[_ Old Earth _] The earth is billions of years old, except that its not.

[Vic C.]

Heck, we could have been made last week with our memories intact and all the evidence of an old universe, but there would be no way to tell if that really happened.

Yeah! Would that be 'Total Recall' or 'The Matrix' ? :robot:

 

[Featherbop]

I'm giving a good arguement, but this disscussion is not for atheists. They just don't get it here. All I'm saying is that if indeed the dating methods are correct, or can be shown to be correct, then the Biblical evidence that the earth is created old, but it is young is correct.

It all makes sense to me.

You are factually, logically and grammatically incorrect.
The best explanation if we look at all the evidence we have is that the Universe really is as old as it looks and what cosmology says is true.
Dating methods have long since been shown to give accurate approximations of geological ages of the scope of the earth.

Noone knows the age of earth. Assumtions have to be made in order to make the assumtion of the age dating. I am fine with the fact that we can't know for sure. Anyone who says they know for sure and can prove it, is a lier.

The age of the Earth IS a highly corroborated and established fact, taken from every data we can find or use. Doubting that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old is beating a dead horse.

Yes, the age of earth is fact. It has an age. It is that age. Peoples perceptions and ideas and "facts" "known" about earths age is inncorrect.

Take me to the begging and lets see whos right?

Like i have said, too much knowledge is missing from the humans minds. They don't know enough to know if the earth is 4.5 billion, 6000, or 50 million or whatever.

You must make a few assumtions before you can start to "determine" the age of earth.

You think you know, but you don't. You've made a guess. You may be right, or you may be wrong.

 

[yanjy]

Like i have said, too much knowledge is missing from the humans minds. They don't know enough to know if the earth is 4.5 billion, 6000, or 50 million or whatever.

You must make a few assumtions before you can start to "determine" the age of earth.

You think you know, but you don't. You've made a guess. You may be right, or you may be wrong.

So, what exactly are these assumptions? And what knowledge is missing from our minds that prevents us from knowing the "true" age of the earth?
:robot:

 

[ThinkerMan]

. Assumtions have to be made in order to make the assumtion of the age dating. I am fine with the fact that we can't know for sure. Anyone who says they know for sure and can prove it, is a lier.

Assumptions, huh? The method used to date the earth is similar to the process used to date ancient texts. Carbon-dating is one such example.

If you understood the half-life process and a bit of science, you would see that logical conclusions can be reached to determine the age of something.

Christian historians use this very same process to prove the age of ancient christian texts to prove the history of Jesus and the inspiration of the biblical canon.

Somehow, you disallow that logical process when applied to a rock, a fossil, or a 12,000 year old cave drawing, but allow it to be applied to prove that the new testament wasn't written 1,000 years ago, 300 years ago, or three days ago.

Science is wonderful because it doesn't discriminate. You can't use it to prove one belief and dissallow it to be applied to others.

 

[Featherbop]

Again, I'm not neccesarily saying that the earths assumed date of age is inncorrect. It is very highly likely that the earth was created as if it was very old.

Yanjy: The knowledge missing from human knowledge, is almost everything. If you think you know a lot, compare it with what you don't know, and see the difference?

We can't know the true age of earth for sure because we lack the knowledge to know for sure, yet, noone will admit this problem.

Thinkerman: The assumtions are that we have enough knowledge to know for sure, that the dating methods are correct, that God doesn't exist(some people), etc etc etc.

We just don't know, yuo have to assume a lot of things before you can believe an opinion about something such as the age of earth. Think about all of the things you have to consider. If you can't think of anything, then you aren't ready for this disscussion.

Just accept that you can't know much for sure to be true.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Thinker, the methods used for dating things as old as the earth use higher halflife isotopes such as Uranium to find ages, FYI.

We just don't know, yuo have to assume a lot of things before you can believe an opinion about something such as the age of earth.

Actually we assume very little, and nothing more than people can assume in their everyday lives. We assume that we understand nuclear science, and we do because unless we're unprobabilistically lucky, none of our knowledge of nuclear science could be applied other wise.

It is very highly likely that the earth was created as if it was very old.

Care to back that up? It's certainly a possibility, but then with god anything is possible, this of course means that it is impossible to tell if god exists or not because it may very well be that the situation could exist with or without god's intervention. Don't discount the possiblity that the earth wasn't created so quickly.

The fact is we can know enough for it to be unnecessary to doubt. To the point where actually doubting, as I said before, is beating a dead horse.

 

[Featherbop]

Again, you still assume things. Don't be fooled into thinking that you don't.

Yes, anything is possible with God. I don't need to back up my belief that earth was created old. This disscussion is not for atheists. You're in the wrong field of disscussion. Or you can show to me that God didn't created the earth old. Want to try that?

You must think you're infallible. You won't let yourself be convinced otherwise. You never let yourself be wrong.

This disscussion is pretty much over. I will end with this:




We can't know somethings for sure, and some other things, not at all. We make assumtions all the time. When we determine the age of earth, when we form an opinion, when we believe anything to be true or false, when we believe or disbelieve that God is real, when we do many things. Theres no way around it. The age of earth can't be determined for sure by fallible testing, knowledge, or assumtions. The best anyone can do, is to make a reliable assumtion about it. I realize, and have acted upon this.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 6:27 pm Post subject:
Again, you still assume things. Don't be fooled into thinking that you don't.

Thank you for restating what I have already said explicitly.

Yes, anything is possible with God. I don't need to back up my belief that earth was created old. This disscussion is not for atheists. You're in the wrong field of disscussion. Or you can show to me that God didn't created the earth old. Want to try that?

YES. YOU. DO.
You are making a statement about the way the universe works, and your sole basis for it is solipcistic nonsense. The Burden of Proof, and you can look this up in ANY logic book, website, etc. is on the person making a positive claim.

You must think you're infallible. You won't let yourself be convinced otherwise. You never let yourself be wrong.

Strawman, I can and do, but since you have yet to bring evidence to the table that fundamentally refutes the conclusions I've gleaned from research papers, perodical writing, science writers and my biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry classes, you have not been the one to prove me wrong about something. I am quite fallible, but I know how I am fallible and am able say with fair certainty that you are more so because of your basic ignorance of all of science.

age of earth can't be determined for sure by fallible testing, knowledge, or assumtions

And we'll never know for sure that things actually fall because of gravity, that the world is round, that the universe is flat, that water is wet, that currents of electricity flow through wires, that particle physics are uncertain, and so on and so forth. BUT we can say with 99.999999999% certitude and beyond that all of these things are true and that the methods for testing the soundness of these claims work.

This disscussion is pretty much over.

Concession Accepted.

 

[ThinkerMan]

SyntaxVorlon: Yes, I know carbon-dating is not used beyond roughly 50,000 years. I stated that the processes are similar to those used to test the verocity of early texts.

FeatherBop: Your claim that atheists/agnostics are somehow precluded from this debate is absolutely incredible. In your, and many others, arguements you attempt to use some aspects of scientific processes and knowledge to dispute the "old age" theory of the earth. As agnostics/atheists, logic, reason and science is all we have. In a sense, you are stealing our "religon" for your uses. I believe we certainly have a say in that.

Reminds me of a great point read once. If you believe in Christ, you must do so in spite of science and facts, not because of them.

 

[Barbarian]

Science has been my profession and my passion for almost 40 years. I've yet to see anything in science that is inconsistent with the God of the Bible.

 

[Featherbop]

Syntax, you still don't get what we're(I?) are/am disscussing.

I didn't concede any of my points, or arguements, the disscussion was derailed by you(again) and I declared it useless and pretty much a finished talk.

Since the two of us operate differently, we have a difficult time aligning in the same disscussion. I am(was) talking about one topic, and you, Vorlon, another. You knew what you would recieve for disscussions when you arrived here on this forum, Vorlon, the burden of proof is on the one who intrudes and disrupts. You are that offender, it is clear, except to you. The fact that you do not like that is of no conseqeunce to me.

