Posted on 08/01/2013 10:40:10 AM PDT by fishtank
Sure sure - all us Christians are just illiterate unscientific hicks - right?!
Actually the entire modern science movement would not exist without the contributions of several very prominent Christians. One Sir Isaac Newton for starters.
Death is a result of the fall - the original sin of Adam and Eve - so why the strange statement about sudden death and minor disease injury?
Well donmeaker you are in for a treat then with the site I provided you. Ever heard of the 4th state of water - supercritical - this undergraound water and the temp/pressure it was under is the crux of the hydroplate theory. Also Dr. Brown supplies a chart showing the major problem with carbon-dating - namely what happens to the c12 vs c14 ratios when all the land-dwelling lifeforms are drowned and buried in a sea of sediments.
Also since carbon-dating only allows ages upto 50,000 years or so I hardly see how it lines up with [assumed] radio-isotope dating as well as starlight. But then if you spend a little more time reading instead of criticizing then just maybe you’ll begin to see creation has much more of the proven science rather than evolution. Evolution simply has the over-bearing beaurocratic weight of the government, msm and major universities - kinda like the same way so many have accepted global warming as science when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Which creation account? The first one where the creator is described by a plural name (Elohim) or the second one where the creator is described by a singular name (Yahweh)?
Science demands objectivity. The rigors and methodologies of science are designed to frustrate and expose those who attempt to abuse it as a tool to advance a personal agenda outside of the pursuit of science. People tend to not look favorably on those caught doing it.
Carbon-14 isn't the only radioisotope used for dating. Uranium-238 is also used as well as many others.
All have similar assumptions regarding initial ratios and do not allow for foreign contaminants leeching into and out of the fossils. There are also hundreds, if not thousands, of facts that science can not explain against the present paradigms.
Cracks me up how certain you ‘science’ types are who will only educate yourselves on one side of the crevo debate[usually by ever-escalating rhetoric claiming creation is not science] and smugly ignore factual evidence that supports the Biblical accounts.
Well all the greatest scientists who ever lived not only believed in God but practiced science to better understand his power and his creation. Today’s ‘science’ does not allow for God and claims to be a superior approach in so doing - like gouging out one eye might help you see better - really? Tell me more - cough...
Romans 1:19-22
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
The rock surrounding the fossil is also dated. Also concerning starlight, are you trying to say that the speed of light in vacuum is changing?
Actually it is circular logic [not logic at all] when the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks!
No on the 2nd question - suggest you read “Starlight and Time” by Russell Humphreys PhD.
So are you (BrandtMichaels) suggesting that the speed of light in a vacuum is changing? It’s a simple yes or no question.
So you don't think the speed of light is changing.
Correction, I was responding to BrandtMichaels.
In order for his idea to work, either the gravity on Earth is so high that the Earth crushes itself into superdense degenerate matter or the repulsive force for bodies beyond the Earth prevents those very same bodies from forming in the first place.
Aww gosh shucks I guess your just too smart for me - is that supposed to be my response to you?
Listen up sonny boy - there is no science nor scientist on Earth knowing everything. Furthermore there are no scientific instruments that can measure everything either - some conditions are just too extreme to verify the conjectures that most science is built upon. Lastly science is never science when it is discussing past history no matter whether thousands nor billions of years. There are no scientific experiments that can simulate the passage of time nor declare what the prior nor starting conditions were [this applies to your prior posts too].
So please heckle all you want it just shows your true motives.
Last Thursdayism.
A great example of YEC ideas being a distraction to Evangelism, God planting things in the past to look older than they appear. This would imply that God is a deceiver, a distinctly unChristian concept. However, it would be perfectly acceptable in Islam since in that religion, God's Sovereignty is absolute, even over truth. The Islamic conception of God implies that God can change the truth at a whim. As I said before to others, this is one of the reasons that the practice of the scientific method went further in the Medieval Christian World while the Islamic World eventually gave up on pursuing the scientific method
The objective is to keep the thread going and the venue alive to present more opportunities to quote scripture and post links to creationist web sites. It doesn’t matter how logically tortured it is, as long as you’ll respond to it.
Yep,and God didn’t lay Adam down as a newly formed zygote on freshly cooled magma plains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.