Scientific evidence is testable, objective, and reproducible. Everything else is unscientific. I don't know much about the origins of the multiverse hypotheses, but in physics it is mentioned as a possible explanation for certain weird quantum mechanical behavior. Note that it is not scientific either, strictly speaking, since it cannot be tested! This is why it is not called a "theory".
But science HAS, and when it doesn't fit with your 10,000 year belief, it is discredited science to you. What does science have to say? We've tested bones millions of years old. Nope, you're wrong. Ok, well then there is literally nothing short of giving you a time stamped picture of god opening his arms and creating the earth that will likely be accepted. Why ask science to prove something to you when you don't trust them, their methods, or their tools to do so?
So you're ruling out evolution then? Maybe you should read up on it, it's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist.
All of your questions will be answered if you all take a few moments and watch this - http://www.starz.com/originals/spartacus/Videos/#/episode-201
Are you talking about Carbon 14? Maybe potassium dating? All of them have flaws. That only proves it is partially accurate. And maybe it will prove that the Earth and Universe is billions of years old down the road. I'm not close minded. I welcome the challenge and support it 100%. If it's irrefutable than I would be stupid to ignore it. I want answers to what I don't know. I have the Faith in my Hebrew God, and I am positive eventually science will prove this a reality. I believe the more digging and modern science evolves; the closer we get to the truth that God really does exist. Why can't I believe that? Why isn't that a logical request?
You keep suggesting I read up on things... Do you realize how much I have to read? Regardless, I certainly don't see how multiverse proposals should be a lynchpin for anything -- it's not some kind of hardcore tenet for atheists or anything. As for evolution, I am not a biologist, but I find the archaeological evidence (which IS considered scientific) of a steady progression of species over very large amounts of time to be compelling. Would I stake my life on it being 100% correct? No way (partly because I am not a biologist, and partly because I don't think we're 100% correct about anything...). The great part is that science doesn't claim infallibility, nor does it demand my full agreement.
Well I've done it, and I'm not an atheist. Maybe you should take some time to, after all your eternity depends on it. So you admit the Bible is scientific too then? Thanks! And with that are you willing to admit you are putting a measure of "faith" in what these biologists claim to know?
Here are some thoughts on carbon dating: [video=youtube;3wMV8Hw99yg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wMV8Hw99yg&list=FLpvzKMsezPkDQ22A_UdZFOg&index=5&feature=plpp_video[/video]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating I don't discredit the method. I am saying it's not perfect. Am I wrong?
You are so funny. I'm familiar with the multiverse hypotheses. I find them interesting, but far fetched. Explain to me again how this affects my eternal soul? I've also seen the evidence for evolution. I understand and believe in the science behind carbon dating. Having also read the bible, I think speak from some experience when I say the two are not comparable. Maybe you should go get yourself a degree or two in science before you tell me what "scientific" is and isn't. I've got two.
I assume you trust scientific conclusions in some cases, right? Can you tell me an experimental method that IS perfect? How close to perfect must a method be for you to accept its conclusions?
OK, so you agree the multiverse theory is pretty ridiculous and has no evidence whatsoever. Then what's your argument against the razor sharp precision observed in the universe? What's your counter to the teleological argument? And if you don't accept God, then you are against God. And if you are against God you will spend eternity in separation from God. Hope you get the picture. Perhaps you think you've seen evidence for evolution, but you certainly haven't seen testable, objective and observable evidence for it. If so, you would be the first! Unless you now want to recant on your previous statement and let evolution through your "objective" gate. And that's cool, Dr.Bill Craig seems to think they are and he's a lot smarter than you and I, and there are plenty more who agree with us. Isn't the world like less than 2% atheist? Must have some pretty conclusive evidence there for that massive number. And nice condescending attitude there buddy, pretty sure degrees don't salvage your soul. Are you still "playing around" or do you want to zap me away with your superior knowledge and reason?
The method used to make scientific law, like gravity. Yeah it's mathematics, but still it doesn't contradict and always accurate.
Let's see here... You have consistently encouraged me to "read up" on matters with which I am already familiar. Seems you can dish it, but not take it. What's testable, objective, and observable in regards to evolution is the archaeological record itself. Individuals may disagree on final scientific conclusions (and many do, in all areas of science). You may believe that the dating is flawed (though you'd be hard-pressed to show that it's off by a large enough factor to allow a 10,000 year-old earth). You may believe that god randomly destroyed species throughout time and replaced them with very similar species immediately after, for some odd reason. However, the logical conclusion from the fossil record for the majority of folks who understand the underlying science is that evolution is the most likely explanation. You disagree, and have good evidence to back your own hypothesis? Write your own paper with your own data and turn the scientific community upside-down. It has happened before. Evolution is not a plot against theism. It does not prove that god doesn't exist. It jives perfectly well with a Christian world-view -- just not a Creationist one. But then, not much (outside of the Bible) jives with a Creationist world view.
But what CAUSES gravity? Have you ever seen a graviton? What about the fact that gravity has been questioned as a true force, and may in fact just be a byproduct of space-time curvature? Beyond that, how much precision does your scale have? Did you know that it has a significant, measurable uncertainty due to random atmospheric fluctuations, temperature changes, and differences in elevation? My point is just that EVERY theory has exceptions and complications, and EVERY scientific instrument has uncertainty. It's important to recognize all of this, and it's also important to decide whether the theoretical problems and experimental uncertainties are large enough to justify modification of the theory. In the case of carbon dating (and similar techniques), the uncertainties are nowhere near high enough to allow for a 10,000 year-old earth. Either god is playing tricks on us, or a young earth is just not possible.
Thank you.... What is God? Have you ever seen him? Can something break the laws of physics? This is all I ask. The pioneers that put Faith in something you can't see and proved it law. Sometimes things we still know nothing about. It's glad that there is philosophy to guide the way. And why can't the bible be just another map to this quest of truth?
