I am a member of Theologyweb.com. A while ago I asked if Answers in Genesis was considered a reasonable source of a description of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) world view. In particular this page How old is the Earth? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth). There were many views of my question and many responses, but not one from a YEC. No YEC would confirm, or deny, that the AiG article was a valid description of their world view.
The most often cited creation date was produced by Archbishop James Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher). The AiG page references "The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.", which is impressive as according to the Wiki page he died in 1656.
So if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
I am a member of Theologyweb.com. A while ago I asked if Answers in Genesis was considered a reasonable source of a description of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) world view. In particular this page How old is the Earth? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth). There were many views of my question and many responses, but not one from a YEC. No YEC would confirm, or deny, that the AiG article was a valid description of their world view.
The most often cited creation date was produced by Archbishop James Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher). The AiG page references "The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.", which is impressive as according to the Wiki page he died in 1656.
So if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
Yes, it is reasonable. However, I am open to the flood being a local event as opposed to being global, even though I lean towards a global flood. I am also comfortable with a date range of 6-10 thousand years.
Quote from: Black36 on August 22, 2011, 03:12:06 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
I am a member of Theologyweb.com. A while ago I asked if Answers in Genesis was considered a reasonable source of a description of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) world view. In particular this page How old is the Earth? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth). There were many views of my question and many responses, but not one from a YEC. No YEC would confirm, or deny, that the AiG article was a valid description of their world view.
The most often cited creation date was produced by Archbishop James Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher). The AiG page references "The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.", which is impressive as according to the Wiki page he died in 1656.
So if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
Yes, it is reasonable. However, I am open to the flood being a local event as opposed to being global, even though I lean towards a global flood. I am also comfortable with a date range of 6-10 thousand years.
Are you being serious? :o
Quote from: Black36 on August 22, 2011, 03:12:06 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
I am a member of Theologyweb.com. A while ago I asked if Answers in Genesis was considered a reasonable source of a description of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) world view. In particular this page How old is the Earth? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth). There were many views of my question and many responses, but not one from a YEC. No YEC would confirm, or deny, that the AiG article was a valid description of their world view.
The most often cited creation date was produced by Archbishop James Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher). The AiG page references "The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.", which is impressive as according to the Wiki page he died in 1656.
So if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
Yes, it is reasonable. However, I am open to the flood being a local event as opposed to being global, even though I lean towards a global flood. I am also comfortable with a date range of 6-10 thousand years.
Please elaborate as to why. I would be interested in knowing.
In a theistic worldview, there is room for a creator. There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
Science disqualifies YEC.
I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is
incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy. A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
In a theistic worldview, there is room for a creator. There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
Well, I for one, would like to thank you for this wonderfully insightful and thought out response to everyone's questions. You have opened my eyes to a new light. I feel like I have a new wealth of knowledge which I shall now distribute amongst the commoners.
I... Am enlightened.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
YEC being anti-scientific is a good reason for a theist to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of our origins. You can think that YEC is bunk yet still believe that god created everything and even still be a Christian.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
Science disqualifies YEC.
I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy. A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
In order to determine how old something is we must know the decay rate of the sample AND the initial conditions said sample has experienced. We don't have the initial conditions. We must assume that current decay rates have ALWAYS been consistant. We don't know if decay rates have always remained consistant. We also must know whether or not the parent and daughter elements in said sample have been altered during the lifetime of the sample in question, in order to determine its age. We don't have that either. Science can only offer current measurements. Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 03:32:03 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
Science disqualifies YEC.
I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy. A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
In order to determine how old something is we must know the decay rate of the sample AND the initial conditions said sample has experienced. We don't have the initial conditions. We must assume that current decay rates have ALWAYS been consistant. We don't know if decay rates have always remained consistant. We also must know whether or not the parent and daughter elements in said sample have been altered during the lifetime of the sample in question, in order to determine its age. We don't have that either. Science can only offer current measurements. Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
It's what the data points to, based on built-on knowledge more than on assumptions and biases.
Though they can't give an absolute truth (that's what religion preocupies itself with doing) they can place the age of the Earth within a time period, it's more or less 4,5 billion years old. 6 thousand would have to account for a huge margin of error, and explain why and how decay rates could get so accelerated in the first place. Of course it's possible that what scientists put in the textbooks today could be wrong, maybe they're about a few million years off track. I'd risk saying definitely not billions of years in error.
From Talk origins (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)
QuoteRates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.
Though some things like electromagnetic field can influence some kinds of decay rate, the people measuring it certainly know that when those sorts of things occur and so are biased toward using materials which allow people to make the fewest assumptions about initial conditions and possible contamination.
YEC would also have to explain why all the other independent fields of science also point to an Earth and universe that are older than 6000 yrs.
Biological evolution itself also disproves YEC. I feel justified in making the assumption that the Earth would have had to have been here for more than 6 thousand yrs based on only that.
You can't escape the laundry list of assumptions required to make your view work.
Also: Biological evolution? What do you mean by this?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:58:05 AM
You can't escape the laundry list of assumptions required to make your view work.
Also: Biological evolution? What do you mean by this?
Agreed, with the assumption that I'm not just a brain in a vat and so that there really is a measurable reality more or less as I see it being among those assumptions. For pratical reasons, I keep that assumption when evaluating the physical world since I've never encountered any evidence to the contrary.
It's what the evidence and data point to however with the fewest assumptions and so far there's nothing to indicate that the Earth is a few thousand years old, in independent scientific fields. YEC has to distort what is so far known about science, without presenting any real evidence, in order to make reality fit into their worldview. This is...just wrong on so many levels.
Evolutionary theory, which so far excludes how life came into being because there isn't an established theory of abiogenesis yet. Just about how organisms evolve and change over time once life got started. Creationist propagandists distort the theory to their heart's content and so expect people to disagree with it, which they do.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 03:32:03 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.
Science disqualifies YEC.
I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy. A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
In order to determine how old something is we must know the decay rate of the sample AND the initial conditions said sample has experienced. We don't have the initial conditions. We must assume that current decay rates have ALWAYS been consistant. We don't know if decay rates have always remained consistant. We also must know whether or not the parent and daughter elements in said sample have been altered during the lifetime of the sample in question, in order to determine its age. We don't have that either. Science can only offer current measurements. Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
Forget radioactive decay. It works but because it's quite complicated to understand it's an easy target for disingenuous theists to rubbish.
There is of course absolutely no reasonable answer to the evidence provided by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) (http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/grip/griplist.html).
The GRIP Ice Coring Effort (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/#Introduction)
QuoteIn the first drilling season in 1990, the drill reached a depth of 770m where the ice is 3840 years old. In 1991, the drilling continued into 40,000 year old ice at a depth of 2521m, and on 12 August 1992, the drill hit bedrock at 3029m below the surface, where the ice is 200,000 years old or more. The core is now stored in a cold house at the University of Copenhagen. The GRIP deep drill is an updated version of ISTUK (IS means ice in Danish, TUK means drill in Greenlander). ISTUK was constructed in 1978 and used successfully under the American-Danish-Swiss GISP 1 program at Dye 3 in South Greenland where it hit bedrock at a depth of 2037m in 1981.
The core is dated by counting annual layers.
If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
One might also consider this evidence quite compelling Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica (http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf)
Quote from: AbstractThe recent completion of drilling at Vostok station in East Antarctica has allowed the extension of the ice record of
atmospheric composition and climate to the past four glacial–interglacial cycles. The succession of changes through
each climate cycle and termination was similar, and atmospheric and climate properties oscillated between stable
bounds.Interglacial periods differed in temporal evolution and duration. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of
these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?
Why do you assume a big bang?
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
lol Admitting one is biased does not excuse the bias, it makes thing worse as you are saying you don't care that your bias effects your judgement.
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
lol Admitting one is biased does not excuse the bias, it makes thing worse as you are saying you don't care that your bias effects your judgement.
I hope you are not suggesting that you are biased free.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?
Why do you assume a big bang?
That's really not answering the question is it? If you don't think there was a big bang then say so. And there is significant evidence for the event called the big bang, the expanding universe, stellar red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?
Why do you assume a big bang?
That's really not answering the question is it? If you don't think there was a big bang then say so. And there is significant evidence for the event called the big bang, the expanding universe, stellar red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
You mean you assume that there was a big bang, assuming current natural laws reveal completely consistant behaviors throughout time. Assuming time has remained consistant. Assuming there was a big bang, there had to be a big banger, no?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
lol Admitting one is biased does not excuse the bias, it makes thing worse as you are saying you don't care that your bias effects your judgement.
I hope you are not suggesting that you are biased free.
I am most definitely stating I am bias free. Bias is an irrational emotional attachment to an idea. If you go to the God Hypothesis thread and state your case there I will evaluate what you propose and if I feel your hypothesis worthy of consideration then I will take it on board. Please don't derail this thread anymore, feel free to start a thread on bias if you are that concerned about it.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?
Why do you assume a big bang?
That's really not answering the question is it? If you don't think there was a big bang then say so. And there is significant evidence for the event called the big bang, the expanding universe, stellar red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
You mean you assume that there was a big bang, assuming current natural laws reveal completely consistant behaviors throughout time. Assuming time has remained consistant. Assuming there was a big bang, there had to be a big banger, no?
Start a thread on the Big Bang and we can debate that issue there. Otherwise please stop trying to 'bait and switch' on this thread please.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
lol Admitting one is biased does not excuse the bias, it makes thing worse as you are saying you don't care that your bias effects your judgement.
I hope you are not suggesting that you are biased free.
