Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. Evolution and the Big bang models are *evidence* based. That is not at all like a religion.
I see no reason, based on the evidence, to assume there is/was a deity.
Why could it not just exist by itself. Your deity, according to you, manages to do so.
Of course. It is the only answer.
I had to check on the date of the Murchison Meteorite. As you know there are more ways of dating an object than just radiometric dating. That meteorite was dated by measuring the the silicon carbide dust, as you mentioned. But that method does appear to have a rather high margin of error:
I had to check on the date of the Murchison Meteorite. As you know there are more ways of dating an object than just radiometric dating. That meteorite was dated by measuring the the silicon carbide dust, as you mentioned. But that method does appear to have a rather high margin of error:
"In January 2020, cosmochemists reported that the oldest material found on Earth to date are the silicon carbide particles from the Murchison meteorite, which have been determined to be 7 billion years old, about 2.5 billion years older than the 4.54-billion-year age of the Earth and the Solar System.[a] The published study noted that "dust lifetime estimates mainly rely on sophisticated theoretical models. These models, however, focus on the more common small dust grains and are based on assumptions with large uncertainties."[3]"
Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Great, now I have to check out silicon carbide dust dating. Hey1 I might learn something new. Thanks!
EDIT: Okay, it is some of the dust that was incorporated into the meteorite that was dated this way. And if I understand it correctly the dating method measures how long the dust was free floating before becoming part of the meteorite. That means if one could date the meteorite itself it by radiometric dating it would have a date on the order of the age of the Earth, but some, not all, of the dust came from much earlier event. You can read more here:
Posts like yours are one of the main reasons that I debate here. I get to learn new things that I would not learn otherwise. It is even better when Wikipedia is only a start.
Did it have a date on it?I had to check on the date of the Murchison Meteorite. As you know there are more ways of dating an object than just radiometric dating. That meteorite was dated by measuring the the silicon carbide dust, as you mentioned. But that method does appear to have a rather high margin of error:
"In January 2020, cosmochemists reported that the oldest material found on Earth to date are the silicon carbide particles from the Murchison meteorite, which have been determined to be 7 billion years old, about 2.5 billion years older than the 4.54-billion-year age of the Earth and the Solar System.[a] The published study noted that "dust lifetime estimates mainly rely on sophisticated theoretical models. These models, however, focus on the more common small dust grains and are based on assumptions with large uncertainties."[3]"
Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia
Great, now I have to check out silicon carbide dust dating. Hey1 I might learn something new. Thanks!
EDIT: Okay, it is some of the dust that was incorporated into the meteorite that was dated this way. And if I understand it correctly the dating method measures how long the dust was free floating before becoming part of the meteorite. That means if one could date the meteorite itself it by radiometric dating it would have a date on the order of the age of the Earth, but some, not all, of the dust came from much earlier event. You can read more here:
[citation missing]
What was the first living thing and what features did it have?
Asking you questions again is running away from the point I made.
You have been shown it by me and your lack of answers to these simple required questions is the proof Of circular reasoning.
Good grief.
And yet, you seem unable to cite and quote a single paper among hundreds of thousands of papers and point out the circular argument.
Once again demonstrating a total lack of knowledge of basic logic. Even if somebody has made a bad argument (which they didn't) that does not prove anything about the conclusion.
Why would it need a date on it? Do forensic detectives look for a date when they determine how long ago a person was killed?
You are making your rounds trying to recruit for Satan.
Satan plays you like a fiddle.
And here we see a prime example of Satans vise like grip...