|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Old is the Earth ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
I will read your suggested articles on the age of the earth and then pose any questions I have afterwards.
My point with the automobile analogy is not whether the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old but that it was created 6,000 years ago. If it was created then it is a manufactured piece of matter. Its apparent age to me at least is not important. What I will concede to you as very important is what evidence proves that life has been here on earth more than 6,000 years. Any decent microbiologist (secular or christian) now admits that evolution gives us no answers as to the creation of life. The evidence is in the details which happen to be infinitely more complex the further we break down its molecular level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
Again the Bible states that after man fell (sinned against God)God did curse the earth and that man will now eventually die and return to the dust from which he came. There is also Biblical evidence stating that all of creation was then spun into eventual decay. If we take this to be true then it also is suggesting that the earth and man were originally created not to die and not to decay. This then would suggest that the physical laws that govern them were also changed.
Now if God didnt exist and there was nothing greater than ourselves this would be absurd and sound like foolishness even to me. But since I have chosen to believe in a miraculous God with infinite wisdom and power who has created everything I know these other beliefs are not a stretch. If you will give me the benefit of the doubt and understand this you can at least understand my views on these issues. I certainly understand your views because they are coming from someone that doesnt believe in God and I would agree with all of your conclusions if I also didnt believe in God. I choose to have faith in God but it is also not a blind faith. I feel that there is plenty of proof in science to support my faith and I have yet to find any proof that does not support it. Again I think this is understandable since I have placed my faith in a supernatural being capable of things we as man can never explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
Give me some time to research this and I will at least come up with some questions for you involving radiometric whatever
In the meantime I am running out of sleep hours trying to answer everyones replies to my posts. My wife is about to ring my neck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: How do you rationalise inferring the supernatural whwen it has NEVER been observed. In fact only natural mechanisms have been observed. It's your logic I'm questioning. "When comparing the natural mechanistic framework to the supernatural mechanistic framework (ugly terms, but I can think of nothing better) you get this : List of natural mechanisms: Electron behaviour & interaction, radioactive decay, combustion, evaporation, sublimation, inertia, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, meiosis, mitosis The list goes on & on. List of known supernatural mechanisms: Nothing, absolutely zilch. So, although the second list is empty, there MAY be entries that can be made. But, until there are, there is no REASON to infer the supernatural over the natural. By definition, to do so is unreasonable. Which begs the question, by what mental process do you (or anyone) infer the supernatural over the natural, & claim it to be reasonable? By simply saying well, science can’t explain this or that, you are falling into the God-of-the-gaps. We are talking about the rationality of inferring the natural or supernatural. The conclusion is that there is no REASON to infer the supernatural. NONE." Please address this. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: If you're just going to ask me how do I explain x, or y anomoly, then you're not answering the question. Also, by pointing out why why U-Pb, or K-Ar methods are innacurate, you're still not answering the question. Despite these two common creationist tactics, in the K-T tectite example, four methods corroborate each other to such a degree that they must be innacurate to the order of a million per cent, if the YEC position is true. Now, the reasons creationists say these methods are innacurate is to point to potential amomolies that could cause errant dates, plus a small batch of samples that produce bad dates. However, the four methods (excepting K-Ar, & Ar-Ar) have different potential anomolies, so you're also saying that these possible errors all produce EXACTLY the same error in the final calculated date? That's just this example, there are three others in the post that offer similar corroberations, some with non-radiometric methods. So please address the issues in message 45, I've been given the runaround before, ie, instead of having my questions answered, having different questions posed in place of an answer. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'm sorry too, but I'm glad you're not one of them.It restores my faith in free thinking quote: In what sense unique ? There are plenty of ancient epics with very similar themes,some of which pre-date the Bible. The Epic of Gilgamesh has an almost identicle flood story, and the Indian Veda's also speak of cataclysmic floods. The number 7 is even one of the 'mystic' numbers which recurs throughout ancient mythological literature. If it is uniqueness of content, that to me would suggestthat it was NOT true rather than it was. After all if no other ancient texts talk of these events, how do we know they ever happened ? quote: Not quite sure how that's an indication of veracity, perhapsyou would explain that one a little more. quote: The old testament is NOT very reliable historically. Check it outand the independent verification thread. Some large-scale historical events are alluded to (some erroneously),but much of the main story is uncorroborated. quote: Of what ? If it's places, that's hardly compelling. Many stories areset in real, contempory settings. quote: Prophecy has been talked about before. Show me ONE that does NOTrequire an awful lot of ambiguity to be revealed true. quote: Jesus's message IS powerful. Whether or not he was a divinebeing is another matter. And how that has any relevance to the issue of creation in the OldTestament (pre-existing the new by at least 2000 years) is beyond me. quote: Many ancient cultures had advanced scientific knowledge. Themysterious Inuds valley people had a high culture with complex citadels and cities around 10,000 years ago (conventional dating), and recently under-water ruins have been discovered that indicate a forgotten high civilisation originating as long ago as 13,000 years. quote: Many things can change one's life. I hope the Bible has changedyours for the better, but it's not really relevent in a discussion of it's veracity. I almost think that these points warrant a new thread just to discussthem, since they are off topic. I have opened a thread on Independent Historical Corroboration forBiblical Events, not too far advanced yet, but some interesting stuff coming up. And there's always Is the Bible the Word of God. The real questions over Bible veracity in the context of this threadis 'Can we infer the age of the Earth from Biblical genealogies?'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You are entitled to beieve whatever you want (I think in the USAit's even part of the constitution), but .... Entering into a scientific discussion pre-supposing the outcomeis called BIAS. If we already say there IS a God who created everything 6000 yearsago, then naturally we WILL conclude that (we already have). If you can (this about Earth Age after all) show evidence which showsthat the earth is 6000 years old (Bible not acceptable here since it is a matter of controversy to the debaters here), then please do. Suggesting that radiometric methods are inaccurate (without evidence)doesn't do it. That would only show that the ages in conventional science are suspect (I don't beleive this of course). Find me some evidence which SHOWS the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Not sure of your point here. You cannot have millions of years of evolution if the Earth isonly 6000 years old. Providing evidence for the age of the Earth suports theevolutionist position. I agree that the important thing is how long has life existed onEarth, but without a way of dating the Earth itself we can make little or no useful comment on this. I think we can skip the automobile analogy in any case .. in aprevious reply I already pointed out one major flaw.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Excellent. I look forward to discussing them with you.
quote: Yes and no. I understand your point. If you accept a priori that god or a designer or whatever created everything we see, then I concede that the age of the earth or universe is immaterial: it matters not whether it is 6000 or 60 trillion years (or, for that matter, 6 weeks) old. However, if that is your premise, there is literally no reason for you to continue to discuss the pros or cons of evolutionary theory (or cosmology, astronomy, etc). You simply have no common frame of reference to undertake such a discussion. quote: You are sadly mistaken. Yes, evolution does not discuss origins. No, the evidence from science shows that the details become significantly less complex the further we break things down. Now I admit that a strict reductionist approach falls apart at higher levels of complexity, because at this level we begin to deal with emergent properties. But at a molecular level, everything DOES seem to be simple, deterministic chemistry. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Nice restatement of the "argument from personal incredulity". Unfortunately, simply because you personally are unable to understand what you're looking at, doesn't imply anything about those who actually study these phenomena. In addition, I find your remark subtly insulting: you seem to be implying that only religious fundamentalists have any sense of beauty or wonder. Not a bit arrogant. As for me, I find a tremendous sense of awe when I peer through a microscope at the myriad of amazing organisms present in a sample of water from the leaves of a rainforest bromeliad — an entire ecosystem in a cup of water. I find myself marveling at their complexity, the symmetry of their environment, the sheer scale of interractions between them. It would be easy to simply give in to magical thinking and claim that only some deity could have created what I see. And then I remind myself that these organisms and their ecosystem only appear complex because I am looking at the end result of billions of years of ruthless natural selection — they exist because their ancestors for millions of generations were slightly more fit than their competitors. Life has no goal and is not moving toward anything. Life exists only in an eternal now. It has no purpose except to be. Life is, for me, all the more marvelous for that - and even more worthy of preservation; for how can we, mere fellow travelers, predict what COULD be tomorrow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Me too. Although, I don't think we ARE looking at the samethings sometimes. quote: Yes they can ... it's called evolution. And they are NOT designs that you see. The end product of adesign is NOT the design itself. You look at the end product and are assuming design without any criteria on which to judge. quote: Maybe. I think there would be a creationist somewhere who wouldargue that God put it there to test our faith though quote: They don't, there is just no evidence to support intelligentdesign. Find some and show it to me. It would be a start to definewhat characteristics are required in order to determine design. All the ID threads seem to have stagnated because of that onequestion. Heres a snippet I posted as message 51 in the Tower of babble
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Which is all well and good Zim but you have yet to address the fact that a perfectly good deity would be precluded from an act of deception. Setting up a universe which *looked* 10`s of billions of years old while only being of age < 10,000 years would be such an act of deception.
Please address this issue........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
Ok I will do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
Science can only explain how it works but nothing can explain how it got there in the first place. If not intelligent design then what? No one can answer that therefore a supernatural created beginning is not an illogical thought. The more natural mechanisms you list the more I see extremely complex design that has to be the result of some intelligent design. The universe and everything in it screams "DESIGN!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024