I am most definitely stating I am bias free. Bias is an irrational emotional attachment to an idea. If you go to the God Hypothesis thread and state your case there I will evaluate what you propose and if I feel your hypothesis worthy of consideration then I will take it on board. Please don't derail this thread anymore, feel free to start a thread on bias if you are that concerned about it.
By responding to your post I'm derailing the thread? That does not make sense and is unfair.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm definitely biased towards accepting what the people who actually know what they're talking about than any creationist who, like I said, want to fit reality into their worldview and not the other way round. Scientists are valid authorities, when talking about their fields of study and expertise.
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as a margin of error? from 5 000 to 7000 years? 5000 to a million?
QuoteTesting the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
This.
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:38:56 AM
If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?
YECs don't believe in the Big Bang other than "and god said let there be light...BANG...light"
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:53:23 PM
Assuming there was a big bang, there had to be a big banger, no?
no. And that's for another topic.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not. :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
lol Admitting one is biased does not excuse the bias, it makes thing worse as you are saying you don't care that your bias effects your judgement.
I hope you are not suggesting that you are biased free.
I am most definitely stating I am bias free. Bias is an irrational emotional attachment to an idea. If you go to the God Hypothesis thread and state your case there I will evaluate what you propose and if I feel your hypothesis worthy of consideration then I will take it on board. Please don't derail this thread anymore, feel free to start a thread on bias if you are that concerned about it.
By responding to your post I'm derailing the thread? That does not make sense and is unfair.
By posting unrelated comments you are derailing the thread. It makes sense and it's not unfair to ask you to remain on topic, a topic I started. If you want to bring up other subjects then feel free to do so in a parallel thread, there is nothing unfair about that at all, in fact it would give us all more things to discuss carefully in their own thread.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistent, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentary varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
What's an 'ine day'?
EDIT:
I assume you're getting at something like this
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsandandart.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2Fsand4-300x300.jpg&hash=512a0a42b9c9fd5f06318f45ab908d075bfcae7e)
So one gets the 'appearance' of stratigraphy. Volcanic eruptions do give a layered 'stratified' output. However other geological processes, such as erosion, work over much greater periods of time and it is sedimentary stratigraphy interspersed with growth stratigraphy (caused when the sedimentary layers become the surface) and volcanic layers that actually make up large areas of the surface of the Earth and make up the subject area of a whole area of science called Geology.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?
I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.
I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?
I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.
I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
It didn't.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?
I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.
I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
It didn't.
ya...it was volcanic ash...it would come up in the layers as massive volcanic activity.
I wonder if AiG has been pushing some false idea that whenever scientists see volcanic ash in the layers they assume it is old? Which is silly because then they'd be wondering who built a time machine to sandwhich old dirt between two younger layers :) I bet AiG has been telling people that when a volcano erupts it spews old layers all over the place.... They have great imaginations, too bad they don't put them to good use.
My understanding of the YEC position regarding science and the age of the earth:
Why would science be so consistent in the agreement between various disciplines regarding the age of the universe and the earth? It's simple: The "father of lies" is clouding the minds of all scientists (except those who assume the literal truth of the Bible). Of course assuming the truth of a religious text as axiomatic isn't a part of the scientific method, so the scientific method itself must be another creation of the father of lies, or of those in his thrall. The fact that it has been shown to work reliably and repeatedly is merely evidence of the power of the father of lies. This is an ever-present, powerful and malicious being intent on drawing all of humanity into hell, and those who refuse to acknowledge his existence are dupes at best, willing servants at worst. So the YEC works to expose the lies. Woe to the arrogant fools (including heretic Christians) who refuse to listen to the literal truth of the holy Bible!
Black36, feel free to correct my understanding. I think that it's useful to know the basis of the YEC position, and if anything I've said is incorrect in your view, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?
I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.
I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
It was a typo. I meant 'one'
Repeated as B36 may have missed the edit.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistent, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentary varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
What's an 'ine day'?
EDIT:
I assume you're getting at something like this
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsandandart.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2Fsand4-300x300.jpg&hash=512a0a42b9c9fd5f06318f45ab908d075bfcae7e)
So one gets the 'appearance' of stratigraphy. Volcanic eruptions do give a layered 'stratified' output. However other geological processes, such as erosion, work over much greater periods of time and it is sedimentary stratigraphy interspersed with growth stratigraphy (caused when the sedimentary layers become the surface) and volcanic layers that actually make up large areas of the surface of the Earth and make up the subject area of a whole area of science called Geology.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.
Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
I am a member of Theologyweb.com. A while ago I asked if Answers in Genesis was considered a reasonable source of a description of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) world view. In particular this page How old is the Earth? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth). There were many views of my question and many responses, but not one from a YEC. No YEC would confirm, or deny, that the AiG article was a valid description of their world view.
The most often cited creation date was produced by Archbishop James Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher). The AiG page references "The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.", which is impressive as according to the Wiki page he died in 1656.
