Evidence for an ancient earth

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, yes-- that's rather needed.

agreed!

So in fact you concede by extension, that your entire old earth theory relies 100% on the existence of some spontaneous universe creating mechanism- that was capable of creating everything we see around us for no particular reason, and hence dispensed with the customary back story

Not technically impossible I suppose, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it!

 

[ratiocinator]

So in fact you concede by extension, that your entire old earth theory relies 100% on the existence of some spontaneous universe creating mechanism- that was capable of creating everything we see around us for no particular reason, and hence dispensed with the customary back story

Not technically impossible I suppose, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it!

So do you in fact you concede by extension, that your entire god myth relies 100% on the existence of some spontaneous god creating mechanism - that was capable of creating a god for no particular reason?

No? OK, well apply your answer for why not to physical reality instead of god.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And who makes the live hand to move, does the brain make the order and who orders the brain to do it,
if everything is done by the brain, then we shouldn't punish the evil people because the problem is with
their brains and we should take care about them in the hospitals and let them enjoy their life instead
of letting them to suffer in the jails.

Wow....just... wow. It's 100% or 0% with you, isn't it?

News Flash: not everything is a binary decision.

News Flash: the brain is capable of free will-- even dogs exhibit free will.

Notebook: google Emergent Properties. The brain is an excellent example of Emergent Property.

Notebook: there is zero reason to presume magic-- as you would require to have a soul.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

agreed!

So in fact you concede by extension, that your entire old earth theory relies 100% on the existence of some spontaneous universe creating mechanism- that was capable of creating everything we see around us for no particular reason, and hence dispensed with the customary back story

Not technically impossible I suppose, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it!

Once again, you asssume that which was not stated. Create. The universe may or may not have been created.

It is quite possible, that the universe always was--it is just currently going thorough a phase, and came from an earlier phase, which in turn came from a still earlier one, and so forth-- zero need for a creator.

It is also possible our universe is an offshoot of another, different universe--again, zero need for a creator.

Your insistence on the word "created" implies a "creator" -- and neither is required. Indeed, there is zero reason to presume such.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm serious.

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So do you in fact you concede by extension, that your entire god myth relies 100% on the existence of some spontaneous god creating mechanism - that was capable of creating a god for no particular reason?

No? OK, well apply your answer for why not to physical reality instead of god.

The answer for why not- is creative intelligence, - spontaneous mechanisms posit creation while banning creativity- so the answer don't work for naturalism

But that's a separate question, whatever created our universe faces the same apparent paradox (where did that come from?) yet obviously there is a solution one way or the other

The ancient earth question though depends on which it was, we can't assume spontaneous mechanism, we have no default or precedent for how universes are 'usually' created

Therefor we can't assume that reality/ time would not conform to the same principles of other creative works we know, where the 'history' begins with a fully formed illusion of past events

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The answer for why not- is creative intelligence, - spontaneous mechanisms posit creation while banning creativity- so the answer don't work for naturalism

But that's a separate question, whatever created our universe faces the same apparent paradox (where did that come from?) yet obviously there is a solution one way or the other

The ancient earth question though depends on which it was, we can't assume spontaneous mechanism, we have no default or precedent for how universes are 'usually' created

Therefor we can't assume that reality/ time would not conform to the same principles of other creative works we know, where the 'history' begins with a fully formed illusion of past events

the problem with assuming "created" is that it actually was created.

The universe may always have been, and is simply in an expansion phase.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the problem with assuming "created" is that it actually was created.

The universe may always have been, and is simply in an expansion phase.

That has long been the explicit atheist rationale that supported many debunked models- static, eternal, steady state, big crunch (no creation = no creator) all were meant to make God redundant

Even Hawking conceded the big crunch theory was bogus. As far as we can possibly tell, the universe had a very specific beginning, a creation event, the literal creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That has long been the explicit atheist rationale that supported many debunked models- static, eternal, steady state, big crunch (no creation = no creator) all were meant to make God redundant

Even Hawking conceded the big crunch theory was bogus. As far as we can possibly tell, the universe had a very specific beginning, a creation event, the literal creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it.

