Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
rea·son   /ˈrizən/ Show Spelled[ree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
EXPAND6. Logic . a premise of an argument. 7. Philosophy . a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument. b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought. c. Kantianism . the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created. COLLAPSE
verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
EXPAND6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. COLLAPSE
Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/222082-it-is-absurd-to-use-the-word-reason-to-describe-atheism-14.html#post5261447
Reason and faith are sort of opposites I suppose.
Religion is based on faith and atheists see no reason to have faith in something that cannot be proven.
Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.Let there be ME. And he created himself.Allow my interruption, folks....
Jesus said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Light"
John 1:1 tells us that, "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God"
Now what do you think HE meant when HE said, "Let there be Light"
It kills most of your theories. But like I said why should we be surprised that the biblical timeline better fits the evidence then mans timeline.
Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.Let there be ME. And he created himself.
It kills most of your theories. But like I said why should we be surprised that the biblical timeline better fits the evidence then mans timeline.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.Let there be ME. And he created himself.
It kills most of your theories. But like I said why should we be surprised that the biblical timeline better fits the evidence then mans timeline.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.
It kills most of your theories. But like I said why should we be surprised that the biblical timeline better fits the evidence then mans timeline.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Every thought in YWC's brain is based on false assumptions.
Man evolved from monkeys.
Moon was colliding with the Earth.
T-Rex used to eat grass.
A few examples of many instances of his lunacy.
Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Every thought in YWC's brain is based on false assumptions.
Man evolved from monkeys.
Moon was colliding with the Earth.
T-Rex used to eat grass.
A few examples of many instances of his lunacy.
No get it right, according to the theory we evolved from apelike creatures if that is not what the theory say's then tell us what did man evolve from ?
According to the receding moon 1.6 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth it is up to you to prove the moon has not had a constant rate of receding from the earth.
Not just the T-rex was a vegetarian but all creatures were vegetarians before sin.
My so called lunacy is your ignorance on display doc.
Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.
It kills most of your theories. But like I said why should we be surprised that the biblical timeline better fits the evidence then mans timeline.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Can you prove otherwise ? no that was what we were talking about you are the one that got on the subject of genesis.
Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year. In keeping with the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing, and the Earth's day thus lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year (excluding glacial rebound). Both figures are valid only for the current configuration of the continents. Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values.
-Williams, George E. (2000). "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 37–60
Every thought in YWC's brain is based on false assumptions.
Man evolved from monkeys.
Moon was colliding with the Earth.
T-Rex used to eat grass.
A few examples of many instances of his lunacy.
No get it right, according to the theory we evolved from apelike creatures if that is not what the theory say's then tell us what did man evolve from ?
According to the receding moon 1.6 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth it is up to you to prove the moon has not had a constant rate of receding from the earth.
Not just the T-rex was a vegetarian but all creatures were vegetarians before sin.
My so called lunacy is your ignorance on display doc.
You used to say we evolved from monkeys, luckily those of us who don't deny science have been able to bring you SOME basic education on actual science positions.
That's under the blind, ignorant assumption that it's been receding at the same rate, which no one has that position. You're either ignorant or just flat out lying, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say ignorant.
Yes, that's one of your false assumptions, an assumption that's the opposite of any scientific reasoning.
No get it right, according to the theory we evolved from apelike creatures if that is not what the theory say's then tell us what did man evolve from ?
According to the receding moon 1.6 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth it is up to you to prove the moon has not had a constant rate of receding from the earth.
Not just the T-rex was a vegetarian but all creatures were vegetarians before sin.
My so called lunacy is your ignorance on display doc.
You used to say we evolved from monkeys, luckily those of us who don't deny science have been able to bring you SOME basic education on actual science positions.
That's under the blind, ignorant assumption that it's been receding at the same rate, which no one has that position. You're either ignorant or just flat out lying, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say ignorant.
Yes, that's one of your false assumptions, an assumption that's the opposite of any scientific reasoning.
You have no evidence to suggest the moon was not receding at the current rate in other words.
You still have yet to explain how humans and apes shared a common ancestor?
If I said monkeys that was just a derogatory remark.
When we assume about the past we are all just giving opinions from ignorance because none of us were there to know that is what happened.
I am still looking for an answer to what humans evolved from or poof did we just show up?what was this common ancestor we shared with apes ?
Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Can you prove otherwise ? no that was what we were talking about you are the one that got on the subject of genesis.
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year. In keeping with the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing, and the Earth's day thus lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year (excluding glacial rebound). Both figures are valid only for the current configuration of the continents. Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values.
-Williams, George E. (2000). "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 37–60
Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!Always trying to change the subject, very revealing.
And that 1.6 billion year crap is based on the false assumption that the moon has always been receding at a constant rate.
