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.
This section is open to atheists. You should go to the Christians only threads where you can preach till your heart's content. If you are here to preach then you are in the wrong thread. Your preaching has no place here. If you want to debate then bring forth arguments and evidences and not sermons! Apologetics is not allowed here by CF rules.Originally Posted by Aman777
You should go to a Godless Evol site where Christians are not allowed. I can assure you that IF you claim to be a Christian, they will treat you like a Dog, ignore you and call you every name in the book. I know because I've been there. Do Christians on this Board treat you better? God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
Please think about what you just said. It claims it is non-visible but doesn't describe what is non-visible, but it says that what holds the universe together is non-visible which is describing what its function is. That is pretty accurate information.
I didn't claim that it helped in the acquiring of the knowledge but if those who were doing the science had looked at that they may have known about the atom long before they did. The fact that the Bible puts forth this information is what is significant.
Multiple lines of independent evidence. The Sun's internal dynamics come from our understanding of everything from the largest Einsteinian space-time warping to the smallest quantum tunnelling (the latter finally explaining the Sun's emission spectrum, something classical mechanics never could). The Earth's age comes from radiometry, geology, cosmology, etc.
They could... but it's unlikely. The sheer abundance of independent bodies of evidence means that the probability that the Earth is indeed 4.54 billion years old is exceedingly high - not just 'best guess', but 'almost certainly the right figure'.
The data come from two different angles, one lowering the maximum age (it can't be older than 4.54 billion) and one lowering the minimum age (it can't be younger than 4.54 billion). That all this evidence hones in on exactly the same value is called consilience, and it makes the evidence is phenomenally stronger and almost impossible to budge.
Isaac Asimov penned a famous essay called The Relativity of Wrong which explains quite nicely the error you're making. Basically, just because scientific conclusions change doesn't mean that they change completely. We've gone from a flat Earth to a spherical Earth, but that doesn't mean we'll next say the Earth is cubical, and then that it's dodecahedral, and then that it's toroidal. Scientific ocnclusions don't jump around willy-nilly, they refine.
Even great paradigm shifts follow this trend: the changeover from classical to quantum mechanics didn't radically alter the notion that heavy things fall or snooker balls will collide. It refined the small-scale behaviour, but didn't overturn the major conclusions drawn from the old theory (heliocentrism, escape velocities, accretion disks, etc).
So while, yes, it's entirely possible that all our observations and measurements are all erroneous and just coincidentally hone in on exactly the same value, this is bewilderingly unlikely.
This simply untrue. The consensus has been that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and has been this way for decades. What the first lifeform was is still under debate, but only a handful of hypothesis dominate the discussion. Whether bare RNA or polymers in a micelle bubble, we're looking at very primitive biology - it's not going to be a leprechaun. Even in uncertainty, we know the kinds of things it's going to be.
Yes. So? There are limits as to how early life can arise - you won't find primates prior to mammals, nor flowering plants before angiosperms. Exactly when flowering plants arose may be tweaked and refined, but the core order of events remains the same.
That flowering plants are actually at least 240 million years old (something I didn't know, thanks for the heads up) is ultimately only so much detail. The order of events, plant ancestry, etc, remains unchanged. It's not like we've discovered the first lifeform was a solitary rose.
'Wrong'? What evidence was wrong, exactly? The 140 million year figure is the oldest known fossil, and is the minimum age that flowering plants can be. But there is a maximum age, too - we won't discover 5 billion year old plants, because there were no plants before there was a planet to sit on.
And?
Well, we know. We know the ancestry of modern flowering plants. We know that plants and animals are related by a common ancestor, which must necessarily precede both kingdoms.
Again, your problem is assuming that scientific conclusions are unreliable because they're subject to change. Do you reject the conclusion that the Earth is spherical(ish) because science changes? Of course not.
I did and my point still stands. Claiming the Bible 'predicted' atoms gets us nowhere. It didn't give us the clues to find atoms, didn't describe them in detail, and didn't lead any scientest to their discovery. It is a usesless piece of information that, even if it is correct, proves nothing.
Now if there was some information in the Bible that does point us to some new knowage, not just discribe it vagely, you would have something. Just claiming that the Bible descrips that out of a vage passage that could mean anything doesn't show that it is predictive. The way it is frased we could have found anything and you could claim the Bible predicted it.
It could have been farries, duct tape and superglue and you would have claimed that.
I didn't say that it lead to their discovery although there have been incidences that have led to discovery. It is not a useless piece of information when you see that it was something that could not have been known at the time and that no one of that time would have even thought that it was the case. Observation would show that all "things" have form and are not made of something non-visible.
Ok, what meaning could it have other than the one I gave it?
All these are visible. So your remark is nonsensical.
