God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[gnostic]

Perhaps so, but it is best to make an effort to have doctrines that are logically sensible when possible. Otherwise, anything goes.

Also, was this meant to be a refutation against anything I said? "Nobody's completely logical" isn't a particularly good refutation against anything.

I'm willing to investigate evidence that is offered to me. I don't assume any viewpoints to be unassailable, only supported or unsupported.

Likewise, one could ask you if you are closed-minded in regards to an old Earth.

Yes.

Being open-minded can work both ways.

I just wondered if they are open-minded enough to recognize that what they believe in, could be wrong.

If all the available evidences that have been verified and stacked against what they believe in or what they have claimed, in the time like this, the best thing to do is gracefully admit they were wrong.

Instead, we get apologists trying to make all sort of excuses.

If they hit obstacle, they might try to move the goalposts. If that doesn't work, they might use circular reasoning or others that people view as one of the possible logical fallacies. When ask for sources, they might provide a source that might have long since debunked. Or they might used the old but pointless cliche like - "[usually "evolution"] is just a theory".

I truly don't understand the logic of believing whatever they believe in, to be real or true, when there are no verifiable evidences to support what they believe in. It is insanely illogical.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Perhaps so, but it is best to make an effort to have doctrines that are logically sensible when possible. Otherwise, anything goes.

Also, was this meant to be a refutation against anything I said? "Nobody's completely logical" isn't a particularly good refutation against anything.

I'm willing to investigate evidence that is offered to me. I don't assume any viewpoints to be unassailable, only supported or unsupported.

Likewise, one could ask you if you are closed-minded in regards to an old Earth.

I'm not closed-minded about an old Earth. 1) I might misunderstand the scriptures. 2) I frequently see and read news articles and scientific papers, etc. on old Earth positions. I consider and weigh them cautiously/carefully.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Glad to see you admit to deviating from logic.

Um, you know that I meant that all persons, Christian and un-Christian, have biases. If you, outhouse, only use logic in your life, never emotion, never love, you are--a Mentat or a Vulcan, but not quite human.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You talk of being "open-minded"...

But you want others to be "open-minded" to the possibility of a young Earth, and those who argue with you of Old Earth as being "close-minded", right?

I don't feel that way, but that is certainly what you accuse me of, vice versa, and the rest of your post supports that stance. And your STANCE is a closed-minded stance regardless of our relative positions on Earth data.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is not a (scientific) hypothesis.

In science, a hypothesis still need to be falsifiable and testable.

In science, if you can't even test a statement, explanation or prediction, then it is not even hypothesis.

A hypothesis, in science, the scientist writing the paper, need not only provide explanation, but also method of HOW TO ACQUIRE the evidences or method of HOW THE explanation/prediction TO BE TESTED.

A person, like you for example, can quote any verse of interest from the Bible, and you can make claim about this or that, but without any science background and experience, nothing you claim can be anything more than your interpretation, your personal opinion, your personal belief. So whatever you might claim about the bible, it is not scientific.

It is not scientific, because you don't know to set up a process of acquiring evidences or data from test results. If that's the case, it isn't a scientific hypothesis (or scientific theory).



If you are quoting to Sagan, then please quote the sources (like the article, books, interview, or wherever it come from). Just saying his name, without any mean of us looking it up for the whole detail, is terribly lazy and shoddy.

Beside that, if you find artifacts, remains (fossils or not), rocks, etc, that are older than 10,000 years, then everyone have the rights to be skeptical of creationists' claims of young sun or young earth.

The city of Uruk, or Erech in the bible (Genesis 10, about Nimrod) stated that the city was found after the Flood. That would mean the city should not be older than 4000 to 4200 years old. But the oldest foundation of Uruk is 7000 years (or 5000 BCE). That would mean Uruk is older than by the creationist's young sun, by at least 1000 years.

And Jericho is even older than Uruk (11,000 years or 9000 BCE). Jericho even had a wall build around the town 8000 BCE). If the Earth and Sun were only 6000 years, then Jericho shouldn't exist.

In Australia, there were people here as early of at least 40,000 years (about 45 to 48,000 years).

Yes, people should be skeptical about whatever is written in the bible. Clearly it isn't a history book, let alone a science one.

I take it you are being rhetorical and not asking me a question at all, since you wrote about why my position isn't tenable or provable, and then instead of asking for examples of such, went on to show how the prevalence of data supports your pre-assumed position. And to top it, you sort of write like you were there millennia ago, even millions of years ago, when it all went down!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let's edit your text above so you understand my plight better:

Being open-minded can work both ways.

I just wondered if they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] are open-minded enough to recognize that what they believe in, could be wrong.

If all the available evidences that have been verified and stacked against what they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] believe in or what they have claimed, in the time like this, the best thing to do is gracefully admit they were wrong.

Instead, we get apologists trying to make all sort of excuses.

If they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] hit obstacle, they might try to move the goalposts. If that doesn't work, they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] might use circular reasoning or others that people view as one of the possible logical fallacies. When ask for sources, they might provide a source that might have long since debunked. Or they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] might used the old but pointless cliche like - "[usually "evolution" [or Earth-centered universe, light and time, the abiogenesis of germs] is just a theory".

