That makes two. Have a customer who claims 85 so that gets us a few more.
What if our dating methods are faulty? What is isochronic dating.
More familiar with carbon dating. Some say that the isotopes may not have always formed at the same rate.
Could the earth possibly be younger than we think?
I was intrigued by Steve's (I think that's who it was) comments in your evolution discussion. If I remember correctly he thought the earth was 6,000 years old after the flood but that it existed for some time before the flood. Think he felt it could be backed up biblically. Would love to hear more on this.
I am personally a contemporary Creationist who believes that the earth is both old and young. I think it appears old based on the size of the universe; however, I personally believe that the creation of the universe including the planet earth was a miracle.
In the New Testament, we see Jesus who turned water into wine. Wine has to age for a certain amount of time; however, the aging process was completed within seconds. The miracle was observed by human minds who then recorded the event.
What normally would take some time, took only a few seconds i.e. a miracle. God had simply advanced time in a moment while added the necessary molecules to make it happen.
When a person claims that a rock is dated to be 500 million years, I understand that there are assumptions being used which generally exclude a miracle; however, I can safely say that no one knows because no one has observed 500 million years. We don't have a record of human observation that goes back anything further than 5,000 years. Once we pass the 5,000 mark, we really are running on assumptions and blind guesses which may or may not be justified.
Darwinians like Mike are absolutely certain that he is correct; however, Christians who have open minds recognize that science begins with observation. The answer to the question really remains open and subject to interpretation. Since there was no mind to observe human history past 5,000 years, mikes confidence is really based on his acceptance of a worldview rather than any specific observed facts.
You provide a great illustration about how your worldview of naturalism actually limits your ability to think critically and explore all the possible avenues.
Christians by definition are much more open minded as a result because we can see reality for what it is without forcing it into a particular box. However, when it comes to events that remain unobserved, you are trapped in a box that limits your ability to actually engage in science.
I am not arguing that it is possible for a person to be deluded; however, we are talking about a large number of witnesses, the price paid by the witnesses who died for the truth of their witness, the explosion of the church, and 2000 years of history that speak to the truth of Christianity. Your worldview forces you to dismiss this evidence which means you are no open to all the evidence. Your worldview limits your ability to actually think at the critical level. You have closed your mind to rational explanations that naturalism is unable to ask or answer.
Science has to by definition begin with human observation. Without human observation, you cannot even come up with an hypothesis to test. Science is totally and completely dependent on the existence of a mind. However, you deny the reality of the mind and you do this because of your worldview that denies anything that is immaterial.
Lastly, your worldview excludes a young earth hypothesis; however, human observation allows the possibily of a young earth senario. We only have 5,000 years of observed history for which we have a record of. I am not as quick as you to discount human observation in the name of a worldview. Christians for good reason are the ones who began science, made the first big discoveries and founded the disciplines. The idea that nature is a machine that is designed by God comes from a Theistic worldview.
Whether the earth is 4 billion years old or 6,000 years old is really a non-issue because the history from 4 billion years ago to modern man remains unobserved and only exists in theory. Science is limited to human observation. Everything that exists outside of human observation really exists in the unknown and is open to interpretation.
You quiver over semantics; however, you only believe in the materiality of the brain. You deny the existence of an immaterial mind. If you believe in an immaterial reality, then you have just took a big step towards opening your mind to the things of God because you would recognize that you are a living soul.
Michael stated, "As I have mentioned if you do consider this as definitive evidence you would have to be credulous in the face of literally scores of other similar claims. Either that or be transparently inconsistent, which isn't exactly the most convincing way to arrive at truth."
The claims made by the eyewitnesses of the resurrection were substantial with a number of appearances to a number of different groups of people. However, the irony is that Darwinians are simply inconsistent in this area.
Sagan was the one who started SETI which is the search for E.T. in space. Dawkins even believes in the existence of aliens. If a Darwinian makes the claim that they made contact with an alien, you would be the first to defend the finding.
Darwinians are the ones that argue for aliens and have even convinced a number of politicians to fund their research.
Your claim is clearly an empty one because everyone knows that reality is larger than our minds can contain; however, your worldview forces you to denounce all human observation that does not fit with your current understanding of a valid cause; yet, it is the Darwinians out spending millions trying to find aliens. How do you know that an alien has not shown himself to others and simply has not been caught by the Darwinians running the SETI program yet.
Darwinians such as yourself are simply inconsistent. You deny the possibility of the resurrection; yet, you guys are the ones out there looking for aliens which could manifest themselves in any number of forms. It is just part of the irony of Darwinians who simply are unable to rule out the possibility of life other than we know it.
Once again I think you missed the boat. Christianity is based and confirmed on the basis of the scientific method and provides the foundation for science itself.
The worldview of naturalism limits the scientific method and becomes a burden to actually knowing the universe itself. A worldview when attached to science always results in limitations which is what I object to. The problem of aliens for Darwinians is a big one because it exposes a gap in their naturalistic theories.
Since Darwinians believe in aliens, you will have to admit that the nature of these aliens could be beings that have evolved to the point of using the energy of the universe to actually renew themselves without having to experience death. Aliens could come in many forms and be able to do things that are currently beyond our understanding.
In my view, the Bible is not the source for Christianity; rather, it is the human observation of the resurrection which was then recorded for posterity. The Bible is the Word of God providing realiable historical documents that form the foundation for faith. Scientists all do the same thing when they engage in scientific endeavor. We still study Darwin's journals for example. Are you ready to throw away Darwins journals simply because they are in a book?
There is a difference though between origin science and operational science. Darwinian evolution for example cannot be repeated and the predictions that it makes can be interpretated in many different ways. However, the bottom line is that Darwinian evolution as proposed by Darwinians has been falsified many times; however, the facts don't end the faith of most Darwinians who continue their pursuit of something which has been falsified.
The issue of aliens simply reveal that Darwinians theory of naturalism is an insufficient rule for limiting science. Aliens in all of their possibilities destroys the rule of naturalism because naturalism is a figment of the imagination that has been created to exclude criticism as well as critical thought.
As I stated, Darwinians all believe in aliens. While we haven’t found one yet, they have utmost faith that these E.T.’s exist somewhere out there. If life on earth happened naturally, then life has to have formed somewhere else right?
The revelation that Darwinians believe in E.T. means that beings exist that do not fall within the conditions set by the planet earth. In other words, these beings may be simple bacteria or they may be highly evolved beings that have surpassed us in the process of evolution. In fact, these potential beings may even have special powers knowing how to tap into the energy of the universe that may allow them to avoid death or even have the capability to speak on a mental level. If you want a live presentation of the potential, just watch Star Trak.
Since Darwinians believe in Aliens, why is it so hard to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It should be a rather simple step for these alien believing people. The laws of nature simply provide a foundation for the Creation; however, how things act within the Creation may not always comport with how we think things should behave.
Since Darwinians believe in beings that may or may not have special powers which are more highly evolved than ourselves, it is fairly simple to explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ by arguing that he was the Son of God.
You could even throw in the idea that Jesus began as an unknown Prion which may have come to earth on a meteor. The prion may have infected Mary resulting in supernatural powers and the inability to die. Jesus may still be walking the earth or he may have evolved wings later in life and flew back to his home planet. Why is something like the above senario out of the question for a Darwinian.
We have overwhelming evidence for the resurrected Christ so it is not a matter of evidence. In addition, their belief in aliens makes the life of Jesus possible and His resurrection even reasonable. As a result, why do they reject it rather than accept it. Jesus could simply have been a prion that affected a host resulting in special powers. If you read comics, you can see that this type of evolution exists in the mind of man making it a possibility.
Darwinians simply need to open their minds to the implications of their belief in aliens. If they do, they will come to realize that Jesus resurrection does not exist outside the realm of their worldview. Naturalism in order to be true depends on a closed view of nature; however, the belief in aliens opens up nature so that which is impossible naturally becomes possible.
Here is some proof…check this article out. Darwinians are now attempting to find aliens here on earth! Click here for the story
I am not sure Paul Davies could be classified as a "darwinian". He seems to have a Theistic belief system.
The whole idea of calling someone a "Darwinian" seems strange to me. We do not call people who accept Gravity Newtonions or people who accept Relativity Einsteinites . Why make the exception for Evolution as it is the same as any other scientific theory?
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.