I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I haven't avoided anything. Do you think that when you make ridiculous statements about such dating methods being invalidated aren't seen in turn?
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, I think you're not understanding your problem.
All of these labs and techniques seem to come up with almost the same answer so either they all got there by an amazing coincidence or they're actually describing something real.
Show us that. Take a rock, split it in two and get two labs to tell us its age without any information but the sample.
Show us that your assertion is not blind faith.
That's if they don't mind not having any information about it.
Right Divider
Body part
The radiometric dating method that you so believe in is NOT a valid scientific method. It relies on at least THREE ASSUMPTIONS, any of which being wrong invalidate the results. These THREE ASSUMPTIONS are all unverifiable.
And yet you blindly carry on as if you've addressed even one of these assumptions.
The only one making a fool out of himself here is you.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The one who's making assumptions and demanding that scientific methods are invalidated by the very same is you. You ignore all evidence that supports the dating systems that contradict the universe being as young as your religious belief determines it to be. Science isn't constrained by that and nor is belief.
Right Divider
Body part
So you're just going to cry like a baby and CONTINUE to ignore the details.... got it.
I have made no assumptions, which makes you a liar.
I understand that your precious belief system is be destroyed right before your eyes. It must be very traumatic.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, dude, I don't have a "precious belief system" that's been destroyed in any way. Nothing that you have stated on here invalidates the scientific acceptance of the universe being over 13 billion years old. I'd have no problem if science indicated that the universe was thousands of years old instead of billions. No trauma here.
The way science works is that people first become expert in their particular field, and then they publish about it. Then the experts develop a consensus. That's the only way science can move forward accurately.
David Plaisted is clearly out of his zone of expertise when he pontificates about radiometric dating.
And for some reason, we just have to take your word for it, a non-expert, non-engager.
For some reason, we just have to take David Plaisted's word for it, a non-expert
No, dim-wit.
You show how how ideas cannot be right. You don't deny him a seat at the table — a place you don't belong — solely based on his academic history.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Are you an expert on radiometric dating?
***shakes head in disbelief***
All the whining about no degree in science for Michael Plaisted. That's unbelievable. Some of the most successful people in the history of the world had very little education, period, and obviously no degrees. And what is a degree anyway? It means very little. All a 4 year degree means is that you stuck to something for 4 years. The amount of learning a person does in life after school is what determines their success or failure. The degree counts for very little. It's only the first step on the ladder of life.
And, so a bunch of evolutionists say Plaisted got things wrong. Whoopee. Big deal. He's a creationist. What else would you expect them to say? That he got everything correct?
***rolls eyes***
Let's see if anyone recognizes any of the names on the following list.
Ben Franklin
Gregor Mendel
Michael Faraday
Albert Einstein
John D. Rockefeller
Winston Churchill
Abraham Lincoln
Steve Jobs
Leonardo da Vinci
Charles Goodyear
David Thoreau
Thomas Huxley
Thomas Edison
Richard Leakey
Jane Goodall
Stephen Felton
Donald G. Harden
Jack London
Ray Bradbury
Mark Twain
Horace Greeley
John Glenn
Henry Ford
William Shakespeare
Abigail Adams
Elvis Presley
Fred Astaire
Frederich Douglass
This is a very short list of people who were either completely self-educated, had only very limited formal education, or lacked degrees in the area in which they excelled.
Ben Franklin -- two years formal schooling went to work at age ll
Michael Faraday -- no formal schooling at all He was one of the greatest scientists in history.
Gregor Mendel -- no formal schooling at all The first geneticist. No schooling, let alone a degree and he's still famous hundreds of years after his death for what he was able to demonstrate.
Elvis Presley -- no musical training. Self-taught
John Glenn -- very little formal education
Mark Twain -- self-educated
Horace Greeley -- self-educated
Frederich Douglass -- escaped slave, self-educated, ran a newspaper and was a sought after public speaker Read the transcripts of his speeches and the writings he left behind. He was no ignorant dummy just because he lacked a formal education.
Steve Jobs -- no degree
Abigail Adams -- no formal schooling self-educated
Fred Astaire -- no formal schooling for stage or dancing self-taught on-the-job learning Went to work at age 6
Winston Churchill -- most of his learning was self-education
Abraham Lincoln -- only a couple of years education in backwoods schools that employed teachers with very little education themselves. He taught himself basically everything he knew. You read his arguments from his debates with Stephen Douglas and Lincoln was one of the all time greats at debating. He destroyed Douglas in their debates who had the advantage of a very expensive education and had a college degree. .
