[_ Old Earth _] Layperson question for all you "smart" folks here

[Hogan]

OK - I am not well educated when it comes to carbon dating, and basalt column formations under sediment, etc. I really didn't want to jump into those discussions with a rather simplistic question.

It seems to me a huge debate between believers and non-believers is about the age of the earth....

1 - can you tell me how old the earth is, and how long it has been populated by humans? This is a question for the believers

2. what about the fossil record? Where does this fit with your belief to the above question? If God created the earth and man and all that, where do the dinosaurs come into the picture? I don't need carbon dating to make a reasonable assumption that they are a lot older than humans.

I will probably have more questions based on answers

thank you

 

[moniker]

I'm sorry but I don't see the dichotomy between 'believer' and 'non-believer.' There are those who interpret the bible according to Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and those who interpret genesis as a parable. Neither of them have more faith than the other; at least, not based solely on this.

 

[reznwerks]

need

Hogan
All you need to know is the difference between the too : believers and non believers.
One argues based on faith without evidence and the other argues based on evidence and repeated tests. The scientist forms a hypothesis , tests that hypothesis, gathers the results , and comes to a conclusion. The believer on the other hand already has the answer and is trying to grasp at anything that looks like evidence to the point of argueing if it can't be proved false than it must be true.

 

[JM]

Re: need

Hogan
All you need to know is the difference between the too : believers and non believers.
One argues based on faith without evidence and the other argues based on evidence and repeated tests. The scientist forms a hypothesis , tests that hypothesis, gathers the results , and comes to a conclusion. The believer on the other hand already has the answer and is trying to grasp at anything that looks like evidence to the point of argueing if it can't be proved false than it must be true.

The Christian assumes God, and science is guilty of “begging the question†since it assumes induction and causation.

The atheist lives by faith, they cannot study all the information gathered, yet they still believe the atheist outlook is correct…they live by faith in the uniformity of science, logic and morality while denying the ultimate reality behind it. Dr. Greg Bahnsen asks the question, how can a person with a “…materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life…account for the laws of science, logic and morality?†They can't without begging the question.

During the “Great Debate†Dr. Gordon Stein [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/stein-bio.html] said science is “confidence based on experiece.â€Â

Christianity is nothing less.

 

[moniker]

Re: need

Dr. Greg Bahnsen asks the question, how can a person with a “…materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life…account for the laws of science, logic and morality?â€Â

Mind explaining what he's asking there or providing the whole quote +/- context? I'm not entirely sure what point he is getting at nor the claim he is making.

Oh, and there's a couple of spots on the belief scale between Athiest and YEC.

 

[dad]

Re: Layperson question for all you "smart" folks h

OK - I am not well educated when it comes to carbon dating, and basalt column formations under sediment, etc. I really didn't want to jump into those discussions with a rather simplistic question.

It seems to me a huge debate between believers and non-believers is about the age of the earth....

1 - can you tell me how old the earth is, and how long it has been populated by humans? This is a question for the believers

Yes. About 6000 years old.

2. what about the fossil record? Where does this fit with your belief to the above question? If God created the earth and man and all that, where do the dinosaurs come into the picture? I don't need carbon dating to make a reasonable assumption that they are a lot older than humans.

I believe that most life was created in Eden. After the fall, we spread out. It took time to show up in the fossil record.

 

[JM]

Re: need

Dr. Greg Bahnsen asks the question, how can a person with a “…materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life…account for the laws of science, logic and morality?â€Â

Mind explaining what he's asking there or providing the whole quote +/- context? I'm not entirely sure what point he is getting at nor the claim he is making.

Sure, rez wrote, "All you need to know is the difference between the too : believers and non believers.
One argues based on faith without evidence and the other argues based on evidence and repeated tests. The scientist forms a hypothesis , tests that hypothesis, gathers the results , and comes to a conclusion. The believer on the other hand already has the answer and is trying to grasp at anything that looks like evidence to the point of argueing if it can't be proved false than it must be true."

What I wrote was in response to rez.

Since science deals in probability, then you can’t be “absolutely†sure, it’s a matter of faith based on probability...

Bahnsen quote deals with uniformity in the universe and how the atheist can not deal with it without borrowing from the Christian world view...lets say...morality. If morality is based on social convention and not...say...a Law from God how does good become good and remain good? http://www.reese.org/tapes/ Download "The Great Debate" for free from the link provided.

JM

 

[Hogan]

Re: Layperson question for all you "smart" folks h

OK - I am not well educated when it comes to carbon dating, and basalt column formations under sediment, etc. I really didn't want to jump into those discussions with a rather simplistic question.

It seems to me a huge debate between believers and non-believers is about the age of the earth....

1 - can you tell me how old the earth is, and how long it has been populated by humans? This is a question for the believers

Yes. About 6000 years old.

