|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Old is the Earth ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Unfortunately this lets in God the deciever from Descartes meditations... From:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm#Religion,%20Science%20and%20Scepticism "Taking his doubts further, Descartes initially speculates that God is deceiving him about all of the things that he believes or perceives. This would happen if God were actively putting ideas into my head that, prima facie and in all cases, seemed to have some other source. (The notion of deception, as Descartes is using it here is more limited that that which he employs from Meditation 4 onwards. Please see Meditation 4 for our discussion of commissive and omisive deceptions.) Descartes includes primary objects in this hypothetical deception - thus, God deceives me even about the ideal objects of mathematics. Descartes writes: Suggesting that God is a deceiver causes him problems, though, because according to traditional Christian theology, infinite goodness is one of God's necessary attributes. Goodness and deception seem opposed. If backed into a corner, some might deny God's existence rather than admit that he is the cause of deception. And yet, denying God, Descartes argues, could only make him more vulnerable to deception." I think that if you think hard about it you will see the problem of God creating a universe with apparent age, Such a God would be a deciever and therefore Descartes reasons NOT the christian God....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2785 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: The Omphalos approach - - God only made the earth "appear" to be old, even though it's young.- "Gotcha!!" he cries at the judgment day, "don't believe in your eyes, jus' believe what I say!" ------------------db
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RetroCrono Inactive Member |
quote: Has anyone entertained the idea that God didn't make Adam an adult or the world look old. That everything written of creation week was when no men were around and it is God speaking of how he sees things in there completed form, since afterall, He's outside of time. Science is finding out how it all came about. God views the creation of the world just like He views everything else in the Bible. Because going by God it sounds like the second coming has already happened, which to an infinite creator, it probably has. And that it is only men who speek of what goes on in between Gods seemingly finished plans. Getting back to what I said earlier, no men were around during creation week (except at the end of course). [This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 02-16-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
Oh. I'm sorry TC. I'm not a cosmologist. But perhaps you could enlighten me. I have a theory on tie, and you are SURE that Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, and the like, are completely mistaken.
I think one of the biggest issues here is light from such things as quasars (quasars-right?). This light was emitted billions of light years away. I've heard ALL the creationist theories. 1) Satan created the light to deceive us.2) God created the light to test our faith (well that's kinda stupid) 3) The universe had existed long before humans and earth, and the light had thus been coming towards our planet for millions of years* (where does it say that in the Bible again?) *One of the most common ways the creationists counter questions is by throwing things into creationism that are not once mentioned. For example: I was talking to one creationist, and I asked him how all the plants in the world had regrown so fast. He told me that they had brought seeds onto the Ark. Now can someone please tell me if seeds were brought on the Ark? If the creationists want to take the bible as a history book, then they better not add bits of history to it just so it all makes sense. You're just gonna have to defend it the way it is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"they could go back 4150 years counting the genealogy of men who supposadly lived to by 900+ year all the way to Adam,the alledged human on earth after the 6 day creation thereof. And on the other extreme,you have people who studied the question for years,decades and even centuries(not the same guys,since we dont live 900 like the patriarch of christianity alledgedly did),and in many fields of study,have converged toward the ball park conclusion(aside from math,nothing is ever 100% precise in science) that our world is ABOUT 4 billion years old. Based on these facts,who would you say sounds like the more plausible alternative?"--I don't at all argue, and I should hope no other creatinist does unless they have a very, and I mean very good reason for it, that the earth is young by geneological records. Also what are these facts that say that the world is in the billions of years (4.5 at estimate), that the young earth cannot deal with. [/B][/QUOTE] TC, I think you are very naive about young earth creationism. Such organisations as answereingenesis and ICR DO view the earth as being 10,000 years or less old. They are very active in trying to discredit and rebut all evidence (geological, astronomical etc.) of a 4.5 billion year old earth. If you find their "evidence" on the age of the earth unconvincing, you might wonder how good their "evidence" against biological evolution is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I should have emphesized my position being nothing near the idea that it 'looks' millions/billions of years old.
------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
Dendrochronology
That means tree-ring counting. Dendrochronologists, by matching patterns in annual growth rings, can establish a sequence in living, dead, and long-dead trees in certain areas of the world. That can be a very reliable dating technique for, say, a beam used in an ancient shelter. But this archeological specialty must be completely useless and unreliable, since in some areas ring sequences extend back through the supposed date of the Flood, showing no evidence of same, and indeed way past the usual young-Earth creation date. One of the conundrums of creationism is that the Earth was apparently created complete with evidence of a past that never happened, including tree rings, other annual layering phenomena, fossils already in the ground, and light from distant stars already most of the way here--revealing cosmic events that never really happened! From
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Friceinfo.rice.edu%2Farmadillo%2FSciacademy%2Friggins%2Fthings.htm ByR. J. Riggins I thought that article was very interesting. I don't think there is disputing the reliability of tree-ring counting and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. If there are trees that go far beyond the creationist's proposed age of earth, how can this be rationally explained. seems to me to be another nail in the creationist's coffin.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Oh. I'm sorry TC. I'm not a cosmologist. But perhaps you could enlighten me. I have a theory on tie, and you are SURE that Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, and the like, are completely mistaken."
