Flood Evidences — revised

[rational experiences]

When the earth wasn't owning any of the changes you discuss. A different body of earth existed in mass with first biological living dinosaurs as a human chosen subject.

Why?

In human reality you only exist where you live hence why are you still theorising about dead and destroyed bodies....when a law review said to science you are forbidden to use the thesis of those topics? The dead.

As a gas medium inference of returning us back into that type of heavens and earth destruction!

Said by humans about why life was attacked by the subject caused falling and fallen star of man.

Notice no man is the falling star mass today or any other day. And man fallen meant hurt man's life.

Reviewed teaching said the previous man scientific practitioner existed. We own human evidence of artefact earth evidence snap frozen inside of fused fusion.

He also had his man image taken out of cloud as water mass from as above so below causes. Fall of man's owned caused purposes.

Nuclear causes in both places. Earth dust converting by burning gas put in as above.

So man's previous human cloud image fell out was gone was then replaced with a new image. Of a man gone out of human's healthy national DNA.

By same man's scientific causes nuclear sun time shifting mass.

As light is constant he said.

So the teaching said. Water was only in burning causes. Evaporation.... Ice held it cooled. In space conditions only. Never alter space pressure. Water a holy historic body on earth as life's support.

Reasoned water went into and entered earths opened converting stone mass by a sun burning gas mass. Sealed it. From position in space ice mass on star body.

So life theories as an incorrect human theist status that it had entered the body of stone.

Our life spirit had saved earth God from being destroyed. Water.

Which in conscious thought is mainly biological water only. Inferred false reasons as a very dangerous human reasoning.... As a human causes you to think a humans body is very powerful.

By falsifying natural evidence compared to self presence human. Fake status position I own. Water life.

Owner of God as earth mass existing and sealed God is a planet only. Your life water didn't seal the earth mass.

Is about the human egotists who developed a false AI subliminal belief by acting out his self destructive human nature. Ownership of bodies in places that a human does not own.

By believing a human owns by water life a self determined dominion over all other things including created creation. As if you controlled stopped by body status earths burning.

As it's all caused by interference AI and human chosen scientific detailing putting a mind into false places.

Waters ground life biology ownership of water use only was taken away from life abducted to cool sciences caused above burning earth gases.

In the heavens above as caused below power plants. Each plant eventually by national causes will shut down the prediction. Water losses.

Another falsely stated human theorising status that nuclear earth mass converting was safe.

Water is holy is our life.

Water disappears by ice melt losses. Heated by hot gases to cool gases disappears as a gas is liquid.

It also disappears as mass inside earth tunnels combusting owning no lava flow. As previously historic water had cooled the tunnels to not burn the gases that flowed within.

I saw the earth occurrence in visionary feedback advised. Lots of losses in pre cooled communicators burnt that cool to cause a vision.

Why psychics were known to give correct evidence. As science is destroying earths natural balances by human thought theories.

Water being removed from natural biological life support.

Hence I saw giant fed back humans life and animal life supported water layered over the wood that it boarded as water carbon burnt already.

As water had to stop trees wood from combustiing.

As water cools heavens gas burning fall into floods.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As per both Schweitzer and Rana (separately) the only things that are being preserve are the most robust biomolecules that we know of such as collagen, keratin, heme, chitin, eumelanin, quinones; and blood vessels.

Despite creationist claims, intact proteins have not been recovered. And that what they found were not blood vessels, but chemically reformed, chemically crosslinked. They are only preserved by what is essentially a form of fossilization via extensive crosslinking (as with iron) or have a molecular structure similar to graphite.

So, not only does this not call into question in these cases, it serves as a further problem for young earth creationism. If dinosaurs died only 4400 years ago (or even 10,000) in a great flood, then dinosaurs died under the exact same conditions as everything else. Therefore, we should be recovering dinosaur corpses that are in a similar state of decay as any mammalian or lizard or amphibian remains.

Because supposedly they all died at the same freaking time.

So, where are those dinosaur bones that match the decay patterns of every other "antediluvian" animal?

I'll tell you where. Those corpses do not exist. Because all the dinosaurs lived 65 mya or more..

Grief...
That’s one reason I’m not a YEC. Didn’t you grasp that from my post?

 

[ppp]

That’s one reason I’m not a YEC. Didn’t you grasp that from my post?

No. I apologize for the slight.

But there have also been found soft tissue in T-Rex fossils that were dated at least 65 million years old (myo). The dating methods must be inaccurate, in these cases…very inaccurate.

However, my statement stands against that statement.

 

[rational experiences]

In the past nature wasn't burning first. Then a scientist would argue. In the past bushes did burn. But not first they hadn't in natural form.

In the past no human was using the body wood trees bushes in a scientific thesis machine to machines transmitting to machine.

Which began by pyramid oscillating reverberations. Transmitting out from crystal transmitter back to the nose Sus tip of the pyramid. Nose point.

Which began to heat the crystal which was how they battery stored a charge to function machinery.

The Crystal mass ended up burning out its fusion. Once a huge glowing light sat atop the pyramid.

So looking back a theist did a summary of how their designed machine reactive calculus had attacked wood and biology was sacrificed in nature.

After the fact as bushes shouldn't be combusting with a man hearing a booming evil man's voice Ai transmitted cause.

As you only hear voice by brain mind chemical changes. Unnaturally.

Reason the heavens began recording man's natural life voice body image.

So he had to prove his calculus had in fact taken ground lifes natural water to cool board wood instead of nature living owning it naturally.

As the exodus status was precise life left the nature garden.

I've seen the huge human animal alien animate images overlayed on trees. The same types of large images you get to see in clouds.

As the ground fusion begins to unseal it's held gas spirit body entombed in God earth.

You only get to see it if it unnaturally occurs.

If it unnaturally occurs when it stops life goes back to living naturally as it once had.

It doesn't save a science reaction it stops a scientific cause.

As natural life and not machine science was first.

 

[SA Huguenot]

As per both Schweitzer and Rana (separately) the only things that are being preserve are the most robust biomolecules that we know of such as collagen, keratin, heme, chitin, eumelanin, quinones; and blood vessels.

Despite creationist claims, intact proteins have not been recovered. And that what they found were not blood vessels, but chemically reformed, chemically crosslinked. They are only preserved by what is essentially a form of fossilization via extensive crosslinking (as with iron) or have a molecular structure similar to graphite.

So, not only does this not call into question in these cases, it serves as a further problem for young earth creationism. If dinosaurs died only 4400 years ago (or even 10,000) in a great flood, then dinosaurs died under the exact same conditions as everything else. Therefore, we should be recovering dinosaur corpses that are in a similar state of decay as any mammalian or lizard or amphibian remains.

Because supposedly they all died at the same freaking time.

So, where are those dinosaur bones that match the decay patterns of every other "antediluvian" animal?

I'll tell you where. Those corpses do not exist. Because all the dinosaurs lived 65 mya or more..

OK, I agree that this is the observation of geologists and paleontologists who accept that the surviving monsters are millions of years old..
Then again, lets look at the observation by "Creationist" geologists and chemists with the same PHD's who produce evidence to the contrary.

How do they determine the age of these fossil rests?

Obviously they can not use 14C/12C testing.
Now they have to look at the layering of the sedimentary rock where the fossil is found.
How do one date these rocks.
Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?.
Obviously one can not date the lime or sandstone where the fossil is found in.
The reason is that these sedimentary rocks are granules of much older rock parents, and will obviously also give a wrong date as if these particles were chipped from rocks that was millions of years old.

So, how do they date these layers of sedimentary rocks?

Well, geologists went all over the world where fossils occures, and they looked at rock layers that are below and above the sedimentary strata.
Obviously, in some areas there will be the same sedimentary rocks stretching for instance from Colorado, through Canada, Ireland, England France and Northern Europe.

