Evidences given for a young-earth

[TagliatelliMonster]

This universe, it's either
1 - accidental, or
2 - planned

False, or at the very least, unsupported dichotomy

Do you have a third option?

3. inevitable due to laws of nature
4. i don't know - also a very valid option

I Googled "universe creation accident" and got 21 million pages.

I google "universe is not an accident" and got 70 million

And neither means shizzle.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is all news to me. Didn't expect it to be contentious.
Please sir, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?

I don't know.
It seems to me that the meaning of ones life is whatever meaning that person bestows upon his/her life.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't know.
It seems to me that the meaning of ones life is whatever meaning that person bestows upon his/her life.

This is called "Existentialism"
It believes there is no meaning to life, you have to make your own meaning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is called "Existentialism"

I don't really care what you call it, though.

It believes there is no meaning to life, you have to make your own meaning.

Did you miss the "i don't know" part, or did you ignore it on purpose?

Also, your statement is self-contradicting.
If I can bestow meaning on my life, then I have meaning in my life.

So for you to say that I then believe there is no meaning in my life, that's just a straight up falsehood.



Also, none of this matters to science. Remember your original claim that started this mess of an argument? You claim that the science itself (or the teachers that teach the science), claims that there is no meaning to life.

You still haven't come even remotely close to supporting that statement.

 

[Polymath257]

This universe, it's either
1 - accidental, or
2 - planned

Do you have a third option?
I Googled "universe creation accident" and got 21 million pages.

This is a false dichotomy because it assumes there is a goal that is either reached (planned) or not (accident). In particular, this already assumes there is an intelligence with a goal for the universe.

The point? There are a great many events that are neither accidental nor planned because nobody around had a goal for them at all. For example, if the temperature of water gets below 32 Fahrenheit (0 Celsius) at normal pressure, the water will freeze. This freezing is neither accidental nor planned. It is the result of natural laws.

So,

3. the result of natural laws
4. an equilibrium state arrived at statistically
5. it just exists with no cause

etc.

 

[Polymath257]

This is all news to me. Didn't expect it to be contentious.
Please sir, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?

The meaning of your life is whatever you decide you want it to be. It's a big responsibility, but it is worth it.

To expect life to be cosmically meaningful is just silly, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No philosophical worldviews were discussed during science classes.

Those are not taught until one gets to the super advanced level. If you never learned the secret handshake you were not there yet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Those are not taught until one gets to the super advanced level. If you never learned the secret handshake you were not there yet.

Shhhht!!!

You're not supposed to talk about that stuff!
You'll get your atheist license revoked!

 

[Polymath257]

Those are not taught until one gets to the super advanced level. If you never learned the secret handshake you were not there yet.

This is actually more true than you might think. In one of my graduate physics classes, the prof pointed out that making hypotheses and formulating a theory is dealing with the philosophical notion of 'possible worlds'.

Another pointed out that a particle that doesn't interact with any other particle cannot be detected and has no effect, so effectively cannot/does not exist. This is ultimately a philosophical stance, but one common for physics.

 

[tas8831]

This is all news to me. Didn't expect it to be contentious.
Please sir, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?

Odd that your wrote that ^^^ in response to me doubting this:

"Well, in the various schools I went to I was told there is no meaning to life."​

I accept your implicit concession that you made that up.

 

[PruePhillip]

Odd that your wrote that ^^^ in response to me doubting this:

"Well, in the various schools I went to I was told there is no meaning to life."​

I accept your implicit concession that you made that up.

Science says there is no meaning to life.
Life just happened
Accidental coming together of elements
and direction to evolution.

Like, a meteorite knocked out the dinosaurs. Without that chance
encounter humans would not be here. That kind of thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science says there is no meaning to life.
Life just happened
Accidental coming together of elements
and direction to evolution.

Like, a meteorite knocked out the dinosaurs. Without that chance
encounter humans would not be here. That kind of thing.

