Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The difference is, how I think philosophically is different than how I behave normally. If I behaved in a way that is directly tied to my philosophical thought, (like your example of not trusting my senses) I would behave very differently than I do now.Haha, well, i disagree. I know what your getting at though
If you don't trust anything you will very soon go Psycotic, that's how the human mind works, haha.
But i totally know what you mean, i'm just coming out(i hope) of a phase of not trusting anything, and it makes you a very stressed person. I wouldn't recommend ithaha.
Well technically you cannot prove anything. You cannot prove that the earth is round, or that the computer you are typing on does not run on magic, but there is information that we have that shows that the earth is round and that your computer does not run on magic, to the point where it would be quite ridiculous to claim that the earth is flat.
The same goes for pretty much everything in science. Proofs are for math and alcohol, nothing else.
You silly objectivists.You can't prove anything? Amusing...since you just proved you can't prove anything.(Side note everyone: I do believe you can prove things)
Err, why not?Now, as to Carbon Dating...its not a great idea to try to figure out the age of things.
When were these?There have been times where they've used it twice on one object, and gotten two extremely different times.
Okay, then where are you getting this information?However, you will not find it published on scientific websites, especially ones that back evolution.
While I believe the Bible to be fallible, metaphorical interpretation is not the same thing as fallibility.As towards creation being literal, yes, I do believe it is quite literal, and if it weren't, wouldn't that therefore make the Bible fallible?
You're trying to prove that the Bible is infallible... by using the Bible... Have you ever heard of the phrase 'circular logic'? Because that is a prime example.We're told the Bible is infallible. (John 8:31-32, 2 Samuel 22:31)
If you read Genesis chapter 4, you will realize immediately that Genesis cannot be taken literally.
<br />Arguements from this perspective are very weak. There is nothing that says Cain and Abel were the only two children at the time, and in fact one verse says Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters.<br />
<br />
There have been times where they've used it twice on one object, and gotten two extremely different times. However, you will not find it published on scientific websites, especially ones that back evolution.
Can't someone be afraid of being bounty hunted in the future? He must have known that the eventual other people going to be born might kill him if they discovered him.Therefore, all other children he had came after the verses I said before.
Basically Carbon dating is a way of seeing how old something is. Firstly we must realise that atoms can decay over time, the time taken for it too decay in half, is called the half-life.
Each atom has a individual half-life. In this example we shall take carbon to have a half-life of 900 years.
For example if there is a box and we no there should be 100 atoms in it then, but when we open it we only find 50 then from this we can work backwards to find out how old it is.
We can see that there is exactly half the amount of atoms there should be. So from this we can deduce that this particular box is 900 years old.
In reality carbon does not have such a short half-life is more in the range of 5730 years.
So with this information we can see that the earth is much older than the figure set in the bible (6,000 years).
Sorry if this not the best explanation but it is hard to articulate.
I'm sorry but i don't agree with you, As one man said, carbon dating actually contridicts millions of years. he explained it like this, at one time a diamond was found that scientists estimated to be 6,000,000 years old. But after they did their carbon dating thing on it, they only found it to be about 3000 years old, but they went with the 6,000,000 years, but the question he asked was, how could the scientists have used carbon dating on it if it was that old?
I'm sorry but i don't agree with you, As one man said, carbon dating actually contridicts millions of years. he explained it like this, at one time a diamond was found that scientists estimated to be 6,000,000 years old. But after they did their carbon dating thing on it, they only found it to be about 3000 years old, but they went with the 6,000,000 years, but the question he asked was, how could the scientists have used carbon dating on it if it was that old?
To be difficult and reverse the question... Can we take carbon dating seriously? It has been proven wrong over and over. At one time dating a formation of 200y.o. lava rocks as over 1million years old.
I believe in creationism!
Can we take carbon dating seriously? It has been proven wrong over and over. At one time dating a formation of 200y.o. lava rocks as over 1million years old.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?