- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Nov 13
2 edits
I said that I'd like to think I learn something in Internet Discussion Forums
perhaps if, like i said, both parties keep their posts arrogance free and logical fallacies free, we just might.
Speaking of YEC, this stuff discovered about still soft tissue inside fossils supposedly 60 million years old, is something to think about.
Isn't hard to imagine soft organic tissue (red blood cells) could last 70 Million YEARS ?!?
Here's the NOVA version -
Mary Switzer what are you doing to us ??
13 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonshipI for one have no idea how long soft tissue should last. Even YEC's must accept that there have been no dinosaurs around for the last 100 years. So if it is genuinely soft tissue, (I believe it is still disputed), then it has been around at least 100 years - and that is agreed by everyone. So what would cause it to not last 200 years, 2000 years, 2 million years? I personally do not know what processes are involved. I know that soft tissue open to the air usually undergoes oxidation and bacterial activity breaks it down etc but in a sealed container? I have no idea? Do you?
Speaking of YEC, this stuff discovered about still soft tissue inside fossils supposedly 60 million years old, is something to think about.
Isn't hard to imagine soft organic tissue (red blood cells) could last 70 Million YEARS ?!?
Being 'hard to imagine' is simply not a good enough reason to dismiss something.
And the alternative - that all our information regarding dinosaurs and rock dating and fossilization is wrong is much harder to explain than soft tissue lasting a long time.
As for the whole YEC concept, you have to throw out 90% of science to accept that, so there is really no point discussing it in relation to science or scientific evidence as YEC's have rejected the core tenets of science and most of the findings too.
13 Nov 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI was responding to Zahlanzi's claim that I must be a member of a cult since I was not part of the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe, unknown to you, some Christians are capable of judging. You apparently are not.
It might be a type of Christianity, but it's not MY Christianity.
My Christianity does not judge or make up the 'truth' as it goes along, trying to put labels on what the Bible says.
The Instructor
14 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonshipThe following documentary video seems to explain the same idea in a slightly different way.
[b]Can Modern Science Prove the Existence of God ? (What radical atheists don't want you to know)
To me is a QUESTION, not and announcement.
And this Jesuit scientist gives an excellent talk on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqn-QjdEKg[/b]
The Instructor
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Nov 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, they certainly use the echo mechanism effectively .. effectively.. effectively .. effectively.
The following documentary video seems to explain the same idea in a slightly different way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE
The Instructor
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI am about half way through. I cannot see the difference in terms of the fine tuning of constants.
The following documentary video seems to explain the same idea in a slightly different way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE
The Instructor
What was the difference you were referring to ?
There are using as backround music for much of it, I believe, American composer Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings arranged for a vocal chorus.
Am I right ?