Question for young earthers, hint: RJ

Originally posted by menace71
Indeed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

http://www.rense.com/general28/erin.htm

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=606

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided
the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening
and the morning were the second day.
...[text shortened]... That is when the flood waters began to freeze on certain
areas of the earth. We now have ice.

So you think this applies to the rest of the universe at the same time?

(Gosh, listen to myself. Am I actually trying to argue this stuff?)

There seems to be something intrinsically wrong with saying that stuff didn't exist before Noah. Stuff like ice. If nothing else, the universe has shown us that we need all the diversity that exists to maintain the world as we know it. I just cant accept that you could be talking about the same universe pre-flood.
Then again, you think the flood drowned the whole Earth too, right?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So you think this applies to the rest of the universe at the same time?

(Gosh, listen to myself. Am I actually trying to argue this stuff?)

There seems to be something intrinsically wrong with saying that stuff didn't exist before Noah. Stuff like ice. If nothing else, the universe has shown us that we need all the diversity that exists to mainta ...[text shortened]... same universe pre-flood.
Then again, you think the flood drowned the whole Earth too, right?

I was only talking about our Earth. You are either a nitwit of dishonest, as
Dasa would say, if you really don't understand this.

You should not be arguing something you don't understand. You should be
just listening and considering the truth in it.

The fact that there may have been ice in some other place than on Earth
is not the point. That is not important to the measurement of ice cores on
Earth. There was a quick freeze of things on Earth at one time and that
was immediately after the flood because the heat was no longer spread
evenly over the Earth with the water above the Earth now on the Earth.

Mountains were not near as high in the beginning and the Grand Canyon
was formed by rain and flood caused by the breaking up of the deep. So
yes, the waters could cover the whole Earth. That is why skeletons of sea
creatures have been found in mountains sometimes.

P.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/whale-fossils-high-in-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Only morons, like you, would possibly believe that the earth moon and sun
with all its laws could come together by accident in just the right way to
provide the right habitat for supporting all the different kinds of complex
forms of life, by accident. Man can not create any of this on pupose. That
is because it is too complicated for his punny brain t ...[text shortened]... anyone be more ignorant than a Proper Knob? Of course not. Sorry.
Just joking with you. 😀

When have i ever used the word 'accident', in fact when has any scientist used the word 'accident'? You're arguing against a word i've never used.

Now, have you any evidence to support your claim there was no ice on this planet a few thousand years ago?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It fits their world views.
Kelly

LOL!!!!!!!

I see, after 300 years of rapid scientific advancement in a host of scientific disciplines it all comes down to, for you, scientists making it up as they see fit.

So you're saying that all the evidence actually points to the earth being only a few thousand years old but the scientists don't want to believe that so they have somehow come up with this figure in the billions just because that's what they want to believe?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
LOL!!!!!!!

I see, after 300 years of rapid scientific advancement in a host of scientific disciplines it all comes down to, for you, scientists making it up as they see fit.

So you're saying that all the evidence actually points to the earth being only a few thousand years old but the scientists don't want to believe that so they have somehow come up with this figure in the billions just because that's what they want to believe?!

Not all scientist believe as you do. There are many scientists that admit
that they just don't know for they don't have enough evidence yet. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not all scientist believe as you do. There are many scientists that admit
that they just don't know for they don't have enough evidence yet. 😏

'Many' being a tiny fraction of 1% of scientists, and who all just happen to have religious reasons for not wanting to admit the findings of science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not all scientist believe as you do. There are many scientists that admit
that they just don't know for they don't have enough evidence yet. 😏

Those scientists you talk about are in the vast minority and you know it. Just because a creationist gets some kind of Phd doesn't mean he is all of a sudden a scientist. He has a creationist ax to grind pure and simple, using all the false logic he can muster to bolster his case against the hated evolution. Like I have said before, eventually all you nay sayers will die off and real scientists will do their work unimpeded by obstructionists whose only goal is to destroy evolution and work to their end goal of having fundamentalist christianity take over the world. Just like Islam.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should not be arguing something you don't understand.

Take your own advice.

Originally posted by twhitehead
'Many' being a tiny fraction of 1% of scientists, and who all just happen to have religious reasons for not wanting to admit the findings of science.

Do you get such figures from a Cracker Jack box? 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not all scientist believe as you do. There are many scientists that admit
that they just don't know for they don't have enough evidence yet. 😏

There are many scientists who don't know whether ice has been on the planet for a few thousand years?

Who are these 'many' scientists?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Those scientists you talk about are in the vast minority and you know it. Just because a creationist gets some kind of Phd doesn't mean he is all of a sudden a scientist. He has a creationist ax to grind pure and simple, using all the false logic he can muster to bolster his case against the hated evolution. Like I have said before, eventually all you nay s ...[text shortened]... k to their end goal of having fundamentalist christianity take over the world. Just like Islam.

I think the real scientists of today are going to cause the extinction of the
evolutionists in the future. I just noticed that "The Creations Answer Book"
that I bought awhile back has a Chapter 16 entitled "What about the Ice
Age". The first sentence reads, "The only clear evidence is for one Ice Age."
Perhaps, after I read it, I will know the answers to Ice Core Dating. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
Take your own advice.

I do, Spanky. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There are many scientists who don't know whether ice has been on the planet for a few thousand years?

Who are these 'many' scientists?

You don't really want to know, Spanky.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't really want to know, Spanky.

Name me these 'many' scientists.