Creationism isn't science.
You not understanding how it works isn't proof that it isn't a thing...sorry. There are multiple ways fossils become what they are. Each provides a different but accurate perspective on history.
Jesus didn't do CPR. He said, Lazarus, come forth, after the dude had been dead for 4 days, and Laz got up. Jesus turned water into wine with a word, and premo wine at that! And He raised from the dead after a Roman crucification, after a spear pierced His lungs and heart, by Himself, in a sealed tomb, under Roman guard.
It was written down by reliable eye witnesses who watched the events over and over. Jesus did many miracles, not just one. The reliability of the witnesses is one of the greatest testimonies of its reliability .
So you won't address evidence presented to the contrary. Got ya. Very scientific of you.
That's not what you presented to me. You presented a creationist website as scientific evidence. Creationism is not science. Using a singular, unchanging text cannot ever be science, which relies on evolutions of theories based on repeatable observation and testing. Science continues to change as our understanding changes. Creationism changes interpretation of text to accommodate changes in understanding of our universe
And the birds are still... Birds. It's called adaptation. It's built into genetic code. What evolution as you claim it happens needs is NEW code and NEW DNA coming into being out of nothing, adding NEW information, and thereby one KIND of animal becoming a NEW KIND. We don't have one example of that happening anywhere in nature.
They present a whole lot of evidence that is not the Bible. See, you start with a bias and refuse to look at anything contradicting it. That is why what you believe isn't science.
That is what someone wrote about those events. You and I are not/ were not witness. There is zero physical evidence, only written versions of eye witness accounts. What did you say about today's media? Think spin didn't happen back in the "day".
Today, it is noted that eye witness accounts are not always reliable. Why? Well because we understand how the brain processes memories. Unlike computers, the Brain doesn't store a re-playable version.
That's not what they do.
This page is fucking hilarious. Explaining science by saying why non believers just don't get their explanation of science....
Actually not so clear. The Curse of Ham is one obscure passage that is given no explanation other than why it happened. In other words, it simply records an event. No serious student would turn around and make a singular statement without explanation to a son the foundation of a whole belief system. That would be very poor application indeed.
lol, so you deny "evolution" and make it adaptation.
What is built into the genetic code? How did the birds DNA modify? How could it know (the DNA that is) that in the future it would have to modify the birds beak?
Evolution doesn't mean one species of bird (for example) evolved into a different species of bird overnight.
Oh I shouldn't open this can, but I'm curious. So how do you explain Neanderthal? How about Homo Sapiens, or even Denisovan? Did God create all three as separate versions of man? Did he decide he didn't like the Neanderthal and Denisovans and wiped em out?
Did you scroll down to the many science-heavy articles on there?This page is fucking hilarious. Explaining science by saying why non believers just don't get their explanation of science....
https://answersingenesis.org/science/
We aren't talking general, broad statements that could apply in several places. We are talking kings named by name before their kingdom ever existed. We are talking cities, not even major ones, listed by name with their fate spelled out in detail. We are talking exact times and dates of events in nations not Israel under kings who had no interest in Scripture. We are talking humanly impossible prophecy.
Been to the sites and read their non Internet materials many times. That's exactly what they do. Just go through the site.
No, the text contradicts the ideas imposed on it.
I have. Your understanding of what they do is not correct.
That is your interpretation. Why is it correct while their interpretation is not?
Sorry. I just can’t, refuse to take you seriously. The Bible and its passages from creationism to the curse of ham have done a lot of damage. Interpreting the Bible is fluid based on individual reading. Science and the scientific method better strives for truth. Science is what I will worship until faith turns to fact.
No, I deny MACRO-evolution. Adaptation is not evolution. What you require for what you say happened is new code. There is not one example of any mutation in the DNA anywhere producing one new piece of new code. Every known mutation ends up LOSING information. That's exactly what the evolution you claim can't have happening for it to work.
Simple. Known variations in kind inside the same kind.
So we have to take it on faith that it happens over billions of years because it can't be observed. That's not science.
https://educateforlife.org/false-missing-links/
Yet you have to accept that on blind faith because no evidence supports it
Read the text and its full context for yourself. So far you have just quoted others about the text.
And that, my friend, is a statement you will answer to Him for one day... as you bow the knee in worship.