So if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
As a former fundamentalist christian, I can say the article is a fairly accurate representation of my views at that time. You probably couldn't get anyone to say so because they know how atheists view Answers in Genesis.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.
I gave you an answer from my worldview. You gave an answer from yours. Neither one of us can offer an exact age of the earth.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.
The thing is, if God did do it, then the answer "God did it", is accurate.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.
I gave you an answer from my worldview. You gave an answer from yours. Neither one of us can offer an exact age of the earth.
There is no equivalence between the assertions of a person who bases their world view on an institutionalised superstition and the deductions made by a person whose world view is based on repeatable experimental and observational evidence.
However the age of the Earth is many orders of magnitude greater than the assessment made by Archbishop James Ussher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher) et al. When defending the YEC world view you are not defending the inerrant word of god but men who were trying to find out how old the world was. Ussher et. al. wanted to know how old the Earth was, they turned to the only 'evidence' they had in the 17th century, The Bible. Ussher was probably not a stupid man, he was literate and educated (after the fashion of the day). Can you say that he would have held to his view had he had access to the ice-core data? There is no 'date of creation' in the Bible, the YEC position is based on the assertions, guesstimations, predudices and biases of a 17th century Irish Bishop, among many others, but it is not based on the word of god. So why are you defending a position that is so demonstrably wrong.
You stated that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, based on the opinion of a 17th centry bishop. I am happy to state that the Earth is approximatly 4.5 billion years old based on repeatable experimental and observational evidence deduced by the scientific method. The same scientific method that forms the foundation of the engineering knowledge used to produce the computer, and all the associated hardware and software, that allows us to participate on this forum. So don't be too keen to dismiss the scientific method that you rely on to make the difference between the first and third world.
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
god's buttcrack?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
I don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 07:58:00 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
Don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture, in a high regard. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.
Your argument from ignorance 'I don't know so you don't know.' is no better than a schoolyard taunt. Your regard for the truth is extremely questionably as you ignore reasonable evidence (ice-cores) that anybody without a mythological view to defend would accept. Canyons are produced by tectonic action or erosion. Don't worry that I have a low respect for Christian scripture, I have a low respect for all mythologies as a source of knowledge, I'm not just picking on your particular institutionalised superstition.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 07:58:00 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
I don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.
That much is clear. Though how reality has to be subverted to do so is beyond my understanding. A view which gives what people from around 2000 years ago have written higher precedence over what we're able to measure nowadays with more advanced tools and knowledge is not worthy of any respect.
The naturalist/scientific view is not based on assumption. It's based on the scientific method, which is good enough to have given you even the computer to read these messages. people who so readily dismiss what the data points to must have a very limited understanding of what it is and how it works. Looks to me like you see it as educated
guesses.
Edit:
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 08:12:38 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 27, 2011, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
god's buttcrack?
Just as good as any other theory!
LOL
Can we keep the derails to a minimum please as I did ask B36 to do so, thanks.
Okay.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 27, 2011, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
god's buttcrack?
Just as good as any other theory!
LOL
Can we keep the derails to a minimum please as I did ask B36 to do so, thanks.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 07:58:00 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
I don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.
That much is clear. Though how reality has to be subverted to do so is beyond my understanding. A view which gives what people from around 2000 years ago have written higher precedence over what we're able to measure nowadays with more advanced tools and knowledge is not worthy of any respect.
The naturalist/scientific view is not based on assumption. It's based on the scientific method, which is good enough to have given you even the computer to read these messages. people who so readily dismiss what the data points to must have a very limited understanding of what it is and how it works. Looks to me like you see it as educated guesses.
Edit: Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 08:12:38 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 27, 2011, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 07:38:38 PM
Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?
god's buttcrack?
Just as good as any other theory!
LOL
Can we keep the derails to a minimum please as I did ask B36 to do so, thanks.
Okay.
Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:26:03 PMData does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."
Science isn't concerned with reacting to data, but rather interpreting it in a meaningful way. We aren't wrapping it to any specific ideals or something we are convinced is the conclusion. Think of it as predicting the ending of a really REALLY long book... you read it and revise your guess based on the plot progression. It would be absurd to try to make the plot fit
your ending.
Quote from: MinnesotaMike on August 27, 2011, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:26:03 PMData does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."
Science isn't concerned with reacting to data, but rather interpreting it in a meaningful way. We aren't wrapping it to any specific ideals or something we are convinced is the conclusion. Think of it as predicting the ending of a really REALLY long book... you read it and revise your guess based on the plot progression. It would be absurd to try to make the plot fit your ending.
Or, if one where to find a book with the beginning chapters missing, it would also be absurd to try and make the the missing chapters fit "your" beginning. This is what I see the secular consensus doing in all academic disciplines. They take their worldview, apply it in an infinite regress, and then call it history.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:59:32 PM
Quote from: MinnesotaMike on August 27, 2011, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:26:03 PMData does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."
