Kevinb

1to3... indeed the bible seems to indicate a flat earth. This isn't validated scientifically of course.. only those who attempt to valid with ludicrous notions not substantiated... but must be true at all costs because the bible asserts it. Btw to believe flat earth you'll need to throw out the sun is a burning sphere of hydrogen.. gravity... and a whole can of worms more..also you need to demonstrably demonstrate the curved earth shadow on a non full moon isn't the earth and a whole host of other things. The earth stands on pillars.. what do the pillars stand on? The former has been scientically validated for a spherical earth... the flat earth not. Other threads here have been taken over with this non debate.. catch up on those maybe so we can avoid it again here? Also research yourself...lots of info on the net from all nations.. sources..uni lectures etc. Do this objectively and you should have no issue throwing out flat earth. Good luck.

This is based on scientific understanding... this is why the God popped animals into existence gets thrown out of courts and this is why evolution is taught in science classes. Re the dna mapping doesn't add to evolution being true isn't the case... and those doing the work in this scientific field including the head of the genome project disagree with you. Lots of lectures to read if you're open minded or interested. What evidence is there that God created them in the garden of Eden? Is this where we have carnivorous dinosaurs grazing vegetation next to Adam and eve before mans sins turned the vegetative eating carnivores into meat eaters? Evidence for this or the bible being evidence for the bible again? Can you honestly say you'd not already decided evolution is wrong as per your faith then went looking to debunk or you approached all evidence objectively without bias? If you could be objective then you'd appreciate the overwhelming evidence and if you think it's not overwhelming or the best model of origins then you've been reading in the wrong places. One could believe anything on faith...religious or otherwise... faith isnt a pathway to truth I've realised.. faith is what we need in the absence of evidence. Objectively looking at evidence and critical thinking is the only best way to believe the most amount of correct things as possible. This isn't easy for some to do... I've extended family who are quite fundamentalist... indoctrination is very powerful and hard if not impossible to free up after a lifetime of investment.

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004). There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998). Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999). Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden: The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals. Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see. The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into. Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997). Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997). Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995). Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992). Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994). Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997). References: Allwood, A. C. et al. 2006. Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia. Nature 441: 714-718. See also Awramik, Stanley M. 2006. Respect for stromatolites. Nature 441: 700-701. Brocks, J. J., G. A. Logan, R. Buick and R. E. Summons, 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285: 1033-1036. See also Knoll, A. H., 1999. A new molecular window on early life.Science 285: 1025-1026.http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5430/1025 Brown, Kathryn S., 1999. Deep Green rewrites evolutionary history of plants. Science 285: 990-991. Budd, Graham E. and Sören Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla.Biological Reviews 75: 253-295. Canfield, D. E. and A. Teske, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen concentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382: 127-132. See also: Knoll, A. H., 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112. Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press. Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4457-4462.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457 Chen, J.-Y. et al., 2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Science 305: 218-222,http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213. See also Stokstad, E., 2004. Controversial fossil could shed light on early animals' blueprint. Science 304: 1425. Collins, Allen G., 1994. Metazoa: Fossil record.http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford. Cook, P. J. and J. H. Shergold (eds.), 1986. Phosphate Deposits of the World, Volume 1. Proterozoic and Cambrian Phosphorites. Cambridge University Press. Furnes, H., N. R. Banerjee, K. Muehlenbachs, H. Staudigel and M. de Wit, 2004. Early life recorded in Archean pillow lavas. Science 304: 578-581. Hoffman, Paul F. et al., 1998. A Neoproterozoic snowball earth. Science 281: 1342-1346. See also: Kerr, Richard A., 1998. Did an ancient deep freeze nearly doom life? Science 281: 1259,1261. Kerr, Richard A., 2000. An appealing snowball earth that's still hard to swallow. Science 287: 1734-1736. Logan, G. A., J. M. Hayes, G. B. Hieshima and R. E. Summons, 1995. Terminal Proterozoic reorganization of biogeochemical cycles. Nature 376: 53-56. See also Walter, M., 1995. Faecal pellets in world events. Nature376: 16-17. Lipps, J. H. and P. W. Signor (eds.), 1992. Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. New York: Plenum Press. Martin, M. W. et al., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288: 841-845. See also Kerr, Richard A., 2000. Stretching the reign of early animals. Science 288: 789. Miller, Arnold I., 1997. Dissecting global diversity patterns: Examples from the Ordovician radiation.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85-104. Porter, Susannah M. and Andrew H. Knoll, 2000. Testate amoebae in the Neoproterozoic Era: evidence from vase-shaped microfossils in the Chuar Group, Grand Canyon. Paleobiology 26(3): 360-385. Rasmussen, B., S. Bengtson, I. R. Fletcher and N. J. McNaughton, 2002. Discoidal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Science296: 1112-1115. Schopf, J. W., 1993. Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New evidence of the antiquity of life.Science 260: 640-646. Shen, Y., R. Buick and D. E. Canfield, 2001. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410: 77-81. Thomas, A. L. R., 1997. The breath of life -- did increased oxygen levels trigger the Cambrian Explosion? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 44-45. Valentine, James W., Allen G. Collins and C. Porter Meyer, 1994. Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20(2): 131-142. Wang, D. Y.-C., S. Kumar and S. B. Hedges, 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 163-71.

I must disagree... the fossil record completely supports evolution... just been reading about whale evolution. Also you've heard of tiktaalik? Actually discovered during the famous Dover trial when the judge ruled evolution should remain in science education. Not only that but the fossil record is in date order...ie find a rabbit in the Cambrian? As I said the fossil record is a small part of the story too. How about dna evidence? Speciation? Embryology? Vestigial remnants in genome as well as what physically manifests on anatomy. I'm afraid evolution theory is very well established. Darwin knew nothing of the genome of course.. the theory grows stronger all the while. We've even observed evolution in a few years if the pressures are right...300 plus examples. See the island lizard example below for one. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html The problem I now see as a newish non theist is. If you have a faith then go looking for evidence... you've assigned a huge bias before you've even got started. Ie belief forming evidence instead of the evidence should form your belief. I'm sure most don't do it in other aspects of life or workplace so why here. On the clades stuff...interesting. This means you've been able to come part way..as far as your faith will allow. I now see things so clearly.... there's no issue here... there's no scientific controversy...in fact there really is no debate at all ..it all fits and we'll learn more along the way. A fantastic human achievement.

Supported by the Cambrian explosion? Well this is millions of years ago too... how's that supported by the bible? this cambrian explosion is still 100s of thousands of years plus. We're lucky to have any fossils ... not complete for all branches but evolution doesn't hang solely on this record of course. Investigate embryology to corroberate evolution...dolphins developing hind legs.. that gets aborted as the dolphin develops. Vestigial hind leg remnants remain in the developed adult body.. go research...search pics... even museums with the skeletal layout of dolphins whales snakes with show this. Human foetus developing a covering of hair that later in development is lost. Just 2 examples. Francis Collins who is religious and head of the genome project said Dna mapping alone is enough to prove common ancestry..ie evolution. We've mapped the human genome now of course... humans have dna remnants for developing egg sacks.. search for chromosome 2..search for mapping neandathol dna.. most modern day humans have 1 to 3 % neandathol dna in their code. Scientists are even now attributing some modern medical conditions to this part of our make up. Modern medicine is increasingly tailored to an individual's dna.. childhood leukaemia.. and cancer is next more than it was. This isn't in dispute by those that are in the field. Speciation.. should be read also...lots of great stuff and lectures out there. The germ theory of disease I'll assume isn't in dispute..evolution theory is just as established but I understand why most Christians here are duty bound to attack the later. Also on pillars... this is the flat earth nonsense again but where are they? What are they made of? What are the pillars standing on..a flying turtle maybe? What's the corroberative evidence to support pillars. Using scripture to prove scripture for pillars is a circular reasoning fallacy of course.

I must say bizarrely I've become a non believer since joining the site..my faith as such wasn't particularly devoted or ingrained. Discussions here just made me question everything. I'm troubled by some of what supposedly sanctioned including slaughtering women children and beasts. Stoning your children..women if they don't scream loud enough while being raped. Owning and beating other human beings as slaves in exodus etc. One continuous thread but there is clear sanctioned immorality here and lots of contradictions. You say God used western nations to do that now? What is the evidence for divine involvement here beyond western governments acting of their own accord to stop the murdering and vile ISIS doctrine. If God was micro managing then why didn't he just stop the horrible stuff like ISIS in it's tracks before they were murdering innocent people. I'd say not resistance... for me it's about reason and evidence as a pathway to truth. I could believe anything on faith right but what's the most reliable method. If I saw evidence I'd believe again.

In many instances in the OT, God wipes out, or has Israel destory other nations, cities, tribes, etc...for idolatry, or pagan practices. Why does he not do that NOW? Surely there is more of it going on. There are more religions, cults, disbelievers, etc... Yes it appears it's down to man to sort man. ISIS is nearly done in Iraq and Syria largely by Western intervention. If a religious person was to write about it maybe he'd say with Gods help or authority or something... in thousands of years this version could be added to a religious book and look like God did it. Maybe this was always the case.

Whether people were bled as such in some sacrificial way... I'm sure they were but people would have died from injury..attack..warring too. The Roman army was a professional outfit rarely matched. In any case you don't think there was pretty much constant fighting killing over land and all sorts of other reasons? I think it would have been evident that people could die from blood loss injury.

Yikes... you'll give yourself nightmares Aristotle ? Joseph Smith... well the inception of this so called religion is so recent we've so much info on the history here. It seems clear he used it for his own sexual and financial gratification yet people are still signing up to this..bizarre and worrying example of how easily people can be led astray.

Although based on the bible the Mormon religion is a clear con. Famously illiterate Joseph Smith deciphered his golden tablets in English of a century before the time of discovery to his wife. She then tore up the the translation to which he couldn't replicate accurately lol. Plus no one else was allowed to see his magic tablets of course. He also charged people money to not find treasures for them and was a known convicted con man right? On top of the recent marriage stuff. I can't fathom how people can be Mormons I must say

The life of the flesh is in the blood." Leviticus 17:11. It seems easy to pick apart every so called piece of science here... I'm sure people witnessed others dying from blood loss injuries... surely it's just obvious to note that those who loose masses of blood die...ergo the line in Leviticus. No doubt this was realised long before the bible too. If the bible detailed a scientific and medical understanding of what occurs during blood loss then the statement would be way ahead of its time and remarkable..but as is it's just very basic observation and not remarkable at all to me. "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." Gen 1:29 Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals including humans that would eat them if we did some would make us seriously ill or worse All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas etc -- all were strict vegetarians? As they were created by God. Gen.1:30 . Clearly not what science tells us about such creatures.

There are no scientific problems in the bible? In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively. In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3) and the sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. (1:3) Let there be light God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? (1:16a) God made the two great lights. "The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? This is just the start of genesis. This isn't scientifically accurate... this doesn't reflect our scientific understanding. Also eve came from Adams rib...scientifically accurate? Please demonstrate the scientific understanding to support this? Someone requoted pillars..The earth is on pillars like a chair? The chair legs sit on the earth.. what do these pillars sit on? It seems to me one can have faith the bible is true... the same as any other religious book but to say it has no scientific problems like any other is misguided. Also you are adding in part the understanding from science... so for example..."Behold the height of the stars, how high they are." Job 22:12. How is this scientific..a 2 year old could look up in the night sky and see they are high up.. can see they can be hidden by the clouds which are high up then remerge as the clouds pass..ie clouds aren't as high. What would have been scientific is if the bible said how far they are and how that was reached. In any case doesn't it say elsewhere the stars are angels? Scientific? Please demonstrate

How does a balloon survive the Temps in the thermosphere? Using your argument. What are the melting points of balloons? Sound familiar ?. A satellite couldn't survive that high using titanium carbides but a balloon can? See other thread..many here have been on both. He he yes the claim and explanation for 93 mill has been explained..you've cited the figure yourself..you must have read why and where that's come about..what's your alternative distance and size of sun...if you can't demonstrate this..it's just your word..sorry you're not understanding. Maybe it's 10 mill..1 mill..100k..300 mill. Demonstrate a number or you've nothing but Enoch says no doubt incorporating his bias?. Okay you don't know it with precision ...what is it roughly and how do you know this approximate. Finally...something we agree on... you don't have the faintest idea. Others do...so speak for yourself.

Well you need to define your terms better. Hot spot could also mean wifi signal ?. Yes indeed but your sun pic has no features to tell depth or not. Again an opaque or blinding light pic without any features can be interpreted either way...very subjective. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/one-giant-sunspot-6-substantial-flares/ Copy link into browser. Happened to be nasa but I see images from masses of sources around the world. Now we have feature...sphere of burning hydrogen or magic flat disk? So how does the sun work...how does it produce light? What are the northern lights? If the pic of reflection you've posted is accurate...demonstrate the distance from earth to sun to refute the 93 mill or whatever it was..I suspect you'd need to know size but you said you don't know that either. You can't just assert it's wrong and not demonstrate why using credible demonstrable means..or its just your unsubstantiated opinion again - argument from ignorance fallacy. Wow hang on 100k ish but the thermosphere is upwards from 90k..you need to be certain on this or I can just throw it out using your terms of we can't send anything into the thermosphere. ?

Right well you've been saying hot spot all this time..a hot spot is a spot that's hot...now it's a reflection...are you sure of your terminology before we move on? Nasa is busted but nasa was cited in your boliva bit of ground for your flat earth evidence. Also you say here the pic was taken at 100k ..the thermosphere starts at 90k..you said on other thread too satellites can't exist that high and say it's photoshop and cgi. It's almost like your arguments are full of holes and contractions ?. So let's say it's a reflection..so what...please demonstrate the distance the sun is from the earth based on this pic. You said you don't know the size of the sun too. Cool sun pic thanks... looks like a sphere also..opaque pics and glaring light don't demonstrate it either way. What road? Any road..many times on long stretches of road I've seen what looks like water ahead or shining reflection on hot sunny days when of course it's only tarmac. Tricks of the light. Anyway don't worry on this side issue..clearly there are bigger issues in your understanding and reasoning evidence without bias.

Okay so if pic is distorted let's throw it out or post a non distorted one. Again best way to measure temperature is using temp measuring instruments..not enoch says the picture looks hot. Clearly we don't agree...what's the best way to see who's right? Maybe measure temperature? Easy to prove you're right and so avoid your argument from ignorance fallacy. You seem confused by what I said ..maybe don't fragment my sentences and try and misrepresent what I said...I'll try again for you Light plays all kinds of tricks...for example..looks like water but it's just the road off in the distance..I'm sure most have seen that. You've never noticed that whilst driving? Anyway aren't clouds something to do with water in some way..sure I read that somewhere. yes I see you've no idea on sizes and scale. The suns not a sphere? What shape is it? Where's your evidence of shape of the sun?

Nice hot spot pic....demonstrates an awesome curved earth too. What altitude was this taken at? How do you know it's a hot spot...what's the temperature there compared to the surrounding? Cant just assert it or say looks like to you...best way to measure the heat..take temp readings or you've nothing credible -Arguement from ignorance fallacy. Light plays all kinds of tricks...for example..looks like water but it's just the road off in the distance..I'm sure most have seen that. The last one on light source causing a shadow. That's a mighty small light source or sun. Where's your evidence of accuracy of scale? What are the sizes of sun..moon and earth and distances? Last one I saw was only 95% but was amazing..eerie light quality..the birds suddenly went quiet and all was silent..love to experience a total eclipse.

On the age...of course it's circular..using how you read scripture to attempt to prove your interpreting of what scripture says on age is the prefect definition..where is your external coberation? Also yes people have also said here in chat the bible says nothing on age...some assert so called gap theory or whatever else to say old earth. To state pseudo you have not demonstrated this..get your evidence published as to why..get your evidence as to why reviewed..if found correct views will have to change. The view based upon evidence is old. Unfortunately there is no evidence for a young earth other than some and not all interpretations of the bible as we've seen. To call a belief in the actual evidence blind faith religion is bizarre..especially when the 6k ish alternative is being offered and how that's come about.

Start counting to get to a young earth...this is the circular reasoning fallacy. Ie the bible is true on age because it says in the bible. Also even this seems to be up for grabs on all different ages. I get you think you've refuted old earth but that's not the view of peer reviewed scientists. As you're not qualified in the vast array of diciplines as one without bias I'll go with those that are qualified until they are credibly forced to change based on evidence and indeed that person would inevitably win a nobel prize. It seems a big ask already discussed it's based on many many different things not just radiometric...and so far the alternative seems to be circular reasoning to assert an age. To me it boils down to taking into account all this..what's most likely.

Yes agreed. I understand some feel they must just accept young earth...else in their minds that reasoning could be applied to everything else then unravels but it doesn't have to be that way

Yeah..I've answered this. This science isnt refuted or it would be the new scientific understanding. Nobel prize...bias? Where is young earth evidence?

In the absence of anyone thus far winning a nobel prize for refuting and disproving many peer reviewed scientific disciplines and techniques that show an old earth. Does anyone know of any evidence for a young earth avoiding the circular reasoning fallacy..ie the bible is correct because it says in the bible. I mean actual peer reviewed and demonstrable evidence? Been trying to find on line but most stuff is just asserting refutes that isn't demonstrated or true. This doesn't get to a young earth...or do we only have circular reasoning assertions? I understand why people think young earth but that drops into this fallacy and a huge bias. Ie..the bible is clearly true to indicated a young earth therefore one must refute the evidence at all costs and no matter what is presented it must be wrong in this mindset. I get why people do it but to me this young earth view seems to be on faith..faith is what we need here in the absence of evidence or we'd call it evidence...and what's the best way to find what's true on this issue..or any. I'm sure everyone demands evidence in other aspects of life or work or whatever.

Point 5 in the opening post. To be consistent with the laws of physics? In what sense if an occurrence follows the laws of physics/the natural world is it a miracle. If demonstrated to follow the laws of physics how it is a miracle. Surely a miracle occurrence needs to break the natural laws otherwise where is a devine intervention? The Templeton foundation that's been desperately trying to prove prayer works on the sick had merely demonstrated it made no difference much to their dismay. Magnificent claims require magnificent evidence or we'd be forced to believe anything anyone cited right? The catholic church had given mother Theresa credit for 2 miracles...the 1st they detailed but was demonstrated not to be the case by her doctors of a woman recovering from illness. They had learned their lesson and refused to give detail of the eledged 2nd. The human body is an incredibly complicated thing...supposed miracles never seem to be things like organs being removed and new ones appearing out of thin air or people growing new limbs.

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example: The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001). Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997). Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999). Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

60%. Breaks my heart but the original trek looks like a spoof now. Bring on star trek voyager ☺