Age
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2011, 05:07 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2011 05:11 AM by Filox.)
RE: Age
My, my... Theophilus, theophilus, you simply can not look past your narrow views, can you? OK, you are saying that the whole science community has made an error in the beginning, because they have assumed that God did not create the Universe. So now they have this crazy theory about the approximate age of the planet Earth. If they have tested and tested their theory and if they have proven again and again that their theory is correct, isn't that then no longer a theory, but a FACT, goddamnit? So, if they have a proof for the FACT that the Earth is xy years old, and that NO ONE has EVER produced a single EVIDENCE that they are wrong, doesn't that make them right?

Look, you are trying to say that if they have taken the Bible as a fact and start from there, they might have different results. NO. They could not, because then your Creationist "scientists" would have already shown us some kind of EVIDENCE for that, or somebody else would tell the science community that they have EVIDENCE that the Earth is not XY years old, but ZZXX years old.

Now you will give me "evidence" form the Bible, but you have to realise that the Bible is a RELIGIOUS TEXT, it is not a historical document that tells us geological facts. Also, you have to agree it is not original, because of all the translations and changes made by man, so even if we presume it was the Word of God, it is not anymore, we do not have the Original Bible. If we then discard the Bible as a historical scientific evidence, you, your theory and all you ID/Creationists are left with 0 (zero) evidence to support yout theories. You have 0 (zero) evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve, for the Great Food, For the Creation as you believe it was, for your 6000 year old Earth...

So it is:
- unknown number of evidence, studies, books, methods, scientists, universities, professors, common logic and the whole scientific community
VERSUS
- 0 (zero) evidence, 0 (zero) confirmed studies, 1 (one) very old religious text (changed through history), religious belief and a lot of religious people and their leaders (priests and pastors)

To summon it up, the scientific community does not take a stand before looking at new things, they start from a neutral view-point, then when they make a discovery, they test it and if it passes all the test it is called EVIDENCE. That evidence is then used to continue research on new things that follow this first discovery.

If they took the Bible as a first guideline, that would not be a neutral stance, that would be research with unconfirmed foundations. First they would have to prove the Bible as ULTIMATE TRUTH and nothing but the truth. That is what you do and that has still not provided you or anyone else with any evidence that the Bible is truthful. You all have your beliefs and that is all OK, but your belief, no matter how strong it is, it is still not a testable evidence. When you show me evidence, I will take you seriously and that evidence must be testable again and again, it can not be just some words on a paper.

Now you can tell me that the scientific evidence is also just a letter on the paper and that I also only believe those scientists and you are right, but for everyone who is willing to explore that, there are universities with laboratories, so feel free to become their student and learn how it all works, so you can test it yourself. You can not do that with religion, there is no place on Earth where you can test is the Bible true or false.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 10:40 AM
RE: Age
(13-10-2011 05:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  To summon it up, the scientific community does not take a stand before looking at new things, they start from a neutral view-point, then when they make a discovery, they test it and if it passes all the test it is called EVIDENCE. That evidence is then used to continue research on new things that follow this first discovery.

No one starts from a neutral viewpoint because all of us have beliefs of some kind and they influence how we interpret the evidence we find. Scientists usually begin with the belief that God has never intervened in the operation of the universe and everything that exists can be explained by the natural processes that we see going on now. The truth or falsity of their conclusions depends on whether or not that assumption is true.

There is a natural tendency to ignore or explain away evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and scientists aren't exempt from it. Here is a good site to find out more about some of the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/

God's invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 10:52 AM
RE: Age
(13-10-2011 10:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(13-10-2011 05:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  To summon it up, the scientific community does not take a stand before looking at new things, they start from a neutral view-point, then when they make a discovery, they test it and if it passes all the test it is called EVIDENCE. That evidence is then used to continue research on new things that follow this first discovery.

No one starts from a neutral viewpoint because all of us have beliefs of some kind and they influence how we interpret the evidence we find. Scientists usually begin with the belief that God has never intervened in the operation of the universe and everything that exists can be explained by the natural processes that we see going on now. The truth or falsity of their conclusions depends on whether or not that assumption is true.

There is a natural tendency to ignore or explain away evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and scientists aren't exempt from it. Here is a good site to find out more about some of the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/

Darwin started off with a belief in natural theology. Despite his bias towards christian ideals when he was younger, he still developed the theory of evolution and a rejection of the christian ideals of creation/intelligent design. Despite the fact that someone may have a biased viewpoint, the overall tendency of science is neutral. If anyone ever tried to publish a scientific paper with the conclusion of "and there is no god" they would be immediately rejected. Find me one scientific paper that rejects god and supports atheism directly.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 03:43 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2011 04:00 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Age
(14-09-2011 11:02 AM)theophilus Wrote:  A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. 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? Because they were created to live forever they wouldn't have undergone the same aging process we do today. If he examined them just a few days after their creation he would give a high estimate of their ages because they would appear to be the same as adults he had examined in the past.

Suppose he went back to some time after the fall and examined them. Now they would be aging the same way we do today. If he was unaware of their past history he would make an estimate based on the assumption that they had been born in the same way as everyone else. (I know that people lived longer then so in this example I am assuming that the doctor was aware of this fact and took it into consideration.) His estimate of their age would probably be off but whether it was too high or too low would depend on how much time elapsed between their creation and their fall.

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. One of these natural processes is the conversion of uranium into lead by radioactive decay. The rate at which this takes place is known so if a rock sample contains both lead and uranium it is possible to calculate how long it would take to for the lead to have formed as a result of this process. Of course this calculation assumes that all of the lead in the rock was once uranium.

But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earth's age are in the same position as the doctor in the second example. They wouldn't be able to make an accurate measurement unless they knew how much of the lead was the result of radioactive decay and how much was part of the original creation.
Actually we get the oldest date of the earth, 4.6 Billion years, via radiometric dating of meteorites, and not features on the planet. The oldest rocks on the planet earth are right at 4 billion years. Features are usually the things being dated, they are not used to create dates, especially not the age of the earth estimates.

You can also get a descent estimate using Thermal Dynamics and entropy.
Could probably get a descent estimate, or at least an old estimate, based on the length of time to create the milky way.
Biology and the enormous amount of time for evolution can also be used to determine an old age for the earth.


Every branch of science can prove the Earth is quite old.
So, you are not arguing with just Geologist, but every single scientists on earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 03:54 PM
RE: Age
(13-10-2011 10:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  No one starts from a neutral viewpoint because all of us have beliefs of some kind and they influence how we interpret the evidence we find.

I agree with this point. We all have our biases and preconceived ideas. It would be silly to say that we do not.

(13-10-2011 10:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Scientists usually begin with the belief that God has never intervened in the operation of the universe and everything that exists can be explained by the natural processes that we see going on now. The truth or falsity of their conclusions depends on whether or not that assumption is true.

This I don't agree with. While there are certainly scientists, like Dawkins, who clearly start with that premise, science does not require a disbelief in god. There is no reason that a deity could not have produced everything we know exactly as the evidence leads us to believe it occurred. If a god has done this, he's doing a great job keeping proof of his existence from us, but it's not impossible.

However, the theory of evolution and the age of the planet are not based on assumptions or preconceived notions. It is based on observable facts and repeatable experiments that can be verified over and over. Evolution is not an opinion. And, the best part of it is that you don't have to get into all types of fancy double talk to read a book on evolution the way you do with the bible. You don't have to concern yourself with which part is a metaphor and which part is the actual truth. You don't have to see a special scholar to interpret the data (although, in all fairness, a certain level of education and understanding is obviously required to understand what you're reading). When I read the story of Noah's Ark and it says "two of every animal" and I ask how he collected and stored 4,810 distinct species of frogs, the answer is usually along the lines of "well, it really means 'kinds' of animals". But, that's not what the bible says. It says 2 of every animal. With evolution, I don't need to explain the explanation. Any person can read the data and see the details and understand it. No special interpretations are necessary. Not so much with religion, though.


(13-10-2011 10:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is a natural tendency to ignore or explain away evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and scientists aren't exempt from it. Here is a good site to find out more about some of the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/

Now, that's irony. Oh, I looked at that site a little bit and they have no real idea what evolution is as most of what they say has zippy to do with the science of evolution. But tell me, have you studied evolution? Instead of looking at sites to convince you of what you your already natural tendency, have you taken the time to actually learn the science? Can you explain the roughly 80 examples of vestigial biology in human beings with the bible?

