Does Science go against faith?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
a universe in which the earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun does not contradict the bible.
it only contradicts archaic thinking.
the preponderance of evidence shows that a geocentric universe is wrong, or at best, if one ignores much evidence, equivalent but poorly formulated, and many orders of magnitude more complex to describe.
the scriptures don't teach that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe orbits around them any more than the scriptures teach that the earth is rectangular because Revelation 7:1 describes four angels at the "four corners of the earth" in English translation.
when a cherished idea leads you to willful ignorance, perhaps that idea has become an idol.
it only contradicts archaic thinking.
the preponderance of evidence shows that a geocentric universe is wrong, or at best, if one ignores much evidence, equivalent but poorly formulated, and many orders of magnitude more complex to describe.
the scriptures don't teach that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe orbits around them any more than the scriptures teach that the earth is rectangular because Revelation 7:1 describes four angels at the "four corners of the earth" in English translation.
when a cherished idea leads you to willful ignorance, perhaps that idea has become an idol.
one problem is that everything 2.4 billion miles away and further from the earth has to be moving in epicycles at speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum, with no explanation for why they move in epicycles instead of ellipses, how they could move faster than light without any matching observed contraction or blue/red shift, nor why objects we can actually put our hands to and study don't also move in the same way, but instead follow Keppler's laws.
another problem, as pointed out int he last few pages, is that answering your ridiculous claims has moved the discussion away from God himself and how His creation displays His glory, and into an area that undermines the cause of Christ by making clear that you have no clear understanding nor any desire for an understanding of physics, but are more concerned with decrying "science" in general in order to prop up a failed, fallacy-ridden theory based on the notion that the Ptolemic idea of beauty with regards to geometry must needs be the form of God's creation, else God's handiwork is not great.
i hold degrees in math and physics. i work with agnostic, atheistic "scientists" every day and i know first-hand where "science" ends and atheistic philosophy begins. it begins when people ignore evidence and reason so they can keep their worldview.
true science doesn't refute the scripture. true interpretation of scripture doesn't refute reality either.
i've spent 9 years in higher education studying science & mathematics, and my belief in the creator God of Israel, who sent His son the Christ to ransom me from sin is only stronger now than it was before i pursued knowledge.
i'm done arguing with you two over semi-ptolemic cosmology. i don't think you accept facts or reason & i don't think Truth is what you're really in pursuit of.
another problem, as pointed out int he last few pages, is that answering your ridiculous claims has moved the discussion away from God himself and how His creation displays His glory, and into an area that undermines the cause of Christ by making clear that you have no clear understanding nor any desire for an understanding of physics, but are more concerned with decrying "science" in general in order to prop up a failed, fallacy-ridden theory based on the notion that the Ptolemic idea of beauty with regards to geometry must needs be the form of God's creation, else God's handiwork is not great.
i hold degrees in math and physics. i work with agnostic, atheistic "scientists" every day and i know first-hand where "science" ends and atheistic philosophy begins. it begins when people ignore evidence and reason so they can keep their worldview.
true science doesn't refute the scripture. true interpretation of scripture doesn't refute reality either.
i've spent 9 years in higher education studying science & mathematics, and my belief in the creator God of Israel, who sent His son the Christ to ransom me from sin is only stronger now than it was before i pursued knowledge.
i'm done arguing with you two over semi-ptolemic cosmology. i don't think you accept facts or reason & i don't think Truth is what you're really in pursuit of.
M
I have to agree with posthuman on this point. I looked through Zone's list of geocentric verses, especially the prominent Joshua chapter 10 verses, and all I'm seeing is people describing things the way they see them. Everything about the sun setting and rising isn't scientific language, it's just the author describing how they would see it from their perspective. We still use the phrase "the sun is setting" today to describe a sunset, nor is it literal/scientific language making a claim that the sun is moving and the earth does not. We say the sun is setting because that's what we see from our own eyes. It's similar to using phrases like "kicked the bucket" or "wear your heart on your sleeve." The meanings of those are not literal/scientific, it's figurative speech.
So when it says the sun stood still in Joshua 10:13, the people were just describing what they saw from their own perspective. If the earth stopped rotating for a day, what happened in Joshua 10:13 could still be described the same way, because that's what it would look like from the people's perspective. I don't see any passage that supports geocentricism over heliocentricism.
So when it says the sun stood still in Joshua 10:13, the people were just describing what they saw from their own perspective. If the earth stopped rotating for a day, what happened in Joshua 10:13 could still be described the same way, because that's what it would look like from the people's perspective. I don't see any passage that supports geocentricism over heliocentricism.
If we argue worldviews over evidence - I think that's the best way - you have to discern who is actually listening and reasonable of course - then when we have illustrated worldviews we can show how evidence makes sense in our worldview.
actually
Geocentric model - Earth at the center
Heliocentric Model - Sun and solar system at center
Currently most believe our galaxy to be at or near the center of the universe
IF you ever have a chance to look into White Hole Creation - I think this is the best theory for creation of the cosmos
H
Okay, so you need milk, not meat.
Gold is not a plant or animal.
Gold is an element.
Elements are "earth", i.e., matter, and were created "in the beginning".
Gold was part of the "Earth" that "appeared" on Day Three of the Six-Day Creation.
Plants and animals contain gold, because they are made of Earth.
Before The Flood, pure gold was abundant and there for the taking.
Since it is very heavy, it was all buried at The Flood and much was molten and extruded into igneous rock from below.
Gold is not a plant or animal.
Gold is an element.
Elements are "earth", i.e., matter, and were created "in the beginning".
Gold was part of the "Earth" that "appeared" on Day Three of the Six-Day Creation.
Plants and animals contain gold, because they are made of Earth.
Before The Flood, pure gold was abundant and there for the taking.
Since it is very heavy, it was all buried at The Flood and much was molten and extruded into igneous rock from below.
M
One part of the passage is Joshua saying "Sun and moon stand still". The next part is the inspired writer describing what happened. 'Though I can imagine Joshua might have got it wrong, I don't like to think the writer inspired by God did, although, before I realised there was no evidence that the Earth rotated, I likewise excused this passage as a figure of speech (unbelievers are not so forgiving, as I'm sure you have learned).
Joshua 10:12 - 13Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Notice how all the false (so-called) science these days, is trying to convince you that things are not as you see them with your own eyes?
Joshua 10:12 - 13Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Notice how all the false (so-called) science these days, is trying to convince you that things are not as you see them with your own eyes?
M
Phew. Long post. :|
Math can be tricky to lie about, because it can easily be checked. Experimental results are easier to fabricate, and fraud is less likely to be detected. Essentially, you are saying the frame of reference for the math is philosophical, which I agree with. In the majority of cases, the simplest math results from using the Earth as our frame of reference.
No. But the more the variables, the higher the overall possible error.
Quote (Wikipedia) Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.” This scientific result simply confirms my Christian belief, based on the scriptures, that Earth is stationary. I don’t need to perform other experiments, because I know the Earth doesn’t move. I also know that whatever evidence I present of this fact to those such as yourself, it will never be enough to overcome your preconceived notions. That is fine with me – your decision is between you and God. My obligation is fulfilled, in that I have instructed you in your error.
I say because the Earth is still.
Possibly. I’m not really following you exactly. We have different interpretations of the same experiment, I think.
Yeah, perhaps I was a little hard on Focault. I still neither trust him, nor his experiment (i.e. I’ve read there have been serious doubts expressed as to the accuracy of these pendulum readings, and I still trust this). However (since reading the words of a wiser man than myself), giving Focault the benefit of the doubt, with respect to what is his pendulum stationary? With the universe (i.e. Heavens)? So the rotation of his pendulum (even if true), proves nothing, because the apparent motion could just as easily be caused by the motion of the Heavens around the Earth, as by the rotation of the Earth about its axis. His pendulum proves naught.
I don’t trust liars, or lying organisations. NASA has been caught lying (e.g. moon landing hoax), what reason do I have to ever trust them again? Do you make a habit of trusting liars once they have been caught out? Lots of scientists etc. are trained up (i.e. indoctrinated) in the “educational” institutions, which are funded by those who attempt to run the world. A monkey can be trained to perform tricks, but it can’t be trained to think. Let’s just say I am cautious in trusting the word of anyone, not least of all those who have suffered indoctrination at today’s “learning institutions”.
As stated above, even if it works as Focault describes (and I still have my doubts about this), Focault’s pendulum proves nothing (i.e. it could just as easily prove the Heavens circle the Earth).
You misconstrued my words, or are purposely being deceptive. I argued with someone who believed the Earth was hollow, that, when properly interpreted, his evidence could also be used to support that the Earth is flat. I may have a fondness for the “flat earth” idea because of certain scripture passages and some evidence (i.e. that which he presented) that a spherical Earth can’t explain, but I am not yet convinced in my own mind, and hence would certainly not present this idea to you as a fact. To say as you said is dishonest, if not deliberately deceitful.
Because we are not spinning at massive speeds around an imaginary axis of rotation.
Liars. Refer to moon landing fraud.
Not from the aforementioned liars.
Of course I trust these, but that doesn’t mean I’m not particular about sources.
If I didn’t trust my own eyes, I would accept that the Earth is spinning, and moving about the sun.
Of course I do.
I trust God more than scientists, of course. God never makes mistakes. But (some) scientists have their usefulness.
Refer above to the reconsidered position with Focault. I don’t trust him, but even if I did, his pendulum no more proves a rotating Earth than a rotating Heavens.
C’mon, you’re just making this up to flesh out your ad hominem attack.
Experiments have been conducted to prove the Earth doesn’t move. To those who believe, this is sufficient. To those who do not believe, I doubt any number of experiments would convince them, because science is not the reason for their doubt.
You are rushing past the air.
Do you know what inertia is? Friction? I know you believe in gravity.
Probably the firmament. What keeps the oceans (and indeed anything that is not nailed down) on the Earth, if the Earth is kept in the sun’s orbit by gravity?
A phenomena we describe as gravity (i.e. a downward directed force).
I’m not sure. I just love truth, and trust an omniscient God over all the arrogant, ignorant men ever to have lived.
Math can be tricky to lie about, because it can easily be checked. Experimental results are easier to fabricate, and fraud is less likely to be detected. Essentially, you are saying the frame of reference for the math is philosophical, which I agree with. In the majority of cases, the simplest math results from using the Earth as our frame of reference.
No. But the more the variables, the higher the overall possible error.
Quote (Wikipedia) Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.” This scientific result simply confirms my Christian belief, based on the scriptures, that Earth is stationary. I don’t need to perform other experiments, because I know the Earth doesn’t move. I also know that whatever evidence I present of this fact to those such as yourself, it will never be enough to overcome your preconceived notions. That is fine with me – your decision is between you and God. My obligation is fulfilled, in that I have instructed you in your error.
I say because the Earth is still.
Possibly. I’m not really following you exactly. We have different interpretations of the same experiment, I think.
Yeah, perhaps I was a little hard on Focault. I still neither trust him, nor his experiment (i.e. I’ve read there have been serious doubts expressed as to the accuracy of these pendulum readings, and I still trust this). However (since reading the words of a wiser man than myself), giving Focault the benefit of the doubt, with respect to what is his pendulum stationary? With the universe (i.e. Heavens)? So the rotation of his pendulum (even if true), proves nothing, because the apparent motion could just as easily be caused by the motion of the Heavens around the Earth, as by the rotation of the Earth about its axis. His pendulum proves naught.
I don’t trust liars, or lying organisations. NASA has been caught lying (e.g. moon landing hoax), what reason do I have to ever trust them again? Do you make a habit of trusting liars once they have been caught out? Lots of scientists etc. are trained up (i.e. indoctrinated) in the “educational” institutions, which are funded by those who attempt to run the world. A monkey can be trained to perform tricks, but it can’t be trained to think. Let’s just say I am cautious in trusting the word of anyone, not least of all those who have suffered indoctrination at today’s “learning institutions”.
As stated above, even if it works as Focault describes (and I still have my doubts about this), Focault’s pendulum proves nothing (i.e. it could just as easily prove the Heavens circle the Earth).