Disregarding astrophysics, physics, and a plethora of other scientific research on planet formation; I would like to ask you if the sun did not exist when the earth was formed then what did it orbit? A pink unicorn?First, what evidence do we have that the sun formed first? The evidence for the sun's age is around the 4.6 billion year range. The earth's 4.57 but this is based on comparing meteorites and other fossil evidence. There is no precise method of dating the earth.
Right, the sun's age is determined by multiple independent lines, however, the age of the earth is determined by evidence and a certain amount of assumption. Both the sun and earth are aged assuming the Nebular theory which is widely accepted but has some problems.
First, what evidence do we have that the sun formed first? The evidence for the sun's age is around the 4.6 billion year range. The earth's 4.57 but this is based on comparing meteorites and other fossil evidence. There is no precise method of dating the earth.
Abundance of independent bodies of evidence for the age of the earth? You mean meteorites and fossils?
Why can't it be older than 4.54? There are varying dates as high as 4.57 some even claim 4.6.
I never claimed it was willy-nilly. However, jumping 100 million years exemplifies the imperfection of fossil evidence.
Ok?
When one makes the assumption for instance, Nebular Theory and base evidence using that model it would come out at the same value. It would not be erroneous nor coincidental. The observations and measurements are using base assumptions. For instance, if you see meteorites that date to 4.67 billion years old and earth rocks that date 4.5 billion years old or there about and assume that the sun must be older than that using the Nebular Theory it would be based on evidence and not be considered erroneous or coincidental.
I am not claiming that they would find a rose dated at 5 billion years old. However, the first life form of plants could be present very early on that lead to flowering plants. We also know that there is plenty of time for life to have existed on earth and been destroyed. So there is that possibility as well.
It doesn't matter. The first life form that lead to plants could have been before all of those.
My point is that using fossil evidence one must realize that we can't know how far back certain life forms were present solely on fossil evidence. We might not find a rose currently. If there were no other life appearances during the earliest era of earth that was not destroyed, we can assume that there would not be evidence of a rose or flowering plant in the fossil record. That doesn't mean that the first life form that lead to plants did not exist very early. In fact, there is evidence (still controversial) that may show that plants (very simple and primitive) were on earth prior to the Cambrian Explosion.
Ok wrong was the wrong word.
And?
I am not claiming that it is completely unreliable. But things change and new discoveries are made. When the earth was thought flat was it true? So there is truth in the mix and that is really what science can't tell us. It can provide evidence to support what we hope is true, however, we can see from experience that somethings in science may be supported by known evidence and then a new discovery replaces the old view. That is the essence of science. It can and does change to accommodate new information.
It is meaningless and does not show there is a devine being.
That the universe is held together by God.
You have seen faries?
Disregarding astrophysics, physics, and a plethora of other scientific research on planet formation; I would like to ask you if the sun did not exist when the earth was formed then what did it orbit? A pink unicorn?
If scientific testing actually came up with a different number of the earths age, would you then not question the credibility of the testing. And, what would that number be?
If they found evidence from the first surface of the earth that dated the earth with precision I would think that it was as accurate as we could get. That doesn't give us 100% accuracy but it would be closer to the accurate time frame.
Because if there was no money in it for the professional creationists it would die,I don't know why you are always ranting about money either. It is not a requirement you know. It is up to the person. Churches don't require that you give them money and it is done free will.
Disregarding astrophysics, physics, and a plethora of other scientific research on planet formation; I would like to ask you if the sun did not exist when the earth was formed then what did it orbit? A pink unicorn?
Your lack of knowledge is so evident in such matters that sometimes I wonder if you ever went to school. No insult intended but if I were to claim that Jesus was a Muslim and hated God; I am sure you would laugh as we do at your claims. Yes they are that ridiculous.
Well, you are ok with how old science states the universe is, correct? But, you doubt sciences number on the earth. Why is that? I would assume you feel the testing methods utilized to age the universe, are more credible than the testing methods to age the earth?
Because if there was no money in it for the professional creationists it would die,
Hovind and his like would not be wasting their time doing it if they were not making a great deal of money.
So you think that scientific endeavors should be stopped? Why?
I believe he is saying it is sad that certain individuals give knowingly false information to cater to a certain crowd and giving them the comfort they so desperately need.
You see, some folks don't care whether what you are telling them is supported by evidence or not, they just want to hear it, because they need to hear it.
ASTROLOGYI am not sure if you are aware of the challenges against the standardplanet formation currently. Do you have evidence that the earth needed to rotate the sun in the earliest moments of our solar system? We know that astrophysics, physics and astrology can confirm that the earth rotates around the sun currently. However, do you have evidence that gives conclusive confirmation that the earth had to rotate around anything when it was first formed?
Do you have an example?
Do you have an example?
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?