All the whining about no degree in science for Michael Plaisted. That's unbelievable. Some of the most successful people in the history of the world had very little education, period, and obviously no degrees. And what is a degree anyway? It means very little. All a 4 year degree means is that you stuck to something for 4 years. The amount of learning a person does in life after school is what determines their success or failure. The degree counts for very little. It's only the first step on the ladder of life.
And, so a bunch of evolutionists say Plaisted got things wrong. Whoopee. Big deal. He's a creationist. What else would you expect them to say? That he got everything correct?
***rolls eyes***
Let's see if anyone recognizes any of the names on the following list.
Ben Franklin
Gregor Mendel
Michael Faraday
Albert Einstein
John D. Rockefeller
Winston Churchill
Abraham Lincoln
Steve Jobs
Leonardo da Vinci
Charles Goodyear
David Thoreau
Thomas Huxley
Thomas Edison
Richard Leakey
Jane Goodall
Stephen Felton
Donald G. Harden
Jack London
Ray Bradbury
Mark Twain
Horace Greeley
John Glenn
Henry Ford
William Shakespeare
Abigail Adams
Elvis Presley
Fred Astaire
Frederich Douglass
This is a very short list of people who were either completely self-educated, had only very limited formal education, or lacked degrees in the area in which they excelled.
Ben Franklin -- two years formal schooling went to work at age ll
Michael Faraday -- no formal schooling at all He was one of the greatest scientists in history.
Gregor Mendel -- no formal schooling at all The first geneticist. No schooling, let alone a degree and he's still famous hundreds of years after his death for what he was able to demonstrate.
Elvis Presley -- no musical training. Self-taught
John Glenn -- very little formal education
Mark Twain -- self-educated
Horace Greeley -- self-educated
Frederich Douglass -- escaped slave, self-educated, ran a newspaper and was a sought after public speaker Read the transcripts of his speeches and the writings he left behind. He was no ignorant dummy just because he lacked a formal education.
Steve Jobs -- no degree
Abigail Adams -- no formal schooling self-educated
Fred Astaire -- no formal schooling for stage or dancing self-taught on-the-job learning Went to work at age 6
Winston Churchill -- most of his learning was self-education
Abraham Lincoln -- only a couple of years education in backwoods schools that employed teachers with very little education themselves. He taught himself basically everything he knew. You read his arguments from his debates with Stephen Douglas and Lincoln was one of the all time greats at debating. He destroyed Douglas in their debates who had the advantage of a very expensive education and had a college degree. .
Wow. I'd have never guessed any of that. You must be a genius to have figured all that out. As if I'm too stupid to read and understand who I'm quoting....
That you think a degree is the be all and end all of learning shows just how small a mind you have. Life is learning. What is learned at school is such a small part of a career it is hardly worth anything compared to the individual learning that comes after school. I spent twenty years in a technical field. I started out with a degree, but I knew so little of my field from my education it wasn't funny. I learned more in the first 6 months on the job than I learned getting my degree. It's that way with any job/career. Schooling is only a basic starting point. It may or may not get your foot in the door. It's what you learn and apply on the job that makes or breaks a career. You must be either very young, or pretty much incapable of learning to make the arguments you made. Anyone with half a brain understands that formal education amounts to very little once a person is out of school for that is when the real learning takes place.
Oh, and by the way, Charles Darwin had no degree in science. Therefore no one should believe a word he says. That's your determination. That's your stance.
Your skepticism just keeps on showing itself.
Jesus healed instantly. He brought dead people to life instantly. It didn't take millions/billions of years for his miracles to take place. Your stance on creation is a practical denial of Jesus life and miracles here on earth. You can keep on convincing yourself of what you say, but that isn't what counts. Truth is truth whether you believe and accept it or not.
Your claim to love Jesus keeps on getting more threadbare all the time. If we love someone we trust them. We take them at their word. Do you do any of that with Jesus? Not that I can see by what you write. Your denial of the plain word of God just keeps on becoming more pronounced all the time. Jesus inspired the OT prophets. He quoted them often and said they spoke truth. Therefore, if you love Jesus your actions/beliefs should demonstrate your trust in Him. You demonstrate nothing of the kind in what you say. All you demonstrate is skepticism and unbelief in the person you claim to love.
By the way. Your reading of Ecclesiastes 3:11 rips it right out of it's context. It doesn't come close to meaning what you try to imply it means.
Thanks for nothing, Siri.