It just have to be reasonable

[Eloi]

To believe in God you don't need complicated reasons, or scientific reasons, or being intellectual, or having all the answers in the world. To believe in God, only one reason is needed: to realize reality.

Heb. 3:4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

The beauty of the Universe and everything that exists on our planet proves that there is an Intelligent and powerful Creator.

If you found a house in the middle of the desert, would you believe that it was made by itself as a result of sandstorms over trillions of years?

The earth is like a house in the middle of a space desert. It has drinking water, electricity, light, food pantries, indirect music, air conditioning and heating... and even carpets.

Rom. 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Is there any objective reason why this very simplistic reasoning is invalid?

[Eloi]

Evolutionists often date fossils based on the terrain around them.

Actually, dating fossils may involve up to nine different methods, or more.

The nine primary methods

Carbon-14 dating

Radiometric dating

Fission track dating

Relative dating

Absolute dating

Dendrochronology dating

Biostratigraphy dating

K-Ar dating

Uranium-lead dating

.

... and if any of them were totally reliable they would not have to be used several at the same time to average.
In fact, using all at once and averaging would not indicate that the chance of error is 0.

Dating is useful... but when scientists already have an idea of what they want it to reveal, it is very likely that they will not be objective, they will not accept reality and in the end the results will be biased.

An archeologist expressed himself this way at the Uppsala conference in 1986:

“If a carbon-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it.”

Read this interesting article, and the next two, about methods of dating in 1986, which describe and evaluate the different means of radioactive dating used by geologists to measure the ages of rocks and the remains of once-living organisms. They have been prepared by a nuclear physicist of many years’ experience in both research and industry in the field of radioactivity. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101986686

PS: Are you counting relative and absolute dating as two other diferent methods?

[brunumb]

Dating is useful... but when scientists already have an idea of what they want it to reveal, it is very likely that they will not be objective, they will not accept reality and in the end the results will be biased.

Read this interesting article, and the next two, about methods of dating in 1986, which describe and evaluate the different means of radioactive dating used by geologists to measure the ages of rocks and the remains of once-living organisms. They have been prepared by a nuclear physicist of many years’ experience in both research and industry in the field of radioactivity. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101986686

I thought that would be a scientific treatise of some sort, but no, it was just an opinion piece from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Biased much? Too funny.

[Miles]

Evolutionists often date fossils based on the terrain around them.

Actually, dating fossils may involve up to nine different methods, or more.

The nine primary methods

Carbon-14 dating

Radiometric dating

Fission track dating

Relative dating

Absolute dating

Dendrochronology dating

Biostratigraphy dating

K-Ar dating

Uranium-lead dating

PS: Are you counting relative and absolute dating as two other diferent methods?

I am because they are.

Relative dating is the science of determining the relative order of past events (i.e., the age of an object in comparison to another), without necessarily determining their absolute age (i.e., estimated age). In geology, rock or superficial deposits, fossils and lithologies can be used to correlate one stratigraphic column with another. Prior to the discovery of radiometric dating in the early 20th century, which provided a means of absolute dating, archaeologists and geologists used relative dating to determine ages of materials. Though relative dating can only determine the sequential order in which a series of events occurred, not when they occurred, it remains a useful technique. Relative dating by biostratigraphy is the preferred method in paleontology and is, in some respects, more accurate. The Law of Superposition, which states that older layers will be deeper in a site than more recent layers, was the summary outcome of 'relative dating' as observed in geology from the 17th century to the early 20th century.
Source: Wikipedia


"Absolute dating is the process of determining an age on a specified chronology in archaeology and geology. Some scientists prefer the terms chronometric or calendar dating, as use of the word "absolute" implies an unwarranted certainty of accuracy. Absolute dating provides a numerical age or range, in contrast with relative dating, which places events in order without any measure of the age between events.
In archaeology, absolute dating is usually based on the physical, chemical, and life properties of the materials of artifacts, buildings, or other items that have been modified by humans and by historical associations with materials with known dates (such as coins and historical records). For example, coins found in excavations may have their production date written on them, or there may be written records describing the coin and when it was used, allowing the site to be associated with a particular calendar year. Absolute dating techniques include radiocarbon dating of wood or bones, potassium-argon dating, and trapped-charge dating methods such as thermoluminescence dating of glazed ceramics.
Source: Wikipedia


.

[Miles]

Dating is useful... but when scientists already have an idea of what they want it to reveal, it is very likely that they will not be objective, they will not accept reality and in the end the results will be biased.

Read this interesting article, and the next two, about methods of dating in 1986, which describe and evaluate the different means of radioactive dating used by geologists to measure the ages of rocks and the remains of once-living organisms. They have been prepared by a nuclear physicist of many years’ experience in both research and industry in the field of radioactivity. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101986686

I thought that would be a scientific treatise of some sort, but no, it was just an opinion piece from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Biased much? Too funny.

Where else would Eloi get his science education?

.

[Eloi]

Evolutionists often date fossils based on the terrain around them.

Actually, dating fossils may involve up to nine different methods, or more.

The nine primary methods

Carbon-14 dating

Radiometric dating

Fission track dating

Relative dating

Absolute dating

Dendrochronology dating

Biostratigraphy dating

K-Ar dating

Uranium-lead dating

.

You don't even know the difference between methods and method classification. What a pity that evolutionists look for support in such clueless people.

[Miles]

Evolutionists often date fossils based on the terrain around them.

