Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Well one thing that is different with the dating of rocks is independent people can test the same rocks and get the same answer. That's what makes science different from other ways of knowing. If everyone is doing testing and they all seem to get the same answer, that tells you something about the natural world.
    So... you think that multiple labs making the same MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS and getting similar results is a proof that the method using the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS is scientifically valid?

    You surely don't understand the problem.
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Originally posted by Squeaky
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Originally posted by God's Truth
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
      The assumptions of radiometric dating and how they affect the assumed ages of the rock that is being tested.



      The rest of this article goes into a lot of detail on how the assumptions used by evolutionists/geologists are very often wildly wrong. It's a very good article.

      https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
      i predict that artie will either ignore it, mischaracterize it or misunderstand it

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        Of course it's moving on... as you have not yet understood the multiple assumptions that invalidate radiometric dating as a valid way to measure the age of the earth.
        No, it wan't. It was a link explaining how such processes work and if you think that the age of the universe has somehow been invalidated somehow then that's just a silly assumption of your own.
        Well this is fun isn't it?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
          No, it wan't. It was a link explaining how such processes work and if you think that the age of the universe has somehow been invalidated somehow then that's just a silly assumption of your own.
          Why do you just keep avoiding the FACTS of radiometric dating? Do you think that nobody is watching?
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • A couple of points here:

            Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
            The rest of this article goes into a lot of detail on how the assumptions used by evolutionists/geologists are very often wildly wrong. It's a very good article.

            https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
            This article was written by David Plaisted, who is a Computer Science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In other words, the topics of evolution, geology, radiometric dating, etc., are outside of his area of expertise, and he doesn't really know what he is talking about. See here for documentation: https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/20...vel-from-a-sob

            Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
            The assumptions that scientists make that are religious in nature...

            The rest of this excellent article is found at the following link. http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117
            This article comes from the website of the Saint Anselm College Philosophy Department. Saint Anselm College is a Catholic college founded by Benedictine monks at the invitation of the first bishop of Manchester in New England. This is significant because, as one bishop of the Catholic Church wrote, "Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence." So while the Catholic Church affirms God as Creator, their teaching does not reflect the YEC perspective. The article you linked to should be understood in that light.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by User Name View Post
              A couple of points here.
              Both useless.

              Learn to engage over the ideas, not where they come from.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                Why do you just keep avoiding the FACTS of radiometric dating? Do you think that nobody is watching?
                I haven't avoided anything. Do you think that when you make ridiculous statements about such dating methods being invalidated aren't seen in turn?
                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                  So... you think that multiple labs making the same MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS and getting similar results is a proof that the method using the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS is scientifically valid?

                  You surely don't understand the problem.
                  No, I think you're not understanding your problem.

                  All of these labs and techniques seem to come up with almost the same answer so either they all got there by an amazing coincidence or they're actually describing something real.
                  “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                  - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    All of these labs and techniques seem to come up with almost the same answer.
                    Show us that. Take a rock, split it in two and get two labs to tell us its age without any information but the sample.

                    Show us that your assertion is not blind faith.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Show us that. Take a rock, split it in two and get two labs to tell us its age without any information but the sample.

                      Show us that your assertion is not blind faith.
                      That's if they don't mind not having any information about it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                        I haven't avoided anything. Do you think that when you make ridiculous statements about such dating methods being invalidated aren't seen in turn?
                        The radiometric dating method that you so believe in is NOT a valid scientific method. It relies on at least THREE ASSUMPTIONS, any of which being wrong invalidate the results. These THREE ASSUMPTIONS are all unverifiable.

                        And yet you blindly carry on as if you've addressed even one of these assumptions.

                        The only one making a fool out of himself here is you.
                        All of my ancestors are human.
                        Originally posted by Squeaky
                        That explains why your an idiot.
                        Originally posted by God's Truth
                        Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                        Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                        (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                        1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                        (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                        Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                          No, I think you're not understanding your problem.

                          All of these labs and techniques seem to come up with almost the same answer so either they all got there by an amazing coincidence or they're actually describing something real.
                          http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5356823
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                            The radiometric dating method that you so believe in is NOT a valid scientific method. It relies on at least THREE ASSUMPTIONS, any of which being wrong invalidate the results. These THREE ASSUMPTIONS are all unverifiable.

                            And yet you blindly carry on as if you've addressed even one of these assumptions.

                            The only one making a fool out of himself here is you.
                            The one who's making assumptions and demanding that scientific methods are invalidated by the very same is you. You ignore all evidence that supports the dating systems that contradict the universe being as young as your religious belief determines it to be. Science isn't constrained by that and nor is belief.
                            Well this is fun isn't it?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              The one who's making assumptions and demanding that scientific methods are invalidated by the very same is you. You ignore all evidence that supports the dating systems that contradict the universe being as young as your religious belief determines it to be. Science isn't constrained by that and nor is belief.
                              So you're just going to cry like a baby and CONTINUE to ignore the details.... got it.

                              I have made no assumptions, which makes you a liar.

                              I understand that your precious belief system is be destroyed right before your eyes. It must be very traumatic.
                              All of my ancestors are human.
                              Originally posted by Squeaky
                              That explains why your an idiot.
                              Originally posted by God's Truth
                              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                So you're just going to cry like a baby and CONTINUE to ignore the details.... got it.

                                I have made no assumptions, which makes you a liar.

                                I understand that your precious belief system is be destroyed right before your eyes. It must be very traumatic.
                                Um, dude, I don't have a "precious belief system" that's been destroyed in any way. Nothing that you have stated on here invalidates the scientific acceptance of the universe being over 13 billion years old. I'd have no problem if science indicated that the universe was thousands of years old instead of billions. No trauma here.
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X