Also see:
It doesn't prove or disprove any particular one of them.
It belongs in either opinion or religion.
Probably religion.
I’m going to the beach this week regardless.
I don’t need evidence … God’s Word says it, therefore it is true.
The ORIGINAL “Climate Change”.
Be a Biblical literalist if you want, but this article is just idiocy.
Typical tripe masquerading as “science” from GGG.
I thought GGG’s obsession with swine flu would last longer, but damn, it didn’t.
The Himalayas has fossils at very high levels, yet that is easily explainable by looking at how those mountains formed (mountains can form in a number of ways, divided into 3 main ways ....the Himalayas is a fold mountain, which is formed by the pressure between two converging tectonic plates forcing the material upwards). Thus, what was once below sea-level has slowly been going up, and that is how the sea-fossils ended up where they are.
Alright ...what about proof. Well, the thing is that the tectonic plates are still converging (as the Indian sub-continent continues to move into Asia ...specifically the Eurasian plate and the Indo-Australian plate ...but I guess the Ph.D in geology knew that), and guess what ...the Himalayas are getting higher. A slow but measurable rate, going up bit by bit ...between 4mm-10mm each year, every year. This is not some 'theory' (although theory in science is different from what people assume theory means ....e.g. the 'theory of gravity' in science is quite different from a 'theory that Obama must wonder whether Saudi royalty manicures their toes whenever he bows down before a Saudi monarch' in common-speak. The Himalayas are still getting higher by just under a centimeter a year ...something that semantic twists on 'theories' cannot just negate.
Now, why would someone who (since he claims he has a Ph.D in geology, and would obviously know that), play on semantics that make those who either read it too fast, or do not have a cogent educational background, assume that waters were above the Himalayas as they are? Isn't this the same nonsense that some claim evolutionists use?
As for AiG ...I understand (and as a Christian support) what they are trying to do by supporting religion using scientific bases, but they do not have to resort to base manipulation to do so. It just makes them seem low.
Even worse, it gives those who would serve to discredit them ammunition to shout over the other stuff they have to say. It reminds me a few years back when a FReeper called Ichnuemon (or something along those lines ...I know in latin it stems from Fish) was easily making scores of religious FReepers look like utter fools, since they would come up with seriously baseless 'proofs' that were so easy to tear apart. It was sad ...and to be honest Ichnuemon was totally correct!
As for AiG ...again, I like what they are doing. They just DO NOT have to resort to base manipulation to do so. There is so much out there they can use that is above board.
Also, they need to stop doing stupid things, like the expedition a few years back to the Congo to try and prove the existence of Mkolele-Mbembe (an alleged 'dinosaur' that locals, and some foreign travels, claim lives in a lake there called Lake Tele). Proving 'dinosaurs' still exist would 'prove' a young Earth. Goodness ....what next! Trawling around at Loch Ness.
The world is so full of the beauty of God's creation, and personally I have no problem if God used evolution to make the world. 6 days to me does not have to mean 6 literal days ...since a day to God does not necessarily mean 24 hours! Also, looking at how Genesis shows the story of creation, it follows almost word for word the evolutionary path (i.e., plants, then sea creatures, which come to land, etc etc etc ...and at the end humans). In my view, science and God totally exist ...I don't need to start causing (humiliating) issues like that gent who was causing a ruckus (which obvioulsy made media) because some scientist (Bill the Science Guy) had told some people that the Moon reflects sunlight and doesn't create its own light. That's just plain silly.
However, for me the most important thing is this ...my going to heaven is not dependent on whether I believe God create the Earth in 6 HUMAN days, or in 6 days (with a day being something that only God would see as a day). My going to heaven will be dependent on my relationship with Christ as savior, and that is enough for me.
People can argue whether the moon generates its own light (very stupid, and something even a first grader would know better ....for that fact, those 14 astronauts who have landed on the moon during that period that Americans were heading there, reported about 'Earth-light'....the reflection of the Sun's rays by the Earth as viewed on the Moon), or funding trips to track down some African Loch-ness monster-wannabe, or using word-play to insinuate that fossils are on the Himalayas due to a giant flood. I'd rather focus on Christ instead.
As for the flood story ...interestingly there was a major flood recorded in that region, and also shows up in many other cultures. I would like to read what 'cover the Earth' is in the original language (well ...original would be interesting since my Amplified normally looks at the Greek mostly, but at least that is somewhat close). Cover the earth could mean cover the entire land, and a flood covering (say the whole of the Mid West if an ice dam that was there collapsed, or say the entire area around Lake Baikal in Russia, or etc etc etc) could be seen by people living there as, quite literally, covering the whole Earth ...even though Australia is still as bone-dry as ever.
Anyways ...no need for semantic word-plays, no need for misinformation, and there are more important things thatg light-generation on the Moon (goodness!!!!!) In my mind it is all silly ....endless discussion on small things that have no real relation. All to prove things that most people who argue for them (e.g. the Earth being 6,000 years old) do not even KNOW where they came from. For instance, that figure came from James Ussher, who used to be an Anglican Bishop of Ireland in the 17th century, where Ussher 'calculated' that the world began on the eve of Sunday October 23 4004 BC. Approximately, 6,000 years ago. His calculations are quite flawed, although I can see why the precise date of creation was important back then ....at that time people were interested in all sorts of silly things, like (literally) how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
How will that save your soul? So what if it is one or one trillion ...absolutely silly.
These days it is hunting for Mkolele-Mbembe to prove man walked with dinosaurs.
bump
bump