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.
Would you care to elaborate (in your own words) as to why you view scientific dating methods as a religious belief. What god does it worship?
I came up with a definition of "religion" that both excludes Christianity as a religion and includes atheism as a religion:Not scientific "dating" methods, but the unquestionable faith (held by all evolutionary mystics) that the earth is extremely ancient in a way that facilitates the mysterious evolution of all life on earth from a common seed. (i.e. millions and billions of years) This is a sacrosanct creed never, ever, to be questioned.
You are contradicting yourself. You are saying "not scientific dating methods", then criticizing those ages obtained through those methods. Contrary to what you may believe, dating methods, and evolution are two completely different disciplines.Not scientific "dating" methods, but the unquestionable faith (held by all evolutionary mystics) that the earth is extremely ancient in a way that facilitates the mysterious evolution of all life on earth from a common seed. (i.e. millions and billions of years) This is a sacrosanct creed never, ever, to be questioned.
In short, I don't believe using stalactites and fossils as examples of deep time are convincing.
Showing me a stalactite and telling me it took [deep time years] to form doesn't cut it.
Ditto for fossils.
You are contradicting yourself. You are saying "not scientific dating methods", then criticizing those ages obtained through those methods.
Somewhat.But do you understand fossilization? Like at all?
As they say:If you think that nobody believed in deep-time before radiometric "dating" came along, then you have some studying to do.
In short, I don't believe using stalactites and fossils as examples of deep time are convincing.
What you are unknowingly describing is the discipline of Speleothem analysis and chronology. What you have done is trip over an area I am extremely familiar with. In case you don't recall, I have mentioned numerous times over the years that my concentration in my Earth Science degree was paleoclimatology. Speleothems are excellent proxy's for past climate conditions not only on an annual basis, but a sub-annual basis as well, through the examination and quantification of both stable and unstable isotopes. Speleothems are also an excellent source for increasing the accuracy of the radiocarbon calibration curve. If you are going to dispute any of the numerous applications of speleothems, you need to specify a specific application and show what the problem is you claim and present a scientific argument justifying said claim.Showing me a stalactite and telling me it took [deep time years] to form doesn't cut it..
i would say religion occurs when the bible is misinterpreted.I came up with a definition of "religion" that both excludes Christianity as a religion and includes atheism as a religion:
Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.
No argument there.i would say religion occurs when the bible is misinterpreted.
I suppose if they can have "living wills," they can have "living fossils"!Some living folk seem like fossils
And that definition utterly fails.I came up with a definition of "religion" that both excludes Christianity as a religion and includes atheism as a religion:
Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.
Somewhat.
But it's confusing to me.
One minute they show a tooth.
Then they show a skeleton.
Then they say it's some kind of process involving "fossilization."
Then they claim it's an impression in rock.
Who knows?
Are mummies "fossils"?
Your post only says that because atheists like to pretend to be non-religious.And that definition utterly fails.
No, it failed utterly. If you want to try again have at it.Your post only says that because atheists like to pretend to be non-religious.
Somewhat.
But it's confusing to me.
One minute they show a tooth.
Then they show a skeleton.
Then they say it's some kind of process involving "fossilization."
Then they claim it's an impression in rock.
Who knows?
Are mummies "fossils"?
No, that is a definition that can be applied to many things other than religion.Religion = a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
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?