|
Who's to say it isn't? What I don't understand is your reason for making this thread. You seem rather closed minded.
I'm not saying the world is 6000 years old, but you honestly just seem to think things are right simply because the public school system teaches it. The only thing different about a "religious scientist" and a "scientist" is their dedications and what they study. I'm trying to point out to you that there are "evidences" to back up some religious theologies. Are they necessarily right? no, but that's what this thread is for. To discuss things like this. You can't say a form of science if flawed simply because of what it's trying to prove.
On another note, there is absolutely no evidence of a God or higher power, but there also isn't any evidence that the big bang happened. Existence itself takes faith. The theory of evolution begins with matter and energy already existing. Where did existence itself come from? I think the reason so many religions exist today is because people are trying to come up with answers.
Keep in mind that I'm merely stating these things because that's what this thread is about. I literally don't claim to know where we came from, and I don't follow any organised religion. Your closed mindedness is kind of bothering me though.
|
You simply do not get where I'm coming from. Religious scientists do not have any evidence the world is only 6 thousand years old. There is monumental evidence that, of course can only be denied by saying what you're saying, the the earth is at least 4 billion years old.
I am very open to any belief but why should I believe in something I know may not be true? The same could be said about evolution, so why believe in anything at all?I lean towards the one that stands by logic and evidence.