“Mr. Comfort: Could you tell me how old you believe the earth to be, and why?” Andrew Douglas
I have no idea how old the earth is, but I’m not alone in this. Science can’t make up its mind either. Just over one hundred years ago, they thought that it was about 100 million years old. Soon after, they changed their minds and came to the confident belief that the correct number was 500 million years. Then they changed their minds again and the figure jumped to 1.3 billion years. It wasn’t long until they did a double-take on that one and said that they believed it was perhaps 3 billion years old. Of course, now they think that it may be 4.55 billion, give or take a billion years.
I’m sure that contemporary scientists think they have the right number this time, until they change their minds again when more data comes along . . . and, of course, none of the "faithful" will question it.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Age Old Question
138 comments:
Ray,
Well done. You just described a simplistic overview of how science advances, except for the part where you disengenuously state, "until they change their minds again."
In the strictest sense of the word, they do not change their minds, their minds are changed by new evidence.
By your reasoning, some genius should have woke up one morning and figured out every law of the universe in one day? Two days?
It is actually astonishing how fast we have developed our knowledge of the universe, but it comes with long hard work.
Scientists over the years have changed their belief on how old the Earth is because they have been acquiring new information. This is a good thing. It is reasonable to expect that with new information a reanalyzing of beliefs occurs.
This seldom happens with fundamentalist Christians. For most fundamentalist Christians that I have talked with there is no new information that could theoretically dissuade them from the belief that the Bible is true. In religion this sort of intransigence might be a good thing but in science this type of intransigence is never a good thing.
I don't understand the point of your post. You were asked how old you think the Earth is and your answer ought to have stopped with, "I don't know." This talk about how scientists over the years have changed their minds on the age of the Earth is a red herring. Besides the trend given in the age of the Earth is that it appears to be really, really old and is much older than what many fundamentalist Christians believe it to be.
Your ridicule ought to be toward those who refuse to change their beliefs in the face of new information. The group that looks silly are the one who cling to the belief that the Earth around 10,000 years old in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Ray said,"Science can’t make up its mind either. Just over one hundred years ago, they thought that it was about 100 million years old. Soon after, they changed their minds..."
They might change their minds as new evidence is produced, but thats how science works.
One thing they can say with great certainty is that it is not younger than a few billion years. They can also say with even greater confidence (in between bursts of laugher) that 6000 - 10,000 is not even close to being correct. this is what the evidence tells us.
Ray, the funny thing is that as we saw in an earlier post, if they gave an particular age and never changed it you would then just point out to us that they are speaking in absolutes therefore "reveal a lack of knowledge."
At least scientist only change their claims when new evidence appears Ray, your opinion is just like quick sand, always shifting and changing with each different situation.
Nice way to play it Ray, You set impossible goals to reach so you can never be wrong.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
Ray Said, "and, of course, none of the "faithful" will question it.
Science is not faith based its evidence based.
I would question the new claim until I had time to evaluate the new evidence that lead to this conclusion and the opinions of others who also evaluated the evidence.
I think I can speak for most well educated Religious and Atheist people here when I say that they would too.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp(aka Michael Kevin)
dale said "It is actually astonishing how fast we have developed our knowledge of the universe, but it comes with long hard work."
You are absolutely correct dale.
With God's help we have learned alot in the few years that we
have been on this planet.
Just think how much more we will learn when we get to heaven. Oops!
I forgot, you don't believe in God or Jesus Christ. You keep 'clinging' to your secular reasoning to pass into "nothingness".
Forgive me for saying, but that like sticking your head in the sand, and hoping that there is no supernatural realm beyond death.
I for one, have always been a person that likes to prepare for a trip. Passing from this life to the next is a 'big jump'. I need that "parachute" to save me!
Praying for you Bro! Hope you will see the "the Light" before you return to dust. I really don't want to see anyone go to Hell.
Not even you! Give my best to Wee!
Have a Great Sabbath day! :)
@Ray--
I have no idea how old the earth is, but I’m not alone in this. Science can’t make up its mind either...I’m sure that contemporary scientists think they have the right number this time, until they change their minds again . . . and, of course, none of the "faithful" will question it.
********************
You're hiding behind your 'no links' policy, and I accuse you of it right here and now.
There are many links out there that could show that geoscientists have good reason to be confident in their assessment, but you won't allow us to post them.
You make your living pandering to peoples' ignorance. Just what society needs right now. Well done!
**************************
To anyone still reading, if you're just not sure who's right about how old the planet is, either Ray the nice TV preacher or nearly every geologist on the planet, go to talkorigins and type in "age of the earth" into the search box. It's easy.
Spend 20 minutes. You'll see Ray in a whole new light if you do!
I can't even imagine why it matters how old the earth is. It's as old as it is. I do know it's older than me and I don't care.
Ray, if you're just going to dissemble, why bother to post at all? If you're a young earth creationist, come out and admit it. You've already surrendered any and all claims to scientific literacy, so you might at least try for honesty.
Bible = 6,000 years
Science = 4.5 Billion years
Big difference.
Well, my fellow skeptics, I think we have to give Ray some credit here.
'What!', I hear you cry! No, I mean it. Maybe you didn't spot it but Ray has just admitted that he didn't know something. Now this is not such a shock in itself as Ray has clearly demonstrated one or two things he clearly doesn't know in the past but it is never-the-less, something of a revelation.
You see, God tells us everything we need to know in the Bible (apparently) and has quite clearly told every other creationist that the earth is a little over 6000 years old which can lead me to only one of two conclusions:
1) Gad left Ray off his e-mail list when he circulated that little gem (perhaps because, ironicaly, God does not, despite all the actual evidence that points to it, believe that Ray exists!!)
2) Ray, despite being told the 'truth' in the bible still isn't quite sure and is questioning it.
I'd like to think it was the second reason and, therefore, send my heart-felt congratulations to Ray on what is an extremely brave move as he makes his first questioning steps back towards reality.
So, well done Ray, I know this is going to be hard for you (what with having to find a new job and suchlike) but I applaud your new found ability to question the bible.
You can count on my support for the difficult road ahead.
Phil
Ray,
I am ashamed that you can't at least give credit to the 6000-10,000 year range that the Bible portrays. Come on man....
Of course we don't know how old the earth is 'exactly' but we can give an estimate based on the Bible. Exodus 20:11
Well, I can't really add anything to the correct explanations above.
It's good to see that there plenty of people willing to explain things others don't understand. Even if they're not actually asking the question, the internet still provides the cure to ignorance.
Anyway, to add something meaningfull: The hundred year old guesses were, amusingly enough, based on the techniques that are used by many creationists today, such as salt or metal acumulation in the ocean or magnetic fields.
Radiometric dating wasn't invented till the 1910's. Then it was just a matter of finding an old enough asteroid, so the estimated age of the earth sky-rocketed with each newly tested asteroid. The fact that it hasn't changed (much) for quite a while, despite discovery of newer asteroids gives an idea of how close we are to the correct age.
2-3 billion years was first given to the age of the Earth in 1895. That's more than 100 years ago, Ray.
On the other hand, today's accepted age of the Earth, 4.5 billion years old, was reached in 1956, Ray.
That's 52 years ago, Ray.
It hasn't changed in 52 years, Ray.
That's because our data on that issue is pretty much complete, although we will always be studying it.
Geologists and Biologists never accepted up to 400 million years because that amount of time was too short to account for the various subjects of study, Ray.
Two people came up with 18 to 22 million years in 1892 and 1856, respectively, but did not yet know of the process of solar nuclear fusion, Ray.
Another calculated the time it would have taken for Earth to have a 24 hour day, at 56 million years. He didn't account for the fact that there are no constants in nature as it relates to heavenly bodies, Ray.
In 1899 and 1900, John Joly of the University of Dublin calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old, Ray.
The good thing is science changes as new evidence comes in, whereas your Bible stays the same no matter what challenging evidence comes out, leading you to claim that the evidence is wrong and the text is right, Ray.
Former Christian under 18 here, Ray.
The fact that someone under the age of 18 can know all this while you have yet to figure it out and know the facts shows a lot about who you really are, Ray.
Just an immature child holding onto his childhood beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming challenges, Ray.
A century ago, radiometric dating was unknown. Most estimates relied on the calculations of Lord Kelvin (made in ignorance of radioactive decay) that if the Earth had started as a molten ball of iron, it could not have taken more than 20 million years to cool to its present state. Geologists and paleontologists favored a much older date, but were stymied on how it could be that old (or how the sun could keep shining for many millions of centuries).
The solar system has been known to be about five billion years old (based on the age of various meteorites) since the mid-20th century. Whether the Earth itself was that old was uncertain: estimates in the mid-20th century ran from two to five billion years (it's worth noting that the dating of various geological layers was not nearly so uncertain: even then, they knew that the Cambrian began about half a billion years ago and that the Mesozoic ended 60 to 70 million years ago). Ages have been refined and margins of uncertainty narrowed.
The currently accepted age is 4.55 billion, give or take fifty million years (not "a billion;" if you have no respect for science, at least have some respect for significant figures in scientific measurements).
I agree with the first 5 comments here (that's all I've seen so far).
By your reckoning then Ray, it's best to make up your mind based on primitive methods, and then live by that for 2000 years ?
I sure hope you're not teaching your kids anything about gravity, or complex maths, or geology, or astronomy, or anything else which has been discovered in the last 2000 years. Who am I kidding? Of course you're not.
Atomic Chimp said...
Science is not faith based its evidence based.
It still takes faith to trust the current evidence.
Guys, well, since the gang has answered this thing quite well, I invite you all (skeptic,s Chirstians, and whatevers) to google "ted hector ruiz" and watch the video. Nothing about evolution nor about Gods, just plain humanity's progress. God stuff, especially when the guy speaks about his father's lessons.
G.E.
P.S. Well, if you want to talk about evolution ... :-)
Oh, these stupid scientists, why can't they make up their minds? First they give us wireless telegraph, then the radio, then black and white television, then colour television and now we have high-definition plasma and LCD screens. Next they come up with laser TV and OLED. Can't they make up their minds?
Indeed, contemporary scientists think they have the age of the Earth more or less right. If we come up with more evidence it will be corrected. Someone will publish a paper, others will try and contest the conclusions and if the data matches the observations, the new date will be taken as the estimated age of the Earth. The accusation that new discoveries are accepted without question could not be further than the truth.
Captain Howdy,
You said,
"You're hiding behind your 'no links' policy, and I accuse you of it right here and now."
That is one evidence of a cult. Do not let your followers disseminate information for themselves. Very dangerous to the future of the cult.
Ray would have to vew each link personally before allowing it (by his own words.)
Censorship is rampant in these communities.
"dale said... Captain Howdy, You said,'You're hiding behind your 'no links' policy, and I accuse you of it right here and now.' That is one evidence of a cult. Do not let your followers disseminate information for themselves. Very dangerous to the future of the cult."
Dale...lighten up. This blog isn't dangerous. Anyone can come and go as they please, dress how they want, eat what they want, have kids or not have kids, watch TV read newspapers, and listen to radio. I don't want your money, and no one has to read what I write. I'm nobody special, and I don't have "followers." They are here of their own free will, including atheists, who are encouraged to comment. I don't allow links to any sites--Christian or atheist, because you guys would link to porn sites and think it was a big joke. I don't. It's as simple at that.
There is geneaology in the Bible and according to that, the earth is about 6000 years old.
Ray,
I do not know who you think you are talking to, but none of the blogs by any skeptic I have visited has any porn links.
I thought your no links policy as to avoid endless lists of links for an answer, where the discussion would be lots, or something more meaningful.
Anyway, I guess someone might be tempted to do the porn thing, but those who do that would be easy to spot and deny further access. I always think it takes too much effort considering all the wrongs people "might do," than having a bit of trust and deal with the few problems when they arise. Maybe your position is due to that idea that atheists are supposed not to have any morals ...
G.E.
Guys,
Where I wrote:
"God stuff, especially when the guy speaks about his father's lessons."
I meant "Good stuff" (double "o"). Those darned typos.
Enjoy!
So, wait, you're allowed to say "I don't know" and have it be completely fine. However when science says "I don't know" you attack it like it's a death sentence.
That's just.. kind of..
I don't allow links to any sites--Christian or atheist, because you guys would link to porn sites and think it was a big joke. I don't. It's as simple at that.
Ray, on what evidence do you make that accusation that we would link to porn sites?
Did one of us, or more than one of us try it?
It seems to me that you keep misrepresenting what athiests say and what scientists say. I can't believe that you actually think that we are the way you say we are. Pathetic.
Ethan said,"It still takes faith to trust the current evidence."
Please explain why evidence would need faith. Is that how it works in a court, you need faith to find a person guilty?
If you are speaking that we need to trust that the evidence and conclusion provided is from honest scientists ans is correct, then you are wrong. Not only is all the evidence and works by the scientist available for review (and peer review is part of the error check built into science) but the hundreds of years of very reliable results, supports the conclusion that the resulting knowledge should be fairly dependable.
As I mentioned before, unlike the Biblical literalist, even though I am confident that the scientific conclusion should be correct, I still review the evidence and the works myself.
There is no faith from me just an earned and well supported trust, with a good measure of skepticism mixed in.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
Get_education, thank for mentioning about the 'Hector Ruiz:The power to connect the world' video at TED. I'm a g fan of TED and the talks that they have. I don't watch what they have often enough.
For those not aware, TED stands for 'Technology, Entertainment, Design.' They have an annual conference that brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes).
Great stuff to watch!
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
It really is remarkable that so many atheists are offended when someone questions their faith, shows the foolishness of their arrogance, and exposes their dogmatic allegiance to "modern evolutionary science."
They attack the Bible so-called failed prophecies, but believe scientists who get it wrong often. They attack the Christians for their many denominations, but they stick up for the scientists who regularly disagree with one another. They attack the Christians for having faith in a God we cannot see. But they exercise even more blind faith in a process that they can’t see; evolution.
And yet they don't see that they are as religious – placing all their faith in an unproven, unprovable, hopeless worldview.
Thank you Ray for your faithfulness and love for the lost. I’m encouraged that although some atheists may mock what I just wrote – some know deep down I’m telling the truth… and in the quite of their own heart they know that they are angry at the God they claim isn’t there. And but for the grace of God there go I. God is great!
Keith
Atomic Chimp said to Ethan…
”Please explain why evidence would need faith. Is that how it works in a court, you need faith to find a person guilty?”
______
Do you have faith in our judicial system or know it works?
Do you have faith in scientists or know that what they discover is true?
Do you have faith in what you see or know that seeing is believing?
Do you have faith in the scientific method or are you like the Christians with their Bible and believe the scientific method is infallible?
You said…
There is no faith from me just an earned and well supported trust, with a good measure of skepticism mixed in.
_____
That’s what I have with God “an earned and well supported trust.” That’s not a bad definition for faith. And I’m also a skeptic, a skeptic of anyone who speaks for God, preaches His word, or claims to be a Christian, until I too see the evidence necessary to trust them. We’re really not that different. We just put our faith in different places. My foundation is the Bible. Your foundation is the wisdom of men. My foundation has all the necessary answers about life, death, salvation and eternal life. Your foundation has taught us a lot of answers too about how things on earth work, making life more pleasurable and enjoyable and even extend it 20-30 years; But in the end it still leads to death. It still doesn’t address the most important question; WHY? Why are we here? I trust your foundation but with a little more skepticism than you do (but I don’t hate science like you might hate Christianity) – But it seems that all the time drugs are being recalled and studies are found that teach the opposite conclusion of 30 years ago (like global warming). Too much faith in the sciences has lead to some bad results. And when “science” contradict God’s word or is hostile to my moral convictions I know God’s right, the scientists/ psychologists/ sociologists/ whatevergists are wrong. And a life time of unwavering faith in the sciences can never forgive a single sin or grant you everlasting life.
Hope you’ll think about this,
Keith
@SteveMudSkipper,
Good point on the 'vast' time spread between what the Bible says the age of our earth is, and what the evolutionist says.
Here's the best part. I will take what God says on the subject with his Bible every day of the week, and twice on Sunday! :)
I have yet to find a 'valid' deception, or error in His Word.
"In God We Trust" is more than a phrase on our currency. I live it each & every day. So does every Christian. He has got me out of more 'hot spots' that I can recall.
Mankind over the centuries has "guessed" and "theorized" on every thing under the sun, including the sun, and always made errors that were later discovered.
Here's what Sir Isaac Newton thinks about our solar system:
"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the Sun to receive proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
- Sir Isaac Newton
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
- Sir Isaac Newton
"I gave in, and admitted that God was God."
- ex-atheist C.S. Lewis, On relinquishing atheism at age 31 in 1929.
@ex-atheist--
It really is remarkable that so many atheists are offended when someone questions their faith, shows the foolishness of their arrogance, and exposes their dogmatic allegiance to "modern evolutionary science."
'Dogmatic allegiance'?? Spare me.
Let's see who's dogmatic:
~ You dismiss all the evidence for common ancestry gathered over 150 years, like 7 common HERV infection sites shared between humans and chimpanzees, with a wave of your hand. But I bet you believe in demons, don't you? What actual, scientific evidence do you have to justify a belief like that?
I suppose if somebody asked Ray 'how old was Adam when he was created', he could rightly respond 'I don't know' as he did regarding the earth. I wonder if he would answer differently if somebody asked 'how long ago was Adam and the earth created?'
@Keith
They attack the Bible so-called failed prophecies,
Only because Christians claim that the prophesies vindicate the veracity of the rest of the text.
but believe scientists who get it wrong often.
Scientists are humans doing their jobs, and humans are prone to err. Many hypotheses turn out to be wrong, but that is the nature of the job. Science has advanced our understanding of nature immensely particularly in the last century or so.
They attack the Christians for their many denominations,
Christians claim that the bible contains the clear and inerrant truth, and yet few sects seem to be able to agree on even fundamental precepts.
but they stick up for the scientists who regularly disagree with one another.
Without healthy debate there would be no science. We still have a lot to learn and part of the role of science is to propose mechanisms to explain natural processes.
They attack the Christians for having faith in a God we cannot see.
Not seeing is one thing. You have no evidence for him either outside of the text of the Bible and a personal experience of God.
But they exercise even more blind faith in a process that they can’t see; evolution.
We can see the results of evolution in all the animals and plants around us. We can go to a natural history museum and see the fossils of animals that once lived upon this planet. We can travel and see how life is different on different parts of the planet. We know that domesticated animals are descended from animals which looked quite different originally. We can look at the genetic evidence.
What does "exercise blind faith in evolution" mean anyway?
Your faith says if you live a certain way then you will be resurrected to a new life in the New Earth and New Heaven.
The theory of evolution is just a natural explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Why do I need to put faith in it? What effect does the theory of evolution have on my life aside from helping me to understand nature a little better?
If I have to choose between believing in God or accepting the theory of evolution, then I can not believe in God based on the evidence that I have for the latter.
@Terry
Mankind over the centuries has "guessed" and "theorized" on every thing under the sun, including the sun, and always made errors that were later discovered.
Here's what Sir Isaac Newton thinks about our solar system:
"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the Sun to receive proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
- Sir Isaac Newton
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
- Sir Isaac Newton
As you say yourself, scientists make errors, even the great ones like Sir Isaac Newton. :)
Keith (ex-atheist) said,"It really is remarkable that so many atheists are offended when someone questions their faith, shows the foolishness of their arrogance,"
Once again you missed the point. I'm in no way offended, I'm just trying to point out the semantic error in your application of the word faith. I'll try to explain once again, please pay close attention.
The definition of faith you are using is, 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'. This is the definition used when speaking of religious faith.
Thats does not apply to science or the judicial system. If I did use the word faith referring to these things, though I try not to, I would be using the definition, 'Confidence or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.' This confidence would be due to the opposite of your definition, since it is due to the logical proof or material evidence based on their track records.
If they had not been successful we would not have confidence in them. The scientific method and judicial system are like a big experiment. We may have great confidence in their well established success rate but we do not blindly expect them to always be successful. We expect they have flaws, so there are many forms of error check built into them. If we see need for improvement we do make chances in them.
That my friend is the furthest you can possibly get from a blind faith.
Do you understand now Keith?
"but believe scientists who get it wrong often"
If a scincetist is always getting it wrong based on the current available evidence would not have confidence in them.
Please show support for your assertion and name these scientist that often get it wrong we believe are always correct.
"placing all their faith in an unproven, unprovable, hopeless worldview."
You're claim all the evidence provided for some theories is not enough to validate them. please show me evidence to support your claim. You cannot just say that theories supported by virtually the entire scientific community are incorrect without the ability to refute their claims with evidence.
If you can do this you will win the Noble prize and most likely the Templeton prize too.
So lets hear you evidence to refute the theories you believe are unproven.
I look forward to reviewing you reply.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
From Weemaryanne: "Nice Christian attitude there, Ray. Did you also remove the doors from your kids' bedrooms because otherwise they would surely have done something they shouldn't oughtta?
"(shakes head, not surprised)"
Are you now admitting to being a child? (lol)
Have you forgotten that this is Ray's blog? One's own blog is his own domain, under his own rules. Ray has every right to make what rules he pleases. What's your problem? Don't you have a blog where you do the same?
Keith (ex-atheist) said,"You said…
There is no faith from me just an earned and well supported trust, with a good measure of skepticism mixed in.
_____
That’s what I have with God “an earned and well supported trust.””
Please so me the evidence to support the existence in the claimed God. Please explain what it is you trust about this being and show evidence to support that this can be trusted or expected to be the most probable resulting action or event connected to it.
In science when we say we have confidence in something because it is well supported, we can answer questions like these and provide the data and evidence to support it since these are what lead to the confidence in the first place.
Do you also have a bit of skepticism about God too?
If you don't, then your faith still has a big measure of blindness my friend.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
I just had to mention that it seems people are missing a point here. There's been a lot of going on about how great it is that we can learn new things through science and we get more 'knowledgeable,' however at the same time professing to completely and absolutely trust in what science says now. It makes no sense. You can't say that you both believe science (not that it's a being :) can learn new things and change it's mind about things, but in the same breath insist that it has everything right, like evolution. What Ray is getting at is that you cannot believe absolutely anything when it comes to science, so why do you cling so strongly to what they say know, knowing that in all probability it will change in the future.
Mike said... "Former Christian under 18 here, Ray."
I think you mean former "professing Christian", because you couldn't "have been" a Christian and are not one now. A Christain is one who is born again, are you? A Christian is one who "knows" the Lord Jesus Christ, do you? You can call yourself a Christian all you want but professing and being one are two different things.
The really dumb thing is ignoring new information and continuing to believe the earth is 6,000 years old. As time goes on, technology improves, better information is gathered, resulting in more accurate conclusions; that's the beauty of science. The Bible just stays as wrong as it's always been.
@the carey family
You can't say that you both believe science (not that it's a being :) can learn new things and change it's mind about things, but in the same breath insist that it has everything right, like evolution. What Ray is getting at is that you cannot believe absolutely anything when it comes to science, so why do you cling so strongly to what they say know, knowing that in all probability it will change in the future.
Nobody claims that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is absolutely correct. There are still many fields of debate and speculation. What we have so far is an exceptionally good model. It may well change in the future, but it will change in the details not in the substance.
Let's say I am building a big jigsaw puzzle but I don't have all the pieces. Some are probably completely lost, others I may be able to find. When I start, I can make a guess at what the picture looks like, but with only a few pieces in place I will probably be wrong. As I fit more and more pieces of the jigsaw together, I start to see the picture in more and more detail. I may make a mistake occasionally and put a piece in the wrong place, but that will become obvious when I try and fit other pieces around it.
If there are mistakes in my interpretation, with only a few pieces missing, they are unlikely to affect the overall picture.
Darwin thoroughly destroyed the Lamarckian model, but they were only putting the first pieces into place, though even Darwin did not see the whole picture correctly. Entirely new disciplines in science like Genetics have been placing huge numbers of new pieces into place. How many fields of science do you need to discredit in order to debunk the current theory?
They are here of their own free will, including atheists, who are encouraged to comment. I don't allow links to any sites--Christian or atheist, because you guys would link to porn sites and think it was a big joke. I don't.
I have viewed discussions of the nature such as the one here across various web forums, nearly all of which do allow linking to other websites. At no time do I ever recall any individual posting a link to a website that featured pornographic content in an attempt at humour. On what basis do you predict that such an event would occur here were you to allow linking to external websites?
The Carey Family insisted, "You can't say that you both believe science ... can learn new things and change it's mind about things, but in the same breath insist that it has everything right, like evolution."
On the other hand, it makes no sense to say that science actually can learn new things, unless one is willing to have some provisional confidence in what it's found.
I think neither you nor Ray will insist that science has changed its mind about heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, so we can't really be sure whether the Earth orbits the sun, or the sun the Earth. In principle, the idea that the Earth orbits the sun is held provisionally, and if science turns up contrary evidence tomorrow, we'll change our minds. In practice, it's hard to imagine what that contrary evidence could look like, even in principle.
It's much the same with regard to the age of the Earth and evolution. Multiple lines of evidence have been converging on the 4.55 billion year age for decades; it hardly seems likely that the Earth will turn out to be enormously younger or older.
I think almost no one thinks that current theories have *everything* right about evolution; otherwise, evolutionary biologists would all put in for retirement. But even major "paradigm shifts," like the advent of relativity and quantum physics at the start of the 20th century, left classical physics as useful approximations except at atomic or cosmic scales, or at speeds close to that of light.
By the same token, even a major upset in biological science seems very unlikely to overturn the ideas of common ancestry of humans and other animals, or of some major role for natural selection in shaping adaptions. To hope or suppose otherwise is on a par with hoping or fearing that the next breakthrough in physics will show that the sun, after all, does orbit the Earth.
One has to wonder if Mr Comfort is entered into any general knowledge events at this years Special Olympics.
Let me ask you this atomic chimp...
Can you absolutely trust carbon dating?
Michael Kevin (Atomic Chimp) said...
Keith (ex-atheist) said,"You said…
”That’s what I have with God “an earned and well supported trust.”
”Please [show] me the evidence to support the existence in the claimed God. Please explain what it is you trust about this being and show evidence to support that this can be trusted or expected to be the most probable resulting action or event connected to it.”
_______
But here’s the obvious problem – you want evidence on your terms, i.e. the scientific method. You want God in the lab, where He’s testable according to your only means of knowledge. If I asked you to show me evidence that the earth is billions of years old – would it be fair for me to request you to do so through my foundation, the Bible. (Some make that attempt. I think they're wrong but I also don’t think it is an issue of salvation, I know Christians can believe in the science of today.) Your evidence for what you believe starts on your foundation. We’re all presuppositionalists.
I think that God’s Word is smarter than everyone (about what it teaches), including myself, and that’s why I’ve made a lifetime commitment to study it – because sometimes I’m wrong about what the Bible teaches. When I think something and find that the Bible teaches the opposite, I know I’m wrong. The Bible is better than the scientific method for issues about God, life's origin, our purpose, morality, and death. The scientific method is better for answering questions about modern medicine and technology, but when it gets involved with God, or with morals, or with the after life, it fails – it’s not equipped to handle that stuff. Christians usually don’t (there’s always exceptions) try to answer “everything” with the Bible. When I’m sick I go to a doctor. When I do my taxes I go to an accountant. But most atheists (here) are in a futile effort trying to make “everything” fit an absolute naturalism, and explain everything in evolutionary or materialistic processes – including God (why people believe in Him), life’s origin, purpose, morals, and death. You see, I can admit I’m a fundamentalist Bible believer – and it’s by faith I believe it. But most atheists (here) don’t see that they are as fully sold-out fundamental naturalists, and it’s also by faith they believe it; (because none of us can stand outside of reality with a 100% perfect perspective on life.) It’s all about who you trust – that’s were your faith is.
If you come to God on His terms you’ll have all the evidence necessary to know Him. Just look at creation and really think about how lucky you are to be alive, and think about the very concept of life, how foolish it is to think nothing accidentally caused the processes to make everything. I was just watching a sunset tonight and it screams of the glory of God. Do you realize the blessing of life? – it’s a gift – and there is a Giver.
In Hope,
Keith
Michael Kevin (Atomic Chimp) said...
Do you also have a bit of skepticism about God too?
If you don't, then your faith still has a big measure of blindness my friend.
______
No, I said I’m a skeptic when others speak about God if it’s not according to scripture. You peer review scientists, I peer review theologians.
God is the one being we can trust without any doubt. I don’t always know why He does what He does or allows certain things to happen but He made me, gave me life, blessed it beyond measure, and forgave all my sin in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is another very power example of evidence of the amazing grace and mercy of a God who gives us so much time and so many chances to look to Him. If you really wanted answers to the questions you ask you’d read or reread the gospels with a soft heart, open mind, allowing God to be God. This is eternity we’re talking about – it’s not something to take lightly. So many are so busy fighting for their causes – and their causes are so temporal, so shallow, so vain… especially if in 100 years we’re all dead and there is no God. If I still believed that – I’d probably wouldn’t be alive – but if I was, I’m sure I’d be high or drunk or worse, wasting away my pointless life. I thank God that the gospel changes everything.
Your friend,
Keith
The Carey Family said...
so why do you cling so strongly to what they say know, knowing that in all probability it will change in the future.
Because those changes will be improvements of our knowledge. Without science we would still be living in caves, waiting for a thunderstorm to get some fire to kook your rabbit.
@ The Carey Family
I would rather go with something that may be wrong in the future than with something I know to be wrong now.
Ray,
Don't be simple. If no-one questioned it the figure would never change.
About 10 years ago a large hard drive in a desktop computer would have been less than 1 Gigabyte.
Today you can have anything up to a Terrabyte. Science advances with each new discovery, technologies are constantly being improved. That includes the technologies used in dating the ancient.
Also Ray, have you noticed the trend in those figures. Its only getting older. There isn't any of those figures anywhere near 6,000 which is what many of your flock think the correct answer is.
Do you think the age of the earth is substancially closer to 6,000 or 4.5 billion years old?
Carey Family,
"at the same time professing to completely and absolutely trust in what science says now. It makes no sense."
No non-believer that I have ever talked with subscribes to that nonesense. Science is in no way perfect.
It is the religionists believe their bible is inerrent.
You just made a great example of transference.
@Ray--
I don't allow links to any sites--Christian or atheist, because you guys would link to porn sites and think it was a big joke. I don't. It's as simple at that.
Really? So that's the reason, huh? Let's just see:
Ray--I know you're a busy man. There must be thousands of street corners where you live, so you're like the proverbial cat in a roomful of litter boxes. You can't review every site for durty pikchers, I guess.
But hey, if porn's really the problem like you say it is, then there should be a simple workaround that allows us to show the public how much you play fast and loose with the facts but minimizes your delicate lambs' risk of exposure to the human body...some middle ground.
How's this: Whenever you post dishonest and inaccurate remarks like this (every thread you put up), you post up to 3 links that we skeptics agree are appropriate. This way, you only have to review 3 sites per thread, and we get to expose your remarks for the horse dookey they truly are.
Let your flock use the internet.
Or are you afraid to hold your claims up to the bright light of day?
Come on, Christian. You'd be able to do the same thing to anything I post, and I'm not afraid.
This way you only have to verify 3 links. Saves time for you.
This way completely eliminates the slightest risk of exposure to porn. Which is what you say the real problem is--remember?
This way allows the skeptics of this blog--and I count myself among their number--to highlight and expose your buffoonery.
"The good thing is science changes as new evidence comes in, whereas your Bible stays the same no matter what challenging evidence comes out, leading you to claim that the evidence is wrong and the text is right, Ray."
That's because the Bible has been saying a lot of things that science has insisted was wrong but now acknowledges to be true.
"Former Christian under 18 here, Ray."
Actually, false convert: you have no idea what a real Christian is.
"The fact that someone under the age of 18 can know all this while you have yet to figure it out and know the facts shows a lot about who you really are, Ray.
"Just an immature child holding onto his childhood beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming challenges, Ray."
Overwhelming to those who don't know the facts. I strongly suggest you do some serious study before making anymore claims like that.
Ethan,
Atomic Chimp said...
Science is not faith based its evidence based.
You responded
It still takes faith to trust the current evidence.
Do you have faith in your faith too, if so, do you have faith in your faith in you faith?
It takes faith to trust evidence.....good grief.
Joshua,
Have you forgotten that this is Ray's blog? One's own blog is his own domain, under his own rules. Ray has every right to make what rules he pleases. What's your problem? Don't you have a blog where you do the same?
True it is Ray's blog and he may do as he pleases. Doesn't mean we can't criticise it. Ray's draconian rules (it seems many are only applied to atheists) are pretty silly if he is trying to maintain that he is open to debate. Many of us here do indeed have blogs. I have yet to see any blog anywhere that has the kind of rules and arbitrary cencorship Ray employs.
Life forms change over time and given enough time they can and did change dramatically. GET OVER IT! No one is ever, ever going to go back to the idea that species were created fully developed at a specific point in time. NEVER. The details of the theory may change but not the framework. There is no faith involved. Move on. Evolution happens.
"It is actually astonishing how fast we have developed our knowledge of the universe."
Considering we've been around for billions of years, one would think the knowledge would've come along before now. Shouldn't we be teleporting by now or living on the moon? Or hey, how about figuring out a fuel alternative{affordable, for the masses, readily available} so people aren't having decide between food and gas? I'm just sayin...
The technological advancement that has happened just in my life is astonishing. It just seems as though mankind would've figured it out long ago if we've really been around for billions of years.
:)
and before I get blasted, I do realize you aren't saying man has been around for 4.5 billion years.
So I must ask, how long has man been around according to evolution?
:)
Joshua S. Black said
Overwhelming to those who don't know the facts. I strongly suggest you do some serious study before making anymore claims like that.
endquote
Actually that is really funny coming from someone who cannot back up any of the claims he makes with facts. Or cannot be bothered to provide the evidence. I shall remind you of the neanderthal wrestler you had mentioned in a previous thread. Still waiting for proof on that one.
On the age of the earth, I have heard that according to the bible about 6,000 years old.
The Bible actually states that the athesists would visit, voice their opinion, and argue against the Bible...on THIS site.
I won't quote the verse since the atheists would claim they have read the Bible 5 - 20 times anyway.
Why they don't believe the Bible by their own actions is amazing!
camport said, "and before I get blasted, I do realize you aren't saying man has been around for 4.5 billion years. So I must ask, how long has man been around according to evolution?"
That depends on what you define as "man." Fossils classed in _Homo sapiens_ are up to 200,000 years old (and older, yet-undiscovered fossils of our species may exist). There are fossils assigned to genus _Homo_, but to other species, that are ten times that age. Indications of art are younger (about 50,000 years), and it's not clear how much of that is just due to the spottiness of the fossil and archaeological record, and how much reflects the actual failure of early humans to produce art.
Throughout most of human history, humans lived in small hunter-gatherer bands of no more than a few dozen people. Within recorded history, technological and scientific innovation has mostly occured in heavily-population areas where people with ideas can learn from and influence one another, so it's less surprising that for so much of human history we were technologically uninventive. Note that even today, there are human societies that retain (with some influence from the outside world) a basically stone-age technology; humans don't just start out, day one, inventing writing, metalworking, and higher mathematics.
@ Camport:
So I must ask, how long has man been around according to evolution?
Fossil and DNA evidence shows that the human lineage and the chimpanzee lineage split off from a common ancestor ~5 million years ago. The Homo genus, to which we belong, originated 2.5 million years ago, and modern Homo sapiens has been present for roughly 200,000 years.
Might I suggest that you check and see if your local library has Carl Zimmer's The Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins? It's a big glossy book, lots of illustrations, lots of fun to flip through, and not too technical. I realize that you probably reject the idea of human evolution, but this book (or any other good book on the subject) should give you a good overview of the evidence for it.
To any creationists still reading this thread: may I ask why you are so frightened/offended/put off by the fact that we are closely related to the great apes? (Note that I said "related to," not "descended from"; anyone who tells you that evolutionary theory claims that we're descended from the modern apes is either misinformed or lying.) Do you accept that humans are animals at all?
From Weemaryanne: "Do you drive a car? The geologists whose work made it possible to fuel your vehicle had to know how old the earth is. Without that knowledge their work would have failed and you'd be unable to get anywhere without looking at the rear end of a horse."
This is one of the most stupid non-sequitor arguments I have ever hread (and continue to hear) from the atheist camp.
Some simple facts:
1)Engineers--not geologists--design automobiles.
2)The discovery of the flammability of petroleum products predates the propogation of the lie of evolution.
3) Accurate knowledge of the origin of petroleum does not enhance one's ability to use it.
Therefore, scientists that help bring about a useful automobile aren't necessarily the same scientists that promote evolution. In fact, the modern fathers of all the major disciplines in science (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) were all creationists. Again, you don't have to believe a word I tell you. Just look up their own writings.
Iago, I am tired of watching you willfully ignorant people ignore credible sources simply because you disagree with their worldview. So I don't do your research for you. I just throw things out there. If it's not worth your time, then don't worry about it. I don't have to justify to you why I don't believe the lies you do.
And I'm still waiting for one shred of scientific proof of evolution--not guesses, extrapolations, etc., that I have been reading from you and your allies up to this point. Captain Howdy's "It must be true because it was on TalkOrigins!" routine is getting old.
From Ray proceeding post.
The Armenian and Calvinist views are diametrically opposed to each other, yet believers on both sides point to a thousand scriptures to back their theology.
The bible doesn't contain contradictions :)
If i didn't have a sense of humour I would have died as a result of a toxic mixture of incredulity, shock and outrage and disbelief. Let us just call it 'fundie shock'. Laughter is the only known cure.
"Hey did you hear about Dale?"
"No, what happened?"
"He was rushed to hospital with a sereve case of fundie shock. It was terrible. He was making these wierd strangling sounds and he just kept repeating things like ...but....you can't....I mean......that doesn't....but..."
"Is he ok?"
"Yeah he's fine, they hooked him up to some N.O.
He has some mild after effects though. He periodically shakes his head with an exasperated look on his face. Then he usually starts laughing"
"Any idea what caused it"
"No, though Dale kind of twitches whenever he hears the word inerrant.
His doctor won't let him go on line anymore unless he has his pony bottle of N.O. with him."
"Did that ever happen to you?"
"No. Though I did pass out briefly when someone said the bible was scientifically acurate. I also went momentarily blind the first time I heard the claim that the earth was 6,000 years old."
*histerical laughter*
Joshua,
"That's because the Bible has been saying a lot of things that science has insisted was wrong but now acknowledges to be true."
Grow up Joshua, this is not true at all. We have been there.
"Overwhelming to those who don't know the facts. I strongly suggest you do some serious study before making anymore claims like that."
I find it surprising that this comes from the person who said to be discussing evolution from his understanding of 15 years ago. Not to mention that such understanding was probably not really understanding. So, Joshua, can you do some serious study of evolution/geology/physics, and then come back? Please use serious materials, not WOTM, nor any creationist stuff. Genuine science please. (I have read genuine Bibles, so ... save that argument ... and even if I did not do the "serious study," it is still you who said that Mike should do some "serious study," preach by example Joshua. Show us, we might even learn something from you.)
G.E.
Lauren said...
Can you absolutely trust carbon dating?
Carbon dating is just one of the many (around 40 different) techniques of radiometric dating. Each of them have limits, i.e. carbon dating only works for a max of approx 60.000 years, after that the amount of radioactive carbon left is to low to accurately measure. Also individual cases can produce strange results, so in science you always use different types of radiometric dating techniques, and only if the results match each other, can you conclude the age of an object. Never on the basis of a single technique.
Why don't you google "Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective" for more information on this subject.
camport,
irukandi already told you for how long have human beans been around.
You are very young, so you have witnessed accelerated changes after changes in your very short life, but I can certainly tell you that things were advancing much more slowly when I was a kid than now.
Knowledge and technology have not been advancing at the same pace throughout the history of humankind. Besides religious beliefs stopping progress for a good while, technological advances depend on many factors, among others, previous technological advances. Thus, the first advances came very very very slowly, but as we get more advances, we have a "higher point" from which to start a new one, and the growth of technology seems to increase exponentially because of that (the more technology the faster the advance). Another factor, for instance, is that we have more people working on the problems, while ancient human tribes might have spent most of their times figuring out ways to survive.
I do not think teleporting is feasible (scientifically speaking), and space stations and exploration has lost support in the general public's opinion. Otherwise it could have advanced a good deal.
Starting points for cheap alternatives for energy to move your car have been around for years, but the proper technologies were not developed because they produced little return for the companies. It was a money problem, not an intelligence, nor a scientific one. Other things made money much quicker, so companies could not care less. This besides general people's ignorance and denial. Bit more complicated than that, but here you have the general idea.
G.E.
Joshua S. Black siad :
More babble babble, I just throw things out there babble babble, I can't be bothered to do research for you babble babble...
endquote
So anyway I guess that makes you pretty much irrelevant then. I can throw all kinds of things out there too ya know. Thing is I try to at least have the facts with which to back them up.
I bid you good day.
@joshua s. black--
And I'm still waiting for one shred of scientific proof of evolution--not guesses, extrapolations, etc., that I have been reading from you and your allies up to this point. Captain Howdy's "It must be true because it was on TalkOrigins!" routine is getting old.
*********************
Easy enough way to get me to stop:
Refute the evidence for common ancestry as presented by HERVs.
Since I know you at least skim my comments, what's your answer for--
~ You dismiss all the evidence for common ancestry gathered over 150 years, like 7 common HERV infection sites shared between humans and chimpanzees, with a wave of your hand. But I bet you believe in demons, don't you? What actual, scientific evidence do you have to justify a belief like that?
I asked ex-atheist this question earlier; he seems to be having trouble with it. Help him out a little, if you can.
As a matter of fact, maybe you could devote a whole thread to that question, Ray?
The question is: Why shouldn't I laugh at you for denying the evidence for common ancestry when you believe in demons instead??
@ flinging dust... nope not new, name changed, but I don't post too often anyways. Any who, I should have worded differently, I realize that you don't believe that science knows everything, however there are things that one is not allowed to question, evolution being the easiest example as always. I never said my beliefs could be changed by new evidence, science does say this though... so there's no reason to expect that from me.
@Steven J..... There is a difference between calling people ignorant (not that I'm saying you specifically said those words) for not believing evolution and saying that in all probability it is true. You must admit that there is a slight possibility that it could be completely overhauled and dismissed sometime in the future (as small as that chance may seem to you), otherwise it wouldn't be science. And in admitting that you cannot therefore completely dismiss people that do not believe as you do.
@dale... there are certain things in science that are not questioned, regardless of the reason, and despite the idea that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong otherwise it's not a theory it's something you have faith in. (yes i do realize that some things are not questioned like gravity because of much evidence, but there must always be an understanding, if it is science, that it could be proven wrong)
sorry if this is a repeat post, but it didn't tell me if it went through.
@ flinging dust... nope not new, name changed, but I don't post too often anyways. Any who, I should have worded differently, I realize that you don't believe that science knows everything, however there are things that one is not allowed to question, evolution being the easiest example as always. I never said my beliefs could be changed by new evidence, science does say this though... so there's no reason to expect that from me.
@Steven J..... There is a difference between calling people ignorant (not that I'm saying you specifically said those words) for not believing evolution and saying that in all probability it is true. You must admit that there is a slight possibility that it could be completely overhauled and dismissed sometime in the future (as small as that chance may seem to you), otherwise it wouldn't be science. And in admitting that you cannot therefore completely dismiss people that do not believe as you do.
@dale... there are certain things in science that are not questioned, regardless of the reason, and despite the idea that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong otherwise it's not a theory it's something you have faith in. (yes i do realize that some things are not questioned like gravity because of much evidence, but there must always be an understanding, if it is science, that it could be proven wrong)
Thank you weemaryanne. Now I know why it matters how old the earth is. But...it still doesn't matter to me personally, how old the earth is. :)
@The Carey Family
however there are things that one is not allowed to question, evolution being the easiest example as always.
You are allowed to question Evolution. There are many debates going on within the field of evolutionary science at the moment. Before you question it however, you do need a solid understanding of what it actually is. Creationists want it to be wrong. They are not questioning the science; they are just throwing mud and hoping that some will stick.
@Steven J..... There is a difference between calling people ignorant (not that I'm saying you specifically said those words) for not believing evolution and saying that in all probability it is true.
Ignorance is "absence of knowledge". Very few Creationists demonstrate even a basic grasp of the theory of evolution.
@dale... there are certain things in science that are not questioned, regardless of the reason, and despite the idea that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong otherwise it's not a theory it's something you have faith in.
The theory of Evolution is falsifiable. So far, all the evidence is in its favour. It is not set in stone. If it does not match reality, then it will be replaced.
(yes i do realize that some things are not questioned like gravity because of much evidence, but there must always be an understanding, if it is science, that it could be proven wrong)
It is funny that you should mention gravity. Currently there are a number of alternative theories about gravity and the true nature of gravity is a question of much speculation.
From Iago: "So anyway I guess that makes you pretty much irrelevant then. I can throw all kinds of things out there too ya know. Thing is I try to at least have the facts with which to back them up."
If this were a serious discussion, I would take the time. But you're not interested in the truth--that's why you ridicule creationists.
The guy who uses an exhortation as his Internet moniker told me: Joshua,
"'That's because the Bible has been saying a lot of things that science has insisted was wrong but now acknowledges to be true.'
"Grow up Joshua, this is not true at all. We have been there."
So, the Bible never said that the life of the flesh is in the blood while scientists/doctors were leaching blood out of people? So the Bible didn't say that the earth is round while others thought that it was flat? The Bible didn't teach that the earth hangs on nothing, floating in space, while others thought that it sat on the back of a turtle, elephant, or some "god" named Atlas?
Go do some research before trying to contradict me. Seriously. I can't take your challenge seriously when you constantly make comments like this.
And don't give me any garbage about "round" meaning a disk instead of a sphere. Nor that tired "four corners" trash, either. I'm so sick of these lame arguments. For people who are so smart, you should be able to identify a colloquiallism when you read it. If you can't, that's your loss. I'll not be a slave to it.
Keith (ex-atheist) said, "I’m a skeptic when others speak about God if it’s not according to scripture."
Ah but there is the problem you're using circular reasoning. Please show me citation or evidence that you're God exists and that the bible is his inerrant word. If you cannot do this then you are working on purely blind faith.
You can be skeptical of people interpretation of the scriptures all you want, but if you cannot show evidence it is the word of God, and your interpretation is correct, your skepticisms is pointless.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
Keith (ex-atheist) said,"But here’s the obvious problem – you want evidence on your terms, i.e. the scientific method. You want God in the lab, where He’s testable according to your only means of knowledge...The Bible is better than the scientific method for issues about God, life's origin, our purpose, morality, and death."
