Both or neither.

And:c) Covered the entire Earth for about a year (as per the Bible).d) Advanced and retreated from selected portions of the Earth hundreds of times per day to create layers, with time between each retreat and advance for animals to leave tracks and build burrows.

I have read several threads mentioning lyes and so on, God trying to make us think the earth is older, make us think evolution happened ect, but I honestly don't see where there are coming from... Please be more specific on "lying to us".

why can't the general possibliliy of life through some kind of supernatural being theory be brought up?

If there is a Judeo-Christian God who spoke literally in the first few chapters of Genesis, and in the several verses where the Earth is described as "fixed and immovable," then why, everywhere we look in nature, do we find all these indications to the contrary? Why does it appear that a concordance of radioisotopes point to an age of 4+ billion years for the whole solar system? Why does it appear, along multiple lines of evidence, that humans and chimps are very closely related? Why does it appear that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the Sun, which orbits the massive core of the Milky Way?Where are the untruths, in other words? If they're all around in the Creation this guy made for us, doesn't that make him a liar, or at least a really outrageous practical joker?

There are two reasons:
1) "supernatural", by definition, is not natural! That is, there is no way to test it. Therefor it can not be a scientific theory. Therefor it doesn't belong in science class.2)The only reason why any of the supernatural "theories" are "brought up" is that it is part of a specific religion. There is no other reason for doing so. The dangers of mixing church and state have been recognized by a number of modern democracies. That the USA got this right very early is part of why it is a modern democracy and why a diverse group of peoples are able to live together. To break down this separate is what was being called "evil". And this sentence is exactly why it can't be taught. Each religion has just exactly the same claim to truth. And the state should not prefer one over another. All citizens are equal before the law. Their personal beliefs are theirs.Your belief is a minority belief. If the Christians of the world voted then your beliefs are not what would be taught. Do you want your beliefs subject not only to the scutiny of science but the state sponsored attack by Churchs too?

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-30-2004]

quote:

---

I have read several threads mentioning lyes and so on, God trying to make us think the earth is older, make us think evolution happened ect, but I honestly don't see where there are coming from... Please be more specific on "lying to us".

---

I won't call them lies (you make soap with lyes, ), but some can be considered misleading. For instance, galaxies millions of light years away are visible here on Earth. Why is that? Did God create this light in transit to make the universe look old? On top of this, we can observe atomic half lives by measuring the light coming from very, very distant stars which seems to discount the creationist theory of accelerated half-lives. Why is that? Did God do this so that we would have more confidence in half-lives that are actually wrong?If in fact we are here because of the grace of God, then we have to understand what he gave us, namely intelligence and logic. For us to ignore what he gave us is ignoring God. If in fact we are living in his creation, he has set it up so we will know how he created and when he created, both by the evidence that is in creation and by the intelligence and logic that he bestowed on us.Ironically, Creationism ignores the signs in creation and instead relies upon texts that could very easily be allegoric/metaphoric. In fact, rabbis in the past have said just as much, that the creation account in Genesis should not necessarily be taken literally, that the creation of the universe could have taken billions of years. This can be found in the thread dealing with Nachminades (too lazy to do a search right now). So, if even the culture that held and wrote the text in Genesis claims that the Genesis account should not necessarily be taken literally, what does this tell you? And don't forget that this was in the 13th century, well before Darwin was born or before evidence of an old earth was popularized.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-30-2004]

Speculation: Since all radio-dating "has its limits", IF the earth WERE a few thousand years old and since the limitations can not date all "young" material, could all radio-dating be wrong?

Just because a few (doesn't matter how many) people didn't believe it, doesn't disprove the whole idea.

Show me where you got the > sign? show me the long equation which disproves God...

Radio carbon dating is unaccurate and should NOT be used as proof, it is a way of measuring dates which is CONSTANTLY being proven off

Radio carbon dating is unaccurate and should NOT be used as proof, it is a way of measuring dates which is CONSTANTLY being proven off

It'd be wrong in a different way. Think about radiometric dating as unmarked yardsticks of different length. Imagine using them to measure the length of your thumb. No matter what length of stick you used, you'd get 1 sticklength (no fractions in this scenario.) Under no circumstances would you get multiple sticklengths for measuring something shorter than the stick.If the Earth was really only 6,000 years old, every radiometric date would return 1 half-life, no matter how long the half-life would be. You wouldn't get multiple half-life dates converging on the same date.It's the convergence of so many unrelated half-life dating methods that is the strongest evidence for the accuracy of radiometric dating.

You're misinformed. To the contrary, it's constantly being proved accurate, provided you follow the correct procedure. Like any scientific test it gives you bad data if do it wrong.

There is a thread for dating, perhaps you would like to demonstrate the truth of your assertions there?http://EvC Forum: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 yearswould be one thread you could use.

---

Common sense isn't