2. what about the fossil record? Where does this fit with your belief to the above question? If God created the earth and man and all that, where do the dinosaurs come into the picture? I don't need carbon dating to make a reasonable assumption that they are a lot older than humans.

I believe that most life was created in Eden. After the fall, we spread out. It took time to show up in the fossil record.

So the position is that all fossils.. dino's, shells, etc, are no older than 6000 years?

edited for: At what point in this 6000 years did the dino's go away? Were they victims of the flood that Noah built his arc for?

 

[Hogan]

Re: need

Hogan
All you need to know is the difference between the too : believers and non believers.
One argues based on faith without evidence and the other argues based on evidence and repeated tests. The scientist forms a hypothesis , tests that hypothesis, gathers the results , and comes to a conclusion. The believer on the other hand already has the answer and is trying to grasp at anything that looks like evidence to the point of argueing if it can't be proved false than it must be true.

The Christian assumes God, and science is guilty of “begging the question†since it assumes induction and causation.

The atheist lives by faith, they cannot study all the information gathered, yet they still believe the atheist outlook is correct…they live by faith in the uniformity of science, logic and morality while denying the ultimate reality behind it. Dr. Greg Bahnsen asks the question, how can a person with a “…materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life…account for the laws of science, logic and morality?†They can't without begging the question.

During the “Great Debate†Dr. Gordon Stein [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/stein-bio.html] said science is “confidence based on experience.â€Â

Christianity is nothing less.

faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

By having "faith" in science, you are implying that I have faith in somthing that

cannot be logically proven or objectively known

just because I

cannot study all the information gathered

?

So, are you saying that you have faith because you have studied all the information gathered (the Bible)? A book written by an obviously fallable source (igorant men that had no other way of explaining the world around them at the time)?

 

[moniker]

Re: need

faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

By having "faith" in science, you are implying that I have faith in somthing that

cannot be logically proven or objectively known

just because I [quote:25854]cannot study all the information gathered

?

So, are you saying that you have faith because you have studied all the information gathered (the Bible)? A book written by an obviously fallable source (igorant men that had no other way of explaining the world around them at the time)?[/quote:25854]

You have faith because you have not performed the experiments yourself and simply trust that the textbook is true. I don't know how to figure out the speed of light as it travels in a vacuum, but other people do. They are telling me that it is 3x10^8 and I have faith that it is. It is a faith grounded in good sense, thanks to the amount of peer review required for something to get into a textbook, but it is still faith as I have not seen the actual process nor the result.

JM I was looking for the context of what Bahnsen said, that's why I quoted that part specifically. I'll take a look at the download (know the minut marker?), but there are a number of philosophies out there which do not rely upon religion to determine morality so I really don't see a problem.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: need

Hogan
All you need to know is the difference between the too : believers and non believers.
One argues based on faith without evidence and the other argues based on evidence and repeated tests. The scientist forms a hypothesis , tests that hypothesis, gathers the results , and comes to a conclusion. The believer on the other hand already has the answer and is trying to grasp at anything that looks like evidence to the point of argueing if it can't be proved false than it must be true.

The Christian assumes God, and science is guilty of “begging the question†since it assumes induction and causation.
If science assumes induction and causation it does so based on evidence and tests. There is a REASON for the belief.

The atheist lives by faith, they cannot study all the information gathered, yet they still believe the atheist outlook is correct…they live by faith in the uniformity of science, logic and morality while denying the ultimate reality behind it.
The atheist doesn't live by faith as he lives by reality. If there is no evidence of God they why claim one exists?Not having answers to our world does not default to a God.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen asks the question, how can a person with a “…materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life…account for the laws of science, logic and morality?†They can't without begging the question.
Begging what question?

During the “Great Debate†Dr. Gordon Stein [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/stein-bio.html] said science is “confidence based on experience.â€Â
Exactly correct and faith is the evidence of things not seen. In other words there is absolutely no reason to believe what you are told other than the fact that you are told to do so. This is what is called circular reasoning. When one asks is the bible true. You say yes. When one asks why you say because the bible says so.

Christianity is nothing less.
0-0=?

 

[JM]

If science assumes induction and causation it does so based on evidence and tests. There is a REASON for the belief.

Christian faith is based on evidence, but you're not able to reason well, this is the why the Bible defines the atheist as a fool...the evidence for Christian faith is not acceptible to your standards...that's the difference.

The atheist doesn't live by faith as he lives by reality. If there is no evidence of God they why claim one exists?Not having answers to our world does not default to a God.

Yes they do...they live according to probability. Rez and the rest of non-believers demand evidence but deny the proofs around us and "blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God does not exist."

Begging what question?

Your assuming God can be known by deriving general principles of His existance from particular facts...when God tells us we know Him from the preaching of the word.

