Posted on 10/23/2013 12:46:38 PM PDT by fishtank
man...that is grasping!!! I can see thru that (not you)
it hokey!!!
it is difficult enough to try and theorize early earth history (observe a problem) then explain it away with a stupid hypothesis.
Like (example) “oops we found soft tissue in a fossil, oh well, then that means it CAN survive millions of years...hehe..” poor man, just poor
no, it is an atheists grasp on reality as they see it.
(with out a Creator)
You cited Burgess and he explained the difficulty quite easily. How is that grasping? Do you read what you post?
yes, read it!! he use a contradiction.
“at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils “
but of course , a evolutionist would accept that!
The atheist is moving to towards an “ancient Alien” solution.
There seems to be some underlying uncertainty regarding evolution that accounts for the popularity of such programs.
Somehow these leftist atheists will say ALIENS before they even consider God
Somehow these leftist atheists will say ALIENS before they even consider God
An extraordinary display of uncertainty, if you ask me.
Only one. Any pair of docs will contradict each other.
As ever, I am amazed at how these ICR articles promulgate falsehoods almost reflexively, even when they don’t have to. The article says, “At that supposed time, the sun would have been 70 percent less luminous compared to today.” That makes it sound like the sun’s strength was bout 30% of what it is today.
But if you click through to the cited press release, it says “the Sun’s energy was roughly three-quarters the strength it is today...’During the Archean the solar energy received at the surface of the Earth was about 20 to 25 % lower than present.’” So the article first exaggerated (it’s not 70 percent, it’s 75 to 80 percent) and then misstated (it wasn’t that much *less* luminous, it was that percentage *as* luminous). You’d think a PhD wouldn’t make that mistake—unless he wanted to.
And then, at the end, the lead scientist says, “However, our results did give a higher than expected pressure reading for carbon dioxide – at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils – which could be high enough to counteract the effects of the faint young Sun and will require further investigation.” Yet somehow the ICR writer saw fit to leave that part out. Is all this deception intentional or accidental? After reading this kind of stuff for years, I know where I land on that question.
What is anti scientific about the article? The notion that because science readily admits it hasn’t figured out one thing, then all of geology, paleontology, cosmology, planetology, etc., is all wrong. Sorry, but science is all about identifying where you are wrong, and gathering evidence to come up with new ideas.
Quite. That one briefly described issue is not immediately understood does not totally dismantle the overall theory for which most such things make sense...and does not justify an alternate theory which fails to explain most obvious things like rock strata and fossils.
The “young earth” theory requires all history fit in just 100 hundred-year lifespans. What we plainly see and experience does not extrapolate to that short a span.
And I’ll repeat what I think is the sad part:
This anti-scientific crap keeps an emnity between science and religion which is badly damaging to both... Just as... I believe that just God created Adam to appear as if he had aged in many ways (he was a man, not a zygote), I have no problem believing that God created a universe that looked extremely aged in many ways.
Question would be...why? Why have processes indicative of cycle times of orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude of years, when they’ve in fact just barely started and only look billions of years old? Heck, with that theory we couldn’t even begin to rule out the world having been created 20 minutes ago.
“The notion that because science readily admits it hasn’t figured out one thing,...”
Scientist know little about many things, therefore it is proper to question ideas and prove them.
And if they are wrong about this , they can be wrong about that.
Science has become a religion to some.
(in place of God)
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.