Sea floor spreading proving Earth more than 6K yo.

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 ...[text shortened]... f beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever standard of proof one should apply to this question.

I get you "BELIEVE" it means that, that alone doesn't make it so.
You are looking at the same universe I am, you don't know how or why
it is the way it is any more than I do. We believe certain things are true
and we build our world views around said beliefs, so when we look at things
we can say things like due to X this means that.

With respect to proof beyond any doubt, I agree with what your saying, at
least I hope so if I understood you. I think God has setup this universe so
that our lives will reveal what kind of people we are because we have to
walk out our lives in faith. I think that shows us for what we really are more
so than if we forced to behave a certain way due to certain judgment. We
drive the legal speed limit if we are law biding with or without a policeman
on the same road, where those that think they can get away with something
will act on that if they feel they can.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get you "BELIEVE" it means that, that alone doesn't make it so.
You are looking at the same universe I am, you don't know how or why
it is the way it is any more than I do. We believe certain things are true
and we build our world views around said beliefs, so when we look at things
we can say things like due to X this means that.

With respect to p ...[text shortened]... that think they can get away with something
will act on that if they feel they can.
Kelly

Science operates under the assumption that there isn't a cosmological conspiracy to foul up our measurements. So, yes, to that extent there is doubt, but it would require that kind of confounder for us to be wrong about the age of the universe to the degree you need us to be for a young Earth.

It was just the observation that people have a tendency to think in absolute terms when it comes to proving the existence of God. It's not clear to me what constitutes an acceptable margin of error.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science operates under the assumption that there isn't a cosmological conspiracy to foul up our measurements. So, yes, to that extent there is doubt, but it would require that kind of confounder for us to be wrong about the age of the universe to the degree you need us to be for a young Earth.

It was just the observation that people have a tendency t ...[text shortened]... ng the existence of God. It's not clear to me what constitutes an acceptable margin of error.

A reasonable doubt may not be considered reasonable to another person. It seems to be a judgment call by each person.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
A reasonable doubt may not be considered reasonable to another person. It seems to be a judgment call by each person.

The Instructor

Fortunately the vast majority of people are much more reasonable than young Earthers and can see it as clear as the nose on the end of their face that the Earth is WAY older than the stupid 6000 year number young Earthers put on it.

It is your OCD talking when you cannot combine the obvious fact the Earth is extremely old and your obsession with ancient fairy tale texts.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science operates under the assumption that there isn't a cosmological conspiracy to foul up our measurements. So, yes, to that extent there is doubt, but it would require that kind of confounder for us to be wrong about the age of the universe to the degree you need us to be for a young Earth.

It was just the observation that people have a tendency t ...[text shortened]... ng the existence of God. It's not clear to me what constitutes an acceptable margin of error.

I am a Christian, but I've never attempted to "prove" God is real, I cannot
only God can do that. I pointed out that no matter what people see if
they use science, they automatically have to come up with any, and I mean
any so called natural explanation to explain anything. These are blinders,
when confronted with something like evidence towards God, they are forced
to find away to keep God out of the equation. You want to believe anything
that can show God is real, you are not allowed!

So if your methods are valid or not is meaningless, they are designed in
such a way that will avoid God at all cost, if you even hint God is needed, or
could be involved your thrown out of the "reasonable" people's club of
science! You'll accept anything no matter what the odds are against it, if it
can give you an out, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science operates under the assumption that there isn't a cosmological conspiracy to foul up our measurements. So, yes, to that extent there is doubt, but it would require that kind of confounder for us to be wrong about the age of the universe to the degree you need us to be for a young Earth.

It was just the observation that people have a tendency t ...[text shortened]... ng the existence of God. It's not clear to me what constitutes an acceptable margin of error.

Science does not have to face a conspiracy against them, those that use
it are in their own conspiracy to avoid God.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science operates under the assumption that there isn't a cosmological conspiracy to foul up our measurements. So, yes, to that extent there is doubt, but it would require that kind of confounder for us to be wrong about the age of the universe to the degree you need us to be for a young Earth.

It was just the observation that people have a tendency t ...[text shortened]... ng the existence of God. It's not clear to me what constitutes an acceptable margin of error.

If you think that the DNA information code for programming the life of the cell is not a sign of intelligenct design, then it makes me wonder if you have any intelligence greater than a fool. You must never have tried to program a computer if you think it is so easy.

Try programming a computer to play a good game of chess. Then come back to me and we can talk. That is heck of a lot simpler than that programming stored in the DNA molecule of just one simple cell.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you think that the DNA information code for programming the life of the cell is not a sign of intelligenct design, then it makes me wonder if you have any intelligence greater than a fool. You must never have tried to program a computer if you think it is so easy.

Try programming a computer to play a good game of chess. Then come back to me and we ca ...[text shortened]... pler than that programming stored in the DNA molecule of just one simple cell.

The instructor

Its far worse than that, they also believe while keeping a living system
going on it can also change into something else, always getting more
complex. On top of that have all the changes are done without anything or
one directing it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its far worse than that, they also believe while keeping a living system
going on it can also change into something else, always getting more
complex. On top of that have all the changes are done without anything or
one directing it.
Kelly

Yeah, I know. Stupid, isn't it?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yeah, I know. Stupid, isn't it?

The Instructor

I don't want to say stupid, it is forced upon them. Without anyone or
thing directing the process they have no choice, but to believe it can
start at non-life and move into life, then move into the variety of life
we see today over coming all odds. So with enough chances and enough
time all odds can be over come, the trouble is enough chances cannot
really be justify when it comes down to it, in my opinion. Even if you
have all time and material, we have yet to prove it can happen with
intel pushing it, let alone chance.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Science does not have to face a conspiracy against them, those that use
it are in their own conspiracy to avoid God.
Kelly

Yet there are plenty of scientists, from all walks of faith, who don't subscribe to your version of events who are clearly not 'in their own conspiracy to avoid God'.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't want to say stupid, it is forced upon them. Without anyone or
thing directing the process they have no choice, but to believe it can
start at non-life and move into life, then move into the variety of life
we see today over coming all odds. So with enough chances and enough
time all odds can be over come, the trouble is enough chances cannot
re ...[text shortened]... d material, we have yet to prove it can happen with
intel pushing it, let alone chance.
Kelly

I don't want to say stupid, it is forced upon them

Who forces it upon us?

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

That still doesn't answer my question as to why scientists have got it so badly wrong? What went wrong?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I don't want to say stupid, it is forced upon them

Who forces it upon us?[/b]

If you accept nothing that shows God or gods are real, you are left with
nothing that could show you God or gods are real. You take it all away
you left with what is left over, so its you are doing it to yourself.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you accept nothing that shows God or gods are real, you are left with
nothing that could show you God or gods are real. You take it all away
you left with what is left over, so its you are doing it to yourself.
Kelly

The discussion was to do with evolution, what's that got to do with 'showing if Gods are real'?