Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80
  1. #31
    lattamoney's Avatar
    Array

    School
    New Gym Hybird Hong Kong
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by gbr_micah View Post
    I watched that debate live. I found nothing said compelling evidence of a young Earth. Can you please just list what you consider the most compelling pieces of evidence for a young Earth, and perhaps provide links for each one so I can read about them?
    I said that in the original post that if you count back in the Genealogy to Adam and Eve the Earth is only about 10k years old and that makes more scenes then believing we are billions of years old and all came from some goo the got hit by lighting
    you have more faith then me if you believe that

  2. #32
    lattamoney's Avatar
    Array

    School
    New Gym Hybird Hong Kong
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by gbr_micah View Post
    We can at least start off with the points you mentioned:

    What about fossils points toward a young Earth?

    What about the Grand Canyon points toward a young Earth?

    What about Coconico sandstone points toward a young Earth?
    Because it does not take millions of year to create the Grand canyon only right conditions like a massive flood

  3. #33

    Array

    School
    10th Planet Coquitlam
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    448
    How does the 10,000 year old earth theory explain the formation of this large rock?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawamus_Chief

    The indigenous peoples from this area, consider the Chief to be a place of spiritual significance. The Squamish language name for the mountain is Siám' Smánit (siám' is usually translated as "chief" though it is really a social ranking), and their traditions say it is a longhouse transformed to stone by Xáays, as the Transformer Brothers are known in this language. The great cleft in the mountain's cliff-face in Squamish legend is a mark of corrosion left by the skin of Sínulhka, a giant two-headed sea serpent.

    This version is not in the Bible; however is it any more or less credible or accurate?

  4. #34
    lattamoney's Avatar
    Array

    School
    New Gym Hybird Hong Kong
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by NameLikeNoOther View Post
    How does the 10,000 year old earth theory explain the formation of this large rock?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawamus_Chief

    The indigenous peoples from this area, consider the Chief to be a place of spiritual significance. The Squamish language name for the mountain is Siám' Smánit (siám' is usually translated as "chief" though it is really a social ranking), and their traditions say it is a longhouse transformed to stone by Xáays, as the Transformer Brothers are known in this language. The great cleft in the mountain's cliff-face in Squamish legend is a mark of corrosion left by the skin of Sínulhka, a giant two-headed sea serpent.

    This version is not in the Bible; however is it any more or less credible or accurate?
    you are comparing a folklore to the Bible where the Bible has prophecy that has come true Israel the six day war ,Israel will be a nation again all this suff that said would happen has happened

    and stuff that will happen you can already see coming the new world order ,one world economy .one world government all from the Bible

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by lattamoney View Post
    Genesis Chapter one God Created the Heavens and the Earth not the Big Bang

    Scientfically Determined by people with a agenda how want to discredit everything in Bible

    the Bible does not have contradict its self people who say that cherry pick verses out of it

    How can we determine that the information in the bible is accurate and true?

    Is there evidence of an agenda within the scientific community to discredit the bible? There are a decent number of scientists who are also theists; if the results of experiments and studies regarding the Big Bang were flawed or falsified, surely some of those theists would point it out during peer review. There would be essentially infinite grant money and everlasting fame for a scientist who could demonstrate the truth of the bible. Why hasn't it been done?

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by lattamoney View Post
    Because it does not take millions of year to create the Grand canyon only right conditions like a massive flood
    Here are some explanations, with references of explanations from geologists, for the fact that the Grand Canyon was NOT created suddenly by a flood.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html


    My questions about fossils and Coconico sandstone remain.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by lattamoney View Post
    I said that in the original post that if you count back in the Genealogy to Adam and Eve the Earth is only about 10k years old and that makes more scenes then believing we are billions of years old and all came from some goo the got hit by lighting
    you have more faith then me if you believe that
    You are, once again, making an argument from incredulity and creating a strawman of evolution. Who is claiming humans came directly from goo that was hit by lightning? If you can find ONE example of an evolutionary biologist claiming that, I will empty my bank account and paypal you every cent to my name immediately.

  8. #38
    lattamoney's Avatar
    Array

    School
    New Gym Hybird Hong Kong
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by gbr_micah View Post
    Here are some explanations, with references of explanations from geologists, for the fact that the Grand Canyon was NOT created suddenly by a flood.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html


    My questions about fossils and Coconico sandstone remain.

    https://youtu.be/8Maa_V3_GQA

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by lattamoney View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Education

    "All his known degrees are from unaccredited institutions, and he has no training in paleontology."

    His doctorate is in religious education from an unaccredited school, he has no demonstrable knowledge or background in geology, and his stance on the topic flies in the face of the established science. If his ideas about the Grand Canyon actually held up to scientific scrutiny, why has he chosen not to have a paper on the topic reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal so he can make millions of dollars and be forever remembered as the man who turned all of geology on its head?

  10. #40
    Still waiting for an explanation and evidence for how fossils and Coconico sandstone prove the earth is young.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •