New theories on the Bible/science.

[cadet]

Fossils are impossible. Take fish for example. When they die, do they sink to the bottom and slowly get turned?
No.... They float. And decompose.
Which would leave no room for the fossils to show soft tissue.
Therefore, they must have been buried quickly under a lot of mud. And one spot in the bible says that this just so happened during the great flood underwater. (if you level out all land, bottom of the ocean and top of the mountain, the see covers all by a few kilometers)
And there are far too many fossils that show something attacking, being attacked, eating, giving birth, to prove that it didn't just happen.
And foot prints don't last a few days. there's no way in hell that they could last long enough for them to be covered over millions of years without disturbing them, without happening instantaneously.

Carbon 42 has a half life of 55 million years. If the entire earth was Carbon 42, we wouldn't have any left. So the fact that it's not full carbon, and we still have it, proves that the earth CAN'T be 55 millions of years old. let alone billions.

The grand canyon.
http://www.creationtoday.org/grand-canyon-proof/
There are at least 5 different canyons that we know for a fact that look almost the same as the grand canyon that were created within 1 day-2 weeks due to massive amounts of water preasure.

Why evolution can be disproven from the primordial pool. What happens when you add energy to a mixture of chemicals? They split into layers of themselves. Not become more complicated.
To create DNA, you need the protean motors (DNA is highly unstable), and to create protean motors you need dna. But to have either of those, you also need ATP. But to get that, you need the motors that run on ATP to create DNA.
Conclusion, one can't exist without the others existing first. But logically, mathematically, etc. not possible. Thus you'd either need them all at once. At the same time

And here's a site telling you that christianity is not about fighting science, but proving it.
For God made the universe orderly. And for us to go out and learn.

http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science

Many atheopaths (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link)1 (http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science#endRef1) and their compromising churchian allies (http://creation.com/the-skeptics-and-their-churchian-allies) claim that biblical belief and science are mortal enemies. Yet historians of science, even non-Christians, have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia. The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%2014.33)). For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley stated:
‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’2 (http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science#endRef2)But if atheism or polytheism is true, then there is no way to deduce from these belief systems that the universe is (or should be) orderly.
Furthermore, Genesis 1:28 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%201.28) gives us permission to investigate creation, unlike say animism or pantheism which teach that the creation itself is divine. And since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So where the Bible is silent, the only way to find out how His creation works is to experiment, rather than to rely on man-made philosophies, as did the ancient Greeks. So no wonder that sociologist and author Rodney Stark affirmed:

“Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”3 (http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science#endRef3)Furthermore, science requires that we can think rationally, and that results should be reported honestly, more teachings found in the Bible but do not follow from evolutionism.4 (http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science#endRef4)

The thoughts that the bible might be right becomes more and more looming when you really look at what we know about the universe..

[cadet]

I guess I could have put this in "Science is Dogma" thread, but I forgot.
But read that last link. It's pretty interesting.

[Missileman]

Fossils are impossible. LOL If you can't explain it, deny, deny, deny.


The grand canyon.
http://www.creationtoday.org/grand-canyon-proof/
There are at least 5 different canyons that we know for a fact that look almost the same as the grand canyon that were created within 1 day-2 weeks due to massive amounts of water preasure. ROFLMAO "Know for a fact"...damn that's a hoot!



Why evolution can be disproven from the primordial pool. What happens when you add energy to a mixture of chemicals? They split into layers of themselves. Not become more complicated.
To create DNA, you need the protean motors (DNA is highly unstable), and to create protean motors you need dna. But to have either of those, you also need ATP. But to get that, you need the motors that run on ATP to create DNA.
Conclusion, one can't exist without the others existing first. But logically, mathematically, etc. not possible. Thus you'd either need them all at once. At the same time

And here's a site telling you that christianity is not about fighting science, but proving it.
For God made the universe orderly. And for us to go out and learn.

http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science


The thoughts that the bible might be right becomes more and more looming when you really look at what we know about the universe.. I laugh my ass off when creationists try to explain Biblical events with "natural" occurrences. If it were a natural occurrence and not supernatural it defeats the whole purpose of claiming divine influence. Thanks for the chuckles though!

[cadet]

LOL If you can't explain it, deny, deny, deny.

A fossil would only be possible if we take out the fast decaying/being eaten factor.
But to take out the decaying factor, one need bury the thing. And many fossils have been found in action. How is that possible?



ROFLMAO "Know for a fact"...damn that's a hoot!

I laugh my ass off when creationists try to explain Biblical events with "natural" occurrences. If it were a natural occurrence and not supernatural it defeats the whole purpose of claiming divine influence. Thanks for the chuckles though!

Admit it though, we just DON'T know. There's no way to know. So why should you believe what some average joe says? The big bang theory is based upon assumptions which are each based upon MORE assumptions, which are based upon the completely theoretical Dark Matter.
The beautiful thing about science, is that no matter how many theories you have, you have just as much chance of being right as the next guy.
Time will go on, but we'll never have the ability to know exactly what happened in the past.
Don't you find it weird that fossils are impossible to make without some sort of mud slide to preserve the soft tissue?
And that dinosaur tissue was found, and DNA. DNA, is said to not be able to last longer than a million years, at -5 Degree's C.
And those bones were NOT at -5. So there's no way it could have lasted so long.

Do you find it strange that there are hieroglyphics in egyptian temples depicting the stegosaurus?
Do you find it at all strange that we have seen miniature (kinda) canyons be made within days, due to high water pressure or some nice explosions, and yet we believe the grand canyon was made in millions of years.
Isn't it weird that in and of itself, there's no way a primordial ooze could have made life?
Or that, if the T-rex died from the meteor, that it has chicken descendants? (What?)
Really, look into what the scientific community says, and then look at what the average joe says.
Science is so much more than just what they tell you. Most theories are based upon opinions, upon ideas, upon almost correct math, upon unproven hypothesis, upon dark matter. (which still hasn't been even remotely proven)

The world if FAR more complex than what you're lead to believe.
Science is dogma, and there are so many more theories of how the world works, don't get pig headed and think that your way is correct. Even scientists studying the string theory have found some sort of... computer code to the universe. Causing many leading scientists to find religion.

"Numbers do not lie. Politics and poetry promises these lies. Numbers are as close as we get to the hand writing of God." -Pacific Rim.

[aboutime]

YOU KNOW IT FOR A FACT? This, I would really like to hear. Damn. Been waitin for more than sixty years to learn about this FACT.

[cadet]

YOU KNOW IT FOR A FACT? This, I would really like to hear. Damn. Been waitin for more than sixty years to learn about this FACT.

The only fact i talked about were the near instantaneous canyons.

http://creation.com/canyon-creation

[gabosaurus]

So you are using a creationist web site to push the theory of creation?
Does this mean I can use a 9-11 conspiracy site to prove that Bush was behind 9-11? :rolleyes:

[cadet]

So you are using a creationist web site to push the theory of creation?
Does this mean I can use a 9-11 conspiracy site to prove that Bush was behind 9-11? :rolleyes:

Honestly, I see liberals push republicans are all evil from liberal sites.
Go for it.
But my site is referenced with a bunch of not-so-common theories. They can't be disproven, but by the scientific method, they're just as valid as the general theories.

[Missileman]

A fossil would only be possible if we take out the fast decaying/being eaten factor.
But to take out the decaying factor, one need bury the thing. And many fossils have been found in action. How is that possible? I've never seen a fossil of a running animal and I've never seen the fossil of an animal running either. No, I didn't repeat myself.






