[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Or perhaps we know enough about both bone decay and geology that the two properties of new discoveries mutually confirm each other?

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Let's not go into it because you brought a big empty bag with that claim. There's no distinction between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" other than time.

As for the God non-sequitur... well, let's not pretend the supernatural claim is somehow more scientific than the natural one. If you pay close attention, you'll discover that God arguments boil down to no more than God-of-the-gaps arguments; that is, you suggest God did it because you lack an explanation, not because you provide a sufficient explanation. I don't see how this qualifies as an exception.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

Speed C specifically refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. So when light travels through a medium, let's say water, it goes at a speed less than C. It's not that complicated.

Besides, nothing has flipped science on its head more than Einstein's relativity, which is little more than the logical extrapolation of the acknowledgement that speed C is a constant. And you're talking as if this is an example of science merely clinging to a safe assumption because it fears a revolution!

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

Believe it or not, "science" is not a single, conspiratorial entity. The thousands of scientists Chum is referring to answer to each other, and not to us, because they are the only ones qualified to review each other's work, not us.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Let's see who has this "need for belief"...

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.

It's not about "proving the Bible wrong", it's about finding the only way to make sense out of the damn thing. Here is an example:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 20:10-18

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Trying to justify this passage as a holy and divinely inspired commandment will inevitably lead to strange and abhorrent drivel. But reread the passage, this time replacing the phrase "the Lord your God" with "the tribe leader". You will instantly expose the man behind the curtain as well as the motivation behind the passage.

Now, are you really going to reread the passage in the manner I just described, and objectively examine the ramifications? Or do you have some beliefs of your own that you're just a bit too eager to protect?