--Besides the argument from athority, I'm sure that you are well aware that all these great scientists arent all Old earthers. "I think one of the biggest issues here is light from such things as quasars (quasars-right?). This light was emitted billions of light years away."--How really do you know that light is billions of light years away, but I wouldn't be so readilly arguing with that point. "I've heard ALL the creationist theories."--I'm sure you have. "1) Satan created the light to deceive us."--lol. "2) God created the light to test our faith (well that's kinda stupid)"--Oh goodness.. "3) The universe had existed long before humans and earth, and the light had thus been coming towards our planet for millions of years*(where does it say that in the Bible again?)" --Concievable, tell you the truth, I don't think I should argue this point because I think this is plausable, but then again I still have humphreys book to read along with other cosmological texts. --theres other theories, such as light varying in speed, not on its self, but by its environmental conditions, ie, is it a vacuum of space and what not. "*One of the most common ways the creationists counter questions is by throwing things into creationism that are not once mentioned."Genesis 1 - In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- "For example: I was talking to one creationist, and I asked him how all the plants in the world had regrown so fast. He told me that they had brought seeds onto the Ark. Now can someone please tell me if seeds were brought on the Ark?"--Seeds were not brought on the ark, if you really wan't an answer find some seeds and throw them in your pool, they don't just sink, also if your going to have the masses of vegetation floating on the oceans your going to have seeds on them also. "If the creationists want to take the bible as a history book, then they better not add bits of history to it just so it all makes sense. You're just gonna have to defend it the way it is."--I fully agree. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"LUD:some creationist do give this precise date...others are content to say 6000-ish"
--Yes, I know some people that even say 'The earth was created 6150 years 154 days on August 29 at 7p.m. Its kinda sad too. "LUD:It is valid. Its not iron clad but it is valid. I've given you the explanation in another thread."--Yes you have and its definantly...not iron clad, its more along the lines of hoover damn exploding. "LUD:talk to some historians....very few people outside historian circle are aware that our caledar is an aproximation....once you get more than 500 years into the past,they cant say for sure if its another 1500 to the birth of christ...so they give a tolerence that varies from 5 to 10%,depending on who you talk to but they are quite correct to do this...there is very little writen record that is consistant with one another when you get that far back."--Oh Ic, I though you were implying that there is found 5-10% errors in biblical text, I was going to ask if you chould show me them. "And as i told you,serious historians and anthropologists say they can usually spot a fraud when it tries to be unrealisticaly precise."--I would say it is then easilly falsifiable, so has this happend to the bible? "LUD:several carbon dating methods on moon rocks i believe have give this number..."--You can't carbon date moon rocks, they are void of organic material. "personally,i wouldn't think they give it absolute trust but they do uniformely(geologist) believe that based on the evidence at hand,they earth is WAY older than allowed by the Bible."--Is there really anything else besides radiometric techniques that will give these ages? ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"TC, I think you are very naive about young earth creationism. Such organisations as answereingenesis and ICR DO view the earth as being 10,000 years or less old. They are very active in trying to discredit and rebut all evidence (geological, astronomical etc.) of a 4.5 billion year old earth."
--I am aware they are, I didn't say they werent, so whats that evidence that they are rebuking and is it valid, thats what were here for. "If you find their "evidence" on the age of the earth unconvincing, you might wonder how good their "evidence" against biological evolution is."--Whats all the evidence and can we discuss it, or should we just say everyone that attempts rebutal is ignorant and leave it at that. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I thought that article was very interesting. I don't think there is disputing the reliability of tree-ring counting and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
If there are trees that go far beyond the creationist's proposed age of earth, how can this be rationally explained."--Unfortunatelly the site you referenced gave precious little detail; --Here is a segment of one of an essay/article I wrote a couple months ago before I entered this debate, with quotes: quote: "seems to me to be another nail in the creationist's coffin."--I would be happy to discuss any of your other 'nails'. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
Lets look at it this way. We measure time by the rising and setting of the sun, which is one calendar day (24 hours). If we were with God during the creation events and then with Adam in the garden a week later we would definitely say that the earth was 11 days old and Adam was 7 days old. If at that time we placed Adam into a lab and conducted scientific tests to determine his age we would conclude he was perhaps in his mid 20's (9125 days old). The same could be said of all the plants, birds and animals. Why couldn’t the same be said of the universe and earth?
God didn't create the earth in its infancy but rather in its maturity. Today when we attempt to measure the age of the earth we come to the conclusion that it is millions of years old. The universe seems to be expanding and using mathematical equations we can determine its speed of expansion etc and come to a logical and accurate conclusion regarding its age. This does not mean that the earth is not 6,000 calendar days old. Were the trees created as mere saplings? Did God stand by and wait for them to grow into tall mature trees? Did God tell Adam "Hold on, the garden isn’t ready yet? When Christ turned the water into wine did he say to the wedding guests "Hold on, you need to wait awhile the grapes haven’t quite fermented yet." My point is that there is no intent to deceive on Gods part. When you have the power of creation you can do anything you want. The earth may have only taken a day to create but it was created as mature and old in years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
In no way does it make God a deceiver. Please read message 28
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024