antelope_sniper,
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
I never used the word degree. The equation of a line is 7th or 8th grade pre-algebra. Derivative of simple equations is High School Calculus.
A solid grounding in the basics of math and science is necessary to evaluate the validity of many of the claims we discuss here, and unfortunately, in many of these discussions you GED shows through. As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more. In addition, we have:
Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques.
Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary.
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of science that your one little talking point become irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of science would have to be wrong. What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