Admit it though, we just DON'T know. There's no way to know. So why should you believe what some average joe says? The big bang theory is based upon assumptions which are each based upon MORE assumptions, which are based upon the completely theoretical Dark Matter.
The beautiful thing about science, is that no matter how many theories you have, you have just as much chance of being right as the next guy. Uh, you just described an attribute of religion, not science


Don't you find it weird that fossils are impossible to make without some sort of mud slide to preserve the soft tissue? I find it weird that you think fossils can only occur as a result of a mud slide.

Do you find it strange that there are hieroglyphics in egyptian temples depicting the stegosaurus? Actually, it was a decoration on a Cambodian temple and the link I looked at offered no proof of its authenticity.

Do you find it at all strange that we have seen miniature (kinda) canyons be made within days, due to high water pressure or some nice explosions, and yet we believe the grand canyon was made in millions of years. I know creationists like to call the Grand Canyon evidence of the Great Flood, but let me ask you a question. Why would the grand canyon form if it were totally submerged under water? Do we see canyons getting formed by water movement at the bottom of the ocean?

[Missileman]

Honestly, I see liberals push republicans are all evil from liberal sites.
Go for it.
But my site is referenced with a bunch of not-so-common theories. They can't be disproven, but by the scientific method, they're just as valid as the general theories.

Dude, you just proved beyond all doubt that you have no idea what the scientific method is OR how it works.

[gabosaurus]

But my site is referenced with a bunch of not-so-common theories. They can't be disproven, but by the scientific method, they're just as valid as the general theories.

Science also has theories that can not be disproved. Not to mention the Rev. Bill Hicks

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mrZcztxRquo" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[PostmodernProphet]

So you are using a creationist web site to push the theory of creation?
Does this mean I can use a 9-11 conspiracy site to prove that Bush was behind 9-11? :rolleyes:

you mean it hasn't been done?.......

[revelarts]

Information science KILLS evolution of Life theories.

In any living thing you've got Dozens/1000s of chicken and egg situation to make living creatures possible.
The proteins that make the code need to code to make it.

Raw chemicals have ZERO information to transfer.

The living cell is like a computer it has hardware and software.
software is Information, information that needs a to be translated correctly by the hardware reader and then actions performed as per instruction. If you put a PC program on a Mac it won't read it. the software must be compatible out of the gate to get any work done.

Time does not create information. period. Chance does not create information. period.
Abiogenesis is Impossible.

Creation of species, means NEW information has to be coded INTO the dna to create NEW Functions. and NEW body parts. The new info all has to there AND readable by the organism in way that cause it NOT to reject it or misread it or ignore it, but to execute the NEW program AND replicate it. Chance does not create readable code. PERIOD. Not in a 100 million years for ONE change to one functional animal or plant organ. Let ALONE the billions of animals an Plant features and operations we have around us today.
So evolution of Species is Impossible.


DNA cannot exist without DNA
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CmB4uLANCBo?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>



here's a SOFT introduction to the issues of the laws information and life,
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/00vBqYDBW5s?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


If you can't answer the question HOW life can ONLY MAKE DNA with DNA you have ZERO base for an Abiogenic origin. Period.
And If there NO KNOWN mechanism to get NEW functional information into the DNA "randomly" to create a new body parts or plans. Then you can't SCIENTIFICALLY ASSUME that it did. You can BELIEVE that one science will FIND a way but that is blind Faith not science.

Evolution is BS.

[cadet]

Information science KILLS evolution of Life theories.

In any living thing you've got Dozens/1000s of chicken and egg situation to make living creatures possible.
The proteins that make the code need to code to make it.

Raw chemicals have ZERO information to transfer.

The living cell is like a computer it has hardware and software.
software is Information, information that needs a to be translated correctly by the hardware reader and then actions performed as per instruction. If you put a PC program on a Mac it won't read it. the software must be compatible out of the gate to get any work done.

Time does not create information. period. Chance does not create information. period.
Abiogenesis is Impossible.

