Science and the Bible...

[Gargamel Bojangles]

On 2/27/2016 at 0:55 AM, Sister said:

Golden shark

Wasn't Carbon dating proven to be unreliable?

 

yes,, carbon dating has debunked

[Goldenshark123]

Old carbon dating techniques and machines were slightly off sometimes, but moderrn dating is much more accurate. I will now challenge you to prove evolution is not true, since you seem to refute all logical evidence I present to you. 

[ARGOSY]

 

16 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

Old carbon dating techniques and machines were slightly off sometimes, but moderrn dating is much more accurate. I will now challenge you to prove evolution is not true, since you seem to refute all logical evidence I present to you. 

Lol, well if we are succesfully refuting everything you put forward, that is enough. In the end you are left with no evidence of long-term evolving, yet the sudden appearance of all animal phyla during the Cambrian Explosion. The evidence supports creationism.

[Goldenshark123]

No evidence at all supports creationism. Macroevolution is simply a 'zoomed out' version of microevolution

[ARGOSY]

16 minutes ago, Goldenshark123 said:

No evidence at all supports creationism. Macroevolution is simply a 'zoomed out' version of microevolution

I suggest you read and respond to answers to your posts. In that way we can have a meaningful discussion.   In my last post I mentioned the "Cambrian explosion".  The unexplained sudden appearance of advanced life-forms. Creationism explains this, evoltuion has no explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion       The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

Then earlier I explained that the long-term evolution as claimed by evolutionists has not yet been observed in nature or laboratory conditions. Evolution claims that we have all evolved from some original prokaryote type organism. But that organism only has about 1000 genes. Most organisms have more than 10000 novel active functional genes. So your long-term micro  = macro viewpoint does not apply in reality because we do not see new novel uniquely functional genes appearing in micro-evolution.  Evolution is a theory with no evidence.

[Sister]

12 hours ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

yes,, carbon dating has debunked

Thank you, I was waiting for someone to verify that.  So carbon dating can't be used to supply proof then.

[Sister]

10 hours ago, Goldenshark123 said:

Old carbon dating techniques and machines were slightly off sometimes, but moderrn dating is much more accurate. I will now challenge you to prove evolution is not true, since you seem to refute all logical evidence I present to you. 

Carbon dating was only slightly off? 

[OakWood]

On 25/02/2016 at 4:14 PM, Reinitin said:

I do not have any issues with the creation account. Some doctrines twist the heck out of it and support all kinds of false theologies with it. But I have no issues believing exactly what is said.

Correct.

Let me tell you something - Science is not wrong. Science is never wrong. God gave us intelligence, eyes to see with and ears to ear with...... and the application of these things is what science is all about. Test something by experiment and you will have science.

Unfortunately, what is being passed off as science today is not always science.......

Let's look at evolution for example. Evolution does NOT follow the scientific method, and is not scientific.

Evolution cannot be tested, cannot be measured and cannot be duplicated - therefore IT IS NOT scientific.

The same can be said for man-made Global Warming. It's not scientific.

We are been lied to. The propaganda is powerful and has fooled many people.

Science does not lie, but unfortunately 'scientists' often do.......

 

[Sister]

13 hours ago, Goldenshark123 said:

Old carbon dating techniques and machines were slightly off sometimes, but moderrn dating is much more accurate. I will now challenge you to prove evolution is not true, since you seem to refute all logical evidence I present to you. 

 

1 hour ago, OakWood said:

 

Goldenshark123

If they are teaching evolution in our schools and universities, wouldn't it make more sense for you guys to prove that evolution is true? 

[OakWood]

2 hours ago, Sister said:

 

Goldenshark123

If they are teaching evolution in our schools and universities, wouldn't it make more sense for you guys to prove that evolution is true? 

But evolution is not true. How can you prove a lie to be true?