Prove to me creationism is real

No, I said just because I post a link, doesn't make it right ALONE. What makes it right is the fact that you can match it up with any other serious scientific article or establishment and see that they are both saying the same thing. I ONLY posted the wiki article because it is easily accessible.

No, that's not what you said or happened.

______________
I asked:

How the Earth works yes. Still not proof about what happened and when.

Question:
AEF: How old is the Earth?

Tim. Same question.

Prove it.

You answered:

around 4.5 billion years old. Thats common knowledge.

I said...around???...c'mon.....

Around????

........give or take a couple million?

C'mon, be more exact. Need proof.

You provided your "Proof":


...To which I gave the bad news:

Sorry to give you the bad news. Now...prepare yourself.

..........ready?

---------->Wikipedia does not = proof or established fact.

You conceded:

of course it doesn't

Then I asked:

Sooooooo.......you are acknowledging that what you provided was not fact or proof.......right?

===:ninja
:popcorn2:
 
They really don't. If they are proven wrong that just means their observations/data was faulty.



:24::24::24: you can call it whatever you want. Scietist are not perfect people, they get frustrated .. and when they can't prove something .. I can asure you .. they are not above fudging something here and there.

You can believe they don't or won't .. but you should really look around you and where you live and how people ARE.

People are/can be deceitful when it serves their purpose.
 
It's not one of those things .. it's a belief .. just like people who believe the facts man came up with to sayhw old a rock is .. they don't and won't ever "really" know .. anything other than what a man says it is.

Man wasn't alive back then .. there is no way to logically "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt .. how old a rockk is.

Carbon dating. Period.

It's basically a guess based on a man made "finding" or belief.

Hypothesis never mentioned in the bible, the reader assumes that this is the benevolent word, without doing any reasearch as to its soundness.

Kinda like when my doctor prescribes a medicine to me .. I have to believe he knows what he's doing and tha tthe drug company knows what it was doing .. and I don't die from it (like happens every day as drugs that the FDA deemed safe ar epulled off shelves after peopel die from the "safe" drugs).

Doctors are usually very quick to admit wrongdoing, Christians will practically never do it, not about God.

Science is a belief in many areas .. and it's wrong in many areas too. Because MAN creates many aspects of it to suit his own need.

Man didn't create science, he observed what happened, and yes scientists are often wrong, but not because the proof isn't there, it's because the proof was mis-interpreted.

You are never going to convince a career scientist that your argument is linear.:D
 
:24::24::24: you can call it whatever you want. Scietist are not perfect people, they get frustrated .. and when they can't prove something .. I can asure you .. they are not above fudging something here and there.

You can believe they don't or won't .. but you should really look around you and where you live and how people ARE.

People are/can be deceitful when it serves their purpose.

everything you said is moot when you come to realize that the scientific community is a dynamic and independent entity where EVERYTHING is scrutinized and analyzed by thousands of people. No one is going to just make stuff up and then make it into the text books unopposed by the facts.
 
Man didn't create science, he observed what happened, and yes scientists are often wrong, but not because the proof isn't there, it's because the proof was mis-interpreted.
You are never going to convince a career scientist that your argument is linear.

I'm not really trying to cnvince you of anything .. just stating my beliefs and why I believe them .. and why I don't believe some things other people do.

This is my entire argument .. right here. So in effect .. you can never be 100% sure. Like I stated 14 pages ago lol.
 
everything you said is moot when you come to realize that the scientific community is a dynamic and independent entity where EVERYTHING is scrutinized and analyzed by thousands of people. No one is going to just make stuff up and then make it into the text books unopposed by the facts.

ok sure lol .. because every scientific book is full of the truth and nothing is ever published that is wrong.

You can recuse it all you want to suit your own needs/wants.
 
I'm not really trying to cnvince you of anything .. just stating my beliefs and why I believe them .. and why I don't believe some things other people do.

This is my entire argument .. right here. So in effect .. you can never be 100% sure. Like I stated 14 pages ago lol.


Do not twist what I said, what I am saying is that your trying to make faith in God, and faith in numbers do not match up...at all.

That is what I said, that is what I meant. If you are going to talk science, you have to use science.

None of my physics prof's in college said..."Well, God said this...so everything I just said...well yeah it's bullshit"

What I meant was you need another argument than saying scientific faith and religious faith are the same. They are spelled the same, but have two totally different meanings.

That's what I said:D
 
Do not twist what I said, what I am saying is that your trying to make faith in God, and faith in numbers do not match up...at all.

That is what I said, that is what I meant. If you are going to talk science, you have to use science.

None of my physics prof's in college said..."Well, God said this...so everything I just said...well yeah it's bullshit"

What I meant was you need another argument than saying scientific faith and religious faith are the same. They are spelled the same, but have two totally different meanings.

That's what I said:D

In all actuality .. trying to link the 2 ar elike trying to hitch a tiger up to a cart and make him pull it. It isn't possible. They are meant to disprove each other.
 
COOL_BREEZE2: Read over what I said again....plus this link matter doesn't mean anything to me

Sooooooo........what you saying is.....

The (Wikipedia) contribution........not reliable fact or proof?

......doesn't mean anything to you again? :ninja

Anyways, giving you a break now (ZZZZZs calling). Yippeeeeeee!!!!
Wait...Don't get too excited. Coming back again tomorrow. Just when you thought it was safe. :D
 
Back
Top