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.
And the Koran describes embryology.
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.
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.
) 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.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.
The first and third are valid criticisms, but the second is chronological snobbery (do you really think that the ancient Hebrews must adhere to modern English nomenclature?), while the fourth is simply personal opinion.
Before modern science, intelligent, well-informed readers of the Bible thought that the Earth was the motionless center of the universe, surrounded by spheres carrying the planets (including the sun). They thought that disease was caused by demon possession, bad air and the malign influence of the stars. They thought that the universe was a few thousand years old. They thought that unicorns existed. They thought that bad luck was the result of witchcraft.
Has there ever been a time or place when most people didn't think the universe contained more than could be seen? How is the Bible telling us any more than Greek myths here?
That is how they found paths in the seas. Although, we have to have the technology to find out that there are non-visible elements and that they make up the universe.
Are you asking if I am YEC.
