Sea floor spreading proving Earth more than 6K yo.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i said no stories. what are the scientific theories, give me the science rj. what science will the children be taught.

the science teacher sets up his equipment gathers the class and says 'im going to show you guys an experiment that show how we know there is an intelligent designer'...........what does he show them?

The science teacher would need a control sample to show the sudents which they know is the product of an intelligent designer. The science teacher could use an outboard motor or a computer as examples of things known to have been produced by intelligent designers.

Then he could compare the design and operation of each of those with biological systems that are not known if they are designed or not. The outboard motor would be compared to the bacterial flagellum motor and the computer with its program with the operations within a living cell.

The conclusion would be that since we know that the outboard motor and the computer with its programming language was made by an intelligent designer then the more complex biological systems must also have been designed by a super intelligence.

To show videoes like the following might be used:

YouTube

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, your evilutionists are claiming millions and billions of years in age for things they have no idea how old they are and no way to prove it to the students. Giving something an age should be prohibited in science classes for all those things that are claimed to be millions and billions of years old. That is lying to the students.

The Instructor

When 20 different technologies all point to a billion year plus age of the Earth, it is safe to say the Earth is billions of years old. There is no disputing that fact. Just because you think it goes against your bible fairy tales is your problem not ours.

You want to CONTROL science, just like you want to CONTROL every aspect of women's lives.

You want to repress the truth, not interested in actual truth, just interested in your REALLY stupid faith based agenda.

We in the real world, on the other hand, go with logic, with evidence, with predictions, with math, with intelligence, with chemical and atomic analysis, something you creationist young Earth nutters will forever disavow.

If it was up to you nutters, there would BE no science, just blind acceptance of ancient fairy tales.

Originally posted by sonhouse
When 20 different technologies all point to a billion year plus age of the Earth, it is safe to say the Earth is billions of years old. There is no disputing that fact. Just because you think it goes against your bible fairy tales is your problem not ours.

You want to CONTROL science, just like you want to CONTROL every aspect of women's lives.

You ...[text shortened]... was up to you nutters, there would BE no science, just blind acceptance of ancient fairy tales.

However there is not one technolgy that proves the Earth is billions of years old. Has science been reduced to majority opinion?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
However there is not one technolgy that proves the Earth is billions of years old. Has science been reduced to majority opinion?

The Instructor

You don't really care how many technologies converge to give a date. One technique would never be enough to give a confidence factor to a date. OF COURSE one technology doesn't do it. That is why there have been many dating techniques developed and it is the convergence of the data points that convinces scientists of a given date.

OBVIOUSLY you don't use carbon dating to figure the age of the grand canyon for instance.

You might grouse about the canyon itself, it came from a flood, blah blah blah, but what about the deeper layers that never got wet? How does your limited cosmology explain that? The layers you see today is only scratching the surface of all the layers present in the grand canyon. Explain THAT one.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't really care how many technologies converge to give a date. One technique would never be enough to give a confidence factor to a date. OF COURSE one technology doesn't do it. That is why there have been many dating techniques developed and it is the convergence of the data points that convinces scientists of a given date.

OBVIOUSLY you don't us ...[text shortened]... only scratching the surface of all the layers present in the grand canyon. Explain THAT one.

They were layed down from the time the Earth was created about 6000 years ago until the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.

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

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
They were layed down from the time the Earth was created about 6000 years ago until the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.

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

The Instructor

So you figure your god sprinkled one layer at a time in just a few minutes and included all those fossils interspersed just to fool us humans I guess. So that when scientists started studying those layers and found multiple techniques to date them and the fossils contained within, that was done just to mess with our brains while the real truth is what you preach.

Sure, it could happen. Maybe in some OTHER universe but not here.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure your god sprinkled one layer at a time in just a few minutes and included all those fossils interspersed just to fool us humans I guess. So that when scientists started studying those layers and found multiple techniques to date them and the fossils contained within, that was done just to mess with our brains while the real truth is what you preach.

