the earth

cc.slim said:
Earth ah where would you be without it.wOOt me with the lord hehehe.Secular humanism revolves around the belief man is right hahahaha OOOOK....Almost everything that man has put a time or date to is based on carbon data aka decay. man made decay, a guess or fact? oh my tough to bet your life on man's wisdom.Y battle over history when its just that wOOt I grow tomatoes in dino poo thats mixed with peat.mmmgood
Click to expand...

Say what?
 
cc.slim said:
Earth ah where would you be without it.wOOt me with the lord hehehe.Secular humanism revolves around the belief man is right hahahaha OOOOK....Almost everything that man has put a time or date to is based on carbon data aka decay. man made decay, a guess or fact? oh my tough to bet your life on man's wisdom.Y battle over history when its just that wOOt I grow tomatoes in dino poo thats mixed with peat.mmmgood
Click to expand...

I don't understand most of your post, but I am glad you serve the Lord :D
 
I too am glad he serves the Lord. ;)

Now, regarding the shock over my dismissal of anecdotal evidence. Ask a cop which he would rather have - DNA evidence linking the suspect to the scene or an eyewitness linking the suspect to the scene.

He'll take the DNA evidence everytime and twice on sundays.
 
Now, regarding the shock over my dismissal of anecdotal evidence. Ask a cop which he would rather have - DNA evidence linking the suspect to the scene or an eyewitness linking the suspect to the scene.
Click to expand...
and if the cop only had anecdotal?
 
My guess is that the County Prosecutor would probably not prefer charges. Quite likely the young detective would be told to go away until he could come back with some objective proof, not subjective testimony.
 
Hahahaha sry my first few words was the key.Earth was made by God, whom filled it with Love which includes us. He knew very well what he was doing such as preparing it for his most favorite creation which was in his image. Wow did he look like me oh my what a goofy lookin feller he is hahaha.(naw, really I think an angel set up a circus mirror just b4 he created me) What is also so awsome is that he even gave us a map to navigate with.Which is flawless...So to focus on what man say's or thinks he's found, that contradicts creation is goofy and pointless.Homegrown tomatoes mmgood
 
Dark Virtue said:
I am more than willing to believe things that are defensible and testable rather than things I am told to take with a leap of faith.
Click to expand...
And yet you hov faith that there is no God:rolleyes: .
 
Actually, he doesn't have faith that there isn't a God, he just doesn't have faith that there is one.
 
My guess is that the County Prosecutor would probably not prefer charges. Quite likely the young detective would be told to go away until he could come back with some objective proof, not subjective testimony.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawer but I"m pretty sure someone can be prosecuted on the testimony of 2 unbiased witnesses

So how about 12 unbiased witnesses that all died because of thier refusal to deny thier claim.

but of course from past experience I find its never really about evidence anyway
 
Eon said:
I too am glad he serves the Lord. ;)

Now, regarding the shock over my dismissal of anecdotal evidence. Ask a cop which he would rather have - DNA evidence linking the suspect to the scene or an eyewitness linking the suspect to the scene.

He'll take the DNA evidence everytime and twice on sundays.
Click to expand...

DNA didn't help the Simpson case...science is not infallable. Same with dating techniques, they too are riddled with issues, which is why corraborating evidence is sought out, in every case. When newly formed lava rock gives an innacurate date (as is the case) one seriously has to question the foundational assumptions of radiometric dating techniquies. In my opinion, if a rock is known to be 5 minutes old, yet by dating it, you get an age of 1,000,000, then the whole dating method must be suspect. You can argue that the dating method is not a clock, and you would be correct, but the amount of error in a date of 1,000,000 years of a known to be 5 minute old sample is quite significant. We are not talking "The sample is 5 minutes old give or take a million years" (what kind of fool believes this), we are talking "The sample is 5 minutes old give or take a few seconds." When we are dealing with knowns to be within weeks, days, hours or minutes, having a 1 million year error is unacceptable.

Given the anomolies present in newly formed rocks or recently deceased organisms (I could careless how scientists justify and rationalize them, the anomolies still exist), I'm more apt to side with the idea that creation was created with an appearant age then to side with the idea that the measured age of a sample is a close approximation of its actual age.

Thus leading us back to square one. The actual age of the Earth and the universe is simply unknown. The only way to know for sure is to have had some being who existed at the time of creation to come to us and tell us how old it is. Seeing as that being hasn't told us that age, I logically deduct that the age of the Earth and universe is irrelavent to the Christian faith. Leading me back to my original statement that the only people who are interested in an old earth are those who require it to support their belief system and world views.

I personally have no clue as to the age of the whole ball of wax, and in my little world (as unscientific as anyone would like to believe it to be), knowing or not knowing the age is of no consequence to me. Knowing it to be a billion years old or 6,000 years old does not add a day to my life, a dime to my income nor food in my belly. No matter how hard either side has tried, neither a 4.5billion year old earth (with all the underlying evolution, first life and creaton theory) nor a 6,000 year old world (with all the underlying theologies) been proven. All that is left is faith that the side of the coin you picked happens to be the correct one.
 
See there you go with your eyewitness bias again.

All that the scenario you describe would prove is that this being CLAIMS to know the age of the Earth.
 
I don't believe anyone here said science is infallible.

As I have stated before though, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
Eon said:
See there you go with your eyewitness bias again.

All that the scenario you describe would prove is that this being CLAIMS to know the age of the Earth.
Click to expand...

You disapoint me Eon. An eyewitness making such a claim would obviously be able to support it. Why are you assuming they wouldn't? :confused:
 
Gods_Peon said:
You disapoint me Eon. An eyewitness making such a claim would obviously be able to support it. Why are you assuming they wouldn't? :confused:
Click to expand...

Like the countless eyewitnesses that can support UFO's?

Or Sasquatch?

Or Nessie?
 
Dark Virtue said:
I don't believe anyone here said science is infallible.

As I have stated before though, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...

Bye bye baby! *waves* At least there's a conviently placed trampoline there ;)

Anyway, I don't think that dating in any form (carbon dating and stuff, not going out with the opposite gender XD) is accurate. There's always the argument of "it works better on older stuff", but how do we know that the "older stuff" is indeed old?
 
*blinks* Obviously? Given the historical errancy of eye witness accounts, why is their reliability assured?

Now, if - as you said - they can back it up with facts. Provable and hard facts. Then that's different. But at that point it's not just an eyewitness report, is it?
 
ChickenSoup said:
Bye bye baby! *waves* At least there's a conviently placed trampoline there ;)

Anyway, I don't think that dating in any form (carbon dating and stuff, not going out with the opposite gender XD) is accurate. There's always the argument of "it works better on older stuff", but how do we know that the "older stuff" is indeed old?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a broad statement isn't it?

A very broad, inaccurate statement.
 
DV said:
Like the countless eyewitnesses that can support UFO's?

Or Sasquatch?

Or Nessie?
Click to expand...
how many eye witnesses have died because they would not deny the beast named Sasquatch? how many people have written books going in detail of Sasquatch? Or is it more like: " I saw a blur and a big footprint" Does Sasquatch have any historical record? Maybe someone saw a Gorilla out of habitat, who knows? However, You are not bieng not sincere, if you fail to see the difference between Jesus Christ and Sasquatch, I don't see much point in future conversation
Eon said:
*blinks* Obviously? Given the historical errancy of eye witness accounts, why is their reliability assured?
Click to expand...
They all died horrible deaths because they would not deny what they saw...
 
Dark Virtue said:
I don't believe anyone here said science is infallible.

As I have stated before though, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...

Proof it, or request your post be deleted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top