Can you prove otherwise ? no that was what we were talking about you are the one that got on the subject of genesis.
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year. In keeping with the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing, and the Earth's day thus lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year (excluding glacial rebound). Both figures are valid only for the current configuration of the continents. Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values.
-Williams, George E. (2000). "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 3760
Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!Can you prove otherwise ? no that was what we were talking about you are the one that got on the subject of genesis.
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year. In keeping with the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing, and the Earth's day thus lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year (excluding glacial rebound). Both figures are valid only for the current configuration of the continents. Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values.
-Williams, George E. (2000). "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 3760
I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.
Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earths oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earths terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earths rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:
Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.
Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earths oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earths terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earths rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:
Hey lookie there, YWC using a bible blog as "evidence" for his "scientific" positions.
That's never happened before.................
Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.
Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earths oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earths terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earths rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:
Hey lookie there, YWC using a bible blog as "evidence" for his "scientific" positions.
That's never happened before.................
You're a piece of work!!! First you claim the rate was constant without proof even after measurements of tidal rhythmites showed the rate was half what it is now a mere 620 million years ago, but after you find another fruitcake who claims, again without proof, that the rate was greater in the past suddenly it's OK to say the rate was not constant. Mind you, no proof is required to say the rate was greater in the past and the unproven speculation overrides actual measurements that the rate was slower in the past which makes your claim, "You guys always seem to be able to make up B.S. to protect your theories" even more hypocritical!!!Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!Can you prove otherwise ? no that was what we were talking about you are the one that got on the subject of genesis.
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year. In keeping with the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing, and the Earth's day thus lengthens by about 23 microseconds every year (excluding glacial rebound). Both figures are valid only for the current configuration of the continents. Tidal rhythmites from 620 million years ago show that over hundreds of millions of years the Moon receded at an average rate of 22*millimetres per year and the day lengthened at an average rate of 12 microseconds per year, both about half of their current values.
-Williams, George E. (2000). "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". Reviews of Geophysics 38 (1): 3760
I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.
Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earths oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earths terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earths rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:
You're a piece of work!!! First you claim the rate was constant without proof even after measurements of tidal rhythmites showed the rate was half what it is now a mere 620 million years ago, but after you find another fruitcake who claims, again without proof, that the rate was greater in the past suddenly it's OK to say the rate was not constant. Mind you, no proof is required to say the rate was greater in the past and the unproven speculation overrides actual measurements that the rate was slower in the past which makes your claim, "You guys always seem to be able to make up B.S. to protect your theories" even more hypocritical!!!Actually the burden of proof is on YOU, especially since Creationists deny uniformity to reject all dating methods!!!
But yes I can prove that the recession rate was much slower in the past.
I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.
Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:
Thank you.
He's a fruitcake because his unproven speculation is contradicted by actual measurements, and as a physicist he KNOWS it and therefore is a premeditated liar.You're a piece of work!!! First you claim the rate was constant without proof even after measurements of tidal rhythmites showed the rate was half what it is now a mere 620 million years ago, but after you find another fruitcake who claims, again without proof, that the rate was greater in the past suddenly it's OK to say the rate was not constant. Mind you, no proof is required to say the rate was greater in the past and the unproven speculation overrides actual measurements that the rate was slower in the past which makes your claim, "You guys always seem to be able to make up B.S. to protect your theories" even more hypocritical!!!I will concede there is a chance that the current rate of the receding moon may have not remained constant but here is the problem we can look at it another way. Either way it's not good for your theories.
Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earths oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earths terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earths rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences. Moon:
Thank you.
Did you not understand the Physicist ? He first agreed with you but once he went against your view he is a fruitcake. You are too biased like doc.
Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year.
What did the Physicist say that was inaccurate ?
How is this Physicist a fruitcake ?
So when God said let there be light was that the person of Jesus that was created. God reveals himself several different person and forms.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.
He's a fruitcake because his unproven speculation is contradicted by actual measurements, and as a physicist he KNOWS it and therefore is a premeditated liar.You're a piece of work!!! First you claim the rate was constant without proof even after measurements of tidal rhythmites showed the rate was half what it is now a mere 620 million years ago, but after you find another fruitcake who claims, again without proof, that the rate was greater in the past suddenly it's OK to say the rate was not constant. Mind you, no proof is required to say the rate was greater in the past and the unproven speculation overrides actual measurements that the rate was slower in the past which makes your claim, "You guys always seem to be able to make up B.S. to protect your theories" even more hypocritical!!!
Thank you.
Did you not understand the Physicist ? He first agreed with you but once he went against your view he is a fruitcake. You are too biased like doc.
Physicist Donald DeYoung:
"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year long ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year.
What did the Physicist say that was inaccurate ?
How is this Physicist a fruitcake ?