Correction, science has nothing to say about the meaning of life. That does not mean it says that there is no meaning to life. Your use of the word "accidental" is not really correct, but even if that is the case that does not mean that life would be meaningless.

 

[dad]

Excellent point.
I think this story concerned the animals and people of that area.
It says that Adam had two sons, one was murdered the other son
fled - and married into another tribe who did not know him before.
So, is the bible saying Adam and Eve were the only people then?
Obviously not.

But as for God not being "bright." Says "all the world" was taxed
in the days when Jesus was born. Odd, because here the world
meant the Roman Empire - even though there was the Parthian
Empire, Ethiopia, the Barbarians etc.. That "alabaster box of
ointment" feature in the Gospels came from the region of Tibet.

So who wasn't "bright" in the Gospels? God? The authors? The
sentiments of the culture?

Context.

" Geographically, the problem is an infested earth. Note that in 6:5-13, the earth (ha ares) is mentioned eight times. Thus the description has all the appearances of a universal condition rather than a local one. To be sure, eres is frequently rendered as (local) land, ground, and even underworld. When eres refers to a particular piece of land, however, it is often followed by a prepositional phrase that further identifies the land (e.g., the land of the Canaanites, land of the east, land of the fathers), except in those places where mention is made theologically of the land promised to Israel. Furthermore, the reference in 7:3 to the animals of kol-ha ares argues for an understanding of eres elsewhere in the Flood as earth in that almost all of the uses of kol-ha ares (outside of Deuteronomy and Joshua-Samuel) are references to the earth (Gen. 1:26, 28; 11:1; Exodus 9:14, 16; 19:5). Yet, verses such as Gen. 13:9,15 show that even in Genesis kol-ha ares refers to the whole land (Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, Eerdmans, 1990, p. 279).

Scholar Kenneth Matthew concurs.

This inclusive language as elsewhere in the account suggests that the cataclysm was worldwide in scope. An alternative understanding is that the comprehensive language of the text is hyperbolic or a phenomenal description (from Noah's limited viewpoint), thus permitting a regional flood . . . And earth can rightly be rendered land, again allowing a limited venue. This kind of inclusive language for local events is attested elsewhere in Genesis (e.g. 41:54-57), but the insistence of the narrative on the encompassing character of the flood favors the literal understanding of the universal view (Kenneth Matthews, Genesis 1:-11:26, The New American Commentary, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996, p. 365).

Commenting on Genesis 7, Matthews writes.

The inclusive language all every occurs eight times (in Hebrew) in vv. 19-23 leaving no doubt about the all-encompassing nature of the destructive floods and the depth left behind. There can be no dispute that the narrative depicts the flood in the language of a universal deluge (entire heavens), even the high mountains are covered (2x; vv. 19-20) (Kenneth Matthews, ibid., p. 380).

The clear sense of the passage is that the Flood was universal. Although the universal terms found in the account can be understood in a limited sense, there is nothing in the story to force one to understand it this way, or to even suggest that this was the authors intent. The passage plainly speaks of a worldwide destruction."

Did the Flood Cover the Entire Earth?

 

[dad]

To find petroleum one must assume that the Earth had the same physical laws in the past as it does today. .

False.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False.

Oh please tell us how one could find petroleum without understanding geology!

 

[dad]

Which would be EVERY claim that you feel isn't compatible with your religious version of history, for the sole reason that it isn't compatible with your religious version of history.

Only claims that sit on the premise that the same nature existed. Then you must be asked to demonstrate this. We need to check your work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only claims that sit on the premise that the same nature existed. Then you must be asked to demonstrate this. We need to check your work.

dad, you can't check anyone's work when you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. I am still willing to help you through the concept.

 

[dad]

Oh please tell us how one could find petroleum without understanding geology!

The patterns that layers were laid down in are what is important. How those patterns came to be is a matter of belief only. The oil doesn't come from your belief. Geology has interpreted the patterns a certain way using certain beliefs...i.e. that the present is the key to the past.