You misconstrued my words, or are purposely being deceptive. I argued with someone who believed the Earth was hollow, that, when properly interpreted, his evidence could also be used to support that the Earth is flat. I may have a fondness for the “flat earth” idea because of certain scripture passages and some evidence (i.e. that which he presented) that a spherical Earth can’t explain, but I am not yet convinced in my own mind, and hence would certainly not present this idea to you as a fact. To say as you said is dishonest, if not deliberately deceitful.
Because we are not spinning at massive speeds around an imaginary axis of rotation.
Liars. Refer to moon landing fraud.
Not from the aforementioned liars.
Of course I trust these, but that doesn’t mean I’m not particular about sources.
If I didn’t trust my own eyes, I would accept that the Earth is spinning, and moving about the sun.
Of course I do.
I trust God more than scientists, of course. God never makes mistakes. But (some) scientists have their usefulness.
Refer above to the reconsidered position with Focault. I don’t trust him, but even if I did, his pendulum no more proves a rotating Earth than a rotating Heavens.
C’mon, you’re just making this up to flesh out your ad hominem attack.
Experiments have been conducted to prove the Earth doesn’t move. To those who believe, this is sufficient. To those who do not believe, I doubt any number of experiments would convince them, because science is not the reason for their doubt.
You are rushing past the air.
Do you know what inertia is? Friction? I know you believe in gravity.
Probably the firmament. What keeps the oceans (and indeed anything that is not nailed down) on the Earth, if the Earth is kept in the sun’s orbit by gravity?
A phenomena we describe as gravity (i.e. a downward directed force).
I’m not sure. I just love truth, and trust an omniscient God over all the arrogant, ignorant men ever to have lived.
S
there have been dinosaur bones found in outback australia in recent years. some of the largest ever found and make the traditional ones look small. a little unusual as we had never expected to find such large creatures as we only have smaller mammals and marsupials such as the kangaroo, koala and platypus. what i can never work out is that some say the earth is only 6500 years old so theses creatures were either on the ark or were there only a few thousand years ago roaming the earth. were they there at the same time as the cows and sheep or lion and eagle. if you look at the shapes of dinosaurs you will see that they look prehistoric and not modern as say a sleek tiger or horse. the bugs were much bigger and the sea creatures had all these weird shapes.
so it looks like there was a distinct group of differently shaped animals around and i just cant see that the modern looking ones were there at the same time. its like looking at cars for example. a car back in the 50s looks more basic and different, now cars are modern and look transformed. the prehistoric shapes of many amphibians, trilobites and flying creatures like the Pterosaurs look strange and different. they look prehistoric and they just dont go with the modern shaped animals we have today. some have weird spikes and things coming out of them and you just dont see that now.
as far as i know some of the animals we have today were around in the time of Jesus and even before that as the Egyptians had cats and other civilizations had dogs and cattle ect. so if the earth is only 6500 years old then these weird looking creatures were around the same time or things changed pretty quick. some say that would be the great flood or an event killed off the prehistoric ones. but an event like that would kill them all and then Noah would have to have dinosaurs on the ark. if they got wiped out by some meteor then all would be gone. some say ony the large ones died but then there are thousands of weird looking small creatures like the trilobites so they would have survived just as a cat or dog did.
even with apes or as some say ape man. the skulls found have more simpler and older shapes and then there are more modern shapes like us. if they are apes then there were many different ones but some show that they stood upright. if noah saved himself and his family how do you explain the weird shaped heads of tribal natives who resemble apes more than humans. they are of different skin colors and sizes. why would people who i would expect had fairly civilized ways of building things and plowing the land go back to prehistoric ways and give up all the things they have learn unless they were not related in the first place.
these are just observations and i dont have any in depth knowledge of this subject but on the surface it doesn't make sense.
so it looks like there was a distinct group of differently shaped animals around and i just cant see that the modern looking ones were there at the same time. its like looking at cars for example. a car back in the 50s looks more basic and different, now cars are modern and look transformed. the prehistoric shapes of many amphibians, trilobites and flying creatures like the Pterosaurs look strange and different. they look prehistoric and they just dont go with the modern shaped animals we have today. some have weird spikes and things coming out of them and you just dont see that now.
