I have not had th chance to suggest this in a while---Learn some science.
Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
I have not had th chance to suggest this in a while---Learn some science.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I can only imagine what "study" means to you.I have studied the Evolution and old Earth drivel and have rejected it.
Kent Hovind videos and Chick tracts?
Bigot.
Wrong.
How about Darwin's voyage of the Beagle, High School science courses for the gifted and college biology. I just am not convinced. They are theories anyways. I just don't buy these theories.
Yes, you are correct. Theories.
A theory in science does not equal a guess. It is the best explanation for the evidence.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Anyone that believes the earth is 10,000 to 6,000 years old has not honestly looked at the evidence. Much like my students claim to have "studied" but can't answer even the simplest questions on the exam.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Neither High school nor college biology typically address actual evidence for an old earth. High school biology typically avoids covering much evidence for evolution.
Darwin's voyage and the samples he gathered are only the earliest evidence, not the mountain of genetic data we have today. Perhaps you can answer these questions . . .
Does evolution cover the origin of life?
Does evolution proceed through "random accidents"?
Are there transitional fossils?
Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Read more here if you wish
Jukia already covered the scientific definition of "theory".
Face facts, Batgirl. You're a bigot.
Anyone who believes fish evolved into people has only followed the crowd and has never seriously considered the reasonable alternative.
Anyone who believes fish evolved into people has only followed the crowd and has never seriously considered the reasonable alternative.
Read my post. I've been to college and took college courses.
Classes that I took--Biology 1 and 2. Human Anatomy and Physiology 1, 2 and 3. Chemistry 1 and 2. I been up to my elbows in human cadaver. I was going to be a respiratory therapist until I was barred from it for health reasons. So after recovery I married and decided to switch careers. I became an Avionics technician--more college courses. The more education I got the less convinced I became of the Darwin model.
Because someone accepts a theory be it, Darwinism or Creationism, does not mean the person is ignorant or stupid. They are both theories, neither of which can really be proven as fact. The evidence can be interpreted either way depending on your viewpoint.
Because you have to attack someone's character by accusing them of dishonesty tells me there is something wrong.
I just do not accept any theory that excludes God or lessens Him. I take God at His Word. All else in secondary.
Classes that I took--Biology 1 and 2. Human Anatomy and Physiology 1, 2 and 3. Chemistry 1 and 2. I been up to my elbows in human cadaver. I was going to be a respiratory therapist until I was barred from it for health reasons. So after recovery I married and decided to switch careers. I became an Avionics technician--more college courses. The more education I got the less convinced I became of the Darwin model.
Because someone accepts a theory be it, Darwinism or Creationism, does not mean the person is ignorant or stupid. They are both theories, neither of which can really be proven as fact. The evidence can be interpreted either way depending on your viewpoint.
Because you have to attack someone's character by accusing them of dishonesty tells me there is something wrong.
I just do not accept any theory that excludes God or lessens Him. I take God at His Word. All else in secondary.
WizardofOz
New member
Let me ask you this. If something was found to be an artifact from say Noah's Ark, how would you test that material to determine its age?
If Noah's Ark was found, how could it be proven to be Noah's Ark?
If Noah's Ark was found, how could it be proven to be Noah's Ark?
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, Stripe you're someone that can't handle facts. Someone that namecalls and obfuscates instead of having a rational discussion with someone that has actual evidence to discuss.
And the "reasonable alternative" is what? Humans descend from two people created 6000 years ago? I've already explained the evidence that shows that to be impossible save supernatural falsification of evidence.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That doesn't mean you've "studied evolution". I went to college and took college courses but I didn't really "study" evolution until the later part of my graduate program. I probably would have told you that I "studied" it before that as well.
You likely had a brief coverage of evolution in biology. The other classes, while informative, don't really touch on evolution much.
However, if you've had anatomy and physiology you should be able to sink your teeth into this article.
And avionics has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I'm not saying you're stupid, or uneducated I'm saying that you haven't looked into evolution as much as you think you have.
Sigh. Science doesn't "prove things as fact" in general. A theory is a unifying EXPLANATION of observations from a wide range of disciplines and is the highest form of certainty in science.
Science isn't "just a matter of interpretation". Is lift generation over a wing just a "matter of interpretation"?
If you refuse to accept evolution because of what you believe about scripture that is fine, but don't pretend that it's because you actually looked at the evidence.
A bigot and a liar.
Yip. The maths shows this to be a far more reasonable idea than your lunacy.
Bigot.
Last edited:
Oh, math, soo sciency. Thanks Stripe.
We know you're not overly fond of interesting or helpful posts, Jukia, but it sure would make for a nice surprise. :chuckle:
You misjudge me Stripo. I am very fond of interesting or helpful or technically accurate posts. Yours simply are none of those.
I suggest you take a look back at post #152 in this thread. I actually did some research into Pastor Bob's claims as originally posted here and determined he was "misinformed".
Alate_One
Well-known member
That's all you can do is call names. You have no evidence.
Your "maths" are the lunacy here. You have 91 people on the entire planet 5000 years ago, when the pyramids were built. :kookoo: And you have more than the current population of the planet 300 years ago. Population growth isn't a simple linear curve with a constant growth rate. We know this is true for population growth in recorded history.
Your "reasonable alternative" is nonsense. :loser: