Age of the earth

[Vadergirl123]

As I've already said, we don't need to be.



If a Doctor were to tell you she was 97-99% certain you had cancer, would you just shrug and say "Oh, so you don't know if I have it or not." and leave?



You missed my point. Regardless of the table, I can still be certain the ball will fall when I let it go the 11th time. Based on the 10 prior experiments (as well as a basic understanding of gravity), I can be reasonably sure that when I release the ball it won't fly upwards and hit the ceiling.



New evidence either leads to improvement of current ideas or to new ideas. Either way, that's how our understanding improves. That's how science improves itself.



Based on reason and evidence. Forgive me, but you seem to be equating "they're assuming" with "they're guessing" and that's not at all what they're doing.

No at times you, "don't have to be absolutely sure," But both sides of the creationist/evolution argument claim to have "evidence" as to te earth's age, and "evidence" as to why the other side's wrong. So you can't really be sure looking at science alone.
Of course not. I'd be worried sick(and I'd listen to her advice about it), but she could've made a mistake and I don't really have cancer
My bad I thought you were saying the ball woudl fall to the ground each time. Sorry. However what if gravity shifts..or some other factor comes into play that prevents it from falling. Then you could no longer be certain.
Right, but new "evidence" could be found to show that the earth isn't billions of years old...
No I'm not, I'm just saying there's some very REASONABLE assumptions scientists make that they can't prove. What if their were some minerlas that formed with argon in them or the abundance of carbon in the atmosphere years ago is way different than it is today, what if some newly solidified minerals had fission tracks in them. You can't know for sure how old the earth is based on science alone. You can be "fairly certain"(and you can be "fairly certain both as a creationist and an old earth believer, and you can also be "fairly certain" the other side is wrong) but not positively sure.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Exactly. :yes:



Even if the Bible is wrong in it's calculations of Pi, your salvation is intact.

Think about it.

Where did you get the idea that the bible is wrong in calculating Pi?(in fact where did it even calculate Pi?

 

[Father Heathen]

Is YEC Young Earth Creationists? If so what do you mean they give theology a "black eye?"

They give it a "black eye" with their willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Hi Vadergirl.

By now several forum members have posted several lines of evidence for the age of the earth (various different dating techniques that use different physical principles, paleomagnetic records, plate tectonics etc etc). Now this being science will have certain assumptions and some uncertainties built into it. Every branch of empirical knowledge has them. The uncertainties are only a few % with regards to earth's age (esp. if you are comparing between a few thousand yr hypothesis and a few billion yr. hypothesis.) The only assumptions made is that, unless there is evidence otherwise we assume that physical laws have not changed. Its an assumption that has successfully worked in understanding the unfolding of our universe since the big bang, and hence for now there is no reason to doubt it.
Below is a popular level account of dating methods
Bones, Rocks and Stars: The Science of When Things Happened
And a Critique of Young Earth Arguments may be found by searching
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims

A good resource is also found on USGS website on geochronology.

If you are genuinely interested I would advice you to follow up and read more on these things carefully and with patience.

For me personally Bible is just one religious literature among many. Your view point is different, which is fine. My humble advice to you is
1) The age of earth and universe is a factual question. Science looks at the natural world to find clues that could lead to an answer. From the scientific viewpoint the current age of the earth (4.5 by) is the best way to stitch together the clues and finding from many aspects of nature. Try to explore why this is without choosing a preferred hypothesis about earth's age beforehand.
2) You believe Bible to be a source of knowledge about earth's antiquity as well. It is something you are within your rights to believe. After understanding the scientific case, it is up to you to decide whether you believe biblical knowledge claims can trump them or not. If it does for you its fine, you have chosen to believe that knowledge from a certain religious document is more convincing to you than knowledge claims from the scientific methodologies.

I put more stock on knowledge claims from science than from faith traditions, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Hello and I'll look them up and see what they say, but If something contradicts the bible I'm not going to take it as factual(and it's more than just a religious document haha). I beleive it's superior to science and yes we can agree to disagree, thank you for posting though, and I'll go on the site and read about the geochronology.

 

[Father Heathen]

I have no reason not to believe in a God

It's one thing to believe in god, but it's another to believe a lot of the ridiculous nonsense fallible men have attributed to the idea of god.

 

[Father Heathen]

If something contradicts the bible I'm not going to take it as factual.

If critical thought is a nuisance, why not opt for a lobotomy?

I beleive it's superior to science.

Then stop using technology (like automobiles and computers) and instead rely solely on your faith and prayer.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Where did you get the idea that the bible is wrong in calculating Pi?(in fact where did it even calculate Pi?

1 Kings 7:23
He made the Sea of cast metal,
circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim
and five cubits high, It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.


Diameter = 10
Circumference =30

Now, since circumference = Pi x diameter (Basic geometry)
30 = Pi x 10
This calculates Pi as 3

 

[Vadergirl123]

If critical thought is a nuisance, why not opt for a lobotomy?



Then stop using technology (like automobiles and computers) and instead rely solely on your faith and prayer.

What's a lobotomy? and I said the bible's superior. I shoudl've worded it better I I meant that if something goes against the bible then I won't do/believe it. Most technology doesn't go against the bible. I don't think God's too upset with me watching T.V (as long as I don't watch bad things hehehe

 

[Vadergirl123]

It's one thing to believe in god, but it's another to believe a lot of the ridiculous nonsense fallible men have attributed to the idea of god.

Those men were inspired by an infallible God. And science is based on the knowledge of fallible men...

 

[Vadergirl123]

They give it a "black eye" with their willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

They could claim you're being willfull ignorant(of not sharing their belies)and using intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Father Heathen]

If I assume God is real and his word is true

Let's say there are two people. Person A says George Washing ate kittens and fired lasers from his eyes. Person B says George Washington never existed.

Which of them is correct?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If I assume God is real and his word is true, then I beleive we were created in his image and we have a sense of what's true or false. We have a conscience, and we have a sense of absolutes. I woudl beleive all this from reading his word.

You didn't answer my question. How does our "sense of absolutes" show a god must exist?

Or is "i assume god exists, therefore god exists" actually the crux of the argument you're making?

 

[Father Heathen]

What's a lobotomy?

Ask god. If that fails, ask google.

and I said the bible's superior. I shoudl've worded it better I I meant that if something goes against the bible then I won't do/believe it. Most technology doesn't go against the bible. I don't think God's too upset with me watching T.V (as long as I don't watch bad things hehehe

But that's the thing. The exact same methodology that made medicine and technology possible is what also confirms that life evolved, that the tectonic plates shifted and that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Let's say there are two people. Person A says George Washing ate kittens and fired lasers from his eyes. Person B says George Washington never existed.

Which of them is correct?

Both are worng, and I'm not claiming that me assuming it makes it true.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Actually if I make the assumption God is real and exists then I CAN "show" from his word how our planet came into being and how life was formed, but yeah if I don't make the assumption then I can't show anything.

Bingo.

"I assume god exists, therefore god exists"

If the arguments you're making fail without the assumptions, that should tell you something of the quality of the arguments.

By your own admission, they prove nothing without assuming the very thing you're attempting to prove.

 

[Father Heathen]

Both are worng

Thus my point. Whether or not god exists, and whether or not the claims that religions and scriptures make about god are true are two separate questions.
You can believe that George Washington existed without believing that he ate kittens and fired lasers out of his eyes.

 

[Vadergirl123]

You didn't answer my question. How does our "sense of absolutes" show a god must exist?

Or is "i assume god exists, therefore god exists" actually the crux of the argument you're making?

Sorry I thought I did, there's no way I can show he does/doesn't exist.(and there's no scientific evidence to prove he does/doesn't)I was showing how by making the assumption that he does exist and his word is true I can explain where our sense of absolutes come form. If you don't make the assumption he exists but instead assume doesn't then I don't know how'd you come to the conlcusion of where our sense of absolutes comes from(such as X=X, B doesn't equal A, etc)

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Well I'm 100% sure God created this universe

I still have to ask why? Every argument you've made up to this point has failed. Upon what are you basing this 100% certainty, other than just assuming its so?

You've already said "No my believeing it doesn't make it true."

If belief doesn't make it so, and assuming it doesn't make it so, what does?

(Not trying to be a jerk about this. Just honestly confused.)

 

[Father Heathen]

Those men were inspired by an infallible God.

That's the claim, but where's the evidence? Why should we trust and believe that claim, especially after examining the bible and finding inaccuracies, contradictions, inconsistencies, absurdities, atrocities, injustices, etc? Why would god gift us with the ability to reason, only for us to forgo its use? If there is a god, it would be a being of pure love and pure logic, therefore anything deficient in reason or compassion cannot be of god, and the bible fails that test.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Bingo.

"I assume god exists, therefore god exists"

If the arguments you're making fail without the assumptions, that should tell you something of the quality of the arguments.

By your own admission, they prove nothing without assuming the very thing you're attempting to prove.

Every argument makes assumptions, However you can't be sure God doesn't exist,and that my assumptions are wrong. I assume he does(you don't know what to believe) NOTHING in this universe can be proved without making some assumptions...