how do you know the universe is 13.9 billion years old and don’t say science says. give me an solution to the problem. universal assumption have to be made – so if you change the assumptions you change the answer (not exact science), that is why they always say it could have – might have – could be or the best maybe. science is repeatable and testable. historical science is not. so your guess of billions of years is an assumption but historical documents written down says different. You will laugh and assume man could not read or write or speak long ago or were not as intelligent but there again you assume. everything about evolution is an assumption, tell me where I can go and see 1 bit of evidence that did not use someone imagination to determine how something may have looked
The 'assumptions' being made are well established by Newton, Einstein. Using those well-established theories - we look up at the sky, we take measurements of where things are moving - and we can calculate that it looks like everything came from one point about 13.9 billion years.
Observation tells is this is what happened.
Here's a couple of videos that give you some idea, but what you are asking is entirely too complicated to explain easily.
Isn't the Bible being the word of God a grand assumption? I mean, how do you know that it wasn't God's secretary dictating to man God's word? Or perhaps a God trying to fool you into thinking that he's the God? Everything that humans try to interpret can be called an assumption.
February 6, 2014 at 11:24am
wonder what bill nye thinks of obama’s statements
January 24, 2014 at 9:55am
I would have the aclu prove evolution is true in order to prove their case
The issue isn't (at least it shouldn't be) about creationism or evolution, or even the "separation of church and state" (however you feel about, or wish to define "socas"). The issue is (or should be) about how a teacher allegedly treated a student. If the accusations bear out, then the teacher needs to be reprimanded and possibly terminated.
I, however, do not see any basis for a law suit, unless the school has knowledge of and has allowed such actions by teachers.
December 18, 2013 at 9:26pm
you can change man’s laws but you can not change GOD’S law. since when is it wrong to have a different view. whose being homophobic now. He didn’t say anything about changing the law or hating the person, he just stated what God says
Us good people don’t believe that God really said any of that anti-gay crap in the Bible because it’s stupid and God is supposed to be smart.
December 4, 2013 at 5:49pm
was her husband amer, where is he now, is she or her children on gov assistance
November 25, 2013 at 3:21pm
evolution says death came before man – bible says death came after man sinned.
believing evolution takes away the penalty for sin which is death, eliminates the need of a savior, and denies the need for Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross.
evolution and creation are on opposite ends of the spectum
November 20, 2013 at 7:33pm
well, Mike if you really support ACA, then you would sign up and pay the price increase. don’t be hypocritical
Yeah Mike, do it for all those people you want to have healthcare! Show them you care about them. Don't tell me -- you wanted everyone to have healthcare, but didn't think YOU'D actually have to help pay for it? And just WHO is blowing all that money on your so-called education?
November 17, 2013 at 8:00am
I am 68 and I have never watched a macy parade. I don’t see where having a float in ny us helping sell beef. why south dakota do you waste your money?
September 26, 2013 at 10:16am
why do liberals/democrats/atheists resort to name calling or low rating when they do not agree with something?
June 28, 2013 at 9:47am
most americans are AGAINST obamacare, so defunding it would be popular with the majority
June 26, 2013 at 2:51pm
sad that she is with the party that votes against everything she stands for. democrats vote against the military, protecst the irs and it’s contractors, cut medical for military and make them paid more for their health insurance, pay more to govt workers then they would every think about paying our soldiers. sad she is in the wrong patry
June 18, 2013 at 4:49pm
michelle my bell how wrong can you be
snowden told the truth about what they ARE doing
no secret info as fAR AS I know
nsa did NOT track muslims, whats right about that
June 18, 2013 at 4:45pm
I agree, she is retiring and now she is jumping ship, maybe they have something on her in the NSA. I dont thing snowden gave info , he just said what they are doing
June 17, 2013 at 1:21pm
I didnt read every post so if this was said sorry ( this decision is for federal elections – we need to do this for state elections so they cant vote and we would have a record of who is a citizen)
May 28, 2013 at 8:15am
this is the type of teachers we need, come on Jindal cancel common core and get back to basics
June 4, 2012 at 11:18am
Science does by its very nature involve gathering and interpreting evidence, testing hypotheses, and searching for answers in an ever-refining process. Affirming this process is neither an underhanded attack on evolutionists nor an effort to undermine science. However, pointing out that science is an ongoing search for answers through observation and controlled, repeatable tests highlights a vital distinction. There is a real difference between experimental (operational) science, which deals with how things operate in the present, and origins science, which deals with what happened in the unobserved past to produce what we are observing in the present. Well-controlled, objective tests that can be replicated for confirmation are used to find answers in experimental science but are not truly possible in origins science. For example, determining the strength of a metallic alloy under various conditions is a matter for experimental science. So is the design of new technological uses for the alloy. But theorizing about the chemical origins of life from non-living matter or the evolution of life from microbes to man or how the Grand Canyon formed are built on assumptions about unobservable, untestable, hypothetical, scientifically unverifiable processes.
The late atheist Ernst Mayr of Harvard, considered by many to be the greatest evolutionist of the twentieth century, acknowledged this distinction. In his book, What Evolution Is, he wrote the following: