27 Mar '06 13:18>
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have not heard of this before. Do you have any links?
There is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant.
Originally posted by dj2beckerLol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?
Yeah, yeah...
The YECs can say exactly the same thing about the crack-pot evolution pseudoscicence, which is heavily biased by a ferverent belief in crack-pot evolution, which has so many holes punched through it that it needs a lot of crack-pot bearded ape-men to defend it...
Instead of throwing around insults which make you look like a crack-pot ap ...[text shortened]... discuss the issues at hand.
So are you going to supply anything useful to this conversation?
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?
Uniformitarianism assumes that there were no world-wide catastrophes; therefore, the rate of decay has remained constant.
Originally posted by StarrmanLol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?
Not one single piece of YECism can be shown as supportable. The scientific community has debunked it all and will continue to do so. The trouble is, that ...[text shortened]... ore convincing. Way to go dj, that's a great way to think. Real...er... believable...
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?
If we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?
In science such assumptions are not made but rather a proposition is made which is then rigorously tested untill it achieves theory status which cirtainly is the case for the basic constants of physics such as radioactive decay rates over the age of the earth.
The ques ...[text shortened]... t. The coin may have a tails side but God sure doesnt want us to see it, so who are we to argue?
Originally posted by dj2beckerHow long ago?
I do beleive in the big bang. Only it is slightly different to yours...
"God spoke, and BANG, it happened..."
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou have the temerity to lecture me on deduction? You don't even know what the word means. You are the king at using induction where you shouldn't and when you should you use it so poorly it can barely be called that at all!
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?
You should have seen my cracking up as I wrote it. 😀
Typical evolutionist - your deductive skills are absolutely non-existant.
Not one sin n yes.
You should get out more... Maybe open a Creation magazine, if you can get so far...
Originally posted by dj2beckerSarcasm makes baby jesus cry :'(
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?
You should have seen my cracking up as I wrote it. 😀
Typical evolutionist - your deductive skills are absolutely non-existant.
Not one sin n yes.
You should get out more... Maybe open a Creation magazine, if you can get so far...
Originally posted by dj2beckerHahahahahahahahahahaha....
A global flood, which resets the atomic clock.
Originally posted by StarrmanHave you ever read a Creation magazine?
You have the temerity to lecture me on deduction? You don't even know what the word means. You are the king at using induction where you shouldn't and when you should you use it so poorly it can barely be called that at all!
I'm not interpreting the evidence, I'm talking about scientific refutation by people educated and practicing in that field. Presupposition has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNow compare your statement: "There is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant."
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1078.htm