Not so much an assumption as a documented fact about the time period.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)
- Thread starter ftacky
- Start date
Not so much an assumption as a documented fact about the time period.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
You assume this of every ancient civilization across the world? I don’t.
Yes, every civilization until very recently was ignorant about most scientific matters. Science has only developed since about 1600.
In particular, ALL civilizations until the last hundred years or so have been ignorant about the age of the Earth.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
All? What of those which aren’t included in accepted history?
Furthermore, how do you define “science”? For example, do you define science as requiring the current scientific method?
I define science as requiring testing of ideas by observation and having observation be the way to settle disputes. That is a very recent innovation. There were a few individuals who practiced science before 1600 (al-Haytham springs to mind), but very few.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Do you count the “Big Bang” and abiogenesis as scientific?
The Big Bang? Yes, at least as it is understood by cosmologists (as opposed to how it is understood by the public at large).
Abiogenesis? At this point, it is a scientific investigation, but no conclusions have been reached.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Of course. They are both studied using the scientific method. To add on to what was already said about abiogenesis, many of the problems of abiogenesis have been answered. There is scientific evidence for the concept. Creationists cannot even begin to find scientific evidence for their beliefs. But when it comes to a concrete answer on how life began that is likely to never be found since it appears that there are multiple possible paths from pre-life to life itself. There is no single overarching "theory of abiogenesis" there are a series of testable hypotheses that investigate different aspects of it.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Life, originating from non-life is provable? Please, go on.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You didn't ask if it was "provable", you asked if it was "scientific". Those are not the same.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Outside of CERN’s particle experiments, what observations have been made which provide evidence for the “Big Bang”?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Same thing.....you initially asked if the BBT was "scientific", but now you're asking if there's been an identified cause.
You do realize that we can say that an event occurred without knowing what caused it, right?
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Yes. I still am curious to know your position on this.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
True but doesn’t science deal in what’s observable? Doesn’t science deal in proving and disproving?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
My position is that there's ample evidence that the big bang model of the early history of the universe is accurate.
No, an event does not have to be directly observed before it can be scientifically investigated. Scientists investigate all sorts of events that aren't directly observed, e.g., those that are in the distant past, those that take place over long periods of time, or very large-scale events.
ecco
Veteran Member
No. Science deals with accumulating evidence. But I'm sure you've been told that many times.
How about you posting your views on the origin of the universe and the origin of man, or should we just go with the obvious: You are a Biblical Fundamentalist Creationist.
Yikes. CERN has little to do directly with the BB. The main evidence is from red shifts of galaxies, the prevalence of light elements, the existence and details of the cosmic background radiation, and the success in our theoretical work in matching the observations in those situations.
CERN is primarily interested in particle physics, which is only really relevant for the BB model in the very early stages (before nucleosynthesis). it does help with some of the models for the early universe, but the overall BB scenario is based on other evidence.
it deals with observation, yes. But it is impossible to prove a general statement, both because it is impossible to test every case and because all of our measurements have some level of inaccuracy in them. it is always possible that our ideas which have worked so far will fail when we learn how to measure the next decimal point worth of accuracy.
On the other hand, it *is* possible to disprove ideas based on observation. All we need to do for that is get accurate enough results to eliminate the idea.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where did I say "provable"? That indicates a very poor understanding of science. If you are talking about a formal proof not even gravity is "proven". Those do not exist in the sciences. Science is evidence based and there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There is no scientific evidence for the beliefs of creationists. When it comes to two idea, one supported by reliable evidence and the other not supported by reliable evidence which one makes more sense to accept?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The best evidence was the observation of the Cosmic Background Radiation.
Scientific ideas garner evidence through testing and predictions. When one forms a theory that theory can be used to make predictions. If those predictions are later observed to be correct the theory is "confirmed". That does not mean proved, it means that it has been shown to be reliable in at least this one matter. The CBR was predicted before it was observed at all. The rough frequency was predicted as well. It was observed by accident. When the people that observed it figured out what they had picked up with their antenna they wrote a paper on it an earned the Nobel Prize in physics for it. Since then it has been studied more and more and we have learned quite a bit more about the Big Bang by those observations.