If God created...

Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
Jonahdog said:
What were the experts qualifications, other than digging up the plane?

And I have a question. I just came back from an ocean beach, the water was rising, the tide coming in. So if I average the rise per hour, then I'll know when it will flood my house that is 30' above sea level, right?
Click to expand...

Jonah, why is it that the favorite retort used by Old Age advocates in the face of obvious evidence is that those that report it must be morons, and that only "approved scientists" from "evolutionary approved universities" are qualified to understand even basic numbers?

Fact - The airplane in question was used in World War 2.
Fact - Airplanes are a recent invention, so this is unlikely to be an fake airplane from the Middle Ages or the Jurassic Age.
Fact - At the time this was excavated, the plane had been submerged by 48 years of ice.
Fact - The plane was 263 feet deep underneath the ice.

Bob Cardin, the guy who dug out the original plane, said there were "hundreds" of rings. Or in other words, not practical to be able to count. If those were annual ice rings, there would be only 48 rings, or one ring per five and a half feet. It's plainly obvious that those are NOT annual ice rings.

"No way! In case you don't know, Dr. Hovind, I work at the Denver National Ice Core Laboratory here in Colorado. And we've been taking cores of ice from Greenland and Antarctica. It's dry, very cold, the glaciers are MILES THICK, but their annual growth rings are very THIN."
Click to expand...

It is acknowledged that the "annual growth rings" are allegedly "very thin." How many "very thin" ice rings should you expect find in 153 feet? But YOUR Solution is that you need to find an "expert" who is PAID to study ice rings (paid for by whom, because we all know researchers are so objective when money is involved) to tell us that these ice rings aren't one per year?

Here's what the scientific evidence tells us: the professional "expert" "scientists" whom you wish us to trust are either incompetent or professional liars or else they wouldn't have invented the "annual ice ring" fake evidence in the first place. People that work in real occupations that do actual work of real technology and engineering and science couldn't function if they operated on nonsense assumptions like that.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Rosenritter said:
Jonah, why is it that the favorite retort used by Old Age advocates in the face of obvious evidence is that those that report it must be morons, and that only "approved scientists" from "evolutionary approved universities" are qualified to understand even basic numbers?

Fact - The airplane in question was used in World War 2.
Fact - Airplanes are a recent invention, so this is unlikely to be an fake airplane from the Middle Ages or the Jurassic Age.
Fact - At the time this was excavated, the plane had been submerged by 48 years of ice.
Fact - The plane was 263 feet deep underneath the ice.

Bob Cardin, the guy who dug out the original plane, said there were "hundreds" of rings. Or in other words, not practical to be able to count. If those were annual ice rings, there would be only 48 rings, or one ring per five and a half feet. It's plainly obvious that those are NOT annual ice rings.



It is acknowledged that the "annual growth rings" are allegedly "very thin." How many "very thin" ice rings should you expect find in 153 feet? But YOUR Solution is that you need to find an "expert" who is PAID to study ice rings (paid for by whom, because we all know researchers are so objective when money is involved) to tell us that these ice rings aren't one per year?

Here's what the scientific evidence tells us: the professional "expert" "scientists" whom you wish us to trust are either incompetent or professional liars or else they wouldn't have invented the "annual ice ring" fake evidence in the first place. People that work in real occupations that do actual work of real technology and engineering and science couldn't function if they operated on nonsense assumptions like that.
Click to expand...


OK, now I understand. The experts are either lying or just making millions.

And you ask your car mechanic for medical advice, right?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The dustiness of the lowest ice layers in cores itself throws the whole system into doubt. Years of non-volcanic dust floating around? Years? No.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
Jonahdog said:
OK, now I understand. The experts are either lying or just making millions.

And you ask your car mechanic for medical advice, right?
Click to expand...

Your so-called "experts" have already been proved to be lying. "Annual ice rings" they said, remember? I'd take an honest mechanic over a brainwashed M.D. any day. And in reality, I do. That's why I'm healthy.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
The premise of this thread is flawed in its conception. The earth does not appear old. Or at least that varies widely with one's perception of old. I say the earth is young only because this is in in the scale of a fantastical "millions of years" figure. The earth itself is as old as dirt. It's older than any living thing left alive today, it's as old as our earliest recorded history. How old are you? Twenty years? Forty years? Sixty years? The earth is six thousand years old. In reality, that's OLD.

