Age
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2011, 03:40 PM
RE: Age
Nipple-rings.... doesn't necessarily rule out the electrical conductors.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2011, 10:37 AM
RE: Age
(16-09-2011 10:54 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ok, so the main argument you have Theo, is that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth because they are trying to figure it out having already made the assumption that the laws of physics have always applied. But how can you say they are incorrect, considering the fact that you are making the assumption that the laws of physics DON'T always apply?

I never said that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. I only pointed out that their estimates of its age are accurate only if the presuppositions on which they base their work are correct.

(16-09-2011 01:11 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Which trinity is that?

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Scientists use information as a proof of evolution because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this position. The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2011, 10:43 AM
 
RE: Age
I give up. I always do.

Uncle!!!! Uncle!!!!

Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2011, 11:35 AM
RE: Age
(17-09-2011 10:37 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-09-2011 10:54 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ok, so the main argument you have Theo, is that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth because they are trying to figure it out having already made the assumption that the laws of physics have always applied. But how can you say they are incorrect, considering the fact that you are making the assumption that the laws of physics DON'T always apply?

I never said that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. I only pointed out that their estimates of its age are accurate only if the presuppositions on which they base their work are correct.

(16-09-2011 01:11 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Which trinity is that?

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

How do you explain the fact that god would have needed to create the earth with certain ratios, as well as the CMB, etc? If we know that natural processes lead to a certain ratio when a material is formed, then over time it decays, then we can date the sample based on the ratio. But what you're saying is that the ratio wouldn't have been the same as if formed by natural processes when god "created" it. Instead, he used a ratio equivalent to 4.6bn (well, minus 6k years). Why would he do that?

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2011, 11:45 AM
RE: Age
These presuppositions that you mentioned are empirically and theoretically demonstrated. In short, this means that we have observed these rates of decay in nature and have derived mathematical proofs of their physical existence and constancy. If an equation or an observation existed that discredited or disproved it, the scientific community would take it seriously and test its validity. I do not know of any such evidence to date, that has escaped explanation.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2011, 01:39 PM
RE: Age
(17-09-2011 10:37 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-09-2011 10:54 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ok, so the main argument you have Theo, is that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth because they are trying to figure it out having already made the assumption that the laws of physics have always applied. But how can you say they are incorrect, considering the fact that you are making the assumption that the laws of physics DON'T always apply?

I never said that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. I only pointed out that their estimates of its age are accurate only if the presuppositions on which they base their work are correct.

My mistake. I was under the impression that you were saying the earth is ~6000 years old. In that case you would be saying that scientists are indeed wrong.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2011, 02:59 PM
RE: Age
(18-09-2011 01:39 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(17-09-2011 10:37 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-09-2011 10:54 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ok, so the main argument you have Theo, is that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth because they are trying to figure it out having already made the assumption that the laws of physics have always applied. But how can you say they are incorrect, considering the fact that you are making the assumption that the laws of physics DON'T always apply?

I never said that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. I only pointed out that their estimates of its age are accurate only if the presuppositions on which they base their work are correct.

My mistake. I was under the impression that you were saying the earth is ~6000 years old. In that case you would be saying that scientists are indeed wrong.

Meh, the idea that adam and eve existed is stating w/o a doubt that biology is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2011, 09:06 PM
RE: Age
(14-09-2011 11:02 AM)theophilus Wrote:  But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve before the fall and was then asked to estimate their age?

Sorry, Your theory lacks "Falsifiability" meaning it is useless to discuss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2011, 09:36 PM
RE: Age
(14-09-2011 11:20 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  I just had a horrible thought.

Maybe some of the 'believers' deliberately put in obvious falsehoods in their posts, so the rest of us would argue with them. It is difficult to resist temptation to show how clever and knowledgeable we are (and some of us are VERY clever and knowledgeable), so we correct their mistakes and then get sucked into another long, tedious and pointless debate about some nonsense or other.

This way they have the impression that they are being taken seriously and, who knows, maybe confuse some younger and less experienced atheists in this battle for sanity.

On the other hand, it is possible that some of them don't even know their own 'ammunition'.

Big Grin
Does that mean that they're smarter than "us"?Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 12:34 AM
RE: Age
(15-09-2011 10:19 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(14-09-2011 11:58 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
Quote:Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth usually begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have been going on since the formation of the world and that there has never been any kind of divine intervention.

As far as I know that's what the evidence points to, I'm no geologist so my knowledge on the subject is limited.

The problem is that people interpret the evidence according to what they already believe. For someone who begins with the belief that there has never been any divine intervention all the evidence will point to the earth being billions of years old.

Theophils - The people you know, like yourself, obviously interpret evidence by thier beliefs. like you said. That is why they, and you, know so little. Intellegent people understand that that is not the way to learn anything.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: