Originally posted by dj2beckerNot always. If I look inside a bag containing 5 marbles then there are 5 marbles in the bag. If you look in the bag and saw there were 5 marbles I'd hope you'd agree that there are 5 marbles in the bag.
Two different people can look at the same evidence and reach two vastly different conclusions. The way in which they interpret the evidence will be dependent on their world view.
Your world view, by the way, has no coherent answers to start off with.
Or perhaps you'd say there are 5 marbles AND GOD in the bag.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZI was specifically referring to origins.
Not always. If I look inside a bag containing 5 marbles then there are 5 marbles in the bag. If you look in the bag and saw there were 5 marbles I'd hope you'd agree that there are 5 marbles in the bag.
Or perhaps you'd say there are 5 marbles AND GOD in the bag.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWell perhaps you should stop talking in general terms then. And how do you interpret the evidence of radioactive dating?
I was specifically referring to origins.
EDIT: Or archeology going back 10,000 years in layers? Or fossils? Or the Grand Canyon? The list goes on.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat evidence? Please use specific examples...
Well perhaps you should stop talking in general terms then. And how do you interpret the evidence of radioactive dating?
EDIT: Or archeology going back 10,000 years in layers? Or fossils? Or the Grand Canyon? The list goes on.
Radioactive dating, fossils, etc. are very wide fields.
Originally posted by dj2beckerMy communication skills? What were we just talking about evidence of dj? A world older than 6,000 years. The entire field of radiocarbon dating is evidence of that. The entire field of palentology is also evidence. As is some archeology and all evolutionary biology.
Evidence of what?
Try to be specific. It will do you communication skills a world of good.
Is every one of those fields wrong?
Originally posted by XanthosNZActually no. If you look inside a bag and see 5 marbles there is no guarantee that there are five marbles and only 5 marbles in the bag. Any magician can prove you wrong on that point. I can do a few neat card tricks myself.
Not always. If I look inside a bag containing 5 marbles then there are 5 marbles in the bag. If you look in the bag and saw there were 5 marbles I'd hope you'd agree that there are 5 marbles in the bag.
Or perhaps you'd say there are 5 marbles AND GOD in the bag.
However dj often claims that there is a fundamental difference between seeing the 5 marbles and seeing a photo of the 5 marbles. I dispute that and think that the difference is only one of degree. Knowledge that the world existed yesterday is no different from knowledge that it existed 500 years ago or 10,000 years ago. It is only a question of quantity of evidence. dj claims that you can 'know' that yesterday happened but that you cannot 'know' that 1 million years ago happened. He however has never given any reason for this claim.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe entire field of radiocarbon dating is evidence of that.
My communication skills? What were we just talking about evidence of dj? A world older than 6,000 years. The entire field of radiocarbon dating is evidence of that. The entire field of palentology is also evidence. As is some archeology and all evolutionary biology.
Is every one of those fields wrong?
What?? What are you talking about? In the atmosphere we have Carbon-14, which is being produced by cosmic radiation from nitrogen. The rate at which this process is going on has been measured. The amount in the atmosphere has also been measured, and it appears that there is enough to account for this process going on for only a few thousand years.
The entire field of palentology is also evidence.
The evidence is far from conclusive.
As is some archeology and all evolutionary biology.
What?? Please explain...
Archeology on the other hand is in complete agreement with the Bible.
Originally posted by dj2becker"Archeology on the other hand is in complete agreement with the Bible."
[b]The entire field of radiocarbon dating is evidence of that.
What?? What are you talking about? In the atmosphere we have Carbon-14, which is being produced by cosmic radiation from nitrogen. The rate at which this process is going on has been measured. The amount in the atmosphere has also been measured, and it appears that there is enough to ac ...[text shortened]... hat?? Please explain...
Archeology on the other hand is in complete agreement with the Bible.[/b]
What? How?
Didn't you just said that dating methods are unreliable - thus anything dug up can't be dated?
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I suggested that the chemical changes which occur in embyonic development could be seen as a form of 'chemical' evolution, in response to dj2becker's question.
You made a statement that the birthing process was an example of
evolution didn't you?
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhere are you getting your C14 facts DJ - Disneyland?
[b]The entire field of radiocarbon dating is evidence of that.
What?? What are you talking about? In the atmosphere we have Carbon-14, which is being produced by cosmic radiation from nitrogen. The rate at which this process is going on has been measured. The amount in the atmosphere has also been measured, and it appears that there is enough to ac ...[text shortened]... hat?? Please explain...
Archeology on the other hand is in complete agreement with the Bible.[/b]
C14 is produced constantly and does not come from a fixed store - it doesn't run out.
You may be mistaking the half life of it - which is just under 6000 years (from memory). But all this means is that as a dating method it's reliable only back to maybe 50 or 60 thousand years ago. Beyond that other radioactive isotopes are required.