7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Nitpicking. Species (science), kind (Bible).
So, by "species," you don't mean a population of animals?
Nitpicking. Species (science), kind (Bible).
You do understand that there is disagreement as to what constitutes a species. It's an ambiguous term. And I'm not saying that "kind" is perfectly defined either, but it is used in God's Word.Nitpicking. Species (science), kind (Bible).
Folks could throw 100 posts at trying to define what a species or Biblical "kind" represent and still end up more confused than ever. It's already been argued over on this forum. And in fact it's irrelevant. 99% more types of animals have died out than are present today. We get the picture. And yes, if they were still alive today they would occupy space and would need a niche, and it would be utterly impossible to accommodate them all living simultaneously. And the fact that say all dino fossils were laid down together shows that only dinos occupied the available niches. Then they died out and mammals now occupy the same niches preventing completion between utterly incompatible species. This is obvious to God who created dinos before mammals. But it's not obvious to young earth's who see no problem stuffing man and T rex on the same earth. Spielberg did a good job of showing the result.You do understand that there is disagreement as to what constitutes a species. It's an ambiguous term. And I'm not saying that "kind" is perfectly defined either, but it is used in God's Word.
The Bible is in fact utterly silent as to when either the universe or the earth began. God leaves that for scientists to figure out since it has nothing to do with salvation.
Folks could throw 100 posts at trying to define what a species or Biblical "kind" represent and still end up more confused than ever. It's already been argued over on this forum. And in fact it's irrelevant. 99% more types of animals have died out than are present today. We get the picture. And yes, if they were still alive today they would occupy space and would need a niche, and it would be utterly impossible to accommodate them all living simultaneously. And the fact that say all dino fossils were laid down together shows that only dinos occupied the available niches. Then they died out and mammals now occupy the same niches preventing completion between utterly incompatible species. This is obvious to God who created dinos before mammals. But it's not obvious to young earth's who see no problem stuffing man and T rex on the same earth. Spielberg did a good job of showing the result.
No, it's quite relevant. Kinds are defined by God and they reproduce after their kind. Which is what we observe. You know... science.Folks could throw 100 posts at trying to define what a species or Biblical "kind" represent and still end up more confused than ever. It's already been argued over on this forum. And in fact it's irrelevant.
Now talking about irrelevant. That is.99% more types of animals have died out than are present today.
Only very confused Christians would say that the Bible says that earth and the universe are 6000 years old
It amazes me how anti-science you are. That means you are anti-truth, because science is just a way at arriving at truths which are not revealed in the Bible. I know you use technology for which you have science to thank, but come across as an ingrate. You should thank science that you can communicate all around the world with the press of "Enter". And I don't believe in evolution, so I am anti-Darwin. I do see that God is a Creator (past, present and future). He is the "I Am" who has created new biomes and destroyed them for billions of years. He killed the dinos, He created the giant mammals. He killed the giant mammals, and created todays domestic animals.Unfortunately, those whom you reverently and reflexively call "scientists" are merely lying, truth-rejecting, God-despising, satan-serving, professional Darwin cheerleaders. Accomplished showmen, I grant, seeing as, like you, many in our day are coaxed by their performance into being pleased to mindlessly perch themselves on their shoulders.
IOW, you know you've reached a dead end in your attempt to sell your Darwinismspeak to rationally-thinking people, since you have no hope of rationally addressing elementary questions about your use of the word, "species". I read you, loud and clear. Sorry, but calling such questions "irrelevant" is obviously not going to whitewash your failure to answer them.
Please do. I would be genuinely interested to know how you arrive at that figure. From Usher?It's closer to 7500 years, give or take 100 years.
And I can prove it too.
Each living species requires a sizeable population to survive. So if all 100% of species were on earth at one time, they would have had populations of their kind. And that would require space and niches. And if 1% fill the earth, 100 times that is unimaginable.So, by "species," you don't mean a population of animals?
It amazes me how anti-science you are.
