Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

 

If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if this is part of

I wonder if this is part of his therapy session.  I'm not sure what this guy's problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

If I were a theist with an IQ high enough to follow a grade 9 science manual, I would HATE to have you in my camp.  You are the epitome of an idiotic theist.  You threaten the very tolerance of religion with your stupidity.  Atheists can point at you and say, look, this guy is what's wrong with religion.  Theists can point at you and say... you have a point, maybe religion is not all that's cracked up to be.  You have no idea how much you reinforce our position with every post.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter proves intelligent design, I win you lose,chump

I wonder if this is part of

Submitted by Ktulu on March 4, 2011 - 12:11am.

 

I wonder if this is part of his therapy session.  I'm not sure what this guy's problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

If I were a theist with an IQ high enough to follow a grade 9 science manual, I would HATE to have you in my camp.  You are the epitome of an idiotic theist.  You threaten the very tolerance of religion with your stupidity.  Atheists can point at you and say, look, this guy is what's wrong with religion.  Theists can point at you and say... you have a point, maybe religion is not all that's cracked up to be.  You have no idea how much you reinforce our position with every post.

 

----------------->You are an atheist drone!  CHUMP WITH CHIMP ENVY  Your position is  futile at best. You deny your faith in evolution and you have no reason to reject reality of a CREATOR.  You simply choose to be a fraud lover of lies becaue of your selfish materialistic gains. Go read the humanist manefesto befor you come and engage me with your inferior logic.

If you need to makes excuses for being a drone then you are truly lost.  Instead of making a valid point you ignore/rant. DUMB ASS  You are reenforcing your own delusions.  That is your choice. 

The genetic challenge: Where are the beneficial mutations that are adding new information to become the basis for an evolutionary novelty? Since by anyone's estimation most mutations are not beneficial, can a population reasonably bear the cost of removing the deleterious mutations via differential survival? And what is the impact on the reproductive capacity along the way? This argument, called Haldane's Dilemma, is well articulated in Walter ReMine's wonderful book The Biotic Message.

The mechanism challenge: Many people, scientists included, seem unaware that there is no consensus in the evolutionary community regarding the mechanism of macroevolution. Some biologists believe that the mechanisms of macroevolution are fundamentally different from those of microevolution (or genetic variation), while others hold that large-scale biological evolution is merely cumulative variation. The mechanism of natural selection is fraught with tautology and is woefully inadequate when one moves past the typical naive presentation to a complex fitness terrain with epistasis/heterosis (complex gene interactions and recombinations), and polygeny/pleiotropy (multiple genes coding for a trait and single genes influencing multiple traits). The origin and maintenance of sexual reproduction and consciousness in humans remain fundamental problems for the darwinian materialists.

The complexity challenge: The sophistication and apparent design of biological systems cry out for an explanation. In his book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe argues that the evidence from the field of biochemistry gives new force to an argument begun by Paley. William Paley pointed to a watch as an illustration of a system that must be designed because freak chance and the work of natural laws can not explain it. Darwinian gradualism completely breaks down when faced with irreducibly complex systems.

Walter ReMine argues eloquently for the presence of odd designs being deliberately designed to call attention to the message inherent in the panorama of biological systems. The message is that life was designed by a single designer specifically to confound naturalistic explanations. His book (The Biotic Message, 1993, p. 465) and published paper on Message Theory list several reasons for nested hierarchy.

1. It allows for enormous diversity (making it cumbersome for evolution to explain), while
2. uniting all of life together, often in a visible way.
3. It confounds simpler explanations like transposition (lateral transfer of genetic material) and
4. highlights the absence of identifiable phylogeny (ancestor-descendent lineages).
5. It conveys the single designer message even when the observer lacks much of the data.
6. The pattern is embedded deeply into each organism, thereby making the biotic message resistant to mutation.
7. The nested pattern cannot be the haphazard result of a single civilization (panspermia) but rather points to the action of a single Designer.
Evolution never predicted nested hierarchy and Carl Linnaeus' work on classifying organisms preceded Darwin by over a hundred years. To the extent the patterns did not exist, evolution would happily accommodate with processes of loss, replacement, distant hybridization, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, panspermia, or multiple biogenesis. Gould stands ready and willing to invoke transposition (the idea of a lateral transfer of genetic material between organisms...vastly more elementary than convergence or natural selection) if the pattern were obliging. "The debate about lateral transfer does not center upon plausible mechanisms. ...The issue is not plausibility but relative frequency. Lateral transfer is intelligible and feasible, but how often does it happen in nature? This crucial question must be established by example, not by theory." (Gould, Stephen J., 1986, "Linnaean Limits," Natural History, vol. 95, no. 8, p. 18.) To the extent that biodiversity exhibits nested hierarchy it supposedly supports evolution. To the extent that it does not, evolutionists will happily accommodate with a variation on their theory. Evolutionism adapts to data like fog to a landscape! Indeed most of these other mechanisms would be far simpler than the current theory involving natural selection and convergence. They could handily explain troublesome features of the fossil record without resorting to punctuated equilibria. There is no good naturalistic/evolutionary reason for some of them not to have occurred. But the nested hierarchy pattern is intractably resistant to these alternative explanations.
The evidence for the theory of evolution certainly does not qualify it to be called a scientific fact. Indeed, as science has progressed Darwinists have had to retreat completely out of the scientific arena into unfalsifiable positions or resort to contradictory models to deal with special problems. The smorgasbord of competing hypothesis that are left should not even qualify as a scientific theory, much less a fact. Again, ReMine is insightful: "1) Life systematically lacks a pattern of fine-gradations of fossils joining disparate lifeforms together. 2) Life systematically lacks a pattern of clear-cut ancestors and lineages joining disparate lifeforms together. 3) Experimental demonstrations, in the laboratory and in the field, systematically fail to demonstrate a plausible naturalistic origin of our disparate lifeforms. Let me emphasize that these are three separate, independent, failures for evolutionary theory... Any one of these three areas would be sufficient to establish evolution as a fact. Yet the systematic, independent failure of ALL THREE shouts that evolutionary theory is wrong." (From a private correspondence, used with permission, 1999.)
But some evolutionists counter that evolution, despite its many flaws, is the best origins theory that we have. Usually they won't even allow the idea of Intelligent Design to be considered, claiming that theories involving the supernatural have no place in science. This is wrong on multiple fronts. First of all, it is conceivable that earth's life forms could have been designed by naturalistic alien forces. Secondly, there is no reason science cannot evaluate supernatural theories and good reason to allow consideration of all theories so that the best theory wins and science proceeds towards the truth. Thirdly, evolutionary theory itself has steadily retreated from testable science into the Metaphysical Arena.


