-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..
- Thread starter biggles53
- Start date
- Status
The evidence points to deep time. It is no different than fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene. There is nothing circular about it.
No, I mean misinformation like dating rocks using fossils. You already know that rocks can be dated by methodologies that don't include fossils, didn't you?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, and I also believe scientists only use the handful of dating methods that can be calibrated to give them what they want, and find ways to reject the others.
As I understand it, there are some 80+ ways to date the earth, and scientists use four of them and reject the others for ... well ... scientific reasons.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
So you think the currently accepted age of the earth is some kind of conspiracy?
Upvote
0
Then why claim otherwise?
Now you have moved to vague and baseless allegations. This is also considered dishonest.
This is also dishonest because you have been shown more than four methods that scientists have used.
Do you really think that just making stuff up as you go to insult scientists and science in general is an honest way to treat other people?
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Debatable. At least there's a modicum of integrity with the "take a hike" statement, instead of proposing a huge, world-wide conspiracy among the scientific community.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Let's put it this way:
I really don't think the earth is nearly as old as scientists say it is, but I go with scientists' conclusion for the sake of arguing about it.
Just like Ussher's dating.
I use his method when asked questions like:
What year did the Flood occur?
And I do that because it really doesn't matter.
Yes, I'm loyal to the conclusions of scientists on such matters as the age of the earth; since the Bible is silent on that matter.
How scientists arrived at that age is another story altogether.
That's where I disagree.
Scientists say the earth is 4.57 billion years old because it aged that old through time; whereas I say it came into existence that old.
And that brings me to a conclusion that science makes that I will NEVER agree with:
Deep time.
Like I've said many times, I agree with about 95% of the conclusions made by scientists -- even if my pastor, who is a YEC, says otherwise.
But in that 5% where I disagree ... I very strongly will disagree and will not budge on principle.
Upvote
0
When scientists use the word age, they mean the time since that rock came into existence.
Do you still agree with the scientists?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Oh, boy ...
Ar/Ar dating:
Argonâargon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
K/Ar dating:
KâAr dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rb/Sr dating:
Rubidium-strontium dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pb/Pb dating:
Lead-lead dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U/Pb dating:
Uranium-lead dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are 5, and I'm just getting warmed up.
Upvote
0
Oh, boy ...
Lookit ... if "four" bothers you, then make it eight.
How's that?
What bothers me is that you will just put out whatever number you feel like. Why don't you look at the facts and give us an honest number.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
One is as good as another.
Let's say, AirPo, that you were Adam.
You are now 6000 years old, but very much alive today.
How would you go about convincing scientists that deep time is wrong?
Upvote
0
If pigs had wings they could fly . . . but they don't.
Are we going to talk about the real world now?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If a scientist showed me a rock and said it was 50,000 years old, I would not disagree with him.
If he then told me it was formed 50,000 years ago, I would disagree with him (on principle); but I would still believe it is 50,000 years old.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Because the number is moot, chief.
What difference does it make if there are 80 and you:
- accept 4 and reject 76
- accept 10 and reject 70
- accept 35 and reject 45
Upvote
0
Then why did you use the numbers to try and make an argument?
If I don't use every single ruler in the world to measure the length of a nail, am I picking and choosing?
If I don't use a scale made for semi-trucks to weigh a letter for the mail, am I picking and choosing?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
