Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
69 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, vimesey (4 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,164 Year: 4,276/6,534 Month: 490/900 Week: 14/182 Day: 2/12 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 145 (5130)
02-20-2002 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Quetzal
02-19-2002 8:13 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2002 8:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 5:51 AM zimzam has taken no action
 Message 100 by Quetzal, posted 02-20-2002 6:40 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 145 (5131)
02-20-2002 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by joz
02-19-2002 9:45 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by joz, posted 02-19-2002 9:45 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 5:37 AM zimzam has taken no action
 Message 99 by LudvanB, posted 02-20-2002 6:14 AM zimzam has taken no action
 Message 103 by joz, posted 02-20-2002 9:09 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 145 (5132)
02-20-2002 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
02-19-2002 10:36 AM


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 How much time do the rest of you put into these discussions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 10:36 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 4:46 AM zimzam has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 94 of 145 (5133)
02-20-2002 4:23 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. I look at the universe, earth, animals, and man and see amazing designs that can not be explained without an intelligence behind them. 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. Why do you and others look at everything beautiful and wonderous in the universe and immediately refute any intelligent design?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:20 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:26 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4429 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 145 (5134)
02-20-2002 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by zimzam
02-20-2002 4:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
Give me some time to research this and I will at least come up with some questions for you involving radiometric whatever


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:16 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:19 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 713 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 taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 713 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 taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 713 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 taken no action

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 145 (5139)
02-20-2002 6:14 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.

LUD:Unfortunatly,i see no evidence whatsoever on this world that should lead me to believe that any of this is true. The evidence we have simply shows that death and decay have always been part of the world. Everything that is alive has to die at some point...nothing that cant die can be considered alive. But as my estimes collegue mark told you,the US constitution entitles you to abandon all logic and believe in whatever fairie tale helps you sleep better at night...I would ask you however to refrain from clogging this SCIENTIFIC discussion with mythological nonsense.

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.

LUD:then i'm sorry that i must destroy your delusions on evolutionists but many of us,myself included DO believe in God. But we see God as someone who works through the laws IT possibly established when the universe was first formed...slow processes. I dont see God working through miracles...whats the point of setting up laws of physics for the universe if you wont abide by them. Some of us may choose to believe that God violates It's own laws whenever its conveniant be IT God and It can do Anything it wants but thats just projecting our own lack of wisdom onto God. I believe that God fully realizes the inherant dangers of subjecting a natural universe to unnatural occurences(i.e. miracles). I believe that God has all the patience required to softly guide creation through the billions of years it took to reach the point where we are today and i dont see this as any reduction of God's awsome might.

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.

LUD:Here's another exemple of nonsense...there is nothing in science that reasonable people can use to substanciate their faiths in the supernatural.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:11 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 100 of 145 (5142)
02-20-2002 6:40 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.

Excellent. I look forward to discussing them with you.

quote:
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.

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:

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.

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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:51 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 145 (5143)
02-20-2002 6:52 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. I look at the universe, earth, animals, and man and see amazing designs that can not be explained without an intelligence behind them. 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. Why do you and others look at everything beautiful and wonderous in the universe and immediately refute any intelligent design?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:20 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 713 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 taken no action

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 145 (5150)
02-20-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by zimzam
02-20-2002 4:11 AM


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........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:11 AM zimzam has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 145 (5185)
02-20-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by mark24
02-20-2002 4:46 AM


Ok I will do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 4:46 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 145 (5186)
02-20-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by mark24
02-20-2002 4:23 AM


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!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 4:23 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by edge, posted 02-20-2002 6:58 PM zimzam has taken no action
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 9:44 PM zimzam has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022