Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[Subduction Zone]

Something that can be repeatedly tested and gives the same result always (in same conditions) for anyone.

That sounds more like a hypothesis. One tests a hypothesis. Evidence are the observations that support or oppose a hypothesis. Here is a definition that can be found on various science based sources:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No intelligent reason to believe that life has existed millions of years..

This is what we call a head in the sand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No intelligent reason to believe that life has existed millions of years. But, about how much change, I would accept for example if you could breed a mouse to a miniwhale.

Now you have demonstrated that you have no education in the sciences at all. There is no doubt that the Earth is many millions of years old. It was Christian geologists that first refuted the Noah's Ark myth based on science.

I would suggest that you try to learn what the evidence is for an old Earth. I can name just one formation alone that has five million different annual layers. That is one strata alone that is five millions of years of age in its history.

 

[Sheldon]

science has had more failed prophecies than not

Science doesn't make prophecies, what on earth are you talking about?

 

[Sheldon]

No intelligent reason to believe that life has existed millions of years.

How is the light from stars that are billions of light years away visible?

Scientific evidence for the age of the universe <HERE>

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science doesn't make prophecies, what on earth are you talking about?

He may be seeing failed predictions of hypotheses as "Science". The problem is that he just showed why his own beliefs are likely wrong. Predictions based upon hypotheses and used to test the idea. If the idea fails it is rejected. There is nothing wrong with that. But by the same standard the Bible should be rejected since the Bible in this case is the "hypothesis" and the failed prophecies of the Bible tells us that it should be rejected.

 

[Sheldon]

He may be seeing failed predictions of hypotheses as "Science". The problem is that he just showed why his own beliefs are likely wrong. Predictions based upon hypotheses and used to test the idea. If the idea fails it is rejected. There is nothing wrong with that. But by the same standard the Bible should be rejected since the Bible in this case is the "hypothesis" and the failed prophecies of the Bible tells us that it should be rejected.

So he thinks scientific predictions are like religious prophecies? Or is this just a poor and misleading choice of words?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So he thinks scientific predictions are like religious prophecies? Or is this just a poor and misleading choice of words?

I do not know for sure. I am trying to put myself in his shoes.

Of course in the sciences a failed prediction is still a good thing. It tells us that a hypothesis is likely to be wrong. It encourages a return to research and the formation of a more accurate hypothesis. Religions do not have a pathway to the truth. If they did there might be some progress made in their beliefs. They have to deny failed prophecies because their whole house of cards would fail if one part was acknowledged to be wrong.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science prophecies

Science makes prophecies? When did this start happening?

 

[Sheldon]

Science makes prophecies? When did this start happening?

I think he may be conflating scientific predictions with religious prophecy.

 

[1213]

How is the light from stars that are billions of light years away visible?...

The problem with that is, the whole idea of billions of years is just circular reasoning, there is nothing solid to support the idea.

 

[1213]

...
I would suggest that you try to learn what the evidence is for an old Earth. I can name just one formation alone that has five million different annual layers. That is one strata alone that is five millions of years of age in its history.

Why do you believe that?

 

[ratiocinator]

The problem with that is, the whole idea of billions of years is just circular reasoning, there is nothing solid to support the idea.

Of course it isn't. We know the speed of light and we know distances by other means (Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia). Nothing what we see in astronomy makes the slightest bit of sense with a very young universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you believe that?

Believe what? That there is such a formation? Anyone can go and see it for themselves. If you are wondering how they know that it has five million annual layers that can be explained too. First they are visible. Second the observation is testable. The layers are repeated in certain lakes today.

All of the scientific evidence refutes the Flood. None support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with that is, the whole idea of billions of years is just circular reasoning, there is nothing solid to support the idea.

Not at all true. But go ahead. Prove your claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
How is the light from stars that are billions of light years away visible?...

The problem with that is, the whole idea of billions of years is just circular reasoning, there is nothing solid to support the idea.

You haven't explained how the light is visible, if the universe is just a few thousand years old, how is light form starts that are billions of light years away visible? How has that light reached us in just a few thousand years? Are you claiming a deity created the light en route, or are you claiming the universe is magnitudes smaller than cosmologist understand?

Juts how idiotic are your denials of scientific facts prepared to become here?

 

[1213]

Of course it isn't. We know the speed of light and we know distances by other means (Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia). Nothing what we see in astronomy makes the slightest bit of sense with a very young universe.

If something does not make sense to you, it does not necessary mean it is wrong, it is possible that you just don’t understand and know enough.

 

[1213]

Believe what? That there is such a formation? Anyone can go and see it for themselves. If you are wondering how they know that it has five million annual layers that can be explained too. ...

No good reason to believe they are years and not just rainy days.

 

[1213]

You haven't explained how the light is visible, if the universe is just a few thousand years old, how is light form starts that are billions of light years away visible? ...

No reason to believe that people have correct distances. And I don't believe even that people know the light speed correctly.

But, it is an interesting thing, if the speed is correct and it is true that nothing travels faster than that and that universe came to exist by the big bang. It would mean that universes diameter is max about 13 million light years. Do you agree with this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No intelligent reason to believe that life has existed millions of years. But, about how much change, I would accept for example if you could breed a mouse to a miniwhale.

Only if you completely ignore all the available evidence, which of course, would not be an intelligent thing to do.

What Was the First Life on Earth?
The origins of life on Earth
CK12-Foundation
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable
How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know? - Evolution: Education and Outreach
How do scientists figure out how old things are?