Have you any idea what GOD thinks about all of this?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Have you any idea what GOD thinks about all of this?
It is becoming clear that you have some sort of pathological fixation on evolution (common ancestry). I mention “science’ and you see that as evolution. Counseling may help to restore some balance to your outlook, but I’m not very hopeful.
But I was not, have not, and am not saying squat about evolution, so I will take this as just another opportunistic jab against evolution that you couldn’t pass up.
No it isn’t, in spite of the title, I didn’t have to go very far back to spot several sub-threads in which science, exclusive of evolution, was discussed.
You just can’t get off that hobby-horse can you? I have pointed out several times that my entry into and interest in this thread was in response to a statement about the moon’s orbit. But you are adamant that somehow that means I “equate evolution with science”. For such time as I elect to participate in this thread, I am going to effectively ignore further --- -what is the applicable logical fallacy – strawman”? ---- in which you pretty much ignore what I say and substitute what you seem to wish I had said. Sorry about that, but if you want to me to respond, have enough respect to address what I actually said,
See, this is amazing. I discuss how the moon’s orbit changes over time (“the past”), and in your response you translate that into “Common ancestry”.
Duhhhhhh, you need to ask that after I have posted a dozen or more times? But on the moon orbit issue, since you already pretty much felt flat on your face, you probably should sit that one out.
The nuclear physicists I have dealt with did nuclear physics. I know some were faithful Christians, some were of other faiths, many I had no idea of their religious leanings. What ideas they had on origins never entered into the studies they did.
Have you done work in nuclear physics? Do you honestly think that the people whose professional careers have depended on understanding the factors in nuclear decay are a bunch of blithering idiots?
Too bad you didn’t want to answer the question I asked. You pick one geologist and avoid answering the question for a few thousand others?
Would you be opposed to a huge number of astronomers being identified as astronomers, without religious labels being appended?
A city is near you “in space” and you know how far away. Are you going to be confused by how long it would take you to drive there?
And the one thing you have not said is that you are incapable of even telling us what “perfection” means when discussing the moon’s orbit. Admitting an error like that must really stick in your craw.
If so, how do you distinguish between what God said and did not day when you read the Bible?
Rosenritter
New member
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
This is a light reading article that references some of the absurd dates. Consider that these same dates would have been taken without question if there wasn't such obvious contradictions on their face. And don't put too much faith in alleged "peer work" - do you remember the posts from 6Days about the Creationist that was fired because he subjected dinosaur soft tissue to C14 dating? The "peers" are going to make sure that you only publish results they like.
Yes, God loves ALL mankind.
For me it's always been just a little common sense. Growing up in Christianity I just assumed the YEC was part myth, pseudo biographical. Noah's flood was obviously greatly exaggerated. Then I found more revelatory enformation that helped explain what happened. We should have never assumed the Bible was perfect, only God is perfect.
6days
New member
Google it....
How long ago was the "Big Bang"?
How many light years away is the light Horizon?
6days
New member
Science and evolution are two separate things.Redfern said:
Of course not. However, if they are discussing their beliefs about the past, the religious label (creationist / evolutionist) can be used. It would be dishonest to make blanket statements such as "Astronomers believe the moon was created"...or. "Astronomers believe the moon is more than 4 billion years old".Redfern said:
You seem to confuse 'distance' and 'time'. They are two separate things.Redfern said:
Jose Fly
New member
Do you understand the methodologies they're discussing? Do you stand by the content of that AiG page?
I like this. This shows some good thinking, but I need some clarifications. If I understand your point, anything that would eliminate oceanic friction would result in the tidal bulge being bigger, and thus exert a stronger pull on the moon. I agree.
I don’t see where you account for the equally important part that friction plays – in determining the location of the tidal bulge. If, as Mr. Brown shows in his Figure 248, the earth didn’t rotate, the bulges (there are two, but for much of the discussion we can look at just the one on the moon side of the earth).would be aligned with the cislunar point.
But, as Mr. Brown says
What Mr. Brown glosses over is the “why” – what factors determine how far the bulges are misaligned.
As you point out, the bulge has to reform at least when it moves from land into oceans where it is not currently seen. That means the movement of a lot of water to form that “new” bulge. Near the land, where this reforming takes place, is also where the oceans are typically the most shallow- where the continental shelves are. Shallow water is where the most friction with the bottom occurs. And that slows the formation of the bulge, meaning that part of the earth will have rotated father away from being under the moon by the time the bulge forms than if there had been less friction. That increases the “y” distance that appears in Mr. Brown’s equations.
So let’s look at the open ocean (no land interference) case – low friction means big bulge, but low friction means bulge forms rapidly closer to the cislunar point. Bigger bulge, but less offset to affect the moon’s orbit. Which effect is most significant?
Now since, as you say,
I take this to mean you have actually read them. Can you tell us which of the papers take the approach of “no land masses”? (Not all the papers cover the same ideas, so I need to ask). And, I would be most disappointed to find that “creationists hate reading”. By the way, although the papers are a bit pricey, most colleges with courses dealing with elementary solar system dynamics would likely have subscriptions you could copy.
People who are moderately competent in physics might recognize yet another interesting aspect to this problem. How about when the moon is directly above large land masses, such as when it crosses directly over huge swaths of Africa or South America? No ocean there for a tidal bulge to form, yet on the opposite side of the world, the “opposing tidal bulge” (which actually acts to retard the moon’s orbit) forms. I‘ll let you cogitate on that one, unless you feel up to commenting on it.
Last edited:
If uranium salts are dissolved by groundwater then accurate date testing using uranium is impossible.
Would you prefer a paper with atheistic bias or with Christian bias?
What does the mention of non-canonical books in the Bible have to do with God's ability to communicate accurately to men through the written word?
Regardless of what religious orientation a scientist has, he is still burdened by unsolved mysteries in dating issues. For one side to dismiss the credentials or the expertise of the other side based upon issues that neither side have resolved is not scientific - it is deceptive.
If so, are you specially trained or gifted to discern which passages are accurate and which are not?
Except those whom He does not love. Psalm 10:3.
Your supposed insight into spiritual truth is, by your own testimony, "just a little common sense" and assumptions?
Marke, are there faithful Christian scientists who reject the findings of the RATE group?
Yes, I think so. I don't know any personally, but I imagine they number in the thousands.
Do you know if any of those faithful Christian scientists that dissent from the RATE conclusions have made clear why they don’t accept the RATE studies?
- Status