Then geologists found some Lava spills at a few areas that are covering the sedimentation.
By testing the age of these igneus rock with radio decay, say for instance this lava cooled down 60 million years ago, it is then established that everything below this layer must be older than 60 million years.

Good.
Then the geologist goes to areas where there are outcrops of metamorphic rock, or even older lava spills that is below these sedimentary strata.
The radio decay of these rocks might, say be 300 million years old.

Now the geologist can make the claim that the sedimentary rock must be younger than 300 million years, and older than 60 million years.

Then they make the conclusion that the whole streach of sedimentary rock, from Mexico to Germany, must be this age.

Well, I think this is well observed science, and we will have to agree that it is correct.

Then come scientists, especially chemical experts. (Chemical Engineers, PHD's and whatever experts in the field of Radio Isotope dating) that questions the dating of these top layers of Igneous rocks.
They will do their own tests and determinations, and find that there are huge bias on the side of evolutionists, and will ask why some Lava spills date from say, 1880, but the radio date gives 200 million years.

This is the problem I am sitting with, not so much the science, but the fact that when any scientist asks these questions, he gets vehemently attacked, and made out as a hack for not conforming to what the "Old Earth scientists" say.

I myself believe from the Biblical view that the Earth is much older than 6 000 years, but Life is 6 000!
Therefore, testing any fossil by studying the sedimentary rocks on top of igneous and Metamorphic rocks, does not prove the age of the sedimentary rock as millions of years.
However, id there are Igneous rock on top of this sedimentary strata all over the earth, we had better be sure that this dating of Lava flows are correct.

Now, I have been looking for any evolutionary chemist that can disprove the huge discrepancies of these top lava flows, but to no avail.
Only attacks and personal insults against any "young Earth" scientist.

Therefore, I will go to my own logical conclusion on what the Biblical account tells me, due to the correct description from Genesis on the Nebular theory, and will bring the equation of the global flood into account.
And guess what, there is only one explanation for the sedimentary Jurrasic and Triassic layers found over all the continents, from the himalyas, Australia, Europe, China, N and S America to Africa.
This layer of sedimentary rocks can easily be explained if we listen to Genesis that the Earth was much more flatter, and the oceans much more shallower than today.
The Earth was a mushy wet landscape with huge lagoons, where incidently Dinosaurs lived in an aquatic environment with their huge bodies supported with water. There was immence plantlife in these waterbodies, and on land, with no desserts. Norh Africa, the Sahara, was a lush green lakefilled landscape teeming with plants and animals.

You see, taking this into context with what is found in Geology, it makes total sense.
This story made up by paleontologists that the earth was this dry desert, and Dinosaurs walked on land weighing 10 to 40 tons, is pure immagination.

No, I think this sediment was created 4500 years ago, and burried live animals, sometimes giving birth, or being busy swallowing prey, such as ichtosaur and fish fossils shows, during a global flood when the Earth fell in upon its waterlayer that existed 50 miles below the surfaces.
This created these sedimentary layers.

I found these descriptions from Ford's book, "too big to walk", long after I knew this was the way dinosaurs would have lived.

Anyway.
All i say is that if there are no concrete evidence that the lava flows above the sedimentary rocks are older than 4500 years old, Then Evolution remains a theory without any evidence.

 

[ppp]

Then come scientists, especially chemical experts. (Chemical Engineers, PHD's and whatever experts in the field of Radio Isotope dating) that questions the dating of these top layers of Igneous rocks.
They will do their own tests and determinations, and find that there are huge bias on the side of evolutionists, and will ask why some Lava spills date from say, 1880, but the radio date gives 200 million years.

This is the problem I am sitting with, not so much the science, but the fact that when any scientist asks these questions, he gets vehemently attacked, and made out as a hack for not conforming to what the "Old Earth scientists" say.

Now, I have been looking for any evolutionary chemist that can disprove the huge discrepancies of these top lava flows, but to no avail.
Only attacks and personal insults against any "young Earth" scientist.

This is way too vague. Some chemical engineer from somewhere questions something about dating on some basis, and is "vehemently attacked" for non-conformity. This is just the trope of the plucky misunderstood underdog.

I myself believe from the Biblical view that the Earth is much older than 6 000 years, but Life is 6 000!
Therefore, testing any fossil by studying the sedimentary rocks on top of igneous and Metamorphic rocks, does not prove the age of the sedimentary rock as millions of years.
However, id there are Igneous rock on top of this sedimentary strata all over the earth, we had better be sure that this dating of Lava flows are correct.

How do you dismiss all of the dating methods that do not depend on radiometric decay that are used as cross checks of the dates found? Such as varves, tree rings, ice cores, continental drift, stalactite formation, the 23,000 year monsoon cycle, coral reef growth, impact dust layers, volcanic dust layers, and human historical records. All of of those methods corroborate the reliability of radiometric dating, and affirm not only an old Earth (which you accept), but old life (which you do not).

 

[Audie]

This is way too vague. Some chemical engineer from somewhere questions something about dating on some basis, and is "vehemently attacked" for non-conformity. This is just the trope of the plucky misunderstood underdog.


How do you dismiss all of the dating methods that do not depend on radiometric decay that are used as cross checks of the dates found? Such as varves, tree rings, ice cores, continental drift, stalactite formation, the 23,000 year monsoon cycle, coral reef growth, impact dust layers, volcanic dust layers, and human historical records. All of of those methods corroborate the reliability of radiometric dating, and affirm not only an old Earth (which you accept), but old life (which you do not).

The usual dismissal technique is
to indulge in the height ( depth ) of
stupidity, to casually dismiss what
one does not understand.

I would be amazed if our heros of that game
know what a varve is, or how ftm any of those
dating methods work.

 

[ppp]

The usual dismissal technique is
to indulge in the height ( depth ) of
stupidity, to casually dismiss what
one does not understand.

I would be amazed if our heros of that game
know what a varve is, or how ftm any of those
dating methods work.

I would be amazed as well. They keep trying to discredit radiometric dating as though that is the only methodology. There are so many bizarre things that confirm the age of human life, life in general, and the age of Earth. Like the fact that the number of stone tools across the African continent could not have been made in the time allotted by a young life scenario. I just find it amazing that someone even thought of such an mundane, obvious and irrefutable fact.

 

[Sheldon]

This is the problem I am sitting with, not so much the science, but the fact that when any scientist asks these questions, he gets vehemently attacked, and made out as a hack for not conforming to what the "Old Earth scientists" say.

That is a gross misrepresentation, and scientists scrutinise the claims made by other scientists, it's called peer review.

Have you ever heard of project Steve?

Scientist is a very vague term here, since I have seen a creationist with a doctorate and PhD lauded for his denials of evolution and the age of the earth, only to do a cursory search and find out he was an engineer, with zero qualifications in biology or evolution, who was simply parroting creationist propaganda, and the number of scientists who oppose species evolution or the age of the earth is miniscule, and they always oppose it based on religious beliefs, not on the scientific evidence, that's why their pseudoscience is "attacked" by scientists who understand the evidence, and why species evolution remains an accepted scientific fact based on a global scientific consensus.

 

[Audie]

That is a gross misrepresentation, and scientists scrutinise the claims made by other scientists, it's called peer review.

Have you ever heard of project Steve?

Scientist is a very vague term here, since I have seen a creationist with a doctorate and PhD lauded for his denials of evolution and the age of the earth, only to do a cursory search and find out he was an engineer, with zero qualifications in biology or evolution, who was simply parroting creationist propaganda, and the number of scientists who oppose species evolution or the age of the earth is miniscule, and they always oppose it based on religious beliefs, not on the scientific evidence, that's why their pseudoscience is "attacked" by scientists who understand the evidence, and why species evolution remains an accepted scientific fact based on a global scientific consensus.

None of that really matters though.

What does matter is they've no data,
no way to disprove ToE.
So its just blather.

 

[Sheldon]

I myself believe from the Biblical view

I myself accept scientific evidence, and the facts and conclusions based on it, not archaic myths and superstitions, that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

None of that really matters though.

