Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Subduction Zone]

Your posts speak for themselves...devoid of content.

dad you need to quit making false claims about others. I will gladly help you to learn if you wish to. I can help you to understand the Bible too. Once you learn you might even quit calling your God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One must support a claimed uniform past, rather than say the word as if it has meaning to their fantasy. In the case of the nature in Adam and Noah's day, science does not know what that nature was. Dance all day, it won't change that.

Been there done that. Until you provide evidence to the contrary you lose. In fact you need to provide evidence for your altered state past. You know that you have none.

I can help you understand logic too so that you do not keep making this gross error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One must support a claimed uniform past, rather than say the word as if it has meaning to their fantasy. In the case of the nature in Adam and Noah's day, science does not know what that nature was. Dance all day, it won't change that.

So you must prove that the world was not created last Thursday.

Do you see the flaw in your "logic" yet?

 

[Sapiens]

One must support a claimed uniform past, rather than say the word as if it has meaning to their fantasy. In the case of the nature in Adam and Noah's day, science does not know what that nature was. Dance all day, it won't change that.

Words are cheap, the value is to be found in evidence. There is lots of scientific evidence as to what past conditions were, there is none to support your contentions. In fact, there is no evidence that your so called, "Adam and Noah's day," ever was.

 

[dad1]

dad you need to quit making false claims about others. I will gladly help you to learn if you wish to. I can help you to understand the Bible too. Once you learn you might even quit calling your God a liar.

More empty posting.

 

[dad1]

Been there done that. Until you provide evidence to the contrary you lose. In fact you need to provide evidence for your altered state past. You know that you have none.

I can help you understand logic too so that you do not keep making this gross error.

Pretend you posted something. Lame canard.

 

[dad1]

So you must prove that the world was not created last Thursday.

Do you see the flaw in your "logic" yet?

Yes...I read your post.

 

[dad1]

Words are cheap, the value is to be found in evidence. There is lots of scientific evidence as to what past conditions were, there is none to support your contentions

None, actually.

. In fact, there is no evidence that your so called, "Adam and Noah's day," ever was.

Where have you hid this evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

None, actually.
Where have you hid this evidence?

Now, let's get this straight.

You are claiming that there is no scientific evidence as to the conditions on Earth in the past?

Further, you are claiming that there is scientific evidence supporting your claims concerning past conditions, but that I have hidden it?

 

[dad1]

Now, let's get this straight.

You are claiming that there is no scientific evidence as to the conditions on Earth in the past?

'Conditions'? No. The issue is what nature, what forces and laws existed...not whether there was water or rocks.

Further, you are claiming that there is scientific evidence supporting your claims concerning past conditions, but that I have hidden it?

No. I asked where you hid the so called evidence you alluded to? Try posting it.

 

[Sapiens]

'Conditions'? No. The issue is what nature, what forces and laws existed...not whether there was water or rocks.

Are you positing that the conditions are not reflective of the forces and laws in effect?

 

[dad1]

Are you positing that the conditions are not reflective of the forces and laws in effect?

No. But if the nature was different then, how would that reflect on a rock or anything we now see? We would assume from this end looking at things that they all got here in our nature, and in the way things now happen. If trees grew in a few weeks, with rings, in the past, for example, we would look at those rings, and assume they took a long time to grow, as they now would in this nature.

 

[Sapiens]

No. But if the nature was different then, how would that reflect on a rock or anything we now see? We would assume from this end looking at things that they all got here in our nature, and in the way things now happen. If trees grew in a few weeks, with rings, in the past, for example, we would look at those rings, and assume they took a long time to grow, as they now would in this nature.

... and if my grandmother had two wheels she might be a bicycle ... get real and look at the frozen ice cores.

 

[dad1]

.. look at the frozen ice cores.

You thought ice was laid down the same in the former nature? You would need to show nature was the same in the past first. You can't. A lot of ice doesn't help you in the least. Nor does radioactive decay assumptions about the past. Give it up.

 

[Sapiens]

Ice, dust, trapped atmospheric bubbles, C-12, C-14, Oxygen isotopes, consistency up and down core ... sorry dad, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[dad1]

Ice, dust, trapped atmospheric bubbles, C-12, C-14, Oxygen isotopes, consistency up and down core ... sorry dad, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

I do. You do not. If nature changed, tell us why isotopes in ice..up or down would not be all affected? Ha. The only issue is whether nature was the same or not. The game here is not 'let's see how many ways we can look at different things as if nature was the same'!

 

[Sapiens]

I do. You do not. If nature changed, tell us why isotopes in ice..up or down would not be all affected? Ha. The only issue is whether nature was the same or not. The game here is not 'let's see how many ways we can look at different things as if nature was the same'!

It is quite clear to all of science that nature has not changed, it is only your aberrant reading of your fabulous bible that stands between you and reality.

 

[gnostic]

Now it does. That is the way OUR present laws and nature work. In the former nature...you have NO idea how changes occurred. Face it.

Again, you make claims, baseless as they always are, about nature being different before the Flood, and as always you are unable to provide examples with evidences.

All you got are just your warped opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do. You do not. If nature changed, tell us why isotopes in ice..up or down would not be all affected? Ha. The only issue is whether nature was the same or not. The game here is not 'let's see how many ways we can look at different things as if nature was the same'!

The amount of energy released for one thing. If you raise the rate of decay you clearly increase the amount of energy released per day, year, what have you. Worse yet higher rates of radioactivity are associated with higher energy decays, You are raising the amount of energy in two different ways. Since you are increasing the rate of decay on the order of a billion you would have melted the crust and boiled the oceans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes...I read your post.

But you did not understand it.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you. We have a lot of work to do.