 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol, I like the chump with

Lol, I like the chump with chimp envy thing. Pretty catchy.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
atheist monkey wannabe's always retreat up a tree of lies

Evolution: Fact or Faith?
What is 'Science'?
The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory. No one, in all human history has ever observed evolution taking place anywhere.
'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory..is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof' (The Foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Harrison L. Matthews. p. x)
'In the classic work, "Implications of Evolution", Dr. G.A. Kerkut, listed seven assumptions upon which evolution is based, and then said.."The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification". (The Implications of Evolution. G.A. Kerut. Pergmon, London. p. 7, 1960)

Evolution: Fact or Faith?
The following are a sample of the religions which are structured around an evolutionary philosophy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confuscianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judiasm, Isalm and Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity and Humanism. All these share the philosophy (belief structure) that the Universe is Eternal, and reject a self-existent personal God. Evolution is a religion is every sense of the word. It is a world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, an attempt to explain the origin and development of everything from the elements to galaxies to people. There are essentially only three modern creationist religions, orthodox Judaism, Islam and Christianity, these are founded upon the belief in one self-existent eternal Creator, who called the universe itself into existence (Psalm 33:6,9).
At this central beginning point the Bible and Evolution part ways. There is no way that you can believe in an eternal universe and the following passages that all PLACE GOD PRIOR TO 'ALL THINGS MADE'-(John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:10-12).


Even evolutionists consider 'evolution' to be a 'faith'

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I strong SUSPECT he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" ("An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible". Free Inquiry, Vol. 2, Spring 1982 p. 9 By Paul Kurtz).
Logically, if Mr. Asimov doesn't have the 'evidence' to disprove the existence of God (including creation); then neither can he have the 'evidence' that proves his atheism (and the evolution that under-girds it). Which means that his atheism is a 'faith-religion', and he realizes that evolution lacks 'proof'. Before we move on, many assume that no 'real' scientist would ever believe in creation. The following scientists did: In Physics-Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry-Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay. Biology-Ray, Linnaeus, ******, Pasteur. Geology-Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy-Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder.

What we haven't been told:
In the Creation-Evolution debate, Christians have been depicted as naive, stupid, gullible, ignorant, having their heads in the sand, out of date, and so on. God tells Christians not to be gullible, to get all the facts (Mark 4:24; 1 Thess. 5:21). The following are things that we haven't been told on PBS, in the National Geographic, or in the classroom. Why?

A. CONCERNING THE FOSSIL RECORD:
The impression given in our schools and in the media is that evolution is an established fact of science, and that it is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record. If evolution did happen, then the fossil record should be full of 'evidence'. But Stephen Jay Gloud, Harvard's top evolutionist has admitted: "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless"
Another evolutionist adds: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology (the study of fossils) DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM" (Evolution. Vol. 28 (Sept. 1974). p. 467. David B. Kitts 'Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory'). What this means is that living things have remained the same! This agrees with what Christians have believed all along. (Genesis 1:12,21,24)

B. EVOLUTION AND ESTABLISHED LAWS OF SCIENCE:
The most universal laws of science are the first and second law of thermodynamics. "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down" (Isaac Asimov. 1973). This is the second law, all systems are in the process of running down, decaying, growing old, moving from order to disorder. The Bible agrees (Hebrews 1:11-12). But evolution has everything moving 'upward', not downward:
"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, NOT MORE ORDER" ("A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity". Science. Vol. 217 (Sept. 24, 1982). p. 1239 Roger Lewin)

C. THE SUPPOSED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:
We often hear dates in the billions for the age of the universe. These dates are frequently stated in the classroom or on television. "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are CLAIMED TO BE. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years (boy, that narrows it down-M.D.). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock" (The Science of Evolution. New York. Macmillan. 1977. p. 84 William D.Stansfield)

D. THE AGE OF MAN HIMSELF:
Evolution claims that man has been on the earth for a million years. The problem is that using population statistics, the universe should be packed with people. Assuming a million year occupation, starting with two people, taking a very conservative growth rate (1/2 percent---the current is 2 percent), a million years of mankind would calculate to a present population of 10 to the 2100 power people (only 10 to the 130 power electrons could be crammed into the entire known universe!) The same figures would arrive at the current population on the planet in 4000 years. It is interesting to note that Jesus placed man and woman 'from the beginning of Creation' (Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4). Jesus didn't have a 4 billion year gap between the planet and mankind's arrival.

E. THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN:
For years we have been told that the Geological Column, the assemblage of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks around the world, was formed over millions of years. But: (1) Every unit in the column was formed rapidly (The Nature of the Geographical Record. New York. John Wiley Publ., 1981. pp. 54, 106-107, etc..Derek V. Ager). (2) There are no worldwide unconformities in the column (that is, "time breaks, or periods of erosion rather than deposition&quotEye-wink. The entire column from bottom to top reflects unbroken continuity (i.e. one layer laid down right after another). (3) Supposed 'old' and 'new' fossils are mixed up in the column. Rocks of all types, minerals, metals, coal and oil, structures of all types are found indiscriminately in rocks of all 'supposed time periods'. Rather than a slow process, involving millions of years, this sounds like the column was formed all at one time, during and following a great world wide disaster, a disaster that would of curned up the whole face of the earth, moved whole mountains and formed others, buried hundreds, thousands and millions of living things in common graves--hey, this sounds a lot like the Flood of Noah. Sadly, everybody wants to forget about the flood. (2 Peter 3:3-7).

What does evolution have left?
'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)
Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I don't normally stoop down

I don't normally stoop down to the level of trolls, but your claims are absolute idiocies... if we found out tomorrow that there is a different process other then natural selection, let's say... something at the quantum level that drives a process that explains the fossil record and the way that different strands of DNA relate with themselves, or some crazy off the wall thing, you would still be wrong.  You are an ignoramus and an idiot.  Simply proving evolution wrong... whatever that even fucking means, it's like proving that grass is purple, or that gravity is a force that repels two bodies proportional to their mass, would not make you right.  

Your kind makes me ashamed to be a human, to live in an age such as ours, with all this available science and data, and to choose to hang on to some ancient superstition... is enough to justify our ultimate demise.  Look, I understand people that argue out of emotion, and I can see why some people would believe such crap.  But someone like you, that actively denies scientific evidence in favour of some pseudo-scientific dogma; you have the audacity to call us drones?  You represent the very epitome of brainwashing.  I don't even have words to describe how disgusted I am at you, and people wonder why we are atheist activists.  It's because of YOUR kind.

You make me want to throw up.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Mindovermatter, Please

 Mindovermatter,

 

Please don't use the "Proud member of The Rational Response Squad" badge as your avatar.  I removed it.

 

Thanks,

Sapient

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
if you were wise you would not say if to prove your point chump!

I don't normally stoop down

Submitted by Ktulu on March 8, 2011 - 9:50pm.

 

I don't normally stoop down to the level of trolls, but your claims are absolute idiocies... if we found out tomorrow that there is a different process other then natural selection, let's say... something at the quantum level that drives a process that explains the fossil record and the way that different strands of DNA relate with themselves, or some crazy off the wall thing, you would still be wrong.  You are an ignoramus and an idiot.  Simply proving evolution wrong... whatever that even fucking means, it's like proving that grass is purple, or that gravity is a force that repels two bodies proportional to their mass, would not make you right.  

Your kind makes me ashamed to be a human, to live in an age such as ours, with all this available science and data, and to choose to hang on to some ancient superstition... is enough to justify our ultimate demise.  Look, I understand people that argue out of emotion, and I can see why some people would believe such crap.  But someone like you, that actively denies scientific evidence in favour of some pseudo-scientific dogma; you have the audacity to call us drones?  You represent the very epitome of brainwashing.  I don't even have words to describe how disgusted I am at you, and people wonder why we are atheist activists.  It's because of YOUR kind.

You make me want to throw up.

----------------------->> if we found out tomorrow ????? you have nothing but if's and maybes and presuppositions and wannabe scientists ?  You keep searching for your tree of knowledge you fool!  You are never going to find out anything because you dont deserve to know the facts that already exist you punted skank.  DNA does not demonstrate evolution you dumbass closet pagan drone minion of satans ass.

 

the fossil record is just one of millions  and millions of facts that expose what a retard you choose be. you traitor to humanity.  Natural selection doesnt work so you keep sniffing shit for inspiration.  No wonder you feel sick, You methene brain mind bubble!

 

You should be a shamed to be human!!  you chump with chimp envy!!!!  You place humans on the level of bacteria insents plants and fish and reptiles and animals.    You do not know the difference between humans  and flesh that is not human.  You do not know what it means to be human you scum worshipper.

 

the age we live in is a result of intelligent design you moron.  You think it took billions of years to get where we are today? YOU stupid atheist humanist drone!

the only data that matters is that which requires intelligence to relate to it. you FOOL!  you only dream ofdata that supports your cunt humanist religion of origins  which you pose as science but we all know you are a coward hiding behind big words you do not even understand.

You assume a lot on faith but you come here acting all knowing because you only beef is with truth as authority which chaps your  daisy chained ass .

You cannot handle a truth that makes you accountable to an ALL MIGHTY CREATOR WHOM you deny at your core because you a nothing but a failed rebel drone poser. You are an elitest with no experience to quote science.  You wanna preach billions of years ? go ahead but do not call it science you ASSHOLE. science has not place in matters that are not historical.  You wanna rip of people of faith because you are a lost cause in eternity?  You are a hypocrite to ignore/rant about dogma!  That makes you the ignoramus and you deny it because you are ashamed to be human. You worship creation and call it mother nature because you are the idiot and the fact that you believe life originated from non living matter over billions of years makes you even more superstitious you fraud lover  of man made religions from ancient times.  Your whole worldview is rooted in false religious beliefs yet here you are posturing like a vindictive  expendible drone pawn.

 

You piss and moan about people like me and then say how disgusted you are?  LOL LOL LOL LOL  You need to stick your head in a microwave and see if it doesnt give radioactive  superpowers.  You slapnut!

 

It is because of asscunts like you that the highest cause of death in the world is abortion.   You non believers in accountablilty always site your humanist manifesto to cover up your satanic agenda!

 

You failed to demonstrate anything to show why you are not a atheist cretard!  That is what I expect from your kind!

 

Oh , what?  no way to verfiy billions of years? how about abio genesis?  Again, NO!  how about you stop trying to rely on intelligence to prove evolution?

Evolution is not a person and nature is not a person and science is not a person. LEARN IT you failure!

 

You are an indoctrinated  spam.  You deny your faith because you are ahsmed to admit that is all you have when it comes to propping up your stupid story of origins without purpose , cause, design, or an INTELLIGENT SUPERNATURAL MIND.

While you deny your faith in a false man made religion for humanist zealots like yourself, I admit my faith in an ALLMIGHTY CREATOR is owns allmatter in space over time.

YOU worship creation and I worship a creator!  It has nothing to do with science!

SO RUN ALONG YOU SCUMBAG back to your aatheist home base founded on a pile of steaming shit!

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
the irrational no response fraud squad

 Mindovermatter, Please

Submitted by Sapient on March 22, 2011 - 9:16am.

 

 Mindovermatter,

 

Please don't use the "Proud member of The Rational Response Squad" badge as your avatar.  I removed it.

 

Thanks,

Sapient

 

---------------------
>???????????????????What is your materialistic problem?

You removed my avatar because it does not fit your agenda?

 

You should change the name from rational to irrational!  everyone on this thread who preaches the religion of origins without a creator is irrational.

How is it rational for you to remove my avatar and not state your reason for doing so?  Was it personal? or you are just pleasing the atheist mob?

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
is this web site a rally to war? against truth?

I am rational dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.  Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

It is 100% impossible to prove that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old via a very risky probability form of proof. First off, that kind of proof doesn't prove anything to begin with. In fact, an atheist cannot even prove that they "exist" via their method of proof. (LOL).

But, via my method of deductive from Christian axioms, the proof is in the consistent of my argument and the correspondance of nature to what is reflected in Scripture.

So we see the genaology of Genesis 10 and such. We have around 6000 years. We account for gaps and we estimate it around 10,000 years old as the earth.

That is absolute proof with zero probability.

Now, one can use your type of probable high risk "proof" via ad hominems. And perhaps, it is this, that I shall explore next.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,It

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

It is 100% impossible to prove that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old via a very risky probability form of proof. First off, that kind of proof doesn't prove anything to begin with. In fact, an atheist cannot even prove that they "exist" via their method of proof. (LOL).

But, via my method of deductive from Christian axioms, the proof is in the consistent of my argument and the correspondance of nature to what is reflected in Scripture.

So we see the genaology of Genesis 10 and such. We have around 6000 years. We account for gaps and we estimate it around 10,000 years old as the earth.

That is absolute proof with zero probability.

Now, one can use your type of probable high risk "proof" via ad hominems. And perhaps, it is this, that I shall explore next.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
This should be fun

This should be fun


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,It

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

It is 100% impossible to prove that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old via a very risky probability form of proof. First off, that kind of proof doesn't prove anything to begin with. In fact, an atheist cannot even prove that they "exist" via their method of proof. (LOL).

But, via my method of deductive from Christian axioms, the proof is in the consistent of my argument and the correspondance of nature to what is reflected in Scripture.

So we see the genaology of Genesis 10 and such. We have around 6000 years. We account for gaps and we estimate it around 10,000 years old as the earth.

That is absolute proof with zero probability.

Now, one can use your type of probable high risk "proof" via ad hominems. And perhaps, it is this, that I shall explore next.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3) 

You are very confused, dear Jean.

Whatever you deduce from the claim in the Bible that "man is made in the image and likeness of God", which seems to be the point I had reached in trying to get from you the basis of your position, has to be about as tenuous a justification as you could get for anything.

Axioms are assumptions.

"Self-evident" doesn't mean 'true' - it states a personal subjective judgement of a particular argument.

Do you wish to further clarify why you think that that "image/likeness of God" thing justifies your position?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

An axiom is a self evident TRUTH. Did you even take geometry in high school?

Do you concur that geometry is false?

Anyway, I gave my proof that the earth is around 6-10,000 years old. But that proof was not liked (LOL). But I gave it. And it was proof via demonstration.

But you want proof that is based on probability error that one cannot determin the ratio of truth from error on any given piece of data.

More on that later.

While some inconsistent Christians believe the earth is old, ALL consistent Christians believe the earth is young. And Dr. Hugh Ross is NOT a Christian.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,An

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

An axiom is a self evident TRUTH. Did you even take geometry in high school?

Do you concur that geometry is false?

Anyway, I gave my proof that the earth is around 6-10,000 years old. But that proof was not liked (LOL). But I gave it. And it was proof via demonstration.

But you want proof that is based on probability error that one cannot determin the ratio of truth from error on any given piece of data.

More on that later.

While some inconsistent Christians believe the earth is old, ALL consistent Christians believe the earth is young. And Dr. Hugh Ross is NOT a Christian.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

And by that definition none of the assertions that you make are axioms. I told you that when you refute yourself you make my job less fun. Are you trying to disappoint me Jean?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,An

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

An axiom is a self evident TRUTH. Did you even take geometry in high school?

Do you concur that geometry is false?

Anyway, I gave my proof that the earth is around 6-10,000 years old. But that proof was not liked (LOL). But I gave it. And it was proof via demonstration.

But you want proof that is based on probability error that one cannot determin the ratio of truth from error on any given piece of data.

More on that later.

While some inconsistent Christians believe the earth is old, ALL consistent Christians believe the earth is young. And Dr. Hugh Ross is NOT a Christian.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[/quote=']

Wikipedia wrote:

 

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., A and B implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in the latter sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

Outside logic and mathematics, the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field.

Which is pretty much how I understand the term. You only consider one form of 'axiom'.

Wikipedia wrote:

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most others, the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence. However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically self-evident.

The following proposition is often said to be self-evident:

A finite whole is greater than any of its parts

Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.

Quote:

As you can see, 'self-evident' is dependent on the knowledge of the person applying the term, and does not apply in Logic, except as applied to a tautology or a definition.

Geometry is consistent with its axioms, therefore is not 'false' in that sense.

If Euclidean Geometry is applied in real situations where the distortion of space due to gravity is measureable, then it will produce false conclusions.

If it is applied to the relationships of objects on the surface of the Earth, it will also be produce false conclusions, because of the curvature of the Earth's surface.

As usual, your thinking is far too simplistic and narrow.

========

Your statement

Quote:

But you want proof that is based on probability error that one cannot determin the ratio of truth from error on any given piece of data.

is internally confused and shows you still don't understand the process of reasoning to knowledge in the Real World.

What I 'want' is a demonstration that a given proposition is more consistent with the body of established observation and associated models of reality ( AKA "theories" ) than the alternatives. "Established' means, in this context, known to a high level of confidence, understood to be less than 100%, but quite close enough to be taken as 'true' in the current context.

Bayesian analysis allows us to rigorously calculate the cumulative effect on the probability of a conclusion being true of the estimated uncertainties of the input data and assumptions.

You base your conclusions on scripture, and you appear to ASSUME that your particular interpretation of what was 'meant' by anything in the Bible is 100% certain, and that your 'reasoning' from that is valid and sound, IOW that your reasoning is Perfect.

Which you have yet to demonstrate. There are many other interpretations. It is not sufficient to simply assert these are mistaken. You need to address their 'errors' in detail.

OTOH, Science does not depend on all reasoning being perfect, or all conclusions being 100% certain, therefore produces far more robust and useful conclusions, which are only accepted when they have been thrown up against Reality in as many ways as possible, and still hold together.

Conclusions based on purely deductive reasoning become ever more fragile, the longer the chain of argument becomes, and the more 'non-logical' axioms, ie axioms that are not simple definitions or tautologies, are incorporated. One slip is sufficient for such a house of cards to collapse. That only need be a slight change in which nuance of the meaning of a word is being applied from one part of the argument to the next, a common problem in arguments using natural language.

=============

You are probably correct to assert that all "consistent" Christians believe in a young earth. 

The biggest problem there is that the Christianity is based on an inconsistent foundation, ie  Scripture.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sa'rah (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
truth

that is so silly. you dont have proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. you have someone telling you that they have proof...and you CHOOSE to believe it. but why do you not CHOOSE to believe the bible, which is the very source of truth?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi, welcome to the

Hi, welcome to the forum.

Sa'rah wrote:
that is so silly. you dont have proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. you have someone telling you that they have proof...and you CHOOSE to believe it.

I am not sure what qualifies as "proof" to you, but there are various ways of dating materials and phenomena on Earth and in space, such as utilizing the constancy of the speed of light, radiometric dating methods, etc. The data from these methods are corroborated to arrive at current estimates. You are correct that we are relying on other people, to an extent, but I also understand the science and know the arguments on both sides much better than the average person, such that it is beyond a reasonable doubt; at least, it would be silly to prefer the Young Earth Creationist explanation.   

Sa'rah wrote:
but why do you not CHOOSE to believe the bible, which is the very source of truth?

Oh?

And what is your "proof" that the Bible is the "very source of truth?" 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


EternalDamnation
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Sa'rah wrote:that is so

Sa'rah wrote:

that is so silly. you dont have proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. you have someone telling you that they have proof...and you CHOOSE to believe it.

They showed their work.

Sa'rah wrote:

but why do you not CHOOSE to believe the bible, which is the very source of truth?

Prove it.

I'm going to hell.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rational people do not

Rational people do not 'choose' what they believe, they accept new information as likely to be true, with varying degrees of confidence, based on its source and how well it matches all the other relevant, reasonably well-attested information they already have.

The bible contains much that is clearly nonsense, contradicting stuff that has been very well justified from many sources, and explains our observations far more plausibly than the ancient myths in the Bible.

It is admittedly a problem for people who really don't understand logic and reasoning, applied to the process of empirical research and testing, as exemplified in Science, since they have not as solid a grounding as people like myself in modern Science and Technology. But a look around at the enormous growth of technology, including what we are using now to communicate, that is all based on, and is consistent with, knowledge gained by scientific study of reality, is a pretty good basis for having confidence in that source of knowledge.

Whereas all religion has is a bunch of dreams and myths and ideas with little of no empirical justification, which is manifest as a vast number of conflicting ideas and cults and denominations, with not even any evidence for their God beyond an inability on their part to explain anything significant about reality without appealing to a magic being...

