belegkano,
you say that there is evidence for the earth being no more than 10k years old. i say that there is evidence that it is around 4 billion years old. i've given the evidence that supports my side. as i said before, radioactive dating of minerals from all around the earth supports this. however, you submit none of the evidence for your side, save that the bible says so.
i will concede the point that we are both getting our information from sources other than personal experience - mine i got from books written by accredited scientists, yours came from a book as well. the difference is, the evidence i put forth is supported by actual experimentation and documented research; granted, i am not providing that here, only saying that it has been done, but i assure you it has. the same cannot be said of yours. if i am wrong, prove me wrong. submit to me evidence that the world is only 10,000 years old.
you say 4 billion years is too long for the earth to have survived? why? you say 10,000 years is just right? why? evidence is what my argument has, and what yours lacks, unless you show otherwise.
you asked the question, 'why must there always be an in between?' in most arguments such as this one, there are 2 sides, each at opposite extremes. often, however, there is a middle ground in which it is possible to compromise the two points of view. for a scientific example, the world we live in truly is the middle ground. at one end of the scale is the very small - molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, and all the other various subatomic particles. the rules that govern these things are very different from those that describe our everyday experience. in an atom, it is impossible to know at the same time both the position and the velocity of one of its orbiting electrons. if i throw a ball with a known initial velocity and a known trajectory, it is a simple calculation to find the velocity and position of that ball at any time in its flight. the small world is governed primarily by 3 of the 4 forces - electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. gravity has almost no effect on anything in the subatomic world.
at the opposite end of the spectrum is the very large: the solar system, our galaxy, clusters of galaxies. these things, in their relations to each other, are controlled mostly by gravity, with little influence from the other 3 forces. in our everyday experience, however, we get a mix of the 2 worlds. we see almost nothing of the strong and weak forces, because they grow extremely weak at even very small (subatomic) distances, but we experience the forces of gravity and electromagnetism all the time.
this is just one example of a middle ground common to everyone's experience. you say 'you have your own [belief], use it.' well, for the argument at hand i have not arrived at a conclusion as to what i believe. as i stated before, i am an agnostic, neither believing nor disbelieving in a deity. i'm not going to sit here and tell you that evolution was a purely natural phenomenon, along with the origin of life on earth. i'm also not going to argue that god created life and controlled evolution.
what i do believe, however, is that your extremist view is not reality. i base my beliefs on evidence. there is evidence that evolution has occurred. there is evidence that the world is 4 billion years old. from what i can see in your posts, you are basing your belief on faith alone. unless you submit evidence supporting your claims ("the bible says so" is not evidence), i will continue to think this. if the claim that i have just made is correct, then this argument is over. you may say that this is just your opinion, and my view is my opinion. this is true. arguments arise because of differences in opinion. in an argument, each side submits evidence supporting their opinion. simply stating, "i'm right, and this is my opinion," does not constitute and argument in your favor. i have argued my side, argue yours.
|