Creation of species, means NEW information has to be coded INTO the dna to create NEW Functions. and NEW body parts. The new info all has to there AND readable by the organism in way that cause it NOT to reject it or misread it or ignore it, but to execute the NEW program AND replicate it. Chance does not create readable code. PERIOD. Not in a 100 million years for ONE change to one functional animal or plant organ. Let ALONE the billions of animals an Plant features and operations we have around us today.
So evolution of Species is Impossible.


DNA cannot exist without DNA
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CmB4uLANCBo?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>



here's a SOFT introduction to the issues of the laws information and life,
<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/00vBqYDBW5s?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


If you can't answer the question HOW life can ONLY MAKE DNA with DNA you have ZERO base for an Abiogenic origin. Period.
And If there NO KNOWN mechanism to get NEW functional information into the DNA "randomly" to create a new body parts or plans. Then you can't SCIENTIFICALLY ASSUME that it did. You can BELIEVE that one science will FIND a way but that is blind Faith not science.

Evolution is BS.


That's actually the guy that came to my college yesterday to talk.
I found his theories very very interesting. And it just proved to me that we don't know as much about the universe as we think we do. Heck, we don't even know what we don't know. We don't even know if ANY of our theories are right!

[Nukeman]

That's actually the guy that came to my college yesterday to talk.
I found his theories very very interesting. And it just proved to me that we don't know as much about the universe as we think we do. Heck, we don't even know what we don't know. We don't even know if ANY of our theories are right!
Read the book "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer..

[aboutime]

The only fact i talked about were the near instantaneous canyons.

http://creation.com/canyon-creation


cadet. Think about what you have said, calling it fact.

WERE YOU THERE? DID YOU WITNESS IT?

Do you believe everything you hear, see, and read on the INTERNET?

Really?

Kinda like that question we've all heard about "IF A TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS. DOES ANYONE HEAR IT?"

[cadet]

cadet. Think about what you have said, calling it fact.

WERE YOU THERE? DID YOU WITNESS IT?

Do you believe everything you hear, see, and read on the INTERNET?

Really?

Kinda like that question we've all heard about "IF A TREE FALLS IN THE WOODS. DOES ANYONE HEAR IT?"


They were watched FORMED BY EYE WITNESSES IN THE MATTER OF A FEW DAYS.
READ.

[aboutime]

They were watched FORMED BY EYE WITNESSES IN THE MATTER OF A FEW DAYS.
READ.


NO cadet. I ASKED YOU. Not somebody else.

Were YOU there?

Did you see it with your own eyes?

I'm not disputing what you believe, or what I believe.
But if you claim to have the FACTS. And YOU Witnessed what you are telling us.
That is why so many who have Little, or No faith in a supreme being...like our GOD,
always demand UNQUESTIONABLE, VERIFIABLE PROOF when you say FACTS.

Best way I have found to remain a believer of my faith is.
I HAVE NO REASON, NOR AM I RESPONSIBLE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE.

Faith is belief in the Unseen. And those who have none. WILL NEVER ACCEPT THAT!

[cadet]

NO cadet. I ASKED YOU. Not somebody else.

Were YOU there?

Did you see it with your own eyes?

I'm not disputing what you believe, or what I believe.
But if you claim to have the FACTS. And YOU Witnessed what you are telling us.
That is why so many who have Little, or No faith in a supreme being...like our GOD,
always demand UNQUESTIONABLE, VERIFIABLE PROOF when you say FACTS.

Best way I have found to remain a believer of my faith is.
I HAVE NO REASON, NOR AM I RESPONSIBLE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE.

Faith is belief in the Unseen. And those who have none. WILL NEVER ACCEPT THAT!

If I were to only go off of what I've seen, I would never be able to do the calculations of electricity, use a computer without calling it magic, know the density of any material, or any such thing that I take for granted.
I have faith that enough people saying they saw it happen has to be true.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620155748.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n4/canyon
Look up Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington.

[aboutime]

If I were to only go off of what I've seen, I would never be able to do the calculations of electricity, use a computer without calling it magic, know the density of any material, or any such thing that I take for granted.
I have faith that enough people saying they saw it happen has to be true.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620155748.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n4/canyon
Look up Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington.





Once again cadet. Never mind. You obviously didn't want to accept what I tried to tell you, and you had your mind made up before reading what I said.
Too bad.
Bye bye.

[Gaffer]

That's actually the guy that came to my college yesterday to talk.
I found his theories very very interesting. And it just proved to me that we don't know as much about the universe as we think we do. Heck, we don't even know what we don't know. We don't even know if ANY of our theories are right!

I'm surprised the college let him speak. Your school must not be a liberal as most. Did they schedule a rebuttal by some other real scientist?

I don't get into religious debates what you believe and have faith in is your business. I only become concerned when the religion becomes a threat or demand of others to believe, much like islam. I have never known a Christians to threaten people with death if they don't get their way. So I don't consider them a threat.

It's true we know next to nothing about the universe. We are still studying it, through science. You don't believe in evolution? Explain how a bacteria develops immunity to antibodies. While most higher forms of life take thousands and millions of years to change even slightly, the microbes can change in a matter of days. They evolve.

You studying to be an engineer. Calculate how much water it would take to cover the entire world. Where would it come from and where would it go? Is the center of the earth full of water? or is it molten lava? Did your creationist scientist explain how every creature on earth was put on the ark and then released to repopulate the world? How did the platypus get to Australia? How come certain animals are only found in certain regions?

I could go on and on about this but I'll keep it brief. Real science is condemned by religious groups because it is a threat to everything they believe in. Up until a few hundred years ago anyone practicing science was vilified and condemned. Science is not a religion, but a means of explaining things and making life better for everyone, nothing more than that.

One last question. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden?

[revelarts]

I'm surprised the college let him speak. Your school must not be a liberal as most. Did they schedule a rebuttal by some other real scientist?

I don't get into religious debates what you believe and have faith in is your business. I only become concerned when the religion becomes a threat or demand of others to believe, much like islam. I have never known a Christians to threaten people with death if they don't get their way. So I don't consider them a threat.

It's true we know next to nothing about the universe. We are still studying it, through science. You don't believe in evolution? Explain how a bacteria develops immunity to antibodies. While most higher forms of life take thousands and millions of years to change even slightly, the microbes can change in a matter of days. They evolve.

You studying to be an engineer. Calculate how much water it would take to cover the entire world. Where would it come from and where would it go? Is the center of the earth full of water? or is it molten lava? Did your creationist scientist explain how every creature on earth was put on the ark and then released to repopulate the world? How did the platypus get to Australia? How come certain animals are only found in certain regions?

I could go on and on about this but I'll keep it brief. Real science is condemned by religious groups because it is a threat to everything they believe in. Up until a few hundred years ago anyone practicing science was vilified and condemned. Science is not a religion, but a means of explaining things and making life better for everyone, nothing more than that.

One last question. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden?

I'll step up here and I'll keep it breif as well
short questions short answers.

It's true we know next to nothing about the universe.
Agreed

You don't believe in evolution? Explain how a bacteria develops immunity to antibodies. While most higher forms of life take thousands and millions of years to change even slightly, the microbes can change in a matter of days. They evolve.
They don't change into cows or goats they edit themselves. It's been found that they are primarily LOSING attributes that are vulnerable to antibiotics. they are not gaining or creating NEW genetic information they are losing or suppressing parts they already have. If the NEW bacteria is put into culture of the old without the antibiotic, the old will dominate because it's the stronger genitally.


You studying to be an engineer. Calculate how much water it would take to cover the entire world. Where would it come from and where would it go?
It's a good question, and there are various theories at this point one that seems to account for much of the data available is by Dr. Walt Brown it's call the hydroplate theory. I can't say which theory is better at this point

Is the center of the earth full of water? or is it molten lava?
Good questions, obviously there a lot of both underground.