The more you read up on all aspects of science, the more it all 'hangs together', whereas the more you read the Bible, with an open mind, the less coherent it seems, the more contradictions and inconsistencies you find.

You can't be serious....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: And

butterbattle wrote:

 

And what is your "proof" that the Bible is the "very source of truth?" 

 

Because someone told me and now I'm telling you!

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:You

mind over matter wrote:
You should change the name from rational to irrational!  everyone on this thread who preaches the religion of origins without a creator is irrational.How is it rational for you to remove my avatar and not state your reason for doing so?  Was it personal? or you are just pleasing the atheist mob?

Quit whining kid. If you ever learn how to use your brain in a rational way, you can steal the RRS logo and use it as an avatar and noone will be upset, least of all Sapient. Until then you're just partaking in false advertising.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
The earth is 28 years old

I was born in 1983, So as far as I know for certain the earth is only 28. Bam!! I want my money. 

 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Au contraire, Sa'rah.

 

Sa'rah wrote:

that is so silly. you dont have proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. you have someone telling you that they have proof...and you CHOOSE to believe it. but why do you not CHOOSE to believe the bible, which is the very source of truth?

 

I choose to accept the findings of testable explanations until those findings are disproved by new evidence. There is no ultimate truth, no 'very source of truth'.

In this debate we have samarium-147 and you have the naked assertions of the ignorant.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Where's Kent Hovind when you

Where's Kent Hovind when you need him? 


ELE21 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Just Saying

 I am no scientist, and I certainly have not done as much research as people on this website, but I do know this: It takes more faith to not believe in God, than it does to believe, and you better be sure, because if you're wrong you will literally have an eternity to wish you gave it some more thought. I would make sure you all are familiar with Pascal's wager, which I'm sure most of you are. I am in the processing of researching facts to support my beliefs, but I will say, from a purely subjective standpoint with no scientific proof, there are just so many "coincidences" and strokes of luck, for me to believe that an all powerful being is not looking out for us. And whether you believe in God or not, we all can agree that if God is real, it should warm your heart and we should all be happy and grateful all of the time. That is all, we all have our own opinions, but like Will Ferrel once said--everybody love everybody.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:Where's

rogersherrer wrote:

Where's Kent Hovind when you need him? 

In a cell next to Wesley Snipes, explaining how he knows as much about tax law as he does about science...

LC  >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Doing the math...

The 6000 years number was originally derived by taking the stated ages of the named individuals in the bible and adding them together. For instance, Methuselah was said to live  969 years,  Adam, 930 if fact, the average age of the 'patriarchs' was 912... Following the geneology of Jesus the ages were simply added together and the result was the 6000 years that fundamentalists are so fond of... there are a few small problems.

Genetic research and microbiology has shown that the human body has a literal biological clock, a point at which the cells can no longer regenerate. At the age of around 120 years, you are simply living on borrowed time.

Now that indisputable fact, coupled with the archeological evidence that places the average lifespan of ancient people between 12 and 35 years... with 50 being a ripe old age, pretty well says that the ages of the patriarchs as recorded are a bit exaggerated.

Either, the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, as stated by science, or if one counts the ACTUAL ages of the Patriarchs, it was made a year and a half ago at 3:27 in the afternoon...

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ELE21 wrote: I am no

ELE21 wrote:

 I am no scientist, and I certainly have not done as much research as people on this website, but I do know this: It takes more faith to not believe in God, than it does to believe, and you better be sure, because if you're wrong you will literally have an eternity to wish you gave it some more thought. I would make sure you all are familiar with Pascal's wager, which I'm sure most of you are. I am in the processing of researching facts to support my beliefs, but I will say, from a purely subjective standpoint with no scientific proof, there are just so many "coincidences" and strokes of luck, for me to believe that an all powerful being is not looking out for us. And whether you believe in God or not, we all can agree that if God is real, it should warm your heart and we should all be happy and grateful all of the time. That is all, we all have our own opinions, but like Will Ferrel once said--everybody love everybody.

Well you better choose the correct god, most are mutually exclusive and it's a mortal sin to worship false gods... Smiling

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

Ok, I guess you better go with Christianity, makes sense I mean.. I wouldn't want to piss off a jealous God...

"V.2:145 "And even if you were to bring to the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) all the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) they would not follow your Qiblah (prayer direction), nor are you going to follow their Qiblah (prayer direction). And they will not follow each other's Qiblah (prayer direction). Verily, if you follow their desires after that which you have received of knowledge (from Allâh), then indeed you will be one of the Zâlimûn (polytheists, wrong-doers).""

Well shit... now what? this sucks, if only there was only one god, with one clear message, then Pascal's wager may have a crippled foot to stand on.  I guess I'll just take my chances, pick a religion out of the hat, and hope it's the right one and I don't piss off any other gods... ok here it goes...

African god Chukwu... could be worse, I better gather some chickens to sacrifice and I will be content in my choise as rationalized by Pascal's wager...

/sarcasm  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
ELE21 wrote: I am no

ELE21 wrote:

 I am no scientist, and I certainly have not done as much research as people on this website, but I do know this: It takes more faith to not believe in God, than it does to believe, and you better be sure, because if you're wrong you will literally have an eternity to wish you gave it some more thought. I would make sure you all are familiar with Pascal's wager, which I'm sure most of you are. I am in the processing of researching facts to support my beliefs, but I will say, from a purely subjective standpoint with no scientific proof, there are just so many "coincidences" and strokes of luck, for me to believe that an all powerful being is not looking out for us. And whether you believe in God or not, we all can agree that if God is real, it should warm your heart and we should all be happy and grateful all of the time. That is all, we all have our own opinions, but like Will Ferrel once said--everybody love everybody.

 

Wow... Pascal's sucker bet, I didn't think anyone was silly enough to drag that bit of fluff from under the metaphysical couch...

You've already been ably spanked on this, so I'll just recap...
If the Muslims are right, you are screwed...
If the Catholics are right (and you are a Protestant) You are screwed...
If the Mormons are right, god is bat shit crazy and we are all screwed...
Mugumbu of the Mud Hut seems like the only rational choice...oh, or just not accepting ANY of the silliness...

I've had lots of coincidences... some good, some bad...
I've had strokes of luck...
I'm an atheist... so if my good fortune is the same as your good fortune, you have no reason to bribe me..

Oh, and one more shot at Pascal's Sucker Bet. I will place my fear of being judged by your or anyone elses god on the same shelf I keep my deep seated fear of being kicked by Big Foot, sucked dry by Dracula or Gang Probed by little green men...

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
The universe is 5,776 years,

The universe is 5,776 years, plus 6 "yomim" (days, periods, intervals ...) of indeterminate age old.

Since there is a solution for x = (13,700,000,000 - 5,776) / 6, the universe really is 5,776 years, plus six other periods of time that are pretty huge, old.

