|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
Again, yes, creationists are in the same position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities. Ergo creationists are not dealing in science, but apologetics.
It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such.
But you just admitted this, see bolded portion above.
Since it's all a war of interpretations all the Old Earth has on its side really is establishment belief, consensus, because its interpretations are ridiculous, a shared aggressively affirmed group insanity.
Here we have a bit of projection. Just because this is how YECs think and reason doesn't mean that is how science functions.
The Flood has the actual evidence of the strata and the enormous abundance of fossils on its side.
So many in fact that they couldn't all be alive on the planet at the same time. And so many occupying the same environmental niches that they couldn't compete/survive alongside one another, like the hawk and the pterodactyl. And some like the giant dragonflies of the Carboniferous that require higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere.The strata is an evidence against the flood BTW. But you can't reason correctly because of the bolded part above. If you were capable of accepting true constraints you would have to let go of your written witness. Here is a written witness that also must constrain our theorizing about the past shape of the continents. Real world constraints disprove your false written witness in this manner.If evidence is found that contradicts a model then out goes the model. What possibilities are we left with? That is how objectively looking at the evidence works. There is no preconceived notion to which the evidence is shoe horned to fit as you claim in science, but that is exactly the methodological approach you take as shown above in bold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Who was it that God was angry with again? Oh yes mankind. Perhaps you would enlighten us on the location of the hoards of human fossils that resulted from Noah's flood? Thank you.
The billions of fossils are too, because the Flood would have killed billions upon billions of living things, and provided the ideal conditions for their burial and fossilization. ABE: These simple observable facts are excellent evidence for the Flood for anyone who can see things clearly, without the brain cramp caused by theory bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
The strata suggest what the Flood would have done: lay down layers of sediments by precipitation or by waves the way the oceans lay down sand on beaches.
The oceans don't lay down sand on beaches.
quote:http://matilija-coalition.org/point/growing/sand.html So now where does beach sand come from in your model? Are you sure 4,000 years of erosion is enough to account for the amount of sand on the shores?
quote:How Sand is Formed - Tech-FAQ Your flood didn't lay down the sand, it laid down the geologic column according to your model. Nice flat layers everywhere.Here's another problem for your model. The sand found in the geologic column had to form prior to the flood. But you only have less than 2,000 years of time to create that sand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Finally, I saw that you have shrunk the evolution to modern forms from "kinds" down to approximately 1,000 years in your estimate. So, figuring this out similarly to how Bill Nye did, this would mean that your 7,000 "kinds" would have to turn into approximately 44 Brand-new species per day!!! But maybe when the scriptures say that animals reproduce after their kind it really means transformers change after their kind. Or perhaps it was a typo and it stated animals reproduce after they're kind, a subtle reference to the sexual act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
You are missing the point. It's not that people aren't moral, and that includes evolutionists with everybody else, because morality is built into us though it can be distorted in many ways, the point is that the theory of evolution itself promotes an anti-morality, and in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself. The only reason it no longer does is that people's inherent moral sense saw the problem and corrected for it. But the theory itself does not promote morality, it still works against the morality that made civilization and still contributes to the downfall of the civilization for that reason. In contradistinction to a God who created races and favors one race over other races. That concept certainly lays claim to the moral high ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
What he promotes as important competes with other things that are important. He promotes science to a level that reduces other important things to almost nothingness. Wouldn't it be cool if we could divide our country in two, those who side with Ham/marc and those who side with Nye. Let each side prosper and make progress in accord with their talents and abilities. This debate would finally come to an end along with the retarding religious influence that currently gets a free pass in the US.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024