Christians Should Mind Their Own Business

Troy, the scriptures tells WHY God raised Jesus from the dead. What does science tell us about HOW He did it?

 

Consider the problem is not scripture but your understanding and interpretation of scripture. We all have that problem to one extent or another.

 

As you should know, science does not have all the answers as to how God did something.

 

You indicated otherwise with your previous post I quoted. No qualifiers at all.

 

So? Who cares if a pink unicorn wrote it, it was alright.

 

False. There is no other way to look at the creation than to include the creator. Real science does that.

According to You God's word is bad religion then, He dun told us.

 

Who said otherwise?

No, but it can be bad science.

 

You should probably get your emotions under control before you post. That way you do not post silly things like this.

 

Seems like someone left the door open and a Biologos adherent came in.

 

So you begin this thread with your hostile attitude toward those with whom you disagree with, and you then continue this hostile attitude by engaging in an adhominem attack against the author of the article I posted.

Got it.!

 

And a very hostile one at that.

 

All so called science that claims to deal in origins issues is bad science. Bad religion too.

 

Myths Dressed as Science


.....Four basic assumptions are necessary to use any radioisotope dating process as a reliable clock:

(1) The system of which the rock samples are a part must be a closed system. This is an increasingly bad assumption with the increasing age of the system.

(2) Decay rates of the isotopes used as clocks must remain constant over time. Again, this assumption becomes more tenuous with the increasing age of the system.

(3) The initial or primordial concentrations of parent and daughter in the system must be accurately known.

(4) For any system ages of long duration, it must be assumed that enough time has passed for measurable levels of the radioactive daughter to have been produced.

All four of these assumptions must hold fast without exception—any exception invalidates the dating method. It is doubtful that any one of these assumptions can be rigorously satisfied over 3.67 million years, much less all four. But the particular dating method used to date Little Foot added one more dubious assumption, i.e.:

(5) The production rates for the cosmogenic radionuclides have remained constant over millions of years.

Since the interstellar radiation incident on the earth's atmosphere varies with the seasons, with weather, with solar activity, with galactic activity, and with variations in the earth's magnetic field, it is extremely unreasonable to expect constant production rates for any of these radioisotopes over the vast amounts of time claimed. To suggest that all five assumptions can be strictly maintained for over three million years is completely untenable.

Why would any scientist publish something as fact when it rests on such a shaky foundation? There are probably many superficial reasons, but it appears the fundamental reason is that these "scientists" are attempting, whether consciously or unconsciously, to indoctrinate the public rather than educate them.

http://www.icr.org/article/myths-dressed-science/

 

Accurately describes this hostile thread you created.

 

Be glad too. right after you prove I gave any dumb posts at all without reading them.