Dinosaurs

Okay, thanks for the clarification. As I said, this stuff is way beyond me...I can do languages all day long, but when you start getting into advanced math and stuff like that, I might as well take a nap. I've often said that my kids have inherited my "math idiot" gene, which is unfortunate for them...

Elscarta,
That's the way I've been lead to understand time and motion.
Please and kindness,
Fred

Hi elscarta,

Does the paradox arise if we consider observer A and observer B are in
DIFFERENT frames of reference? Observing each others clocks running slowly compared their own.

Hi Lukas,
Science cannot include God or exclude God. Science only deals with things that are of the material world. Science cannot be used to study God. Otherwise, all the researchers would be writing grant applications to the National Science Foundation asking for funding.

Radiometric dating techniques are very reliable within limits. They may not be able to tell you the exact year a particular dinosaur died, but they can often tell you within a few thousand years or even less. For something that is 75 million years old, that's close. As if that's not enough, the genes of modern day animals have little changes in them that are an indication of how long ago they separated from other species. This is called a molecular clock. These molecular clocks tell the same story as the dating of fossils. In other words, one area of science confirms the same story. It's like having two independent witnesses.

The Creation Model is a lovely and compelling religious story. It is not connected to biology or any other field of science.
Asking

Asking,
Point well made.
Thanks,
Fred

Asking biology expert:

It comes as no surprise that an expert in Biology who agrees with the theory of evolution will support dating techniques. This does not prove or disprove them, it simply means you support them.

Otherwise, the same posts said before still apply to this argument.

Dwashbur:

I’ve been a bit busy with work, give me a couple more days and I will look deeper into what you’re talking about both on evolutionary theory and on the meaning of the Hebrew language. Then I’ll give you a more detailed response.

Tut:

I checked a couple more dictionaries, to include an abridged one and religion continues to have the same basic concepts to its definition. In fact, the most abridged one I found had only two possible definitions for each, and it related the definitions related to each other. Perhaps you can point out a different dictionary?

Elscarta:

You can be passionate about this subject. That’s fine. And if you want to get technical and feel it needs to go there that’s fine as well. You’re a professor, so you’re throwing your higher-education weight class around mostly professing laymen. I recommend taking your argument to a discussion board that consists of other scientists and professors.
I don’t see responding to your points accomplishing anything. If we disagree, it's doubtful either of us will change their stance based on something the other says.

If I could bring Dr. Georgia Purdom in here, and last I checked someone like that would only get involved in a formal debate and not something like this, it would be different.

All:

Since it seems we officially have several people involved (including at least two scientists) and I’m the only “young-earther” I have some questions I’m curious to know your answers to. I’ll go one at a time to simplify things.

1) What caused the universe to come into existence and where did the original energy or matter come from?

Hi Lukas,
I am not sure this will add anything to the current debate. Again, it will boil down to science and religion being incompatible, even if we go back to the very beginning of the universe.

The Big Bang Theory can explain the origins of the universe up until so many tiny parts of a second before the Big Bang. The laws of physics breaks down before this time period. For those who are religious the answer is obvious as to what happened before the Big Bang. God set the Big Bang in motion.

From a non-religious point (a scientific explanation) the laws of physics says the universe was infinitely dense. It existed as a singularity.
No God required.

As you can see some people attach a religious interpretation to the Big Bang, ie. God cause it. This however, is not a scientific opinion. I think it is the right opinion. This is my religious opinion as opposed to my scientific opinion. Others might site a different explanation.

The other possible explanation which MIGHT appeal to the non-religious
Is the idea of branes colliding which gives the impression there was a Big Bang. In other words, it was branes colliding which caused the Big Bang.


I don't think this line of thinking is going to bring science and religion any closer.

Regards

Tut

I think you forgot that science thinks that 75% of the universe is actually unexplainable and they call what they can't explain dark energy, you know I just call it God

Dark Energy ( aka Dark Matter ) is being explained. The reason most of the universe is not know is because it hasn't been experienced yet. In science there is a holy grail called the universal theory. That is what science is searching for. Another new science is that of demensions other then our own and its properties and how it effects this one. I don't see a conflict in understanding what we experience. Nor trying to reach goals that are beyond our earth. God gave us free will and its science that is expanding on it.

Hi paraclete,

I would probably agree with you. In the process of agreeing with each other we would be doing metaphysics as opposed to physics.

Regards

Tut