That means you are anti-truth, because science is just a way at arriving at truths which are not revealed in the Bible.
I know you use technology for which you have science to thank,
but come across as an ingrate.
You should thank science that you can communicate all around the world with the press of "Enter".
And I don't believe in evolution, so I am anti-Darwin.
I do see that God is a Creator (past, present and future). He is the "I Am" who has created new biomes and destroyed them for billions of years. He killed the dinos, He created the giant mammals. He killed the giant mammals, and created todays domestic animals.
Each living species requires a sizeable population to survive. So if all 100% of species were on earth at one time, they would have had populations of their kind. And that would require space and niches. And if 1% fill the earth, 100 times that is unimaginable.
You didn't watch the videos you said you did, or you didn't pay very good attention.Another thing. If all animals now being discovered as fossils lived simultaneously pre-flood, earth would have been100 times more crowded. That would have meant 100 times more competition for the limited herbs, and 100 times more competition for prey. Earth would have been hell not paradise. And God would not have had to frighten Adam with thorns. Adam would have been terrified of the dinosaurs roaming outside Eden, he would have welcomed the thorns to make a boma (enclosure) to keep them out.
Nah. A ton of the Earth's surface right now is basically uninhabited (I'm exaggerating, but there's plenty of room in deserts for more life, there just isn't any water, which is ironic). Now go back Antediluvian, 69% of the Earth's surface isn't submerged. There's tons more land, and there's water everywhere because the invisible water vapor mist, coming through rock from the Earth's deep fountains constantly watered everything with dew. You didn't need nor have rain. There were no oceans. And there weren't any deserts either.Each living species requires a sizeable population to survive. So if all 100% of species were on earth at one time, they would have had populations of their kind. And that would require space and niches. And if 1% fill the earth, 100 times that is unimaginable.
It amazes me how anti-science you are.
That means you are anti-truth,
because science is just a way at arriving at truths which are not revealed in the Bible.
I know you use technology for which you have science to thank, but come across as an ingrate. You should thank science that you can communicate all around the world with the press of "Enter".
And I don't believe in evolution, so I am anti-Darwin.
I do see that God is a Creator (past, present and future).
He is the "I Am" who has created new biomes and destroyed them
for billions of years.
He killed the dinos,
He created the giant mammals.
He killed the giant mammals,
and created todays domestic animals.
Please do. I would be genuinely interested to know how you arrive at that figure. From Usher?
Each living species requires a sizeable population to survive. So if all 100% of species were on earth at one time, they would have had populations of their kind. And that would require space and niches. And if 1% fill the earth, 100 times that is unimaginable.
The topic is:I am on topic. You are very confused obviously.
I am talking about the 99% of all species which ever lived, died out and its a mystery (a mass murder mystery) to you and all on this forum, but all palaeontologists know what killed the 99%. It's due to mass extinctions throughout the geologic column.You keep parroting these meaningless percentage numbers that you are pulling out of your imagination.
What "99%" are you even talking about? 99% of how many individuals? Tell us the number of individuals you are saying died when you say "the 99% died".
What are you even talking about? Whom are you accusing of murder? And whom are you accusing them of murdering?
You just continue to make these FALSE claims.It amazes me how anti-science you are. That means you are anti-truth, because science is just a way at arriving at truths which are not revealed in the Bible. I know you use technology for which you have science to thank, but come across as an ingrate. You should thank science that you can communicate all around the world with the press of "Enter". And I don't believe in evolution, so I am anti-Darwin. I do see that God is a Creator (past, present and future). He is the "I Am" who has created new biomes and destroyed them for billions of years. He killed the dinos, He created the giant mammals. He killed the giant mammals, and created todays domestic animals.
Light taking 13.5 billion years to travel across the universe, getting red-shifted, the geologic column, with multiple biomes, and multiple mass extinctions - maybe that's not evidence of the earth being billions of years old - but then, as I said, you seem confused.The topic is:
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
I've not seen you say a single thing about it.