Jesus Freaks

Originally posted by Kepler
4.5 billion years old, give or take a smidgeon. 75 million doesn't even scratch the surface. Of course, if you happen to think the world was created about 6000 years ago round about tea time on a Thursday then just ignore this and blame the radiometric dates on satan or another mythical being of your choice.

Surely the existence of "dark matter" is proof that Satan's influence pervades the universe!

Originally posted by Soothfast
Surely the existence of "dark matter" is proof that Satan's influence pervades the universe!

If you can produce a lump of dark matter I might start believing physicists haven't just discarded Ockham's Razor so they can look cool when rabbiting on about cold dark matter. Otherwise, I'll stick to MOND to explain my galaxy rotation rates. Or we could just blame it on god.

Originally posted by Kepler
If you can produce a lump of dark matter I might start believing physicists haven't just discarded Ockham's Razor so they can look cool when rabbiting on about cold dark matter. Otherwise, I'll stick to MOND to explain my galaxy rotation rates. Or we could just blame it on god.

I'm playing devil's advocate, as it were.

I'm not convinced that dark matter exists either. The mathematical hypotheses are running laps ahead of experimental data.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I'm playing devil's advocate, as it were.

I'm not convinced that dark matter exists either. The mathematical hypotheses are running laps ahead of experimental data.

Thought as much. I just don't like the notion that we have to invent something new to explain every gap we find. Might as well just put up a sign saying "God done it" and stop thinking. It's just lazy if you ask me.

Originally posted by Kepler4.5 billion years old
4.5 billion years old, give or take a smidgeon. 75 million doesn't even scratch the surface. Of course, if you happen to think the world was created about 6000 years ago round about tea time on a Thursday then just ignore this and blame the radiometric dates on satan or another mythical being of your choice.

According to "scientists" the earth was 4.5 billion
years old in the 1980s - so you are saying it hasnt
aged at all in 30 years!

Biblical dating remains the most reliable method,
for instance a gold coin stamped 998 BC with
King Davids portrait proves that he
was alive at that time.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
According to "scientists" the earth was 4.5 billion
years old in the 1980s - so you are saying it hasnt
aged at all in 30 years!

Biblical dating remains the most reliable method,
for instance a gold coin stamped 998 BC with
King Davids portrait [b]proves that he
was alive at that time.[/b]

If you ever saw such a coin, I would bet it was counterfeit. 😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
According to "scientists" the earth was 4.5 billion
years old in the 1980s - so you are saying it hasnt
aged at all in 30 years!

Biblical dating remains the most reliable method,
for instance a gold coin stamped 998 BC with
King Davids portrait [b]proves that he
was alive at that time.[/b]

4.5 billion is 4 500 000 000. I don't think the additional 30 years on the end would be signifificant. Moreover, it would be swamped in the error despite that error being relatively very small. A proper understanding of numbers and arithmetic is needed before you try to debunk science.

Originally posted by Kepler
4.5 billion is 4 500 000 000. I don't think the additional 30 years on the end would be signifificant. Moreover, it would be swamped in the error despite that error being relatively very small. A proper understanding of numbers and arithmetic is needed before you try to debunk science.

A very happy and peaceful 4.5 billion and 13 to you all.

Originally posted by Kepler
4.5 billion is 4 500 000 000. I don't think the additional 30 years on the end would be signifificant. Moreover, it would be swamped in the error despite that error being relatively very small. A proper understanding of numbers and arithmetic is needed before you try to debunk science.

I doubt if you would think the addition of 30 years would be significant when they have already added over 4.49999 billion years.

Originally posted by Kepler
... swamped in the error despite ... A proper understanding of numbers and arithmetic is needed before you try to debunk science.

1.
Now you admit that there is an error in the dating of the earth!
How big is that error?
And what is the error factor in that estimate of the error?

2.
A proper understanding of numbers!
I have an honours degree in Arithmetic thank you
and
4,500,000,000 + 30 = 4,500,000,030
😏

Originally posted by Kepler
Thought as much. I just don't like the notion that we have to invent something new to explain every gap we find. Might as well just put up a sign saying "God done it" and stop thinking. It's just lazy if you ask me.

When "Science" can explain how a bumble-bee can fly (this is impossible according to science) or where rainbows come from (just light?) then there will be no need for God.

😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
When "Science" can explain how a bumble-bee can fly (this is impossible according to science) or where rainbows come from (just light?) then there will be no need for God.

😏

Science deals with evidence from observation and experiment. Bumblebees can fly. I have observed them doing so. Fortunately science is not in the habit of denying observations that are easily repeatable. Whether or not we know the actual mechanism yet is another matter but I'd be willing to bet that "God done it" isn't even close. Not very satisfying anyway to blame one's ignorance on a deity.

Rainbows are just light. You can make a rainbow by shining light through a suitable object, a prism or water droplets for example. Roger Bacon knew this in the 13th century. What else would one need to make a rainbow anyway? More "God done it" powder?

You may not have noticed this so I'll point it out here. I said nothing about not needing god or not believing in god. I am happy to admit I don't know if a god exists or not. However, I don't feel I need a deity to explain how the universe works so far. Yes, there are gaps in my knowledge but that is half the fun of science. One does science to learn not to prove a point. If at some point I, or someone else, finds evidence that a god or gods exist then I'll happily investigate that as well. If god turns up one day and says "Hi, it's me, you know, that god character people keep squabbling over" I'll happily converse with him. Hopefully I will learn something from the encounter. I certainly don't think I am going learn much from his accolytes and opponents in here. Meanwhile, I don't bother him and he doesn't bother me.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1.
Now you admit that there is an error in the dating of the earth!
How big is that error?
And what is the error factor in that estimate of the error?

2.
A proper understanding of numbers!
I have an honours degree in Arithmetic thank you
and
4,500,000,000 + 30 = 4,500,000,030
😏

Scientific data should always be quoted with an error term. That's the difference between science and blind faith. Science admits to uncertainty where blind faith is, well, blind mostly.

Originally posted by Kepler
Science deals with evidence from observation and experiment. Bumblebees can fly. I have observed them doing so. Fortunately science is not in the habit of denying observations that are easily repeatable. Whether or not we know the actual mechanism yet is another matter but I'd be willing to bet that "God done it" isn't even close. Not very satisfying anyway t ...[text shortened]... th century. What else would one need to make a rainbow anyway? More "God done it" powder?

Science deals with evidence from observation and experiment.

That is why science can only guess at the age of the earth and man. No scientist was there when the heavens and the earth were created to observe it nor can they reproduce the events by experiements. That is what you call blind science. Go a head and "bet" that blind science has the right answer by blind chance.

We Christians walk by faith and not by sight. However that does not mean our faith is blind because we have eyewitness testimony of the truth. I will place my "bet' on the eyewitness testimony of the historical record of the Holy Bible.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Science deals with evidence from observation and experiment.

That is why science can only guess at the age of the earth and man. No scientist was there when the heavens and the earth were created to observe it nor can they reproduce the events by experiements. That is what you call blind science. Go a head and "bet" that blind science has the ri ...[text shortened]... ord of the Holy Bible.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy![/b]

Why would I be betting on anything? I generally don't gamble. And I'll not disturb you further. As I said, I won't learn much from either side of this debate.