my faith doesn't disprove science

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="nuclear_cookout"][QUOTE="espoac"]

Evolution is backed up by an enormous body of evidence. I'm not even going to explain this however to someone who obviously hasn't investigated it themselves. Hint: pick any Biology textbook.

Naturalistic explanations of the universe have come to a point where God is no longer necessary to explain things.

Fireball2500

BTW, I disagree with that statement, but if you want proof against it, well, I do remember some info, but I don't think you'll accept it as valid, or I forgot the source..

BTW, your sig...Did Silver really say that?

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="nuclear_cookout"][QUOTE="espoac"]

Evolution is backed up by an enormous body of evidence. I'm not even going to explain this however to someone who obviously hasn't investigated it themselves. Hint: pick any Biology textbook.

Naturalistic explanations of the universe have come to a point where God is no longer necessary to explain things.

verparanoidpers

BTW, did silver_dragon really say that?

One more thing. It may focus on stuff you may not care about.Fireball2500

One more thing. It may focus on stuff you may not care about.Fireball2500

Now, don't blame me about the material. On second thought, it may take me a little bit of time to get the info.

Now, don't blame me about the material. On second thought, it may take me a little bit of time to get the info.

Fireball2500

Now, don't blame me about the material. On second thought, it may take me a little bit of time to get the info.

Fireball2500

Now, don't blame me about the material. On second thought, it may take me a little bit of time to get the info.

Fireball2500

Man, I can't believe I forgot the place it gives some proof....and I have to do some dishes. I'm sorry for taking this much time...

Man, I can't believe I forgot the place it gives some proof....and I have to do some dishes. I'm sorry for taking this much time...

Fireball2500

I'm ashmed it took me this much time...

• From a different book, there was supposedly a human footprint on a rock which evolutionists claimed was formed way before humans were made, but some will take this down.

Oh man..where is it...I just had a thing on it...

I'm ashmed it took me this much time...

• From a different book, there was supposedly a human footprint on a rock which evolutionists claimed was formed way before humans were made, but some will take this down.

Oh man..where is it...I just had a thing on it...

Fireball2500

I'm ashmed it took me this much time...

• From a different book, there was supposedly a human footprint on a rock which evolutionists claimed was formed way before humans were made, but some will take this down.

Oh man..where is it...I just had a thing on it...

Fireball2500

OK, I can't find exactly what it said. I'm tired, I just finshed a time-consuming algebra assagiment....

But this was an overall linement of what it said. It said that something, man I wish I could remember what it was, that was involving DNA, I think, and evolutionists said that the more complex an organism was, the more it had, but something really small, aquatic life of some sort, had more of it than a cat. I really wish I could give a more accurate descripton of it.

.......


RADIOCARBONDATING!!!!


/thread

Radiocarbon dating proves that there are rocks that are billions of years old! how old did the Bible say Earth was? :| Oh yeah, 4,000 years. Explain that.
hamstergeddon

.......


POTASSIUM-ARGONDATING!!!


/thread

Radiocarbon dating proves that there are rocks that are billions of years old! how old did the Bible say Earth was? :| Oh yeah, 4,000 years. Explain that.
hamstergeddon

People say a lot of things on their death bed. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Atheists and Agnostics made a reversal in the face of death.helium_flash

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"].......


RADIOCARBONDATING!!!!


/thread

Radiocarbon dating proves that there are rocks that are billions of years old! how old did the Bible say Earth was? :| Oh yeah, 4,000 years. Explain that.
Fireball2500

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"].......


RADIOCARBONDATING!!!!


/thread

Radiocarbon dating proves that there are rocks that are billions of years old! how old did the Bible say Earth was? :| Oh yeah, 4,000 years. Explain that.
hamstergeddon

the Earth is trillions of years old
hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]What happens when the sun goes red giant and kills us all? There ends God's fun :roll:foxhound_fox

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

Fireball2500

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

the Earth is trillions of years old
quiglythegreat

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

Fireball2500

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

the Earth is trillions of years old
hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

the Earth is trillions of years old
hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

verparanoidpers

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"].......


RADIOCARBONDATING!!!!


/thread

Radiocarbon dating proves that there are rocks that are billions of years old! how old did the Bible say Earth was? :| Oh yeah, 4,000 years. Explain that.
Fireball2500

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

the Earth is trillions of years old
quiglythegreat

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

Fireball2500

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

the Earth is trillions of years old
verparanoidpers

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

CptJSparrow

YECs, you're gonna have to debunk all of these methods

• argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
• fission track dating
• helium (He-He)
• iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
• lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
• lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
• lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
• neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
• optically stimulated luminescence dating
• potassium-argon (K-Ar)
• radiocarbon dating
• rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
• rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
• samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
• uranium-lead (U-Pb)
• uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
• uranium-thorium (U-Th)
• uranium-uranium (U-U)

We are all biased in some ways. One's definition of proof can be full of holes to another. It's basically another way of saying, "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" when it comes to things like these. I can say the same thing towards evolution and Creation, one will look at one theory as having so many holes that he/she will laugh at people who believe it, another will see the same theory as perfect in every way.

That's the problem with religion topics. It's basically the two people trying to either expose the holes that he/she sees, or show there's no holes.

I'm sorry I can't debunk the theories you want to have debunked, but I can't really do things like that. What did you expect from someone who freaked out a little bit from his algebra assaginment?

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

Fireball2500

We are all biased in some ways. One's definition of proof can be full of holes to another. It's basically another way of saying, "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" when it comes to things like these. I can say the same thing towards evolution and Creation, one will look at one theory as having so many holes that he/she will laugh at people who believe it, another will see the same theory as perfect in every way.

That's the problem with religion topics. It's basically the two people trying to either expose the holes that he/she sees, or show there's no holes.

Fireball2500

[QUOTE="verparanoidpers"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

the Earth is trillions of years old
CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

We are all biased in some ways. One's definition of proof can be full of holes to another. It's basically another way of saying, "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" when it comes to things like these. I can say the same thing towards evolution and Creation, one will look at one theory as having so many holes that he/she will laugh at people who believe it, another will see the same theory as perfect in every way.

That's the problem with religion topics. It's basically the two people trying to either expose the holes that he/she sees, or show there's no holes.

CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

We are all biased in some ways. One's definition of proof can be full of holes to another. It's basically another way of saying, "Another man's trash is another man's treasure" when it comes to things like these. I can say the same thing towards evolution and Creation, one will look at one theory as having so many holes that he/she will laugh at people who believe it, another will see the same theory as perfect in every way.

That's the problem with religion topics. It's basically the two people trying to either expose the holes that he/she sees, or show there's no holes.

Fireball2500

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"]

Wow, I found it.

It claimed that if evolution was true, the bigger the organism was, the more chorosomes it would have. Yet, they had a thing of data showing a horse witb 64 chorosomes, and a crayfish with 200 chorosomes.

verparanoidpers