So you're using a verse FROM the bible to support the accuracy and infallibility of.......the bible?
That's precisely what she's doing because that's precisely what religion is by definition. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments extending from it.
At the same time you're doing the above, you're denying/ignoring verifiable physical evidence scattered across the entire planet that proves without any question that human life has been alive and thriving for far longer than what you believe.
She has her evidence (The JW Bible), and you have your evidence (various dating methods).
I will caution in using the word proof, since evidence is not proof of anything. Evidence is "any statement which supports an argument" (effectively, a predicate) while proof is "an extension of foundational axioms" (and is only present in closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics, not open functional systems such as religion and science). In fact, I would say that you are also practicing religion here because you are forming theories about past unobserved events, and science has no theories about such events... We simply don't know for sure how old modern humanity is... It is anyone's guess...
Even if "science" is off by magnitudes, it's not possible it's THAT far off.
As I said above, I would argue that this isn't even within the realm of science, and that this is purely a religious discussion...
And you STILL can't understand why some people have trouble not believing your side of this?
I can... This is a religious discussion... Religion makes use of supporting evidence. Some people find certain evidence to be more convincing to them than other evidence, for various reasons...
I mean, the scientific fossil record is so deep it's truly undeniable.
I would argue that it is very easily deniable... We simply don't know for sure how old those fossils are... We weren't there at the time to observe the life forms which became fossilized... Various dating methods all make various assumptions regarding various 'constants', and we simply don't know for sure...
It's out there in museums across the globe.
Millions of people view it every year. School children learn about it and go on field trips to view it.
True... Doesn't mean that the info being presented is accurate, though. We simply don't know whether those various dating methods are accurate or not; we weren't there to observe the things which we are assuming...
Denying fossils is almost like saying the Earth is flat.
I don't think Elvira is denying that fossils exist; neither am I. They definitely do exist.
There's no reason to even touch on the "Adam lived for 960 years" thing.
For all we know, he very well could have. It's a religious belief, of course, and can't be proven or disproven... It's very possible that conditions could have been different back then, which prolonged lifespan... Again, we simply don't know for sure...
Again, this isn't about whether or not you're right or wrong to believe what you believe.
Agreed.
All I'm asking is if you can understand why others don't agree with you. Especially about this one specific aspect of your belief.
Not sure if she understands or not, but I understand why others don't agree with her. I also understand why others don't agree with you, either.
Can you understand why millions and millions think that science has it right when it comes to how long modern humans have existed on this planet?
I would argue that science has nothing to say about the matter... Science has no theories about past unobserved events, such as the beginning of mankind (or "modern humanity").
,,,oh, and your argument is moot because it doesn't matter to me one way or ther other who agrees with me and who doesn't...
