I realize that some people live where they can't see stars in the night sky. That is unfortunate. If you can, you are seeing lights that have traveled a long way to get to your eyes. A very long way at a very high speed.
Well, duh The thing is, I actually don't believe you can argue against Faith. There is absolutely no logic to Faith. Faith is belief in spite of logic and evidence to the contrary, by definition. Once you get that, then argument is just a matter of testing that Faith. Consider if there really is a God and his purpose is to test everyone's Faith, what would he do? He'd give us free will. He'd give us temptation. And he'd give us Science, which would be completely bogus in "actuality." The sole purpose of Science would be to tempt people to abandon their Faith. To test whether people will abide by the 1st of the 10 commandments - "thou shall have no other gods before me." You cannot win by arguing logic against that. The whole point is to ignore logic and have blind faith.
And yet Denny doesn't explain +/- not being a factor. I think I don't fall into that category that you sum all Christians into. I believe the universe is 13+ billion years old. I believe the earth is 3+ billion years old. I am also open to evolution. But since you are just dodging the "facts" like plus and minus; who really is following blindly?
I'm always starting at the stars and I am extremely fascinated by science. Do you think I'm ignoring science or something?
Says the man that believes mass (finite) is eternal, there is no such thing as nothingness; yet believes in the Big Bang, and the one that ignores +/- because it goes against his argument. Lol
Radio carbon dating gives an age, plus or minus an error. Other factors observed during the archaeological dig convinced the scientists that the age was toward the older end of the measured date range. Radio carbon dating is proven accurate by several means. A particularly convincing one is when they date an item that they know its exact age and the test is accurate. There are other tests for age of an artifact as well. Consider Jerhico, where they found walls on top of walls on top of walls, each built by different generations. The deeper they dug, the older the walls were - for obvious reasons. If there is corroborating evidence of when certain of those walls were built, say 500 years ago, they know the older walls are at least 500 years old and certainly older than that.
If you made the argument I did - for Faith - your argument wouldn't sound idiotic. When you argue with made up stuff that flies in the face of logic and scientific observation, your arguments do sound idiotic.
Glad you at least admit it now. Even in today's science; agriculture for example. We send our fertilizer samples out for testing. They give the result of maybe 1.2% nitrogen. The buffer is .2%. Our agronomist must take into account of the deviance when using to for application ratios. 0.2% seems like a small figure; but is still taking to account. Now when you have a deviance of 110 +/-; that's a large difference in a figure to determine if its 1,500 BC or 1,400 BC. Sorry but you failed in trying to prove your point.
Actually no. You said there is no such thing as nothingness; yet you believe the Big Bang. You know that all the matter in the universe was concentrated in a condense mass; then expanded rapidly right? So since the universe expanded; what was around that condensed mass? Also; since you believe mass is eternal; then explain how a finite object like mass can be infinite?
Explain? What post have I made that says that if you give me evidence about something scientific that I've ignored? Don't tell me the earth or universes age or evolution
110 is a 3% error, not enough to make the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth be possibly 6000. And 1527 +/- 110 would be 1637 BC at the oldest, not 1500.
I believe that the earth normalizes itself. I believe there is such thing as global warming; but eventually the earth will normalize itself again. Possibly what explains the ice age thousands of years ago.
Lol why do you assume I think the earth is 6,000 years old? Lol And the margin of error is 1,400-1,600 BC. It can go either way Denny. How can you think it can't apply the other way? Oh right I forgot; you don't want to admit the lower margin because it would go against your argument! Hahaha. Who is blindly following again?
And Denny; you still haven't explained your gem that there is no such thing as nothingness and how a finite mass is eternal.
Sure the planet will keep having life and may return to a habitable temperature for humanity, but have you considered that humanity may not look anything like it does now by then? That there could be a global famine before that happens? There could be terrible floods?
