Science or Chritianity?

Question

science use mono-dioxi to determine the age of some fossils. And carbo-lirium to determine age of some layers and radicum-fossils. What do Christian use to determine the age of things?

Answer 1

I realize English is not your first language so I will give you a little help:

The terms you are using such as "mono-dioxi," "carbo-lirium," "radicum-fossils," are not correct (in English or Spanish).

Make sure you know what you are talking about if you want people to take you seriously.

Answer 2

Some Christians use mono-dioxi and carbo-lirium to determine the age of things. Some use the Bible. Some use both. Some use neither.

The Bible and science rarely collide because they set out to describe different things. Science wants to describe the observable, testable, reliable, and physical. The Bible wants to describe the unobservable, untestable, unreliable, and unphysical. For starters, you don't read the Bible for help on your chemistry homework and you don't look in a Chemistry textbook for the answers to life's mysteries.

I say- take another look at the science in the Bible and try to understand it out of scientific terms. Also, throw out the metaphysics which seems to have found its way into modern physics.

Answer 3

Not a religious issue

I see no conflict between genuine science and authentic Christianity

Fundamentalists make up their minds about evolution,fossil records,plate tectonics,etc apart fom science since they see the Bible(or Quran or Das Kapital or whatever) as the Book that has the answers for every thing ,not just religion,ethics, spirituality but history,geography,
astronomy,geology,
biology,nutrition,etc
everything

Also Fundamentalists will not apply scientific historical or literary criticism to their sacred texts since they believe that such methods will harm the sacred revelation"which was dictated by " God, Allah, Engels,Mao,Maroni or whoever is the revelatory authority

Answer 4

What is the purpose of determining the age of things?
God is ageless--time has no meaning to His infinite being.

By the way, they carbon dated some dust and rocks formed after Mt. St. Helen's volcano, and the results showed that it was millions of years old or some such when it had just been formed a few weeks or months before. I'm sure some science fanatic will try and correct me on the particulars of this, since it's been awhile since I read this and don't recall the exact particulars, but the point is that the carbon dating was WAAAAAY off. It shows that geologic structures formed during a catastrophic event (such as a Great Flood, perhaps??) may appear and give evidence as to having been formed over aeons of time when they happened all at once. Not coincidentally, many fossils seem to be concentrated in spots that used to be lake beds.....hmmmm sounds like a result of catastrophic flood, doesn't it?

It all comes back to faith and what you will or won't accept. Keep trying to figure it out with a human finite brain and you will never understand it all. Trust that an infinite God has it all figured out and you will experience the "peace that passes all understanding."

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Answer 5

We use the most recent item found. For instance, if I find an old ax head next to a fossil in a layer of rock, the ax head would determine the age of the layer of rock and fossil. Not vice versa.

Answer 6

They often use the genealogies listed in the Bible. I'm a christian, but I think both that and the scientific methods are unreliable. There's no way to go back in time and prove either one to be correct. Some of the genealogies are noticeably incomplete. And scientists dated a chicken as being a couple thousand years old that a farmer had buried just 30 years ago. So I don't really accept either, and what does it matter how old the earth is anyway, it's what we do with it now that matters?

Answer 7

Only a relatively small (though very vocal) subset of christians still believes the earth to be young (< 10,000 years). That group generally doesn't use any method to determine the age of things, because they aren't scientists and they don't date objects. Rather, what they do attempt to do is to cast doubt on all the scientific dating methods. Confusion and obfuscation is their "weapon" of choice, not any alternative dating techniques.

Answer 8

Bible stories and their whole young earth idea, starting with the age of adam 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.

It's ludicrous to think that man and dinosaurs co-existed and that god created things aged. It amazes me that some people would even consider a 65 million year old fossil to be of a 10,000 year old dinosaur and that fossil was a fabrication of god for whatever reason. Creationists if anything are mildly retarded and always there for a good laugh.

Answer 9

Here's a long analogy that I think works:

Imagine that you are standing at some distance east of a tall building. A fence prevents you from getting closer to the building but does not impede your view. Suppose that you want to know the height of the building. What can you do?

Well, first suppose that you see three people standing close to the building in the distance. You can't see them absolutely clearly, but it looks like one is an adult man, one an adult woman, and one a child. You hold up a pencil, marking with your thumbnail the apparent height of the man. Then you carefully move your pencil up the building, one "man-height" at a time, counting the number of "man-heights" tall the building is. You find that it is 53 "man-heights" tall. You assume that the man is 5'10" tall, and multiplying, you estimate that the building is 309 feet high. You repeat the process with the woman, assuming her height to be 5'4". You find the building to be 54 "woman-heights" high, or 288 feet. Repeating the process once again with the child, you find the building to be 77 "child-heights" high. Estimating the child's height at 4'0", you estimate the building's height to be 308 feet. Based on the data gathered so far, you are justified in estimating the building to be between 288 and 309 feet high, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 feet.

Now suppose that you notice a man at the top of the building who is periodically dropping what look like bowling balls off the building. Deferring speculation on why he might be dropping the bowling balls, you time how long they take to fall and find that on average they take 4.4 seconds to fall from the top of the building to the ground. Knowing that the distance travelled by objects falling in the earth's gravitational field in a vacuum conforms to the simple equation,

Distance = 16t2

you calculate that the building is about 310 feet high, your calculation disregarding the effects of air resistance. This makes your estimate slightly inflated, though for bowling balls the effect is very minor. In any case, this is consistent with your earlier estimates and provides independent corroboration for them.

Furthermore, by measuring the time interval between when each bowling ball hits the ground and when you hear the noise of its impact to be a bit less than 1 sec., and knowing that sound travels at about 1,100 feet per second at sea level, you estimate that you are standing about 1000' away from the building.

Now the sun is setting behind the building, and just as the building's shadow approaches you, you whip out a foot ruler, hold it upright on the ground, and mark the ruler's shadow length. Measuring from the base of the ruler to your mark, you find the ruler's shadow to be 37" long. Based on the estimate of your distance from the building obtained earlier, simple algebra shows that a 1000' foot long shadow would be cast by a building that is 324 feet tall at that angle of the sun.

At this point you have three quite different and independent methods of estimating the building's height, and they agree that it is in the neighborhood of 300 feet tall, perhaps a bit more but certainly not substantially less. Now a man walks up to you and says, "Your estimates are all wrong! My book says that the building is really only about 1/200 of an inch (0.005 inch) high. All of your measuring methods are terribly flawed and your estimates cannot be believed. The building is actually less than a hundredth of an inch tall! You must ignore your measurements and discard the physics which underlies them." What would you say to him?

This is exactly what the creationists argue. They deny that the several independent methods of estimating the age of geological features are reliable, and argue that they are in fact as much in (coordinated) error as the man denying your estimate of the height of the building. The creationist "young earth" hypothesis says that the estimates of the age of the earth that show it to be on the order of 4.5 billion years old are wildly mistaken, and that the earth is really only about 6,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 years old. In other words, they argue that the best scientific estimates of the age of the earth are off by as much as a factor of 750,000! This is equivalent to arguing that the building you estimated to be 300 feet tall is really only about five-thousandths of an inch tall. Yet they offer absolutely no valid evidence to substantiate this extraordinary claim but only criticize your measurements by saying things like, 'Well, those people may be midgets, and they aren't really standing near the building, and your stopwatch is wildly unreliable, and sound doesn't necessarily travel at 1100 feet per second in the air near the building, and gravity is different near the building, so your measurements are wrong by a factor of 750,000.' This is the precise character of the argument offered by "scientific" creationists. Is it any wonder that most scientists don't waste time and energy refuting creationist claims?

Answer 10

As a Christian... I have come to realize that Most Science is Purely.... AN AGENDA.... for Secular Humanism!

The Planet..... PLUTO.... no longer exists as far as Modern Science is... as was the 'FLAT EARTH THEORY!'

DNA.... has ... DISPROVED.... The Evolutionary THEORY... and still.... Science TOTES it as... Fact?

As far as TIME DATING...... ALL THREE....Major METHODS.... Contradict ... EACH OTHER.... when DATING... the same MATERIAL!

So..... What DO YOU TRUST IN?

Science.... or.... The ONE TRUE GOD.... Who... made Science for us to use... to Better Our Lives

Thanks for Asking ! RR