|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Old is the Earth ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Cobra - since you didn't see fit to answer my last post on your theory, I guess I'll jump in here (btw, you're rapidly losing credibility with me).
quote: Before I would be willing to entertain this statement as true, you would need to show what those "good reasons" are. IOW, you would need to give at least one concrete example from nature that can NOT be explained* by natural processes (see bottom).
quote: This is again an argument from personal incredulity. It also doesn't have much to do with evolution since that is not what biologists are arguing.
quote: This is begging the question. It is also somewhat circular - you need to postulate the existence of a creator in order to prove that a creator created... In the absence of positive evidence for its existence, it cannot be used to explain natural phenomena. IOW, the supernatural cannot be used to explain the natural.
quote: We are now entering the Twighlight Zone of metaphysics. NO ONE, I mean absolutely NO ONE (except theists) claims something came from nothing - at least until you get to the primal monoblock and the Big Bang, which is waaaay beyond evolution or even abiogenesis. Basically, there is no such thing as "nothing". Everything we observe came from something. Hypothesizing an initial "nothing" is metaphysics. And no, I don't want to discuss Big Bang - I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist, and would simply have to refer you to those who are. Let's stick to one planet and an explanation for the diversity of life on it.
quote: You're absolutely correct - one cannot observe the supernatural. That's why the whole question is something of a tautology. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural because it observes no natural laws, is not amenable to analysis, and serves no useful function. Again, you argue the conclusion (we can only explain creation by saying God created) as a first premise (God created). *I am quite willing to discuss the three current primary theories concerning abiogenesis. I normally don't like getting in to those discussions on an evo-cre forum - besides the fact that it has nothing to do with evolution - for the simple reason that there is a huge volume of organic chemistry and biology that most posters simply don't have. I can discuss both the pros and cons of each hypothesis, but it requires a great deal of background to even understand why a given hypothesis is more or less likely. Background that is almost impossible to either simplify or digest on a necessarily short post in a debate forum. Still, if you insist, we can start a new thread on the topic. Feel free - but please research the topic in advance so we have some basis for discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I for one think this would be interesting reading if you want to post this info Quetzal.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I for one think this would be interesting reading if you want to post this info Quetzal......."
--I could second that emotion, its always interesting within these theories, I havent read theoretical abiogenesis for a bit of time, since then I've read hundreds of pages in Biology, so it would be much easier understandable. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Um TC you second motions not emotions.... (though given the electronic nature of this debate a good case could be made for e-motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Um TC you second motions not emotions....
(though given the electronic nature of this debate a good case could be made for e-motion)"--Oops, my mistake (e-motion ) ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they citeevidences 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, butmost of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and some in the order of 100's of millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: 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 COMPLEXLIVING things are COMPLEX THEREFORE:: LIVING things are DESIGNED. Just replacing a few words (but not changing the logicalstructure) gives :: Some MEN are TALLBUILDINGS are TALL THEREFORE:: BUILDINGS are MEN. It does NOT follow logically that complexity indicates design!
quote: To illustrate the problem:: There is a television factual series running in the UK at the momentconcerning archealogical evidence for pre-ice age civilisations. A part of the potential evidence for this is a large under-seacomplex 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 theCANNOT acgree on whether the observed formations were designed by man or not. quote: I think you'll find that that argument is based upon DNA formingon 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 areoften proved wrong. The probablity of surviving a fall of 20-30,000 feet from anaircraft 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: Generally speaking 'supernatural' is USED to mean something forwhich there is no natural explanation ... it is BEYOND NATURE not beyond understanding. Praeter(sp?)natural means as yet unexplained.
quote: Who designed the designer is irrelevant if we were dealing withan omnipotent supernatural entity, I agree. quote: But there is lot's of evidence (from before radiometric dating)that Earth is MUCH older than 10,000 years. quote: Please post this evidence. [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
I still dont understand how one can look at complex and structured organisms and infer that natural processes caused their origin. Give me one proven and known example of anything where structured complexity has not been designed. Not one of you can explain how DNA came into existence. Just because its origin cannot be known doesnt give natural processes a foundation for relevance. 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". 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
Hi Quetzal:
"Hi Cobra - since you didn't see fit to answer my last post on your theory, I guess I'll jump in here (btw, you're rapidly losing credibility with me)." Once again, I must apologize for not answering your post on my theory. I am very busy with Basketball, School (gotta keep up that 3.95!), youth group, and even Poms (one of the poms convinced me to participate in the guy/girls pom routine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
No problem Cobra - I understand about press of "real life". Between out-of-country conferences (4 in the last 1.5 months) and in-country travel + family, it's often difficult to find a spare moment. Glad to hear you're planning on continuing our discussion. Looking forward to your response.
BTW: joz & TC: I am working on a coherent post on abiogenesis. When I started to reply, turns out my info was all in bits and pieces (looks like I spent most of my time answering others). I am working on getting it arranged into something that makes at least marginal sense. I'll hopefully get it on the board today at some point. Watch for a new thread. [So many refutations, so little time...]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: And i still cant understand how people in this day and age can still believe that some invisible creator made the entire universe in 6 24 h period some 6000 years ago when there isen't even the slightest begining of a shred of proof to back this up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I don't infer that natural processes caused their origin. I amseeking 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 theenquiry there and then. Starting from the assumption that some natural process was theoriginating 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: A frog. A frog comes from a tadpole, which comes from an egg laidby a pre-existing frog. Therefore no living frog was designed, they emerge from anatural process. quote: Yet.
quote: Nor does it give any foundation for the existence of a creator.
quote: It is your intelligence that applies purpose to these things. Purposeis 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 explainablethrough natural means. Why then should we assume anything other than natural means to explain their origins ? quote: Again ... yet. But there are some testable hypotheses coming out (seethe 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'tyou think ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
A new topic (Coffee House: How Old Is The Earth?!) is duplicating this topic, therefore:
YES INDEED, IT'S ANOTHER BUMP IT TO THE TOP! Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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, butmost of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and some in the order of 100's of millions of years." --Wheres this at Peter? Thanx. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Message 83 ... posted as Pete ... but it was me
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024