RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
December 9, 2010 at 8:30 pm
(This post was last modified: December 9, 2010 at 8:32 pm by Justtristo.)
(December 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(December 9, 2010 at 5:30 am)ziggystardust Wrote: Why do you continue to believe that the universe is only 6000 years old, which flies in the face of insurmountable scientific evidence in a huge range of disciplines that say this is a false hypothesis.
Huge range of disciplines huh? I hope you are not making the mistake of mixing up operational science with origins science, sounds like you are though. The universe doesn't come with an "I am xxxxx years old" tag, so of course the evidence requires interpretation. So is there a serious issue you want addressed or are you just "preaching" with loaded questions?
Astronomy, cosmology, physical chemistry, materials science, botany, immunology, morphology, Pharmacology, genetics, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, archeology ,anthropology, history and linguistics.
Is that not a huge range of disciplines?.
Besides in order for me to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, I would have to seriously question the interpretation of evidence that scientists use to determine the age of the earth and the universe.
undefined