Now if someone looks at the oceans with the premise that a pagan deity had to cry each and every drop to fill the expanse, every winter crying twelve drops to commemorate their lost child, the earth is going to look extremely old to them. If a humanist evolutionist looks at a fossil with the premise that "fossils take millions of years to form" they will look at millions of fossils and think the world is billions of years old, and this will hardly seem strange when he thinks that the Nothingness had to give birth to matter itself from the Nothing. So why does the earth appear old? It has everything to do with the context, and even more to do with the personal beliefs of the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Equally puzzling is the direction Hawking took about ADP and ADT in DNA. Ie, there's design, but he fled to natural selection to explain it. I have the same problem with each cell's immediate functionality as I do with the whole creation; from the first moment it had to 'work.'
 
6days

6days

New member
CherubRam said:
Day, Night, Evening, Morning.

Here is a good study tool: http://biblehub.com/
Click to expand...
The words are ALWAYS defined by context. ALWAYS!Do a word study of the word day in scripture where its associated with a number. In those cases, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day. Or, search for the word day that have the words evening, or morning associated with it... it ALWAYS is referring to a 24 hour day.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
Equally puzzling is the direction Hawking took about ADP and ADT in DNA. Ie, there's design, but he fled to natural selection to explain it. I have the same problem with each cell's immediate functionality as I do with the whole creation; from the first moment it had to 'work.'
Click to expand...

What do you think the first living cell looked like?
 
6days

6days

New member
Rosenritter said:
One of several trillion trillions that were part of an organ that was part of a whole creature.
Click to expand...
Yes!!!
But, even if we look at a 'simple' organism... One of the simplest known...It does not contain trillions of cells, but it does contain complexity and sophistication beyond what could ever happen by chance, except in fairy tales. scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest microbes. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple. There are many biological robots working within the cell of every known organism. Take a look at the simplified drawing on this site, giving us a slight glimpse at the complexity and organization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
In order to just PARTIALLY simulate this bacteria..."It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
The article goes on to say.... "On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable...."
Nearly unbelievable... except to those who believe that our God is a God of wonders.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
6days said:
Yes!!!
But, even if we look at a 'simple' organism... One of the simplest known...It does not contain trillions of cells, but it does contain complexity and sophistication beyond what could ever happen by chance, except in fairy tales. scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest microbes. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple. There are many biological robots working within the cell of every known organism. Take a look at the simplified drawing on this site, giving us a slight glimpse at the complexity and organization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
In order to just PARTIALLY simulate this bacteria..."It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
The article goes on to say.... "On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable...."
Nearly unbelievable... except to those who believe that our God is a God of wonders.
Click to expand...

Well, what do you think the first cell looked like? Like the diagram in the Atlantic article? Or something else?
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
6days said:
Yes!!!
But, even if we look at a 'simple' organism... One of the simplest known...It does not contain trillions of cells, but it does contain complexity and sophistication beyond what could ever happen by chance, except in fairy tales. scientists decided to model the genome of one of the simplest microbes. It turns out though, that the genome is anything but simple. There are many biological robots working within the cell of every known organism. Take a look at the simplified drawing on this site, giving us a slight glimpse at the complexity and organization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
In order to just PARTIALLY simulate this bacteria..."It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
The article goes on to say.... "On the other hand, the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable...."
Nearly unbelievable... except to those who believe that our God is a God of wonders.
Click to expand...

Simplistic minds imagine simple cells.
 
Rosenritter

Rosenritter

New member
CherubRam said:
Years ago.
Originally Atheist thought that cells were simple and that they would soon be able to explain life.
Click to expand...

Sometimes a child thinks they can push some metal together and it will make a car. If he just hits it often enough and hard enough it will eventually work, right? If he tries millions and billions of times, one of them will succeed?

The cell is more complex by orders of magnitude. You don't make a cell by accident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top