Aineo wrote:There was a time that scientists thought it took thousands even millions of years for stalagmites and stalagtites to form in limestone caves. Then the Washington Monument was refurbished and what did they find in the basement foundation? Stalagmites and stalagtites that proved the old "theories" wrong.
It did nothing of the sort. You simply cannot compare deposition rates in a concrete building with deposition rates in a limestone cave. What is the problem that you do not understand this?
The same is true concerning the dating of Niagra Falls. Scientists used to believe the falls were resceding at millimeters or less per year, and now they know it is inches per year.
FYI, so's you won't be as education challenged as you were before:
http://www.niagarafallslive.com/Facts_a ... _Falls.htm
So yes, I understand the concept of falsibility. Now scienctists opine that the earch has shifted it axisis more than once, so a possible explanation of accumulation of sediments is the castastrophic results of these shifts as well as the result of meteor strikes.
Huh?!! What scientists are you referring to? Do you really know what you are talking about?
What has my religious beliefs have to do with data? Nothing, since data can be interpreted by filtering the data through a preconceived conclusion.
Which is exactly what you are doing and you obviously believe everybody's thought processes are similar to your's. Your religious beliefs prevent you from questioning your preconceived conclusion. Starting with conclusions and shaping the facts to fit is pseudoscience, not science.
Pastuer proved this when his experiments showed that rotting meat did not result in the spontaneous appearance of maggots, which was a conclusion drawn by all scientists based on what they wanted to believe.
Um, that was Francesco Redi in 1668, not Pasteur who lived 2 centuries later. You really ought to get your facts straight.
You know Rev, I could care less what you believe. The fact you refuse to refute what I posted concerning the tested stability of Noah's ark simply shows your own prejudice outweights doing any research. Check out this site:
http://www.ssgreatbritain.org/
Um, Aineo, that's an
iron ship.
Even if it is possible to build a seaworthy barge that size, it has been known for well over a century and a half that there was no flood to float it.
Modern fuel tankers are larger than the ark, so once again your statement shows your ignorance. The ark was designed as a barge, not a powered vessel.
One cannot compare the seaworthiness of a wooden vessel to an iron ship of equal size. More than that, this is a red herring. Even if you can demonstrate the seaworthiness of a wooden ship the size of the Ark is claimed to be, that does not prove the Ark actually existed. It really does not matter if one can build a seaworthy wooden boat the size of the postulated Ark if the flood did not occur, as the geological record shows. You are simply trying to divert attention from the fact you cannot answer my questions.
If anyone on this thread is ignoring data and real evidence it is you, not creationists who became creationists based on what science can show not what scientists assume.
What data have I ignored? What data have you ignored. Which of us is failing to respond to all the facts brought to the attention of the other? Which of us is making claims he cannot or will not substantiate?
Rev