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.
You haven't been right about anything you have posted in this forum.Now you're moving the goal posts. You said liquid water didn't exist anywhere else in the universe, let alone our solar system. That claim was clearly wrong. No one claimed these moons were identical to Earth. However, there existence indicates that there is a high probability that some planets circling other starts will have water.That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
Except the surface is ice and not water. It doesn't match what the Earth has. Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
Now, you're getting it.
I was right and you still haven't found a planet like Earth. Just admit there's no place like Earth or be considered a fool.
The layers aren't sorted by whether the animals have gills or lungs. There are very deep layers where the fossilized animals have gills, and quite recent layers where the fossilized animals have gills. Hydrological sorting isn't what occurred.Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next. And then there is hydrological sorting: Hydrological sorting - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceSee, this is what I am talking about. You don't even realize how dumb and wrong this is.Scientific fact is observable and repeatable. Theory is not fact and that is your weakest link.
Scientific theories yield repeatable results. And yes, theories can become accepted as "fact".
Your comment regarding observations is ridiculous as well. Go ahead, measure the time for a rock to fall to earth. You will get 10 different answers. Every time. Which is "the fact"? The thing tying these measurements together is the scientific theory; therein lies your "fact". it is the theory that tells you rocks fall down every time, and why. It explains the range of measurements you will get, and why you get them. It explains why the rock always falls down and always does so at about the same speed.
Here is something "repeatable" for you:
The fossil record shows the same animals in the same layers. They generally do not appear before or after their own layer. And this is so everywhere we look. And everywhere we look, the layers are in the same order. Everywhere we look, we see the families of animals in the same chronological order, and can trace the changes in their physiology. We see the simpler, generalized vertebrates first, then the different families of vertebrates after. We see gills, then lungs. We see the dentition of two, distinct modern species or genera traced right back to their common origin (e.g., cats and dogs).
So, riddle me this, shaman...what is the "fact" in all of that repeatable, reliable observation?
(Hint: it has been a well known scientific theory for 150 years)
You proved exactly nothing with that post.There's liquid water under the ice, moron. That means there is a source of heat within the moon, and that means there are probably something like the thermal vents we have here on Earth.It is true. Europa and Enceladus are both completely covered by a layer of water than then a layer of ice. Check it out on Wiki before you make a fool of yourself.
Enceladus - Wikipedia
Europa (moon) - Wikipedia
Ice is a state of water. We want the liquid state. Single cells do not grow in ice when it is too cold as found by testing in Antarctica. Try again haha.
bripat9643, it didn't take long to get to ad hominem attacks. It shows how weak-brained you are. The believers have exposed you for what you are. A moron and a debate loser. That means we are the winners because you have no evidence of your claims about ice while I presented the findings that single-cells cannot live in Antarctica. It's observable, testable, falsifiable and repeatable. You can go to the corner and bawl your stupid eyes out.
That's all hogwash. My ad hominem is an indication of nothing more than that I have little tolerance for addressing stupidities that I have already addressed 100 times. However, I will strive to avoid doing so in the future.
There is plenty of evidence for what I claimed. For instance, consider this photo of Enceladus spewing water into space:
That evidence is pretty much irrefutable.
I haven't even mentioned the big bang. I don't need explain quantum fluctuations, conservation of energy, quantum physics or entropy. Your theory that life can't exist on an ice moon is obvious horseshit, as I explained elsewhere. Your belief that you understand science better than I do doesn't pass the laugh test. Every time you post you demonstrate that you don't know what science is. You think the Old Testament is science.
Shouldn't what "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) believe always be true?
You can't mention what you do not know nor can explain what I asked for. It was I who said "atheist scientists" is an oxymoron first.
That's beside the point. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how can so-called "creation scientists" ever be wrong?
Well, you can go live in Enceladus and take some cameras with you. I'll stay right here on Earth with other believers and we'll watch you freeze to death.
Quit lying about what you said and about what I said.Dang that's stupid. For one, we actually find life in the ice in Antarctica. Second, there is not an ocean under Antarctic ice. There is land. And...oops!...we find life there, too.Difference between living in Antarctica and Hawaii.
You just really are not capable of having an honest conversation about these topics.
All I said is there are parts of ice in Antarctica where there is no life. Never mentioned any water underneath it. It's bripat9643 who thinks there is water under the ice on some moon and thinks the ice above it is an ocean. What an idiot.
Hahaha...how does that make any sense at all? A flood wouldn't kill a single gilled animal. Dude, seriously,don't drink and post.Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next.
The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were, and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied. Hurricanes: Science and Society: Aquatic ImpactsHahaha...how does that make any sense at all? A flood wouldn't kill a single gilled animal. Dude, seriously,don't drink and post.Because of the FLOOD, animals with gills would be affected in mass first, and then those with lungs would be next.
Furthermore, the layers represent millions of years. so, in addition to explaining how a flood killed water breathing creatures, you have to also explain how it killed creatures that didn't even exist at the time of the flood.
Don't try, because you can't.
