Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 1 of 145 (4572)
02-15-2002 9:14 AM


This seems fundamental to many creationist's objections to the
theory of evolution, but there doesn't appear to be a single
thread devoted to the question at the moment.
Creationists argue that the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
The original basis for this appears to be tracing back
genealogies from Jesus of Nazereth back to Adam. Some
other evidences have been put forward, none of which stand too
much investigation (in my opinion ... and said in the hope of
sparking some 'Well what about this then').
Evolutionists site many evidences, from many different fields
which suggest a much older earth (4.5 billion years or there
abouts).
Perhaps, as it is fundamental to the debate it should be addressed
specifically.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by LudvanB, posted 02-15-2002 4:18 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 71 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 10:47 PM Peter has not replied
 Message 109 by Peter, posted 02-22-2002 7:03 AM Peter has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 145 (4909)
02-18-2002 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
02-15-2002 11:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
I believe that time is circular, and therefore you cannot put a time on the beginning of the universe. The cosmos, which may be composed of an infinite # of universes, never bagan and won't ever end.
I'm not interested in beliefs, only in evidence to support
a particular view.
Even if time is circular, time differences should be detectable
and that's what is of interest in dating the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 11:26 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 47 of 145 (4910)
02-18-2002 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"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.

Is there anything in modern science that has actually been worked
out properly ?
It seems to me that the main rebuttal by creationists on the
issue of the age of the earth an the universe comes down to
'But is that measurement technique really right?'
Do you seriously believe that a measurement technique would be
used in a scientific study if sufficient confidence in it HADN'T
been obtained ?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"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.

If you believe that the universe is MUCH older than the Earth,
then you are implying that the account of Creation in Genesis I
is NOT to be taken literally. That being the case how can
any of the Bible bee taken at face value for dating purposes ?
RE: Humpreys ... I guess you might want to read/re-read the
Starlight and Time thread before you bother reading his book.
Light's speed can be altered ... downward(i.e. slower). If light
from distant stars had been SLOWED that means the light is OLDER
not YOUNGER than we think. I beleive that with the possible exception
of tachyons NO particals travel faster that the speed of light.
This means that the YOUNGEST a star at say 10,000 light years
away could be is 10,000 years. If its light had been slowed during
its progress to earth, then the actual age is greater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:04 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 48 of 145 (4911)
02-18-2002 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by no2creation
02-16-2002 8:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:
One small note. If God did actually create a mature world, a world 4.5billion years old. Then there would be no argument of a old/young earth.
This is a good point. One of the main arguments for a young earth
by YEC's is that radiometric dating is not fool-proof.
If God created a world which appeared old, then YEC assertions
that these dates were wrong, would in fact be erroneous.
On the deception point ... well, God HAS been known to lie to
test faith, so ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 8:45 PM no2creation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 49 of 145 (4915)
02-18-2002 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 12:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

Well a list of Humprey's 'evidence' is given at :
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
It's ALL rather suspect, and curiously easy to point out the flaws
in the arguments, but it's what a 'leading' creationist
is willing to say publicly!!!
TC has mentioned elsewhere about falsifying the Bible, and
using the bible as an accurate historical record.
I opened another thread on Independent Historical Corroboration
for Biblican Events ... the Bible is by no means universally accepted
as TRUE. Some christians SO view it that way ... but it has not
been verified (unless someone in the above thread can show us
otherwise).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:21 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 96 of 145 (5135)
02-20-2002 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by zimzam
02-20-2002 3:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
Peter I am sorry that you havent been able to find any Christians that can support the bible with facts other than saying because thats how their parents raised them. I am very skeptical in nature and take the Bible and its truths very seriously and have researched them as much as I can up to this point. Here are some areas where I have based my opinion on the Bible:

I'm sorry too, but I'm glad you're not one of them.
It restores my faith in free thinking
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

1. Its uniqueness

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 suggest
that 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:
Originally posted by zimzam:

2. How it was prepared

Not quite sure how that's an indication of veracity, perhaps
you would explain that one a little more.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

3. Its reliability within a historical aspect

The old testament is NOT very reliable historically. Check it out
and the independent verification thread.
Some large-scale historical events are alluded to (some erroneously),
but much of the main story is uncorroborated.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

4. Archeological confirmation

Of what ?
If it's places, that's hardly compelling. Many stories are
set in real, contempory settings.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

5. Prophecy fulfilled in History

Prophecy has been talked about before. Show me ONE that does NOT
require an awful lot of ambiguity to be revealed true.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

6. the power of Christs message

Jesus's message IS powerful. Whether or not he was a divine
being is another matter.
And how that has any relevance to the issue of creation in the Old
Testament (pre-existing the new by at least 2000 years) is
beyond me.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

7. advanced scientific knowledge

Many ancient cultures had advanced scientific knowledge. The
mysterious 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:
Originally posted by zimzam:

8. how it has changed my life

Many things can change one's life. I hope the Bible has changed
yours 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 discuss
them, since they are off topic.
I have opened a thread on Independent Historical Corroboration for
Biblical 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 thread
is 'Can we infer the age of the Earth from Biblical genealogies?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:36 AM zimzam has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 97 of 145 (5136)
02-20-2002 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by zimzam
02-20-2002 4:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
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.

You are entitled to beieve whatever you want (I think in the USA
it's even part of the constitution), but ....
Entering into a scientific discussion pre-supposing the outcome
is called BIAS.
If we already say there IS a God who created everything 6000 years
ago, then naturally we WILL conclude that (we already have).
If you can (this about Earth Age after all) show evidence which shows
that 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:11 AM zimzam has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 98 of 145 (5137)
02-20-2002 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by zimzam
02-20-2002 3:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
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.

Not sure of your point here.
You cannot have millions of years of evolution if the Earth is
only 6000 years old.
Providing evidence for the age of the Earth suports the
evolutionist position.
I agree that the important thing is how long has life existed on
Earth, 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 a
previous reply I already pointed out one major flaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:51 AM zimzam has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 102 of 145 (5145)
02-20-2002 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by zimzam
02-20-2002 3:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
I do think it is somewhat interesting that we can look at the same thing and come up with the exact opposite conclusions.

Me too. Although, I don't think we ARE looking at the same
things sometimes.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

I look at the universe, earth, animals, and man and see amazing designs that can not be explained without an intelligence behind them.

Yes they can ... it's called evolution.
And they are NOT designs that you see. The end product of a
design is NOT the design itself. You look at the end product
and are assuming design without any criteria on which to judge.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

If we went to the moon and dug up a simple machine like a bicycle all of mankind would immediately come to the conclusion that intelligent life created it and then left it there.

Maybe. I think there would be a creationist somewhere who would
argue that God put it there to test our faith though
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

Why do you and others look at everything beautiful and wonderous in the universe and immediately refute any intelligent design?

They don't, there is just no evidence to support intelligent
design.
Find some and show it to me. It would be a start to define
what characteristics are required in order to determine design.
All the ID threads seem to have stagnated because of that one
question.
Heres a snippet I posted as message 51 in the Tower of babble
quote:
Complexity and design are UNRELATED.
A lever is a designed tool ... it is NOT complex.
A wheel is designed ... it is NOT complex.
A frog is ... well it's a frog. It is very complex, but
clearly NOT manufactured (it metamorphoses from a tadpole
that comes from an egg that comes from ... oh ... another
frog).
We cannot detect the use of any tool in the construction of
a frog.
All of the fundamental operations which allow a frog to exist
and move around are explainable by chemistry and physics, and
these are natural phenomena.
Flip the argument and see if it makes any sense.
No definitely designed object exhibits any of the characteristics
of living things (except perhaps complexity), therefore
living things are not designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:20 AM zimzam has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 107 of 145 (5195)
02-20-2002 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by edge
02-20-2002 6:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Actually, it screams "apparent design!"
And again I scream::
quote:
Complexity and design are UNRELATED.
A lever is a designed tool ... it is NOT complex.
A wheel is designed ... it is NOT complex.
A frog is ... well it's a frog. It is very complex, but
clearly NOT manufactured (it metamorphoses from a tadpole
that comes from an egg that comes from ... oh ... another
frog).
We cannot detect the use of any tool in the construction of
a frog.
All of the fundamental operations which allow a frog to exist
and move around are explainable by chemistry and physics, and
these are natural phenomena.
Flip the argument and see if it makes any sense.
No definitely designed object exhibits any of the characteristics
of living things (except perhaps complexity), therefore
living things are not designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by edge, posted 02-20-2002 6:58 PM edge has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 109 of 145 (5281)
02-22-2002 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
02-15-2002 9:14 AM