You have yet to give me an assurance of irrefutable quality regarding the age(or assumed age) of this planet earth, you may still return to the topic of disscssion, or you may concede that you do not know, in plain, non-jargon, english. You claim that you are fallible, however, your actions, and words do not connect. If you sincerely wish to concede, and admit you are fallible, please do so in five words or less.

Also, again, I will say, please give me the 'for sure' knowledge of the age(true) of the earth. No assumtions may you make in giving this knowledge to me. You may have no 'guesses' present in the 'facts'. Nothing that is uncertain, to any extent, whatsoever, may be included in the irrefutable knowledge of the age of earth. To do so would contradict my humble request. I cannot allow you to make guesses regarding subjects as these. In the traditional ways of atheists as yourself, if I lend you any room at all for any errors, whatsoever, no matter how small, you will not give me the truth. You would, in that case, give me incorrect, to some extent, "facts".
You have my reasonable request, I know it is immpossible for anyone to fulfill my request, so I end with this final statement of conclusion:

To have a belief without absolute truth as the 'base' of the belief, mere ideas, and guesses, and untrue estimations will form. To believe that one has absolute knowledge of a subject of such great, and mysterious capacity, is to descend into a state of 'false godhood'. This is humanism, of a sort, and is the fundamental, or at least, one fundamental, of the religion of atheism. This, although shown to be a fallacy, and leaves many unanswered questions in its wake of insanity, is readily accepted, in order that a 'door' may be opened into believing that one may, by 'scientific', and purely physical processes and knowledge, know 'truths' that are unreachable by the human race. It is the most self-destructive religion of evil ever to face us.

______

I apologize for 'derailing this topic', however, it was neccesary to extend my points.

______

I now, hereby declare that if anyone, regardless of who, claims they have unrefutable knowledge of this subject, I will not respond to them, as since they are in a delusion, they are not able to participate.

Thank You.

 

[xsearnold]

Noone knows how old the earth is. Too much information is not known. Noone alive today was there at the beginning. I will never accept the earth being created billions of years ago, because it is foolish for anyone to claim to know the truth of the matter. We lack knowledge of the beginning. It is the key to the whole mystery.

Look out! You used the "N" word (never). I used to be a staunch, young-earth creationist. However, the more I read, the more I came to the conclusion that the earth (and universe) is very, very old. There are many on this forum who are staunch Scientific Naturalists and some that are Theistic Evolutionists and others that mix and match elements. I don't think I'll ever be convinced of macro-evolution (or common ancestry). I came to believe in old-earth creationism after reading about it on the reasons.org web site. Hugh Ross makes a compelling case for an old earth and old universe. There's an interesting debate, of sorts, transcripted from a Focus on the Family airing between Dr. Ross and Duane Gish. Dr. Ross comes off reasonably while Dr. Gish seems to have little with which to counter Dr. Ross' arguments.

I like the writings of J.P. Moreland, as well, although his strong suit is philosophy rather than science. Interestingly, he has commented that he vacillates between old earth and young earth creationism, meaning, about half the time, he favors young-earth, and the other half of the time, he favors old-earth.

 

[Featherbop]

I'm not saying that I think for sure whether the universe is old, or young. Its immpossible to know for sure. I don't see the point in disscussing this anymore, and Syntax lorvon never responded to my post.

I think I'll just call my self a creationist from this point on, because I realize and am fine with the fact that it is immpossible to know. Some people are bigots though and act like know it alls, and think science rules everything.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

You knew what you would recieve for disscussions when you arrived here on this forum, Vorlon, the burden of proof is on the one who intrudes and disrupts.

IRRELEVANT!

http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~pinsky/logicguide.htm

Appeal to Ignorance (Proving a Negative): an argument that asserts a claim is true because no one can prove it is wrong; this shifts the burden of proof to the audience or opponent rather than the claimant

Also, again, I will say, please give me the 'for sure' knowledge of the age(true) of the earth. No assumtions may you make in giving this knowledge to me. You may have no 'guesses' present in the 'facts'. Nothing that is uncertain, to any extent, whatsoever, may be included in the irrefutable knowledge of the age of earth.

