The 6000 Year Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter heiscominginthe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
heiscominginthe said:
‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.
Click to expand...
Nice dodge to my questions: Can you show us a single “creation scientist” who is a leader in a scientific field? Whose work is widely cited? Whose books or articles are read? Whose conference presentations are attended? Whose lab is contributing to the sum total of human knowledge about the world? Can you in fact cite a single “creation scientist” who has made any contribution at all to scientific learning?
 
heiscominginthe said:
There is a logical reason why scientists when using carbon dating preflood materials believe or get results that say the material is millions or billions of years old. The answer can be found in the original thread.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, carbon dating is used to date to a max of about 60 thousand years.
heiscominginthe said:
Science tries to use a test established in today’s periodical table which is chemically different from preflood material. Everything on the face of the earth is chemically different from materials that are preflood. Our world today is saturated, bombarded by appoximately 13 times more radiation than that of preflood earth.
Click to expand...
HAHA you just made that up, please provide on piece of empirical evidence, or one peer reviewed paper that supports your claims.
heiscominginthe said:
So when preflood materials are tested using tests established by today’s chemical principles, it is logical that there will be a huge difference in dating the material since the chemical properties are not the same. Now, what if it were possilble to remove the radiation in materials. Doesn’t it make sense that then they could acheive a much more accurate test on determining the age of preflood material?
Click to expand...
Not only did you make this up too, again you have no idea what your talking about. Dude read a book, get an education, do something man, PLEASE.
 
buffalo said:
Just a question orogeny? Don’t go hostile on me now. 🙂

Do you believe science could/will ever come to the conclusion that macro-evolution theory was wrong?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as macro evolution, if you mean evolution then they could, for nothing is absolute. However in practice the chances are zero due to the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution.
 
heiscominginthe said:
As for the flood and the change in the lifespan of man, they are both found in scripture. To not believe them is to not believe the Word of God.

As for the topic on radiation, I suggest you do a search on radiation and it’s affects on the human body.

Also, there was another interesting study done on aquadic animals and how that an animal of the same species that lives in the depths of the oceans lives much longer then those who live near the surface. The animals in the depths grew much, much larger then the animals that lived in shallow waters. The scientist discovered the reason why there was such a difference in size was because the animals in the depths lived much, much longer then the animals in the shallow waters.

When investigating why the animals in the depths lived so much longer, their conclusion stated that the animals that lived in the depths was not affected by as much radiation as the animals in the shallows, and the animals in the depths continued to grow since it lived much, much longer. The animal that was used in this study was the squid in case you want to do a search.
Click to expand...
Please link the paper. You sound like a fan of kent hovind, you know… the scientific illiterate that is in jail for lying.
 
StAnastasia said:
Nice dodge to my questions: Can you show us a single “creation scientist” who is a leader in a scientific field? Whose work is widely cited? Whose books or articles are read? Whose conference presentations are attended? Whose lab is contributing to the sum total of human knowledge about the world? Can you in fact cite a single “creation scientist” who has made any contribution at all to scientific learning?
Click to expand...
You asked for names and I gave them. Yet, that did not suffice. So next you ask for this and for that. Nothing will change your already made up, indoctrinated mind.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Please link the paper. You sound like a fan of kent hovind, you know… the scientific illiterate that is in jail for lying.
Click to expand...
I can post all the proof in the world, but usually those who choose to believe in evolution instead of creation do so because that gives them leverage in not believing in God.

Yet, as surely as all things have been created, all that was created was created by God.

The fingerprints of God are everywhere. They have just be covered over by man’s.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz more lies…

youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
Click to expand...
When you are knelling down at the throne of the Creator, I bet you don’t say…ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz more lies…

One thing I know you will be saying is you are sorry for knowing the truth, but denying it in order to satisfy you lust for sin. For many will go down that road, loving sin more then God.

Yet, they refuse to accept that life on this earth is like a mist that is here and then gone while eternity is forever. And trust me, forever in torment is a long time.
 
Excerpts from the book Essentials of Philosophy by James Mannion:
“Mythology was followed by philosophy, upon which the sciences were founded and schism split the mystical and the empirical”.

…“Science and spiritually may not be mutually exclusive after all”…

I gather from this book and all the philosophers of time that the sciences came after the advent of the knowledge of a spiritual nature in mankind.

What say you?

Blessing’s, AJ
 
heiscominginthe said:
You asked for names and I gave them. Yet, that did not suffice. So next you ask for this and for that. Nothing will change your already made up, indoctrinated mind.
Click to expand...
I’m not indoctrinated at all, except in the search for the Truth. You have not yet shown that you can refer us to a singe “Creation scientist” who (1) has made a scientific discovery supporting your perspective on reality, (2) has national or international standing within the scientific community, or (3) publishes credible work. Until you can do so – without dismissing our inquiry as “asking for this or that” – there is no reason why anyone should regard your position as in the slightest degree credible.

StAnastasia
 
heiscominginthe said:
I can post all the proof in the world, but usually those who choose to believe in evolution instead of creation do so because that gives them leverage in not believing in God.

Yet, as surely as all things have been created, all that was created was created by God.

The fingerprints of God are everywhere. They have just be covered over by man’s.
Click to expand...
Then by all means post it!!!

“The fingerprints of God are everywhere. They have just be covered over by man’s.”

Ah now i see, you dont understand basic science. So rather than try to educate yourself you are happy with the answer “Sky daddy did it!”. Sorry but some of us actually need real answers.

Im going to go out on a limb here and say you have no education in the sciences :cool:. You should really try to educate yourself. Im sure then are plenty of places you could go for help, and believe me, when you uncover the REAL answers they are far more wonderful than “magic man did it!”
 
heiscominginthe said:
When you are knelling down at the throne of the Creator, I bet you don’t say…ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz more lies…

One thing I know you will be saying is you are sorry for knowing the truth, but denying it in order to satisfy you lust for sin. For many will go down that road, loving sin more then God.

Yet, they refuse to accept that life on this earth is like a mist that is here and then gone while eternity is forever. And trust me, forever in torment is a long time.
Click to expand...
LMAO if you dont believe in my magic man hes going to punish you!!! 😉 Dude your silly wee threats dont scare me in the slightest, they do however say ALOT about your personality. You are clearly a sick individual.

Now can we forget the threats and get back to the one thing you are clearly lacking, EVIDENCE!

Oh and the reason i said lies, is because THE LIST IS LIES!
 
Charles_Darwin said:
…

Oh and the reason i said lies, is because THE LIST IS LIES!
Click to expand...
Why do you accept the dude in the movie as telling the truth and you do not believe the list of scientists that disagree with biological evolution? All we have from his 10 min video is his word that he contacted all the scientists he could find and showed us 2 emails. Why are you so sure he’s on the level though he provides no empirical evidence that he actually did what he claims. You believe him simply because his video supports your belief, that’s all.
Live long and prosper
 
avflf said:
Why do you accept the dude in the movie as telling the truth and you do not believe the list of scientists that disagree with biological evolution? All we have from his 10 min video is his word that he contacted all the scientists he could find and showed us 2 emails. Why are you so sure he’s on the level though he provides no empirical evidence that he actually did what he claims. You believe him simply because his video supports your belief, that’s all.
Live long and prosper
Click to expand...
No i was pointing out the list contains lies. Even if the list was of 100 biologists and they all rejected evolution that would STILL be a miniscule amount. And even if evolution was falsified that would still DO NOTHING to support ID.

Oh and i dont have “beliefs”, i accept theories dude to supporting evidence. Evolution is a fact, get over it.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
No i was pointing out the list contains lies.
Even if the list was of 100 biologists and they all rejected evolution that would STILL be a miniscule amount. And even if evolution was falsified that would still DO NOTHING to support ID.

Oh and i dont have “beliefs”, i accept theories dude to supporting evidence. Evolution is a fact, get over it.
Click to expand...
Hi Charles, I’ve read your book, The Origin of the spiecies, a.k.a Dead science & Darwin pushing up Daisies together. 😉
In the spirit of D Day, remembering our soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country in order to defeat Hitler, I thought I’d create a little fill in the blanks logic puzzle.

Even if the list was of 100 A__ and they all rejected B that would STILL be a miniscule amount. And even if __ B___ was falsified that would still DO NOTHING to support C_.

Let A = human right advocates
Let B = Hitler’s Nazi ideology
Let C = Compassion & Democracy

Even if the list was of 100 human right advocates and they all rejected Hitler’s Nazi ideology that would STILL be a miniscule amount. (So statement #1 is true)
And even if Hitler’s Nazi ideology was falsified that would still DO NOTHING to support Compassion & Democracy. Statement #2 therefore remains unproven. Case in point: In a multiple choice world the elimination of 1 factor as false leaves us with 1 less contender for the truth. If you get down to 2 and 1 is eliminated what remains must be true. Most things in this world, especially in science, really do come down to multiple choice and the elimination of theories in order to pursue the truth in what remains.

May the Lord of truth help you in your search for truth, Erchomai Kyrios 🙂
 
StAnastasia said:
I’m not indoctrinated at all, except in the search for the Truth. You have not yet shown that you can refer us to a singe “Creation scientist” who (1) has made a scientific discovery supporting your perspective on reality, (2) has national or international standing within the scientific community, or (3) publishes credible work. Until you can do so – without dismissing our inquiry as “asking for this or that” – there is no reason why anyone should regard your position as in the slightest degree credible.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
There is far, far more proof supporting creation. You just refuse to believe it because you cannot take a stand outside of your religion. If the CC came out tomorrow and said that evolution was false and the earth is only 6000 years old, I believe you would accept it without question.

And in regards to published scientists who support creationism, I suggest you try the library.

That’s the problem with so many today, they won’t get up and get the food themselves. They demand it is set down before them.

The best way for you to find the truth is to seek it for yourself. You won’t believe me or any other regardless what proof we introduce. So find it yourself. I have already supplied much on this thread to get you started in your search. I suggest you use it instead of just hanging around arguing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top