They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
You want absurd and delusional -- read this drivel: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained ... as for your remarks regarding marine animals dying as the result of floods and storms, it was you who stated that "NO (none/nada) GILL LIFE WOULD BE KILLED BY A FLOOD - DUDE." Clearly this was a misstatement on your part. And the scope of Noah's FLOOD was well beyond anything we experience today. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. I'm sure all the runoff from any landmasses would have turned various areas of the water to dense clouds of silt.They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
Science isn't "imaginings," it's provided us Everything we know, and our living standard to today....
I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
Science doesn't rationalize words like "perhaps, maybe, possibly, likely, our best guess". And frankly people shouldn't limit such words to evolutionists...Science isn't "imaginings," it's provided us Everything we know, and our living standard to today....
I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
Following a 3rd Century childish Morality Play, has provided Nothing.
Same as other (and contradictory) 'Holy books.' Nada.
`
You didn't read a word of that article and could not argue it's points if your life depended on it. And you certainly have no grasp of that topic and did not lift a finger to find scientific sources to explain it to you. So go dump your exercises in someone else's lap, then change the subject when they are polite enough to spoonfeed it to you. I am not that guy .You want absurd and delusional -- read this drivel: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained ... as for your remarks regarding marine animals dying as the result of floods and storms, it was you who stated that "NO (none/nada) GILL LIFE WOULD BE KILLED BY A FLOOD - DUDE." Clearly this was a misstatement on your part. And the scope of Noah's FLOOD was well beyond anything we experience today. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. I'm sure all the runoff from any landmasses would have turned various areas of the water to dense clouds of silt.They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
You are a very narrow minded lost soul. And you see nothing because you wear blinders and shut your eyes to obvious issues. The fact that anyone could believe that soft tissue could last 10's of thousands of years is more of a dreamer than any Christian could be ---- much less 100's of millions of years. The only way something might exist that long would be in the confines of outer-space. And total airlessness and a deep freeze are not what would exist anywhere on this globe over the course of 100's of millions of years. How's that for spoon feeding you!You didn't read a word of that article and could not argue it's points if your life depended on it. And you certainly have no grasp of that topic and did not lift a finger to find scientific sources to explain it to you. So go dump your exercises in someone else's lap, then change the subject when they are polite enough to spoonfeed it to you. I am not that guy .You want absurd and delusional -- read this drivel: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained ... as for your remarks regarding marine animals dying as the result of floods and storms, it was you who stated that "NO (none/nada) GILL LIFE WOULD BE KILLED BY A FLOOD - DUDE." Clearly this was a misstatement on your part. And the scope of Noah's FLOOD was well beyond anything we experience today. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. I'm sure all the runoff from any landmasses would have turned various areas of the water to dense clouds of silt.They obviously were not. What an absurd, delusional thing to say. What of fossils that are 200 million years old, and do not appear in the fossil record after 150 million years ago?The animals you say were not alive at the time of the Flood obviously were,
None of those studies show even a significant persentage of all marine life drying off in any of those examples, you shameless little liar. You copy paste that talking point and never bothered even to try to understand it.and as for how aquatic life is killed by both storms and floods is clearly observable and can be studied.
I support God's word and you support man's "scientific imaginings". Sorry, terms like "maybe this" or "maybe that" or "unlikely whatever," don't sound anymore scientific when used by evolutionists.
Excuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
Undeniable proof that GOD is real: Desmond Doss: The Real StoryExcuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.
I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.
Undeniable proof that GOD is real: Desmond Doss: The Real StoryExcuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.
I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.
You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
Why not get some new, improved gods?
Sorry, but I'm not about to re-explain the Bible to someone as smart and as educated as you present yourself. The truth is that due to Adam's presumption that what GOD told him was not true, Satan was able to gain a foothold and the entire Universe has come under the curse of SIN. GOD could deal with this in one of 2 ways. ONE, destroy every thing and begin again. This would condemned Adam for all eternity. Or TWO, allow Satan to have his day and provide a means of salvation for everyone who would place their trust in GOD for this salvation.You can thank Satan for war, but you can thank GOD for His salvation: Trailer #1 from Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
So Satan is more powerful than your gods?
Why not get some new, improved gods?
And so GOD took it upon HIMSELF to save (whosoever will come to believe in HIM) through the MESSIAH/CHRIST. So the reality is that presently Satan is manipulating events but not without still being under GOD's divine limiting perimeters (read the book of JOB).
I'm thankful that GOD gave me an opportunity to exist and come to trust in HIM. Unfortunately, this means that there will be those who presumptuously believe that GOD isn't in charge.
I am not going to read article you never read and don't understand, and then spoonfeed its contents to you.Undeniable proof that GOD is real: Desmond Doss: The Real StoryExcuse you....I am open to any and all new, empirical information amd would change my stance on anything and everything, should i be presented with enough empirical knowledge which contradicts it.You are a very narrow minded lost soul.
You, on the other hand, have made up your mind with 100%certainty without any regard to any evidence, nor would you ever change your mind , when presented with evidence. We see a fine example of this in your embarrassing, childish intransigence in regards to the theory of evolution.
I am infinitely more open minded than you will ever be, and i resent your nauseating, dishonest attempts to soothe yourself with your false, overwrought characterizations of me.
