Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Confused
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 51 (77316)
01-09-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
01-09-2004 8:53 AM


From a 'Hard Science'(Chemistry, Physics) point of view, I am not inclined to take the Bible seriously, although I will readily admit that some of the writers of the Bible recorded, within a particular mythological outlook, certain events & facts in nature. The writer of Job did this when he attributed to God some of the challenges to Job from nature.
Appearance of Age? Do you possibly mean that God (or the Devil?) is trying to fool us into thinking the universe is billions of years old when it really isn't? Are scientists being duped by an evil entity that they cannot do any observations or experiments to prove or disprove the existence of?? Are we supposed to take that idea seriously anymore? Sorry, but I think the devil has gone the way of witch burnings and bleeding with leeches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2004 8:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 51 (77323)
01-09-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
01-09-2004 9:00 AM


quote:
Well brother, I guess that depends on how supernatural one considers God/Jehovah to be.
...or how vigorous one is with regards to standards of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2004 9:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 48 of 51 (77326)
01-09-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
01-09-2004 8:53 AM


appearance of age?
buzsaw
what are you trying to say? are you familar with radiometric dating? better yet, do you know how it works? are you aware of how many different types of radiometric dating techniques there are and that they almost always corroborate each other's findings? right now i am teaching high school freshmen about relative and actual ages of rocks. we can imply from the evidence presented the age of the rock layers relative to the rock layers around it. we then look at radiometric dating samples to find the actual age of the rock layers. now, how would science benefit from the idea that an object's age as inferred by an outside observer (this would be a totally subjective process based on the observer's knowledge of the object as well as the observer's past experiences, etc.)is as valid as the actual age of the object?
i think that a guy looks fifty. ok, so now, all we need to identify the age of the guy is my opinion!?! well, of course not. let's look at his driver's license. it says he is forty. ok, maybe its a fake or there is a mistake. now we need to find more evidence, i guess some birth records, doctor records, social security records, bank records(?), etc. all the evidence we gather says the guy is forty. ok, so which is it--my subjective opinion that he is fifty or the objective gathering of many different sources of evidence that say he is forty?
ok, maybe someone was faking the evidence! why? for what purpose would these individuals from seperate sources want to deceive us? if they are just, rightous, all loving, all knowing, all powerful, etc. what could these providers of info possibly get from deceiving us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2004 8:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 51 (78760)
01-15-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by grace2u
01-05-2004 3:27 PM


Falkram
Listen, ok, not all Creationists arguements are like that. I am not going to sit here on my butt and start talking. You tell me what you don't believe about the Bible, or if you haven't read it (or at least Genesis), and I will respond. I not just gonna start writing pages of pure logic to persude you to the Truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by grace2u, posted 01-05-2004 3:27 PM grace2u has not replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 51 (78968)
01-16-2004 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
01-05-2004 9:47 PM


Supernatural
I do not see where you can deny the existance of some form a supernatural being. Earth had to have had a beginning. So if Earth had a beginning, where did that matter come from, and that, and that, and so on. Unless less something just always was, you must consider the supernatural. By the way, always isn't a very scientific word, especially when concerning the origin of matter itself. I am open to suggestions, feel free to give some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-05-2004 9:47 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 01-16-2004 10:16 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 51 (78969)
01-16-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TruthDetector
01-16-2004 10:09 PM


So if Earth had a beginning, where did that matter come from, and that, and that, and so on.
Yes, eventually you get back to the formation of the universe. Who created the universe? Your mistake is in assuming that the universe needs to have been created. Time and causality do not extend beyond the universe. Therefore the universe itself doesn't follow those rules.
Why is there a universe? Maybe it's not possible for there not to be a universe. Who knows? But it's say creation by God is the least likely explanation. After all, who created God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TruthDetector, posted 01-16-2004 10:09 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024