Exactly correct and faith is the evidence of things not seen. In other words there is absolutely no reason to believe what you are told other than the fact that you are told to do so. This is what is called circular reasoning. When one asks is the bible true. You say yes. When one asks why you say because the bible says so.

And what is logic? It's the evidence of things not seen. Where do you believe these laws come from? They can be found in every culture, they're universal, and the evidence of things not seen. This is what you call borrowing from the Christian worldview...you deny God, yet you allow for the evidence of things not seen...hummmmm....this is a fool by Biblical definition. When I ask you if you believe in God, you say no. When I ask you if you believe in the immaterial law of logic, you say yes. When asked why you don't believe in God you say, I need proof. When I ask why you believe in the immaterial laws of logic, you say you have proof.

:D

 

[Hogan]

Re: need

You have faith because you have not performed the experiments yourself and simply trust that the textbook is true. I don't know how to figure out the speed of light as it travels in a vacuum, but other people do. They are telling me that it is 3x10^8 and I have faith that it is. It is a faith grounded in good sense, thanks to the amount of peer review required for something to get into a textbook, but it is still faith as I have not seen the actual process nor the result.

thats a pretty long stretch of definition for "faith". BUT, if you want to insist on using the term, so be it. Yes, I have "faith" that the researchers are not a part of some evil plot to manipulate the outcome of their experiments with the intent to deceive. Their motivation is truth.

So, what exactly is your point? call it what you like, it is still not faith in something supernatural. Its more like I "trust" they are not lying based on "the amount of peer review required for something to get into a textbook". What is your trust based on? You believe because they told you to, no?

 

[Hogan]

Christian faith is based on evidence

It is?

 

[moniker]

Re: need

You have faith because you have not performed the experiments yourself and simply trust that the textbook is true. I don't know how to figure out the speed of light as it travels in a vacuum, but other people do. They are telling me that it is 3x10^8 and I have faith that it is. It is a faith grounded in good sense, thanks to the amount of peer review required for something to get into a textbook, but it is still faith as I have not seen the actual process nor the result.

thats a pretty long stretch of definition for "faith". BUT, if you want to insist on using the term, so be it. Yes, I have "faith" that the researchers are not a part of some evil plot to manipulate the outcome of their experiments with the intent to deceive. Their motivation is truth.

So, what exactly is your point? call it what you like, it is still not faith in something supernatural. Its more like I "trust" they are not lying based on "the amount of peer review required for something to get into a textbook". What is your trust based on? You believe because they told you to, no?

Ask someone who wears their faith on their sleeve. I'm not big on getting into the foundational aspects of what I believe and why here as the discussion would essentially be fruitless for myself and others. Just playing devil's advocate is all.

Oh and the OED defines faith as:
Faith, n.
1a.Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, {dag}of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

 

[Vanaka]

Re: Layperson question for all you "smart" folks h

OK - I am not well educated when it comes to carbon dating, and basalt column formations under sediment, etc. I really didn't want to jump into those discussions with a rather simplistic question.

It seems to me a huge debate between believers and non-believers is about the age of the earth....

1 - can you tell me how old the earth is, and how long it has been populated by humans? This is a question for the believers

2. what about the fossil record? Where does this fit with your belief to the above question? If God created the earth and man and all that, where do the dinosaurs come into the picture? I don't need carbon dating to make a reasonable assumption that they are a lot older than humans.

I will probably have more questions based on answers

thank you

everythings been here for about...7000-6000 years


What about the fossil recored?

Quickly fosilized Dinos(and everything else) from the Flood, 6000-5000 years ago


BTW, Where does :Resonable" fit into your assumtion?

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Layperson question for all you "smart" folks h

OK - I am not well educated when it comes to carbon dating, and basalt column formations under sediment, etc. I really didn't want to jump into those discussions with a rather simplistic question.

It seems to me a huge debate between believers and non-believers is about the age of the earth....

1 - can you tell me how old the earth is, and how long it has been populated by humans? This is a question for the believers

2. what about the fossil record? Where does this fit with your belief to the above question? If God created the earth and man and all that, where do the dinosaurs come into the picture? I don't need carbon dating to make a reasonable assumption that they are a lot older than humans.

I will probably have more questions based on answers

thank you

everythings been here for about...7000-6000 years


What about the fossil recored?

Quickly fosilized Dinos(and everything else) from the Flood, 6000-5000 years ago


BTW, Where does :Resonable" fit into your assumtion?

The walls of Jericho are 9000 years old. The fossil record testifies to a very old earth. Even YEC'r admit that Carbon dating is accurate to 50,000 years. Guess what ? We have evidence of 50,000 years for some fossils. How is it that only you and a few "select" people have inside info as to the real age of the earth? What an ego! The whole world is wrong and only you know the truth.Do you realize how many people have to be wrong and how many people have to be involved in the so called cover up theory for you to be right?