I think that's the quickest I've changed someone's mind about something ever, haha!
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
I think that's the quickest I've changed someone's mind about something ever, haha!
Foolishness. Dawkins has been entirely consistent in his stance. He allows that he does not know with absolute certainty that there wasn't intelligent input during evolution but he is 99.99% sure there wasn't. You reward his acknowledgment that he is not an absolute arbiter of truth by saying he changed his mind? Try to think through the logic of what you claim before posting.
If he would just say he has no clue about God and then shut up then there would be no problem. But when he admits he knows nothing about God and then insists the God of the Bible is wicked and does not exist he shows himself to be a bigot and a fool.
No clue means no evidence. No evidence means no justifiable belief.
Have you read the old testament?
I studdeyed they olt tesament usine evlynn wodds sped redding coarse.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Dave?
If you cannot understand books written for grown ups, you should not talk about them.
That's a good list of accomplished scientists. They do not parrot anything; they are deep thinkers.
Preachers need no intelligence. They need only charisma and buzz words like a parrot. Why else is it possible for a 12 year old to do as good a job as an adult? There were no teenagers on my list.
You are one to talk. You come off like a stuttering bot. You 1) add a little reference to demons or Satan attributed to to 2) leftist or democratic groups 3) to whom ascribe intentional dishonesty and selfishness. Then when warranted you add either A) a heaping helping of false equivalency and B) the claim that nothing can be differentiated between obvious misdeed of those on your side because absolute proof of a negative statement cannot be achieved about the other side(it never can). You learn nothing and change little from post to post. Congrats.
You are blowing smoke. Some preachers may be unintelligent and some blacks may act like savages but only the stupidest or most hateful rubes will say all preachers are stupid or all blacks are savages.
You can not prove the earth is billions of years old. Nobody can. Those who believe in such old age speculations are like evolutionist cultists who blindly believe the nonsense their cult leaders teach them but cannot prove themselves.
Right Divider
Body part
This thread is about determining the age of the earth. Can we get back on topic?
Why didn't you say so?
Geologists create an estimate of the earth's age by dating some of earth's meteors. Dating rocks on the crust would be problematic because the surface of the earth goes through a cycle that involves going back and forth from igneous to metamorphic to sedimentary states.
Dating is accomplished by measuring radioactive isotopes. The radiation decays at a predictable rate. A thermal ionization mass spectrometer comes in handy.
Your critique?
Right Divider
Body part
You read the OP.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine the age of the meteors or the earth.
Evolutionists date earth rocks all of the time. Perhaps you should let them know that they are wrong.
That is an invalid assumption. We know for a fact (with verifiable scientific support) that decay rates are affected by various phenomenon.
Random comments come in handy.
Radiometric dating is not a valid way to determine that age of the earth. It requires multiple unverifiable assumptions. Some of which are actually falsified.
Last edited:
You could not prove a human estimation of the age of a meteor is accurate if your life depended on it. There is no way to date a meteor without relying heavily on at least one unproven assumption. There is no exception.
Yes, I did. And, I answered it specifically and completely but you didn't like it. I should have focused on the title only.
Save time in the future and add a "because. . ." after your bald assertions.
Dating the earth itself is more complicated.
We can rule out whether the adulterating phenomena occurred or not with a high level of certainty.
The assumptions are satisfied all reasonably. What are all the assumptions according to you?
Any measurement devise or any inferential statistic has assumptions. The assumptions can be readily confirmed.
When your deli weighs up your potato salad, we assume the scale has been calibrated and a tare has been entered so you are not charged for the weight of the container. No reason to forgo your lunch over it.
Right Divider
Body part
You did no such thing.
You should have focused on the topic and discussed some science.
No assertions, just facts.
Duh.
No, we cannot. But nice assertion.
There are several well known assumptions.
- Starting conditions.
- Rates of decay.
- No outside influences.
LOL.
Your analogies are funny and do not help your story.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Extrapolation again. Big time.
Extrapolation can be very compelling. And, It beats fabrication every time.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, even when it is completely unrealistic... if it is what you want to believe and are not concerned about facts.
It IS fabrication in your case!
Last edited:
expos4ever
Well-known member
The theory of evolution has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with how the universe came into being.