TheDuke said:
If I remember correctly, I've already explained to you that your book isn't evidence
We disagree.
Eye witness testimony is considered as part of the evidence. History books are considered as part of the evidence and help to confirm events of the past
TheDuke said:
Interpretation is also an unsuitable expression for the task of evaluating evidence.
Haha... well you can call it whatever you like, but scientists have only one set of data / evidences, often 'evaluating' it, then coming up with opposing interpretations. *(For example the lemur fossil - Ida)
TheDuke said:
6DAYS said:
Most if not all scientists admit the whole earth has been under water at some time.
out of curiousity, you don't happen to have any references, do you?
Greg...rather than me keep proving you wrong with references. ..how about you use use Google and do a little research yourself. For starters, try find just one mountain range in the world that does not have marine fossils. Even Mt Everest has.
TheDuke said:
Oh how I love your strawmen*
If you misrepresent what was said, to try re-frame an argument into something you feel you can handle --- I will keep calling it.
TheDuke said:
(you)won't even bother to correct what I'm supposed to have misrepresented.
OK. ..
You said "sure there's enough water to*mathematically cover the earth if you just decide that it was flat. Unfortunately for you there is still no other reason than MAGIC for the entire earth to have been flat merely 4000 years ago."
STRAWMAN because nobody has argued that the earth was flat 4000 years ago. What I did say is that there is enough water to cover a flat earth to a depth of 3 kilometres.*
What God's Word tells us is that the earth which existed at that time was under about 20 feet / 7 meters at the shallowness point. Water drained off the land as the mountains rose and valleys sank. Psalm 104.
TheDuke said:
6DAYS said:
It's true that most seeds would not survive a year soaked in water. There are many ways seeds can survive long periods though correct?
Here is a seed for thought..... distant volcanic islands spring up and soon are covered in lush vegetation. Where did the seeds come from?
surviving long periods and surviving long periods soaked is not quite the same, wouldn't you agree? I can also notice that you chose not to address the second part of my remark, eh.
I'm no expert on volcanic islands, but I'd wager the vegetation matches the one found on the nearest mainland and would be of the type that spreads its seed via wind.
Volcanic islands around the world such as Tahiti and Hawaii are covered in a wide array of lush vegetation and tropical trees. Some seeds such as coconut can survive long periods at sea. Some seed is likely dispersed in bird droppings but perhaps many arrive on floating mats of debris.
TheDuke said:
6DAYS said:
Genetic drift, natural selection,, sexual selection, loss of genetic info, rapid adaptation.
cool, so you actually accept evolution!
Now all you need is to adjust the rates and take into consideration plate tectonics and you're there
I accept evolution... sure if you mean the items I mentioned which are part of observable science and consistent with God's Word. But if you mean evolution as in the unobservable and somewhat psuedoscientific *belief system of 'goo to you'... no.
(Evolutionists love the fallacy of equivocation)
TheDuke said:
6DAYS said:
yeah, here's a quote from that gem:
"However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault."
I've said what I (and every grown-up) has to say about this approach. But thanks, I'm beginning to understand why your mind is so poisoned.
Time for some history lessons forya.
Science has a way of proving the Bible correct... and in fact modern science seems to have got a jump start from people who believed the Bible to be literally true.*
Modern science in today's world is also exciting for the Christian, providing an avenue of worship as we marvel at the sophistication, and design of things like the cell and our eyes - proving evolutionists such as Darwin and Dawkins wrong
We can look at many, many examples where evolutionists interpretations were wrong and God's Word correct .*
Example:
Many evolutionists argued our eyes had a sloppy backwards inefficient design.
Had they started with the truth of God's Word they could have saved themselves egg on their face. Opthamogists and researchers are beginning to realize that our eyes have an "optimal design". The evolutionist argument has been proven wrong because it was based on their belief system and a lack of knowledge.
Strawman Jennings said:
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate why you've decided to abandon geocentrism but are so stubborn when it comes to the age of the earth?
Is it easy to beat up on all your strawmen? The Bible says nothing about geocentrism. ..it does talk about the age of the earth.
Strawman Jennings said:
6days said:
Hundreds of years...consistent with God's Word and the dispersion at Babel. Also consistent with God's Word is the extreme intelligence of some of these ancient cultures.
How beautiful. This is the core of why creationism is so anti-science. Instead of looking into the world and drawing the conclusions, you start with the bible and set unachievable targets. No matter how you look at it, regardless of how "intelligent" these cultures are supposed to be, the
only way for 100000s of people to spread around the globe and "quickly adapt" in a span of 100s of years is wishful thinking and deliberate ignorance.
Mr Jennings. ...evolutionism and creationism are beliefs the past. Both sides examine the same evidence but interpret according to their starting bias belief about origins.*Keep in mind how archaeology and other sciences keeps showing that the data is consistent with The Bible. (Archaeology keeps showing the history is correct / Biology keeps showing rapid adaptation is the correct model, etc).
Keep in mind that it is evolutionism that science keeps proving wrong.Keep in mind that virtually everything evolutionists believed at the time of the famous Scopes trial has been proven wrong by science. Yet, evolutionists still believe. Science continues proving evolutionists beliefs wrong, yet they still believe. How can this be? Evolutionism has too much plasticity to be called science. Evolutionism is not falsifiable, and is more like a dense fog that covers any landscape.