Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
37 online now:
Heathen, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,366 Year: 18,402/19,786 Month: 822/1,705 Week: 74/518 Day: 0/74 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 106 of 145 (5194)
02-20-2002 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by zimzam
02-20-2002 4:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
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..

You are wrong. How about "natural origins" for an answer.

quote:
...therefore a supernatural created beginning is not an illogical thought.

Other than the fact that everything else can be logically explained by natural means. Why should origins be different?

quote:
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!"

Actually, it screams "apparent design!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:26 PM zimzam has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 8:14 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 2160
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 yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3478 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 108 of 145 (5200)
02-20-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by zimzam
02-20-2002 4:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
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!"

Rubbish.

Unknown natural mechanisms CAN explain how it got there. Natural mechanisms exist. Supernatural mechanisms don't.

Rationalise it.

Who designed the designer?

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 105 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 4:26 PM zimzam has not yet responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 2160
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 yet responded

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

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4154 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 145 (5283)
02-22-2002 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Peter
02-22-2002 7:03 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Peter, posted 02-22-2002 7:03 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 02-22-2002 3:20 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 2160
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 yet responded

    
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 112 of 145 (5342)
02-22-2002 11:36 PM


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.
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!? 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.
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. 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.
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.

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

------------------
theo


Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-23-2002 2:47 AM Theo has not yet responded
 Message 114 by joz, posted 02-23-2002 1:34 PM Theo has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 6:13 AM Theo has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5859 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 113 of 145 (5352)
02-23-2002 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theo
02-22-2002 11:36 PM


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.

Not quite, Theo. The point is that there are tools which are simple, but highly suited for particular purposes which, if one found them in a context where their purpose was unclear, would be difficuly to identify as tools.

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!

As one who has spent many happy hours on archaeological field walks, systematically looking for arrowheads and knapped flints, I can tell you that it is often very difficult to decide whether a particular object is naturally shaped or has been knapped.

There are a number of rules of thumb - no more than that - which can help you. One of these is to establish whether the find is in a context of known human activity. If it is, the chances that it is of human, designed, origin are thought to be considerably greater. This is extremely important for your SETI example. Seti is looking for ordered information in a context (radio waves) where we know that intelligences (human) have already created ordered information.

One does not look at an encyclopedia set and say "look what random chance produced." We know that intelligence precedes order and ordered information.

Well who's question begging now? We don't exclaim at the order of an encyclopedia because we know how it was produced! We know that intelligence precedes the order and ordered information of an encyclopedia. We do not know that intelligence precedes all ordered information. We can make some inferences, and one of the parameters guiding our inferences must be the context of the ordered information. The point of the tool analogy, and the weakness of Paley's first "technological" argument of design, and of every intelligent design argument since is that the context of the ordered information we see around us in the natural world is significantly unlike anyof the things we know to have intelligent origin.

DNA is infinitely more complex than an encyclopedia set so logically a superior source of intelligence preceded DNA.

Logically? Later in your post you say you are aiming to "correct foundational and logical errors first." If this is your standard of logic, Theo, I am disappointed. It's like arguing that a termite mound must be made by a bigger animal than a molehill - without considering whether there are other mechanisms that could work to the same effect. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong here. I happen to think it is, but more importantly, it does not follow logically from your premises. You made a "foundational logical error."

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.

I presume you use the word secular here to mean atheist, though I wonder how you know? No matter. On to your foundational logical error, or rather the error of those you quote, secular or religious though they may be: a probability cannot be calculated for a singular occurence after it has happened.

I can calculate the probability of a coin falling on heads or tails because I can identify the potential outcomes before they occur. If there only ever existed one such object (not even a flat stone for comparison) and all I knew was the result of one flip of the object - how could I know that it would not always fall that way? This is the problem with DNA and the "specified" nature of the world. It has only happened once that we know of - and though we played with statistics for ever, we could not logically deduce the probablity.

No DNA by chance no macro-evolution.

Well, knock me down with a feather - another logical error! Surely you can see that a supernatural creator could

design DNA with the possibility of macro-evolution designed in? I don't believe He did, but he could. The two are not logically incompatible.

Now then, it has been illogically stated that natural mechanisms exist therefore unknown natural mechanisms exist and that supernatural mechanisms don't exist.

Well I guess that is getting close to a logical statement. Close, but no coconut. I think your attempt to narrow the definition of supernatural fails because one could stay within the bounds of good english and good language by saying "anything that exists is part of nature, therefore even a so-called supernatural cause, is actually natural, though possibly interacting with known parameters of nature through means unknown." The tautology works both ways here and one side of this is no better than the other.

Oh, by the way, I love the idea of a creationist quoting Bertrand Russell to make a point about the nature of God. But then don't they say that the Devil may quote scripture to his own ends?

Life has only been observed to come from life.

You're not saying God is alive are you? Alive as in feeds, reproduces, and dies? Or perhaps you mean "alive" in yet another special creationist meaning of the word - well, we're used to those.

Furthermore, Bishop Ussher's time table is binding on no christian. ... 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.

I had to laugh at this one. Personally, the common emphasis on Ussher annoys me too - he had his critics in his own time and it may only have been his former closeness to King James VI that give his work the Credibility necessary to get it included

as annotations in some printings of the Authorised Version. But really - the world is actually 10K years old rather than 6k - and Christians "usually" believe that? Very few of the Christians I know believe anything of the sort. And do you really think an extra 4k years makes a big difference to this argument?

Evidence of a young earth is abundant but this is too long already I will go through the young earth evidence later.

Looking forward to it.

It was more important to correct foundational and logical errors first.

Really? Given your standard so far, I am looking forward to your encore! Go for it, Theo.

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-23-2002]


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

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 145 (5362)
02-23-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Theo
02-22-2002 11:36 PM


Theo I posted this for Zimzam a while ago....

The point under debate was that if God made a universe with apparent age he was a deciever (in the sense used by Descartes in his mediations) and therefore not the perfectly good God of christian theology...

Ok in summary:

Assuming God exists....

1)Either the biblical account of creation ex nihilo X,000 (where X is of the close order of 10) years ago is a)correct or b)it isn`t....

2)Either the biblical God is a) infinitely (or perfectly) good or b) isn`t...

2)a)Precludes 1)a) in that an infinitely (or perfectly) good God would be morally prohibited from an act that would lead to a deception....

2)a)Can be taken to not prohibit 1)b) in that a God that created a universe a time of the close order of 10,000,000,000 years ago which contains evidence of that age has not commited an act of deception....(i)

However it could also be argued that such an infinitely good God would remove from circulation any accounts of creation that were false thus prohibiting 1)b)....(ii)

2)b)Prohibits no courses of action but relies on God not being of perfect moral character which itself contradicts popular christian belief....(iii)

Thus either (i) or (ii) is right:

If (i) God is the perfectly good creator of a 10,000,000,000 year old universe.

Or (ii) is right In which case as the biblical account is still around means God must be as described in 2)b) which gives case (iii)

(iii) God is described by 2)b) a less than perfect (morally) deity who can willfully of by lack of forethought decieve contrary to popular christian belief.....

Comments Theo?


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

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 145 (5381)
02-24-2002 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Pete
02-19-2002 6:52 AM


"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.

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Pete, posted 02-19-2002 6:52 AM Pete has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 02-24-2002 2:45 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 5:44 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 145 (5382)
02-24-2002 1:39 AM


"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."
--Anything but Radiometric dating? And might I add, that isn't accounting on Radioisotopical dating as acclaimed of relevance.

-------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-24-2002 2:07 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5859 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 117 of 145 (5385)
02-24-2002 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by TrueCreation
02-24-2002 1:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Anything but Radiometric dating?

If you are genuinely interested in this, hie ye to a reference library and check out some geology books from before the time when radiometric dating was established. There was some interesting work done on erosion, sedimentation and the processes required for fossilization.

In truth, people don't bother too much about following up on these anymore, because radiometric dating is so well-attested, verifiable and accepted. It's just more efficient. You wouldn't want your doctor to use early 20th century thinking and techniques to diagnose the pathology and vectors of a disease - would you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by TrueCreation, posted 02-24-2002 1:39 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4154 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 118 of 145 (5389)
02-24-2002 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by TrueCreation
02-24-2002 1:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--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.

Hi TC: You've brought this question up before. You have not yet explained specifically what aspect of radiometric dating you find unconvincing or incorrect. In this paragraph, you manage to both claim you can't argue with it because you don't have the knowledge to do so, and at the same time claim that you've "dismantled" radiometric dating and found it wanting. Seems you're contradicting yourself.

Here's a couple of nice yes or no questions for you, simply to establish what the ground rules are:

1. You have sufficient knowledge of radiometric dating to argue that it is inaccurate or invalid.

2. You do not have sufficient knowledge, in which case you would actually like to learn about radiometric dating.

3. You do not have sufficient knowledge, and have no interest in learning more.

Simple yes or no - then we can start discussing the issue substantively.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 02-24-2002 1:36 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 145 (5390)
02-24-2002 2:46 AM


From: Edge
"Other than the fact that everything else can be logically explained by natural means. Why should origins be different?"

This has become a very common argument, so I will try to answer it.

First of all, there is good reason for believing that there is something of greater power than humans know of. Existence itself does not make much sense, since nothing can ever turn into something, and nothing could have always existed.

But wait- don't these rules also apply to a hypothetical Creator? Afterall, God did indeed make something out of nothing and God always has been. The answer is, God is above natural laws. God always has been and always will be, and because of this, he does not need a cause.

Since there are no natural laws that show that something can arise from nothing, it is very reasonable to infer a designer. I wouldn't hold my breath for a forthcoming theory that explains why something can come from nothing due to natural laws. The very idea seems to be absolutely ridiculous.

Another problem with your argument is that there is no reason that we would be expected to observe supernatural phenomenon. Humans are in an intellectual box, we can only observe WHAT God created.


Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by edge, posted 02-24-2002 1:33 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2002 2:11 AM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 120 of 145 (5407)
02-24-2002 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Cobra_snake
02-24-2002 2:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
From: Edge
"Other than the fact that everything else can be logically explained by natural means. Why should origins be different?"

This has become a very common argument, so I will try to answer it.

First of all, there is good reason for believing that there is something of greater power than humans know of.


Yes, there always have been such things. Volcanos, epidemics, earthquakes hurricanes and even floods. We have found all of them to have natural causes.

quote:
Existence itself does not make much sense, since nothing can ever turn into something, and nothing could have always existed.

What do you mean by this?

quote:
But wait- don't these rules also apply to a hypothetical Creator?

Why should anything apply to a hypothetical being? You are injecting your bias here.

quote:
Afterall, God did indeed make something out of nothing and God always has been.

This is an assertion based on your own bias. In trying to show how god did these things you simply assert that god did them.

quote:
The answer is, God is above natural laws. God always has been and always will be, and because of this, he does not need a cause.

But god is not above petty squabbles and an occasional genocidal act now and then? This is not logical.

quote:
Since there are no natural laws that show that something can arise from nothing, it is very reasonable to infer a designer. I wouldn't hold my breath for a forthcoming theory that explains why something can come from nothing due to natural laws. The very idea seems to be absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not sure who said this in the first place, other than creationists, that is.

quote:
Another problem with your argument is that there is no reason that we would be expected to observe supernatural phenomenon. Humans are in an intellectual box, we can only observe WHAT God created.

Then why did god create all of this evidence for an old earth that we CAN observe? Why didn't god make the half life of U238 more like 500 years so that we would get an accurate idea of the age of the earth? Do you begin to get an inkling here what you doing? Every time something comes up that you don't understand it is a miracle that no one can refute! Must be nice.

Science does not address the supernatural. It does however, describe what we see in the world around us. It has succeeded in explaining many of the phenomena that were, in the past, ascribed to miracles, magic and supernatural events. The belief in creationism is just a relict of this mystical world view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-24-2002 2:46 AM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019