Science isn't concerned with reacting to data, but rather interpreting it in a meaningful way. We aren't wrapping it to any specific ideals or something we are convinced is the conclusion. Think of it as predicting the ending of a really REALLY long book... you read it and revise your guess based on the plot progression. It would be absurd to try to make the plot fit your ending.
Or, if one where to find a book with the beginning chapters missing, it would also be absurd to try and make the the missing chapters fit "your" beginning. This is what I see the secular consensus doing in all academic disciplines. They take their worldview, apply it in an infinite regress, and then call it history.
Histororical research is a scientific discipline based on evidence. There is a difference between deducuction and speculation. Deduction follows a logical progression, speculation is characterised 'blue sky' and 'out of the box' thinking. If one found a book with the first few chapters missing one could deduce some things quite accuratly. For example "Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary." appears in the piece of the book one has; it is entierly reasonable to deduce that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse and that a son called Jesus was the result.
Now can we please get back to how old the Earth is?
black36, until come to the understanding that science is neither anti-god or pro-god then I don't see how any discussion related to factual science and how it relates to religious understanding can occur.
If all you want to do is tell us what you believe without backing it up with objective facts then there isn't anything to discuss at all.
Non YEC theists have absolutely no issue accepting science while accepting that their god did it. Many of them are Christian too.
So do you actually have anything productive to add or are you just going to keep complaining about the nonexistent science conspiracy against god?
As tank requested...get back on track...why do you think the Earth is young? If your only basis is the Bible then the discussion is pointless.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:26:03 PM
Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."
That's a lot of data that's been gathered and interpreted by people who are experts in their fields, those being scientific fields independent of eachother that you're dismissing.
Once again I don't know if you think that they speculate and guess based on what they want to believe, like creationists do.
Also, when you put it like
either it's chance or god did it...you might want to think that through a bit more.
Back on topic: as for YEC, you could start by offering good, valid and testable explanations for all the gaps that will be left in knowledge if all the evidence and methods used to obtain them are dismissed.
I think a better analogy would be to say that it's like investigating a crime scene, because books and literature can be much more open to subjective interpretations than actual justified knowledge and the data used to reach it.
You (investigator) don't actually have to have been there to witness the crime to gather some incriminating evidence. For instance, say you find a blood sample belonging to the perpetrator. You rely on established knowledge that blood contains DNA which is hereditary. You also rely on the justified knowledge that half the person's DNA comes from his or her mother and the other half comes from the father. It's rather pointless to say that maybe in some remote past it wasn't so and so appeal to ignorance without presenting evidence for that sort of assertion yourself. If you can't reach the suspect, you will be able to show with a very high probability of certainty that the DNA sample found belongs to the child of those two. Suppose to also find proof that whoever was in that crime scene bought something at a certain shop located in a certain hotel. you go there and find that person's name as someone who had stayed there during the period when the murder was committed. You also find a shoe print on the carpet. In that person's hotel room, you find the exact shoe model (size and make) that would make that print.
Suppose the opposing hypothesis in this case is that there is another possible suspect that has two different parents. That DNA testing would disqualify that suspect as the donor. YEC would be that suspect that has been disqualified.
Old Earth not only has the DNA evidence linking it to the theory with much higher probability of being true, but also the hotel evidence. That's what is meant by saying that independent fields verify the old Earth theory.
The Earth is lying.
Don't believe that bitch.
It's all her botox treatments!
As is usual, the atheists have at least some sort of evidence to back up their claims.
As is usual, the theist has wishful thinking, a total lack to become unbiased to back up their claims and a willingness to suspend critical thinking skills to maintain the bias pertaining to their worldview.
Under these conditions, I'm with Whitney; discussion is pointless. But there is one exception.
Lurkers.
Quote from: Gawen on August 28, 2011, 12:14:22 AM
As is usual, the atheists have at least some sort of evidence to back up their claims.
As is usual, the theist has wishful thinking, a total lack to become unbiased to back up their claims and a willingness to suspend critical thinking skills to maintain the bias pertaining to their worldview.
Under these conditions, I'm with Whitney; discussion is pointless. But there is one exception.
Lurkers.
I'd also say that practice is another exception.
No-one has answered my question about how old the universe is if the earth is 5,000 years old.
If the bible describes all of creation happening in just 6 days then wouldn't the universe be the same age as the earth?
If the universe is 5,000 years old then we would only be able to see celestial objects that are no more than 5,000 light years away. Slowly further away object will simply pop into existence for us as their light finally reaches us.
Why isn't this the case? Why can Hubble see other galaxies which are way more than 5,000 light years away?
Quote from: Stevil on August 29, 2011, 08:18:19 PM
No-one has answered my question about how old the universe is if the earth is 5,000 years old.
If the bible describes all of creation happening in just 6 days then wouldn't the universe be the same age as the earth?
If the universe is 5,000 years old then we would only be able to see celestial objects that are no more than 5,000 light years away. Slowly further away object will simply pop into existence for us as their light finally reaches us.
Why isn't this the case? Why can Hubble see other galaxies which are way more than 5,000 light years away?
How do you know that light always moved at the same speed throughout the history of the universe. Also, god could have created the light in transit so that we'd have pretty things to look at. Creating light in transit is a better way than making a giant spherical TV screen like thing around the Earth.
You don't know god! He's all mysterious!
Quote from: Davin on August 29, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 29, 2011, 08:18:19 PM
No-one has answered my question about how old the universe is if the earth is 5,000 years old.
If the bible describes all of creation happening in just 6 days then wouldn't the universe be the same age as the earth?
If the universe is 5,000 years old then we would only be able to see celestial objects that are no more than 5,000 light years away. Slowly further away object will simply pop into existence for us as their light finally reaches us.
Why isn't this the case? Why can Hubble see other galaxies which are way more than 5,000 light years away?
How do you know that light always moved at the same speed throughout the history of the universe. Also, god could have created the light in transit so that we'd have pretty things to look at. Creating light in transit is a better way than making a giant spherical TV screen like thing around the Earth.
You don't know god! He's all mysterious!
Quite. As God can do anything He can be as dishonest as he likes, who's going to tell him off?
Quote from: Stevil on August 29, 2011, 08:18:19 PM
No-one has answered my question about how old the universe is if the earth is 5,000 years old.
If the bible describes all of creation happening in just 6 days then wouldn't the universe be the same age as the earth?
If the universe is 5,000 years old then we would only be able to see celestial objects that are no more than 5,000 light years away. Slowly further away object will simply pop into existence for us as their light finally reaches us.
Why isn't this the case? Why can Hubble see other galaxies which are way more than 5,000 light years away?
Logically, creationists should believe the cosmos is as old as the Earth, so maybe the devil put those galaxies in the heavens, just like he puts the fossils in the ground. Personally I can't see why (YE) creationists should get any more time or credence than flat-earthers or geocentrists. They're all people who choose to try and explain the universe by literally interpreting myths that are around 2500 years old rather than objectively looking at the world around them and trying to understand it scientifically.
Quote from: Stevil on August 29, 2011, 08:18:19 PM
No-one has answered my question about how old the universe is if the earth is 5,000 years old.
If the bible describes all of creation happening in just 6 days then wouldn't the universe be the same age as the earth?
If the universe is 5,000 years old then we would only be able to see celestial objects that are no more than 5,000 light years away. Slowly further away object will simply pop into existence for us as their light finally reaches us.
Why isn't this the case? Why can Hubble see other galaxies which are way more than 5,000 light years away?
Yes, the cosmos is the same age as the Earth, according to YEC. First line of the bible states they were both created on the first day. Same age.
They explain away the thing about being able to see farther away than 5000 light years with lots of different explanations (since they don't all agree on which one best accounts for it). One is that it was simply made to look old.
That's it. No more complicated than that. Aren't you glad you don't have to worry about all that pesky science and astronomy stuff now?
:D
B36
Have you anything else to add?
ScienceShot: A Crystal a Million Years in the Making (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/scienceshot-a-crystal-a-million.html?ref=hp)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sciencemag.org%2Fsciencenow%2Fassets%2F2011%2F09%2F12%2Fsn-crystalcave.jpg&hash=678950901888c97c4791b885ca7058dd873dd282)
QuoteFirst discovered about a decade ago, the largest known cave crystals—single hunks of gypsum as much as 11 meters long, 1 meter thick, and weighing 55 tons—could have taken up to 1 million years to grow, a new study suggests...
Poor deluded scientists, don't they know facts don't count when balanced against faith. :-[
Quote from: Tank
Poor deluded scientists, don't they know facts don't count when balanced against faith. :-[
Yeah!
I'm a Last Thursdayist.
The Cosmos was created last Thursday.
Every last Thursday.
Stupid scientist.
Don't know nothin'.
*chucklin*
Quote from: Gawen on September 16, 2011, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: Tank
Poor deluded scientists, don't they know facts don't count when balanced against faith. :-[
Yeah!
I'm a Last Thursdayist.
The Cosmos was created last Thursday.
Every last Thursday.
Stupid scientist.
Don't know nothin'.
*chucklin*
I dislike Last Thursdayists...next thing you know they're telling you that you're the one who has to prove them wrong. ::)
(For the record, I don't hate Thursdays)
yeah, I've never bought any of those last Thursdayist apples either, their claims are all based on superstitious waffle and outdated mythology (by one whole day at the moment!)
plus everyone knows the cosmos was created on a Friday, it stands to reason!