Did your creationist scientist explain how every creature on earth was put on the ark and then released to repopulate the world?
the short answer
2 of each "kind" where on the ark. not every breed of dog, cat or elephant. Dino kinds could have been young, therefore small. insects are not said to be on the ark in pairs.


How did the platypus get to Australia?
New Scientist, August 24, 1991 platypus tooth found in South America
How come certain animals are only found in certain regions?
maybe they haven't found them ...yet. like the platypus above.

I could go on and on about this but I'll keep it brief. Real science is condemned by religious groups because it is a threat to everything they believe in.
real science is not a problem, fanatical naturalism that assumes 'everything will be explained naturally one day amen', is a problem. Real science is open to EVERYTHING and sticks with the facts, it doesn't let theory become a god that can't be questioned.

Up until a few hundred years ago anyone practicing science was vilified and condemned.
Thats just not true. Often it was priest and religious leaders in various cultures that were the ones doing the science. today some scientist have their noses up in the air and claim what they did wasn't "real" science because they did it with religious robes on instead of lab coats. But they charted the stars more accurately, made medicines and poisons, created mathematics, ships, etc the ancients of india, china, south America, the pacific islands, africa, and even europe all did "science" with various purpose and varying degrees of celebration and from time to time condemnation.


Science is not a religion, but a means of explaining things ...
yess, somethings

...and making life better for everyone,...
sure, somethings better, some worse it's a 2 edged swords

nothing more than that.
One last question. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden?
I don't know, no one does for sure.

[revelarts]

middles ages inventions
Circa 1050 Crossbow invented in France.
1182 Magnetic compass invented.
Circa 1200 Clothing buttons invented.
Circa 1268 - 1289 Invention of eyeglasses.
Circa 1280 Mechanical clocks invented.
Circa 1285 - 1290 Windmills invented.
1295 Modern glassmaking begins in Italy.
1328 First sawmill.

to name a few

[Gaffer]

I'll step up here and I'll keep it breif as well
short questions short answers.

It's true we know next to nothing about the universe.
Agreed

You don't believe in evolution? Explain how a bacteria develops immunity to antibodies. While most higher forms of life take thousands and millions of years to change even slightly, the microbes can change in a matter of days. They evolve.
They don't change into cows or goats they edit themselves. It's been found that they are primarily LOSING attributes that are vulnerable to antibiotics. they are not gaining or creating NEW genetic information they are losing or suppressing parts they already have. If the NEW bacteria is put into culture of the old without the antibiotic, the old will dominate because it's the stronger genitally.

That's what I mean. They don't change into something else they evolve themselves. Cows or goats take thousands and millions of years to evolve into a different version of what they are or were.


You studying to be an engineer. Calculate how much water it would take to cover the entire world. Where would it come from and where would it go?
It's a good question, and there are various theories at this point one that seems to account for much of the data available is by Dr. Walt Brown it's call the hydroplate theory. I can't say which theory is better at this point

If you take all the water from under the earth what do you replace it with? And where would it go afterwards? There is not enough water on the planet to cover the entire earth no matter where you get it.

Is the center of the earth full of water? or is it molten lava?
Good questions, obviously there a lot of both underground.

See above.


Did your creationist scientist explain how every creature on earth was put on the ark and then released to repopulate the world?
the short answer
2 of each "kind" where on the ark. not every breed of dog, cat or elephant. Dino kinds could have been young, therefore small. insects are not said to be on the ark in pairs.

More species of animals have become extinct in the last 5000 years than could have fit on the ark. I wasn't talking about breeds I was talking about species.


How did the platypus get to Australia?
New Scientist, August 24, 1991 platypus tooth found in South America
How come certain animals are only found in certain regions?
maybe they haven't found them ...yet. like the platypus above.

The article mention the age of the tooth? And another thing comes to mind. Lions and tigers and mountain lions and pumas and jaguar and cougars are all part of the cat family. Do they all come from the same feline members on the ark how could they be so different? And as to my original question, how come they are only native to certain regions?