Nice try Keith but there is a big problem with that. If you claim God is outside the realm of science for testing and detecting and the bible is the only way to detect God, then how did you know he exists and the bible is his word in the first place.
You need a starting point to validate any of your claims. If you say they are outside the means to test them then you cannot validate them at all.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
Joshua S Black:
"And don't give me any garbage about 'round' meaning a disk instead of a sphere."
I'm sorry to hear you don't like facts. The bible actually says circle or disk (depending on translation.) Similarly the "four corners of the earth" expression harkens back to a time when people believed there were edges to the earth.
John Doyle:
Evolution (large-scale evolution, at any rate) is not falsifiable. Any imaginable observation could be made to fit the model. I am familiar with the claim that bunny fossils in rocks believed to be from a time in which there were only invertebrates would falsify it. However, unknown geological forces could be cited. The only way one could truly test it would be to conduct a million-year experiment with full controls. It's still more plausible than cintelligent designism. But it is not testable.
but if you cannot show evidence it is the word of God
Sure he can! He's obeyed it and Christ has come into his life just as the bible said He would. Add to that the very little evidence of evolution, prophecies in scripture fulfilled (Jesus' birth and historically), being written over hundreds of years by people all saying the same thing, the bible being the number 1 selling book, dead sea scrolls.. I could go on but I won't.
Lauren said," Let me ask you this atomic chimp...
Can you absolutely trust carbon dating?"
good question Lauren, Radiocarbon dating does have limits. Radiocarbon dating works fine with ages as old as 50,000 but not much more than that. This still is a reliable test to show the earth is older than 6000 years.
Fortunately we have about 40 different forms of Radiometric dating techniques. Many of these techniques are fairly reliable into the billions of years.
Though we are aware of a margin of error for each of these techniques, by using multiple techniques we can get results that are very accurate.
If you doubt the reliability, please read up on radiometric dating techniques to get a better understanding.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp (aka Michael Kevin)
Wee, RE: Links on blog prohibited
When Ray first started this blog, you could post links, but of course some people abused it with Porno links, and solicitations.
A real quick way to get his blog shut down by Google.
All of us lost that priviledge.
Ray does not have the time to check which ones are good and which one are legit.
So believers and non-believers can not post URLs. Sounds fair to me.
I saw it on an old post in the archives. Hope that helps!
@ John, RE: Sir Isaac Newtown
Only problem is he is not the only great mind that has supported the evidence of Intelligent Design.
Conservapedia has a whole stack of them. Great site to visit! :)
Joshua S Black said :
So, the Bible never said that the life of the flesh is in the blood while scientists/doctors were leaching blood out of people?
endquote
Kinda foolish argument there. You oughta look at the facts that bloodletting was done by Jews ( the one that wrote the Old Testament) and also by Christians. I shall suggest you read up on the early pracites regarding bloodletting and who was doing it.
I know you are so busy making things up and saying things that you can't be bothered to look them up.
@Joshua
So, the Bible never said that the life of the flesh is in the blood while scientists/doctors were leaching blood out of people? So the Bible didn't say that the earth is round while others thought that it was flat? The Bible didn't teach that the earth hangs on nothing, floating in space, while others thought that it sat on the back of a turtle, elephant, or some "god" named Atlas?
The bible is not a scientific journal, though it does contain a couple of vague observations about the world which can be interpreted in a number of ways. Their use was not to explain the nature of the world, but the message of God.
Blood-letting was an accepted practice of curing disease for thousands of years before the scientific method was developed and indeed an early application of the scientific method showed that blood-letting was ineffective.
Though blood is essential, the life of the flesh is not in the blood. Flesh is alive in its own right.
Keywesthaven1:
I call baloney! I have been viewing this blog for quite some time. He didn't always say that it was because he couldn't check every link. But he did prohibit links from the very start. (It is true that some have slipped through. That seems to have more to do with the fact that he skims comments.)
Josh Black,
You said,
" you should be able to identify a colloquiallism when you read it."
Well, yes we can. And the whole bible is based on them.
Alanrd67 said...
"The Bible actually states that the athesists would visit, voice their opinion, and argue against the Bible...on THIS site.
I won't quote the verse since the atheists would claim they have read the Bible 5 - 20 times anyway."
I have absolute proof that you are decended from a donkey's butt. But I am not going to show it to you, but it is true. HAAAA!
You are a total cop out. Are you sure you are not a Josh Black clone?
Or who was it that said there is a bona fide Neanderthal wrestler but would not mention his name?
This is absolute absurdity, yet priceless for the content of my new book.
Thanks!
Camport said,
"Considering we've been around for billions of years, one would think the knowledge would've come along before now."
The "one" would be very wrong.
Alanrd67 said...
"The Bible actually states that the athesists would visit, voice their opinion, and argue against the Bible...on THIS site."
Yeah, I saw that headline on the National Inquirerer at the checkout line too.
It is rather pitiful that you repeat it here.
Concerning: Sir Isaac Newtown
Maybe everyone should look up the time the good man was alive. The 17th century. Actually, Newton was born about a year after Galileo died under housearrest by the inquisition, after forcefully recanting his heliocentric model.
Just to refresh your minds, this was time before the discovery of...well... pretty much anything. It wasn't to difficult to default to "God made it all", because there really wasn't any other good explanation.
This was a time people still believed in spontaneous generation, Phlostigon, aether, bloodletting and humorism. We should put Newton's claims into perspective.
Most atheists are only atheist because they see no proof for God and no need for a God. That would not have been the case in Newton's time.
Of course, facing horrible torture and death at the hands of the inquisition under the guise of heresy doesn't exactly convince people to speak up either.
The Celtic Chimp said...
Joshua,
Have you forgotten that this is Ray's blog? One's own blog is his own domain, under his own rules. Ray has every right to make what rules he pleases. What's your problem? Don't you have a blog where you do the same?
True it is Ray's blog and he may do as he pleases. Doesn't mean we can't criticise it. Ray's draconian rules (it seems many are only applied to atheists) are pretty silly if he is trying to maintain that he is open to debate. Many of us here do indeed have blogs. I have yet to see any blog anywhere that has the kind of rules and arbitrary cencorship Ray employs.
Hey CC let it go already. If you want to post here do it by Ray's rules or go else where. most people are smart enough to do simple searches on the internet. rely on your knowledge and let it go.....
dale said...
Camport said,
"Considering we've been around for billions of years, one would think the knowledge would've come along before now."
The "one" would be very wrong.
You scream reason and logic,yet Camport makes a very good point. Open ended questions should be encouraged. As an educated man you should know that.
Joshua,
Do not forget that your disk has edges (remember that the morning would grab it by the edges and shake off evil or something like that?). It is very hard to imagine a sphere with edges, but if you insist.
The blood, isn't it obvious that when you bleed you die? Anyone who has gone to battle, or who has seen someone cut would know that you can bleed to death, no Bible necessary. Doctors would "leach" people because they thought this "life liquid" might be contaminated, so they thought leaches might suck the bad stuff with some blood, not that blood was not necessary for life. But whatever you say.
Now, will you please teach us to do some serious study by example. Please pretty please?
G.E.
Ray, I'm getting very confused here.
First you regularly confront atheists when they make an absolute claim; saying they know something or the other. You always explain to they that they cannot know anything for certain.
Yet when a scientists improves a theory, you accuse them of changing their minds all the time.
After that you go around claiming that we'll all be saved if we just open our hearts to Jesus and repent our sins.
This is all very confusing, can you please explain why scientists cannot make absolute claims, but at the same time they are not allowed to improve a theory or something like the age of the earth, while at the same time you are allowed to make absolute claims about God, sinning and the Bible.
I'm really lost on this. I hope you can take some time to explain this all.
Richard List (C3P0R2D2)
forgiven,
Would you climb off my back please. I'll let it go when I'm good and ready ;)
Alanrd67 said...
The Bible actually states that the athesists would visit, voice their opinion, and argue against the Bible...on THIS site.
I won't quote the verse since the atheists would claim they have read the Bible 5 - 20 times anyway.
Some of us actually have, you know. Now, where's the verse that said that we'd be posting on this site? I'm pretty sure that this site isn't even mentioned in your bible. I know you mean just general opposition, but you should have worded what you said better.
Why they don't believe the Bible by their own actions is amazing!
Gee, what are the chances that a holy book would say that there would be those who would disagree with it?
About a hundred percent, maybe?
weemaryanne said...
Scientists should be able to improve their theories. After all, Christians have been improving their imaginary friend for centuries.
F'r instance, believers once went in for mass executions by burning; these days, not so much. Apparently they got new instructions.
______
Where in the Bible does it say “Practice mass executions by burning.”? People need to improve there understanding of the Word in every generation, but God’s Word hasn’t needed improvement for the last 2000 years.
And they rarely mention that thing about not wearing clothes of mixed fibers;…
______
I’m very surprised that this issue hasn’t been explained for you. There are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws throughout the Bible. The moral laws are eternal. But many of the civil laws (especially those specific for Israel) and all of the ceremonial laws have been abdicated by God himself in the NT. There purposes were for a time and a place.
Keep learning,
Keith
"Now, will you please teach us to do some serious study by example. Please pretty please?"
If you ever get serious about trying to understand what the Bible actually says, then I'll get serious about helping you.
Oh, and, Pvblivs, translators make errors, if you hadn't noticed, and that is why you need a lexicon. Sorry, you're still not educated enough to trump the Bible.
