God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Milton Platt]

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
   "Darwin's theory of evolution"
   synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition ·

But that is not the definition of a scientific theory......only the popular definition.

 

[gnostic]

But that is not the definition of a scientific theory......only the popular definition.

You are wasting your breath, Milton.

Thief has been here almost 7 years, and have posted in these debate forums for some times now.

Simply put it, thief cannot not learn the actual definition for "scientific theory". We have all tried to educate him, and he still hasn't learn this basic lesson. He cannot learn it because he doesn't want to learn.

It is not just because he is ignorant...which he is, in any case...but his religion demands him to be dishonest about it. He will continue to put this same stupid definitions from dictionary, which has nothing to do with science.

For him, ignorance is bliss, and dishonesty is the name of the game.

 

[Thief]

But that is not the definition of a scientific theory......only the popular definition.

don't read much of what I post.....do you?

placing an adjective in front of the noun .....doesn't really change the noun.

 

[outhouse]

He cannot learn it because he doesn't want to learn.

I have seen many old people that are impossible to communicate with.

Thankfully there are many who do.

 

[fantome profane]

don't read much of what I post.....do you?

placing an adjective in front of the noun .....doesn't really change the noun.

The meaning of words do vary depending on the context in which they are used.

 

[`mud]

hey Out,
watch it !!

~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

What evidence do you have that solar radiation (of any plausible intensity) could affect nuclear decay rates? Also, how would living things have survived such intense radiation? Let's also keep in mind that not all nuclei are equally likely to interact with radiation (different nuclear cross-sections), so if such an event occurred, then dating methods using different isotopes would be inconsistent with each other (but would be consistent with other dating attempts using the same isotopes). I'd also like to know how radiation of such intensity could have impinged on Earth without melting the rock that the isotopes were in, therefore resetting the isochrons. Keep in mind that isochron plots measure how long ago it was when a given sample of rocks solidified. So if a sample of rocks melted ~6,000 years ago, the isochron would reveal that same age (or a much, much younger age if you are positing that the radiation that caused the melting was also intense enough to accelerate nuclear decay).

Another thing: if decay was accelerated by radiation from the Sun, then you'd expect deeper rocks to be better shielded from the Sun's radiation and therefore reveal younger ages (since their decay wouldn't have been as accelerated). Deeper would "look" younger. However, we find the opposite to be true.

Well reasoned, but radiometric analysis is a six-year course of study. Why? Because it's not the simple math of decay rates but adding in for atmospheric and other anomalies. Perhaps a search on the subject will pique your interest.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have never claimed to know everything, especially in science or in religion.

But I am certain that religions (like the scriptures) have no place in science, because every descriptions of natural phenomena, are based on limited knowledge, and a great deal of superstitions.

Genesis 1 to 11 is nothing more than myths (6-day creation, creation of Adam and Eve, Flood myth and the Babel incident), fables (talking serpent), and historical-archaeological inaccuracies (Egypt, Uruk).

Job 38 to 41 further demonstrate the story reliance on superstition.

And all the miracles that supposedly take place in the bible, required faith, not on verifiable evidences, for it to believe. Science required evidences, not on wishful thinking.

If I want to understand radiometric datings, I certainly wouldn't rely on the church, bible or any creationist to tell me anything useful, logical and testable.

If I am going to understand astronomy and physical cosmology, I would again, wouldn't rely on religion (church, bible or creationists) to give honest, logical and verifiable answers.

And it would be the same for every single fields or branches of science, whether the be maths, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.

And in that case, religion is useless to me, unless I am interested in fanciful stories, myths. Even the morals and laws taught in the bible, which is the only thing useful in a religion, is often outdated and sometimes barbaric or brutal.

It is one of the reasons why I am thankful that I lived in secular society. Australia is not perfect, but I can choose to follow or not follow a religion; it is my personal choice, and no one can force upon me. And I am thankful of separation of state and religion, of law and religion, and of education and religion.

But yes, I don't know everything, but at least I read scriptures without attempting to mix it with science. And that the big mistake all creationists and some theists make, mixing religion with science.

I understand. If God exists, and also created, you are very willing to study the creation while leaving His input out of the study. Would that lead to a dangerous bias for you?

 

[outhouse]

If God exists

Nothing at all indicates he does.

What evidence we do have shows a 100% man made creation in theology and mythology plagiarized from previous civilizations

and also created

And what the mythology states never happened so creationism is purely mythological at this time to the point of being factual mythology.

Would that lead to a dangerous bias for you?

No.