Now you're just being irrational, and you can look this one up yourself, you're denying the relevance of inductive logic, which you yourself cannot ever help but use. We are sure that the universe is as old as it isin the same way as we are that electricity is what makes computers work and not little elves who hide whenever we open the covers. The assumptions used are NOT guesses, they are corroborated with the facts that are gathered from observation and synthesised from research.

In the traditional ways of atheists as yourself, if I lend you any room at all for any errors

You call that humble?! You're asking for the pragmatically impossible and you have the audacity to call it humble? Well aren't you just full of hot air?
I hope that if your intention is to simply not consider anything that has error bars then you will refrain from ever using any sort of car, train, or object for transportation.

It is the most self-destructive religion of evil ever to face us.

Yes, I can see that you want the good old days of 754 CE back.

 

[Guest]

young earth,amen.

The earth is young,I believe the bible literally,and it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

We have no way to accurately date anything,and to claim that something that is a billion years old and would still be in the form it always was in is just plain silly.

Evolution is another fairytale for those who cannot accept the truth.
we do know that there won't be any atheists very soon when the global one world church takes over,they will believe in a god and even have a form of godliness yet they will denie the power.
pagan god+evolution = one world religion.
itchy ears,no love for the truth,turning to fables instead of truth,hmmmm.........
are these the last days? :Fade-color

 

[ThinkerMan]

Re: young earth,amen.

to claim that something that is a billion years old and would still be in the form it always was in is just plain silly.

Wonderful logic. to claim that something is 6,000 years old and unchanged, however, makes perfect sense to you(meaning lack of evolution).

No one claims the earth is unchanged for 4.5 billion years. After it was formed it took billions of years to cool and liquid water to form prior to life having a possibility of existance. It changed, and continues to change, over time.

Now since you claim there is not way to accurately date something, you obviously disagree with scientific dating.

Could you please explain how you understand scientific dating to work, as well as your contention as to why it is not an accurate tool? If you are going to dismiss a tool of science, I think you had better at least have a good understanding of it before you do so.

Also, please explain why a 4 billion year old object is silly.

 

[Guest]

Re: young earth,amen.

If you think people are going to listen to you,you need to think again.Calling a religious belief science is plain old fashioned ignorance.
If you can do that,then we all can because science is an open field for everyone,only christians don't say they are science based because they are not trying to decieve and get the tax payers money to support them.
You would not have any funds if you didn't call your religion science and you know it!
People know that evolution is false and that those who say they don't believe there is a God are living in a fantasy world where they can escape all punishment and discipline for evil behavior and wrongs.
People who are good don't have such fears.They know they are not perfect and they understand that Jesus was and is perfect for us.They can rest knowing that their trust in Jesus makes them secure with God.
those who crave evil hate the righteous and this is what your claim has more to do with than anything else except for the fact that you hate God most of all.
You want the world to pat you on the back and tell you it's alright to sin and to do things that violate others and yourself. I am not going to give you any support or approval for your worldly lusts or mindset so let go and admit what you are really after and what you are really all about.
Do you think that it's a good con job to get loose women to have sex with you ?
I know you tell people that sex out side of marriage is good and safe,and right,right?
which evolved first in your world,V.D. or man,male or female?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Let's see, in that last reply you:

1. Called me a whore
2. Say I believe in science for the tax credits
3. Say I hate Christians
4. Claim I sin at every corner

What "Christian" things to say!

You don't know me from Adam (no pun intended) however impugn me nevertheless. Try reading your bible, I'm pretty sure its against that.

 

[Guest]

Look how you read things! This is evidence of how you understand words and things. See why your religion is called a false religion?
Go to your own forums and look at what you learn. look at the comments all of you make. No one is calling you names or anything,yet look at what you say about yourselves! :B-fly:

 

[ThinkerMan]

Do you think that it's a good con job to get loose women to have sex with you ?

That's pretty much calling me a whore.

I'd be happy to hear what third parties think. It they vote that you didn't call me a whore, I shall prompty apologize for the accusation.