And the four corners of the earth are a colloquiallism that refer to North, South, East, and West, as has been amply explained to you before. But, of course, you reject it, because you insist on finding problems with the Bible. The Bible never says that the earth has "edges." Wow, the lies you guys tell.
dale and reynold
chocolate cake...
Matthew 7
@dale:
I don't know if you ever replied to my question about what you meant by the fact that things were sorted by complexity in the geologic column and how that relates to the Noahic flood account- were they phisically more complex, cellularly more complex, intellectually more complex, etc. . . What exactly did you mean?
weemaryanee said
""But it still doesn't matter to me personally how old the earth is."
I'm guessing that your horse has a particularly attractive rear end. Congratulations.
Wilful Ignorance. It's A Good Thing."
I'm sure you very well know all about wilful ignorace and it's obvious you think it's a good thing. On judgement day God can remind you how happy you were in it.
I was sincere when I said thanks for the information you gave about needing to know the age of the earth. I still don't care how old the earth is.
I don't know why you found it necessary to turn my lack of knowledge or lack of desire of knowledge in this one subject into a personal insult...but this is what you do.
I'm glad there are people who care about the age of the earth because feeding my horse is getting to be almost as expensive as filling up my cadillac with gasoline :P
But Joshua, my friend, I did not ask you to get serious about helping me, I asked you to set the example for us, to set the example by doing some serious studies on evolution. Whether I have been serious about the Bible (which I have), or not, is inconsequential to you walking your talk. So, please, pretty please?
G.E.
"But Joshua, my friend, I did not ask you to get serious about helping me, I asked you to set the example for us, to set the example by doing some serious studies on evolution. Whether I have been serious about the Bible (which I have), or not, is inconsequential to you walking your talk. So, please, pretty please?
"G.E."
Ha. I do walk my talk. I may not type it, but that's another story.
But, to address the issue, no, I will not do further study on a intellectually bankrupt pseudo-hypothesis and the various lies that have been conjured up to defend it. I have far better things to do with my time.
Thanks for your response Joshua. Then you know how seriously we can take your knowledge on the subject (or any subject for that matter), and how seriously we can take your exhortation to do some serious study before posting something. Still, we do the serious study, you just do not know because, without the serious study on your side, you do not have the proper background to know. We study because we prefer to be honest, But that is just us, do not pay attention. You do not need to follow the example.
G.E.
The Celtic Chimp said...
forgiven,
Would you climb off my back please. I'll let it go when I'm good and ready ;)
hey, the chimp said climb off my back.......hahahahahahaha
good one. sorry couldn't resist. my point was just a simple you know the rules so PLEASE move on.
Webster Hunt (Parts Man) said...
@dale:
I don't know if you ever replied to my question about what you meant by the fact that things were sorted by complexity in the geologic column and how that relates to the Noahic flood account- were they phisically more complex, cellularly more complex, intellectually more complex, etc. . . What exactly did you mean?
webster hunt you will never get a straight answer from an "educated" man. dale has brilliant mind but he's not much for common talk.
Keith (ex-atheist) said...
I’m very surprised that this issue hasn’t been explained for you. There are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws throughout the Bible. The moral laws are eternal. But many of the civil laws (especially those specific for Israel) and all of the ceremonial laws have been abdicated by God himself in the NT. There purposes were for a time and a place.
Where exactly in the Bible is this said??
Forgiven,
Indeed I do know the rules and if ray applied them fairly I would have nothing to say on the matter.
PLEASE ignore my comments if they bother you ;)
PS can you explain why climb of my back was such a giggle. I just don't get it.
forgiven37 said...
Webster Hunt (Parts Man) said...
@dale:
I don't know if you ever replied to my question about what you meant by the fact that things were sorted by complexity in the geologic column and how that relates to the Noahic flood account- were they phisically more complex, cellularly more complex, intellectually more complex, etc. . . What exactly did you mean?
webster hunt you will never get a straight answer from an "educated" man. dale has brilliant mind but he's not much for common talk.
-----------
Hey! not fair! You're talking behind my back.
Forgiven, Webster,
Geology is a facinating study and it is well within the grasp of people of average intelligence, like me, to understand.
I never did like biology but I had to take it a gunpoint to get my degree, but that was 35 years ago!
Much has been learned about biology since then but the basics of Geology remain mostly the same.
I have written much about the geologic column here, but I can't teach a course in geology.
If you are really interested, it is easy to Google "geology" or "geologic column" and read all about it!
Hint, yiou will easily see that there is no way that The Mytjhical Flood could have laid down the geologic column.
So, I suspect you don't really want to learn what real geologists say about it because you are afraid you will see your irrational beliefs go up in the smoke of reason.
I do think most of you here are shortchanging yourself by not learning some formal science.
When I hear one of you repeating statements of Ken Ham, verbatim, I feel sad. You can not learn formal science from him. I'm not saying you should not believe him, but I would challenge anybody to learn form geology and then compare.
You are not comparing, you are merely making arguments from your ignorance of formal science.
You would still be free to make your own decision.
And to the question, "were they physically more complex, cellularly more complex, intellectually more complex, etc. . ." All of the above.
C3P0R2D2 said...
Keith (ex-atheist) said...
I’m very surprised that this issue hasn’t been explained for you. There are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws throughout the Bible. The moral laws are eternal. But many of the civil laws (especially those specific for Israel) and all of the ceremonial laws have been abdicated by God himself in the NT. There purposes were for a time and a place.
Where exactly in the Bible is this said??
______
Galatians 2:1-21
1 Corinthians 6:12-13
1 Corinthians 10:23-33
Philippians 3:1-9
Plus there are many passages that explain that the Church (The Body of believers of Jesus Christ) and Israel (Gods Chosen People) are not the same (the are similar but not the same). There was an historical reason for the Lev. 19 commands (some of them we don’t completely know the full significance), but not everything that God said to every individual or group of people is eternally binding on every other person in the world forever. Much of what God told to Israel, Jesus also taught to His followers – but not everything. Now this tension and confusion was also an issue for the early church, and they wrestled with what laws were binding and what we not. The Sabbath, Food Laws, and Circumcision where the most debated. Jesus affirmed the Ten Commandments, He was the final sacrifice to end all temple ceremonies, and He exercised a liberty with the civil laws that shocked the disciples and drove the religious leader’s nuts. He’s whole ministry showed the practical relationship of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws.
The fiber law (not mixing linen and wool) is never mentioned a second time in all the Bible, nor is anyone ever punished for violating it, and it’s defiantly not in the NT – but it’s interesting that the skeptics of the NT did exactly what skeptics do today – they try to find one tiny rule, the smallest commandment in the most obscure context to trick Jesus, catch Him in a contradiction, and label Him a fraud… but they never could. No wonder the "fiber" issue comes up often.
Enjoy the day,
Keith
Keith:
The biblical stories are consistent with the idea that the leaders saw him as a con-man. If they had come out and said he was a con-man, his followers would have killed them. So the tales can be interpreted as them trying to trick him into exposing himself for the fraud he was. All of his replies fit the concept of a con knowing not to expose himself.
Now, I am not trying to persuade you that that is the reality. I would, however, like you to recognize that it fits. My own thoughts are that it was a matter of competing con-men wanting the "suckers" to themselves.
Keith (ex-atheist) said..."I’m very surprised that this issue hasn’t been explained for you. There are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws throughout the Bible."
Keith, this issue has been explained, I'm sure several times, but some choose to plead ignorance. I think they play dumb so they can keep bringing up the same old tired excuses why they reject God and His word.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Pvblivs said...
The biblical stories are consistent with the idea that the leaders saw him as a con-man. If they had come out and said he was a con-man, his followers would have killed them. So the tales can be interpreted as them trying to trick him into exposing himself for the fraud he was. All of his replies fit the concept of a con knowing not to expose himself.
______
When I was an atheist that’s exactly what I believed. I had no other choice. I couldn’t take the unintelligent cop-out and say “Jesus didn’t exist.” And I knew better to say Jesus was a great moral teacher – I knew some of the teaching of Jesus and couldn’t stand them at the time. So, my only other options where that he was crazy-crazy or the whole thing was the biggest and boldest and grandest lie of humanity. I knew that a crazy man wouldn’t be able to make up a lie that was so organized and so elaborate, and thus the default was that he was a con-man. But then I read the Bible. And I decided to allow one more option on the table that I never wanted to consider possible. That maybe He was telling the truth.
As I read the gospel of Mathew I thought about my theories of Jesus and asked myself all sorts of questions. If He were a con, what did He get? I’ve never heard of a con-man who wasn’t after money, power, or women. He never got any of those things? Jesus sure had to do a lot of work, the most amazing set ups, and yet He never obtained anything that needed such an elaborate lie. Instead He died on the cross. I wept the first time I read about the Savior dieing on that cross… I wasn’t a Christian yet, but I knew that Jesus was innocent of the crimes He was accused of. And yet He allowed them to kill Him… What was up with that? The more I read the more obvious it became, that Jesus was who He said He was. Any other option at that point took too much faith and were desperate attempts of my own mind and heart just not wanting to follow the Lord.
It was an awkward moment within my own mind – because I knew it was true. The one I hated, the one I argued people about, the one I mocked, the one I only used as curse word was real. That God was as obvious as Jesus Christ the whole time… how did I miss it for so long. I was 21 when the Lord made Himself known to me. I knew if I turned my back on Him that day, I would become set in my ways like my father, and never look again at Jesus Christ. I wonder how many atheists are set in their ways and now because they are much older… most of their life gone… it’s even harder for them to look again at Jesus Christ. It was hard for me to admit that I was wrong for so long, I can't image realizing that you were wrong for decades. It breaks my heart that so many don’t know Him like I do, and will regret it forever.