No-- it had an early expansion event. That event is ongoing even now. It is meaningless to speak of "before"-- however, all the current models agree that there was a something. The something (cosmic infinitely dense point) could easily have Always Been. Even Dr Hawking would agree with that one.

There is no need for either a creator OR a prime mover, here-- a purely materialistic explanation is certainly possible, given what we know.

Introducing an infinitely complicated "god" or other such, is not needed, and only pushes back the question: what created that?

There is no need for a creator, if the universe wasn't actually created.

Currently? There is zero evidence supporting "created".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No-- it had an early expansion event. That event is ongoing even now. It is meaningless to speak of "before"-- however, all the current models agree that there was a something. The something (cosmic infinitely dense point) could easily have Always Been. Even Dr Hawking would agree with that one.

during which all sapce/time matter/energy as we know it was literally created, came into being- sure we obviously can't identify a point at which there was 'nothing'!

But something was set in motion, which is still unfolding today, and Hawking himself (since he is our referee here!) ponders what wound this clock up, what breathed life into it to use his own words.

There is no need for either a creator OR a prime mover, here-- a purely materialistic explanation is certainly possible, given what we know.

Introducing an infinitely complicated "god" or other such, is not needed, and only pushes back the question: what created that?

There is no need for a creator, if the universe wasn't actually created.

Currently? There is zero evidence supporting "created".

anything is possible, but there is no direct empirical evidence supporting 'fluked' either, including Hawking's multiverses which are mere philosophical speculation.

again 'no need for creator if no creation' has been the mission statement of academic atheism for decades, giving us all kinds of dead ends from barking up the same tree that has never yielded fruit (if you excuse the mixed metaphor!) and in fact has held important progress back

rather than just following the evidence where it leads, ideology aside

 

[Polymath257]

You don't think that the past becomes a little more difficult to accurately reconstruct, the further back you try to look?

Yes, of course. There are things we can answer with confidence about events last year that we cannot answer about events 100 years ago. In general, as we go back in time, it becomes harder to get specific answers. This is not always the case, however.

And the whole question is irrelevant. You suggested that the Earth was formed with an 'appearance of age'. That is precisely Last Thursdayism. Among other things, the Earth would have to be formed with radioactive elements, which decay at a variety of different rates, all set up in various strata to give the 'appearance' of increasing age with increasing depth. To get anything like consistency from all of these 'apparent' ages is exactly the issue with Last Thursdayism in a nutshell.

So, the difficulty of reconstruction in detail is *far* from not knowing anything about the past. We can, and do, use the remnants of the past as clues to what happened in the past. While we might now know all the details, this is often enough to give general answers.

 

[sayak83]

Has anybody provided any arguments against ancient (i.e. 4 billion year old) earth yet?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, of course. There are things we can answer with confidence about events last year that we cannot answer about events 100 years ago. In general, as we go back in time, it becomes harder to get specific answers. This is not always the case, however.

And the whole question is irrelevant. You suggested that the Earth was formed with an 'appearance of age'. That is precisely Last Thursdayism. Among other things, the Earth would have to be formed with radioactive elements, which decay at a variety of different rates, all set up in various strata to give the 'appearance' of increasing age with increasing depth. To get anything like consistency from all of these 'apparent' ages is exactly the issue with Last Thursdayism in a nutshell.

So, the difficulty of reconstruction in detail is *far* from not knowing anything about the past. We can, and do, use the remnants of the past as clues to what happened in the past. While we might now know all the details, this is often enough to give general answers.

Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a pretty long book, but starts with 'WELL, PRINCE, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family'

The universe is a book, a story that can only be read by humans, page one, in our recorded history has a fully formed Earth and life and resources in place as needed for our story. it's not clear that there ever were any pages before chapter one.

In a nut shell; he's God, he can make the world last Thursday, or 50k years ago, or 4 billion, just as any author is not bound by the rules of his own premise, there is a logical place to begin the story for the intended reader

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

during which all sapce/time matter/energy as we know it was literally created, came into being- sure we obviously can't identify a point at which there was 'nothing'!

No such point-- never happened, according to the model. There always was a something to work with-- it just wasn't in the form of matter/energy.

It was not "literally created", it was transformed from it's previous state, into matter/energy state.

We do not know it's previous state, but it's presumed to be some form of energy. Could be something else.

But not nothing. That seems unlikely.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But something was set in motion, which is still unfolding today, and Hawking himself (since he is our referee here!) ponders what wound this clock up, what breathed life into it to use his own words.

Dr Hawking is an atheist, and has made no bones about being such. He's also something of a poet, and I have no doubt he was simply being poetic, here.

Multiple examples of him stating firmly he does not believe in magic (god/super-being/creator).

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

again 'no need for creator if no creation' has been the mission statement of academic atheism for decades, giving us all kinds of dead ends from barking up the same tree that has never yielded fruit (if you excuse the mixed metaphor!) and in fact has held important progress back

Held important progress back? As opposed to WHAT? Pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo? Bunkum from the fake, Deepak Chewbacca? (or whatever he's calling himself lately)

Methinks you have it exactly bass-ackwards, here: Using "god" as an "explanation" means no further inquiry is wanted or needed. 'God' is a semantic dead-end. It halts further questions, as long as it's invoked.

"What happened, here?"

"God. 'Ee did it."

"Okay, then. Moving to the next question ..."

The word "god" is a place-holder for "We do not know, and DO NOT ASK---OR ELSE"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No such point-- never happened, according to the model. There always was a something to work with-- it just wasn't in the form of matter/energy.

It was not "literally created", it was transformed from it's previous state, into matter/energy state.

By that rationale, a car is never literally created either, it is 'merely transformed from a previous state'! - if we were going out of our way to try to avoid the word 'creation' for some reason


created, formed, made, brought into being, initiated- whatever word you prefer, the universe had a beginning as a universe in any possible sense we can know it. It is not 'static', 'eternal' steady, unchanging as atheists once predicted.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

By that rationale, a car is never literally created either, it is 'merely transformed from a previous state'! - if we were going out of our way to try to avoid the word 'creation' for some reason

I am, because that word implies an intelligent intention behind whatever is happening.

Is there a "creator" for a tornado? A hurricane? An earthquake? Tides going in, tides going out? Why don't people speak of a "creator" for these phenomena?

The word "creator" is inappropriate when discussing the origins of purely natural (not magic) phenomena.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

created, formed, made, brought into being, initiated- whatever word you prefer, the universe had a beginning as a universe in any possible sense we can know it. It is not 'static', 'eternal' steady, unchanging as atheists once predicted.

Did it? Or is the current phase, just another phase in an infinite series of different phases?

In that respect, it certainly is eternal-- and eliminates the need for magic (gods)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Held important progress back? As opposed to WHAT? Pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo?

precisely! 'religious psuedoscience' is verbatim what atheist Hoyle called the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom, explicitly because it didn't fit his preferred atheist beliefs

Methinks you have it exactly bass-ackwards, here: Using "god" as an "explanation" means no further inquiry is wanted or needed. 'God' is a semantic dead-end. It halts further questions, as long as it's invoked.

"What happened, here?"

"God. 'Ee did it."

"Okay, then. Moving to the next question ..."

The word "god" is a place-holder for "We do not know, and DO NOT ASK---OR ELSE"

? That sounds like Darwinism, what happened to all the intermediates? we don't know, but to reject blind faith that they do exist makes you a 'denier of science'!

As above, it is the inherent atheist prerogative- to always seek to close the case on the simplest most superficial, 'God refuting' explanation at at hand, be it static universes, classical physics, or Darwinism.

When free from atheist beliefs, like Lemaitre, or Planck, we are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, we have no resistance to finding ever deeper or even mysterious layers other people previously wrote of as 'mumbo jumbo'

method v ideology

science v atheism