What does matter is they've no data,
no way to disprove ToE.
So its just blather.

Well yes, obviously, but they don't seem to understand that.

 

[rational experiences]

As just a human I know I'm not planet earth. The earth is owned as it's own body. Once men defined it as a self entity self owned so human egotists don't give human thought as ownership to its body presence.

By thinking about it.

Men of science argue how old they believe biology is. Build machines in want of time shift mass for what real subliminal reasoning?

You seem to prove you are trying to identify lifes biological presence in time to removal off the face of earth in one instance.

As you know dinosaurs were instantly snap frozen. You know snap frozen life was thawed out and churned by water flow into a tumbled mess.

Huge masses of bones piled.

If foot prints are found in stone then obviously before they died stone was altering it's fusion then it snap froze.

Yet snap freeze doesn't remain. How it was instantly cooled.

Most of earth life supported in a non snap frozen biology condition.

Your thoughts however are direct only to instant frozen ground mass. Not about why biological life lives on frozen stone held.

The destroyer human scientists warning you are not God the earth.

Your thoughts don't speak on behalf of why the planet exists naturally in space.

Then with its heavens surrounding its body owned reactive changes that involve the heavenly body also.

Men humans claim they want to prove or disprove that life was created or not created by the planet and it's heavens.

Proving means you identify the creator. Then you claim I now own proof.

Not proving means there is nothing to prove.

Why?

If men in science say I found the creator they want to then invent a resource by the advice. To use up the resource as a heated energy source which owns no sensible thesis.

As if you remove the presence of the planet by heat it already is losing itself without being resourced.

Science says when a sun burns up its energy it will be a dead body.

When volcanic mass cools is it missing a higher solid state? Why does earth own empty tunnels?

Earths history was taught as a cooling mass owning a non burning clear immaculate heavens. As natural history of a planets mass in space.

The story attacked by the sun was taught so you would Idealise the relativity of just a planet in space and nothing else.

As only real birds exist alive in life and presence and present was once the only accepted scientific human choice.

Law said no thesis about dead conditions was acceptable in science.

 

[rational experiences]

I myself accept scientific evidence, and the facts and conclusions based on it, not archaic myths and superstitions, that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

All life living today on earth is by species self propagation by sex conditions.

One of type species by two having sex.

Which isn't scientific controlled.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I myself accept scientific evidence, and the facts and conclusions based on it, not archaic myths and superstitions, that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

Now why would you call the Biblical description of Creation eg the nebular theory a myth?
Is it not so that the Nebular theory for instance, something all scientists believe to be the true version of the origins of the Universe, was formulatedfrom Genesis by Kant?

Now, this is the difference between you and I.
I dont mind reading what scientists say.
I even collect scientific books by atheists, evolutionists etc to see what they say.
On the other hand, I do not think you ever read the Bible, nor would you read books such as Walt Brown's theory.

Nope, you would rather cling to the religion of Evolution and fight hard to get any argument against any notion of divine creation.

Peer review?
Read what Brian J Ford says about the religious elite of Evolution, and how the current "scientific" world cancell any new theories that might not fit in with their narative.

It is sad that science has these fossils controling the scientific world to feed their opinions, and to discard any other view.

Makes me remember how Gallileo Gallilei was forced by the government to retract his scientific observations because the "PEERS of the scientific world" in the 15th century hated his new ideas!
This was why Newton became such a huge character!
He scrutinised the scientific world on their view of optics, forces etc.

Poor scientist that needs "Peer review" from their already religious educated pompious educated heads.
This makes scientists nothing more than followers of already established ideas, whilst the scientists that will be remembered will be those that did not need peer reviews, because they KNEW THEIR FINDINGS WAS NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT SUPERIOR TO THE ESTABLISHED THEORIES!

True, peer review is needed and nessesary, but what if the Peers are narrow minded?
What if any person comes up with a theory that might sound a bit Biblical?

