Evidence for an ancient earth

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How do I lack, say, your authority on the Bible? Or vice versa?

Let me explain: Who knows Tolkien better, a devout fan like Christopher Lee, who read Lord of the Rings annually for 50 years, and was used by Peter Jackson as a technical editor, or me, who is avid but not that avid?

An obsessed fan is no more an authority on any given subject, than is a computer program-- which might have every single word ever written about the subject in it's memory banks-- but that doesn't make it an authority, does it?

1) I'm avid in the Bible. I see things constantly that others have forgotten. Have you studied as much Hebrew and Greek as I have? Have you read the whole Bible carefully, like a letter from a lover, multiple times? 2) There aren't "thousands of interpretations" for a given passage, there are usually two, right and wrong. Either we keep or lose salvation, either we have faith or works or both, either Jesus rose or didn't.

(emphasis mine). Here, in bold? YOU PROVE MY POINT! What authority gave YOU the permission to decide that there are only two?

Who was it? Where are they, and who gave THEM the authority to give it to YOU?

Your claim, above, is only one of thousands. If you had been the avid student of the bible as you claim? You would know this already...

Did not your own book have an admonition against Hubris?

Indeed, I believe that it did-- pride goeth before a fall, or something like that.

In your second quote, above, you demonstrate great pride with this: "I see things constantly that others have forgotten."

That's nice.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, there are multiple dating methods that are accepted.

My point was that I've noticed we have been around 200,000 years at least but agronomy, cities, writing, law codes, etc. are best dated circa 3,000 BC and the traces of the above we can find are called "pre-historical". The Flood dates given and pre-history seem real close. Do you disagree?

You have no idea just how much i disagree. The claimed noahs flood did not happen. It is impossible to have happened on at least 8 different ways. The main one being that a flood as described in the torah (and copied in the ot) would require about 80,000 times more water than actually exists or has ever existed. (believe me, I've done the maths)

I have also studied several cave paintings made in carbon and ochre that would have dissolved in water (flood). These painting were made between 20,000 and 28000 years ago.

You are simply attributing advances in human technology with a biblical myth

 

[ChristineM]

Yes... but that would require logic and a tiny shred of rationality.

All creationists-- no exceptions-- lack both of those skills. Instead, the majority of their "arguments" are an appeal to emotion, devoid of fact.

Of course, creationists also lie frequently and often-- and they know they are lying-- they've had their lies shown to be lies often enough.

I absolutely agree, and you know me of old, i have no tolerance for deliberate ignorance and lies.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I lie when I setup the conditions?

I was told the human population before the 20th century doubles every 125 years or so.

By whom? Do you have links to sources that can confirm that? Everything I looked at say otherwise...

 

[ChristineM]

By whom? Do you have links to sources that can confirm that? Everything I looked at say otherwise...

And @BilliardsBall

You may be interested in this

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, it had no mass, just an infinite number of points between things that were touching. You know what I meant regarding the need for a powerful internal or external catalyst to cause such rapid expansion.

You are guilty of two logical fallacies, here:

1) Conformation Bias.

2) Argument from ignorance.

In the former case, you want there to be a "prime mover" so you "see" the need for one (when there isn't)

In the latter case, you cannot fathom an explanation, so therefore: [your] god.

I'll let Dr Tyson answer this:

"If you don't understand something, and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on."

~ Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[ChristineM]

How do I lack, say, your authority on the Bible? Or vice versa?

Let me explain: Who knows Tolkien better, a devout fan like Christopher Lee, who read Lord of the Rings annually for 50 years, and was used by Peter Jackson as a technical editor, or me, who is avid but not that avid?

1) I'm avid in the Bible. I see things constantly that others have forgotten. Have you studied as much Hebrew and Greek as I have? Have you read the whole Bible carefully, like a letter from a lover, multiple times? 2) There aren't "thousands of interpretations" for a given passage, there are usually two, right and wrong. Either we keep or lose salvation, either we have faith or works or both, either Jesus rose or didn't.

I did some work on lotr fellowship and two towers. One of my prize possessions is a boxed trilogy signed by the cast and crew. Interesting work but to me it's the story of a long walk.

Yes I've read 3 different babbles cover to cover and parts of several others. Interesting how the babble is only just being recognised as more violent than the Quran, I've known this for over 20 years.

To be honest of the 3 i considered the niv a joke. Whenever a religious person cites that tome at me i fall about laughing.

If not thousands of interpretations then why are there over 200 different English language versions of the babble and who knows how many in other languages? These different books give rise to over 60,000 different sects of Christianity, each claiming their own interpretation of the particular babble they favour is the correct and only interpretation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What do I believe? I do not believe-- because that is a dangerous mindset to entertain.

Belief, by definition, is accepting things for which there is no evidence--- and I try never to do that, even if the "authority" is credible.

I want to see the evidence, at a bare minimum, I must see the argument(s) that lead to the conclusion(s).

So-- what do I believe? I have no beliefs-- not how anyone who believes in god(s) means the word.

To entertain belief would be to lie to myself. not good.

So you don't believe there is a naturalistic cause for the universe?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I prefer to go on evidence than guess,

likewise! which just shows how subjective 'evidence' is. But you surely don't claim you can 'prove' your beliefs?

 

[gnostic]

I did some work on lotr fellowship and two towers. One of my prize possessions is a boxed trilogy signed by the cast and crew. Interesting work but to me it's the story of a long walk.

Yes I've read 3 different babbles cover to cover and parts of several others. Interesting how the babble is only just being recognised as more violent than the Quran, I've known this for over 20 years.

To be honest of the 3 i considered the niv a joke. Whenever a religious person cites that tome at me i fall about laughing.

If not thousands of interpretations then why are there over 200 different English language versions of the babble and who knows how many in other languages? These different books give rise to over 60,000 different sects of Christianity, each claiming their own interpretation of the particular babble they favour is the correct and only interpretation.

That's the hubris, when ones (sects) say they have the correct interpretation and the others don't.

 

[gnostic]

So you don't believe there is a naturalistic cause for the universe?

More than likely.

There are certainly no evidences to support God did it. Those who do think it or believe it ("God did it"), only believe in wishful fantasies of primitive superstitious holy book.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So you don't believe there is a naturalistic cause for the universe?

Correct. I do not even believe there needs to be a cause in the first place. The universe may be cause-less.

Indeed, at quantum mechanics level of things? Nothing is causal-- it's all probabilities.

So I have no need for the "cause and effect" hypothesis.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Correct. I do not even believe there needs to be a cause in the first place. The universe may be cause-less.

Indeed, at quantum mechanics level of things? Nothing is causal-- it's all probabilities.

So I have no need for the "cause and effect" hypothesis.

So you believe that the universe is causeless, I'm okay with that, we all believe in something

And that was certainly the belief of most atheists 100 years ago. In light of the BB evidence, most now posit some sort of cause- one which strictly prohibits any creative involvement obviously, but a cause nonetheless, do you believe in multiverses at all?

 

[ChristineM]

likewise! which just shows how subjective 'evidence' is. But you surely don't claim you can 'prove' your beliefs?

The word is objective

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Notice the words facts and true?


Yes of course i can,. You may disagree with the evidence for your own personal reasons, that does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Can you?

 

[ChristineM]

That's the hubris, when ones (sects) say they have the correct interpretation and the others don't.

There is a lot of it about.

 

[ChristineM]

So you believe that the universe is causeless, I'm okay with that, we all believe in something

And that was certainly the belief of most atheists 100 years ago. In light of the BB evidence, most now posit some sort of cause- one which strictly prohibits any creative involvement obviously, but a cause nonetheless, do you believe in multiverses at all?

What? You have evidence that most atheist believed in a causeless universe a hundred years ago? You really have little idea of the atheist mindset.

I personally know of 28 theories that describe the creation of the universe, from a universe from nothing to spawning from existing universes. All are mathematically valid and none require godmagic.

In truth the few atheists around 100 years ago did not know what caused the universe, just as atheists (and cosmologists) today do not know because that knowledge as yet does not exist and may never exist. Only creator god believers ever claim to know how the universe was created.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The word is objective

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Notice the words facts and true?


Yes of course i can,. You may disagree with the evidence for your own personal reasons, that does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Can you?

notice the word belief!

"[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What? You have evidence that most atheist believed in a causeless universe a hundred years ago? You really have little idea of the atheist mindset.

wiki
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[46]

I personally know of 28 theories that describe the creation of the universe, from a universe from nothing to spawning from existing universes. All are mathematically valid and none require godmagic.

and all devoid of evidence, hence I lack your belief in any of them.

In truth the few atheists around 100 years ago did not know what caused the universe, just as atheists (and cosmologists) today do not know because that knowledge as yet does not exist and may never exist. Only creator god believers ever claim to know how the universe was created.

(wiki)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


He coined the term 'Big Bang' in mockery of Lemaitre's primeval atom- atheists overwhelmingly preferred various static/eternal/steady state models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

 

[ChristineM]

notice the word belief!

"[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

Still has to be TRUE or VALID

And besides being a pretty good author of fiction, mark twain held his PhD in what science?

I believe he was more qualified to talk on religion

"religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So you believe that the universe is causeless, I'm okay with that, we all believe in something

No. I do not-- please quit projecting onto what I say. I take no stance either way-- the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.

But it might have a cause-- the cause could be gravitic intrusion from another (or several other) universes-- some very compelling arguments in favor of that scenario (for example).

The universe may have always been-- just in a different form, and this is just the current phase. Oh, sure-- some have claimed to have debunked the Big Crunch, and their arguments are good ones, but hardly in the realm of absolute certainty.

Bottom line: I DO NOT HAVE BELIEF-- belief is dangerous--- belief makes you do stupid things. Like be against marriage equality. Or think that you have God's Manifest to take over a whole continent, and kill or convert anyone already living there.

Or the worst of all: Belief can make you think you have an answer to a question-- and then you quit looking for answers.

Faith is a place-holder, and it stops inquiry and research. Dr Tyson nailed it, which I stated earlier.

God of the Gaps means you believe in a god who is continually shrinking as knowledge expands.

Knowledge discovered by people who do not believe--- and therefore, want to go find out.