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.
You are the one assuming, no me. It is measurable.
What do you accept for the age of the earth?
Well that may be what the physical scientists say but that doesn't mean it's indeed practiced.
Not quite the same thing.
But the question I asked was if somebody tested the man Adam that God made from the soil what would he test as one day or 20 years old.
That's my whole point you believe that science is telling you the truth. I believe the Bible is telling me the truth. Who are Christians supposed to believe?
Seems like a rather risky and unnecessary move, to pit your beliefs against the facts.
I wonder what would happen if I moseyed over to thescienceforum.com and told them Jesus walked on water?
Well that may be what the physical scientists say but that doesn't mean it's indeed practiced. Are you trying to Advocate that all physical scientists are ethical and aboveboard?
Yes that's what scientific assumptions are supposed to be so have they been in this regard? In case you haven't figured it out yet I know exactly what I'm talking about the question is do you know what the so-called science is talking about and how they arrived at all these conclusions based on assumptions?
Science tells us no such thing. Science says that theories and observations are different things. Theories are not observations. As Gould put it:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Theory and Fact"
The same way you observe any other rock.
They are theories in ever sense. The prosecution presents their theory, and the observations that support it. It is a perfect analogy.
What difference does it make? The unobserved past is the unobserved past. If we can use evidence in the present to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene in the past, why can't we do the same for geology?
It is apples to apples. You just don't like it because it refutes your argument.
We can DIRECTLY observe isotopes decaying in the past when we look at distant objects. We can see that those decay rates were the same in the past. We can see that all of the physical constants that define decay rates were the same in the past.
No, I am talking about naturally occurring nuclear reactors.
I did articulate my own view point, and talk origins isn't biased.
I'm sorry, but you can't just hand wave all of this away.
When you look at distant stars, that's exactly what you are doing.
You obviously missed the point or ignored it. If they asked me for evidence, I'd show them where it's written in the Bible.I wonder what you would do when they asked for evidence that such a thing occurred?
You misunderstand, I said how did they observe? Nobody was there.
There are outliners in all disciplines of learning, including theology. However yes, it is indeed practiced and that is not just my opinion, I happen to be one of those physical scientists you appear to be questioning the integrity of.
M.S. in Physical Earth Science (Univ. of Memphis, 1977) and almost 30 years experience as a research chemist. And you?
The bible says nothing about the age of the earth.That's my whole point you believe that science is telling you the truth. I believe the Bible is telling me the truth. Who are Christians supposed to believe?
The physical evidence left by God's creation describes a different age. Are you suggesting God to be a deceiver?Well based on what we can glean from the Bible I'd say that it shows that the age of the Earth to be approximately 10,000 years old.
The bible says nothing about the age of the earth.
The physical evidence left by God's creation describes a different age. Are you suggesting God to be a deceiver?
Well main science does,
but isn't that awfully convenient that your own preferred science has a different set of rules based on how it operates outside of all other scientific endeavor?
Really? You have four and a half billion years old scientist that observed these rocks
No, they are hypothesis and deduction based on evidence.
The legal system is laws they aren't theories. We don't prosecute and charge people based on theories. Again you're comparing apples to oranges
That's the whole point if you can't observe it you can't confirm it and you can't falsify it.
Funny I didn't know denial is a scientific principle?
Well now I'm not really sure what kind of Decay rate you're talking about? You can see Decay rates through a telescope?
Yes and you said Okla.
Trust me it's more than bias than a lot more than a little condescending. It also uses a lot of assumptions that it calls factual science.
No you're looking at the light that became viewable about 10000 years ago. There is no proof that it started before we actually saw it based on what Genesis 1 tells us.
That is why I mentioned it. I am/was (retired) a part of the group that you seem to consider to be incompetent and dishonest. I take it personally.That would be against the rules here besides I don't even know you.
That's fine, God bless you. I have 68 years. But nevertheless, my question was, and I'll be more specific, what is your experience in the field of Earth Sciences, to make such uninformed claims concerning radiometric dating.45 years as a born-again baptized in the holy spirit Bible believing Christian.
That's not personal observation
So you are suggesting that God is deliberately misleading us about the age of the earth?The physical evidence that man is still theorizing about. I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying that God is so vastly beyond us and is able to create what he did how could we possibly ever hope to understand even one iota of what he did? I trust what I read in his word. That's how Christians operate, in faith, with everything else coming in second.
No, it doesn't. Theories and observations are two different things. You don't observe a theory.
They are the same rules.
Why would a scientist have to be that old to observe a rock? A 1 year old can observe a rock. Haven't you ever looked at a rock?
That's exactly what the age of the Earth is. It is a proven hypothesis based on evidence.
Apples to apples, chief. They use evidence found in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past.
What next? God plants DNA at crime scenes? How is that any less ludicrous than what you are proposing for geology?
We can observe the predicted ratios of isotopes in rocks which confirms the accuracy of radiometric dating methodologies. We can observe the predicted decay rates in distant supernovae, which confirms the constancy of decay rates through time. We can observe the constancy of physical constants for billions of years into history by looking at distant stars.
Denial is all you have. You try to pretend that God invented fake evidence.
Yes. You can measure the quantity of a specific element by its spectra, and measure how fast that element disappears by the reduction in light intensity for that spectra. You can directly observe decay rates in distant supernova.
You want to pretend that God faked all of this evidence. If the evidence weren't consistent with a past with the same constants we have now, why would you have to make such a claim?
Again, waving the word "assumption" around does not make it so. You are attacking the person making the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument. Show how these things are assumed, or admit that they aren't.
Why do you try to pawn off scientific methods or tools as personal observation?Why do you criticize things that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about?
Really then how are theories ever formed if they're never observed?
Do you think that Darwin did all these observations after he formed his theory?
Not even close.
Are you being deliberately obtuse now or is my English not clear enough for you? If scientists is going to make a decision on a four and a half billion year old rock somebody has to be there to observe that rock at its beginning or have faith that the science they've been told about is accurate and true which wouldn't make them a whole lot different than a Christian who has faith in the Bible. I still stick with the Bible.
Wow! Where did you get that degree in equivocation? The Earth isn't a hypothesis and the age hasn't been directly observed nor has there been any evidence that has been directly observed or falsifiable
Denial doesn't prove fact and whatever is used in the present is not observation of the past.
A lot of reconstruction is bad reconstruction.
You only consider it ludicrous because you don't fully understand or are willing to admit that you don't understand. I find it rather presumptuous of any human being would presume to be anywhere close to understanding how God created the universe and all the principles and laws that went into doing so. Bottom line for me is that if God says one thing and science says another, then science is simply wrong.
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?