OK.
So HOW OLD IS THE EARTH ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 02-15-2002 9:14 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-22-2002 7:26 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 111 of 145 (5294)
02-22-2002 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Quetzal
02-22-2002 7:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
OK.
So HOW OLD IS THE EARTH ????

1.42*10^17 hours (approximately?)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-22-2002]

There ya go!
We have an answer, and it's backed up by lots of evidence from
varied sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-22-2002 7:26 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 126 of 145 (5517)
02-26-2002 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by TrueCreation
02-24-2002 1:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well not sure that any go all the way back to 4.5 billion years,
but there ARE other methods that date the Earth to MUCH more
than 10,000 years."
--This wasn't my question, my question was are there any 'not associated with radioisotopic dating methods'. You gave me what I already knew. Basically what I am asking is are there any so I know what to be researching. I also find the Argument of Radioisotopical methods quite unballanced as I must have expertise and you only have to know the argument in-turn. Thus I have alot of research on my part to dismantle it at all. I also found that when you dismantle Radioisotopical methods then you have basically gone to the crux of the old earth.

Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they cite
evidences for the age of the Earth that have nothing to
do with radiometric dating.
Few of them can go all the way back to 4.5billion years, but
most of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and
some in the order of 100's of millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 02-24-2002 1:36 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:15 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 127 of 145 (5518)
02-26-2002 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theo
02-22-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
For Peter and Mark24,
Tools are complex and are originated by previous intelligence. the very definition of a tool means to an instrument of use. If intelligence does not precede it it is not a tool! This tool analogy is not applicable however and is an example of question begging and circular reasoning.

I say it again ... complexity and design are not fundamentally related.
Many verifiably designed objects are NOT complex at all.
Inferring design from complexity is NOT logical.
The logic is something like::
Some DESIGNED objects are COMPLEX
LIVING things are COMPLEX
THEREFORE:: LIVING things are DESIGNED.
Just replacing a few words (but not changing the logical
structure) gives ::
Some MEN are TALL
BUILDINGS are TALL
THEREFORE:: BUILDINGS are MEN.
It does NOT follow logically that complexity indicates design!
quote:
Originally posted by Theo:

The real question is order and information. If one sees a 'tool' such as an arrow head on the ground one knows that intelligence preceded the order imposed on the arrowhead. No one just thinks look what random chance produced! Information is order's of magnitude more complex. One does not look at an encyclopedia set and say "look what random chance produced." We know that intelligence precedes order and ordered information. This scientific principal was established by science and used in the seti project. Aiming radio telescopes out into space looking for intelligent life based on what evidence--ordered radio waves!?

To illustrate the problem::
There is a television factual series running in the UK at the moment
concerning archealogical evidence for pre-ice age civilisations.
A part of the potential evidence for this is a large under-sea
complex which the author of the book on which the series is based
claims to be man-made (giving evidence and backed up by an emminent
Japanese Professor of Geology). Other geologists, however,
can provide geological concepts to account for the formation
and so claim it as natural and not designed.
Both sides are pre-emminent in the field of geology and the
CANNOT acgree on whether the observed formations were designed
by man or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
Secular scientists criteria not mine. DNA is infinitely more complex than an encyclopedia set so logically a superior source of intelligence preceded DNA. Secular scientists have set the standard of impossibility at 10 to the 78th, the number of atoms in the universe. The odds and probability of DNA forming by chance has been calculated by secular scientists at 10 to the 20,000. Even if there are infinite universes operating side by side for the errant 24 billion year time assigned, DNA cannot form by chance. No DNA by chance no macro-evolution.