as far as i know some of the animals we have today were around in the time of Jesus and even before that as the Egyptians had cats and other civilizations had dogs and cattle ect. so if the earth is only 6500 years old then these weird looking creatures were around the same time or things changed pretty quick. some say that would be the great flood or an event killed off the prehistoric ones. but an event like that would kill them all and then Noah would have to have dinosaurs on the ark. if they got wiped out by some meteor then all would be gone. some say ony the large ones died but then there are thousands of weird looking small creatures like the trilobites so they would have survived just as a cat or dog did.
even with apes or as some say ape man. the skulls found have more simpler and older shapes and then there are more modern shapes like us. if they are apes then there were many different ones but some show that they stood upright. if noah saved himself and his family how do you explain the weird shaped heads of tribal natives who resemble apes more than humans. they are of different skin colors and sizes. why would people who i would expect had fairly civilized ways of building things and plowing the land go back to prehistoric ways and give up all the things they have learn unless they were not related in the first place.
these are just observations and i dont have any in depth knowledge of this subject but on the surface it doesn't make sense.
M
To anyone reading this far - sorry - I don't want to be like that Homeward Bound guy that floods the threads with his posts. :| But...
The heliocentric view requires stars to be very far away, to account for the stellar parallax we talked about. A geocentric view doesn't require this excuse for why stellar parallax is zero between Summer and Winter, so stars are much closer. So they don't have to be moving as fast as you think they do.
I would say you are the one not giving God His full glory, by disputing what He says about the Earth being stationary. This is what takes the conversation from God - making up interpretations for what you would have liked Him to say, rather than what He said. Don't think I don't do this, or haven't done it, because I have, and probably still do. But it doesn't make it right.
Agreed. I'd say you are ignoring clear evidence that supports the scriptures that hold the Earth is still.
9 years is a long time to be studying. With all that study, I'd have thought it would be easier for you to understand the Earth is still... Unless, maybe, you have been indoctrinated?!
I accept facts and reason, but not from organisations such as NASA whose sole purpose is to lie and deceive.
The heliocentric view requires stars to be very far away, to account for the stellar parallax we talked about. A geocentric view doesn't require this excuse for why stellar parallax is zero between Summer and Winter, so stars are much closer. So they don't have to be moving as fast as you think they do.
I would say you are the one not giving God His full glory, by disputing what He says about the Earth being stationary. This is what takes the conversation from God - making up interpretations for what you would have liked Him to say, rather than what He said. Don't think I don't do this, or haven't done it, because I have, and probably still do. But it doesn't make it right.
Agreed. I'd say you are ignoring clear evidence that supports the scriptures that hold the Earth is still.
9 years is a long time to be studying. With all that study, I'd have thought it would be easier for you to understand the Earth is still... Unless, maybe, you have been indoctrinated?!
I accept facts and reason, but not from organisations such as NASA whose sole purpose is to lie and deceive.
M
All the different kinds of creeping animals would have been on the ark (i.e. unless they were extinct prior to the flood, which is doubtful). You think the extinct animal shapes are weird because you are not used to them, but were you familiar with them, you would classify them as normal like the other kinds alive today. This is psychological, but not to do with "older-model" type animals.
Would there have been a problem for Noah to take dinosaurs aboard the ark?
Even people today have different shapes, sizes and colours. But all are one race, and able to produce offspring. This is a natural/artificial selection thing, but all are still man. I doubt any native looks more like an ape than a man. Information gets lost for a number of reasons - wars, disasters, population splits etc. If we had a nuclear war today, I doubt you would be able to recreate the computer, the rocket, the automobile or the submarine. It doesn't mean you're stupid, but not all the people have all the information of the entire culture. In the same way, some of these "primitive" tribes could have lost a lot of their original agricultural knowledge.
Would there have been a problem for Noah to take dinosaurs aboard the ark?
Even people today have different shapes, sizes and colours. But all are one race, and able to produce offspring. This is a natural/artificial selection thing, but all are still man. I doubt any native looks more like an ape than a man. Information gets lost for a number of reasons - wars, disasters, population splits etc. If we had a nuclear war today, I doubt you would be able to recreate the computer, the rocket, the automobile or the submarine. It doesn't mean you're stupid, but not all the people have all the information of the entire culture. In the same way, some of these "primitive" tribes could have lost a lot of their original agricultural knowledge.
HMM Strange,Job talks of a creature that had a tail like a cedar tree. You do realize that cedars can get to over 30 meters in height and over 20 meters in circumference. Comparing the tail to a cedar tells me the animals tail was very large.
And how does explain away that most ancient civilizations talked about dragons? Dragons look a lot like what we call dinosaurs. Knowing that we still have creatures that can spit "fire" IE the bombardier beetle. Why would it be outside the realm of God creating a lizard which could do the same thing?
Add to that all we have is the bones. Any picture of the creatures is nothing more than an artists imagination. IE poetic license because we haven't seen the living creature.
Then add to that how does one deal with these?
[HR][/HR]
How did the ancients know what those creatures looked like unless they actually saw them? And not only that the dinosaurs are pictures WITH men. (The Bible says the same thing in Job)
Add to that many of the fossils look just like the same creatures we have now. The fossil alligators and crocodiles look very much like the same creatures we have now. The pictures the artists do are based on their IMAGINATION of what they actually looked like.
And how does explain away that most ancient civilizations talked about dragons? Dragons look a lot like what we call dinosaurs. Knowing that we still have creatures that can spit "fire" IE the bombardier beetle. Why would it be outside the realm of God creating a lizard which could do the same thing?
Add to that all we have is the bones. Any picture of the creatures is nothing more than an artists imagination. IE poetic license because we haven't seen the living creature.
Then add to that how does one deal with these?
[HR][/HR]
How did the ancients know what those creatures looked like unless they actually saw them? And not only that the dinosaurs are pictures WITH men. (The Bible says the same thing in Job)
Add to that many of the fossils look just like the same creatures we have now. The fossil alligators and crocodiles look very much like the same creatures we have now. The pictures the artists do are based on their IMAGINATION of what they actually looked like.
Some of those are known to be fakes. Investigators have gone to South America where those were found, and have discovered whole villages engaged in carving "ancient" stones depicting dinosaurs and astronauts to sell to the credulous. Once they figured out that creationists and other pseudoscientists would buy them without investigating their origins, they started making them in droves. It's good business.
So, which of those artifacts do you think is genuine, what can you provide to originate and authenticate it?
So, which of those artifacts do you think is genuine, what can you provide to originate and authenticate it?
O
I do not believe in dinosaurs. I can see how science has twisted the age of the earth with this doctrine. I believe the Earth is 6-7 thousand years old.
I have been to the museums, know the words in scripture that dinosaur believers use still don't believe in dinosaurs. I believe that Ron Wyatt did discover Noah's Ark. However, the big guys that are into Creation Museum do not like Ron Wyatt and will discount everything he has discovered. Including some reasons why there are no dinosaurs.
I have been to the museums, know the words in scripture that dinosaur believers use still don't believe in dinosaurs. I believe that Ron Wyatt did discover Noah's Ark. However, the big guys that are into Creation Museum do not like Ron Wyatt and will discount everything he has discovered. Including some reasons why there are no dinosaurs.
M
Oh so you claim it's a fake, therefore it must be fake. Time to quote something you said.
I see no reason to believe your claim that they're fake until you provide sufficient evidence to support your claim. Saying "well, evolutionists claim it's a fake becuase it doesn't fit with their doctrines," is not sufficient evidence, it's just another claim. So where's the evidence?
I see no reason to believe your claim that they're fake until you provide sufficient evidence to support your claim. Saying "well, evolutionists claim it's a fake becuase it doesn't fit with their doctrines," is not sufficient evidence, it's just another claim. So where's the evidence?
I agree with you; there's no reason to believe my claim that they're fake until I provide sufficient evidence for that claim.
There's also no reason to believe that they are genuine until the person wanting to use them to prove a point provides sufficient evidence that they are genuine. Wouldn't you agree?
There's also no reason to believe that they are genuine until the person wanting to use them to prove a point provides sufficient evidence that they are genuine. Wouldn't you agree?