Actually, dating fossils may involve up to nine different methods, or more.

The nine primary methods

Carbon-14 dating

Radiometric dating

Fission track dating

Relative dating

Absolute dating

Dendrochronology dating

Biostratigraphy dating

K-Ar dating

Uranium-lead dating

.

You don't even know the difference between methods and method classification. What a pity that evolutionists look for support in such clueless people.

They don't. They look to science, not silly religious tracts.


................Jehovah's Witnesses Spreading
...............Their Knowledge Of Science

................
..............Sidewalk Religious Tracts
...............'cause it's the best their god can do

.

[Eloi]

Have you ever asked an evolutionist when apes began to feel ashamed to have their private parts exposed?

The Bible says that right after Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they hid because they felt ashamed of their bodies for the first time (Gen. 3:8-11)... God himself gave them something to cover themselves with (Gen. 3:21).

So Scripture teaches that humans never again walked totally naked. If evolutionists believe that civilized men only appeared from the fifth millennium BC, when did they stop walking around naked like animals? What is the evolutionary myth behind this properly human "awakening of shame"?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #17]

Have you ever asked an evolutionist when apes began to feel ashamed to have their private parts exposed?

Glad to see you finally realize that humans did indeed evolve from apes. Nonhuman apes are not ashamed to have their private parts exposed ... only humans have this issue (most of them anyway). Humans probably needed clothes to protect them from the elements long before they were worried about exposing themselves, and they worked out how to use animal skins, plants, etc. for that purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... d_textiles

But exacty when earlier humans started wearing clothes is not known, with best estimates ranging from 40,000 to 170,000 years ago (long before 5 millennia). Neanderthals are known to have worn animal skins for clothing and they died out around 35,000 years ago. If you're freezing in Europe 40,000 years ago, you probably are far more concerned about clothing for warmth than having someone else see you naked.

The Bible says that right after Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they hid because they felt ashamed of their bodies for the first time (Gen. 3:8-11)... God himself gave them something to cover themselves with (Gen. 3:21).

An old bible story ... Adam and Eve are mythical figures.

So Scripture teaches that humans never again walked totally naked. If evolutionists believe that civilized men only appeared from the fifth millennium BC, when did they stop walking around naked like animals? What is the evolutionary myth behind this properly human "awakening of shame"?

It isn't "evolutionists" who believe that civilized men only appeared from the 5th millennium BC ... that is your unfounded argument. Modern humans were around for many tens of thousands of years before civilizations developed, because the necessary knowledge did not exist to establish large civilizations. Hunter-gatherers were not necessarily "uncivilized" ... whatever you actually mean by that. They just didn't live in settlements large enough to be what we call civilizations today.

Evolution describes how life diversified on this planet. It has nothing to do with when or why people started wearing clothing. So of course there is no "evolutionary myth" explaining why humans wear clothes. Evolution doesn't address that issue any more than chemistry or mathematics does. You really need to try and understand the very basic definition of evolution, and what it does and does not entail. Everyone that disagrees with your religious-based views on science and human history is not an "evolutionist", and evolution has nothing to do with people wearing clothes (or not).

[LittleNipper]

[Replying to Eloi in post #17]

Have you ever asked an evolutionist when apes began to feel ashamed to have their private parts exposed?

Glad to see you finally realize that humans did indeed evolve from apes. Nonhuman apes are not ashamed to have their private parts exposed ... only humans have this issue (most of them anyway). Humans probably needed clothes to protect them from the elements long before they were worried about exposing themselves, and they worked out how to use animal skins, plants, etc. for that purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... d_textiles

But exacty when earlier humans started wearing clothes is not known, with best estimates ranging from 40,000 to 170,000 years ago (long before 5 millennia). Neanderthals are known to have worn animal skins for clothing and they died out around 35,000 years ago. If you're freezing in Europe 40,000 years ago, you probably are far more concerned about clothing for warmth than having someone else see you naked.

The Bible says that right after Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they hid because they felt ashamed of their bodies for the first time (Gen. 3:8-11)... God himself gave them something to cover themselves with (Gen. 3:21).

An old bible story ... Adam and Eve are mythical figures.

So Scripture teaches that humans never again walked totally naked. If evolutionists believe that civilized men only appeared from the fifth millennium BC, when did they stop walking around naked like animals? What is the evolutionary myth behind this properly human "awakening of shame"?

It isn't "evolutionists" who believe that civilized men only appeared from the 5th millennium BC ... that is your unfounded argument. Modern humans were around for many tens of thousands of years before civilizations developed, because the necessary knowledge did not exist to establish large civilizations. Hunter-gatherers were not necessarily "uncivilized" ... whatever you actually mean by that. They just didn't live in settlements large enough to be what we call civilizations today.

Evolution describes how life diversified on this planet. It has nothing to do with when or why people started wearing clothing. So of course there is no "evolutionary myth" explaining why humans wear clothes. Evolution doesn't address that issue any more than chemistry or mathematics does. You really need to try and understand the very basic definition of evolution, and what it does and does not entail. Everyone that disagrees with your religious-based views on science and human history is not an "evolutionist", and evolution has nothing to do with people wearing clothes (or not).

Your speculation nor that of anyone else cannot be regarded as fact without personally witnessing the event in question.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #17]

Have you ever asked an evolutionist when apes began to feel ashamed to have their private parts exposed?

Glad to see you finally realize that humans did indeed evolve from apes. ...

Hahahaha, You are in the height of your delirium!