities of sand and mud. The geologists today won't accept the flood, so they claim the coal layers were formed slowly over millions of years. For these brown coal deposits, these scientists claim the vegetation accumulated as peat in a swamp during ideal climatic and geologic conditions. They say the swamps formed on floodplains near the coast, which were slowly sinking and eventually inundated by the ocean. However, the evidence indicates that these brown coal deposits did not accumulate in a peat bog or a swamp. There is no sign of soil under the coal, as there would be if the vegetation grew and accumulated in a swamp. Instead, the coal rests on a thick layer of clay and there is a ‘knife edge’ contact between the clay and the coal. This kaolin clay is so pure that it could be used for high-class pottery. Furthermore, there are no roots penetrating the clay.

Again, the layers do not show time but location. Already you've forgotten what I stated before.

And I think I did answer your radiocarbon post. You claim the items are over 50,000 years old but how do you explain being able to date them? All of the carbon would have been spent. More scientists are radiocarbon dating dinosaur fossils and items which are supposed to be millions of years old.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this here, but there are 75 theses of creation science against evolution.

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

 

[james bond]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you. Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it. The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit. It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world. It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here. Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet. An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible. There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture. These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today. They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all. These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more. For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).

 

[forkup]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you. Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it. The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit. It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world. It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here. Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet. An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible. There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture. These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today. They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all. These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more. For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).

Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.

 

[Militants]

Tor is the Nazi God when Swedish God does not exist.

 

[james bond]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you. Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it. The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit. It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world. It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here. Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet. An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible. There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture. These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today. They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all. These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more. For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).

Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.

Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.

And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions. I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new. While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well. It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest. Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory. As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong. The atheists are usually wrong, too. What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works. It actually should be the other way around. Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible. The Bible can't change. It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you. This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind. It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today. He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.

 

[sealybobo]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

Good question, BreezeWood. Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe. However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.

Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.

Ho hum. More atheist science bias from its wrong conclusions. See my diamonds statements above. Also, dinosaur fossils have been dated to a young earth.

He was experiencing cognitive dissonance

 

[BreezeWood]

- or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.

and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.

the Almighty gave us our Spirit, not a written document than perhaps the one destroyed by the scripturalists, James Bond.

.

 

[forkup]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you. Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it. The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit. It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world. It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here. Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet. An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible. There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture. These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today. They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all. These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more. For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).

Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.

Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.

And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions. I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new. While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well. It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest. Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory. As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong. The atheists are usually wrong, too. What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works. It actually should be the other way around. Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible. The Bible can't change. It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you. This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind. It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today. He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.

As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.

 

[james bond]

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you. Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it. The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit. It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world. It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here. Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet. An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible. There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture. These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today. They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all. These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more. For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).

Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.

Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.

And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions. I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new. While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well. It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest. Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory. As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong. The atheists are usually wrong, too. What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works. It actually should be the other way around. Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible. The Bible can't change. It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you. This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind. It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today. He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.

As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.

I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by. There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out. Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find. Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet. There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History . Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs. So, there is your one thing. Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak. Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle. Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses. Give me an example of abiogenesis. Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism. I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up. The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will. Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world. Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.

 

[james bond]

- or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.

and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.

the Almighty gave us our Spirit, not a written document than perhaps the one destroyed by the scripturalists, James Bond.

.

Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives. He wanted us to be happy. In it, He shows us the way. If I can get one thing to change people's minds on, it would be this.

So, why am I the sad case when atheists are the ones who are usually wrong? One trend that is disturbing is more adults have some type of allergy.

This is just my opinion, but I think since atheists are an easily swayed group, they will be the ones who will suffer from addictive sources such as drugs, caffeine, alcohol, porn and so on. Is fast food addictive? The new generations may be hit like no other. Their longevity will become shorter as adults will die earlier instead of later. The first thing they do is deny it and claim they are a moral, upstanding group, but they won't be. Else, they should be able to fulfill their evolutionary lives and be stronger, faster, smarter than the ancients.