I think you'll find that that argument is based upon DNA forming
on Earth, and as stated before it's only probablities ... that
doesn't really mean anything.
The national lottery in the UK has odds of 14million (or so) to 1,
and yet there are people who win it with only one or two lines
of numbers entered.
Probabilities are only a mental aid to liklihood ... they are
often proved wrong.
The probablity of surviving a fall of 20-30,000 feet from an
aircraft are pretty slim ... if you calculated them up it
would most likely be a statistical impossibility, and yet I
have read of TWO accounts of people who have survived such falls.
quote:
Originally posted by Theo:

Now then, it has been illogically stated that natural mechanisms exist therefore unknown natural mechanisms exist and that supernatural mechanisms don't exist. First one would have to have all knowledge of the universe to say that and we don't. Second the word super simply means beyond. To an unknown natural mechanism is by definition a 'super' natural mecchanism. This is simply a tautological attempt to define the supernatural out of existence. This is question begging and circular reasoning.

Generally speaking 'supernatural' is USED to mean something for
which there is no natural explanation ... it is BEYOND NATURE
not beyond understanding.
Praeter(sp?)natural means as yet unexplained.
quote:
Originally posted by Theo:

As well the question who designed the designer was refuted by the atheist Bertrand Russel who said it is making God a subset of himself. As well the law of biogenesis from Pasteur refutes this. Life has only been observed to come from life.

Who designed the designer is irrelevant if we were dealing with
an omnipotent supernatural entity, I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Theo:

Furthermore, Bishop Ussher's time table is binding on no christian. There is an unknown in the Jewish patriarchal timetable. When it says so and so begat so and so it means direct parentage. When it says so and so son of so and so it simply means descedant of. Ussher did not understand all of this. Christians usually believe the earth to be about 10,000 years old so quite building straw men based on Bishop Ussher and find out what creationists really believe and why.

But there is lot's of evidence (from before radiometric dating)
that Earth is MUCH older than 10,000 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Theo:

Evidence of a young earth is abundant but this is too long already I will go through the young earth evidence later. It was more important to correct foundational and logical errors first

Please post this evidence.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Theo, posted 02-22-2002 11:36 PM Theo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by zimzam, posted 02-26-2002 10:12 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 132 of 145 (5672)
02-27-2002 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by zimzam
02-26-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
I still dont understand how one can look at complex and structured organisms and infer that natural processes caused their origin.

I don't infer that natural processes caused their origin. I am
seeking a natural process (or set of processes) which can credibly
explain the origin of that complexity and structure.
Starting from the assumption that God created it all, ends the
enquiry there and then.
Starting from the assumption that some natural process was the
originating force, leads to enquiry. This may conclude
that NO natural process can be responsible, and thereby proove the
existence of God. Even if it finds that there ARE natural processes
that could have been responsible, that does NOT deny the existence
of your God.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

Give me one proven and known example of anything where structured complexity has not been designed.

A frog.
A frog comes from a tadpole, which comes from an egg laid
by a pre-existing frog.
Therefore no living frog was designed, they emerge from a
natural process.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

Not one of you can explain how DNA came into existence.

Yet.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

Just because its origin cannot be known doesnt give natural processes a foundation for relevance.

Nor does it give any foundation for the existence of a creator.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
It is these natural processes that cause me to wonder at its origin. DNA, blood clotting and bacterial flagellum are all examples of complexity, order and structure that perform with purpose and precision. It is this purpose and precision that cry out "design".
It is your intelligence that applies purpose to these things. Purpose
is NOT inherent in the features you mention. DNA and blood clotting
are chemical in nature, they have no intelligence, and thus no
purpose. They simply do as the rules by which chemistry is
observed to operate dictate.
Living cells ARE complex, but all of the processes are explainable
through natural means. Why then should we assume anything other
than natural means to explain their origins ?
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

Nothing can explain how these came into existence. Just because natural processes can be seen within molecular phenomenon gives you no right to jump to it being the reason it exists in the first place.

Again ... yet. But there are some testable hypotheses coming out (see
the Quetzal's abiogenesis post).
I don't believe that 'right' has anything to do with it. What 'right'
do you have to tell me that I cannot investigate based upon the
assupmtion that natural processes can explain the origins of life
on earth.
More than a little presupmtuous on your part don't
you think ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by zimzam, posted 02-26-2002 10:12 PM zimzam 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