Is the earth really 6,000 years old?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by dynasty, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. zylark:


    The bible is not meant to give an analyisis of all nature and science. That's not what it's about. But where it speaks about nature, we find true in the real world. It's like galileo said, the bible teaches us how to get to heaven now how the heavens go. Science means knowledge, and the way to being a Christian is spiritual knoledge. But as far as creationism goes, it is true science that seeks out knowledge in the physical world, just as the CHRISTIAN FOUNDERS OF MODERN SCIENCE MEANT IT TO.



    How is it not science? If it fits, that's science. It's origins, and it's the same process of testing a hypothesis that is supposed to be done for evolution. We take a hypothesis, we go out in the feild, we research and see if it fits. That's science. I don't belittle God at all. Evolution belittles God because of God of Love would NEVER make a world full of sin and death as a neccesary mechanism to evolve.

    I don't even think you deserve an answer for this on.e You are wholly ignorant;drowning in ignorance. The bible is history. Look it up.


    Straw man. Of course it's religion. It was in response to this:

    I am not closed minded. My mind is very open to recognise the evil wretchedness of the present state of humanity. I would suggest no such thing. I am a Christian. We do not vote, we do not involve ourselfs in worldly matters. We pray for our leaders and let the potshards strive with the potshards.

    I do in fact know what science is, you are the one who has this false idea that there is no bias in science which is absolutely false. Bias is required in interpereting certain kinds of evidence such as we find in dealing with origins and even devloping a hypothesis. Current understanding will pass away , but the word of the Lord remains forever. I have a preconceived notion that is supernatural in origin yes I do, not ashamed of it at all.

    If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there is no hope, there is no loving God and all of our lifes are totally worthless. I read the bible literally and you say that I then ignore science because in your eyes evolution is wrong. That's not a way to argue with anyone.
    ---

    Whatever kind of Christian is understanding and reasonable in your eyes is not a Christian at all as far as I'm conscerned.

    I don't care what man thinks of me. I think evolution is padded walls nuts. I think not being a Christian is nuts. I think reading billions of years into genesis is really nuts.

    Evolution is grand and inspiring? That is sick. What does it inspire you to do? Mercilessly Kill off your competitors so you can survive?


    What vague nonsense. I'm not going to listen to anyone who calls themself "bishop" anyway.


    Melt:
    No it's not IT. That was an example. No they're not unbiased and I've pointed that out numerous times now. Neither are you unbiased. Neither was albert einsten.Neither is anyone. NOONE IS UNBIASED. The only way to become unbiased is to DIE.

    I agree with them where I agree, I disagree where I disagree. I don't think hardly anyone is to be trusted, but that doesn't mean they can't come to right conclusions about anything. ANd you just dig up dirt on people. It can be done to anyone. If we dig up dirt on you I wonder what we'll find. Your representation of them is like a competing politician who tries to blow up the image of his opponent.

    How does losing in court make them wrong? Yec's do not change what they say all the time. THey have stayed the same pretty much, unlike evolutionists who constantly change thier hypothesis when they find new evidence. I know creationism has been the same, for one because God's word is the same, and 2 because I have watched an ten hour seminar with ken ham and dr. Parker from like 1986. So I know very well what they taught.

    What are you talking about? What do you mean? You mean scientific papers? Submitted to whom? Creationists have submitted numerous papers. I have already posted a link to this. You just go to google and search for whatever dirt you can find and then preach it like fact without hesitation.

    Who cares, whether they lost in court. It doesn't neccessarily mean they are wrong.
    You are twisting my words. You really are behaving like a devil, accuser. When did he disagre with me? What are you talking about? I don't need to retract anything. I said nothing wrong.


    I just posted something even more credible than peer reviewed papers in a journal. He submitted his view at an international conference on the origin of life, where he discussed his ideas with sicentists all over the world face to face. I have already posted papers he has submitted. And he's not a computer scientist. He is a information scientist. His claims have not been disproven. Backtracked? What are you talking about? You don't know what you're talking about. You don't get these statements from the scientific community. It's all you.

    I'm not argueing about that. That's not what this thread is about and I'm not wasting my time. I can argue the science behind what I believe, to a certain degree. Noone knows everything but God.

    Please just stop this madness. You are wasting my time.
     
  2. See Zylark. See Zylark do his thing. Go Zylark go.
     



  3. Thats your problem rigt there, god has nothing to do with science.

    god=religion, not science....

    god=faith.....

    Have faith in whatever you want- but please do not insult science by trying to bring him into it.
     
