|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Granny Magda made an interesting point on imageinvisible's post:
quote: Original Source Creationists often attack uniformitarianism, yet seem to have no problems using it in their own claims for the age of the Earth. Yet when attacking uniformitarianism, they claim that a different set of physics existed prior to the entry of the current laws of physics yet can provide no good reasoning or evidence for this. My question is, how can you determine the age of the Earth when your belief operates on the premise of two different sets of laws of physics, one of which cannot be determined in the way it functions? And are the dates given by creationists who DO use uniformitarianism essentially hypocritical? Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
C'mon. There has to be at least someone who can try give this a shot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Many creationists do tend to believe into "fine tuning" arguments,
whereby the world is finely tuned for human existence, and just slight changes would make life impossible. They also tend to believe that world was vastly different at the time of the alleged great flood, but was perfectly fit for human existence at that time. They seem oblivious to the apparent contradiction between these views. Let's end the political smears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: So that's why I'm not getting any replies? I can't wrap my head around how one can determine the age of anything when the primary laws of physics cannot be determined. It just doesn't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
They are using the book of Genesis to determine age.
Let's end the political smears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Even though it doesn't make any rational sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
"Rational" is a relative term. What's irrational to you might be rational to somebody else.
Let's end the political smears
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
It's not even a matter of rationality. If their premise was true, all of their conclusions would be perfectly valid. If the Bible, as written, it truly infallible, then the world really is 6-10,000 years old.
The problem is that the premise has no evidenciary basis, and a mountain of contradictory evidence (including contradictions within itself!). They're willing to give total confidence, even above what they see with their own eyes, to the Bible, because they beleive it is the literal Word of God. Given that premise, everything else, including denying uniformitarianism (except when it suits them) and handwaving the contradictions that look to the rest of us like cognitive dissonance are completely rational. The problem is that the only evidence for the existence of the deity is in the book...and the book is only infallible if the deity wrote it. The premise is fallacious, so any conclusions drawn from that premise, regardless of how rational the reasoning, are similarly flawed. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Obvious Child,
This is quite typical of the creationist attitude to scientific findings. If the findings can be made to look as though they support creationism, they are true. If they make creationism look bad, they're false, perhaps even a deliberate hoax. Take the example of the fossilised hadrosaur found in 1999, apparently with soft tissues preserved. (for more detail, there is a discussion here in this thread.) Before the find, scientific thought was that no soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years. The hadrosaur find brought this into dispute, and scientists had to ask if they had been wrong about their theory. Perhaps soft tissues could survive. The creationist response was peculiar, if predictable. If scientists said that no soft tissues could survive millions of years, then this find must be younger than millions of years old! It must be more recent. Of course, all that they have to base this on is the former opinion of the scientists that the tissues could not survive for millions of years. The fact that scientist were revising their theory meant nothing. It was a fact that soft tissues could not survive, thus the hadrosaur proves a young earth. Creationists are dismissive of science only until it appears to serve their interests, or can be made to seem as though it does. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: It's not even a matter of rationality. If their premise was true, all of their conclusions would be perfectly valid. If the Bible, as written, it truly infallible, then the world really is 6-10,000 years old. their=creationist that bugs me a little I believe in creation by God. I believe in the literal Genesis account of creation. I do not believe the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. In fact Genesis does not say the earth is 6k to 10k years old. I do agree that a lot of people on here say it is. Have fun,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I believe in the literal Genesis account of creation. I do not believe the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. In fact Genesis does not say the earth is 6k to 10k years old. I do agree that a lot of people on here say it is. yeah but your definition of "literal" is rather funny.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi arachnophilia,
arachnophilia writes: yeah but your definition of "literal" is rather funny. My definition of "literal"=accepting what is written down free from exaggeration or embellishment. I don't have to use any fuzzy math.I get 7 full days between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 2:3 instead of 6 1/2. I don't have to appeal to a 1,000 year old text that is not in the original Hebrew and was compiled by Jews who did not believe in the deity of Jesus, to translate Genesis from instead of an available 2,300+ year old text that was translated from the original Hebrew text. I only have to have one verse to explain how the universe as you see it today came into existence. Genesis 1:1. I do think some copyist misplaced what is now Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 prior to the Septuagint translation. Because it did not say what he thought it should. Since there was no chapters and verses at that time that would have been no problem. Those who hold to a 6k to 10, year old earth have to use a lot of fuzzy happenings to squeeze everything into their time frame. Those who hold to the traditional old earth view have to use some fuzzy math to get their long periods of time in. Those who hold to the big bang theory have a couple of problems.One the universe had a beginning. Two that either requires a creator or creation from the absence of anything. Those who hold to The oscillating universe model have a problem as after awhile the universe would not be able to reproduce itself. Thus it had to have a beginning somewhere. Those who hold to the "quantum model of universe" which is another attempt to purge the Big Bang of its creationist implications had a few problems. Enter Stephen Hawking with a brilliant idea of imaginary time to shore up this model. I have none of those problems. The universe can be as old as it is,which no one knows exactly how old it is. It can be as big as it is. I have no shortage of material to construct the universe out of. As to age there are some pretty good ideas give or take a few years depending on who you are listening to at the time. Have fun,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I get all of that, no problem.
Specifically for the soft tissue, they more or less lied about what was found. It wasn't 'soft tissue' exactly, more like super dessicated, close to fossilized veins and decomposed blood cells that had to undergo massive work and rehydration to even be studied. But creationists lie. That's a fact of life. What I don't understand is how they can determine the age of the Earth when a fair portion of it was based on a set of laws of physics that can't be determined. You're missing half of the equation and no way of figuring it out. Rationally, that would mean you cannot come to an outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I don't have to appeal to a 1,000 year old text that is not in the original Hebrew and was compiled by Jews who did not believe in the deity of Jesus, to translate Genesis from instead of an available 2,300+ year old text that was translated from the original Hebrew text. oof, now there's some funny logic. i'd like to point out that the 2,300 year old jews didn't believe in jesus either, and necessarily so because he hadn't been born yet. further, it is a translation. and i'm reasonably positive that you're reading it in translation. so opposed to reading something that's at least in the original language, you're reading something that has been distorted by two translation cycles. further, the masoretic is much older than 1,000. under the same standards you're measuring the septuagint, it's closer to 1,800. if you're going to use the oldest surviving codex, that puts the LXX at about 400 ad. even further, there is a high degrees of correlation between the masoretic and the DSS, showing that the text (of at least the still-present books) as remained largely unchanged since before the time of christ. further still, the openning passage of genesis has been translated almost the same way from each for basically as long as translation has been done. meaning that starting with the masoretic hebrew source, and translating into greek, you'd almost certainly get what the septuagint said. it is exceptionally plausible the first verse of genesis in the LXX's source document said the same thing it does today in the masoretic. and as an aside, what possible motiviation would someone have to change the openning verse because they didn't like jesus? i'm forced to believe your point is nothing more than anti-semitic drivel. and quite surprising for someone who evidently wasted six years of their life studying biblical hebrew. now there's a motivation i cannot figure out.
I only have to have one verse to explain how the universe as you see it today came into existence. Genesis 1:1. I do think some copyist misplaced what is now Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 prior to the Septuagint translation. Because it did not say what he thought it should. no, and to do so would be silly, because genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. it's not even a complete sentence. what i do think is that needlessly breaking up the sentence, and rendering that dependent clause as referring to something else entirely, and inserting a whole other story of creation and destruction in there is rather absurd. in the middle of a sentence!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024