I could go on and on about this but I'll keep it brief. Real science is condemned by religious groups because it is a threat to everything they believe in.
real science is not a problem, fanatical naturalism that assumes 'everything will be explained naturally one day amen', is a problem. Real science is open to EVERYTHING and sticks with the facts, it doesn't let theory become a god that can't be questioned.

Everything can be explained naturally when all the information is present. Your right, real science is open to everything and sticks with the facts. It does not allow religious beliefs to get in the way of those facts.

Up until a few hundred years ago anyone practicing science was vilified and condemned.
Thats just not true. Often it was priest and religious leaders in various cultures that were the ones doing the science. today some scientist have their noses up in the air and claim what they did wasn't "real" science because they did it with religious robes on instead of lab coats. But they charted the stars more accurately, made medicines and poisons, created mathematics, ships, etc the ancients of india, china, south America, the pacific islands, africa, and even europe all did "science" with various purpose and varying degrees of celebration and from time to time condemnation.

Your right about the religious leaders being the scientists of their day. That's because they and the royalty of the time were the only educated people. And those that did scientific studies were often condemned as heretics. That's a whole nother discussion.


Science is not a religion, but a means of explaining things ...
yess, somethings

Everything

...and making life better for everyone,...
sure, somethings better, some worse it's a 2 edged swords

true

nothing more than that.
One last question. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden?
I don't know, no one does for sure.

As to my last question I was giving you a way out. Who's to say Adam and Eve didn't spend 4.5 billion years in the garden before their transgression. It would explain dinosaurs and the age of the earth along with the relatively new appearance of man. Just food for thought.

[Gaffer]

middles ages inventions
Circa 1050 Crossbow invented in France.
1182 Magnetic compass invented.
Circa 1200 Clothing buttons invented.
Circa 1268 - 1289 Invention of eyeglasses.
Circa 1280 Mechanical clocks invented.
Circa 1285 - 1290 Windmills invented.
1295 Modern glassmaking begins in Italy.
1328 First sawmill.

to name a few

Inventors, not scientists.

[revelarts]

Inventors, not scientists.

please define scientist here, Was Edison an inventor or a scientist?
Was Brham a rocket scientist or inventor.

I'm not sure of your distinction.

[aboutime]

please define scientist here, Was Edison an inventor or a scientist?
Was Brham a rocket scientist or inventor.

I'm not sure of your distinction.


ref. A scientist would discover a way to get rid of you.

And inventor would make something to get rid of you.

Are you clear?

Otherwise. Why would you have any need to ask such a question? Other than to find a reason to argue about something else. Not even YOU can prove, or disprove.

[logroller]

please define scientist here, Was Edison an inventor or a scientist?
Was Brham a rocket scientist or inventor.

I'm not sure of your distinction.
A scientist explains why an observed phenomena occurs; an inventor merely demonstrates such, typically a demonstrated solution to a problem. An inventor can be a scientist, but it's not necessarily so. Id venture to guess the first metallurgists who forged iron into steel had no understanding of the crystalline structures of metal alloys but they could surely demonstrate its strength. That's invention. Studying the effects of differing heat treatments with different additives, developing variables, controls and challenging assumptions formed from previous observations-- that's science.

[Arbo]

LOL If you can't explain it, deny, deny, deny.
ROFLMAO "Know for a fact"...damn that's a hoot!

I laugh my ass off when creationists try to explain Biblical events with "natural" occurrences. If it were a natural occurrence and not supernatural it defeats the whole purpose of claiming divine influence. Thanks for the chuckles though!

Spot on with all your comments. I almost spit out my drink laughing on this one:


Carbon 42 has a half life of 55 million years. If the entire earth was Carbon 42, we wouldn't have any left. So the fact that it's not full carbon, and we still have it, proves that the earth CAN'T be 55 millions of years old.

Some amazing logic. :laugh: