>
> As for metaphysical assertions, such as the Big Bang, I cannot buy
> this hook , line and sinker. There is simply insufficient evidence
> for that. I can find it an interesting and entertaining proposition,
> but it is not as certain say, as the fact that King Charles I was
> beheaded in-- when was it 1632?
There is much evidence for the big bang as there is for jesus. The big
bang is a mathematical conclusion, not a account of history. There are
exceptionaly few direct accounts of Jesus, and I actually know of none.
Self refrencing the Bible cannot hold weight as much of the Bible is
Plagurized to start. You need seperate, verifiable acounts. As i said
earlier, I will accept that there was a person named Jesus (or the
heberw name), but that is all I can see of evidence.
> Science is a field which is constantly in a flux by the very nature
> of its design.
Not all of science is in flux, It's much like bulding bricks. you only
put one in when you know it to be true, but you have no idea what the
whole thing looks like, and are continually guessing about its design.
In the spots for guessing, you but - cardboard and see if it works.
99/100 times it does not fit. When it does, and NO ONE con identify a
flaw, you presume it to be correct. If you find out later that it isn't,
you go back to that point and start again.
> To base your whole system of beliefs on an idea that
> might very well change in a month or a year or five years or twenty
> is a periolous way to construct your philosophy of life.
Quite the contrary, it is the closest we can achieve to perfection. It
must be continually torn down and rebuilt upon a stronger and stronger
foundation.
> For example, I saw a geologists on a TV special who went back to Mt.
> St. Helen just a few years after the explosion. He was amazed at the
> transformation of the landscape. He said an interesting thing to
> this effect: I've had to go back and rethink everything I was taught
> in school. If I had come upon this landscape, I would have sworn
> these sedimentary deposits were layered like this after several
> million years. But I KNOW for a fact that it has only been a few
> years since that mountain blew."
Due to the restricted local area nature of mt. St Helens, as he expanded
his search further, and discovered there was a volcano nearby, the facts
would have become more evident. He was talking about a local system
only. In the context of the whole thing, it was obvious.
> I found that very interesting. And it goes to show you that a great
> deal of what is being taught might, in fact, be incorrect--with a
> missing variable that has not yet been taken into account.
>
> I saw another scientist who was investigating the life of an ant. He
> held up a little piece of amber with an ant suspended in it--Jurassic
> Park like. Then he showed us a live ant of the same type. "Isn't it
> amazing," he said, "how little this ant has changed in 2 million
> years?" Well, my obvious thought is perhaps it hasn't been 2 million
> years at all--that is the logical explanation, isn't it? He never
> told me why I ought to believe that the one encased in amber was 2
> million years old. But as the gullible public, I am to have faith in
> his assertion that the one in amber is 2 million years old. Can
> something not be encased in amber and be less than 2 million years
> old? Just because it is shot out of the mouth of a volcano in a
> piece of amber, does that make it 2 million plus years old?
I want to think you are joking here, but I think you are not. I suppose
you consider carbon dating, and the other methods to be a hoax?
> I am going to have to review what the evolutionists are claiming for
> themselves now. Let me get this straight: Are we saying man is an
> ape--I think this used to be said because of the opposeable
> thumb. But like I said elsewhere, they used to tell us they were
> looking for the "missing link" which would complete that picture of
> evolution. Now, they say there never was a missing link. Well, why
> did they tell us there was?
you said it yourself, science is in constant flux by it's very nature.
The early pictures of evolution methodology were simplistic at best.
yes, MAN IS AN APE. The only reason we are not classified that way is
vanity!
> When I used to take a geology course, they said they could tell how
> old a certain strata was by the type of fossils found in the strata.
> They come from such and such an era; in anthropology, they would
> tell you they could tell how old fossils were by where they fell in
> the geologic strata. That is circular reasoning. Now, I realize
> carbon dating is supposed to be accurate, but it has been years since
> I've read about that, so I can't remember how accurate or how far
> back it goes.
I can see why this would be confusing, but the answer is simple. Carbon
dating is only one form of radioisotope dating. and is accurate to a few
percent. There is dating based on elements with different half-lifes,
all have a margin of error that is small but real. You can tell age of
bones by these dating methods,you also tell by how much of the calcium
in the bones has been converted to stone - this is a set rate. If you
know the bones, you know the strata - or if you can determine the
strata, you can tell the bones. In strata, you can also measure certain
elements in the strata. A good example is at the end of the Jurasic 65
million years ago, when the gulf of Mexico was formed by a meteor or
asteroid impact. It just so happens that the strata makeup around the
planet contains at this time contains high levels of irridium.
> When you deal with 18 billions years ago, I am sorry. On its face it
> must be speculation and metaphysical musings.
Hate to tell you this, but we CAN see back in time to at leat 10 billion
years through deep space observation and gravitational lensing. As we
all know, space is bent by gravity, and light follows a srtaight line
through space so that in effect, light appears bent by gravity. If you
have a stong gravitational well, then the light of an object behind the
gravity well that is bent will re-converge in front of the gravity well.
This effectivly makes a huge magnifying glass, and permits us to see
galaxies at an early age, when hydrogen was the only element stars had
to use for fuel. Of course remember, the earth is only 5 or so billion
years old, this means the universe existed for at least 5 billion years
before the Earth was gas blob orbiting a young, hot star. As for the
Earth being 18 Billion years old. The Universe is expanding now, do you
accept this? If so, is it reasonable to think that if you look back in
time it was smaller than it is now? If you wind the clock back, it is
about 18 billion years til you have a single point.
> I repeat, I'm going to have to look at your evolutionary claims more
> closely so that I can see what is truly being asserted.
If you expect science to become stable, or static, then you will be
continually disapointed by it. It's purpose is to discover why, and to
do so without prejiduce. Science is not opposed to finding a god, it
just has no evidence to support the concept.
Sodom