1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis you have to explain. The atomic theory based by evolutionists?
Another THEORY by evolutionists. Unbiased too, I bet!
So you don't believe in atoms, I presume? What do you think you are made of? Grains of sand?
You really are indoctrinated, aren't you. But then, you are a creationist. Of what denomination?
Originally posted by FMFThose are your words because you do not even understand how it
The word "apparently" is not found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
refutes anything. So it is only apparent due to your wish to believe
it does, like all the other idiots who believe in evolution. That goes
for those Christians too that believe in evolution rather than the
clear words of men inspired of God that speak of the creation in
kinds, and not of one kind that evolved into many kinds.
Originally posted by RJHindsIs this all you've got to offer?
Those are your words because you do not even understand how it
refutes anything. So it is only apparent due to your wish to believe
it does, like all the other idiots who believe in evolution. That goes
for those Christians too that believe in evolution rather than the
clear words of men inspired of God that speak of the creation in
kinds, and not of one kind that evolved into many kinds.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneExplain to me what is evolution and how it differs from adaptation
Creation is true, and evolution is true.
C'mon, expand your mind a little.
and reproduction in creatures and how far does it go back before
you start believing in creation again?
P.S. Expand my mind, please.
Originally posted by RJHindsDidn't the introduction to the book, that you then didn't go on to read, give you enough details?
Explain to me what is evolution and how it differs from adaptation
and reproduction in creatures and how far does it go back before
you start believing in creation again?
Originally posted by RJHindsAvoiding me, are we?
Another THEORY by evolutionists. Unbiased too, I bet!
Originally posted by FabianFnas
This you have to explain. The atomic theory based by evolutionists?
So you don't believe in atoms, I presume? What do you think you are made of? Grains of sand?
You really are indoctrinated, aren't you. But then, you are a creationist. Of what denomination?
Am I too atomic for you?
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIn other words, you would only trust someone who is already duped like you so you two would already have been in agreement beforehand and therefore no debate would occur between the two of you.
No. I need a Christian like Suzianne to broaden or expand my mind on
the subject. I do not trust atheist.
So you don't trust atheists, what about in-betweens, agnostics is what they are called, would you say, semi trust them? Or are they totally untrustworthy also because they don't believe like you?
Would you trust say, a Muslim, on their views of science?
Would you trust, say, a Lutheran? Even if he believes in evolution?
Originally posted by RJHindsSo rather than look at the refutation, you pounce on the word "apparently" and use that to suggest that your original link is "proof" which cannot possibly be refuted. Why is the refutation "apparent", yet yours isn't? Something is seriously wrong with your logic. 😛
Why should I even try to refute something that is not a refutation at all.
You yourself describe it as APPARENTLY and to me is apparent to be
an attempt at refutation by those that want the theory of evolution to
be true. It does not even require a refutation until it can be proven that
it is a refutation.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyWhat I find funny is that I said "It has been refuted, apparently" - using the word "apparently" deliberately - to see if he would pounce on it to avoid addressing the refutation. And he did!
So rather than look at the refutation, you pounce on the word "apparently" and use that to suggest that your original link is "proof" which cannot possibly be refuted. Why is the refutation "apparent", yet yours isn't? Something is seriously wrong with your logic. 😛
Originally posted by FMFI suspected that is what you did. 🙂
What I find funny is that I said "It has been refuted, apparently" - using the word "apparently" deliberately - to see if he would pounce on the word "apparently" to avoid addressing the refutation. And he did!
It is also apparent to him that his proof cannot be apparent.
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFOkay, I will address the so-called refutation.
What I find funny is that I said "It has been refuted, apparently" - using the word "apparently" deliberately - to see if he would pounce on it to avoid addressing the refutation. And he did!
He says archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker
than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present
field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982).
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe someone measured the strength of
earth's magnetic field 6,500 years ago. It must have been one of Adam and
Eve's grandsons. This is all to stupid to make a good joke.
He does not like the conclusion that earth's magnetic field could be no more
than a few thousand years old so he says that a scientific handling of the
data requires that we don't play guessing games. Then he begins guessing how
to apply the data to make it work better for the evolutionists. Since the
best he can do is still 4.4 billion years less than he wants it to be, he
concludes by stating that it all amounts to pure speculation, which proves
nothing.
Then he criticizes Barnes for ignoring books that suggest that there may be
evidence of a magnetic field reversal called the dynamo theory. The fact that
someone now has a theory for an energy source that might cause a pole reversal
in no way proves such a reversal ever happened and therefore gives little or
no support to the dynamo theory. The dynamo theory is still pure speculation.
However, he concludes as if he has refuted everything by stating, I quote:
"We can safely relegate Barnes's magnetic field argument to the junk heap of
crackpot ideas. Barnes' work lacks the scientific integrity, competence, and
judgment one expects from a scientific work."
What a pitiful refutation.
Originally posted by RJHindsAll you've really said here is that you don't accept it. This is not "refutation" in the conventional sense of the word.
Okay, I will address the so-called refutation.
He says archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker
than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present
field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982).
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe someone measured the strength of
earth's ma ...[text shortened]... etence, and
judgment one expects from a scientific work."
What a pitiful refutation.
Originally posted by FMFAPPARENTLY, I am not as stupid as some who will accept this kind of
All you've really said here is that you don't accept it. This is not "refutation" in the conventional sense of the word.
so-called refutation. I did not refute it because it makes no sense
and it does not refute anything than requires me to refute. Crazy, huh?
😏