I don't. That's why science should not try to either.
Why shouldn't science try to determine if what we think about nature is true is actually true? Isn't that the whole point of doing science in the first place?
Upvote
0
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.
I don't. That's why science should not try to either.
You keep saying that. I say I do, and will present it when I have time. The more posts I have to keep answering, the less time I have.
You can dig that out for yourself. How many people in the world are permitted to publish a paper in a refereed scientific journal?
For hat matter, hi ow many journals are there, multiply by how many articles each has printed in the last 20 years. I bet it's less than 60 million (1% of the population of earth.)
I have a feeling most think anything destroys my "created with age nonsense."They completely destroy your "created with age" nonsense.
Scientists go by the rules everyone is telling me. They would not ask those questions. So they must explain the change in science in some other way.
I have a feeling most think anything destroys my "created with age nonsense."
Happy Birthday!Of course. An overview of Jewish and Christian beliefs and doctrine is included in any quality history curriculum. It's hard to learn about Western civilization without knowing such things.
Ya ... you said that already.Uranium radiohalos most certainly do destroy embedded age claims.
1. That is the point we are debating.
2. I'd love to write a murder mystery where the bad guy bombarded the lab with radiation on that day, so the laws inside would change.
3. But it is the observations of tests that are used to build theories.
4. My beliefs are based on tests of reality I have done.
Ya ... you said that already.
Have you seen my radiohalo thread from years ago?
Not when it is information unrelated to aging of matter or time measurement.I have a feeling most think anything destroys my "created with age nonsense."
Aging is a process that didn't occur during the creation week.Not when it is information unrelated to aging of matter or time measurement.
Aging is a process that didn't occur during the creation week.
Adam, for instance, didn't "age to thirty;" he came into existence thirty.
Aging is a process that didn't occur during the creation week.
Adam, for instance, didn't "age to thirty;" he came into existence thirty.
Faith isnt based on scientific observation, which is why it is faith.
I'd get a better dictionary then.That is not possible as the definition of age is "time in existance".
No. I am speaking of a cross-section of 10 dimensional space used as models in current string-theory type ideas. Einsteinian is valid int he neighborhood of earth, but w3e do not know how far that extends.
I have already posted that scientists control who is part of them, and exclude 99% of the people doing so. That makes "scientific theory" just another word for "Listen to me. I'm a smart guy."
Point us to the definition of "age" you are using, and to one of those "better" dictionaries.I'd get a better dictionary then.
QV please:Point us to the definition of "age" you are using, and to one of those "better" dictionaries.
Then don't give it that --- give it definition #4 in answers.com.
I made it clear that I'm using definition #4 from answers.com.