That's an example of missing context. Lead salts are not indicative of earth age, but only for the age of the process that produces lead salts.reconciliation said:So you admit that the amount of salt contradicts billions of years? If it gives ages like a few hundred years, they are much easily understood with YEC than ToE.
The ages calculated by Morris only show the average residence times of the various salts in the ocean, and not the total accumulation times. If we look at influx rates and removal rates, you find that all the elements are in approximate equilibrium.reconciliation said:So you admit that the amount of salt contradicts billions of years? If it gives ages like a few hundred years, they are much easily understood with YEC than ToE.
But it would be very improbable that the process would have begun only a few centuries ago if the Earth (and sea) was billions of years old. That way we can use the amount of salts as a method to estimate the age of sea and also the Earth.Randall McNally said:That's an example of missing context. Lead salts are not indicative of earth age, but only for the age of the process that produces lead salts.
How do you calculate this probability?reconciliation said:But it would be very improbable that the process would have begun only a few centuries ago if the Earth (and sea) was billions of years old.
Read Jet Black's link above.That way we can use the amount of salts as a method to estimate the age of sea and also the Earth.
Here is a cool fact that I heard. In a lab somewhere, there are scientists that are shooting atoms at each other, seeing what smaller particles make up the atom.
They have found that every atom is made up of Nuetrons, Protons and Electrons. Each of these are made up of a smaller particle (man, I forget what they are called).
After that, the only thing they found was light, and we know that light is made up of sound.
Nobody yet can say (I have yet to hear) what sound is made up of.
God spoke, and there was light, and then everything else. Sound is the power of creation.
1. My teacher told us that the definition of Evolution is that every living thing has the same genetic code for building amino acids, therefore there is a common cause. Is this the right definition?
She says that everyone agrees on evolution, and tis impossible to deny it, but that what people disagree on is natural selection. Is this true?
2. How is it possible to believe in Evolution and God?
I looked up evolution online and it doesn't sound like the same definition she gave us in class, I walked up to her before class started and quietly (no one heard me) told her this, and she freaked out and verbally attacked me in front of everyone. She didn't like me saying that her definition might be different form the ones I find from authoritative sources.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Christianity disagrees.
Why can't God create through natural processes then?
from descartes demon, to the movie "The Matrix" to the original StarTrek series, people have considered "the brains in a vat" question. imho, it has no solution. You assume one answer or the other and work from there.Why can't Satan trick and fool through natural processes?
But it would be very improbable that the process would have begun only a few centuries ago if the Earth (and sea) was billions of years old. That way we can use the amount of salts as a method to estimate the age of sea and also the Earth.
Why can't God create through natural processes then?
Here is a cool fact that I heard. In a lab somewhere, there are scientists that are shooting atoms at each other, seeing what smaller particles make up the atom. They have found that every atom is made up of Nuetrons, Protons and Electrons. Each of these are made up of a smaller particle (man, I forget what they are called). After that, the only thing they found was light, and we know that light is made up of sound. Nobody yet can say (I have yet to hear) what sound is made up of.
God spoke, and there was light, and then everything else. Sound is the power of creation.
Hi, this forum is always kind of intimidating so I never came in before, but I have a couple of questions. I am taking a university level Philosophy class and we are going over arguments for and against God. Okay, here are my questions...
1. My teacher told us that the definition of Evolution is that every living thing has the same genetic code for building amino acids, therefore there is a common cause. Is this the right definition? She says that everyone agrees on evolution, and its impossible to deny it, but that what people disagree on is natural selection. Is this true?
2. How is it possible to believe in Evolution and God?
3. How is it possible to believe in Evolution, Natural Selection and God?
I looked up evolution online and it doesn't sound like the same definition she gave us in class, I walked up to her before class started and quietly (no one heard me) told her this, and she freaked out and verbally attacked me in front of everyone. She didn't like me saying that her definition might be different form the ones I find from authoritative sources.
I'd appreciate anyone and everyone responding to this thread. I am just trying to understand things, and incorporate all of this into my beliefs somehow?
Thank you so much,
Steffani
EDIT: Oh, and is it possible to still believe that the world was really created in 7 days?
Then I would tell her that a single common ancestor is an a priori assumption not a scientific conclusion.
Atheists think they can monopolise the sciences by defining sciences as without God.
Then I would tell her that a single common ancestor is an a priori assumption not a scientific conclusion.
not only is it NOT an assumption but a conclusion from the data, it is not even essential to the framework of the TofE. if tomorrow the hot vent creatures were found to have a very different genetic code and for all practical purposes completely evolved separately from life on earth it would not effect the framework of the TofE the least little bit. Life could have a dozen early starts, it would challenge only the idea of common descent from a single point. so what?How is common ancestry an apriory assumption? What system requires this as a starting point. Common ancestory is a conclusion derived from the evidence.
not only is it NOT an assumption but a conclusion from the data, it is not even essential to the framework of the TofE.
i sure wish YECists could either define an a priori assumption or present one for discussion. everything i have seen claimed as an assumption in in fact a conclusion.......
perhaps, YECists, consistently skipped philo101:intro to logic class?
How is common ancestry an apriory assumption?
What system requires this as a starting point.
Common ancestory is a conclusion derived from the evidence.
Science cannot comment on God, the supernatual, the metaphysical etc. You will find athiests, agnostics and theist agreeing on this. You cannot usefully squeeze God into a science equation.
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?