If there was scientific evidence that ToE was wrong then yes I would, because that is how science works. If a theory is falsified it is discarded.
But how about you show how the some of those items in your list are show inadequacies of uniformitarianism?
So are you going to elucidate on how even one of your points is a problem for uniformitarianism?
Didn't think so, all you have is copy and paste and assertions without evidence, i.e. nothing at all.
No. Gravity on the moon affects human beings on the moon exactly in the same way as it affects us on earth and absolutely in line with the laws of Gravity.
That is the 3rd time that you have posted this garbage, suppose you try and explain how Uniformatarianism does not adequately explain any...
No you didn't. See below.
Then why did you claim it didn't "actually explain how and where they looked for it, or if in actural fact they even bothered to look." The link I provided did contain that information as you have just confirmed. Which makes your statement above a lie.
You did lie...
No, I'm criticising you for telling lies and making claims without providing evidence.
TE is compatible with Christianity.
Its not historical, thats a certainty.
So as well as not knowing what the ToE acually says you don't really know what plagiarism is.
Firstly the "Cambrian explosion" lasted a minimum of 15 million years and possibly up 40 million years, that is only "suddenly" when you are using geologic timescales.
Secondly the Ediacaran period covers the 55 million years before the Cambrian and contains ancestors of species found in the...
One of the possible translations of 'eretz' and not one of the most commonly used ones at that.
You can take the whole verse you quoted and substitute "land" for "earth" and it still reads coherently (and makes a bit more sense).
Everything after this point is irrelevant because the biblical dating is wrong. Its derived from a list of names that cannot be shown to be complete and contain ridiculous ages. Its mythology not geneology.
No, Josephus wrote that part of the Histories but someone added to the text at a later date. We now have a copy missing all the bits making Jesus very important and limiting it to "who was called the Messiah by his followers" rather than "was the Messiah" and it is exactly in the style of Jospehus.
The link shows a reply from the French Acedemy of Science in which they state that having checked the reports from the year 1861 there is no mention of this supposed article.
Well in that case your "thorough explanation" is complete garbage because except at the most superficial level of "species change over time and become other species" the ancient views on evolution provide no basis for the modern theory of evolution.
There is no "pagan belief" in the theory of...
[/LEFT]
[/INDENT]You do realise that this quote has long been considered to have been tampered with by a later copyist, something well supported by the discovery of an arabic copy that does not contain the parts that Josephus would not have said (as scholars have been pointing out for decades).
Quite the opposite, there is evidence that of the 4 main forces of the universe the weak nuclear force could be reduced or even removed and changes the the values of the other 3 would produce exactly the same universe that we see today.
Not really, no.
We can't say its not possible.
So was heliocentrism, that turned out to be right as well (as a concept rather than with the specific details the ancients described).
What is the point to this screed? That some ideas have existed in slighlty different forms in ancient times?
If you read what the archeologists actually said you will realise that they ae not jumping to conclusions and want more research and testing, its the media doing the jumping here (as is usually the case).
And yet many of them do no such thing. You do realise that the right-wing fundie evangelical movement in the US is not representative of all christian clergy.
You have offered no proof that you are a christian.
Where have I posted anything that shows I am not a christian? All my posts show is that I am neither an inerrantist nor a literalist. There are a lot of christians in the world who are not literalists.
I have not plagiarised and I have not...