Example,
Remember how the American Geological soceity laughed at J Harlan Bretz when he spoke of a flood of Biblical proportions at the channeled scablands?
How the PEERS told him to go back and find another explanation?
How J Pardee went and found Lake Mosoula?

How Brets was given a congresional medal decades later for his discovery?

Do you see the results?
Because the Peer reviews of the scientists geologists hated a thought of anything that might sound "Biblical", they lost out on the most important discoveries of geological formations in North America!
They are forgotten in history.

But the 2 people who did their work, and did not bother about the critisizm by these educated bias foolish elitists, they will be remembered as giants!
What do you say?
Happy with your situation where you are dominated by old thinking?
Or do you think you might make a difference to the world by thinking out of the box, way beyond your educated fossils who dictates what you should think?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Well yes, obviously, but they don't seem to understand that.

Or perhaps...
You dont bother to read what they said?

Just imagine what happens to "atheists" who studied Evolution, who found that Evolution is a fabricated lie from fossils incorrectly interpreted and biasly constructed, and he tries to show the evidence to his Peers!

Poor person wont last a day!

Gone is his research, down the drain of narrow minded foolish men who dont allow any thinking but their religious view!
Even your post displays evidence to what I say.

What if such a discovery might overturn all previous theories, and might give evidence of another method on how everything came into existance?
Perhaps a flash of ennergy changing into matter within a few seconds, and life forms taking shape by ennergy platforms with physics laws built into non intelligent structures of this ennergy, and viola; "LIFE"
Obviously the above is a far feched example of what I mean, but it does demonstrate that there are much more in nature than just what the current scientists might think is available, which they might destroy with their bias mindset. Just immagine, if I may, that life can be created from ennergy containing pre natural guidance, (thinking of equations such as the Fibronachi effect or whatever) and a kidney can be produced? I know this is way out thinking, but I bet you all scientists will discard this opinion KNOWING IT IS WRONG, without second thought. I might also do that.
Then again some one one day will read this post and he might just think, hey, lets just check for fun, and he might discover a new way to produce a battery. Only joking of corse.

But what these bias elitists dont understand is that...
the researcher comming to them and delivers new evidence which they discard without investigating or not listening to what they say, is detremental to future scientific advances.

and I say:
"AND YET IT MOVES!"

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Makes me remember how Gallileo Gallilei was forced by the government to retract his scientific observations because the "PEERS of the scientific world" in the 15th century hated his new ideas!

Wrong. The church was mad at him.

 

[Sheldon]

Now why would you call the Biblical description of Creation eg the nebular theory a myth?

Obviously because it does not remotely reflect the nebular system, it can't even get the most basic chronological facts correct. As just one example an extant earth with vegetation, before the sun existed. It is in fact errant nonsense.

Is it not so that the Nebular theory for instance, something all scientists believe to be the true version of the origins of the Universe, was formulatedfrom Genesis by Kant?

It was formulated originally by Kant, what's your point? That's a bit like like saying modern aerodynamics was based on the Icarus myth, because it came first. You know that Kant's ideas were modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace, who presented his model to the Emperor Napoleon, who famously asked "what about God", and Laplace replied that god was not needed for his calculations to work, food for thought, if indeed thinking is anything you're interested in.

Now, this is the difference between you and I.... I do not think you ever read the Bible,

I think a more obvious difference is that I don't leap to ridiculous and unevidenced assumptions. However you are free to believe whatever you are minded to believe.

Nope, you would rather cling to the religion of Evolution and fight hard to get any argument against any notion of divine creation.

Evolution is a scientific theory in good standing, that is accepted as a scientific fact by a global scientific consensus, to describe it as a religions is risible sophistry, as all one need do is take a cursory look at any dictionary to disavow oneself of that ludicrous falsehood. I don't need any argument against an unevidenced creation myth based solely on archaic superstition, it is your belief the myth has validity, thus it is for you to demonstrate sufficient, or indeed any, objective evidence to support it.

It is sad that science has these fossils controling the scientific world to feed their opinions, and to discard any other view.

