Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Fyre1212
Post Volume: Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No knowledge of Creationism.
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 46 of 77 (659468)
04-16-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
04-15-2012 8:10 PM


Re: Creationism
Hi ICANT,
No, I am not a creationist in the overwhelmingly most common meaning of that term. That is, I do not believe that a literal reading of the bible describes the history of mankind or the universe in an accurate way.
ICANT writes:
I gather from Son's posts to me that he seems to believe the universe began to exist from a point called a singularity which is nothing but a place where the math will not work.
Think about this logically. How could I believe that the universe came from a place where maths doesn't work? That would be like believing that the universe came from a place where a story "wasn't written".
What do I think:
1. The universe from today until about 13.7 billion years is well described by the standard cosmological model, which is mostly derived from General Relativity.
2. I know that that model stops working at a certain point 13.7 billion years.
So, I have a scientific knowledge of the last 13.7 billion years of cosmic history. At no point do I make a claim of the universe's origin.
However I do think that West Semitic literature written around three thousand years does not contain an accurate depiction of what occurred.
This thread is about how frequently people met individuals during their youth who did think West Semitic literature written around three thousand years actually describes the history of the world.
I hope that is clear enough.
Edited by Son Goku, : Would -> What, I think I can't spell anymore!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 04-15-2012 8:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 8:33 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 47 of 77 (659472)
04-16-2012 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by foreveryoung
04-15-2012 11:45 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
Hi foreveryoung,
I don't believe the biblical genealogies were meant as time measuring instruments, so the whole 4350 year old flood is a bogus argument to me.
But I thought you were a biblical literalist? If so, then this appears to be an attempt to have your literalist cake and eat it. Either the genealogies are accurate, in which case they can clearly be used to date biblical events, or they are not accurate, in which case the Bible is errant. I don't see how your middle ground position would work.
The flood happened at the hadean/archean boundary. That is 3.9 billion years ago according to radiometric methods.
Even using comparative dating, the Hadean was a long time before humans appeared on the scene. In fact, there were no modern animals or plants back then. There were no humans during that period, therefore neither the Hadean nor the Archean can possibly be the Flood era.
How do you explain this contradiction?
I believe in accelerated radioactive decay so the hadean/archean boundary is actually much younger than that.
Be sure to mention that to your geology professors.
If we could measure the amount of sediment accumulation on a shore that is currently experiencing either transgression or regression and compare it to the depth of marine sediment of known radiometric age, we could have a more realistic age of the earth.
But that's not the only geological process going on is it? For a start there is erosion. There are also subduction zones where whole tectonic plates gradually disappear into the mantle. Does your model take this into account?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by foreveryoung, posted 04-15-2012 11:45 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 2:28 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 48 of 77 (659482)
04-16-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Son Goku
04-16-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Creationism
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
No, I am not a creationist in the overwhelmingly most common meaning of that term. That is, I do not believe that a literal reading of the bible describes the history of mankind or the universe in an accurate way.
When I am talking about a creationist I am refering to someone who believes the universe had a beginning to exist.
Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years in the past?
OR
Was the material the universe is formed from exist eternally in the past?
Son Goku writes:
This thread is about how frequently people met individuals during their youth who did think West Semitic literature written around three thousand years actually describes the history of the world.
I never heard about a creationist until I came to EvC in 2007.
I had heard of religious people that believed in a young earth and people who believed in an old earth called gap theory.
I had heard of people who believed the universe began to exist with a big bang.
I never believed any of them. Because the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Since God had no beginning the universe could have no beginning. It existed, just was not in the form we see today.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2012 6:18 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 04-16-2012 9:03 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 50 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2012 10:22 AM ICANT has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18631
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 49 of 77 (659487)
04-16-2012 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ICANT
04-16-2012 8:33 AM


Re: Creationism
ICANT writes:
Because the Bible says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Since God had no beginning the universe could have no beginning. It existed, just was not in the form we see today.
I suppose the universe could have existed within the imagination of God before He actually created it.
If I were to build a new deck onto my house, I could well imagine what it will soon look like. Does that mean the deck actually exists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 8:33 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 10:23 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 77 (659494)
04-16-2012 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ICANT
04-16-2012 8:33 AM


Re: Creationism
ICANT writes:
Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years in the past?
OR
Was the material the universe is formed from exist eternally in the past?
I know the universe existed 13.7 billion years ago and that it was very small and hot at
that time. I don't know what existed before then, so I don't know if it existed eternally
before that, existed for a few billion years already, only started existing a microsecond before that. I simply don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 8:33 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 10:57 AM Son Goku has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 51 of 77 (659495)
04-16-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Phat
04-16-2012 9:03 AM


Re: Creationism
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
If I were to build a new deck onto my house, I could well imagine what it will soon look like. Does that mean the deck actually exists?
If you have imagined the deck in your mind and even drawn a blueprint it exists in your mind and on paper.
But if there is no material in existence for you to build the deck it does not exist and cannot exist, unless you have the ability to speak the materials into existence.
But since the metal and wood does exist, the deck exists in some form just not in the form you have imagined or drawn on paper.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 04-16-2012 9:03 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 52 of 77 (659503)
04-16-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Son Goku
04-16-2012 10:22 AM


Re: Creationism
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
I know the universe existed 13.7 billion years ago and that it was very small and hot at
that time. I don't know what existed before then, so I don't know if it existed eternally
before that, existed for a few billion years already, only started existing a microsecond before that. I simply don't know.
If you don't know the answer, then why ask the question concerning creationism?
The universe either existed in some form or it began to exist.
If the universe began to exist there had to be an entity in existence to create the universe causing it to begin to exist.
That entity could have been the Hartle-Hawking instanton, or two branes banging together. In either case there had to be existence of some kind in existence.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2012 10:22 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2012 12:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 53 of 77 (659506)
04-16-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
04-16-2012 4:36 AM


Re: Creationism
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
Is humanity a created thing?
The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground. Thus he was made not created.
Mankind in Genesis 1:27 was created in the image/likeness of God.
A great ocean creature was created in Genesis 1:21.
The heavens and the earth was created in Genesis 1:1.
Those are the only creation events mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 & 2.
All following uses of (bara) created, was refering to one of the above events.
Phat writes:
Personally I believe that God always existed but that matter,energy, and life were created things.
There is the possibility that matter/energy was created ex nihilo. But the text in Genesis 1:1 does not support such an idea. Now if my Hebrew professor was correct and we should interpet Genesis 1:1 as "In the realm or sphere of the beginnings God created the heavens and the Earth" that would support that matter/energy was created ex nihilo.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 04-16-2012 4:36 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 04-17-2012 9:14 AM ICANT has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 54 of 77 (659511)
04-16-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tangle
04-16-2012 4:02 AM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
Can you point me at any papers on this? Thanks.
Just look in any general archaeology text. You will find descriptions of culture sequences from several parts of the world.
None include a flood event with total population and culture disruption at that time period.
Egypt is a good example. Their writings began before the date ascribed to the flood and continued beyond that date. There was no break as would have been seen from a global flood.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2012 4:02 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 55 of 77 (659516)
04-16-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
04-16-2012 10:57 AM


Re: Creationism
ICANT writes:
If you don't know the answer, then why ask the question concerning creationism?
I don't understand the reason for your question. This site is based around the evolution/creationism discussion. However I never met Creationists growing up, so I wondered if anybody else had. This, to me, seems completely unrelated to my knowledge of the beginnings of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2012 10:57 AM ICANT has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 56 of 77 (659536)
04-16-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Granny Magda
04-16-2012 7:19 AM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
Re: Evidence vs. belief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I thought you were a biblical literalist? If so, then this appears to be an attempt to have your literalist cake and eat it. Either the genealogies are accurate, in which case they can clearly be used to date biblical events, or they are not accurate, in which case the Bible is errant. I don't see how your middle ground position would work.
Yes, I am a biblical literalist. The genealogies are accurate; they just were never meant to measure time. They have been trimmed multiple times to keep them from being unwieldy. The son is still the ancestor of the father in each line. The hebrew language does not neccesitate a 1 generation descent per line. Hundred of generations could be held within one descent line.
Even using comparative dating, the Hadean was a long time before humans appeared on the scene. In fact, there were no modern animals or plants back then. There were no humans during that period, therefore neither the Hadean nor the Archean can possibly be the Flood era.
Just because you can't find human fossils, doesn't mean they weren't living. Can you find fossils for every species that ever lived? I didn't think so. You can make no definitive statements about what lived and what didn't live based on fossils.
How do you explain this contradiction?
There is no contradiction.
Be sure to mention that to your geology professors.
I am at the very top of both of my geology classes and was the top of the one I took last semester. I am not suicidal. Why should I risk such a good record?
But that's not the only geological process going on is it? For a start there is erosion. There are also subduction zones where whole tectonic plates gradually disappear into the mantle. Does your model take this into account?
Erosion cannot date a single thing. It isn't consistent enough across all situations to be reliable. Yes, my model takes plate tectonics into account. My accelerated decay model provides a means for rapid plate movement and subduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 04-16-2012 7:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 2:48 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2012 2:49 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 61 by Granny Magda, posted 04-16-2012 3:21 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 57 of 77 (659541)
04-16-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
04-16-2012 3:43 AM


Re: RATE
What happened was this. They found that the rocks showed evidence of hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay. So then they postulated an unevidenced, unobserved mechanism ("accelerated decay") contrary to the known laws of nature, that would make it look like the Earth was old when it was young. But then they noticed that this mechanism would have melted the Earth, boiled the seas, and killed Noah and his floating zoo.
Like I said, they just gave up an quit. They lack the ability to think deeper into the matter it seems. First, unevidenced,unobserved mechanisms that are contrary to the known laws of nature are called miracles in case you were not aware of that. The creation was a miracle in terms of what happens today. The flood was a miracle in the same sense. The laws of nature were different during creation than they are today. It was changing the very laws of nature that caused the great cataclysm otherwise known as noah's flood or known to scientists as the late heavy bombardment. It is what caused the mantle to differentiate into a molten part and different densities of peridotite and crustal material. It is what caused the extreme number of mantle melting events and greater volume of mafic melts. It is what caused the plates to move faster upon a much less viscous athenoshere. It is what caused to the plates to collide and subduct at a much faster rate than today. To sum up: Accelerated decay goes hand in hand with accelerated plate tectonics.
As for the heat: If the decay was spread out over half a billion years and all the original radioactive material was concentrated in the center of the earth, your imagined problems suddenly disappear. The RATE team just caved in because they were intimidated by the proposed problems and didn't have enough ingenuity to think of possible solutions.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 3:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 3:08 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 58 of 77 (659542)
04-16-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by foreveryoung
04-16-2012 2:28 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
Yes, I am a biblical literalist. The genealogies are accurate; they just were never meant to measure time. They have been trimmed multiple times to keep them from being unwieldy. The son is still the ancestor of the father in each line. The hebrew language does not neccesitate a 1 generation descent per line. Hundred of generations could be held within one descent line.
So, when the Bible says "son", we shouldn't take that literally, because interpreting the Bible literally would be a stupid way to interpret the Bible.
But you are still a Biblical literalist, and we should interpret the Bible literally, because that is how God wants us to interpret the Bible.
Er ... how about you argue that one out with yourself?
Just because you can't find human fossils, doesn't mean they weren't living. Can you find fossils for every species that ever lived? I didn't think so. You can make no definitive statements about what lived and what didn't live based on fossils.
Sure, but on the same basis you could say: "Just because you can't find pigs with wings, doesn't mean that there aren't winged pigs".
When I say that there were no humans in the Archean and that there are no pigs with wings, I am speaking on the basis of all the evidence that we have.
Now, clearly, we have to (provisionally) make our minds up about things based on all the evidence we have. Well then, it seems that there are no pigs with wings and no humans in the Archean.
I am at the very top of both of my geology classes and was the top of the one I took last semester.
Well, sure, if you never say what you think, then your record would be perfectly good. Also, if I never said what I think, I could pass myself off as a good Christian. But the success of my dishonesty wouldn't make me a good Christian. And if you are deceiving your professors, that doesn't prove that you are good at geology, it proves that you are good at pretending to be good at geology.
Erosion cannot date a single thing. It isn't consistent enough across all situations to be reliable.
No-one said it was a consistent dating method. You were asked whether you could take it into account.
Yes, my model takes plate tectonics into account. My accelerated decay model provides a means for rapid plate movement and subduction.
I for one would like to see if your model consists of anything more than handwaving.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 2:28 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2012 3:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 9:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17906
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 59 of 77 (659543)
04-16-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by foreveryoung
04-16-2012 2:28 PM


Re: Evidence vs. belief
quote:
Yes, I am a biblical literalist. The genealogies are accurate; they just were never meant to measure time. They have been trimmed multiple times to keep them from being unwieldy. The son is still the ancestor of the father in each line. The hebrew language does not neccesitate a 1 generation descent per line. Hundred of generations could be held within one descent line.
I guess that you don't know the Bible very well. The genealogies give an age for the ancestor at the time when the descendant is born, and it is those ages which are used rather than an assumed time between generations.
e.g. Genesis 5:3 says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. 5.6 says that Seth was 105 when Enosh was born. 5.9 says that Enosh was 90 when Kenan was born. And so on.
Inserting extra generations doesn't change the calculation at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 2:28 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 77 (659545)
04-16-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by foreveryoung
04-16-2012 2:43 PM


Re: RATE
Like I said, they just gave up an quit.
No they didn't.
They lack the ability to think deeper into the matter it seems.
Quite so. The world's leading creationists are idiots. You can put them right.
Well then, why don't you start by talking to them instead of us?
Let us know how you get on.
First, unevidenced,unobserved mechanisms that are contrary to the known laws of nature are called miracles in case you were not aware of that. The creation was a miracle in terms of what happens today. The flood was a miracle in the same sense. The laws of nature were different during creation than they are today. It was changing the very laws of nature that caused the great cataclysm otherwise known as noah's flood ...
Yes, they're called miracles, I do know. So maybe the sky is green but god's working a miracle to make it look blue. Maybe diamonds are as squishy as Jello, but god's working a miracle to make them appear hard. Maybe I have three legs, but god's working a miracle to make it look like I only have two. And maybe the earth is young, but god's done a miracle to make it look old.
You can always fantasize that god has done a miracle to make things look different from how they are. But we have to go by appearances. According to the evidence we have, the sky is blue, diamonds are hard, I have two legs, the Earth is old. If god is deceiving me in any of these respects, then I am in fact deceived.
As for the heat: If the decay was spread out over half a billion years and all the original radioactive material was concentrated in the center of the earth ...
But the materials examined by the RATE project were not in the center of the earth. They were in the crust where they could take samples. Your fantasies about what might have happened in the center of the earth have nothing to do with the evidence that they actually gathered.
he RATE team just caved in because they were intimidated by the proposed problems and didn't have enough ingenuity to think of possible solutions.
No they didn't. They didn't cave in, and they did have sufficient "ingenuity" to make up a lot of unevidenced crap --- as I have shown.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by foreveryoung, posted 04-16-2012 2:43 PM foreveryoung 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