Better living through algebra.  Which is an Arabic word.  And invented by Muslims.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It takes more faith to

Quote:
It takes more faith to not believe in God, than it does to believe, and you better be sure, because if you're wrong you will literally have an eternity to wish you gave it some more thought

Louis_Cypher gave a bit of an answer, but your dilemma is actually infinitely worse than he suggests. There are millions of gods. You choose one. I happen to know there are thousands who don't need to be worshipped in order to be satisfied with me, but most of them would be pretty pissed off if I were worshipping something else instead. Even the ones who demand fealty tend to be more forgiving to unbelievers than to those worshipping false deitys. I say you're the one who needs more faith. There are millions of different gods that could be pissed at you if you chose wrong.

Oh, by the way, Pascal himself refuted his own wager.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:It takes

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
It takes more faith to not believe in God, than it does to believe, and you better be sure, because if you're wrong you will literally have an eternity to wish you gave it some more thought
Louis_Cypher gave a bit of an answer, but your dilemma is actually infinitely worse than he suggests. There are millions of gods. You choose one. I happen to know there are thousands who don't need to be worshipped in order to be satisfied with me, but most of them would be pretty pissed off if I were worshipping something else instead. Even the ones who demand fealty tend to be more forgiving to unbelievers than to those worshipping false deitys. I say you're the one who needs more faith. There are millions of different gods that could be pissed at you if you chose wrong. Oh, by the way, Pascal himself refuted his own wager.

I would argue that the only god worth worshiping is one that doesn't require belief for "salvation", whatever that means.  The alternative is that one should be able to require and/or demand of a god that they make themself clearly and unarguably obviously known.  And that the better alternative to Pascal's Wager is to imagine (hey, an imaginary god!) what a sane and rational god would expect of believers and do that.  Any deity who'd punish a person who lacked clear proof of their existence for doing what they felt was best for the planet would be a deity worthy of being flipped off.  Anyone who thinks they can treat others like dirt, because they don't believe in a god, or some "greater good for the planet", deserves whatever form of Hell any deity might have created.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


kdrac21
Posts: 2
Joined: 2012-04-08
User is offlineOffline
 I'm sorry but with our

 I'm sorry but with our recorded history + the ages of the people in the bible it would still have to be about 10,000 years old. remember people in the bible lived about 600 years or so... this does not include the jurassic period 

As well the speed of light has been proven correct. With that as a constant we would not be able to see most of the stars in the sky, furthermore if we were wrong we would have been influenced by the gravity of all our <6000u counterparts and could you imagine all the visible stars and galaxies we see fitting into a 12000u bubble? it would be only be feasable in a 12000^1^30^12 bubble and then i think i'm underestimating. that's 12 with 33 billion 0's behind it! 

 

There is more irrefutable proof against than for.  

Our own milky way is 100-120,000u across condensing it alone to 12,000u we would see tidal changes from nearby stars.

 

consider this, our solar system is 2u across the black hole's event horizon at the center of our galaxy is 8u across.

the amount of stars in the galaxy that we can see  (counted to around 75,000 so far ) 

if the universe was 12,000u accross..

 

universe's area 56 320 000u

solar systems area 3.14u

black hole's area 50.24u

total area of stars in galaxy+black hole 235 550.24u

this could work, providing we were the only galaxy but we are not, there are about 3000+ visible (with non radio telescopes)

so with that it puts our galaxy past capacity!

galaxy*3000 = 706 650 720

The 6000 year old universe vs light speed and what we can actually see is 1,255% incorrect (a little less if you put it all in a bubble vs a circle, but still past capacity.

 

 

 


NameUnimportant (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 From a personal

 From a personal perspective. I am a theist (more or less), in that I believe God *may* exist. Did God create the earth in 6 days....highly doubtful.

No factual, verifiable evidence to support this.

Did God create the Universe? Possible, but verifiable? Absolutely not, with our current technological level.

Evolution has much evidence to support it:

1. Genetic Inheritence in mixed race groups. An African person procreating with a Caucasian, for example, will produce a beautiful coffee coloured child. This is the child inheriting genetic traits from both parents, which produce new variations on both these themes, this is known as mutation, and is evident throughout nature.

2. If you disbelieve evolution, then why does human DNA differ by only 2% from chimpanzees? Why do we have ice age DNA from woolly mammoths which have strikingly similar genetic makeup to modern elephants? This is because, gradually, over thousands of years, a species can change genetically as a whole, in response to external (read: environmental) stimulus, which is expressed in the form of new, more optimised genetic variations. Unnecessary genetic traits (such as thick fur) are discarded over time, as climates get warmer, predators develop forward facing vision, prey develop omnidirectional vision, fish develop lungs as they spend more time out of water etc.

Regarding "Planetary Evolution"

This is a direct result of the fundamental forces of physics, namely the EM force, Gravity, Weak & Strong nuclear forces. These forces not only give us an explanation as to how these things can happen, but moreover, tell us that it is the *only* way it can happen. Personally I believe that God decided these rules, and then let the universe form, based on these rules. My advice is to refrain from trying to refute these forces until you understand them.

 

Regarding the Bible:

A bunch of books, written by men, compiled by men, in a time when men did not understand the fundamental forces of nature. We now understand these laws a bit better.

I see the bible more as a sort of moral guide, as a sort of "How to live your life properly", rather than a definitive history of the world.

Regarding Science

The goal of science is not to disprove or prove the existence of God (pardon the "pagan term" lol), but rather to try to explain "How God did it", rather than simply saying "God did it". God may or may not have intended the emergence of intellectual life on Earth, but it happened nonetheless.

Some here would have us believe that the last several thousand years of human science and mathematics are simply wrong, and should believe a single book rather than the combined wisdom and collected knowledge of the billions upon billions of people alive and those who have lived. This is foolhardy, unwise, and at best, ignorant.

Regarding Carbon Dating:

Carbon dating is great for dating biological stuff, but cannot date something likes silicates (i.e. rocks). This is why we cannot date the Great Pyramids, or Tihuanaco, near Lake Titikaka. There are other methods by which we can date rocks, and all of those methods say the earth is several billions of years old.

Regarding Bariogenesis:

All biological life that we know of, is a result of non biological electro-chemical reactions. In short, cellular life is simply a self replicating machine, which does it's work on the molecular (microscopic) level, using DNA as a blueprint for self replication. Change the DNA, and you get a new cell type. Scale this up to macroscopic levels and you have complex, multicellular life which appears to be organic in origin, but in fact, stems from the same electrochemical reactions, which make single celled life possible.

Most, if not all of what I have stated, can be easily verified, if you are prepared to do some reading, learn some maths, and then look through a microscope or two.

Does any of this mean that God does not exist? Of course not. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence, and to assume different is not good science.

Atheism, as with Theism, is a belief in something that can neither be proved, nor disproved, so one could make the argument that Atheism is a religion of it's own, requiring some kind of faith or belief without a solid factual basis.

A truly logical, impyrrical scientist would assume nothing, and only draw inferences from the facts at hand, but that is not how humans are made. It is in our nature to make intuitive leaps when no other evidence is available, which sometimes leads us to believe something which cannot be verified.

Regardless, forcing those beliefs upon others is fundamentally wrong, and something that both sides of the argument should refrain from doing, if either side wishes to be taken seriously.


ktj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Taken from McGrady. Best scientific response to your question

What are the age indicators for the earth and universe? The age indicators are the same for evolutionists and creationists. The difference is whether or not you are willing to consider all the details or whether you must suppress facts in order to exaggerate others. The whole thing is based upon the extrapolation of observed data, an extrapolation from real facts. This data is then extrapolated into past time through the use of a myth, a story. Apply this to the various supposed scientific dating technologies, such as radiometric dating methods, those based solely upon the decay of radioactive elements.

These methods propose to use current known decay rates of radioactive materials, like Uranium into Lead, in order to draw conclusions about the ancient age of the earth. Evolutionists look at a rock weighing one pound. If the ratio of Uranium-238 and Lead-206 in the rock were 50% to 50%; the measured rate of radioactive decay for Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years per half life; the evolutionists tell everyone that all the Lead-206 came from the decay of the Uranium 238: therefore the rock (and the earth in which it was found) must be 4.5 billion years old. This all sounds quite plausible. The myth (story) transforms the rock (by stage magic) into evidence for an ancient earth age. We have seen the evidence, so it must be true. It seems so simple, it must be true! Understand that extrapolation is not a bad thing and it has many beneficial uses. Over simplified extrapolation which leaves out important facts becomes misleading and intentionally deceptive! Many little truths lead to knowing the truth. One definition of science is: "Accepted, elected, systematized, formulated facts which can be useful in work, life or the search for truth." The more little truths we have the closer we get to the big truth.

If you read as many scientific research grants, reports, projects and study programs as I do, you will reach the obvious conclusion that most of it is research designed to explain away evidence, rather than research designed to explore evidence more deeply. Worse yet, science as practiced by evolutionists today is no longer in the pursuit of greater knowledge, but is solely in pursuit of the next grant! We need to revisit radiometric dating processes. Evolutionists suppress evidence by selecting dates which, when published, create the illusion that they have "rock" solid evidence. What the general public is unaware of is that evolutionists do not use radiometric dating processes to determine the age of anything; but, they use selected radiometric dates to support a prior conclusion through the use of stage magic. If you add back in the information suppressed by the evolutionists the whole subject of the reliability of radiometric dating techniques is drastically changed. What are the false necessary premises that evolutionists use to support their previously made conclusions? First, they have to know, or pretend to know, the original state of the isotopes involved. They have to know how much Uranium and Lead were there to begin with. No one can know that with certainty because they weren’t present when the rock originated. Evolutionists look at what they have and then choose to project backwards what they believe it ought to have been originally, in order to support their previously desired results. Second, they assume a steady consistent decay rate over time. Third, they assume a closed system. They assume that the Uranium and Lead cannot migrate into or out of the rock over time.

Of course, no one may know these things to be true, they are only assumptions. A researcher in Australia did an experiment in which he put rocks containing Uranium into a trough of running water and observed that the Uranium to Lead ratios were changing so fast that - according to evolutionary beliefs - the rock was aging at the rate of 100,000 years for each month the rock was exposed to the running water. There are serious flaws in radiometric dating techniques! A noted expert in radiometric dating techniques was once asked which method was the best method to use to determine the age of a rock. His response? "It depends on the age of the rock." What? He went on to explain that the method he selected depended upon the assumed age of the rock! In other words, you have to know the age of the rock before you test it! If you use the wrong technique it will give you a wrong date, that is, a date that doesn’t coincide with what you desire to "authenticate." How do they authenticate, how do they validate, their "accepted" age for any rock? Since they select which radiometric method to use based upon the presumed age they want to validate, they cannot use one of the other methods to validate the first results, because the two will not agree with each other. They are in an untenable situation. If they chose one method, they exclude all other methods.

How do they authenticate their "accepted" age for a rock? They can only do it one way. By faith they assign an age to a rock. They then select a specified radiometric method known, more often than not, to yield a date which will line up with what they wanted. Last, they pray, to whatever god they pray to, that no one will find out what they have done. Since they really cannot claim legitimate proof using radiometric dating processes, what is the primary method of proof which evolutionists use to assign ages to rock layers and formations? They fall back on the stratigraphic method. What is the stratigraphic method and how does it work? It works like this. The evolutionists have fossils which they "know" to be a certain age, according to "their" particular evolutionary theory. Whenever they find these specified fossils, which they say are 295 million years old, in a particular rock layer, a certain stratum, then obviously, that rock layer must also be 295 million years old. Of course, we may rightly ask how they "know" that this particular fossil species represents a time period which occurred 295 supposed millions of years ago. Well, that is simple. We found it in a layer of rock which is 295 million years old! This is all pure circular reasoning which is self perpetuating. Please review this all again. Evolutionists date the strata (rock layers) by the fossils which were found in the rock layers.

Then they date the fossils by the strata in which they were found. Conclusion: What do we observe about the way in which evolutionists obtain "proof" for an old earth? It is all based on an obviously false form of circular reasoning. No where in the world are the fossil bearing rock layers found in the order illustrated in their textbooks. In reality, the fossil layers are, according to evolutionary philosophy, found upside-down, backwards, out of order, and interlaced all over the world. The whole thing is myth, story, assumption and fairy tale, proven by good stage magicians. Evolution is based upon a long string of unproved and unprovable assumptions built up to support a doctrine that has nothing to do with real factual scientific evidence. Evolution is based upon a long string of unproved and unprovable assumptions in order to prop up a philosophical worldview which they want to believe is correct, but is patently illogical. Evolutionists use continuous circular logic to adamantly "prove" their previously determined outcome, because of the preference of those who develop and maintain their philosophical system.

How does an evolutionist defend his position? They defend their position by faith, and faith alone! We are conducting a jury trial. What are some of the other indicators of the old age of the earth; the evidence given by the evolutionists in support of these indicators; and, what is the information that they suppress or hide which contradicts their myth, story? The radioactive decay sequence, the decay chain, of unstable Uranium 238 into stable Lead 206 requires 14 steps ( links) with a half life of 4.5 billion years. Since rocks are found which contain Uranium and Lead, the evolutionists assumes that the rocks must be very old. What are they leaving out? Eight of the 14 steps in this decay process occur when an alpha particle is emitted from the various radioactive isotopes contained in the rock. Each time an alpha particle is emitted, it is with a certain specific force, which causes the alpha particle to travel a certain specific distance within the rock. If the rock is clear rock, i. e., mica, quartz, topaz or zircon, then when the particles stop they will leave a darkened spherical outline surrounding the radioactive center. By slicing through the center of the darkened spheres it exposes the center surrounded by concentric circles, called halos, or "rings" around it.

