Christian churches began the system of education in America and form its backbone today

[marke]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

Provide that unbiased evidence then. The Bible cannot be used as evidence in isolation. It must be collaborated by other evidence. Evidence that even a non believer looks at it and says, yep that is valid evidence. Science works because to be accepted the evidence has to be repeatable from multiple independent attempted. It's why any one study is not proof of something, but multiple studies done to prove the assertion.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

There are hundreds of examples which demonstrate the questionable accuracy of dating methods which have provided the foundation of unstable modern old age dating calculations. Take one example from among thousands. How can we calibrate methods for dating rocks? We don't have any method of verifying a rock is a million years old, for example, other than to offer for support calculations based in part on unproven assumptions.

However, that changed with the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. A rock sample from the eruption was age tested using standard testing methods and the result of the test yielded an age of a million years, and yet we know for a fact the rock was merely 10 years old.

 

[Aurora]

Sure. And pagan middle easterners started human civilization and the system of monetary currency in trade. Pagan Greeks started western civilization and philosophy. Our systems of writing and alphabet and institutions of political administration were founded by pagan Romans.

What of it? Different cultures with different religions and worshipping all sorts of different gods started different important systems and institutions which are now important parts of our culture today. Civilization grows and builds on itself, while always continuing to change and grow.

What’s the debate topic here?

Marxists started Critical Theory which academia embraces and is the backbone of the democrat party.

 

[marke]

Re: Caveat emptor

Do you have specifics in mind, or is this just an oracular statement?

Take the longevity of soft tissues in bones. Scientists for decades have agreed that soft tissues cannot possibly survive in soft tissue form for a million years. That is a good guess.

However, a problem arose some 30 years ago when scientists discovered soft tissues in dinosaur bones. The initial response from the Darwinists was that the finding was a fake. That is understandable given the earth shattering damage soft tissues in dinosaur bones does to evolutionary story lines. By the time most doubters finally accepted the truth the Darwinist narrative writers had come up with a solution. They are now claiming soft tissues can survive tens or even a hundred million years. Problem solved?

Not exactly. What the Darwinists should have done was admit their age assumptions about dinosaur bones was wrong, not their understanding of soft tissues was wrong. Dinosaur bones are never tested themselves. Darwinists will not allow it because they know the test results will shatter evolutionist lies about dinosaurs. They date dinosaur bones by assigning them the same age as the rocks nearby. But their methods of dating rocks has been proven to be unreliable.

Some creationists tricked a few labs into testing dinosaur bones for age and the expert results, verified by the labs to have been free from contamination, ranged from 20,000 to 50,000 years old.

In our Christian school, we teach our kids to question scientific assumptions, not blindly believe them.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

There are hundreds of examples which demonstrate the questionable accuracy of dating methods which have provided the foundation of unstable modern old age dating calculations. Take one example from among thousands. How can we calibrate methods for dating rocks? We don't have any method of verifying a rock is a million years old, for example, other than to offer for support calculations based in part on unproven assumptions.

However, that changed with the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. A rock sample from the eruption was age tested using standard testing methods and the result of the test yielded an age of a million years, and yet we know for a fact the rock was merely 10 years old.

Reference? For the above and the soft tissue thing as well.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

Reference? For the above and the soft tissue thing as well.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

We can start with this:

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING | QCCSA.org

Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

We can start with this:

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING | QCCSA.org

Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.

What would you classify as the beginning of a rock's life, for the purpose of age measurement.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

What would you classify as the beginning of a rock's life, for the purpose of age measurement.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

This is from the above refereence:

Actually the assignment of a certain number of millions of years to a rock formation does not derive from the strata itself. The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except in text books. And the ages assigned to the layers were derived from long age evolutionary assumptions – not from the scientific facts, – as the column was established long before we even had radiometric dating. Yet the column and its assumptions are used along with index fossils to assign dates to sedimentary rock layers and which in turn is used to date any fossil in that rock layer.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

This is from the above refereence:

Actually the assignment of a certain number of millions of years to a rock formation does not derive from the strata itself. The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except in text books. And the ages assigned to the layers were derived from long age evolutionary assumptions – not from the scientific facts, – as the column was established long before we even had radiometric dating. Yet the column and its assumptions are used along with index fossils to assign dates to sedimentary rock layers and which in turn is used to date any fossil in that rock layer.

Finally got a look at the website, which shows a clear religious bias. You need to source something that both the religious and non religious have confirmed. You can't claim bias in others while using bias yourself.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

Finally got a look at the website, which shows a clear religious bias. You need to source something that both the religious and non religious have confirmed. You can't claim bias in others while using bias yourself.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

You are wrong to demand confirmation from an atheistically biased source before you accept the facts listed in my religiously biased source.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

You are wrong to demand confirmation from an atheistically biased source before you accept the facts listed in my religiously biased source.

Without outside confirmation, then you have nothing that makes your "facts" objectively facts. For the same reason I do not accept any "facts" that say GW is man made if it comes from a source that is obviously biased towards man made GW. The reverse is also true. I would not accept any fact solely from a site that is biased towards atheists. They would have to show how those facts are objectively supported outside of atheist views.

 

[marke]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

Without outside confirmation, then you have nothing that makes your "facts" objectively facts. For the same reason I do not accept any "facts" that say GW is man made if it comes from a source that is obviously biased towards man made GW. The reverse is also true. I would not accept any fact solely from a site that is biased towards atheists. They would have to show how those facts are objectively supported outside of atheist views.

The fact is there is much in what is commonly accepted as settled science which remains heavily influenced by scientific assumptions, speculations, theories and the like, making those theories unsettled (debatable.)

 

[The Old Soul]

Re: Bingo, anyone?

How about 'light' dating? Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second - proven scientific fact. Take the Andromeda galaxy for instance, which is 2.537 million light years away; the fact that the light has reached Earth indicates that the light left Andromeda 2.5 million years ago. There are many other light-generating bodies in our universe that are much farther and older (billions of years/light years) away.