Can you deny a theory? After all, it is just a theory.
Well how about this.
We can keep the theories which have so far matched evidence? Then if new evidence aroses, we can then come up with new theories.
Would that work?
And as to the next part of your question, yes, many theories can and have been disproven,
Evolution just isn't one of them. It's track record for predictive power has been too good so far.
And I'm not lying. You're saying that your beliefs are right, and I'm saying mine are.
Well, my beliefs do have a lot of empyrical evidence to back them up.
That is a point not to be glossed over.
In this club, the creationists have given multiple points that disprove evolution, and point by point you evolutionists have ignored them, saying they weren't made by "real scientists" or such like.
Is there a single scientific reason to believe the sun is 6,000 years old. And not 5 billion like most of the other stars of similar mass we see around us. Remember we can observe millions of stars through our telescopes, and scientist have a good idea at this point of how stars are born and die. If the sun was created in a day that would mean an entire nubula collapsed on itself at a speed that approaches the speed of light, something that has never been witnessed in space. Besides, Earth couldn't form without a star either, unless it was previously orbiting another star which of course it didn't have time to according to the 6,000 year model. I don't mean to be annoying by bringing up this sun topic constantly, but I'm just trying to get you to realize that the sun can't be 6,000 years old by any estimate. Like I said before, in the beginning(beginning of time, 13.8 billion years ago) God created the heavens (space) and the earth(matter). To scientists this event is known as the Big Bang. The days are probably metaphors for the stages of the universe's development.
It doesn't sound like that. It sounds as if it were one day. And like I said before, Why would God make it sound like it was 6 24 hour days if it was billions of years?
It doesn't sound like that. It sounds as if it were one day. And like I said before, Why would God make it sound like it was 6 24 hour days if it was billions of years?
The real question is why would God do things in days that happen naturally in billions of years.
God could have made the whole universe to look old, couldn't he? I mean, God can do aything, right? Why is there a reason to not believe it is 6000 years old? Because educated scientists estimate by their observations how old it is?
It doesn't sound like that. It sounds as if it were one day. And like I said before, Why would God make it sound like it was 6 24 hour days if it was billions of years?
The real question is why would God do things in days that happen naturally in billions of years.
Because He could.
God could have made the whole universe to look old, couldn't he? I mean, God can do aything, right?
That makes it a worthless hypothesis.
It is just as easy to postulate a magic chicken that can do anything by pecking. This magic chicken also wrote the bible in a way that was designed to convince some people it was true. Easy.
Why is there a reason to not believe it is 6000 years old? Because educated scientists estimate by their observations how old it is?
Yes. But to be fair, all educated people who are not obsessively fundamentalist can see the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old is a childish mistake. Even Egyptian archaeology has a chronology that goes back further than that! Predynastic Egypt goes back to about 5500 BC.
Settlements at the very low-lying city of Jericho in Palestine extend back to no less than 9000 BC, without any flood. So what was that about Genesis and "6000 years". Where was Jericho for the 5000 years it existed before the Earth?
How do you know it dates back 9000 years?
Well, best to start with the Dynastic period, which has a historical chronology that can be pieced together right back to the first dynasty in up to 5500 years ago. I understand that creationists have a stock lie about C-14 dating that allows them to ignore that very useful and consistent scientific evidence, but there is much other archaeological evidence that indicates the great age more roughly.
But how do you know how old it is?
Try reading some history.
There have been revisions. Earlier archaeologists worked without any assistance from C-14 dating, so their chronology had to rely entirely on other means. The most relevant date is that of the First Dynasty, which older archaeologists had in the range 30-34 centuries BC. Radiocarbon dating has pinned this down to 31-32 centuries BC, indicating the older work had done a good job. Note that this is an independent confirmation that C-14 dating works as well as that the archaeology was right - otherwise you have unlikely co-incidences like this agreement piling up to make you look silly.
But there is a great deal of older archaeology, for example the much older settlements that existed for thousands of years before the dynastic period. And even older settlements like Jericho.
Note carefully that ancient Egyptian civilisation was never wiped out by a flood.
Well, best to start with the Dynastic period, which has a historical chronology that can be pieced together right back to the first dynasty in up to 5500 years ago. I understand that creationists have a stock lie about C-14 dating that allows them to ignore that very useful and consistent scientific evidence, but there is much other archaeological evidence that indicates the great age more roughly.
So you're saying that creation scientists have ignored all evidence against them, while you have not disproved one point, just made accusations about how we Christians rely on the Bible and how the Bible is so wrong and that it is a book of fables?
Try reading some history.
There have been revisions. Earlier archaeologists worked without any assistance from C-14 dating, so their chronology had to rely entirely on other means. The most relevant date is that of the First Dynasty, which older archaeologists had in the range 30-34 centuries BC. Radiocarbon dating has pinned this down to 31-32 centuries BC, indicating the older work had done a good job. Note that this is an independent confirmation that C-14 dating works as well as that the archaeology was right - otherwise you have unlikely co-incidences like this agreement piling up to make you look silly.
But there is a great deal of older archaeology, for example the much older settlements that existed for thousands of years before the dynastic period. And even older settlements like Jericho.
Note carefully that ancient Egyptian civilisation was never wiped out by a flood.
Why do you think Egyptian civilization wasn't wiped out by a flood?
mmmhmmm...
Yeah, it is.