By-the-way is there thing that I can specifically pray about for you? That goes for any atheist here – I’d like to pray for specific issues in your lives.
Enjoy your day,
Keith
Keith:
I don't think he "allowed it." I think that lie was introduced in an attempt to revive the movement. He, ultimately, did not get what he was after because he was stopped by the existing government -- which saw him as a threat.
Remember the bible is not a text written by neutral observers. It was written by christians, and as such can be expected to put a positive spin on the movement.
As I understand it, he was accused of one crime. He was accused of claiming to be the "messiah" and thus a challenge to Roman rule. Good or bad, that was treason. Now, you can say that it was an unjust law. I give no opinion on that. But the fact is, if he is innocent of that charge, if he is not the "messiah," then your faith is a faith in nothing.
Your "faith" has a double-bind. If he was who he supposedly said he was, he was a traitor to the empire. If he was not, then there is no cause for worship.
Pvblivs said...
“He, ultimately, did not get what he was after because he was stopped by the existing government -- which saw him as a threat.”
“If he was who he supposedly said he was, he was a traitor to the empire.”
______
You're saying that if He was God in the flesh, He was a traitor to the empire?
He was God in the flesh, but His mission was to die, to fulfill prophecy, to provide salvation in His life’s blood. The people who followed Him and the leaders who wanted Him killed thought He might cause a riot and try and take over Rome – but of course Jesus predicted (at least three times) about being betrayed, being arrested, and killed. He was pronounced innocent 4 times – but the crowed chanted crucify Him, crucify Him. That is the heart cry of every human alive before they know Jesus Christ – and the less someone recognizes that, the worse off they are.
Any other explanation for the testimonies of Jesus Christ as found in the gospels along with the radical growth of the early Church require the most extreme speculations. Talk about faith.
I'll pray that the Lord will lead more people into your life who know Him, and who will tell you of His goodness. If you have any other prayer requests, I'd love to hear them.
Keith
Keith:
"You're saying that if He was God in the flesh, He was a traitor to the empire?"
Yes. Similarly, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were traitors to the crown. While I admire what they accomplished, it was a violation of the existing law. If they had failed they would have been hanged. All this shows is that sometimes it is appropriate and even honorable to defy unjust laws.
"He was pronounced innocent 4 times...."
You wouldn't happen to have independent corroboration for that, would you? The writers of the bible had a motive to lie. If they said that Jesus was executed for treason, no one would them. People might mourn the would-be messiah. But they would see the crucifiction as an indicator that he was not the one to free them from Roman rule.
@Pvblivs
Jesus is the King of kings. Is a police officer a traitor to a drug ring? Is a warden a traitor to a prison gang? I guess that’s what you’re saying. Jesus owns it all, He will someday reclaim it all, and that includes your soul and mine. But the reality is that we’re the traitors. This is Gods earth, we breath His air, eat His food, enjoy His seasons… have you thanked Him today. We sin against Him, we think we’re our own god, that we can run our own lives. We’re the traitors, Jesus is the Savior.
You said...
"He was pronounced innocent 4 times...." You wouldn't happen to have independent corroboration for that, would you?
Even if I did you wouldn’t believe it. Do you have any corroboration for the Bible being a lie? That’s really the biggest hurdle you have -- How did the early Church grow so quickly? The “lie” motive is so incredibly weak, I wouldn’t know how anyone could honestly believe it. Unless they just want to argue for the fun of it, or are very ignorant of the history of the early Church.
With Hope,
Keith
Keith:
I know that you are trying to change the nature of the examples, because none of yours are honest. The closest you could come is a government official that infiltrated a revolutionary movement by pretending to be part of it. Such a person would arguably be a traitor to the movement. The Roman officials did not see Jesus as "king of kings." If he claimed that openly he would be pronounced guilty (not innocent) on the spot.
"How did the early Church grow so quickly?"
As near as I can tell, before the emporer Constantine started helping it along, it didn't. It was being peddled to people who had no hope. Now, it is clear that the early church leaders had a motive to lie. Gaining converts (assuming, as I believe, that it was a lie) increased their power. If they had been more successful, they might even have overthrown Rome and had power over the empire.
So, I do not trust the bible as a source that Jesus was proclaimed innocent. Postulating that he was pronounced guilty fits what we know better. Of course, neither of us was there and truly "knows" what happened. We just go by what sequence of events we find plausible.
Pvblivs said...
”As near as I can tell, before the emporer Constantine started helping it along, it didn't. It was being peddled to people who had no hope. Now, it is clear that the early church leaders had a motive to lie. Gaining converts (assuming, as I believe, that it was a lie) increased their power. If they had been more successful, they might even have overthrown Rome and had power over the empire.”
___
It’s a counterintuitive hypothesis. You’re saying that people invented a deliberate lie, that was centered around telling the truth, about being honest, striving for holiness, doing what is right, serving Jesus Christ, even amid great persecution and death, with joy, not seeking power or wealth or fame – but in gratitude for God fulfilling 1000 years of prophecy and forgiving the sins of men.
You said…
”Postulating that he was pronounced guilty fits what we know better. Of course, neither of us was there and truly "knows" what happened. We just go by what sequence of events we find plausible.”
___
And what were your sources for the “lie” theory? How do we “know better?” I know that an unbeliever needs to find some explanation, because if it’s true they’re in big trouble where they stand.
When was the last time you read the NT anyways? There’s no hint of this hidden “lie” between the lines. A deliberate lie wouldn’t include such transparent honesty of the struggles and failures of these men. For example: Why in that culture would a writer have women be the first to testify of the resurrection? That would have been a horrible thing to include in a lie for credibility. Example after example would show the lie theory anything but plausible.
Keith
(You can have the last word… I’ve been spending way too much time on the blog, I need a break. I’ve appreciated your thought provoking discussions. I’m still praying for you.)
Keith:
Perhaps you would prefer the phrasing is a better fit for what we know. I was not trying to imply knowing something better.
"It’s a counterintuitive hypothesis. You’re saying that people invented a deliberate lie, that was centered around telling the truth, about being honest, striving for holiness, doing what is right...."
It's not at all counterintuitive. Cult leaders expect honesty and "holiness" from their followers, but seldom exhibit it themselves.
"Why in that culture would a writer have women be the first to testify of the resurrection?"
Ooh, and easy one. These stories were written some time afterward. But the writers knew that there was no record of someone saying he had seen a bodily resurrection at the time. Claiming that the witnesses were female accounts for the lack of record.
If you don't reply, I am going to assume that you agree with what I said.
Ray, on what evidence do you make that accusation that we would link to porn sites?
I am trying to make it through all this dialogue I missed. eek.
Why don't you do what I do if you have a valid link and put it on your blog site attached to your name here? We can follow it from there. Then if you are promoting bad stuff, Ray can just cut you off or at least we will know we can't trust you any longer and a reference to a link on your site will no longer go through or something like that?
Vera
By the same token, even a major upset in biological science seems very unlikely to overturn the ideas of common ancestry of humans and other animals, or of some major role for natural selection in shaping adaptions.
You may want to check that out to see that mtDNA studies have done just that.
Vera
Because those changes will be improvements of our knowledge. Without science we would still be living in caves, waiting for a thunderstorm to get some fire to kook your rabbit.
Give me a break. It was probably some housewife's husband that said, "There must be a better way." Modern day science and engineering, paid for by big corporations that want to make money, have advanced technology, not science. If you want to give some glory to someone, give it to GE or at least Sears. :-)
Vera
Do you drive a car? The geologists whose work made it possible to fuel your vehicle had to know how old the earth is. Without that knowledge their work would have failed and you'd be unable to get anywhere without looking at the rear end of a horse.
Isn't that what you want though? No more SUVs. hee hee. I couldn't resist.
I just want to say that it was God that designed those first creatures to make this world habitable and then converted them into fossil fuels so you could drive that old car. I think they discovered the stuff long before they knew how old it was. Am I right?
Vera
You're claim all the evidence provided for some theories is not enough to validate them. please show me evidence to support your claim. You cannot just say that theories supported by virtually the entire scientific community are incorrect without the ability to refute their claims with evidence.
AC,
Science has a jurisdiction, no question and they should be allowed to seek truth. We want the truth and I for one, do not fear the truth. Jesus said that we would know the truth and the truth would set us free. So why then should we be frightened of the truth?
Problem is that we don't always have all the facts. To just look at nuclear DNA, one could assume that evolution is true. But when you add mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosomal DNA into the equation, suddenly the picture changes. We used to think cells were these primitive little pieces of nothing and now we see how complex and sophisticated they are through our improved means of investigating them.
What is a source of irritation for the Christian is when science takes their limited knowledge and sends a nuclear missile of partial truth into the Christian camp trying to undermine that jurisdiction. Then the Christian camp retaliates in terms of their limited knowledge of nature trying to force science to adapt, which causes the scientists to retaliate and then neither group is really seeking truth any longer.
So you have to ask the question - am I willing to accept the truth? Can we as Christians who know God step back and wait for all the evidence to come in because we know God and we know that in the end, He will reveal the absolute truth.
I appreciate scientists that are purposed to accept reality and to open up the Scriptures to us through that. I think there is a lot more though that we have to learn. We are barely scratching the surface.
Vera
Post a Comment