Quote from: xSilverPhinx
I dislike Last Thursdayists...next thing you know they're telling you that you're the one who has to prove them wrong. ::)
(For the record, I don't hate Thursdays)
SillyPhinx. I dislike those that dislike Last Thursdayism...not because they KNOW I'm right but because they have been deceived by scientific gobbledegook as spouted by the likes of Dawkins...*winkin atcha with a grin*
Quote from: Too Few Lions on September 16, 2011, 07:12:44 PM
yeah, I've never bought any of those last Thursdayist apples either, their claims are all based on superstitious waffle and outdated mythology (by one whole day at the moment!)
plus everyone knows the cosmos was created on a Friday, it stands to reason!
I was born on a Friday, so that's reason enough for me ;D
[/quote]
Quote from: Gawen on September 17, 2011, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx
I dislike Last Thursdayists...next thing you know they're telling you that you're the one who has to prove them wrong. ::)
(For the record, I don't hate Thursdays)
SillyPhinx. I dislike those that dislike Last Thursdayism...not because they KNOW I'm right but because they have been deceived by scientific gobbledegook as spouted by the likes of Dawkins...*winkin atcha with a grin*
Blasphemy, Gawen. Blasphemy. You can expect to have an inquisitor knock on your door on Friday.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 18, 2011, 08:47:57 PM
Blasphemy, Gawen. Blasphemy. You can expect to have an inquisitor knock on your door on Friday.
And the chiropractor too!
Yesterday there was a knock at the door. The ole lady answers. I hera, "Can't you read the sign on the door?!"....then a big sigh....and then, "Honey, there's a blues brother at the door except he's wearing black".
I yell out loud, "Tell him he's got 5 seconds to reach minimum safe distance before a very localised WWIII begins"
That's all it takes at my house...*wicked evil grin*
Oh....I almost forgt. The Chiropractor saw the agent leave in a hurry and I reckon thought better to knock on my door.
Either that or he heard me rack my 12ga.
The most recent estimate for the age of the earth that I see is about 4.54 billion years. I see no reason to reject the scientific approach to determining the age of the earth, even though I am a Christian. Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly metaphorical, not literal, in my view. They were meant to give a theistic view of the world, to affirm that God was behind all creation, and not to be taken literally in their details.
Again, whether or not the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth 4.54 billion years old, that issue has nothing to do with whether or not there was a creator God responsible for the original conditions, or whether the claims about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are historical. If Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead, it doesn't matter if the earth is billions of years old or only a few thousand. These are separate issues, and Christians just create problems for themselves in pressing for a young earth model.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 03:12:53 AM
The most recent estimate for the age of the earth that I see is about 4.54 billion years. I see no reason to reject the scientific approach to determining the age of the earth, even though I am a Christian. Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly metaphorical, not literal, in my view. They were meant to give a theistic view of the world, to affirm that God was behind all creation, and not to be taken literally in their details.
Again, whether or not the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth 4.54 billion years old, that issue has nothing to do with whether or not there was a creator God responsible for the original conditions, or whether the claims about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are historical. If Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead, it doesn't matter if the earth is billions of years old or only a few thousand. These are separate issues, and Christians just create problems for themselves in pressing for a young earth model.
Young Earthers in the modern age are are clearly pretty stupid, but on the other hand I guess they're consistent in wanting to interpret all of the Bible literally as the truth and word of their god. You do seem to be picking and choosing which parts of your holy book you want to see as metaphorical and which you want to see as historical, based on what science, geology and history has shown to be wrong.
Personally I would read the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus as being as metaphorical and mythological as the Book of Genesis account of Creation. In my book, things like virgin births, miracles and resurrections aren't things of reality. But you're clearly being sensible in choosing to metaphorically interpret the mythical account of creation in Genesis.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 08, 2011, 05:18:19 PM
You do seem to be picking and choosing which parts of your holy book you want to see as metaphorical and which you want to see as historical, based on what science, geology and history has shown to be wrong.
In interpreting the Bible, I try to look more to the genre of literature, the style of writing, the vocabulary, etc., in determining whether the author intended it to be interpreted literally or metaphorically. It seems pretty clear to me that Genesis 1 & 2 are metaphorical, while passages such as those describing the fall of Jerusalem are intended to be understood literally. The style of writing is different.
Similarly, it seems that the narratives about Jesus in the gospels are generally intended to be understood literally, while Revelation is almost 100% metaphorical. It's a matter of grammar and literary style.
Can we keep on topic please and start other topics to discuss side issues please ;)
ok Tank, sorry. Dunno if you fancy starting a thread on what parts of the Bible you think should be read literally and which allegorically Bruce? As a more liberal and open minded Christian, It'd be interesting to see which parts of the OT and NT you consider mythological and which historically accurate.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 11, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
ok Tank, sorry. Dunno if you fancy starting a thread on what parts of the Bible you think should be read literally and which allegorically Bruce? As a more liberal and open minded Christian, It'd be interesting to see which parts of the OT and NT you consider mythological and which historically accurate.
OK. I'm sorry about derailing this thread. My apologies.
QuoteSo if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
You won't love this answer, but YEC is not a worldview. Christianity is a worldview, and happens to be mine, regardless of whether the earth is young or old (though evidence seems to suggest that it is old).
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 02:08:13 AM
QuoteSo if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
You won't love this answer, but YEC is not a worldview. Christianity is a worldview, and happens to be mine, regardless of whether the earth is young or old (though evidence seems to suggest that it is old).
You won't love this answer but YEC can be considered a world view, if you don't like that, tough luck.
Worldview:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
YEC is probably a component of the worldview held by some, but hardly the full monty. Maybe that's why you haven't had any takers?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 03:14:25 PM
Worldview:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
YEC is probably a component of the worldview held by some, but hardly the full monty. Maybe that's why you haven't had any takers?
Did you not read the thread?
Stand to NASA, it is 4,4 billions yo.
NASA: Jack hills, Australia (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1390.html)(Scroll down with the mouse.)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 08, 2011, 03:12:53 AM
The most recent estimate for the age of the earth that I see is about 4.54 billion years. I see no reason to reject the scientific approach to determining the age of the earth, even though I am a Christian. Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly metaphorical, not literal, in my view. They were meant to give a theistic view of the world, to affirm that God was behind all creation, and not to be taken literally in their details.
Again, whether or not the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth 4.54 billion years old, that issue has nothing to do with whether or not there was a creator God responsible for the original conditions, or whether the claims about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are historical. If Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead, it doesn't matter if the earth is billions of years old or only a few thousand. These are separate issues, and Christians just create problems for themselves in pressing for a young earth model.
The thing is, man has only been around c 2million years and homo sapiens c50,000 years.
If god created the Earth 4.54 billion years ago, he's took 4.52 billion years to create humans and come up with his stupid sin shit, and make the rule that his own son has to die to fix it etc etc. I mean
really? It never ceases to amaze me how many people are cool with the timescales/ vastness of the universe and still think godditit.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
The thing is, man has only been around c 2million years and homo sapiens c50,000 years.
If god created the Earth 4.54 billion years ago, he's took 4.52 billion years to create humans and come up with his stupid sin shit, and make the rule that his own son has to die to fix it etc etc. I mean really? It never ceases to amaze me how many people are cool with the timescales/ vastness of the universe and still think godditit.
But time means nothing to God, as he is outside of it (I'm speaking of my concept of God). If God is eternal and timeless, then everything he does would be "now" to him, and he wouldn't take 4.54 billion years to create humans and come up with his stupid sin shit (I'm speaking of your concept of God now). You know - a day to the Lord is a thousand years, etc.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 07, 2011, 10:54:20 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 07, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
The thing is, man has only been around c 2million years and homo sapiens c50,000 years.
If god created the Earth 4.54 billion years ago, he's took 4.52 billion years to create humans and come up with his stupid sin shit, and make the rule that his own son has to die to fix it etc etc. I mean really? It never ceases to amaze me how many people are cool with the timescales/ vastness of the universe and still think godditit.
But time means nothing to God, as he is outside of it (I'm speaking of my concept of God). If God is eternal and timeless, then everything he does would be "now" to him, and he wouldn't take 4.54 billion years to create humans and come up with his stupid sin shit (I'm speaking of your concept of God now). You know - a day to the Lord is a thousand years, etc.
That all sounds like "Santa can get down 2 billion chimneys in 24 hours because he is magic or timeless, eternal, or sizeless" - in other words make something up to get around the obvious problem.
You can solve ANY problem by making up an answer and attributing magical powers.
How old is the earth? Really!?
Radiometric dating is hard to understand! Dawkins does it in less than 10 easy to read pages (the greatest show on earth). We absolutely cannot grant that radio isotope dating is hard to understand. Read 10 pages and try to understand it! If you can't try again the next day! It is not hard to understand! Its not quantum physics, or even rocket science. I assume that if one is an atheist they prefer evidence over authority. Well, isotope dating is powerful evidence.
By granting that it is difficult to understand we lower the level of the debate. Remember, we traded the awe of god's mysteries for the awe of nature's wonders. Isotopes are part of nature's wonders, so go and spend just a few minutes of study and LEARN it. Force the noggen to take in the info, it will be good for you. But do not grant that it is difficult to understand.
As for the the age of the earth, really!? If someone is unwilling to accept the current evidence for the approximate age of the earth, then they are wrong! Not because science is always right, but because science works progressively to better answers and the current 4billion is our best bet yet! If someone insists on 6,000 years they are wrong! We don't have to prove that science is right, only that science is close. The discomfort brought on by knowing that science is often wrong and has often changed fundamental world views is its strength. But this discomfort is anathema to the religious mind that seeks comfort in certitude.
The age of the earth! Really?
Jose AR