Search results

Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold cases, and how forensic evidence solves the case. So often a cold case is re-opened because new technology allows for new evidence they can use to crack a case. And so often they originally speculated...

Interesting.

Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold cases, and how forensic evidence solves the case. So often a cold case is re-opened because new technology allows for new evidence they can use to crack a case. And so often they originally speculated...

You don't think the surface of the earth a great deal more vast than after the flood was covered by plant life? If the amount of coal we have is any indication, it would have taken a lot more CO2 in the air to support that much plant life. So you aren't sure there were very large land creatures...

It certainly is what I've shown. I've listed both facts or things we agree on concerning the antediluvian world. It isn't a false accusation since I demonstrated it just below what I wrote, and you confirmed it in your response. Although part of the problem is that you didn't read carefully...

Evidence is nothing but facts we can show (reproduce for others to see, or agreed with by those within the discussion) upon which we base our reasons why we believe something. As demonstrated below, you seem to think evidence only counts if one uses it to come to conclusions you approve of (not...

Of course. I said, on purpose, that the canopy was not at issue. The remark was simply to figure out if you could admit what evidence is. So, ignoring a canopy for a moment, this would be evidence, right? Evidence for something, right? For certain gas mixes, more pressure would be required...

"More CO2 would mean more pressure without a canopy." Is what you wrote evidence at all? Do you recognize that the mix of gasses in the pre-flood atmosphere is evidence at all, regardless whether it's evidence for a canopy or not? Yes. That's evidence for something, right? One thing we can...

So you'd count the bolded part as evidence? Or, if nothing else, a reasonable conclusion from the evidence? The problem you have is that more oxygen combined with more pressure would result in easier combustion. We are currently a few points away from this being a problem as it is considering...

I've never said being beneficial is the evidence. That you would claim I have shows a non-charitable reading of ground I've covered many times. What you should be able to see is that a canopy is a reasonable result of the evidence. That isn't true. Since we both agree the mix of gasses was...

I guess they finally decided to get another candidate. Seems like good timing to get another campaign up and running.

This could very well be true.

A canopy benefiting the conditions that we find before the flood is exactly evidence for a canopy. Why you don't understand what evidence is surprises me. Here's an example how it works, even today: Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold...

Hasn't there been another proposal to sync a clock using entangled particles?

There is forensic evidence that leads us to speculate why things were the way they were. I'm speculating there was a canopy, while you speculate there wasn't - both of us using the same evidence. Yes, really. I care so little about whether there was a canopy or not that in comparison I find...

In that case, I would change my response to "Sure, it doesn't necessarily mean the pressure was higher. But the benefits of a canopy allow me to speculate it was there." See the difference? I can agree with your statement because it changed from meaning one thing to another just because of one...

Aha. JR said I'm adding to scripture ("I'm accusing you of adding to scripture"), and you said, "As @JudgeRightly has pointed out, you are adding this to scripture." so I'm sure you can understand my confusion. But if you want to say I've added my interpretation to the figure of speech... well...

I'm not being silly. You're being flippant. The word "necessarily" makes all the difference because it changes the meaning from you being sure to you understanding there can be room for other interpretations. You say it is physically impossible as if you know. You don't know the construction of...

It is precisely how things are done. When one reads a figure of speech in the bible we look at grammar, history, and science to get the best interpretation. That's quite a presumption. I'm perfectly comfortable with there being no canopy, which would not be true in principle if it were an a...

Let me go back to something you said before: "I agree that the composition of the atmosphere was probably a lot different, but that does not require a higher atmospheric pressure. You are claiming "higher pressure", but again no evidence of that supposed fact." Your statement is not quite...