Sure, it could happen. Maybe in some OTHER universe but not here.

My God is not trying to fool anybody. We have the Holy Bible to guide us toward the knowledge of the truth.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
My God is not trying to fool anybody. We have the Holy Bible to guide us toward the knowledge of the truth.

The Instructor

So why is the physical evidence leading us to a much older earth than the bible appears to claim?

Originally posted by DeepThought
So why is the physical evidence leading us to a much older earth than the bible appears to claim?

It isn't. It is your interpretation of that evidence that is your problem. There are others with a different interpretation.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That is explained by plate tectonics, the earths crust is moving, hence why we get earthquakes. Besides that's one small piece of the picture, for your version to have occurred, I would make a guess that every single scientific discipline is incorrect. How can that be?

You are looking at a supernatural event, natural processes are simply what
we are used to. God can use them like keys of a piano, they will respond to
His commands. If you want to make the claim supernatural events cannot
occur because they are not natural events, okay.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
So what are you criticizing it for? Also what do you mean built in blinders? The only outcome which can be reliable is the positive one, the negative one could be as a result of confounding, this can't happen for the positive result. Science may as well proceed on an agnostic basis; and answer its questions in its own terms. The evidence is clearly f ...[text shortened]... niverse appear old. With exception of ethics religion doesn't add anything useful to science.

It does not appear old, it simply is what it is, you and others say it is
old by using your own measurements and beliefs about those things you
see around you. If you are right, cool, if you are wrong, its on you.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Such as what?


It is very easy to say "science can't prove god because it's biased or blind" ...

But you don't just get to assert it, you have to prove it.


Science is the study of the reality we live in whatever that reality is.



And while a being as powerful as your god could hide itself from our experiments
if it so chose... That is ...[text shortened]... assert that science can't detect god/s and expect anyone
to accept that on your say so.

Show me one test for God?
You can have a universe screaming God is real and if you choose to ignore
it, you choose to ignore it. I've asked more than a few people here over the
years, what they would accept as evidence God is real, and the only answer
that seems to come from those that give one is, God shows Himself.

Science is all about the natrual, it will come up with a way to describe any
event or whatever under some natural occurance *only*, the supernatural
is simply never going to be looked at for good reason, it cannot see it or
control it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It does not appear old, it simply is what it is, you and others say it is
old by using your own measurements and beliefs about those things you
see around you. If you are right, cool, if you are wrong, its on you.
Kelly

The cosmic microwave background, in combination with distant dependent redshift, and various standard candles cause us to believe the universe is of the order of 1,000,000x older than the age you assign it. So it appears old.

In your reply to googlefudge you wrote:

I've asked more than a few people here over the
years, what they would accept as evidence God is real, and the only answer
that seems to come from those that give one is, God shows Himself.

Clearly a personal visit would clinch it. I think you may find evidence and proof being confounded when you ask these questions. The Bible is evidence, it's just not accepted as proof by everyone. I certainly wouldn't regard it as constituting "proof beyond reasonable doubt". One thing you may be coming up against is that because the conversation is about an infinite entity people tend to think in absolute terms and want a proof beyond any doubt, rather than just a proof beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever standard of proof one should apply to this question.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The cosmic microwave background, in combination with distant dependent redshift, and various standard candles cause us to believe the universe is of the order of 1,000,000x older than the age you assign it. So it appears old.

In your reply to googlefudge you wrote:
[quote]I've asked more than a few people here over the
years, what they would accept f beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever standard of proof one should apply to this question.

Let me point out that God did show Himself in the human form of Jesus the Christ.

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

(John 20:28-29 NKJV)

Look at the Shroud of Turin if you want proof.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Let me point out that God did show Himself in the human form of Jesus the Christ.

[b]And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

(John 20:28-29 NKJV)

Look at the Shroud of Turin if you want proof.

The Instructor[/b]

Let me point out that all that bible crap is just that: Crap, made up crap to steal men and women's minds and keep them in line. Worked REAL good though.