A lot of the controversy surrounding different topics is based on what people view as scientific evidence. For example, the age of the earth. Most scientists come up with an estimate of billions upon billions of years, due to carbon dating, fossil records, etc. But others place it at 6000(?) years old due to the bible's statements.
I have some problems with this. I'm all for using the bible as the basis for spiritual beliefs. Being against killing because the bible says it's wrong, I can see that; morality is subjective, whether people see that or not. But using the bible as scientific proof? That's kind of like using the word you're defining in a definition. The Bible is not inherently true just because the bible says it's inherently true. That's like me writing the Gospel of Dave the Bartender on a cocktail napkin and using it to disprove quantum theory just because the napkin says the napkin's true.
But enough blasphemy. Who's to say carbon dating's more true? Here's an idea. Everything as you know it, all the material things, all our memories, everything, was created 15 minutes ago. 30 minutes ago? That was another memory put in our heads 15 minutes ago just as 1865 and marmosets were. You can't prove that idea's not true.
And I must apologize, I seem to have lost my point. Just things to think about. I think what I'm trying to say is you can't be too critical of other people's ideas because your ideas are probably just as fallible as anyone else's. Maybe.
<3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The whole using the Bible to prove the Bible..."thing" is a classic example of a circular argument. For one of the best - and funniest - examples of this, read all about "Kissing Hank's Ass" here: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php
Also, creationists love to talk about carbon dating (12 or 14)being an untrustworthy means of dating the earth's age. This is a specious argument, as scientists don't use carbon dating for that, they use potassium argon.
Just sayin'...
Post a Comment