• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Key assumptions about Earth and Radiometric Dating by Scientists are wrong.

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
400 years ago, if you had said that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Church would have tried you for heresy. If found guilty, you would have been subject to the death penalty.

And today, the "church" is Darwinist.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
RD see post #142, you made a specific claim. I asked you to support it with a citation (or more if you wish) to the scientific literature. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'll wait.
 

Right Divider

Body part
RD see post #142, you made a specific claim. I asked you to support it with a citation (or more if you wish) to the scientific literature. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'll wait.

I'm not going to play your game.

YOUR claim is that chemicals magically come to life. Please provide evidence.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Ah RD the ball is in your court. You made a
very specific claim. You stated "It is quite well studied scientifically and confirmed that life does not naturally come into being via physics and chemistry"
I took that to mean you were aware of such scientific studies and their confirmation. I asked for references to those studies and confirmation. Should have been easy-peasy.
And now? Buppkus. Color me surprised.
Ah but you know I shouldn't be since I still wait that list of documents from Stripe to investigate/analyze Jesus resurrection
 

Right Divider

Body part
Ah RD the ball is in your court. You made a
very specific claim. You stated "It is quite well studied scientifically and confirmed that life does not naturally come into being via physics and chemistry"
I took that to mean you were aware of such scientific studies and their confirmation. I asked for references to those studies and confirmation. Should have been easy-peasy.
And now? Buppkus. Color me surprised.
Ah but you know I shouldn't be since I still wait that list of documents from Stripe to investigate/analyze Jesus resurrection

Have a laugh... read this (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis):
Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]
"Uncontroversial" and yet NO CLUE as to how it "might happen".

Note that when it says "its possible mechanisms are poorly understood", that is NOT true. There are NO KNOWN mechanisms.

Also note that chemicals coming to life isn't even good enough to be called a theory.

Once AGAIN, it is YOUR THEORY that says that chemicals came to life on their own.

Try this as a starting point in your research: https://answersingenesis.org/search/?refinement=&language=en&q=abiogenesis

P.S. Yes, I know, you reject AIG as a scientific source. So what?
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Oh dear RD, neither wiki nor AiG are citations to the scientific literature.
Even your wiki reference does not support your claim in post 142. Saying "well, we aren't sure" is not confirming that life did not come into being via physics and chemistry.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Oh dear RD, neither wiki nor AiG are citations to the scientific literature.
Even your wiki reference does not support your claim in post 142. Saying "well, we aren't sure" is not confirming that life did not come into being via physics and chemistry.

Your worship of "scientific literature" is duly noted.

How about getting back on TOPIC?
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
The original topic, from the first post, was by one of the
more irrational ToLers. She seemed to be beating around the edges of the hydroplate theory. If you want to use that particular bit of fantasy just shoot me now.

At some point we went to a discussion of whether science dealt with immaterial and/or supernatural things. At some point I suggested your brain worked by chemistry and physics. You claimed that was random and when you eventually agreed that chemistry was not random you stated on my "origin story".

so not really sure there ever was a consistent topic
 

Right Divider

Body part
The original topic, from the first post, was by one of the
more irrational ToLers. She seemed to be beating around the edges of the hydroplate theory. If you want to use that particular bit of fantasy just shoot me now.

At some point we went to a discussion of whether science dealt with immaterial and/or supernatural things. At some point I suggested your brain worked by chemistry and physics. You claimed that was random and when you eventually agreed that chemistry was not random you stated on my "origin story".

so not really sure there ever was a consistent topic

What is the origin of radioactive isotopes on the earth?
 
Top