The evidence already posits mythology not reality. The age of the earth and evolution is not up for debate because you don't like it

 

[Parsimony]

Well reasoned, but radiometric analysis is a six-year course of study. Why? Because it's not the simple math of decay rates but adding in for atmospheric and other anomalies. Perhaps a search on the subject will pique your interest.

Perhaps for carbon-14 dating, but not uranium-lead dating. The latter is the one used to date the age of the Earth.

 

[gnostic]

I understand. If God exists, and also created, you are very willing to study the creation while leaving His input out of the study. Would that lead to a dangerous bias for you?

Actually, you don't understand.

The only way, what you would call - to "study" creation - is through writings from people who have limited education, and lots of superstitious belief. And that some imaginary, invisible, all-powerful beings (eg God) are somehow responsible for this creation. That superstition, not science.

I will have as much chance of finding evidences for fairies, ghouls and goblins, mermaid and unicorn from fairytales, as much as I would find evidences for God, angels, Satan, heaven and hell, from the bible...

...meaning, I will get zero evidences, for either sources.

Believing in what people have written, simply because it is in some books, doesn't in any way mean that these supernatural beings are real. You are relying on personal belief and faith,

For it to be science, you would need the verifiable evidences for the CAUSE (eg God) as much as you would need verifiable evidences for EFFECT (eg creation, earth, nature, humans). And THEN YOU WOULD NEED EVEN MORE verifiable evidences to support and verify that the creator was responsible for such-and-such a creation.

And there are no evidences to support God, Creator, fairies, Unicorn, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever you want to call it. And without evidences for the existence of creator god, creationism is already refuted or debunked.

There are also evidences to support that the Earth, Sun, Solar System, Milky Way, the observable universe are older than 6000-year Young Earth, which refute the Bible's narratives and calculations of all the years and generations and reigns in the Old Testament.

If you have read the Book of Job, from 38 to 41, you can see what a load of piece of craps...if you were to take it literally. It is nothing more than bunch of superstitions, in which the author know absolutely nothing about nature.

If God was real, and he really said all that stuff in JOB, then he is as stupid or uneducated as those people living in JOB's time, with no understanding of the mechanism of the natural world...and that if you can find the evidences if Job was really a person, and not some mythological character.

As thief so proudly say...a very ignorant saying, if I must brutally say...God "needs no proof". That's just show thief is biased in his belief.

Show me, the evidences to support the existence of God. Show me evidences that Earth is really as young as 6000 years. Show me evidences that adult man can be made DIRECTLY from dust. If you have no evidences, then why should I considered what you believe in, hold any substance.

If you seriously think God is real, then provide the necessary evidences for me to examine, to investigate. Without those evidences, then believing in God would indeed be like believing in unicorn.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

don't read much of what I post.....do you?

placing an adjective in front of the noun .....doesn't really change the noun.

Put it this way. At best, you're arguing that scientists are simply using the wrong word for Evolutionary Biology, and should use another word besides theory. But you can't argue that it isn't a fact. The evidence is too vast.

At the very least, you're not gonna refute it by simply nitpicking at certain definitions of certain words. If you want to refute it, then find a discrepancy in it's predictive framework.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, you don't understand.

I think what is the worst here, is that both biblical education and scientific education qualify under this umbrella.

Both are getting perverted here.

 

[outhouse]

don't read much of what I post.....do you?

Try not to. I place value on credibility.

placing an adjective in front of the noun .....doesn't really change the noun.

What does not change is your perversion of the title of scientific theory, into something it is not.

A common theory is factually not a scientific theory.


Evolution is fact and it will never change into mythology like theism constantly is being shoved back and into with each new discovery.

 

[McBell]

placing an adjective in front of the noun .....doesn't really change the noun.

this kind of blatant dishonesty is one of the reasons why you have no credibility

 

[`mud]

hey Mest,
it's like saying that 'god' is 'very big',
or something like that, right out to infinity.
And....... then what ?
No more adjectives needed.
Sorry Thief.......no go !
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

Put it this way. At best, you're arguing that scientists are simply using the wrong word for Evolutionary Biology, and should use another word besides theory. But you can't argue that it isn't a fact. The evidence is too vast.

At the very least, you're not gonna refute it by simply nitpicking at certain definitions of certain words. If you want to refute it, then find a discrepancy in it's predictive framework.

and you are simply the counterpart....

 

[Thief]

hey Mest,
it's like saying that 'god' is 'very big',
or something like that, right out to infinity.
And....... then what ?
No more adjectives needed.
Sorry Thief.......no go !
~
'mud

skip then to superlatives.....Almighty is a good one

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

and you are simply the counterpart....

Meaning?

 

[Thief]

Meaning?

the thrust of your post...aimed at me....
is true for you as well