Search results

Since this is not my particular area of expertise I made a post on BioLogos for others to join in all. My main focus is evolutionary biology and ecology within the overlap of botany and entomology. I believe those other links on the link I shared brings up enough info to undermine the belief...

This is a common response that comes up. This is the typical link I share. I will also reach out to some actual geologist I know and others at BL. Many of them have actively studied this exact situation not only at St. Helens but other volcanos. Once I get better info and more links, I’ll read...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html As for heavy to lightest that does not matter. The layers are not showing mass and weight but speciation and within families and clades it’s showcasing morphology as well.

Here is the issue with that. 1. They used multiple different sources of different elements to develop different times based off of half lives. So it’s not guess work. 2. The fossil record shows speciation in different geological layers. We don’t see bipedal apes in the Cretaceous. We don’t...

Her statement is not denying she’s a scientist.... she’s a scientist. What she’s saying is that her job as a scientist is simply to produce the data and that she has no secret agenda. Scientists dig out the data and interpret it as it teaches. They don’t have a agenda. They test hypothesis and...

The tree of life ( the evolution based one and not the garden of eden one ) is simply a overly simplified symbolic image of descent. The decrease of biodiversity is not related to some kind of reversal towards the trunk. We are getting further and further away from the trunk. Some lineages...

There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed published papers in scientific journals by exerts in their field with Ph.Ds talking about the evolution of this or that species, this or that genus, family clade and kingdom.

The data I’ve shared is completely crystal clear. There is a reason why over 99% of all scientists believe it including those that also believe in God and goes to church it’s also why every year more and more Christians believe it as well. In 10 years more Christians will believe in evolution...

That’s definitely not what the bible teaches.

I’m not delusional. I’m asking you to explain what process could preserve soft tissue for 10,000 years and why can’t that work for millions of years. Secondly I know evolution is the most likely answer because of science. It does not require faith. It’s not the Bible I have a problem with...

I see. You were replying to the paradigm of her and not me when you said “mean ole creationist”. She was not attacking them. She mentioned , since it’s a interview about her and her work and her life experiences between science and faith, the issues from atheists and creationists. One issue...

No one was scrambling. I don’t think you’re mean. I just think you’re misinformed about science and theology. I understand you think the same but I have no reason to think your mean. If I did not enjoy the conversation I would not go back and forth. If I get exhausted of it I’ll back off. I’m...

You said this was newer findings by old earthers as in old world creationist? The article does not indicate anything is religious in nature. Are you suggest Sarah Pruitt is a old earth creationist or that the scientist who found what they believe ( it’s not known yet ) is soft tissue? If so I...

I tried to google search it and assume it essentially means “ full of crap” as if we are predisposing our paradigms onto the interpretation of the data. That’s simply not true and I believe it’s actually you who is trying to force their paradigm into understanding data that contradicts it...

I’m not sure what FOS means.

All the data indicates we evolved from a fish. That’s what evolutionist teach as well. I posted the links before. The actual scientist who found the soft tissue is a Christian who believes in evolution. The actual scientist who found it talks about how it occurred and now that we know to look...

What’s false about Lucy?

It has nothing to do with believing the writings of man. It’s the data. I don’t have to be there to study data. What’s the point of the Piltman? Scientists have been skeptic of it since it’s original discovery because it’s not fitting the rest of the data. That’s a testament to the trust...