  4. I wouldnt go that far...
     
  5. God has as much to do with science as elves, leprechauns, orcs, unicorns and homeopathy.
     
  6. I don't understand how Christians (or any other theistic dogmaphile) can make an argument about logic and reason. For very little reason, you believe in something that is so so so so unlikely. It is possible, but there is a better chance of winning Powerball like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times than you being right. I could go on and on, and won't because I think it's great you have the will power to stay blind to proven fact, and just use the Bible when you need to justify your actions. I'm just saying, even if Christians are right, I think I'd rather not participate in the cruelty and arrogance your God displays, cherishs, and endorses.
     
  7. I like your style, Dr. Funkenstein.

    And I also like your name... a Jewish doctor who is into funk. You can't get much more wicked than that
     
  8. It's just that I find life and communication between living things as a beautiful thing. Life is communication, and while it may not balance my checkbook or make food, it gives us a reason to do these things. I am still in awe at the world around me and how things interact. I think when people lose that mystery and awe they turn to religion (if they didn't get it shoved down their throat from the start).
     



  9. Then prove god exists and then it can.....

    Hell- prove it is even more likely god exists vs. we evolved from monkeys.....


    Ok then, lets move on......


    Science knows what is more likely.... So if you want to believe in god you are denying a very accepted theory based on science.

    Which is fine- have faith in whatever you want- but do not insult science with him (aka religious faith)

    And I know absence of evidence does not necessarily mean it is not true- but we have evidence that we did evolve from monkeys....

    So again- which is more likely at this point in time?
     




  10. Look man, I dont believe in god either....but that isnt the same as saying there isnt a god.

    Nobody knows whether god exists or not, in whatever form it may be....not even you rasta.

    Do you know how the universe began, or if it even had a beginning? No.

    Do you know for a fact that it wasnt created by an intellegent being, far more intellegent than you can ever imagine? No.

    I'm realizing that the only thing that turns me off to atheism is the fact that some atheists seem to get a kick out of making fool of religious people. We talk about their ignorance and their lack of an ability to think logically, but heres a question you should ask yourself....

    Is the Universe itself a logical thing? Is anything about the Universe "Logical"? I certainly dont think so. We havent even began to scratch the surface when it comes to this Universe.

    You seem like you're very set in your ways, which is fine if thats what works for you...but how can you ever expect to gain greater knowledge of our own existence when you are clearly closed off completely to even one possibility?
     



  11. Thats like asking me to prove that something out there in the Universe exists before we've even discovered it, how much sense does that make?

    Im not saying its likely god exists, as Ive said before I dont believe in god. However, even you cant say with 100% certainty that it doesnt.

    Can you at least concede the fact that youre not 100% certain god doesnt exist?
     


  12. Did I say 100%?

    No I said more likely....


    Get it straight- I'm sure over the years many people have tried to prove god exists but failed.

    Science has atleast proposed a theory (based on some evidence) that is more likely how the universe was created, and is accepted...

    Rather than some spiritual being which sounds like a fairy tail.

    Thats like saying witches and goblins can exist because you cannot prove they don't.

    Or to take an example from R_M The Flying Speghetti Monster.

    EDIT::

    and if you want to bring up the bible- maybe we should believe in cyclopse and sea monsters because of the illiad & the odyseey
     
  13. All your doing Jonathan is confirming that you got no clue what science is. That and erecting huge strawmen in your representation of science in general and evolution in particular.

    But let us not beat around the bush. This have nothing to do with science. That is not on your agenda. You don't give a rats ass about science or understanding nature. Religion is your agenda, as you've said now multiple times. Not only that, but actually trying to impose your religion in the one field it most certainly do not belong.

    So what do you hope to achieve by this blind ignorant spouting of religious dogmas? Somehow overturn known facts? Like the age of the earth and the universe?

    If that is your goal, you're not very successful at it. Your arguments are so full of fallacies and contradictions that it is actually quite hard to know where to begin.

    One moment you claim "The bible is not meant to give an analyisis of all nature and science." and in the next "If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there is no hope, there is no loving God and all of our lifes are totally worthless."

    Explain to me again how this is science and not religion. Explain to me again how you do not interpret nature through the foggy lens of religious iron age mythology?

    Why is it so hard for you to simply admit that you won't believe anything that contradicts what some desert dwellers jotted down on papyrus some thousands of years ago? How come you put more trust in that then evidence backed facts?

    Oh, and tell me how it is right to be dishonest in your representation of science? You'll probably claim you're not, naturally, so I'll just give a short example. Take to long to do them all.

    Is that what science says? Really now. I'm sure you've convinced yourself of that lie, but it still doesn't make it true. I believe the fallacy committed here is called false reductio ad absurdum.

    For sports, I'll do another that I touched upon earlier:

    Tautology (circular reasoning), unstated major premise, false dichotomy (dilemma) and a non-sequitur (does not follow) all wrapped up in one sentence. Not bad.

    Tell me again why an old earth is incompatible with a deity. Please, without referencing the bible, since that will be circular.

    You do realize what you're really saying, is that you cannot accept anything except what is in the bible.

    So in effect we've established that believing in a young earth and creationism is religion. We've also established that religion is not science, so it follows that belief in a young earth and creationism isn't science.

    Simple, no?

    So we're back where I started, what do you hope to achieve by pissing in the well of knowledge?

    (And a little off topic: Isn't censoring my vivid colourfull language when you quote me kinda' infantile?)
     
  14. www.zeitgeistmovie.com

    Do I win?
     
  15. Exactly, but it's a reasonable inference based on the evidence.

    No, but reasonable inferences can be made. Nobody knows if orcs, leperachauns, unicorns or mole people really exist, but it's fairly safe bet, looking at the empirical evidence to conclude that they do not.

    One cannot "know" anything, but that definition.

    We have reasonable evidence to conclude that the universe began 13.5 - 13.9 billion years ago, via the big bang.

    Come on, you know just as well as I do that line of logic always culminates in logical fallacy.

    If we're talking about keeping scientific possibilities open; then ANYTHING is possible. I definitely concede that.

    Though, it is not reasonable to use that to argue for the existence of a theistic being.

    I'm actually more of an agnostic than anything, by my principles of inquiry. I understand how it seems like I'm an atheist for sure, and assuming that comment is directed at me, I get no more a kick out of making a fool of religious people than I do anybody else.

    Therefore we should abandon all logical thought? What's your point? We strive to do that, and we're not going to do it by appealing to theological fanaticism; we're going to do it through systematic evaluation of evidence.

    If somebody ever gives me evidence of the contrary then I'm more than willing to concede a new viewpoint.

    I haven't seen any yet, though.

    I'm not. You've reached that conclusion from your own observations, but unfortunately your conclusion is wrong.

    I'm very open minded, but my decision making process sits finely up the principles of empiricism. I'm not going to buy into an idea just because it seems very nice or gives me warm and fuzzy feelings.
     






  16. I notice you use the term reasonable quite often. Who or what exactly defines what is reasonable, as opposed to what isnt?
     
  17. It's definitely a subjective term.

    To me, something that is 'reasonable' is something that posses both logical validity and consistency, and has multiple sources or examples of evidence.
     



  18. Indeed it is.


    Okay, Ill try and put this another way....

    Science DOES have just as much to do with god as it has to do with black holes, galaxies, or anything else out there in space.

    God is a theory, as is the Big Bang, for the beginning or creation of the Universe. I'm also fairly certian that there are genuine scientists out there who ARE using science as a means to prove god exits. They too only have theories at this point.

    Humans use science as a means of finding answers. Every scientific discovery doesnt always lead to the final answer or truth, but may only be a single step towards the discovery of something great.

    In regards to the Universe, scientists are trying to find explanations or reasons for everything. What we have at this point are simply theories. Granted, these theories may be based on scientific evidence.....but at the end of the day they are still theories, no matter how "widely accepted" they may be.

    All im saying is that science has just as much to do with discovering god as it has to do with discovering anything else about the universe. We are searching for answers, and wherever the path may lead is where it will lead....even if science takes us directly to god.

    This next part is towards you directly, rasta. Aside from the word "reasonable", I also notice that you use the term "logical" as well....which also happens to be another one of those subjective terms.

    Let me ask you this...

    Have all of the great thinkers througout history been looked upon as logical people in their own time? Long before it had happend, was going to the moon considered a logical idea? Long before we had discovered the world wasnt flat, was it logical to think otherwise?

    The point is that if you look throughout history, some (I'd go as far as to say most) of the greatest minds to ever walk the face of the earth were also labled as crazy, or illogical people in their own time.

    If you never venture anywhere without the aid of logic or reason, you're moving at a turtles pace mentally.

    Often times, it is necessary to think illogically in order to advance. Often times, it is necessary to step outside of the box of logic to see exactly where your mind can take you....thats where some of the greatest discoveries are made.
     



  19. Never have i seen advancement through thinking illogically. I say it is more nessecary then not to step into the box of logic and see where your mind can take you, because that is where the greatest discoveries are made.
     

Share This Page