Already did this earlier, on this page, and you had nothing to say about it. It’s been proven, you’ve been shown this, you have yet to rebut any of it, you are wrong.
And please stop repeating creationist garbage, this crap about Lyell is simply not true.
Go for it. Oh, and please come up with something new, not the usual long debunked creationist stuff.
Why? It’s a different from the verse I’m referring to. One is ma’owr and the other is 'owr
Let’s look at Ma’or:
I used Strongs here because BLB was a bit sparce:
Obviously this sides with what I’m saying. Let’s look at 'owr:
Appealing to 1.3 doesn’t help your case at all. In fact, you are definitely reaching at this point.
Why? You haven’t gotten yourself out of the first problem.
You seem to attempt to pull stuff out of your butt, it gets knocked down, and you pull the same stuff back out.
He’s just reaching Marley, it’s pretty obvious that he wants others to do the heavy intellectual lifting so he can come in and then attempt to handwave the problems away and re-assert his positions.
I had begun this “discussion”–if I can call it that–with a straightforward account, from a high-school biology textbook, of historical scientiific experiments testing a hypothesis critical to a tenet of evolution. Unfortunately, some people took it upon themselves to reply in such a manner that I could not carry on a coherent discussion; and they even impugned the scientists’ motives (“falsification” was one term they used.) I have a very low tolerance for the attitude of contermpt expressed by people who taunt me in a public forum with cutesy words like “Goddidit.” I consider myself to have been provoked and that is why I wrote what I did. The attitude of contempt stands as a grosser insult than any words I have used.
“Falsification” is one of those tricky technical terms that those sneaky scientists keep using. It means testing to try to prove an idea incorrect, as opposed to testing to see if an idea is correct. Test are designed by asking “If it is not true that (a), then we will see (b) happen under circumstances (c)”. In Pasteur’s case, he falsified the idea that molds, maggots, or mice spontaneously appear on rotting food.
It has nothing to do with data being fabricated or the researchers lying.
(ETA: and that is entirely the wrong way to report something to the Moderators.)
I apologize for the double post, but here is a link to explain the term.
But seriously, discussing scientific research without knowing what “falsifiability” means is as ignorant as doing Bible study without knowing that it was not originally written in English.
You’re a "99"er, dougie monty, and this very commonly used scientific term is new to you? I learned what it means in high school.
I’m not trying to pile on or insult you or anything of that nature, but falsification is one way that scientists use to verify ideas. Most of science is based on abduction, or an appeal to the best explanation. You can’t really ‘prove’ anything in science (perhaps some mathematical models), the best you can do is come up with something that fits the evidence and has not been falsified. You are correct that it’s a jargon term - it’s one that is often used in these sorts of discussions.
You can either PM them or post about it in ATMB. You can always PM Voyager (or whoever) to view that thread (obviously not the PM to the moderator).
I took chemistry in high school. My sister took biology. We didn’t even go to the same high school (long story).
"99"er? 
‘The Bible wasn’t originally written in English’? Oh, don’t tell that to Jack Chick–he’ll throw a fit! 
Odd, I had to take both.
As to 99er, he’s referring to your join date.
I learned the term in both chemistry and biology.
You joined SDMB in 1999, right. Hey, there, Buddy!
No, it only discredits literalist fundamentalism. There’s a difference.
I’d like to know how you approach “literal” vis-a-vis Romans 12:17-21.
Yeah, I should have specified that I was directing that question to Reef Shark
That’s true. Liberal Christians water down their beliefs such that they can’t be discredited in real time. They’re very crafty that way.
I was not reaching at all. You just proved my point by showing there was a different Hebrew word used in Gen 1:3 for light vs. Gen 1:16 ('owr vs. ma’owr). If you can admit this, we can move on to Matthew, thanks.
Using talkorigins to defend Lyell, seriously? Ok then:
Not at all. Oil deposits simply result from extreme heat and pressure turning decomposing organic material into oil. A lot of that dead organic material could come from a global flood, no? The same goes for plants and coal.
-Before anyone automatically wants to discredit this article without checking the references, please check the non-biased references first. Thanks.
I assume you’re mentioning oil and geology in reference to the debate on the age of the earth. Here is an interesting article on diamonds, which are thought to require deep time to form:
Regardless of the age of the earth, the main point that is debated here (from my standpoint) is simply creation vs. evolution. In no way have I ever claimed that someone who doesn’t believe in a young earth is not a Christian. This time element should not be a divider of Christians, in my opinion. If you believe in Jesus and what he claimed to be, that should be enough for common ground. Oil deposits really should have nothing to do with Christianity.