I don't believe your claim sorry, this is just the kind of dishonest creationist propaganda I have encountered innumerable times before. take your denials up with science. OR stop using your PC electricity and the internet and pray your message gets to me, and then I might take your ludicrous sophistry about science seriously.

Makes me remember how Gallileo Gallilei was forced by the government to retract his scientific observations because the "PEERS of the scientific world" in the 15th century hated his new ideas!

Hahahhahahahahhaa, he was ordered not to oppose the absolute authority of church doctrine by the Pope, and when he refused, mistakenly thinking that the objective scientific evidence he had gathered for the theories of a Copernican universe, would change the mind of religious zealots, they arrested him, and subjected him to the Inquisition. You seem to be rewriting history now, as hilarious as it is dishonest.

This was why Newton became such a huge character!
He scrutinised the scientific world on their view of optics, forces etc.

I have no idea what that means. Newton's scientific genius is demonstrated by the fact his theories on gravity have largely stood up to scientific peer review. Newton also believed in alchemy and astrology, which have not, that's why peer review is vital, as even a genius can be woefully wrong.

Poor scientist that needs "Peer review" from their already religious educated pompious educated heads. This makes scientists nothing more than followers of already established ideas, whilst the scientists that will be remembered will be those that did not need peer reviews, because they KNEW THEIR FINDINGS WAS NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT SUPERIOR TO THE ESTABLISHED THEORIES!

It's like you are trying to set a record for errant nonsensical claims about science, luckily I have encountered precisely this errant nonsense from creationists before, and have learned to smile and roll my eyes.

True, peer review is needed and nessesary, but what if the Peers are narrow minded? What if any person comes up with a theory that might sound a bit Biblical?

I don't think you understand how peer review works, and scientific theories cannot be based on biblical hearsay, that is axiomatic if one has any grasp of either the errancy of biblical myths, or the remotest grasp of science.

How Brets was given a congresional medal decades later for his discovery?

How was it validated? This is like shooting superstitious fish in a barrel.

Do you see the results?

Yes, I see science validating results, and religions clinging to archaic unevidenced superstition.

you are dominated by old thinking?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Wrong. The church was mad at him.

Well, your claim is one that is spread by anti religious scientists who some how want to prove that the "Church" tried to demand that the Bible was correct (even in relaying an incorrect scientific description), and science was undermined by religious leaders.

However, this is perhaps the worst lie ever!

I am placing a link where you can see, in a short summary, how science was the domain of the Jesuite priests of the day.
How most Jeuites aggreed with Galileo and Copernicus, but how the most influential Jesuites, such as Bellarmine and Scheiner tried thir best to silence Gallileo.
I bet you never knew that!

You see, here we again have a situation that the "Peer review by the elitist scientists" decided that Galileo's evidence are not in line with the established narative!
and they tried to scielence him.
Jesuits and Galileo: tradition and adventure of discovery
It had just about nothing to do with the Bible, it might have had something to do with the Catholic Church, but...
The fact that Galileo was forced to recant his scientific discoveries, had everything to do with pompous elitist educated fools who only wanted to further their own agenda!

I hope you learned something.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Hahahhahahahahhaa, he was ordered not to oppose the absolute authority of church doctrine by the Pope, and when he refused, mistakenly thinking that the objective scientific evidence he had gathered for the theories of a Copernican universe, would change the mind of religious zealots, they arrested him, and subjected him to the Inquisition. You seem to be rewriting history now, as hilarious as it is dishonest.

I gave a link about who it was that forced Galileo to recant.
You are wrong to say it was the "Church and therefore the Bible is false!
Anyhow, even if you dont agree with the fact that Galileo fas forced by Jesuite priests, who was the leaders of the College of Rome, and the scientists of the day, it does not say the Biblical description is wrong.

Therefore to somehow think that an incorrect claim by some church, or sect, or anyone misrepresenting the Biblical description, invalidates the Bible, is an horrendous error!
Judge every fact from its own sources.