 

[PruePhillip]

Context.

" Geographically, the problem is an infested earth. Note that in 6:5-13, the earth (ha ares) is mentioned eight times. Thus the description has all the appearances of a universal condition rather than a local one. To be sure, eres is frequently rendered as (local) land, ground, and even underworld. When eres refers to a particular piece of land, however, it is often followed by a prepositional phrase that further identifies the land (e.g., the land of the Canaanites, land of the east, land of the fathers), except in those places where mention is made theologically of the land promised to Israel. Furthermore, the reference in 7:3 to the animals of kol-ha ares argues for an understanding of eres elsewhere in the Flood as earth in that almost all of the uses of kol-ha ares (outside of Deuteronomy and Joshua-Samuel) are references to the earth (Gen. 1:26, 28; 11:1; Exodus 9:14, 16; 19:5). Yet, verses such as Gen. 13:9,15 show that even in Genesis kol-ha ares refers to the whole land (Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, Eerdmans, 1990, p. 279).

Scholar Kenneth Matthew concurs.

This inclusive language as elsewhere in the account suggests that the cataclysm was worldwide in scope. An alternative understanding is that the comprehensive language of the text is hyperbolic or a phenomenal description (from Noah's limited viewpoint), thus permitting a regional flood . . . And earth can rightly be rendered land, again allowing a limited venue. This kind of inclusive language for local events is attested elsewhere in Genesis (e.g. 41:54-57), but the insistence of the narrative on the encompassing character of the flood favors the literal understanding of the universal view (Kenneth Matthews, Genesis 1:-11:26, The New American Commentary, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996, p. 365).

Commenting on Genesis 7, Matthews writes.

The inclusive language all every occurs eight times (in Hebrew) in vv. 19-23 leaving no doubt about the all-encompassing nature of the destructive floods and the depth left behind. There can be no dispute that the narrative depicts the flood in the language of a universal deluge (entire heavens), even the high mountains are covered (2x; vv. 19-20) (Kenneth Matthews, ibid., p. 380).

The clear sense of the passage is that the Flood was universal. Although the universal terms found in the account can be understood in a limited sense, there is nothing in the story to force one to understand it this way, or to even suggest that this was the authors intent. The passage plainly speaks of a worldwide destruction."

Did the Flood Cover the Entire Earth?

Appreciate the time you put into this. You are the first to seriously tackle
my point in the last twenty years.
Hebrews referring to the flood is actually referring to its reading of Genesis.

How the bible was written was weird - it's essentially theological. Recall
the seven days of creation - Genesis gets the sequence perfectly correct
but adds seven days to the account. In the genealogy of Jesus many names
are removed to make seven generations, or two times seven. And Revelations
speaks of seven churches - despite the NT naming other churches not counted
in this seven. And like reading of Adam's two sons, things don't make sense
unless you read them in the context of symbolic and theological sense.
Certainly I don't accept a talking snake or Noah coming to Australia to collect
animals.

 

[dad]

WOOSH!!!

Another point that flies high over your head.

In your limited scope of vision and little mind that would seem to be the case.

All tech inside your computer.
Which works only because of physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics.
All of these fields assume a "same state past".

Absurd comedy. Yes things work because of laws that now exist. How does that mean they would work in Noah's day??

And as @Subduction Zone zone stated, in more practical direct terms, indeed: fossil fuels.

A lot of things died suddenly. That is a lot of fuel. There was also a lot of fast reproducing animals and plants in the pre flood era. Lots of coal and oil. The layers we see need not be interpreted by your religion, really.

Maybe you should go inform yourself how drilling companies know where to look for oil.

Well, they start to realize certain layers tend to contain it?

What type of professional do they employ to tell them where they'll be able to find oil fields? And how does that professional determine where to find such oil fields?

Not so bright ones?