Theistic Evolution

[RV_Wizard]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

it if happened in just a few years, the energy needed to accelerate the continents and then slow them back down would have to be released as heat. 

The energy came from God, and He can create or re-create without consequence.
 

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Even worse for your belief,

You mean for your non-belief?  Why do you say you're a Christian and attack everything in the Bible?  I once asked you which miracles you believed.  You couldn't name one.  That is very telling.

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And no creationist seems able to explain those forests and deserts that sprung up in the middle of the "flood year."

That's easy.  Your math is wrong.

22 hours ago, Sparks said:

What you see is was the wrath of God against the world in the form of a world-wide flood,

Exactly!

21 hours ago, Diamond said:

The concept of male and female evolved over a long period of time

Only with the Democratic party.

21 hours ago, Diamond said:

Then someone comes along who did not even put five min of effort into it and they think they know more than the experts with Phd's.  

Learning things that are not true is indoctrination, not education.  A mentally retarded person who dropped out of school after the 5th grade but accepts Jesus and goes to Heaven has more wisdom than a man with 5 PhD's who dies lost and goes to Hell.

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.  For example, the testing of the flow that buried Pompeii merely analyzed the sample, and came up with a date that when checked, came remarkably close for such a short time.

So you're claiming that these guys are just lying?  

The lie is not showing their work.  Notice, they don't show their math or how they arrived at this date.  It's because the math to turn isotopes into time is bogus.  Further, you don't just hit the 'argon argon' button, and get an answer.  

Incidentally, they do that in the climate change hoax, too.  Missing math like light to heat conversion, and etc.  You do have people who will lie in the scientific community for a little money.

[RV_Wizard]

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

What was a relatively small lake became a huge sea.

You have never offered an explanation how a low lying area with easy run-off to the sea could have waters so deep they covered mountain peaks.  The sea levels themselves would have to rise.  Incidentally, that's what the Bible says happened.

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The Bible says that "the land" was flooded. 

How would you know what the Bible says?  As I posted for you, it says:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Does that sound like a local flood to you?  It looks pretty inclusive to Christians, which is why Christians have accepted the historical accuracy of the flood from the beginning.

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle every time

Since I just posted the quote from Genesis 7, which, incidentally IS part of the Scriptures, it's very clear to everyone here that you are once again lying.

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The lie is not showing their work.  Notice, they don't show their math or how they arrived at this date. 

Of course they did.   C'mon.   It was published in Science.    If all you have is to accuse all scientists of lying, you're pretty much finished here.

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's because the math to turn isotopes into time is bogus.

So now all the physicists are lying, too?   C'mon.

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Further, you don't just hit the 'argon argon' button, and get an answer.  

Where did they say that?    They didn't, did they?

45 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Incidentally, they do that in the climate change hoax, too. 

The hoaxers have sort of changed their story.    It used to be "there is no climate change", but after decades of observed change, they sort of shifted to "O.K., there is climate change, but it's not our fault."   There's a lot of money to be made in climate denial.

But save that for the "conspiracy theory" forum.   Start a thread on that, and I'll show you where the money is.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

it if happened in just a few years, the energy needed to accelerate the continents and then slow them back down would have to be released as heat. 

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The energy came from God, and He can create or re-create without consequence.

Ah, another "It's a miracle!' invention.    Handy gadgets, those.   

Even worse for your belief, in the middle of your supposed "flood deposits" , we see deserts and forests that one would have to believe popped into existence in the middle of the flood.  

58 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Why do you say you're a Christian and attack everything in the Bible?

Your new beliefs are not the Bible.   And you aren't God.   Are you now claiming God miraculously created forests and deserts in the middle of the flood?    For what purpose?

59 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

That's easy.  Your math is wrong.

How does math put deserts and forests in the middle of "flood deposits?"  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

What you see is was the wrath of God against the world in the form of a world-wide flood

But of course God didn't say it was a world-wide flood.  That's your invention.   If He had meant "world", He would have said "world."

 

[Sparks]

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Of course they did.   C'mon.   It was published in Science.    If all you have is to accuse all scientists of lying, you're pretty much finished here.

You have not shown the white paper, or the various other labs that have produced the same results, and so on.  It's called P-Hacking to show just one result.

When you have questions about, say a metal purity, or a bone age, you send the samples around to various labs and let them test the sample, too.  The different types of instruments and various labs can produce their results, and they are usually averaged if they are close.

Show me the exact math, that it was peer-reviewed and not kicked by the reviewers, that it was not retracted by the study, and that other labs reproduced the same results that they got, and you might have a point. 

Good luck!

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The hoaxers have sort of changed their story.    It used to be "there is no climate change", but after decades of observed change, they sort of shifted to "O.K., there is climate change, but it's not our fault."   There's a lot of money to be made in climate denial.

There is more money made with climate change, and that is the lie.  I am saying there are professional liars in scientific circles.  Look at the databases at Retraction Watch to see the massive list of liars, and their lies.

Retraction Watch

P.S.  Let's count the logical fallacies you have committed.  Add Appeal to Authority. 

[The Barbarian]

Yep.  That's what happened when the basin flooded.   What was a relatively small lake became a huge sea.

50 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have never offered an explanation how a low lying area with easy run-off to the sea could have waters so deep they covered mountain peaks.

That's the nature of basins.   They don't have easy run-off to the sea.  
A basin is a depression, or dip, in the Earth’s surface. Basins are shaped like bowls, with sides higher than the bottom. They can be oval or circular in shape, similar to a sink or tub you might have in your own bathroom. Some are filled with water. Others are empty.

52 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The sea levels themselves would have to rise. 

Inside the basin.   A rather minor lake became a large sea as a result of the flood.   Some of it did run off as the flooding ended, but the sea remained.

The Bible says that "the land" was flooded. 

53 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

How would you know what the Bible says? 

The Hebrew version uses "erets" (land) instead of "tebel" (world).   Because you don't read it carefully, you make mistakes like that.

56 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Since I just posted the quote from Genesis 7, which, incidentally IS part of the Scriptures

And says "land" not "world."    You just revised what it says to make it fit your own wishes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course they did.   C'mon.   It was published in Science.    If all you have is to accuse all scientists of lying, you're pretty much finished here.

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You have not shown the white paper, or the various other labs that have produced the same results, and so on.  It's called P-Hacking to show just one result.

You made the accusation.   Up to you to support it.   And we all know you won't, don't we?

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

There is more money made with climate change,

Start a new thread and I'll show you where the money is.  You'll be very surprised.    Yes, I've taken a long look at that.  But let's stay on topic here.

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Let's count the logical fallacies you have committed.  Add Appeal to Authority. 

If I pay more attention to my physician than my plumber as to whether or not I should have a medical procedure, that's "an appeal to authority."   Just as I give more credence to the journal Science than to you.    For the same reasons.    Did you really not understand this?

Your fallacy here was to miss the key element in a false appeal to authority...

"As a Ph. D. candidate in particle physics I believe I can say with some authority that the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax."

See the difference?   

Properly speaking, the appeal to  authority fallacy is an appeal to unqualified authority.

[Sparks]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You made the accusation.   Up to you to support it.   And we all know you won't, don't we?

You presented what they said as fact and it lacked the math.  You support it.

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You presented what they said as fact and it lacked the math. 

So you made the claim that it lacks math.   Up to you to support it.   Here's your chance: the actual article, w links to the data:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.277.5330.1279

We all know why you won't.