The age of the Earth

[CrikeyBobs]

An Englishman and a Frenchman are out walking in the countryside when they happen upon a creature.

The Englishman points at the creature and says "rabbit". The Frenchman looks at him, a little puzzled, but then points at the creature and says "lapin". "No, no", responds the Englishman in a patronizing tone, "it's a rabbit -- ra bit" (emphasing the individual syllables).

"Pourquoi êtes-vous dit cela? La créature est très certainement un lapin."

"'Lapin'? what the hell is a 'lapin'? Are you out of frog-riddled mind? It's a frikken rabbit. OK?

"Vous English sont idiots au-delà de ma capacité à articuler. Lapin, lapin, lapin!"

At which point much bitch-slapping ensued.

[joobz]

My mom gave me a quarter.

[slingblade]

I put it up my nose!

[I Ratant]

I might get a hair cut.
Or, all of them.

[joobz]

It's too wet to plow.

[Ladewig]

I can see by your tags that this is some sort of allegory related to science and religion, but I cannot figure it out. Might you elaborate?

[joobz]

I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages.

Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.

[paximperium]

If I define this OP as Bullcrap will this equate with garbage?

[Elizabeth I]

I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages.

Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.

Even if this paraphrase turns out to be incorrect, I am totally impressed with the fact that you were able to coherently tie the OP in with the tags, or with anything, for that matter.

[Meadmaker]

Je pense qu'il dit, "Un jour est come mille ans."

(I wonder how badly I mangled the French.)

[Tanstaafl]

I think it's a trap to get us all modded for posting off-topic.

[slingblade]

I put it up my nose!

[Ladewig]

I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages.

Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.

Your explanation was the first one I thought of but I dismissed it for the same reason you did. Six orders of magnitude is not a simple misunderstanding.

If CrikeyBobs is trying to make an allegory related to the age of the Earth, then it should go like this:

Englishman: That elephant weighs 15,000.
Frenchman: No, that elephant weighs 15/1000 of one pound.
Englishman: But look at its size. Surely it weighs more than both of us combined.
Frenchman: Nope, my inerrant holy scriptures say elephants weigh a tiny fraction of an ounce.


. . . . . . . . .

Is the OP merely some type of jest or teasing?

[joobz]

Is the OP merely some type of jest or teasing?
That's why I originally responded with a meaningless non sequitor.
It would be hard for me to believe that someone would truly try to imply that the age of the earth debate is nothing more than a "you say potato" type of missunderstanding.

[Sun Countess]

Heh. The only word I can think of to describe the OP was accidentally coined by kurious_kathy: voicedross.

Question: Why does the frenchman say the word "English" in English? Shouldn't that be "anglais?"

[CrikeyBobs]

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

[ImaginalDisc]

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

This is the fallacy of the middle ground, that when two opinions differ, the correct answer has to be some heartwarming third option.

You see, science involves the rigorous analysis of reality. Christianity involves ********, lies, ********, hogwash, ******, and things people made up out of whole cloth.

[paximperium]

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.
Using you analogy, someone's belief that he is Napolean and has a chip placed in his brain by goblins is analogous to a Psychiatrists belief that this individual has schizophrenia and is psychotic.

Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

[Seren_]

Except that "year" has a precise definition.

If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ?


* Christian year of course !

[CrikeyBobs]

This is the fallacy of the middle ground, that when two opinions differ, the correct answer has to be some heartwarming third option.
I don't agree with that. The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. The OP isn't advocating some accountancy fiddle to keep everyone happy, more like an acceptance that never the twain shall meet. Mind you, it's not a reason to stop arguing.


You see, science involves the rigorous analysis of reality. Christianity involves ********, lies, ********, hogwash, ******, and things people made up out of whole cloth.

I agree with that. :D

[CrikeyBobs]

Except that "year" has a precise definition.

If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ?


* Christian year of course !

Love to, but I'm tapped out until after the tribulation.

[H3LL]

Just because some idiot Christian refuses to accept good, solid evidence doesn't make that evidence go away, though his idiocy remains.

A TM may believe he can fly through meditation but gravity will still be there and he still won't be able to fly.

.

[CrikeyBobs]

Using you analogy, someone's belief that he is Napolean and has a chip placed in his brain by goblins is analogous to a Psychiatrists belief that this individual has schizophrenia and is psychotic.

Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

Indeed, although I have a feeling you consider my allegory "ludicrous". :D

[paximperium]

Indeed, although I have a feeling you consider my allegory "ludicrous". :D
"So Mr. Bobs, lay back on the couch and relax. You are safe from the anal probes here. Tell me about your allegory and mother issues."

[CrikeyBobs]

"So Mr. Bobs, lay back on the couch and relax. You are safe from the anal probes here. Tell me about your allegory and mother issues."

My Mother? Let me tell you about my mother...

After a most helpful session on the couch (although, without anal probes, it's just not the same), CrikeyBobs has been translated to another frame of reference. Tags updated accordingly.

[joobz]

I don't agree with that.
Doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. Year has the exact same physical meaning to a YEC as to a scientist. There is no middle ground here.

[UndercoverElephant]

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

That doesn't make the claims equal. The "language game" of Biblical literalism effectively defines "truth" to mean "whatever it says in the Bible." For anyone who doesn't share that particular belief-system, the whole caboodle is ludicrous. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of scripture. It's not bad science. It is bad religion. "Jesus was the son of God" isn't supposed to mean that God was Jesus's Dad. It was never supposed to mean that. Who cares whether or not Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? It's totally irrelevant - especially considering that Jesus himself was supposed to have said "Anyone can do what I have done. Anyone can be like me." How can anyone be like Jesus if Jesus was biologically fathered by God?

[arthwollipot]

I don't agree with that. The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. The OP isn't advocating some accountancy fiddle to keep everyone happy, more like an acceptance that never the twain shall meet. Mind you, it's not a reason to stop arguing.The difference is that one of them is... um, true.

[MRC_Hans]

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

No, that is actually not correct. For the fundie Christians it is indeed 6,000 years, as in 6,000X365 days, or Earth 6,000 times orbiting the Sun. It is not a question of language, or definition of the term 'year'.

Fundie Christians really, really claim that Earth was created in six days (as in 6x24 hours, as in one revolution of Earth), 6,000 good standard calendar years ago.

They are, in other words, claiming an entirely different scenario.

I know there exist such a thing as "old earth creationists' who may say that the six days mentioned in Genesis is really an allegory for billions of years, but, if you analyze it, OEC is even more ridiculous than YEC.

Hans

[godless dave]

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

How is the second one "correct"? The only way it could be "correct" is if "earth" means something different in the second frame of reference than in the first. If "age of the earth" means "age of literate cultures in the Levant" then the second one still isn't correct but is close. And if you define "health food" to mean "beer" then I am a big consumer of health food.

[Sun Countess]

In the OP, the Frenchman and the Englishman are both recognizing the exact same animal with the exact same characteristics, but are simply giving the creature a different name. If I ask a French schoolchild to draw a "lapin" and an English child to draw a "rabbit," they'll draw very similar pictures.

If asked about them, they would also both likely know that the rabbit/lapin is a cute and cuddly-looking non-cud-chewing quiet mammal, which breeds prodigiously, then they're still describing the same creature. It's not as though the French lapin is thought to be a 10,000 year old space alien who becomes invisible at night, steals socks, and tosses shoes on the sides of freeways. The words are different, but the definitions are not, so your analogy doesn't hold.

[linusrichard]

Old riddle, favorite of mine:

If you call a hump a leg, how many legs does a camel have?









Four.

[six7s]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:pBo4UMcaQREbQM:http://whatthehealthmag.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pope_benedict_451.jpg
Ceci n'est pas un Pope

[ParrotPirate]

Brainbarf.

[KingMerv00]

The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist.

It might surprise you to hear that I agree with you...for reasons I suspect you wouldn't like.

[CrikeyBobs]

It might surprise you to hear that I agree with you...for reasons I suspect you wouldn't like.

Please post your reasons.

[CrikeyBobs]

It comes as no surprise that conversations between those who hold very strict religious views and those for whom science forms the bedrock of understanding can become heated. I enjoy reading them, but I tend stick my toe in only occasionally. While I think it is important that people should be able to robustly express their sincerely held views, sometimes these threads take on the aspect of slanging matches, with neither side being able to get through to the other, resulting in much frustration.

For some reason this put into my mind the scenario of my OP. I could have used any area of contention between theism and science as the title, but I chose the age of the earth as I think it is the most obvious schism. I have to admit I chuckled as I was composing it and, with hindsight, I could have posted it in humour. I didn't because I think that beneath the silliness of the "allegory" (and it is silly) there is a kernel of truth -- namely that the positions of "fundie" and "heathen" cannot be reconciled as they operate from two very different frames of reference.

I must confess I was somewhat taken aback with a few of the responses as, to me, they seemed leagues apart from my intent, which was to use humour to illustrate my perspective. In some case I actually felt a bit guilty (catholic upbringing -- can't seem to shake off those final remnants :rolleyes:).

[drkitten]

I didn't because I think that beneath the silliness of the "allegory" (and it is silly) there is a kernel of truth -- namely that the positions of "fundie" and "heathen" cannot be reconciled as they operate from two very different frames of reference.

The problem is that this is simply untrue.

My sister is a fundamentalist. If you ask her how old she is, she'll,.... we'll, she'll lie and shave a few years off her age. But she'll tell me that her daughters are twelve and eight, respectively.

That doesn't mean that she thinks her daughter is 12/6000 times as old as the sun itself and therefore older than the Pyramids. When she says that her daughter is twelve, she means her daughter was born in 1997. When she says the Sun is 6000 years old, she means it was made in about 4000 BCE.

We're not operating from different frames of reference. She's simply wrong.


I must confess I was somewhat taken aback with a few of the responses as, to me, they seemed leagues apart from my intent, which was to use humour to illustrate my perspective.

Using humor doesn't really make your pespective less wrong.

[drkitten]

Except that "year" has a precise definition.

If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ?


* Christian year of course !

Maybe I should try that on my credit cards. Simply tell them that from my frame of reference, the payment won't be due for a long, long time.

[CrikeyBobs]

The problem is that this is simply untrue.
My sister is a fundamentalist. If you ask her how old she is, she'll,.... we'll, she'll lie and shave a few years off her age. But she'll tell me that her daughters are twelve and eight, respectively.

That doesn't mean that she thinks her daughter is 12/6000 times as old as the sun itself and therefore older than the Pyramids. When she says that her daughter is twelve, she means her daughter was born in 1997. When she says the Sun is 6000 years old, she means it was made in about 4000 BCE.

We're not operating from different frames of reference. She's simply wrong.
You know she's wrong. I know she's wrong, but she doesn't. I'm sure she is just as confident of the validity of her beliefs and the stupidity of ours. When you present her with our evidence (radiometric dating, or whatever), does she respond "hmmm, I'll do some research on the technique and get back to you". Or does does she immediately reject it and instead spin a tale about God testing us, or The Flood affecting the readings, or Satan trying to sow seeds of doubt?

This is what I mean about different frames of reference. I cannot see any common ground from which to create a consensus. If I gave the impression that it's just about the perception of time then that is my fault.

Using humor doesn't really make your pespective less wrong.

Of course. But to simply state that we have different perspectives would have made for a rather dull posting and I wouldn't have bothered. I didn't use humour to try and misrepresent the point (although it would appear that I effectively obfuscated it).

[joobz]

You know she's wrong. I know she's wrong, but she doesn't. I'm sure she is just as confident of the validity of her beliefs and the stupidity of ours.
So, then, by your analogy you believe that one of the words for the thing called rabbit (rabbit or Lapin) is wrong?

That makes even less sense than when you started your thread.

[quarky]

If we accept both view points, then we could have an average age of about 2 billion years for the earth. Fundies should be glad with that.

[CrikeyBobs]

So, then, by your analogy you believe that one of the words for the thing called rabbit (rabbit or Lapin) is wrong?

That makes even less sense than when you started your thread.

So do you believe that my post was an analogy rather than an allegory?

[Beerina]

Translated for those of you who, like me, may know some Spanish and German, but precious little French:

An Englishman and a Frenchman are out walking in the countryside when they happen upon a creature.

The Englishman points at the creature and says "rabbit". The Frenchman looks at him, a little puzzled, but then points at the creature and says "lapin". "No, no", responds the Englishman in a patronizing tone, "it's a rabbit -- ra bit" (emphasing the individual syllables).

"Pourquoi êtes-vous dit cela? La créature est très certainement un lapin."

"Why do you say that? The creature is most probably a rabbit."

"'Lapin'? what the hell is a 'lapin'? Are you out of frog-riddled mind? It's a frikken rabbit. OK?

"Vous English sont idiots au-delà de ma capacité à articuler. Lapin, lapin, lapin!"

"You English are stupid beyond my ability to articulate. Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit!"


It wouldn't belong in the Humor section. :(



:)

[CrikeyBobs]

If we accept both view points, then we could have an average age of about 2 billion years for the earth. Fundies should be glad with that.

There's this middle ground thing again. I do not accept it and I don't see how my post implied it. How can two ideas from incompatible points of view be averaged, reconciled, or otherwise alloyed to create an acceptable result?

From a fundamentalist's point of view, it would simply be a first step towards a universal acceptance of 6000 years. From a science perspective it would simply be wrong.

[CrikeyBobs]

Translated for those of you who, like me, may know some Spanish and German, but precious little French:



It wouldn't belong in the Humor section. :(



:)
While I did pass some school exams in the language, I now rely on Google to help me "speak in tongues".

Perhaps a CrikeyBobs sub-forum then? Hmmm. Maybe I'll repost in FM and ask for their opinions. :D

[joobz]

So do you believe that my post was an analogy rather than an allegory?
Your post fails, regardless of how you define it.(whether you want to call it an analogy, allegory, metaphor, custard pie...) We aren't speaking of something that is inherently subjective but something that has an objective, measurable, quantitative value.

I understand the point you are trying to make. It's just simply wrong.

[NobbyNobbs]

I understand the point you are trying to make. It's just simply wrong.


Maybe if you write an allegory about it, he'll understand.


:D

[CrikeyBobs]

Your post fails, regardless of how you define it.(whether you want to call it an analogy, allegory, metaphor, custard pie...) We aren't speaking of something that is inherently subjective but something that has an objective, measurable, quantitative value.

I understand the point you are trying to make. It's just simply wrong.

Thank you (really). My main concern when I first started reading replies was that not I was being ridiculed or dismissed, or that I was just plain wrong, but that I was being misunderstood (and I realise where the fault lies there).

Nowt wrong with being wrong. After all, from that position, a step in any direction takes you closer to being right. ;)

Mind you I still disagree that I am simply wrong, but I am not sure I have the resources to produce a compelling argument.

[paximperium]

Maybe if you write an allegory about it, he'll understand.


:D
Bob was walking down the street with Jane.
Bob says,"I believe you're fat."
Jane looks dumbfounded, "But I'm 110lbs? How can I be fat?"
"Well from my frame of reference you're like 500lbs."
"Are you insane? I just weighed myself"
"No, we're not talking the same language. I don't like fatties."
"You're a bastard."
"My beliefs are valid because I said so."
"You can sleep on the couch."
"We've got to come to a common ground. Maybe you're 200lbs?"
Kick to groin.

[Bob Klase]

In the OP, the Frenchman and the Englishman are both recognizing the exact same animal with the exact same characteristics, but are simply giving the creature a different name.

The OP would be more valid if it was two Englishman. One pointed at the rabbit and said it was a rabbit, the other claims it's an elephant. One is wrong.

[drkitten]

The OP would be more valid if it was two Englishman. One pointed at the rabbit and said it was a rabbit, the other claims it's an elephant. One is wrong.

That's basically it.

There are two sorts of disagreement that are relevant here. One is where two people really are saying the same thing in two different ways. Two Englishmen, arguing about whether a given board is "three feet" or "one yard" long.

The other is where people are actually saying different things. One Englishman says the board is a yard long, the other says it's a meter long.

[I Ratant]

If we accept both view points, then we could have an average age of about 2 billion years for the earth. Fundies should be glad with that.
.
Fundies might, but science... I kinda think not!
It would mess up things like "half-life", which we use in many applications, depending on it for counting, among other things.

[six7s]

How can two ideas from incompatible points of view be averaged, reconciled, or otherwise alloyed to create an acceptable result?Read the bible!

[I Ratant]

Yeah, that'll give you a -great- square one to start from!
To prevent any problems with "averaging" the differences though, it should say "read ONLY the bible."

[joobz]

Thank you (really). My main concern when I first started reading replies was that not I was being ridiculed or dismissed, or that I was just plain wrong, but that I was being misunderstood (and I realise where the fault lies there).

Nowt wrong with being wrong. After all, from that position, a step in any direction takes you closer to being right. ;)
That's a great attitude and I have a tremendous respect for you for thinking that way.

There is nothing wrong with presenting an argument. Just realize that it will be critiqued accordingly.


Mind you I still disagree that I am simply wrong, but I am not sure I have the resources to produce a compelling argument.
Read Drkitten's or Bob Klase's points. You'll see why I say your OP is basically wrong.

[six7s]

Yeah, that'll give you a -great- square one to start from!
To prevent any problems with "averaging" the differences though, it should say "read ONLY the bible."Maybe this would be better...

Read ONLY the bible and debate ONLY with fellow bleevers

[CrikeyBobs]

Read the bible!

Touché! :D

[CrikeyBobs]

There is nothing wrong with presenting an argument. Just realize that it will be critiqued accordingly.

Looking back, I made a number of mistakes:

My initial post was presented in a somewhat flippant manner. I spent more time formulating the allegory and humour than thinking about the substance.
Based on my previous posting record I really expected the thread to quickly slip down to page 2, or maybe generate a couple of chuckles.
I was ill-prepared to back up my position. In fact it's not my position at all, I got caught up with the humour aspects.
I should have taken R&P more seriously. Actually I feel a bit bad about this. People were taking my post far more seriously than it deserved, and weren't getting a proper debate in return.


Next time it's CT for me. Nobody cares about their feelings ;)

Still, it's good to get your first JREF debate under your belt.

[six7s]

Looking back, I made a number of mistakes: Respect!

:th:

I was ill-prepared to back up my position. In fact it's not my position at all, I got caught up with the humour aspects.

Now that you have humbly and honestly declared where you were coming from, I'm optimistic that if/when you do clearly and concisely assert a position, you will receive replies in kind, in this thread and/or elsewhere :)

[Nogbad]

Sooooo

if the original post weighs the same as a duck it must be made of wood......

[KingMerv00]

Please post your reasons.

Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality. Fundamentalists ignore science because they are ignorant, stupid, and/or deceptive.

Thus, we agree: The Bible means nothing to scientists and radiocarbon dating means nothing to religious fanatics.

[ParrotPirate]

I like pie.

[quarky]

i also like pie. And, of course i was jesting about averaging science's numbers and Bible numbers.

I kid not, however, in suggesting the possibility of multiple truths in multiple universes, all formed from the same building 'blocks', and defined through perception.

This is how i reconciled utterly different versions of history when i was fighting with my wife about the facts. The only way we could both be right, was if we experienced 2 different realities that overlapped.

This is not to confess a fondness for the 6000 year old planet, nor do I believe there exists a parrellel universe wherein the Earth IS only 6000 years old. That's way too dull.
But i can't write off more exotic possibilities that aren't incompatible with science so far.

[MG1962]

Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality.

Care to back that up?

[six7s]

The only way we could both be right, was if we experienced 2 different realities that overlapped.Please explain why you entertain this instead of considering the possibilities that:

One of you was wrong
Both of you were wrong

[six7s]

Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality. Care to back that up?Try reading a bible, any bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/), and re-post your question if you can't find multiple instances of contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) and fantasy-enabling absurdities (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

[quarky]

Please explain why you entertain this instead of considering the possibilities that:

One of you was wrong
Both of you were wrong


Those possibilities lead to unpleasant conclusions.
Both right allows sleep.
It is worthwhile to exercise a flexible view.

We saw 2 different things that night. We heard 2 different things. We were in 2 different universes.

[six7s]

We saw 2 different things that night. We heard 2 different things. We were in 2 different universes.Call me Simple Simon, but I'm inclined towards employing Occam's razor, which suggests that you interpreted two different things that night, whilst you were in the one and only Universe

Other than marital bliss via wishful thinking believing, why would you jump to such a fantastic conclusion?

[quarky]

Call me Simple Simon, but I'm inclined towards employing Occam's razor, which suggests that you interpreted two different things that night, whilst you were in the one and only Universe

Other than marital bliss via wishful thinking believing, why would you jump to such a fantastic conclusion?

several reasons; difficult to explain; would require many pages.
Here's a bit of it:

Perception is estimated to be 90% inference. We gloss over what our senses tell us; the brain fills in the rest with likely guesses.

Quantum weirdness suggests a possibility that sub-atomic particles can express more than one possibility simultaneously.

More philosophicly, I like the metaphor invented by Castanada...the shifting assembledge point.

Occam's razor could be sited in a situation where 2 different stories are irreconciable. Simplest solution is 2 seperate realities.

(Commence ridicule now. My skin is odd, but thick.)

[Robster, FCD]

Sooooo

if the original post weighs the same as a duck it must be made of wood......

Mon canard es en feu!

[linusrichard]

Occam's razor could be sited in a situation where 2 different stories are irreconciable. Simplest solution is 2 seperate realities.

(Commence ridicule now. My skin is odd, but thick.)

I don't think ridicule is necessary; I don't think it's ridiculous, but it seems wrong. One sort of problem with Occam's Razor, as normally expressed, is that "simplest" is not necessarily a well-defined term. Still - by all appearances, I exist in one reality (at least, that's what Occam's Razor advises me to think), and if I'm reading two irreconcilable stories, the likely conclusion is that both of those stories exist in the same reality I do (since I'm perceiving them), and therefore in the same reality as each other, so if they describe different realities, then at least one of them describes a reality other than one in which it exists. I think it is simpler to believe that one story is a lie, or an exaggeration, or an allegory, or a mistake, or a joke, or an analogy, or a metaphor, than it is to believe that both stories accurately describe a reality, and therefore at least one of them describes a foreign reality.

On the other hand, it also seems that if you allow for the possibility of multiple realities, than it's as likely as not that there are virtually infinite other realities, and that every conceivable reality (along with a number of inconceivable ones, perhaps), "exists." In that case, every story would accurately describe at least one reality -- but it would be a coincidence, as the author of the false-in-this-reality story would have had no access to the reality in which the story was true.

Having said all of that, this:
Those possibilities lead to unpleasant conclusions.
Both right allows sleep.
It is worthwhile to exercise a flexible view.

We saw 2 different things that night. We heard 2 different things. We were in 2 different universes.
Is indisputably worthy, whether "true" or not.

ETA:
Other than marital bliss via wishful thinking believing, why would you jump to such a fantastic conclusion?
You say "other than marital bliss via wishful believing" like that's not a very good reason in itself!

[Ashles]

I suppose one main difference in opposing views about reality is, does reality back one of them up more than the other?
Can one of the views actually be tested, used to make predictions, used to develop real tangible new technologies?

[Ashles]

I don't think ridicule is necessary; I don't think it's ridiculous, but it seems wrong. One sort of problem with Occam's Razor, as normally expressed, is that "simplest" is not necessarily a well-defined term.
That's a good point that often gets misunderstood.

Some people genuinely seem to appear that "It was a ghost" is a 'simpler' explanation than "At a certain time of night the moon reflects off a pond in the front garden and I had a new shirt that I hung to dry in an unusual place and the light caught it in an unusual way and I was half asleep."

'Simpler' does not necessarily equate to 'Less words'.

[six7s]

ETA: Other than marital bliss via wishful thinking believing, why would you jump to such a fantastic conclusion?

You say "other than marital bliss via wishful thinking believing" like that's not a very good reason in itself!I do... because it seems to me that such believing has nothing to do with reason

[linusrichard]

I do... because it seems to me that such believing has nothing to do with reason

Well, if you value reason more highly than marital harmony, I can see why you'd say that.

[six7s]

'Simpler' does not necessarily equate to 'Less words'.Simple is merely an antonym for complicated

The concept of a ghost adds a spurious layer of complexity (the fantastic realm of the supernatural) to the problem domain, which is (almost certainly) bounded within reality

[six7s]

Well, if you value reason more highly than marital harmony, I can see why you'd say that.If that's meant to be funny, maybe you should have added a smiley

Otherwise... erm... its a non sequitur

[linusrichard]

If that's meant to be funny, maybe you should have added a smiley

Otherwise... erm... its a non sequitur

I don't think it is. You don't consider marital bliss to be a good reason to believe weird things, because that belief has nothing to do with reason. Have I paraphrased that okay? I'm not trying to twist your words, so please correct me if I've got you wrong.

And then I'm saying that that makes sense if you value reason more highly than marital harmony, implying that, if you value marital harmony more highly than reason, then it is a good reason to believe weird things, even though that belief has nothing to do with reason.

I hope that clarifies!

[six7s]

I don't think it is. You don't consider marital bliss to be a good reason to believe weird things, because that belief has nothing to do with reason. Have I paraphrased that okay? No... you haven't

I was not and am not comparing the values of reason and marital harmony, simply because... well... erm... I have no idea what relevance such a comparison could possibly have in this discussion...

