100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
questions about space
|
|
thanks for that answer
the only numbers that i seen show that earth and moon would been together between 1.2 earliest and 1.8 oldest so i'll do so more research |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
questions about space
|
|
why do we still have spiral arms on galaxies?
shouldn't they be gone by now? scientists agree about every 50yrs a planet blows up(nova,supernonova's)there are less than 300 reminates of nova's,shouldn't we have more? scientists agree that the moon is getting farther from the earth.which means it used to be closer. if you brought the moon in closer the inverse square law would come into effect and just from the effect on gravity and the tides life couldn't exist.how do you explain life? by doing the math it's agreed that the moon and earth would have been in contact about 1.2 million yrs ago. can anyone answer these question for me? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason that I am asking you that is you don’t seem to differentiate between these Christian "scientists" who have come up with hypotheses and an actual theory that has withstood scientific evaluation and scrutiny. That is why I posed the question to you. that 's just a ridiculous statement about me. what would call evolution? some of the scientists (Christian and none)have agreed that evolution doesn't make a good hypothese much less an actuall theory. who are the one's scrutinizing these so'called theories?apparently they are ONLY seing from their point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now now ladies no crying in the breast milk!!  if someone crawls into bed with the same sex it's more than apparent they very very low morals and standards. what does seperate drinking fountains have to do with anything i have said i wasn't alive in the 50's. having sexual relations with the same sex is the very definition of being a homo.if your not having sex with them then your not gay.let me guess some might say i have a life partner,that's like a man calling a woman a friend,i love her but we are not screwing yet we live together and have no plans of being with anyone else.what would that make them? let's see friends that live together i love alot of men and woman in my life,does that make me gay? NO BBECAUSE I'M NOT SLEEPING WITH THEM Poor Deke, the more you engage him the more desperate he gets. wonder why you put it like that?maybe because you know it's immoral and it pisses you off for anyone to question you.yes i homo friends just because i don't agree with their CHOICE doesn't mean i'll turn my back on them.i'll still try to help realize how much of a mistake it is,and yes i tell them and they don't like it either but ALL have addmitted it's a CHOICE and CHOICE ONLY!! as far as my lusts i got married and indulged in mine.i' said we were born to procreate,doesn't mean we have to, just to clearify that for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
evolution defined
|
|
1)cosmic evolution: the origin of time space and matter,ie. the big bang 2)chemical evolution:the origin of higher elements from hydrogen 3)stellar and planetary evolution:origin of stars and planets. 4)organic evolution:origin of life 5)macro-evolution: changing from one kind to another 6)micro-evolution:varations within kinds ------------------------------------------------- ONLY #6 IS ACTUAL SCIENCE THAT CAN BE OBSERVED!!! NONE of the others have ever been observed the first 5 are purely religious you have to beleive in them because there is absolutly no proof what so ever!!! they only give you examples of #6 to support this evolution theory.there is a huge difference in getting bigger,smaller,or other minor changes than it is changing from . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? What about a natural law?  you need to ask yourself that !! but please explain the natural law to me so that i may up my intelligence from your point of view |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
evolution defined
|
|
1)cosmic evolution: the origin of time space and matter,ie. the big bang
2)chemical evolution:the origin of higher elements from hydrogen 3)stellar and planetary evolution:origin of stars and planets. 4)organic evolution:origin of life 5)macro-evolution: changing from one kind to another 6)micro-evolution:varations within kinds ------------------------------------------------- ONLY #6 IS ACTUAL SCIENCE THAT CAN BE OBSERVED!!! NONE of the others have ever been observed the first 5 are purely religious you have to beleive in them because there is absolutly no proof what so ever!!! they only give you examples of #6 to support this evolution theory.there is a huge difference in getting bigger,smaller,or other minor changes than it is changing from one species to another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how about DR. KENT HOVIND? i know you'll find a lot of people that disagree with him but that doesn't make them right. did you actually watch what DR. BROWN HAD TO SAY? or read icons of evolution.these people aren't trying to you saved but rather giving you more information to consider besides the one-sided evolutionary view What makes the people who disagree with Dr. Hovind's "Theories" right is scientific fact. And what would have really happened, had his "theories" actually happened. evolution doesn't have any actual testable science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have already told you that if you have read a book or have something of interest to share, then you need to be capable of summarization. Every time you have asked me a question, I have done this for you. To just throw a book title out there but then offer no summarization leads me to believe that A. you have not read it yourself or B. You are unable to comprehend the subject matter so therefore you avoid summary. if you read it for yourself you more likely to have more of an open mind rather than biased opinion from something that i write. that's what i do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Brown's The Scientific Case for Creation was reviewed by Jim Lippard who said Brown made serious errors, including using "mistaken claims about what others have written." Philosopher Robert T. Pennock describes Brown's position as being typical, other than the unique feature of his hydroplates hypothesis, of YECs in desiring to explain all major terrestrial features in terms of a catastrophic Biblical flood. TalkOrigins reports that Walt Brown has had contentious relations with other creationist organizations. Answers in Genesis has a standing offer to Brown to publish some of his material in their journals but Brown has declined. The old earth creationist organization Answers in Creation has published material rebutting Brown's hydroplate theory. The Christian American Scientific Affiliation website features a debunking of Brown's video "God's Power and Scriptures Authority" by Steven H. Schimmrich of Kutztown University. Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him, but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates. An abortive attempt at such a debate was held in 1989 and 1990 in the pages of Creation/Evolution, the National Center for Science Education journal, before Brown refused to continue. Joe Meert of Gondwana Research, a journal promoting research related to the origin and evolution of continents, had a signed contract for such a debate with Walter Brown in 2000. Brown apparently disputed the terms of the signed contract and it did not take place; although Brown has his own account of the situation. According to Georgia State University biology professor Fred K. Parrish, who was "tricked" into a April 1985 public debate with Brown, Brown debates around the U.S. and has a set of preconditions (such as Brown speaks first, the debate moderator sits on his side, etc).  It sounds like a General Religion Forum Discussion. we can both find people who disagree with whom steps or doesn't step into the spotlight. how about DR. KENT HOVIND? i know you'll find alot of people that disagree with him but that doesn't make them right. did you actually watch what DR. BROWN HAD TO SAY? or read icons of evolution.these people aren't trying to you saved but rather giving you more information to consider besides the one-sided evolutionary view |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
embryotic chart
|
|
actually these slits develope into glands in the throat and bones in the ears Fascinating, isn't it? actually i think it's pretty sad kids have to learn this lie but i do find science fascinating Which gets me back to this question. If it's being taught (and I don't know if it is), is it being taught as a theory? It makes a big difference. it's taught as a fact and futher proof of evolution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the more actual science they use(NOT THEORIES AND GUESSES)testable science only helps to support the bible i.e... the flood,soddom and gomorrah,young earth CREATION!!! Well lets start with the flood shall we? Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. What are you talking about exactly and where are these actual "scientists" that are on board with Noah's Flood? I would like to do a little background checking on their academic qualifications. Im sure you dont mind. you can also log on creationscience.com and watch his hydro plate theory whinch CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY TIED TOGETHER IN CAUSE AND EFFECT ORDER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
embryotic chart
|
|
actually these slits develope into glands in the throat and bones in the ears Fascinating, isn't it? actually i think it's pretty sad kids have to learn this lie but i do find science fascinating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
embryotic chart
|
|
actually these slits develope into glands in the throat and bones in the ears
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
embryotic chart
|
|
Show me where it's taught to kids. And if it is, is it taught as a theory? this is still taught as a fact and proof of evolution,read some of what it say's and judge for yourself That's why I asked. It's not in my child's science book. The only reference to evolution that is discussed is about Neanderthals. read ICONS OF EVOLUTION and it will make think about what we learned about cavemen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
embryotic chart
|
|
Show me where it's taught to kids. And if it is, is it taught as a theory? this is still taught as a fact and proof of evolution,read some of what it say's and judge for yourself |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
lies in our text books
|
|
THE GEOLOGIC TIME CHART IS SIMPLY MADE UP!!
that's what i'm talking about |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the more actual science they use(NOT THEORIES AND GUESSES)testable science only helps to support the bible
i.e... the flood,soddom and gomorrah,young earth CREATION!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
embryotic chart
|
|
in 1869 earnest haekel THOUGHT UP the biogenetic law.
he called it ontongeny recapitulates phylonogy (simplified) the embryo reanacts the evolutionary sequence this chart is in every science book in our schools the embryo has gill slits whinch they thought it was remembering the evolutionary process darwin thought this was the best evidence for evolution. in 1875 haekel's own univesity found him guilty of FRAUD. he addmitted he lied and the chart was a fraud just to support the evolutionary beleif. it has been found to be false for over 130 yrs,yet this is still taught as proof of evolution to our kids. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
lies in our text books
|
|
in 1830 the geologic column was erected.if there was such a column it would be world wide and it's simply NOT!!!
they say they date the rocks from the fossils and the fossils from the rocks. huh? this is just stupid!!! they try to use circular reasoning to confuse our students, so they don't question such a sacred chart. where and how did they arrive at the dates that are giving? OUT OF THE CLEAR BLUE SKY!!! durning this time period no forum of estimated dating was thought of.radiometric dating isn't even possible if this chart hasn't been MADE UP!! IT'S TAUGHT AS A FACT IN SCHOOL BOOKS. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
