ingliz wrote:It is accurate for samples up to about 62,000 years old, ten times the age of your young Earth, and good enough to prove the Bible stories wrong.
The Bible is religion, not science. Science no more proves the bible wrong than it proves literature false. That scientists are otherwise illiterate doesn't mean that Shakespeare's Hamlet is worthless, for example. It just means that Shakespeare uses the literary devices like Hamlet to tell propagate morals, via parable, allegory, and other literary devices. The Bible does something similar. Treating the Bible as a scientific explanation of phenomena doesn't make the Bible ludicrous. It makes scientists ludicrous and time wasting for attempting to stifle religion using science as a cudgel when they should be working to explain physical phenomena they cannot accurately and adequately explain. It's like the media using Joseph Nye "the science guy" to debate science when he isn't a scientist.
Darwin can muse, for example, about why a Rottweiler and a Poodle share the same genome, but have very different characteristics--even though Darwin knew next to nothing about genetics, save Georg Mendels' theories and noting that Mendel was an Augustinian Friar). However, the theory of evolution does a terrible job of explaining something like a spider spinning webs to catch and eat prey. Spiders first somehow evolve to spin both strong and sticky webs to catch prey. Why? Darwin's biggest hubris is claiming to understand the origin of species even though his book only details differences within the same species. Yet, spider silk is at least a dual use technology. Spiders use them to cover and protect their eggs. Yet, they also weave elaborate webs that are both strong and sticky in order to catch prey. Darwin cannot explain how the first spider evolved, how spider silk first evolved, why it was selected, for which trait it was first selected (e.g., protecting eggs, catching prey), and which characteristics of spider silk evolved first, if that's how they evolved. Nor does Darwin explain the intricate nature of spider webs. Yet, Darwin gets a spider named after him that spins the largest spider webs known to man using the strongest biological material known to man. This phenomenon takes a certain level of intelligence that is frankly not explained in the theory of evolution, nor in the basics of Newtonian, Einsteinian or Quantum physics. It's simply very poorly understood, and the scientific community seems to have become a collection of conceited, arrogant and condescending fools who cannot admit to the vast amount of phenomena they can not accurately describe. They did not even discover Darwin's Bark Spider (Caerostris darwini
) until 2009.
Besoaker2 wrote:I like the Samuel Clemens definition of faith.
Faith is a common trait. Where's all your money? In your pocket? What's it made of? Paper? Worthless scraps of zinc? Is most of it entrusted to people who work in a place called a "bank," people who you don't know and never met? The entire monetary and banking system runs on faith.
Besoaker2 wrote:If what is written in your bible is the literal truth you would have facts and no need for faith.
Can't you see the simplicity in that?
Joe Biden chooses truth over facts. What do you think about that?
Besoaker2 wrote:Palaeontologists have fossil records of creatures that no longer exist. Hard evidence.
They don't have the actual creatures though, do they? They cannot recreate them as yet, can they? Why? Because they don't know how.
Besoaker2 wrote:The very idea of god wanting to reverse what he created stretches credibility beyond belief.
Why? Some of the inventors of nuclear weapons wish they could undo their invention.