To me, all issues ought to be analysed by employing reason and 'marital bliss' is merely one (wholly irrelevant to this thread?) issue

[linusrichard]

No... you haven't

I was not and am not comparing the values of reason and marital harmony, simply because... well... erm... I have no idea what relevance such a comparison could possibly have in this discussion...

To me, all issues ought to be analysed by employing reason and 'marital bliss' is merely one (wholly irrelevant to this thread?) issue

Hmm. I didn't say you were comparing the values of reason and marital harmony. That's what I was doing in my response to you. I said you were saying .... ugh. Let me try this again:

You were saying, essentially: Don't believe x, because it defies reason to believe x.
I was saying, essentially, that believing x does defy reason, but it furthers the goal of marital harmony, and so it only makes sense not to believe x if you value reason more than you value furthering the goal of marital harmony (which you do). With the implication being that if you value furthering the goal of marital harmony more than reason, it might make sense to believe x.

Does that clarify?

[six7s]

you value reason more than you value furthering the goal of marital harmony (which you do). No

I don't

Furthermore, I try to avoid getting them mixed up

[linusrichard]

No

I don't

Furthermore, I try to avoid getting them mixed up

But but but I thought you valued reason more than anything else!

To me, all issues ought to be analysed by employing reason

I'm very confused... you don't have to help me, I'm willing to stay confused rather than drag this out any longer.

I really don't think what I said was that cryptic (maybe you know the feeling?).

[MG1962]

Try reading a bible, any bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/), and re-post your question if you can't find multiple instances of contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) and fantasy-enabling absurdities (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

Sorry you are wrong. They dont read it because it has nothing to do with what they are doing. If something like 70% of scientists are athiests, it is a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are.

So how can those scientists know the Bible is full of contradictions and fantasy enabling absurdities, if they are unaware of it contents, and how does that lack of knowledge reflect on their research.

Its like arguing that because Alice In Wonderland was written by a mathematician, mathematicans ignore it because it has bad maths.

[six7s]

I really don't think what I said was that cryptic (maybe you know the feeling?).Cryptic? No...

Confused? I think so...

ETA:Other than marital bliss via wishful thinking believing, why would you jump to such a fantastic conclusion?

You say "other than marital bliss via wishful believing" like that's not a very good reason in itself!

Well, if you value reason more highly than marital harmony, I can see why you'd say that.

Please note:
I said "other than"

It was you who put the words "value reason more highly than marital harmony" in my mouth

[six7s]

Sorry you are wrong. They dont read it because it has nothing to do with what they are doing. If something like 70% of scientists are athiests, it is a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are.

So how can those scientists know the Bible is full of contradictions and fantasy enabling absurdities, if they are unaware of it contents, and how does that lack of knowledge reflect on their research.

Its like arguing that because Alice In Wonderland was written by a mathematician, mathematicans ignore it because it has bad maths.You arrange an intricate, spiraling web of hoops and then feel great when you jump through them, huh?

Why is it "a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are"?

By your (twisted) logic, is it a fair bet that these same scientists have no idea what's inside the collected works of Shakespeare?

[linusrichard]

Please note:
I said "other than"

It was you who put the words "value reason more highly than marital harmony" in my mouth

Right, but you're leaving out post #75, when you said "I do," apparently meaning that you don't think that believing for the sake of marital harmony is a very good reason in itself.

If that's not what you meant by "I do" then I'm afraid I'll have to join the club in that other thread who think you make confusing posts.

[six7s]

So be it

Good luck with that

Tip: putting words in my mouth is not an efficient way of hearing what I'm saying

[six7s]

Right, but you're leaving out post #75, when you said "I do," apparently meaning that you don't think that believing for the sake of marital harmony is a very good reason in itself.

If that's not what you meant by "I do" then I'm afraid I'll have to join the club in that other thread who think you make confusing posts.Sincere question:

A "very good reason" for what?

[linusrichard]

So be it

Good luck with that

Tip: putting words in my mouth is not an efficient way of hearing what I'm saying
Well, look. I can react to what you're saying without restating it, but when I do so, it's clear I'm misunderstanding you. So, in an effort to figure out where I've gone wrong, I restate what I believe you've said in what I consider to be clearer terms, so that I can figure out if the reason for the confusion is that you weren't really saying what I thought you were saying (yes) or something else (maybe also yes). My "putting words into your mouth" is then not an effort to ascribe to you views you don't hold, but an effort to honestly discern what views you do hold. So -- ultimately, it is an efficient way of hearing what you're saying, when not doing so is shown to be ineffective (whether through your fault or mine or both).
Sincere question:

A "very good reason" for what?
A very good reason to jump to such a fantastic conclusion.

[six7s]

A "very good reason" for what?A very good reason to jump to such a fantastic conclusion.This is farcical!

Please note the emphasis added to the above and following quote:I do... because it seems to me that such believing has nothing to do with reason

[stilicho]

Sorry you are wrong. They dont read it because it has nothing to do with what they are doing. If something like 70% of scientists are athiests, it is a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are.

Any idea how many official church bodies believe in a 6,000-year-old earth? Apparently the Vatican does not* and that's a pretty big chunk of "official Christians" right there. I think the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod still does although my evidence is anecdotal. I know someone who is of that persuasion even though she knows geologists are right and her church's position is wrong.

*"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life...."

( Source: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church_-_Papacy_of_Benedict_XVI/id/5032765 )

The number of official Christian bodies endorsing a 6,000-year-old earth has to be pretty small. It always appears the proponents of that opinion are only loosely affiliated with any discernible denomination.

So the opposite side of that coin appears to be that Christian organisations are very aware of science and typically defer to it in questions of geology for example.

[linusrichard]

This is farcical!

Please note the emphasis added to the above and following quote:

Oh I see. When you said "reason" you were using the word to mean something different than what I used it to mean. It's a word that has multiple definitions, and you (knowingly or not), changed the definition on me, and it confused me. Now I see it. Okay.

[I Ratant]

You arrange an intricate, spiraling web of hoops and then feel great when you jump through them, huh?

Why is it "a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are"?

By your (twisted) logic, is it a fair bet that these same scientists have no idea what's inside the collected works of Shakespeare?
.
The bible may not be in the cirriculum of a typical course in English, but Shakespeare certainly would.

[Ladewig]

The number of official Christian bodies endorsing a 6,000-year-old earth has to be pretty small. It always appears the proponents of that opinion are only loosely affiliated with any discernible denomination.

The number of official Christian bodies may be small, but the percentage of Americans believing the mankind is less than 10,000 years old falls between 31 and 41%. Those folks must be going to church somewhere.

[MG1962]

You arrange an intricate, spiraling web of hoops and then feel great when you jump through them, huh?

Why is it "a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are"?

By your (twisted) logic, is it a fair bet that these same scientists have no idea what's inside the collected works of Shakespeare?

There is no twist in the logic - how does knowing the works of Shakespear affect a scientist ability to do work in their chosen profession.

You are defending that scientist ignore the Bible for various reasons. First you have to show they had a valid reason to be reading the Bible as part of their research in the first place.

[quarky]

I don't think ridicule is necessary; I don't think it's ridiculous, but it seems wrong. One sort of problem with Occam's Razor, as normally expressed, is that "simplest" is not necessarily a well-defined term. Still - by all appearances, I exist in one reality (at least, that's what Occam's Razor advises me to think), and if I'm reading two irreconcilable stories, the likely conclusion is that both of those stories exist in the same reality I do (since I'm perceiving them), and therefore in the same reality as each other, so if they describe different realities, then at least one of them describes a reality other than one in which it exists. I think it is simpler to believe that one story is a lie, or an exaggeration, or an allegory, or a mistake, or a joke, or an analogy, or a metaphor, than it is to believe that both stories accurately describe a reality, and therefore at least one of them describes a foreign reality.

On the other hand, it also seems that if you allow for the possibility of multiple realities, than it's as likely as not that there are virtually infinite other realities, and that every conceivable reality (along with a number of inconceivable ones, perhaps), "exists." In that case, every story would accurately describe at least one reality -- but it would be a coincidence, as the author of the false-in-this-reality story would have had no access to the reality in which the story was true.

Having said all of that, this:

Is indisputably worthy, whether "true" or not.

ETA:

You say "other than marital bliss via wishful believing" like that's not a very good reason in itself!



Definitely, as per multiple realities being near infinite, if allowed at all. Which is why I postulate that alternate universes might mostly overlap in some cases, to the point that we never notice that we aren't totally in the same universe as someone else. The difference could be as subtle as Coke tasting better or worse than Pepsi, and a pencil being missing...depending on which universe you're percieving.

Yet, this doesn't imply that lies don't exist. Lying is real. As is misinterpretation. I see the 6000 year old bible earth to be in this category.

More likely would be a seperate universe, near the major cluster of ones normally perceived, that has a bigfoot...and the other one , right next to it, doesn't. Bigfoot can't be proven because he doesn't exist in most universes, and the one he exists in has an added quirk of cameras working poorly...even though you can buy Pepsi in both of them.

Mind you, I'm no fan of bigfoot, and he doesn't exist in my universe. Mine has extra spiders; otherwise very similar to the consensus of opinion amongst the norm, in this particular intersection.

[stilicho]

The number of official Christian bodies may be small, but the percentage of Americans believing the mankind is less than 10,000 years old falls between 31 and 41%. Those folks must be going to church somewhere.

I think you meant this:

the percentage of Americans believing the earth is less than 10,000 years old falls between 31 and 41%.

And not what you said:


the percentage of Americans believing the mankind is less than 10,000 years old falls between 31 and 41%.


Those statistics, Ladewig, are burdened by the format of the question. It's a really popular idea to imagine that everyone in the USA is a stupid klutz who believes that Elvis works at the local Burger King and some such.

But show us what organised religious bodies actually teach the 6,000-year-earth. I gave you one example. And its adherents don't even believe it. The Vatican doesn't.

Which Christian denominations actually instruct their congregations that the earth is just 6,000 years old? You've already agreed the Vatican doesn't so who is it?

[six7s]

There is no twist in the logicClick your heels three times when you say this and maybe you'll win something

how does knowing the works of Shakespear affect a scientist ability to do work in their chosen profession.It doesn't... Very good! Seems odd that you can grasp this, yet steadfastly cling to the woo that is your so-called argument :confused:

You are defending that scientist ignore the Bible for various reasons. No, I'm not

First of all, it was YOU (not me) that pretended that scientists ignore the bible

If anything, I would guess (note: this ain't an issue that I raised) that Real, True McScottish(tm) scientists are, by definition, both inquisitive and methodical bods and - again I'm guessing - many of those exposed to the Abrahamic myths are likely to have skimmed the first couple of chapters of Genesis and recognised that any collection of books - despite numerous edits - that still contains such glaring contradictions is a highly unlikely source of reliable information on and/or insights into reality

Note: Dismissing does not equate to ignoring

First you have to show they had a valid reason to be reading the Bible as part of their research in the first place.No... I don't have to do any such thing...

Considering that you ignore my questions, I am under no compulsion to answer yours

[Ladewig]

I think you meant this:



And not what you said:



Those statistics, Ladewig, are burdened by the format of the question. It's a really popular idea to imagine that everyone in the USA is a stupid klutz who believes that Elvis works at the local Burger King and some such.

I was quoting a Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/third-americans-say-evidence-has-supported-darwins-evolution-theory.aspx) which offered three choices,

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,

2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,

3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

The percentage of people choosing the last option has hovered in the low 40s for the past several years. I will conceed that I should not have quoted this poll because it is posible for people to believe thsat the world itself is billions of years old while mankind is less than 10,000 years old.


I was also referencing another Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx) which says that 31% of Americans believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word."

But show us what organised religious bodies actually teach the 6,000-year-earth. I gave you one example. And its adherents don't even believe it. The Vatican doesn't.
Which Christian denominations actually instruct their congregations that the earth is just 6,000 years old? You've already agreed the Vatican doesn't so who is it?

I'll have to do some research to find the exact denominations, so give me a day or two.


. . . . . . . . . .
ETA. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Church_bodies_whose_offici al_position_is_YEC) says these three all preach YEC

Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
Protestant Reformed Churches in America

[Ladewig]

More denominations supporting creationism:

Seventh Day Adventists
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

Evangelical Presbyterian Church
http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/larger-catechism/

Assemblies of God
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm

[MG1962]

Considering that you ignore my questions, I am under no compulsion to answer yours

Complete fail - Until you can show any reason why a scientist would consider reading the Bible as part of their research no have no arguement

I would (other than possibly archaeologist) seriously question the credentials of any scientist who does consult the Bible on any issue pertaining to their work

[MG1962]

More denominations supporting creationism:

Seventh Day Adventists
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

Evangelical Presbyterian Church
http://www.epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/larger-catechism/

Assemblies of God
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm

And what percentage of Christians do these faiths actually encompass?

[Ladewig]

And what percentage of Christians do these faiths actually encompass?



Seventh Day Adventists
~15 million (worldwide)

Evangelical Presbyterian Church
~80,000

Assemblies of God.
~2.8 million (US membership) ~54 million (worldwide)

As I said, I will need more time to come up with more comprehensive numbers.

[six7s]

Complete fail Good

You win

Have a happy day

[stilicho]

Seventh Day Adventists
~15 million (worldwide)

Evangelical Presbyterian Church
~80,000

Assemblies of God.
~2.8 million (US membership) ~54 million (worldwide)

As I said, I will need more time to come up with more comprehensive numbers.

Not very many people really. And how many of those who are members actually deny geological facts?

The problem with a poll like the one you quoted should be obvious. The final choice offers a combination of a fact (human beings are pretty much the same now as they were 10K years ago) with a speculation ("God" made it that way). I pronounce complete fail on that poll as any sort of indication on how religious people view science.

The other two options are possibly legitimate choices but the transitive verb "to guide" has no equivalence in religious belief that I know of.

Try this as a poll question:

Q: Do you deny all geological evidence of the origins of the earth?

1] Yes
2] No

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at the results. You could ask that question in the middle of a Peter Popoff congregation and get a thorough "no" vote.

By the way, who the heck is the "Assemblies of God" anyhow? 54 million and I've never even heard of them. Are these breakaway Baptists or something? I looked at their statement of beliefs and there's nothing there about denying the validity of science:

http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

So you can scratch them off your list because they don't believe what you think they do.

[stilicho]

I was also referencing another Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx) which says that 31% of Americans believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word."

Where's the question? I only saw the graphs there. The form of the question is important.

Was it this?:

"Biblical evidence supersedes geological evidence wherever they are in conflict."

1] Yes
2] No


. . . . . . . . . .
ETA. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Church_bodies_whose_offici al_position_is_YEC) says these three all preach YEC

Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
Protestant Reformed Churches in America

Wikipedia is not a good source. Write to their chairmen, presidents, bishops, or whatever, and ask them if it their official doctrine that science is invalidated by belief.

[stilicho]

Assemblies of God
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm

I went back to follow the links from this page. It goes back to central beliefs having nothing to do with literal biblical interpretation. It looks like somebody tacked that page into their site because you can't find an internal link to it. How did you find it? You can't find it from going from here:

http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/

Or here:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

So I tried their internal search for "geology" and "age of the earth":

I found this:

"Humans arriving on the terrestrial scene some 4.57 billion years after Earth’s birth means that people get to enjoy a 24-hour rotation period of Earth rather than the much more rapid and deadly rotation (for humans) the planet experienced during its youth."

That doesn't sound like any sort of 6,000-year-old earth, does it?

(Source: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/20090213_Celebration_of_Creation_Part1.cfm )

And also this:

"Researchers have identified several chemical markers left over from the first living entities in these rocks that indicate life was present at least 3.8 billion years ago."

3.8 billion years is considerably longer than 6,000 years too.

(Source: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/20090213_Celebration_of_Creation_Part2.cfm )

I hate to say it, but it looks like you're Google-bombing rather than reading what these people actually believe. On the face of it, you're misrepresenting their position to advance a possibly malignant agenda of some sort.

[Ladewig]

Not very many people really. And how many of those who are members actually deny geological facts?

The problem with a poll like the one you quoted should be obvious. The final choice offers a combination of a fact (human beings are pretty much the same now as they were 10K years ago) with a speculation ("God" made it that way). I pronounce complete fail on that poll as any sort of indication on how religious people view science.

Fine. I conditionally withdraw my claim that that poll is useful in determining the number of Young Earth Creationsists.


Try this as a poll question:

Q: Do you deny all geological evidence of the origins of the earth?

1] Yes
2] No

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at the results. You could ask that question in the middle of a Peter Popoff congregation and get a thorough "no" vote.

I would love to try that poll question, but do not have the resources to do so. Your assertion as to the results is not based on anything other then speculation on your part.

By the way, who the heck is the "Assemblies of God" anyhow? 54 million and I've never even heard of them. Are these breakaway Baptists or something? I looked at their statement of beliefs and there's nothing there about denying the validity of science:

http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

So you can scratch them off your list because they don't believe what you think they do.


Typing "creationsism into the site's serach engine reveals the page I quoted.
Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally. Admittedly, there is progression in God’s creative work. But each step was concluded: "And there was evening, and there was morning." This points to a specific measurement of time. The most natural reading of the creation account therefore is to place it in parallel with a 7-day week. By doing so, the burden of determining time frames and development for various components of creation is avoided.

I can add them to the list because the official site includes a page describing Young Earth Creationsism.

[Ladewig]

I went back to follow the links from this page. It goes back to central beliefs having nothing to do with literal biblical interpretation. It looks like somebody tacked that page into their site because you can't find an internal link to it. How did you find it? You can't find it from going from here:

http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/

Or here:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

So I tried their internal search for "geology" and "age of the earth":

I found this:

"Humans arriving on the terrestrial scene some 4.57 billion years after Earth’s birth means that people get to enjoy a 24-hour rotation period of Earth rather than the much more rapid and deadly rotation (for humans) the planet experienced during its youth."

That doesn't sound like any sort of 6,000-year-old earth, does it?

(Source: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/20090213_Celebration_of_Creation_Part1.cfm )

And also this:

"Researchers have identified several chemical markers left over from the first living entities in these rocks that indicate life was present at least 3.8 billion years ago."

3.8 billion years is considerably longer than 6,000 years too.

(Source: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/20090213_Celebration_of_Creation_Part2.cfm )

I hate to say it, but it looks like you're Google-bombing

I don't understand this accusation, could you explain what you mean by it? I thought Google bombing meant trying to change a page's ranking in search engine results.

ETA: I just checked by browser hstory and discovered that I did find the page by typing "Creationism Assemblies of God." The first result was the page I quoted. I may have been the victim of someone else's Google bombing.


rather than reading what these people actually believe.

I found a page on the AG website that said they believe in a seven 24-hour periods. I stopped looking after that because it was late at night.
On the face of it, you're misrepresenting their position to advance a possibly malignant agenda of some sort.

WTF? I am simply pointing out that there are YEC in the US and they go to church. How can that possible be part of a malignant agenda?

[MG1962]

Fine. I conditionally withdraw my claim that that poll is useful in determining the number of Young Earth Creationsists.

I am not sure there is any useful way to come up with a meaningful answer to the question you are asking. I believe YEC make up an exceedingly small percentage of Christians, however they represent an exceeding publically active group

To be honest I have always been puzzled by their behaviour. A literal translation of the Bible does not give any specific creation date. Someone interpretated the information contained in the Bibile to create a geneology that they then claimed lead to an answer of 6000 years. Which seems to be exactly the same sort of activity, they are challenging in the first place

[Ladewig]

I am not sure there is any useful way to come up with a meaningful answer to the question you are asking. I believe YEC make up an exceedingly small percentage of Christians, however they represent an exceeding publically active group

Perhaps. I'd like to start a new thread on that given that page three of this thread does not seem the best place to discuss it.

[Elizabeth I]

There is no twist in the logic - how does knowing the works of Shakespear affect a scientist ability to do work in their chosen profession.

You are defending that scientist ignore the Bible for various reasons. First you have to show they had a valid reason to be reading the Bible as part of their research in the first place.

Anyone - including scientists - might well read the Bible and be aware of its contents without its being in any way "part of their research." I am sure that there are scientists who read the newspaper, Mad Magazine, Gourmet, Vogue and Playboy without its being in any way "part of their research." And I am sure that, in the context of their research, they dismiss much of what they read in those, or any other, publications.

They are, however, aware of what they read. They dismiss, they do not ignore.

[MG1962]

Anyone - including scientists - might well read the Bible and be aware of its contents without its being in any way "part of their research." I am sure that there are scientists who read the newspaper, Mad Magazine, Gourmet, Vogue and Playboy without its being in any way "part of their research." And I am sure that, in the context of their research, they dismiss much of what they read in those, or any other, publications.

They are, however, aware of what they read. They dismiss, they do not ignore.

For a scientist to read those publications it is for entertainment or person education, but certainly not to discover the latest findings in their field.

Reading the Bible and making a judgement call on its contents is one of pure personal philosophy, not education. In this respect a scientist is no more likely or less likely to decide it is contradictory, or absurb than say a lawyer, road construction worker or student

[Elizabeth I]

For a scientist to read those publications it is for entertainment or person education, but certainly not to discover the latest findings in their field.

Reading the Bible and making a judgement call on its contents is one of pure personal philosophy, not education. In this respect a scientist is no more likely or less likely to decide it is contradictory, or absurb than say a lawyer, road construction worker or student

Certainly they are. A geologist, an anthropologist, an archaeologist, a cosmologist, or a paleontologist, for example, would be much more likely to be aware of specific facts that would contradict or discount claims in the Bible than would the average person-in-the-street.

Why are you insisting on this concept that a scientist would read the Bible in the course of doing scientific research? Where did you get this idea? Who said that?

[MG1962]

Why are you insisting on this concept that a scientist would read the Bible in the course of doing scientific research? Where did you get this idea? Who said that?

A couple of pages back this statement was made

Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality.


The point I was making, is it is poor logic to make the above statement, and I challenged it as such.

[stilicho]

ETA: I just checked by browser hstory and discovered that I did find the page by typing "Creationism Assemblies of God." The first result was the page I quoted. I may have been the victim of someone else's Google bombing.

Hey, I found it that way too. I sure didn't find it by going to their main site. In fact, I doubt there's any internal link to it.

Now, how did you come about figuring that "Creationsim Assemblies of God" would be a good Google search term? I've never heard of that denomination before your post. Are they a big deal in your home town? It looks like they're just another cookie-cutter Baptist breakaway.

[UndercoverElephant]

Certainly they are. A geologist, an anthropologist, an archaeologist, a cosmologist, or a paleontologist, for example, would be much more likely to be aware of specific facts that would contradict or discount claims in the Bible than would the average person-in-the-street.

Why are you insisting on this concept that a scientist would read the Bible in the course of doing scientific research? Where did you get this idea? Who said that?

An anthropologist might.

[six7s]

A couple of pages back this statement was made
Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality.


The point I was making, is it is poor logic to make the above statement, and I challenged it as such.
This thread seems to be spiralling in chaos to the point where I for one have become so confused that I (sincerely) missed your point...

A summary:The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist.

It might surprise you to hear that I agree with you...for reasons I suspect you wouldn't like.

Please post your reasons.

Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality.

Care to back that up?

Try reading a bible, any bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/), and re-post your question if you can't find multiple instances of contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) and fantasy-enabling absurdities (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

Sorry you are wrong. They dont read it because it has nothing to do with what they are doing. If something like 70% of scientists are athiests, it is a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are...

...

Why is it "a fair bet a reasonable number of these scientists have no idea what the contents of the Bible are"?

By your (twisted) logic, is it a fair bet that these same scientists have no idea what's inside the collected works of Shakespeare?

There is no twist in the logic - how does knowing the works of Shakespear affect a scientist ability to do work in their chosen profession.

You are defending that scientist ignore the Bible for various reasons. First you have to show they had a valid reason to be reading the Bible as part of their research in the first place.

First of all, it was YOU (not me) that pretended that scientists ignore the bible

If anything, I would guess (note: this ain't an issue that I raised) that Real, True McScottish(tm) scientists are, by definition, both inquisitive and methodical bods and - again I'm guessing - many of those exposed to the Abrahamic myths are likely to have skimmed the first couple of chapters of Genesis and recognised that any collection of books - despite numerous edits - that still contains such glaring contradictions is a highly unlikely source of reliable information on and/or insights into reality

Note: Dismissing does not equate to ignoring

A couple of pages back this statement was made
Scientists ignore the Bible because it is self-contadictory and not founded in reality.


The point I was making, is it is poor logic to make the above statement, and I challenged it as such.

I note you didn't respond to this:
Dismissing does not equate to ignoring
:(

[MG1962]

This thread seems to be spiralling in chaos to the point where I for one have become so confused that I (sincerely) missed your point...

No problem, welcome to my world :rolleyes: The internet can at times be a very unreliable way to communicate, no harm done.

In terms of dismissing or ignoring. A mathematics researcher would ignore the Bible because there is nothing for them in the book other than an exploration of personal philosophy.

An archeologist for example may dismiss what they read in the Bible, because much of the historical information is not able to be verified. Sure the Bible mentions Jericho, however the destruction and history of the city does not seem to match what the Bible indicates.

The Bible can at times be a reasonable secondary source. Recent finds suggest that two settlements on the Dead Sea may be Sodom and Gomora, both settlements seem to have suffered dreadful natural disasters that may have been the source of the Biblical story.

[six7s]

In terms of dismissing or ignoring. A mathematics researcher would ignore the Bible because there is nothing for them in the book other than an exploration of personal philosophy.And some rather... erm... 'creative' accounting...

scienceblogs.com: Innumerate Fundamentalists and π (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/innumerate_fundamentalists_and.php)
Category: Debunking Creationism • fundamentalism
Posted on: August 13, 2006 11:00 AM, by Mark C. Chu-Carroll

The stupidity and innumeracy of Americans, and in particular American fundamentalists, never ceases to astound me.

Recently on Yahoo, some bozo posted something claiming that the bible was all correct, and that genetics would show that bats were actually birds. But that's not the real prize. The real prize of the discussion was in the ensuing thread.

A doubter posted the following question:
please explain 1 kings 7.23 and how a circle can have a circumference of 30 of a unit and a radiius of 10 of a unit and i will become a christian

23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. (1 Kings 7:23, NKJV)

And the answer is one of the all-time greats of moronic innumeracy:

Very easy. You are talking about the value of Pi. That is actually 3 not 3.14....... The digits after the decimal forms a geometric series and it will converge to the value zero. So, 3.14.....=3.00=3. Nobody still calculated the precise value of Pi. In future they will and apply advenced Mathematics to prove the value of Pi=3.

Source: scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/innumerate_fundamentalists_and.php (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/innumerate_fundamentalists_and.php)

[stilicho]

And some rather... erm... 'creative' accounting...

scienceblogs.com: Innumerate Fundamentalists and π (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/innumerate_fundamentalists_and.php)

Here's a helpful hint, six7s. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Remember that I can create an account here as siX7s and say all kinds of stupid things and you'd have to defend against them.

I have never met a religious person who thought that their "bible" was a mathematical text.

Sounds like you were tricked by an anonymous person seeking to discredit religious people as complete idiots.

[six7s]

Here's a helpful hint, six7s. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Remember that I can create an account here as siX7s and say all kinds of stupid things and you'd have to defend against them.Dear siX7s,

Please tell me how to suck eggs

Yours etc.
six7s

I have never met a religious person who thought that their "bible" was a mathematical text. Good

Sounds like you were tricked by an anonymous person seeking to discredit religious people as complete idiots.Sounds like you have gone off on a straight line or plane that touches a curve or curved surface at a point but does not intersect it at that point

[stilicho]

Sounds like you have gone off on a straight line or plane that touches a curve or curved surface at a point but does not intersect it at that point

You first, of course.

This is a thread about who knows the earth is 6,000 years old. Really it's almost nobody. I used quotations from sites purporting to support YEC like the strangely named "Assemblies of God".

They don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth even though someone thought they did.

BTW, have you ever met a stupid atheist?

[six7s]

BTW, have you ever met a stupid atheist?Yeah... there's one loitering outside my bathroom that I see out the window I look through when I brush my teeth

[six7s]

This is a thread about who knows the earth is 6,000 years old. Really it's almost nobody. Tell that to the good folks at Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_earth_creationism#Adherents_of_Young_Earth_C reationism) who link (http://www.conservapedia.com/Lists_of_Creationists) to Creation Ministries International (http://creation.com/creation-scientists)

Frequently asked questions listed by topic
Creation scientists and other specialists of interest

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
Discrimination against creation scientists
Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator

* Early
* The Age of Newton
* Just Before Darwin
* Just after Darwin
* The Modern Period

Scientists who are against the biblical view of creation


Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

* Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
* Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
* Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
* Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

You might say "Really it's almost nobody"... others might disagree

It seems like this is some sort of (fallacious) argument from popularity in reverse...

It doesn't matter how many or how few subscribe to it... Woo is woo is woo is woo

[Ladewig]

Hey, I found it that way too. I sure didn't find it by going to their main site. In fact, I doubt there's any internal link to it.

Now, how did you come about figuring that "Creationsim Assemblies of God" would be a good Google search term? I've never heard of that denomination before your post. Are they a big deal in your home town? It looks like they're just another cookie-cutter Baptist breakaway.

I stumbled onto the Assemblies of GOd because I was googling "denominations young earth creationism" and one site mentioned them. I then went to their official website and found the referenced page by searching the website.

[Ladewig]

I have never met a religious person who thought that their "bible" was a mathematical text.

Sounds like you were tricked by an anonymous person seeking to discredit religious people as complete idiots.


Kurious Kathy and her husband, Christian Dude, believe that the Bible is a mathematical text and the God encoded the value of pi into 1 Kings chapter 7.

This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106,
CD

Just because you've never met people who are willing to take the literalness of the Old Testament to absurd heights does not mean they don't exist.

[octogen80]

So you say God,I say subconscious mind oui?

[Ladewig]

You first, of course.

This is a thread about who knows the earth is 6,000 years old. Really it's almost nobody.

There are 15 million Seventh Day Adventists who believe it. I'm not prepared to call them nobody.

[hamelekim]

God created Adam and Eve fully grown without evolution. God created the angels fully grown without evolution. God could easily create the universe as though it were already extremely old without any problem, and we would never know the difference.

[autumn1971]

God created Adam and Eve fully grown without evolution. God created the angels fully grown without evolution. God could easily create the universe as though it were already extremely old without any problem, and we would never know the difference.
Yes, and that would be a mockery of our ability to think, and the final proof that god is a sadistic ass.

[six7s]

Just because you've never met people who are willing to take the literalness of the Old Testament to absurd heights does not mean they don't exist.Speak of the devil

God created Adam and Eve fully grown without evolution. God created the angels fully grown without evolution. God could easily create the universe as though it were already extremely old without any problem, and we would never know the difference.And see his horns

Perfect :)

[MG1962]

There are 15 million Seventh Day Adventists who believe it. I'm not prepared to call them nobody.

Of which less than 2% live in the US

Balanced against 1.1 Billion Catholics, they are definately minor league

[Ladewig]

Of which less than 2% live in the US

Balanced against 1.1 Billion Catholics, they are definately minor league

Easily minor league, AA even. But I am not prepared to call them (and the other YECs) nobody.

[hamelekim]

Yes, and that would be a mockery of our ability to think, and the final proof that god is a sadistic ass.

Why would it be a mockery and why would it prove God is a sadistic ass?

Please provide your reasoning behind this as it doesn't make sense in my eyes.

If you base your entire world view on scientific reasoning then you will fail just as the Greeks did.

This really explains it all.

1 Corinthians:18-31

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

[Ladewig]

God created the angels fully grown without evolution.

Has anyone in the history of the world ever claimed that angels evolved from lower spiritual beings?

[hamelekim]

Has anyone in the history of the world ever claimed that angels evolved from lower spiritual beings?

You are missing the point. I was giving examples of God creating fully developed beings without their own thought processes that didn't need to develop through childhood.

In other words, God has the power to create a fully developed Universe without waiting billions of years.

In any case, we don't have enough evidence to come to any real conclusions on the matter other than to say that we don't know exactly when or how the earth was formed.

[six7s]

Of which less than 2% live in the US

Balanced against 1.1 Billion Catholics, they are definately minor league
So arguments from (un)popularity are valid, yes? :confused:

[six7s]

In any case, we don't have enough evidence to come to any real conclusions on the matter other than to say that we don't know exactly when or how the earth was formed.Ahh... the joys of using a compendium of millenia-old horror stories as your reference library

Good luck with that

Meanwhile... for the last 200 years, many people have gained an increasingly consistent idea how the earth was formed:
2aklZa8BWhE

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 53,600 for "how the earth was formed" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22how+the+earth+was+formed%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3)

[hamelekim]

Ahh... the joys of using a compendium of millenia-old horror stories as your reference library

Good luck with that

Meanwhile... for the last 200 years, many people have gained an increasingly consistent idea how the earth was formed:
2aklZa8BWhE

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 53,600 for "how the earth was formed" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22how+the+earth+was+formed%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3)

Yes, without any experimental evidence to prove the hypothesis.

We have never see it happen.

[six7s]

Yes, without any experimental evidence to prove the hypothesis.

We have never see it happen.Its so sad that, for some, the words critical and thinking have no association

[hamelekim]

Its so sad that, for some, the words critical and thinking have no association

Is this comment not a violation of rule 12?

[PixyMisa]

In other words, God has the power to create a fully developed Universe without waiting billions of years.
So do I.

In works of fiction.

In any case, we don't have enough evidence to come to any real conclusions on the matter other than to say that we don't know exactly when or how the earth was formed.
Sure.

If you ignore all the evidence, then there's no evidence.

But what if you didn't ignore all the evidence? Sedimentation, weathering, rock strata, fossils, radiometric dating, and all the rest.

Yes, without any experimental evidence to prove the hypothesis.
Sorry, you don't seem to understand how science works.

You don't prove hypotheses. You falsify them.

So all you have to do is provide evidence that shows that the Earth isn't 4.6 billion years old, which is the age we get from the analysis of a vast range of evidence.

We have never see it happen.
We have never seen what happen?

Sedimentation? Sorry, wrong.
Weathering? Sorry, wrong.
Folding and faulting? Sorry, wrong.
Continental drift? Sorry, wrong.
Radioisotope decay? Sorry, wrong.

[hamelekim]

So do I.

In works of fiction.


Sure.

If you ignore all the evidence, then there's no evidence.

But what if you didn't ignore all the evidence? Sedimentation, weathering, rock strata, fossils, radiometric dating, and all the rest.


Sorry, you don't seem to understand how science works.

You don't prove hypotheses. You falsify them.

So all you have to do is provide evidence that shows that the Earth isn't 4.6 billion years old, which is the age we get from the analysis of a vast range of evidence.


We have never seen what happen?

Sedimentation? Sorry, wrong.
Weathering? Sorry, wrong.
Folding and faulting? Sorry, wrong.
Continental drift? Sorry, wrong.
Radioisotope decay? Sorry, wrong.

We have never seen space dust form together to create a planet, then be bombarded with enough comets to create oceans, etc...

The things that you listed above are observations about the current earth, yes, but they do not prove that the earth was formed over billions of years.

Look at continental drift for instance. There are modern examples of valley being created in less than a year in africa due to movement of the earth. If it can happen on a small scale, why could it not happen on a larger scale, especially if there was some large shock to the earth?

Please falsify the theory of God.

[six7s]

Please falsify the theory of God.Please specify and describe which theory and which god

[six7s]

Look at continental drift for instance. There are modern examples of valley being created in less than a year in africa due to movement of the earth. If it can happen on a small scale, why could it not happen on a larger scale, especially if there was some large shock to the earth?You're right... there is no reason to rule out the possibility that it could "happen on a larger scale"

If you have a well-developed model that supports this hypothesis, please do present it

[hamelekim]

Please specify and describe which theory and which god

The universal constants proof for starters, and the Christian God.

The universal constants are so exact, that if they were off by a little bit we wouldn't be here. The chances of that occurring are so extremely thin, along with even the chance that a universe would be created out of nothing, period, that there has to be a creator.

As for the Christian God. Bible prophecy is proof of that. Jesus, The Jewish people being the center of focus for much of the world. All of this is spoken of in the Bible, and is coming true before our very eyes.

[hamelekim]

You're right... there is no reason to rule out the possibility that it could "happen on a larger scale"

If you have a well-developed model that supports this hypothesis, please do present it

Even if I did, that would not be enough proof for you to believe that the Earth was not billions of years old, only that it is possible that the continents did not take millions of years to move into their current positions.

It is pointless to try and use science to prove God's existence because God is more than just facts and figures.

You are more than just facts and figures, you are not a Vulcan with no emotion. Your actions and behaviors are not all scientifically and rationally sound. If you don't trust your feelings then you can never come to the truth.

[six7s]

Please specify and describe which theory and which godThe universal constants proof for starters, and the Christian God.

The universal constants are so exact, that if they were off by a little bit we wouldn't be here. The chances of that occurring are so extremely thin, along with even the chance that a universe would be created out of nothing, period, that there has to be a creator.

As for the Christian God. Bible prophecy is proof of that. Jesus, The Jewish people being the center of focus for much of the world. All of this is spoken of in the Bible, and is coming true before our very eyes.I have read your reply twice and can't see where you specify and describe which theory it is you want falsified

:confused:

[PixyMisa]

We have never seen space dust form together to create a planet, then be bombarded with enough comets to create oceans, etc...
We have seen space dust. It's all over the place.

We have seen comets. They're all over the place.

We know that gravity pulls stuff like that together. It's all over the place too.

We are getting bombarded by a constant stream of space dust and meteors and the occasional comet today. And there's plenty of evidence that it happened a great deal more in the past. There's this thing in the sky, it's called the Moon. You should take a look at it sometime.

The things that you listed above are observations about the current earth, yes, but they do not prove that the earth was formed over billions of years.
For the lay use of the word "prove", yes they do. If you have rocks that are billions of years old, the Earth is rather unlikely to be younger than those rocks, isn't it?

Look at continental drift for instance.Yes, looking.

There are modern examples of valley being created in less than a year in africa due to movement of the earth.You do realise that minor changes like that are caused by the stresses built up over time by the very very slow process of continential drift?

If it can happen on a small scale, why could it not happen on a larger scale, especially if there was some large shock to the earth?Because the energy involved would melt the Earth's crust and vaporise the oceans and kill every living thing.

I don't know about you, but I can't remember that happening recently.

Please falsify the theory of God.What is this "theory of God"?

[six7s]

God is more than just facts and figuresPlease describe one attribute of your god that is testable (repeatedly) and falsifiable

[Philip]

But show us what organised religious bodies actually teach the 6,000-year-earth. I gave you one example. And its adherents don't even believe it. The Vatican doesn't.

Which Christian denominations actually instruct their congregations that the earth is just 6,000 years old? You've already agreed the Vatican doesn't so who is it?
Many, if not most, Southern Baptists believe in a young earth. My sister and brother-in-law's church had a play supporting young-earth-creationism in which my red-haired niece played a Chinese girl talking about how cultures worldwide have a story of a great flood and that this supports the Bible.

The resolutions of the Southern Baptist Convention that I could find regarding creation and evolution support a literal Biblical interpretation:

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1106

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967

The Southern Baptist Convention "has become the world's largest Baptist denomination and America's largest Protestant body with over 16 million members and more than 42,000 churches."


(This thread needs to be broken into a dozen smaller threads.)

[UndercoverElephant]

Many, if not most, Southern Baptists believe in a young earth. My sister and brother-in-law's church had a play supporting young-earth-creationism in which my red-haired niece played a Chinese girl talking about how cultures worldwide have a story of a great flood and that this supports the Bible.


How is that supposed to support the Bible? Seems to me more like it supports the idea that there really was a great flood event somewhere in human history (possibly the flooding of the black sea, possibly the rapid rise in sea-level at the end of the last glacial maximum) which many different cultures survived (otherwise there would have been nobody to make stories about it). The Bible claims that only Noah's family and the animals on the ark survived the flood, which is clearly wrong, isn't it?

[joobz]

God created Adam and Eve fully grown without evolution. God created the angels fully grown without evolution.
It also says that god created "light" before creating the sun.
and that the starts were placed into the "firmament" in the sky.
Both of which are blindingly wrong.


God could easily create the universe as though it were already extremely old without any problem, and we would never know the difference.
So god intentionally includes information to intentionally mislead us into think that evolution is true? Does this include human chromosome 2 fusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
He made it seem like humans evolved so that we'd waste a bunch of time with creating science?

That god, what a prankster. He's a regular Johnny Knoxsville, that one. Jackass: The Bible..

[Paulhoff]

God created Adam and Eve fully grown without evolution. God created the angels fully grown without evolution. God could easily create the universe as though it were already extremely old without any problem, and we would never know the difference.
Proof please, not a magic book's writings.

Paul

:) :) :)

[edge]

For the lay use of the word "prove", yes they do. If you have rocks that are billions of years old, the Earth is rather unlikely to be younger than those rocks, isn't it?

How old is gold?

[Tricky]

How old is gold?
Approximately the same age as mankind, since God and gods were all invented by humans.

And welcome back, edge.

[edge]

How about iron?
Where did the rocks and dust come from when the earth wasn’t here?
They where according to science, in a star that existed billions of years before the planets and our sun ever form so where is your accuracy?

[edge]

Hey Tricky how ya been?

[joobz]

How about iron?
Where did the rocks and dust come from when the earth wasn’t here?
They where according to science, in a star that existed billions of years before the planets and our sun ever form so where is your accuracy?
argument from incredulity.

[Tricky]

How about iron?
Where did the rocks and dust come from when the earth wasn’t here?
They where according to science, in a star that existed billions of years before the planets and our sun ever form so where is your accuracy?
Ultimately, all matter in the universe came from the Big Bang, which occurred many billions of years ago. The process of how they came to be iron and "dust" (which indicates the size of a particle, not its composition) is very complex. Even though I am a geologist I have only learned part of it. You'd have to know a great deal about astrophysics and cosmology to have even an inkling of the total process, and even then, be assured you would know only a small portion of it. Yet all data points back to the big bang, so even if we don't know everything, we know enough to be reasonably sure of this.

Hey Tricky how ya been?
Not too bad. How 'bout you?

[edge]

argument from incredulity.



Really think about it.
Everything on this planet according to science, is from some where else that is billions of years older than the existence of this planet, no new rocks or materials are created or am I wrong? Different materials might be blended together.
They are re-melted and cooled into new rocks.

[edge]

I'm good, back down in FL.... again.
Wondering when the economy is going to recover if ever.

[joobz]

Really think about it.
Everything on this planet according to science, is from some where else that is billions of years older than the existence of this planet, no new rocks or materials are created or am I wrong? Different materials might be blended together.
They are re-melted and cooled into new rocks.

The sum of matter and energy are conserved. Yes.
I don't see what's so shocking about this.

[edge]

The sum of matter and energy are conserved. Yes.
I don't see what's so shocking about this.

Nothing to me, but do ya think we are dating the age of this earth or another planet or star when they were in existence?
If so how can we claim with uncertainty the accuracy of the dating techniques?
They might be but not in the context of what is said about the age of this planet.

[Tricky]

Nothing to me, but do ya think we are dating the age of this earth or another planet or star when they were in existence?
If so how can we claim with uncertainty the accuracy of the dating techniques?
They might be but not in the context of what is said about the age of this planet.
They are given a range of accuracy, they are not perfectly accurate. These ranges are compared with other methods of dating, such as cooling time, and in turned compared with stellar motion. While not perfectly accurate, the results quite consistantly reveal that the universe to be 13-14 billion years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe). This fits in quite well with an age of the earth which is in turn measured by different methods and compared to rates of geologic processes to give an age of 4 to 5 billion years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth). The fact that ALL these measurements, which vary so greatly in what they measure, synch with each other is an incredibly powerful assortment of evidence that they are, withing the range of their error bars, fairly accurate.

Compare this with the evidence for a young earth as described by fundamentalist Christians. It consists of the writings of philosophers from an age where modern methods of measuring great lengths of time were unknown. It does not fit with any evidence and even conflicts with other philosophical writings of different cultures.

This becomes so obvious that we see, as we have seen in this thread, fundamentalists give up completely on science and propose that the earth was created this way for some unknown purpose. The libraries of data showing the age of the earth and universe must be false because God made it that way for some perverse reason that we can not understand. He deliberately planted false clues and misled us in countless ways in order for... what? A joke?

So we come to two main possibilites.

God is a prankster and/or a liar who has misled us into thinking that something incorrect by deliberately planting clues to lead us in the wrong direction and make human endeavor meaningless.

or

The ancient philosophers were wrong.

You and Occam can probably guess which explanation I would choose.

[six7s]

Really think about it.
Everything on this planet according to science, is from some where else that is billions of years older than the existence of this planet, no new rocks or materials are created or am I wrong? Different materials might be blended together.
They are re-melted and cooled into new rocks.Interesting points :)

@Tricky (or anyone who knows):
If some old (say 4BYA) rocks etc were melted and reformed 500MYA, how old would they be according to the standard (radiometric?) dating techniques?

[Tricky]

Interesting points :)

@Tricky (or anyone who knows):
If some old (say 4BYA) rocks etc were melted and reformed 500MYA, how old would they be according to the standard (radiometric?) dating techniques?
They would be 500MYA. Melting rocks essentially "resets the timer". Of course, sometimes rocks are imperfectly melted, and you may find inclusions that did not melt. In fact, you have to be very careful dating sedimentary rocks with radiometric methods, because sedimentary rocks are created from fragments of older rocks. As such, often all you can get is a "younger than" number.

However, there has long been a search for the oldest rocks on earth. The Canadian Shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_rock), a massive ingneous bedrock of Central Canada has some of them. This MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26890176/)says the oldest ones we've now found are 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old.

This conforms roughly with the ages of meteorites that are mostly from the same class of rocks that are found in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Asteroids are theorized to be formed roughly at the same time or slightly before Earth, (about 4.5 BYA).

Though the error bars are pretty big on these numbers, even if you accepted the lowest possible values, they give almost certain evidence that the solar system is billions of years old, not thousands.

[edge]

You would think that we would find a few that are 10 B.Y.A. or so or older by now.
My assumption is that no one has the time lines totally right but if you blend them you can start to get a picture that is more accurate.

Just like the flood 12,00 years seems to be the right time for that occurrence, is there proof?
Seems to be.

[Ladewig]

Just like the flood 12,00 years seems to be the right time for that occurrence, is there proof?
Seems to be.

I'm not sure what number you meant, but even the staunchest of Bible literalists cannot believe that there was a worldwide flood after the execution of Jesus.

If you meant 12,000, again I am going to have to disagree with you. There is no evidence at all of a world-wide flood.

[temporalillusion]

Really think about it.
Everything on this planet according to science, is from some where else that is billions of years older than the existence of this planet, no new rocks or materials are created or am I wrong? Different materials might be blended together.
They are re-melted and cooled into new rocks.

Kind of.

Only a few elements came out of the big bang, with Lithium being the heaviest if I remember correctly.

Anything heavier was formed by other processes.. such as in a star. A star can (through fusion) forum everything right up to Iron. Everything heavier than iron was formed through supernovae where heavy elements are smashed into other heavy elements to form even heavier ones.

This creates the elements in the universe. So those (for the most part) can't be destroyed (nuclear events and black holes being exceptions, and even black holes are thought to evaporate).

Things like rocks are combinations of elements, so rocks can be created or destroyed; if the earth was obliterated in a supernova no rock would be left, but the constituent elements (or derivatives) would still exist, be part of a nebulae, and eventually form another solar system.

[temporalillusion]

Nothing to me, but do ya think we are dating the age of this earth or another planet or star when they were in existence?
If so how can we claim with uncertainty the accuracy of the dating techniques?
They might be but not in the context of what is said about the age of this planet.

When they use radiometric dating, they aren't dating individual atoms. They're dating based on ratios of elements in a sealed sample based on the amount of radioactive elements and their daughter elements.

What's important isn't when the particular atoms were created, it's how many of a specific element have decayed into something else.

Radiometric dating gives a date as to when the rock was formed in its current state (assuming nothing has happened along the way, which they take great measures to ensure).

[Tricky]

You would think that we would find a few that are 10 B.Y.A. or so or older by now.
No you wouldn't. Asteroids and comets are commonly theorized to be products of the same processes that created our solar system. They are not drifting through interstellar space.

My assumption is that no one has the time lines totally right but if you blend them you can start to get a picture that is more accurate.
That would be a bad assumption. You cannot mix evidence and legend and get something close to truth. You would only dilute the truth that way.

Just like the flood 12,00 years seems to be the right time for that occurrence, is there proof?
Seems to be.
No. There is no proof, or even strong evidence of a worldwide flood at any time in history.

[ImaginalDisc]

No you wouldn't. Asteroids and comets are commonly theorized to be products of the same processes that created our solar system. They are not drifting through interstellar space.

Well, sort of, in that our entire solar system is drifting through interstellar space.

[Lord Emsworth]

The universal constants proof for starters, and the Christian God.

The universal constants are so exact, that if they were off by a little bit we wouldn't be here. The chances of that occurring are so extremely thin, along with even the chance that a universe would be created out of nothing, period, that there has to be a creator.

Of course you are not explaining anything. Who'd thunk. If you really wanted to explain stuff, then maybe you could try to establish some sort of connection between what you call God, what you call creator, and what you call universal constants, and so on. But then again ... it is not going to happen anyway.

[six7s]

They would be 500MYA. <snip/>Thank you :)

Guessing can be a fun, thought-provoking spiral

Knowing where to get clear, prompt explanations ('scuse teh pun) ROCKS!

[hamelekim]

It also says that god created "light" before creating the sun.
and that the starts were placed into the "firmament" in the sky.
Both of which are blindingly wrong.

You can have light from God without the Sun or stars.


So god intentionally includes information to intentionally mislead us into think that evolution is true? Does this include human chromosome 2 fusion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
He made it seem like humans evolved so that we'd waste a bunch of time with creating science?

That god, what a prankster. He's a regular Johnny Knoxsville, that one. Jackass: The Bible..
He isn't misleading those who are truly seeking. If you feel you are mislead then you are coming from the wrong direction.

I'm not going to say that the earth was created 6 thousand years ago, or that it was created 2 billion years ago. I think that the truth is likely something else that we don't know of at this point, but one day will be revealed.

[hamelekim]

Of course you are not explaining anything. Who'd thunk. If you really wanted to explain stuff, then maybe you could try to establish some sort of connection between what you call God, what you call creator, and what you call universal constants, and so on. But then again ... it is not going to happen anyway.

It's fairly obvious what the connection is. Essentially your argument is that everything happened by chance and the fact that we are here proves that chance just so happened to bring together the specific requirements in this universe for life.

It's false to have this sort of conclusion when we don't even know what caused our universe to be created or what was before our universe.

I think that many people, like yourself find it far more palatable to have a universe without God than to deal with the consequences of a Christian or otherwise creator.

Essentially any belief system that says something you want to do is wrong is anathema to 99% of humans. This is why most people are only partially religious.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's fairly obvious what the connection is. Essentially your argument is that everything happened by chance and the fact that we are here proves that chance just so happened to bring together the specific requirements in this universe for life.

It's false to have this sort of conclusion when we don't even know what caused our universe to be created or what was before our universe.

I think that many people, like yourself find it far more palatable to have a universe without God than to deal with the consequences of a Christian or otherwise creator.

Essentially any belief system that says something you want to do is wrong is anathema to 99% of humans. This is why most people are only partially religious.

This is a very bad argument from incredulity. Because you don't understand cosmology, it's "chance," and your posited creator makes more sense somehow. You do realize you have no explanation for god. You have to know that, because to condemn science on the grounds that it fails to explain sufficently and then to turn around and posit an infinitely powerful creator without explaining it would be so hypocritical the fabric of space would unravel and suck you in you tried it.

Seriously.

[Lord Emsworth]

Of course you are not explaining anything. Who'd thunk. If you really wanted to explain stuff, then maybe you could try to establish some sort of connection between what you call God, what you call creator, and what you call universal constants, and so on. But then again ... it is not going to happen anyway.

It's fairly obvious what the connection is. Essentially your argument is that everything happened

I have not offered any kind of arguement. I have not claimed any thing, except that you are not explaining anything.

And you don't. You make a weak attempt at constructing some sort of straw man that you then hope to attack.


by chance and the fact that we are here proves that chance just so happened to bring together the specific requirements in this universe for life.

You are not explaining anything here either. Just some waffle about what other people supposedly do blah, blah.


It's false to have this sort of conclusion when we don't even know what caused our universe to be created or what was before our universe.

You are not explaining anything here either. But just waffle about how something somehow is false and that we don't really know a lot of stuff.

Indeed, I don't know a lot of things. What this "God" has got to do with those "universal constants" for instance. ;)


I think that many people, like yourself find it far more palatable to have a universe without God than to deal with the consequences of a Christian or otherwise creator.

Uhhh, ulterior motives. I tell you something, it all is just some sort of excuse for guiltless masturbation. Don't you know anything!


Essentially any belief system that says something you want to do is wrong is anathema to 99% of humans. This is why most people are only partially religious.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not.

Do you know that Raphael Nadal lost at the French Open? In four sets, no less. And he's probably been unbeaten on that venue for, like, years.

But ... Of course you are not explaining anything. Who'd thunk. If you really wanted to explain stuff, then maybe you could try to establish some sort of connection between what you call God, what you call creator, and what you call universal constants, and so on. But then again ... it is not going to happen anyway.


Here I got a little something that is quite similar to the "God theory" for you: :pacifier:

[Paulhoff]

You can have light from God without the Sun or stars.
Proof of this so-called god please. And please show me how this so-called light has enlighted you.

Paul

:) :) :)

Tell us more that we have heard a thousand times before, and it hasn't gotten better with each telling.

[Paulhoff]

You would think that we would find a few that are 10 B.Y.A. or so or older by now.
My assumption is that no one has the time lines totally right but if you blend them you can start to get a picture that is more accurate.

Just like the flood 12,00 years seems to be the right time for that occurrence, is there proof?
Seems to be.
Read Edge, read.

http://amonline.net.au/geoscience/earth/dating.htm

That is just the beginning.

No, "tell me all about the universe in five words or less" stuff.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Pure Argent]

The universal constants proof for starters, and the Christian God.

The universal constants are so exact, that if they were off by a little bit we wouldn\'t be here. The chances of that occurring are so extremely thin, along with even the chance that a universe would be created out of nothing, period, that there has to be a creator.

But if the universal constants were off by just that little bit, the universe would not exist. And there is nothing else that could exist (please, please don\'t say \"except Heaven\" or whatever). I\'m no philosopher, but I\'m pretty sure that having absolutely nothing - no universes or anything - is impossible, because then there would be nothing to differentiate nothing from something.

You can have light from God without the Sun or stars.

God is a light bulb!

I\'m not going to say that the earth was created 6 thousand years ago, or that it was created 2 billion years ago. I think that the truth is likely something else that we don\'t know of at this point, but one day will be revealed.

People use this argument a lot. But I think there\'s a fairly obvious flaw with it: a thousand years ago, people were saying \"The truth is probably something else that will be discovered in the future.\" THE FUTURE IS NOW.

It\'s fairly obvious what the connection is. Essentially your argument is that everything happened by chance and the fact that we are here proves that chance just so happened to bring together the specific requirements in this universe for life.

It\'s false to have this sort of conclusion when we don\'t even know what caused our universe to be created or what was before our universe.

Then what is the connection, if it\'s so blindingly obvious?

I answer with the phrase immortalized in demotivators across the internet: Oh yes, your theory about the magical being with no origin is much better.

This exact statement could be applied to Christianity.

I think that many people, like yourself find it far more palatable to have a universe without God than to deal with the consequences of a Christian or otherwise creator.

On the contrary. If I were to find out that there is a God, a real God, an omnipotent, omniscient being, who actually gives a hoot about human life and lifts every slain soul up to heaven to live in peace for eternity, I would gladly join his cause. I would give my life to preaching his gospel, because it would be the right choice, the only choice.
But there is no evidence to support this. So I don\'t believe.

Essentially any belief system that says something you want to do is wrong is anathema to 99% of humans. This is why most people are only partially religious.

Actually, no argument here. A pretty good summary, I\'d say.

[edge]

So we haven't found any rocks that are older than lets say 4 billion years?
But we are traveling through the galactic plane in and out of spiral arms of the galaxy and the galaxy is traveling through space between the other galaxies and open space, doesn't make sense.
So science is basically saying that all matter when a star explodes is changed to younger rock younger elements? What about a planet on the fringes that gets shattered and fragmented and is pushed by those explosions there has to be something out there in orbit around a nova or exploding star that isn't quite annihilated that is sent adrift or turned into a comets or meteorites and dust.
So there are no real evidences as of yet that demonstrates that there are objects that are older than the earth according to our dating techniques? So faith is required I assume, to believe the 15 billion year age?
We should have by now found one rock or meteor that the dating tech can verify by now I would think.

[Pure Argent]

So we haven\'t found any rocks that are older than lets say 4 billion years?
But we are traveling through the galactic plane in and out of spiral arms of the galaxy and the galaxy is traveling through space between the other galaxies and open space, doesn\'t make sense.

Yes it does. We are not traveling \"in and out of the spiral arms of the galaxy.\" Yes, the Earth moves. But what you are ignoring is the fact that the rest of the galaxy moves, too.

So science is basically saying that all matter when a star explodes is changed to younger rock younger elements? What about a planet on the fringes that gets shattered and fragmented and is pushed by those explosions there has to be something out there in orbit around a nova or exploding star that isn\'t quite annihilated that is sent adrift or turned into a comets or meteorites and dust.

I\'m no scientist, so I can\'t answer the first part about the younger elements, but the shattered planet thing is fairly simple.
No, a supernova wouldn\'t \"push\" a planet\'s fragments away. The fragments would still be held in place by the star\'s gravity. Even as a star explodes, it retains its mass. The planet would be held until it was engulfed.

And back to the \"We haven\'t found any that are older than lets say 4 billion years?\" thing.
You\'re ignoring the fact that rocks did not form the instant after the Big Bang. In the beginning, everything was just free-floating elemental particles (I think. Again, not a scientist, so anything that I say here that is contradicted by other members... just go with them, okay?) that slowly combined into dust (or stars, but I won\'t go into that), which slowly combined into pebbles, which slowly combined into rocks, which slowly grew larger. And, as the rocks grew larger, the rocks at the center were compressed.
If you compress a substance, it heats up. This is why, when you make snowballs for a snowball fight, you squeeze the snowball together. This causes the center of the snowball to melt so that it can then refreeze and hold the rest of it together. What happened with the newly-formed rocks is similar. As newer rocks were added to the outer shells, the center, older rocks were compressed and melted, which reset their internal timers, as Tricky said.

[Ladewig]

This is why, when you make snowballs for a snowball fight, you squeeze the snowball together. This causes the center of the snowball to melt so that it can then refreeze and hold the rest of it together.

I'm going to need a reliable citation before I can believe that. Also, what up with the backslashes?

[Pure Argent]

I\'m going to need a reliable citation before I can believe that. Also, what up with the backslashes?

Looking for a citation now. And the backslashes are my browser\'s fault. It doesn\'t read the punctuation correctly. Apologies.

[Pure Argent]

I\'ll keep looking for other citations, including the mentioned formula, but here\'s an initial one:

http://www.etccreations.com/howdoesaheatpumpwork%3F

If you took high school chemistry, you may remember an equation relating temperature and pressure. Basically, under otherwise constant conditions, the temperature of a gas is directly related to the pressure. This principle also tells us that the boiling point of a liquid can be changed by increasing or decreasing the pressure.

Scroll about half way down the page here to \"The Steam Tables\". You see that at low pressure, the boiling point of water is much lower. For example, at 1 pound of pressure, the boiling temperature is ~102F. Conversely, at 26 pounds of pressure, the boiling temperature rises to 242F. Standard atmospheric pressure is ~15 pounds of pressure.

Remember this - high pressure = high temperature; low pressure = low temperature.

[Tricky]

So we haven't found any rocks that are older than lets say 4 billion years?
Not that I have heard of. Of course, we believe that there are many of them in other, older solar systems, but we have no way of getting there to get samples.

But we are traveling through the galactic plane in and out of spiral arms of the galaxy and the galaxy is traveling through space between the other galaxies and open space, doesn't make sense. It makes a lot of sense. Since the universe started at one point, each object in the universe is moving away from that central point along a different vector. Envisions lines radiating from a central point. They do not intersect.

So science is basically saying that all matter when a star explodes is changed to younger rock younger elements?
It is much more complex than that. But when matter is melted, all the isotopes are reset to a base-state level. It is still the same matter but one of the principal ways we measure its age, i.e. isotopic ratios, has been reset to "zero". There are other ways to measure it, like velocity and distance from galactic central point, but it is hard to do this except for very large bodies.

What about a planet on the fringes that gets shattered and fragmented and is pushed by those explosions there has to be something out there in orbit around a nova or exploding star that isn't quite annihilated that is sent adrift or turned into a comets or meteorites and dust. Most of it is still in whatever solar system it began in. Just as all the comets we know of have orbits around the sun. Some of them have very very long orbits, but they are still part of the solar system. Though I'm not an expert on this, I'd guess that the odds of us being struck by a noticeably large piece of a planet from another solar system is extremely small.

So there are no real evidences as of yet that demonstrates that there are objects that are older than the earth according to our dating techniques?

There is lots of real evidence, as I discussed earlier about measuring velocity and distance from GCP (which is assumed to be the center of the Big Bang). It is simply not rock isotope measurement. There may be other ways like perhaps (and I am just guessing here) using spectrometry to find isotope ratios in stars. I'm not an astronomer or cosmologist so I really must plead ignorance. I'm not a cosmetologist either, so I don't make things up.

So faith is required I assume, to believe the 15 billion year age?
We should have by now found one rock or meteor that the dating tech can verify by now I would think.
I hope my explanation of why we don't get debris from other solar systems will be sufficient to make it clear why we don't have any such rocks to date. I also hope my explanation of one way that age is determined will show you that it is still evidence, not faith, which is behind these numbers.

[Pure Argent]

Okay, found the formula:

If V is constant, P = kT where P = pressure, k is a constant, and T is the temperature.

Source: http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/chem/chap6/c0606401.asp

If you need more citations, let me know and I\'ll find them.

[Ladewig]

I\'ll keep looking for other citations, including the mentioned formula, but here\'s an initial one:

http://www.etccreations.com/howdoesaheatpumpwork%3F

I wasn't doubting that pressure can generate heat. I was doubting that the pressure of one's hands was enough to melt the center of a snowball.

[Third Eye Open]

When a creationist tells me that he thinks the earth is 6000 years old, I like to argue with them that it is younger.

[Pure Argent]

I wasn\\\'t doubting that pressure can generate heat. I was doubting that the pressure of one\\\'s hands was enough to melt the center of a snowball.

Ah. Okay. Well, I actually heard that one from my Chemistry teacher, but I\\\'ll try and find a reference online. Don\\\'t know if I\\\'ll succeed, though... Sorry for the misunderstanding.

EDIT: Citation found. http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9801/snowball.html

[edge]

We are not traveling \"in and out of the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Yes we have where have you been this is the new stuff ...where you been?
And what is up with those slashes???

[Pure Argent]

Yes we have where have you been this is the new stuff ...where you been?

Can you show me an article? If someone is willing to prove me wrong I\'ll admit it. But from what I\'ve heard, I think Earth is constantly in one spiral arm. Tricky, can you correct me?

[Tricky]

Can you show me an article? If someone is willing to prove me wrong I\'ll admit it. But from what I\'ve heard, I think Earth is constantly in one spiral arm. Tricky, can you correct me?
Not with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure we stay in the same spiral arm of the galaxy. I cite those well-respected cosmologists, Monty Python. (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Galaxy-Song-lyrics-Monty-Python/05B560513F0159E248256EB10006DCBC)
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
Thas orbiting at ninety miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

[Pure Argent]

And there you have it.

[edge]

Not with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure we stay in the same spiral arm of the galaxy


It comes from the new theories on gravitational waves in the arms, we have been or this solar system has been moved through by all of them similar to riding waves, where you all been?
So my point is we should have some older material that has impacted this planet from older systems.

[Pure Argent]

It comes from the new theories on gravitational waves in the arms, we have been or this solar system has been moved through by all of them similar to riding waves, where you all been?
So my point is we should have some older material that has impacted this planet from older systems.

What \"gravitational waves?\" As far as I know, gravity only attracts, and only towards massive objects. Gravity doesn\'t fluctuate. It has a set strength at a set distance at a set mass. I believe the equation is

Force = Gravitational Constant x ((Mass One x Mass Two) / Distance^2)

And the result doesn\'t change as long as the numbers remain constant.

And even if the gravitational waves are real, Tricky has already explained why the oldest rocks are measured to be the age they are (melting resets their timers, remember?).

[edge]

Tricky says: It makes a lot of sense. Since the universe started at one point, each object in the universe is moving away from that central point along a different vector. Envisions lines radiating from a central point. They do not intersect.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080721.html



And even if the gravitational waves are real, Tricky has already explained why the oldest rocks are measured to be the age they are (melting resets their timers, remember?).

Yes I remember what I can't get over is there is no example of our dating methods working past a certain point no physical evidence with all the matter that has hit this planet and others to an absolute proof. I think some of the moon material has been dated to slightly older / half billion years or there about.

There is a possibility that the dark matter… and there's a lot of that, is the older debris, but there's no proof of that either.

[Pure Argent]

Yes I remember what I can't get over is there is no example of our dating methods working past a certain point no physical evidence with all the matter that has hit this planet and others to an absolute proof. I think some of the moon material has been dated to slightly older / half billion years or there about.

The point isn't that our dating methods are unreliable. It's that there's nothing to date beyond that age.

And in regards to your link:
This is nothing really new. Galaxies are moving away overall, but they are still subject to gravity. A massive object (a black hole or another galaxy) can still alter their course.

[Paulhoff]

They date when the rocks where formed, NOT when the elements where made.

Paul

:) :) :)


DAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Tricky]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080721.html

I stand corrected. As I say, I am not an astronomer or a cosmologist. Perhaps you can find if the Milky Way has previously collided with another galaxy in the time since the solar system has been in existence.

[Pure Argent]

The Milky Way has not. Other galaxies have. Like I've said, galaxies alter each others' courses. But this essentially fuses them, at least temporarily. This doesn't mean that the galaxies will fire off older rocks, though. In fact, it means the opposite. The combined gravities of the two galaxies will prevent any older rocks from being expelled.

[edge]

I stand corrected. As I say, I am not an astronomer or a cosmologist. Perhaps you can find if the Milky Way has previously collided with another galaxy in the time since the solar system has been in existence.

It has in the past and is absorbing a globular cluster as we speak.
The chances of stars colliding are slim but not impossible the distances between them are great even then.
But the smaller debris can stay or at least be in close proximity or captured by various gravitational attractions as they pass.

[Foster Zygote]

You are missing the point. I was giving examples of God creating fully developed beings without their own thought processes that didn't need to develop through childhood.
Do you mean "with their own thought processes"?

And please provide a single shred of evidence that angels exist outside of human imagination.

In other words, God has the power to create a fully developed Universe without waiting billions of years.

In any case, we don't have enough evidence to come to any real conclusions on the matter other than to say that we don't know exactly when or how the earth was formed.
So it could have been 15 seconds ago. God could have simply created the appearance that the universe is older than 15 seconds. Hell, the entire universe could be an illusion. Oh dear, looks like we're slipping down the slope to solipsism.

By the way, why would your god be inclined to make the universe appear as though it had formed nearly fifteen billion years ago? Why does it insist that its creation acknowledge it and then hide all evidence of its existence?

Yeah, yeah, I know: "Proof denies faith" or some such nonsense. Isn't it a bit like your god has set up a path with multiple branches and only those who make the right combination of choices will be rewarded while the others, no matter how sincere their desire to do right, will be punished for having made the wrong random choices?

[Foster Zygote]

The universal constants proof for starters, and the Christian God.

The universal constants are so exact, that if they were off by a little bit we wouldn't be here. The chances of that occurring are so extremely thin, along with even the chance that a universe would be created out of nothing, period, that there has to be a creator.

As for the Christian God. Bible prophecy is proof of that. Jesus, The Jewish people being the center of focus for much of the world. All of this is spoken of in the Bible, and is coming true before our very eyes.

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Douglas Adams

[edge]

APRIL 9, 2002: Someday our Milky Way Galaxy and the neighboring Andromeda Galaxy may come crashing together in a horrendous collision that will twist and distort their shapes beyond recognition.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/galaxy/2002/09/


By 1966, peculiar type spiral NGC 5216 and the globular galaxy NGC 5218 were included as Arp 104 into Halton Arp’s Catalog of Peculiar Galaxies and the 17.3 million light year distant pair were beginning to capture the attention they deserved. Studies were conducted of active galactic nuclei among interacting galaxies and galaxies with extreme tidal distortions and it wasn’t long before science realized these two galaxies had collided - stripping stars, gas and dust from each other which appear about them like skewed halos. Once interaction has occurred, the bridge between them fills with “stars in new and perturbed orbits”.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/25/bridge-across-space-keenans-system-by-martin-winder-and-dietmar-hager/

Well foster the puddle never really dies does it as it's transfered into something else rain.:)

The key word above is dust in the gallactic scale. we need samples and if we had them what if they too where only 4 billion years old?

[temporalillusion]

So we haven't found any rocks that are older than lets say 4 billion years?
But we are traveling through the galactic plane in and out of spiral arms of the galaxy and the galaxy is traveling through space between the other galaxies and open space, doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you don't seem to understand the difference between an element and a rock, and that radiometric dating doesn't work with the nature of the elements or molecules themselves, but the numbers of atoms of specific elements that are found in a specific sample.

Take a rock sample that has all kinds of elements in it, but also has some of the element we're interested in, unobtanium. If the half life of unobtanium is 1 year, and you start with 100 atoms of unobtanium in a sample, one year later you will have only 50 atoms of unobtanium (and 50 atoms of reductium, which is what unobtanium decays into).

So science is basically saying that all matter when a star explodes is changed to younger rock younger elements? What about a planet on the fringes that gets shattered and fragmented and is pushed by those explosions there has to be something out there in orbit around a nova or exploding star that isn't quite annihilated that is sent adrift or turned into a comets or meteorites and dust.

No that's not what science says.

If you could find a fragment of a planet that survived a nova explosion and was cast adrift and had appropriate elements and was sealed, then yes I guess in theory you could date it, though I suspect that the high energy radiation of the supernova would contaminate it.

So there are no real evidences as of yet that demonstrates that there are objects that are older than the earth according to our dating techniques? So faith is required I assume, to believe the 15 billion year age?

No, the age of the universe is very firmly established by evidence.


We should have by now found one rock or meteor that the dating tech can verify by now I would think.

The vast majority of rocks and meteors in the solar system were formed along with the solar system. To randomly find something that might have come from some other solar system intact enough to be dated separately would be pretty unlikely. Randomly find one specific grain of sand out of all the grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.


The key word above is dust in the gallactic scale. we need samples and if we had them what if they too where only 4 billion years old?

I don't know if you could date dust, I don't know how big a sample has to be to be able to date reliably. Remember it's about the ratio of specific elements in a sample that you know hasn't been contaminated in some way.

Besides, we can tell things are older than 4 billion years just by looking up.

[temporalillusion]

It makes a lot of sense. Since the universe started at one point, each object in the universe is moving away from that central point along a different vector. Envisions lines radiating from a central point. They do not intersect.

Actually there's no central point in the universe, and things aren't moving away from each other along different vectors.. if this were true the earth would be at the center of the universe (since everything appears to be moving away from us), and I'm sure you wouldn't like the implications of that :)

Think more like a balloon with pennies glued to the surface, where the pennies represent galaxies. The universe is the surface of the balloon (so I'm representing a 3 dimensional universe with a 2 dimensional surface). As the balloon inflates, all the pennies are moving away from each other, but there's no "point" that they are all moving away from. The surface of the balloon has no center point.

[Pure Argent]

he key word above is dust in the gallactic scale. we need samples and if we had them what if they too where only 4 billion years old?

If they were only 4 billion years old, it would mean that that dust particle was formed 4 billion years ago. So what?

[Elizabeth I]

And please provide a single shred of evidence that angels exist outside of human imagination.

Suggestion:

AND outside the Bible.

[Pure Argent]

The Bible doesn't count as human imagination now?

[Elizabeth I]

The Bible doesn't count as human imagination now?

Well, it does, but invariably when someone posts a request like joobz's oops, Foster Zygote's, one of the religiosities comes back with a quote from the Bible. Like that's evidence.

[Pure Argent]

Well, it does, but invariably when someone posts a request like joobz's oops, Foster Zygote's, one of the religiosities comes back with a quote from the Bible. Like that's evidence.

Well said. Have a cookie.

[six7s]

Well, it does, but invariably when someone posts a request like joobz's oops, Foster Zygote's, one of the religiosities comes back with a quote from the Bible. Like that's evidence.Note that the following is simply evidence of angels in other myths, not evidence that angels are anything other than myths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel#Zoroastrianism
Zoroastrianism
Main article: Zoroastrian angelology

In Zoroastrianism there are different angel-like figures. For example, each person has one guardian angel, called Fravashi. They patronize human beings and other creatures, and also manifest God’s energy. The Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, although they don't convey messages,[20] but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they initially appear in an abstract fashion and then later became personalized, associated with diverse aspects of the divine creation.[21]

Bahá'í Faith

Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, referred to angels as people who through the love of God have consumed all human limitations and have been endowed with spiritual attributes.[22]

`Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'u'lláh's son, defined angels as "those holy souls who have severed attachment to the earthly world, who are free from the fetters of self and passion and who have attached their hearts to the divine realm and the merciful kingdom".[23]

Furthermore, he said that people can be angels in this world:

"Ye are the angels, if your feet be firm, your spirits rejoiced, your secret thoughts pure, your eyes consoled, your ears opened, your breasts dilated with joy, and your souls gladdened, and if you arise to assist the Covenant, to resist dissension and to be attracted to the Effulgence!"[24]


Hinduism, too, has a whole bunch of angels

[Tricky]

Actually there's no central point in the universe, and things aren't moving away from each other along different vectors.. if this were true the earth would be at the center of the universe (since everything appears to be moving away from us), and I'm sure you wouldn't like the implications of that :)

Think more like a balloon with pennies glued to the surface, where the pennies represent galaxies. The universe is the surface of the balloon (so I'm representing a 3 dimensional universe with a 2 dimensional surface). As the balloon inflates, all the pennies are moving away from each other, but there's no "point" that they are all moving away from. The surface of the balloon has no center point.
This is what I feared most. Someone with actual knowledge of cosmology would come in and reveal my ignorance. Well, at least I learned something.

But yeah, I did know everything was "moving away" from earth, but at different speeds. That old gridiron play known as the "red shift".

[temporalillusion]

Lol if by knowledge you mean I can parrot what the expects over in the science forum say, then yeah :)