Originally posted by sonhouseThe problem is that many evolutionists haven't got the message and continue to try to use these bogus methods to date rocks and fossils in the layers of strata. That mistake is how they still come up with millions of years.
All that goes to show is they know more about stratification and the limitations there. Same as C14 dating. We know what we can and cannot date using C14. For instance, we know full well if a fossil has no carbon, you cannot date it.
We know where you can't use C14 and they take that into account. Same with stratification.
You want to prove NO stratif ...[text shortened]... ating on strata they know works for dating and they know what doesn't work.
Sorry, no cigar.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd YOU, being the stratifcation expert, have the PHd and peer reviewed papers that shows all that, right?
The problem is that many evolutionists haven't got the message and continue to try to use these bogus methods to date rocks and fossils in the layers of strata. That mistake is how they still come up with millions of years.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou give me an advice to follow a google search for you
You are mistaken. If you don't believe me then go to www.Google.com and search for the following:
images of strata of sedimentary rocks from a volcano
The Mount St. Helens Volcanic eruption in 1980 proved that layers of strata can be formed by volcanic eruption as indicated in the following Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsvVMjsnDVU
[tappeti-tappeti-tap]
and the first link gave me http://www.rocksandminerals4u.com/geodes.html
It didn't take me long before I found the truth about ages:
"As the mineral-rich water moves on through the bubble, tiny crystals are left behind, clinging to the sides of the bubble. Millions of years pass while this in and out flow of water gradually builds crystals inside the empty space. The crystal formations might become large single crystals or tightly packed micro-crystals, so small that you can’t even distinguish one from another."
the link came from you so you must believe it, right?
So now you believe in "Millions of years pass"? Well done! Good boy!
Originally posted by FabianFnasI believe in thousands of years, like about 6 thousand years, not millions.
You give me an advice to follow a google search for you
[tappeti-tappeti-tap]
and the first link gave me http://www.rocksandminerals4u.com/geodes.html
It didn't take me long before I found the truth about ages:
"As the mineral-rich water moves on through the bubble, tiny crystals are left behind, clinging to the sides of the bubble. [b]Millions of yea ...[text shortened]... ou must believe it, right?
So now you believe in "Millions of years pass"? Well done! Good boy!
Originally posted by RJHindsThen why do you believe in a plagiarized 6 day creation myth not even from Judaism? It was picked up line by line but the names were changed to protect the innocent.
I believe in the Holy Bible for one.
It came originally from Egypt over 6000 years ago. Way before Judaism was even a religion.
And it was just one of hundreds of such myths around the world, Asia, Africa, Europe and so forth. EVERYONE had their creation myth.
You are just intellectually dishonest and arrogant to think this Egyptian 6 day creation myth has any more validity than any of the other hundreds of similar myths.
Origin of the Universe
The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions. Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe is best explained as a supernatural event.
1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created by natural means.
2. Observation shows that the universe is made of energy and matter.
3. Therefore, the universe must have originated by supernatural means, such as the creation by God.
In contrast, the evolution model proposes only natural explanations for origins. Thus, this model is seriously flawed because it contradicts a known scientific law.
Origin of Life
The evidence for the supernatural origin of life also involves a law of science:
1. The law of biogenesis states that living cells come from preexisting cells. There are no known exceptions.
2. There is no evidence for the natural origin of life from lifeless molecules.
3. Therefore, the origin of life must have originated by supernatural means, such as creation by God.
Origin of Species
1. Both the natural evolution model and the supernatural creation model agree that change within living organisms occurs by means of mutation of the DNA molecule and pressures of natural selection. This change is unlimited in the natural evolution model, but limited by the supernatual creation model.
2. Laboratory evidence shows that cumulative change in the DNA molecule will result in death.
3. Therefore, the evidence support the creation model of limited change.
Also the appearance in the fossil record of different kinds of highly complex living organisms that are fully formed and fully functional and independent of other kinds of organisms with a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record reveals that organisms resist change, which supports the creation model of limited change within species and special creation of the species by God.
The creation model is the most logical and scientifically supportable model for origins.
Also, the creation model is the most logical and scientifically supportable model for diversity and adaptive changes within species.
There are two potential sources for changes to gene sequence; mutations and recombination. The cell recombines DNA for various reasons including the purposeful generation of diversity. Mutations on the other hand are changes resulting from exposures to foreign mutagens, or the result of errors during biochemical reactions such as DNA replication. Changes to genes are almost universally attributed to the latter, however, replication attempts to copy the genome verbatim, while recombination is intentionally making alterations in a largely uncharacterized manner. Therefore, any changes found should be automatically assumed the result of recombination.
Given our history of selective breeding and the apparent ability of the molecular machinery to rapidly create new alleles, it is appropriate to postulate that organisms are able to continuously produce genetic diversity. Arguably, the wolf did not already possess the variability we now find among the domestic dogs. Instead, diversity began to increase following domestication, which effectively removed the natural selective pressures that kept the animal true to form. It would appear that selection must persistently remove new alleles to keep a bloodline pure. That assertion is adequately demonstrated by the need to continuously remove variants from registered breeds in order to maintain desired traits.
We should remember that adaptation to a particular habitat or niche involves largely uncharacterized modifications of the genome. Vaccinations can completely eradicate disease from a population because every single individual will develop immunity if inoculated with a functional serum. There are many examples of viruses such as Polio and Small Pox that have been eliminated from the modernized world because it is unquestionable that functional antibodies will be assembled following exposure to almost any foreign substance. Since random genetic changes will simply not result in an expected sequence, the immunity system provides an excellent example of the seemingly unlimited potential of Homologous Recombination to generate new information.
http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationreview.html
The ability for diversity and adaptability has obviously been designed by God into His creatures.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou never stop. Your first point, thermodynamics, etc., was not involved in making the universe. Huge amounts of energy was.
[b]Origin of the Universe
The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions. Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe is best explained as a supernatural event.
1. The f ...[text shortened]... bility for diversity and adaptability has obviously been designed by God into His creatures.[/b][/b]
Your twisted logic doesn't work.
Originally posted by sonhouseMy first point is that the first law of thermodynamics keeps the universe from creating matter and energy. And even if there were hugh amounts of enery already there as you claim, the second law of thermodynamics keeps it from naturally coming together and making anything. Therefore, the universe needs a Creator and Designer, like the God of the Holy Bible.
You never stop. Your first point, thermodynamics, etc., was not involved in making the universe. Huge amounts of energy was.
Your twisted logic doesn't work.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's not really his twisted logic. It's just copy&paste. Evidence? Lack of errors in spelling.
You never stop. Your first point, thermodynamics, etc., was not involved in making the universe. Huge amounts of energy was.
Your twisted logic doesn't work.
RJHinds has no scientific knowledge enough to understand the text copied. It ends with his pet theory, therefore it must be true. According to him. They are like that, the YECs.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI get my information from the experts. Whereas you rely on guessers.
It's not really his twisted logic. It's just copy&paste. Evidence? Lack of errors in spelling.
RJHinds has no scientific knowledge enough to understand the text copied. It ends with his pet theory, therefore it must be true. According to him. They are like that, the YECs.