Finally, going back to your opening question, let me ask a similar question. Let's say you could find a person who had no idea how old the Earth is and no idea who god may be. You put him in a room with data on radioactive decay, the elements on the planet earth, and all the data scientists use to look at the age of the Earth. Let's also say that the room also included a bible. I won't make it even more challenging and add all the other religious texts that have existed over time to explain the origins of the Earth and just leave it at the bible. Now you ask that person to look at everything in the room and determine how old the Earth is. What answer do you think he's going to come up with?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 05:17 PM
RE: Age
(13-10-2011 10:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(13-10-2011 05:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  To summon it up, the scientific community does not take a stand before looking at new things, they start from a neutral view-point, then when they make a discovery, they test it and if it passes all the test it is called EVIDENCE. That evidence is then used to continue research on new things that follow this first discovery.

No one starts from a neutral viewpoint because all of us have beliefs of some kind and they influence how we interpret the evidence we find. Scientists usually begin with the belief that God has never intervened in the operation of the universe and everything that exists can be explained by the natural processes that we see going on now. The truth or falsity of their conclusions depends on whether or not that assumption is true.

There is a natural tendency to ignore or explain away evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and scientists aren't exempt from it. Here is a good site to find out more about some of the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/

That '90s era site isn't all that strong evidence... Basically, another "it's complex, therefore it can't have evolved" argument along with claims that "there is no satisfactory explanation" without pointing out any attempts or why no explanation might exist. It also attempts to force you into the box of "it's either evolution or GOD DID IT!!!" Makes a few good points like "artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection" which is true, that's why evolution takes far longer to enact change than we take to breed new types of dogs. The Chihuahua would probably never have evolved, but if it did it would have taken longer naturally than with guidance. Why? Evolution is blind - it has no end goal or purpose. That means that any end will only come when it randomly occurs (influenced by the environment that is).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 06:42 PM
RE: Age
How is the point about artificial vs. natural selection a good point in making the case against evolution? It's a correct observation, but how is that point even remotely relevant?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 08:43 PM
RE: Age
(13-10-2011 06:42 PM)BnW Wrote:  How is the point about artificial vs. natural selection a good point in making the case against evolution? It's a correct observation, but how is that point even remotely relevant?

Not a good point in their case, but a good point in matters of fact. Actually, it kinda points against their argument... I should have clarified that good point != good for creationist argument.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2011, 03:56 AM
RE: Age
(13-10-2011 10:40 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(13-10-2011 05:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  To summon it up, the scientific community does not take a stand before looking at new things, they start from a neutral view-point, then when they make a discovery, they test it and if it passes all the test it is called EVIDENCE. That evidence is then used to continue research on new things that follow this first discovery.

No one starts from a neutral viewpoint because all of us have beliefs of some kind and they influence how we interpret the evidence we find. Scientists usually begin with the belief that God has never intervened in the operation of the universe and everything that exists can be explained by the natural processes that we see going on now. The truth or falsity of their conclusions depends on whether or not that assumption is true.

There is a natural tendency to ignore or explain away evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and scientists aren't exempt from it. Here is a good site to find out more about some of the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the theory of evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/

OK, maybe I have overstated myself when I said that scientists start from neutral point. More precise would be, if they do not have any foundations, they start from neutral point. This works for areas where we have nothing to start with, so the only thing possible is to take a neutral stance and explore different possibilities, or at least this is how it should be. If they already have something to start with and that something is CONFIRMED, then they use it as a starting point and continue from there. You have to realize there are always scientists who will question new discoveries and they will try to disprove it. If they fail and the other party (while defending their first findings) finds even more evidence to support their original theory, doesn't that then prove that theory over and over again? That is the very thing that happened with evolution and nobody has ever proven it wrong, all they have succeeded to do is make assumptions and draw out more evidence to confirm evolution. As TheBeardedDude said, Darwin started off with a belief in natural theology, so he had something to start with, he started with what he knew then, even if he later learned that his starting point was wrong.

P.S.
Interesting how I always end up thinking and writing full pages of text, and always get 2-3 sentences for answer, usually only fixated on only one of my sentences.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2011, 05:20 AM
RE: Age
Theo What about the scientists that believe in god? But still see processes as being natural even if they contradict the biblical account as they have tested and observed evidence?.
If they as you say are biased due to their starting views, wouldn't they see it as proof that the biblical account was right?

I can see what you're saying but your argument is full of holes and is only right if they set out with an agenda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: