Replies

bondserv: "With modern dating methods, what age would a freshly created piece of matter date at?"

b_sharp: What matter? Is there a witness to its creation? How long has it been around; long enough to accumulate carbon14? Was it found with items that can be dated? Can we be assured that any connection with datable items is secure?

Some things are not datable, some are. We base our knowledge of creation dates on what can be dated and on location. If we find something undatable that exists with something that can be dated and the relationship is solid we conclude those undatables to be the same age as the datable.

You described the poke and hope method science has always been. Rightfully so, for there are future discoveries that will revise our understanding of the foundations of reality. This is always how it has been and will be this way until we know more than 1% of our reality. Knowledge is not worthy of worship because it is vastly incomplete and largely in err for that reason.

Science is entertaining and despite us, sometimes helpful.

You have made my point for me. We are forced to make so many assumptions, that to speak without disclaimers is foolish. The big problem with sciences credibility is people are tired of the "Expert studies tell us", or " a scientific study reveals", only to be totally discredited with the next study.

I find science entertaining, and in no way wish to do away with it. However, investing ones worldview in it is the retardation of the modern mind. Any rational mind can discern its flawed promises. Having a cell phone and a laptop does not inject a person into the class of our Founders. Their character is what made them great, based on sound Biblical principals like no other group of men in history.

When you realize the majority of expert scientists are clowns, you will have moved a long way toward growing as a person.

Your post 216 is well stated. Science is important, no doubt. The chemo a family member is getting right now attests to that. But in the grander scheme, the superiority complex some scientists display is what worries me. It's as if nothing else matters. Teaching anything other than Darwin 24/7 seems to be the objective-even if it is only being stated subconsciously. Is any other field of study important? To read between the lines, it would seem like it's really not.

To extrapolate: the curricula some day, with the compromise hammered out with the ACLU will consist of 1/2 day evolution 1/2 day gay studies.