Every one of the intermediate radioactive isotopes which comes from the decay of Uranium 238 ends up producing Lead. All of them produce Lead! Many of these intermediate isotopes decay quickly from one to the next because they have very short half lives. Working backwards from Lead 206 up to Uranium 238 the complete decay sequence would have eight halos surrounding the radioactive center. If we find fewer than eight then the initial radioactive material was not Uranium 238, but one of the other isotopes down line along the decay chain. If we find less than eight halos then the rock is younger than evolutionists would claim. Simply because we have Lead 206 doesn’t mean that it had to come from an isotope of Uranium!

We have found trillions of tiny Lead centers in the clear rock portions of granites and other rocks found all over the surface of the earth that have only three halos present. This physical evidence proves that the initial radioactive isotope was Polonium 218, not Uranium 238. These three halos were produced when alpha particles were emitted by the decay of Polonium 218, Polonium 214 and Polonium 210 leaving Lead 206. Polonium 218 has a measured half life of 3.05 minutes. An initial quantity of this isotope of any size would completely decay in less than one hour. Polonium 214 has a half life measured in ten thousandths of a second. An initial quantity of this isotope of any size would completely decay in less than the time it takes to blink your eye. Polonium 210 has a measured half life of 138 days. An initial quantity of this isotope of any size would completely decay in less than five years. It is obvious that for Polonium halos to be visible, they must occur in clear hard rock. These halos cannot form in a gas or liquid. For initiating Polonium 218 halos to be found, the radioactive material and the clear hard rock must be created at the same time, because the radioactive decay clock starts to tick immediately.

In order for the Polonium 218 halo to be visible, it must start to darken the rock during the first half life or there will not be enough alpha particles emitted to visibly darken the rock. The first two halos of Polonium 218 and 214 must form completely within one hour of their creation because of their incredibly short half lives. The halo of Polonium 210 must darken the rock within the first 138 days from its creation. Of course, all these overlap in time as well, so all three halos must become visible within 138 days of initial creation. The trillions of Polonium 218-Polonium 214-Polonium 210-Lead 206 systems that are found on the surface of the earth and within its hard crust scientifically tell us that the earth’s surface and crust were created cool and hard within one second to 3.05 minutes from the beginning of time. Polonium 218 halos do not tell you how old the earth is, but they do tell you that the earth was formed instantaneously. These Polonium halos are the fingerprints of the Creator found all over the world. These are His fingerprints to prove that His hand formed the earth "At the beginning."

We have also shown that the many short term radioactive isotopes decay into Lead 206 within minutes or days. In non-clear rock (this describes most of the rock on and in the earth) we cannot see halos, but we can measure the amount of Lead present. Since we cannot see the halos, we cannot know if the Lead present was created as Lead, or if it was produced by the decay of short half life isotopes. In other words, much of the Lead that we find, especially in Uranium deposits, may have come from the decay of these short half life isotopes, but their decay would have been complete in the past. This decay would leave no physical evidence that these short half life isotopes ever existed in the rocks.

What is our conclusion to be? What would a jury say to this physical evidence? If the earth were one year old, then almost 100% of the Lead found on the surface and within the crust of the earth was produced as the result of the radioactive decay of unstable chemical short half life isotopes. If the earth were 6,000 years old, then almost 100% of the Lead found on the surface and within the crust of the earth was produced as the result of the radioactive decay of unstable chemical short half life isotopes. All that glitters is not gold and all Lead produced by radioactive decay did not come from Uranium! Only if you suppress or neglect the existence and effect of short half life isotopes in the past may you force the assignment of a great age to the earth. If you correct the Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium and other radioactive decay methods that evolutionists use to support great age for the earth, and include the effect of all the short half life isotopes in their respective decay sequences, they all yield a very young age for the earth. Correcting the Uranium-Lead method, the oldest rocks on earth would only be 9,600 years old! Correcting the Potassium-Argon method the oldest rocks on earth would only be 7,800 years old!

Correcting the Rubidium-Strontium method the oldest rocks on earth would only be 5,600 years old! None of these methods yields a perfectly accurate age for the earth, because we do not know how much of the final product was created or was produced by decay. We do know that they are all consistent with a young earth! We have discussed Carbon 14 before (please see the article on the web site). Based upon the amount of Carbon 14 in the earth system; knowing the amount of Carbon 14 that is being produced and decaying in nature; starting with zero Carbon 14 in the earth’s atmosphere; then the earths atmosphere must be less than 12,000 years old.

If there was some Carbon 14 created to begin with on the earth, then the earth could easily be younger, perfectly consistent with an age of about 6,000 years. Dr. Robert Whitlaw, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, recalibrated 20,000 randomly chosen Carbon 14 ages published by evolutionists. He found that correcting the Carbon 14 method, almost nothing sampled had died more than about 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and that 90% of all samples had died about the same time - just under 5,000 years ago! The Bible records that a total global flood of the earth, which reportedly killed almost all life on earth, occurred about 4,500 years ago. This would be a perfectly adequate cause for the effect that Dr. Whitlaw describes. If you include the suppressed or neglected information that we have about Carbon 14, it would appear that life on earth started about 6,000 years ago and that vast amounts of life forms all perished about 4,500 years ago. This information is perfectly consistent with a creation of all life forms about 6,000 years ago, and the catastrophic flooding of the earth by Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Right up until this line in

Right up until this line in your 2nd paragraph, I have nothing to argue:
"This all sounds quite plausible.".
But then you completely misrepresent all of science right down to the actual method with this:
"We have seen the evidence, so it must be true. It seems so simple, it must be true!".

It is religion alone which remains stagnant in the face of new evidence. Religion alone which makes no effort to disprove itself.
Science is a constant search for new and more accurate information, always subject to revision in the face of new evidence.
The simple fact is that every branch of science fits together like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Chemistry, biology, physics, evolution, etc. Medical science has progressed because of and depends on evolution. We can predict some weather patterns and space phenomena and are potentially not far from doing the same with earthquakes and volcanoes thanks to science. Technology because of science.
The fact theists can't get by is that science actually WORKS. Religion does not.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


vBlueSki
atheist
vBlueSki's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-12-10
User is offlineOffline
oh no

And if we don't believe we will surely perish. ha


vBlueSki
atheist
vBlueSki's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-12-10
User is offlineOffline
yes

I think where people's thinking gets obscured in a theologian perspective is the inability to accept what we know today. Now I understand that science can prove the Big Bang, but in no way can they explain why it really happened. I mean, we know how it happened, but why? Who really knows? I'm not going to sit here and say god did it because that is irrational. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying I do not know. But when you try and get a christian to understand why they might not know , well... now I'm just some demon trying to get you into hell with me. Nothing in the end makes sense of this thing we call life. It is truly the biggest  mystery to man kind.

Eternity wouldn't be much of an experience.