Why do You Believe the World is only 6.000 years old? (Creator, spiritual)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Radioactive decay is a proven fact. IN fact the rate of decay can be measured with a Geiger counter.
Can you tell me why you think the Earth is 6000 years?
BTW, if you are a Sola Scriptura troll you are doing quite well.
Of course radioactive decay is a fact. A better instrument to measure it with is a scintillator counter. The problem is that that decay is very erratic and highly random. I have worked with Cobalt 60, U-235, and a couple of other sources. The radiation given off even by background is highly sporadic and uneven. A source may sit for a minute and not emit any radioactivity then spurt out a large burst that lasts for a second or two, then go dormant for another few seconds. I've only measured a source for an hour or so but I wouldn't go to the bank on any test that is supposed to prove something over any length of time especially for 100K years or something.
Albert . . . The amount of ignorance you are confronting is legion. I don't believe it is possible to believe such nonsense about a 6,000 year old earth and actually be science-educated and intelligent. Any claims of graduating from VPI (Virginia Polytechnic Institute?) with ANY kind of degree is pure nonsense. Any claims to a knowledge of science is preposterous given the blatant ignorance of basic concepts and principles of science displayed in the posts. The grammar alone reveals you are unlikely to be dealing with an intellectual. The median IQ is 100 meaning that 50% of the population is below it. Science and reason will have little impact on them.
At least I have a degree in engineering and run my own electrical construction and maintenance company, Dear.
To answer your question in the OP, people believe what they want to believe.
To me, it is common sense that if the evolution theory had been proven, we would be able to evolve ourselves and still be able to reproduce in spite of the added genetic information to our formerly settled DNA.
But we are not.
What blows my mind? People claiming that evolution theory is true when the "facts" are still being modified as time goes on. So when they were spouting "facts" before, they were not actually "facts". Then what leads any one to believe that they have the "facts" now?
Because they want to believe it.
I see the world wide flood in spite of the presentation by scientists favouring the evolution theory.
And the Bible warns of the coming fiery judgment on the earth that will burn up 1/3 rd of the earth, which is the entire Western Hemisphere to set the stage for the New Wold Order where the other half of the world of its 2/3 rd land mass is why they are still around to fulfill Bible prophesies of the coming great tribulation.
With that bio chip on the horizen which will be the only way to buy and sell, that is the mark of the beast for use during the great tribulation. The Bible prophesy that people will still mock and scoff until the Bridegroom appears to take the ready & abiding bride of Christ to the Marriage Supper, leaving the wayward and unrepentant saints & former believers to be left behind at the pre tribulational rapture event to face that fiery judgment ( see Revelations 18th chapter & Luke 12:40-49 in KJV ) & the coming great tribulation.
Former believers should go before that throne of grace, asking Jesus for help to see the truth in His words and discernment in reading these "scientific" articles in what they are really presenting as it is not a science that can be observed nor proven.
It's absolute hogwash. There have been found not a single half-bird-half-man even within the fossil record. Not a single transitional specimen.
The Theory of Gravity is provable scientificly. You can't live long enough to prove anything that you claim (without proof) takes millions of years. It is therefore not scientific at all. Only an unprovable idea.
Exactly what I have been trying to get across to them. It is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. It is not pure proven science.
No, I doubt you do. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence that you even know how you think. I don't mean that to be insulting - it's just that every time someone asks you to explain your reasoning, you evade the question. As you're doing again here. I really don't think you have any idea why you think what you think.
That is, if you really do think it. I'm honestly beginning to think this is all some clever joke. What part of what I said could possibly be construed as criticizing the school you attended? I find it almost impossible to believe your reading comprehension is sincerely that poor.
You're the one making the claims, it's incumbent upon you to provide either an argument to support it, or (at the very least) evidence in the form of links to arguments that other people have made in defense of your assertions. You do neither.
Actually, the more I read, the more I suspect you really are just having fun with us. I'm starting to wonder at this point if you're really an atheist trying to make Christians look bad. In all sincerity, it really is starting to look like the most logical explanation for this.
I am having fun with you. I keep telling you that Evolution is a THEORY and not a proven science. You, for all your self-proclaimed intelligence apparently do not even know what the definition of a "theory" is. Yes, I am laughing at you.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,933,385 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being
Sorry. It's a work day you know. Here's a few you can look at. It won't do any good though. I've already been through this with many others and no one ever wins. It's all argument. I really don't have the time to sit down and engage anyone because I do still have a business to look after.
The strength ofa scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain,and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor).[citation needed] As additional scientific evidenceis gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fitthe new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory isthen desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theorycan still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity)as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws ofmotion as an approximation to special relativityat velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).[citation needed]
What is SCIENCE? ]1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing witha body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of generallaws.
Evolution is theory. Neither Evolution or Creationism can be proven. Get over it. Neither are true science.
Well, thanks for the cut and paste. Part of which describes what a scientific theory is. Great.
That was not my question.
My question was what is the scientific method. Part of your cut and paste links to the description. Now that you know where to find the answer, and I assume you are entirely cognizant of that links contents, tell us HOW that scientific method was used to develop your young earth perspective. The links you provided (half didn't work as the cut and paste did not capture the URLs) show NO indication of utilizing the scientific method.
I haven't seen this much twisting and turning since American Bandstand. Why do apologetics never seem to actually answer a direct question?
OH, and look at this. A fish, that can not only walk, but it can live out of water. And evolve in one generation. Imagine that. Many would say, eyup, that would be one of those transition critters.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,933,385 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being
Exactly what I have been trying to get across to them. It is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. It is not pure proven science.
Tell us about the Theory of Electricity. That one should be right up your alley. Didn't you take some courses in that?
Why is it ONLY a Theory?
Hint, if you answer and understand what the scientific method is all about, you can answer both why the Theory of Electricity is as valid as the Theory of Evolution. I have noticed you are avoiding telling us about the scientific method though, and how it applies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IN fact the rate of decay can be measured with a Geiger counter.