I truly don't understand the logic of believing whatever they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] believe in, to be real or true, when there are no verifiable evidences to support what they [Copernicus, Einstein and Pasteur] believe in. It is insanely illogical.

 

[Parsimony]

I'm not closed-minded about an old Earth. 1) I might misunderstand the scriptures. 2) I frequently see and read news articles and scientific papers, etc. on old Earth positions. I consider and weigh them cautiously/carefully.

Thanks.

Good to know.

 

[outhouse]

I might misunderstand the scriptures.

Bingo

 

[viole]

Am I a Lutheran? Is he my "leader"? Is every atheist speaker your leader?

If you are unaware of Luther's influence on Protestantism, the Roman "Church", the German language and the English language, please read his Wikipedia biography. Stalin was an influential atheist, but I wouldn't say he was your leader.

PS. What does your hatred for Luther have to do with the age of the Earth...?

PPS. Did you catch my point about coming to a religious forum to mock religionists? I've not yet seen you ask me a real question (or any other religious persons) only rhetorical questions and rhetoric.

Well, I was a Lutheran. And the difference between us is that I am not desperately trying to defend Stalin for what he did for atheism. Even if he did anything for atheism, like translating the "God Delusion" in russian. He was a paranoid criminal. Period.

What I find puzzling is that you weigh more what Luther did for Christianity rather than realizing that the influencer, as you called it, provided Christian sanctioned influence for 20th century brutal antisemitism. I think the latter annihilates the former. if we really analyze what he did for the reputation of Christianity, the balance is not positive at all.

Unless you think that a translation in German of an ancient book is vastly more important than genocyde.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Bingo

Well, then tell us all what they say.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, I was a Lutheran. And the difference between us is that I am not desperately trying to defend Stalin for what he did for atheism. Even if he did anything for atheism, like translating the "God Delusion" in russian. He was a paranoid criminal. Period.

What I find puzzling is that you weigh more what Luther did for Christianity rather than realizing that the influencer, as you called it, provided Christian sanctioned influence for 20th century brutal antisemitism. I think the latter annihilates the former. if we really analyze what he did for the reputation of Christianity, the balance is not positive at all.

Unless you think that a translation in German of an ancient book is vastly more important than genocyde.

Ciao

- viole

I'm a Jew, remember? I have a passing acquaintance with the German fascist holocaust.

I'm not trying to defend or attack Luther, Stalin or Hitler. I'm trying to understand your perspectives on the Lord Jesus Christ and respond to your remarks that ALL Jews believe something I don't believe in or vice versa, and you are shifting the goal posts.

Luther was a mistaken individual. His harsh way of life as a Roman Catholic led to late-in-life senility. You win. Can we get back to Jesus Christ and the Bible, not Lutheranism?

 

[viole]

I'm a Jew, remember? I have a passing acquaintance with the German fascist holocaust.

I'm not trying to defend or attack Luther, Stalin or Hitler. I'm trying to understand your perspectives on the Lord Jesus Christ and respond to your remarks that ALL Jews believe something I don't believe in or vice versa, and you are shifting the goal posts.

Luther was a mistaken individual. His harsh way of life as a Roman Catholic led to late-in-life senility. You win. Can we get back to Jesus Christ and the Bible, not Lutheranism?

My position on the Lord Jesus Christ?

Isn't that obvious what my position is? There is no Lord Jesus Christ.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Well, then tell us all what they say.

Its a guide meant to be used with moderation when needed. Not followed with great fanaticism and fundamentalism.


When one refuses modern education and academia, one has lost the books true meaning.


When one reads ancient text out of context literally, one ruins the original beauty.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not closed-minded about an old Earth. 1) I might misunderstand the scriptures. 2) I frequently see and read news articles and scientific papers, etc. on old Earth positions. I consider and weigh them cautiously/carefully.

I think it is both.

I think you have misunderstood both scriptures and science. And probably one of the problems is that you, like other creationists, tried to mix religion (or scriptures) and science together, thereby taking them both out of context.

 

[outhouse]

Science is TRUE whether you believe in it or not

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science is TRUE whether you believe in it or not

That is likely the most uninformed statement on science I've heard. Sorry to sound sarcastic or mocking (emotions don't carry well online as you know) because I'm being SERIOUS.

Some scientists believe human life in the womb doesn't begin until the 15th week of gestation, some believe it begins at the 11th week. Both are scientists, should I believe both camps simultaneously?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think it is both.

I think you have misunderstood both scriptures and science. And probably one of the problems is that you, like other creationists, tried to mix religion (or scriptures) and science together, thereby taking them both out of context.

Well, please don't collide with me for being honest! Of course I might misunderstand the scriptures. Are you willing to say you might misunderstand not science, but conclusions drawn from the available data? For example, I understand to a reasonable extent the goals and ideas and practices of radiometric dating. However, I consider how the practices may be rigorous and scientific but based on logic, proceeding from errant original dating/time assumptions, the final conclusions may be in error. Does my invalidation of the syllogism make sense?

Put another way--I totally get that scientists going from present rates of decay and present solar radiation and present standard pressure and temperature ranges and etc. extrapolate backwards to tell us a rock is 2 Billion years old. When I was a little science kid, I thought that was wicked cool, too. However, if there were solar radiation fluxes of great magnitude we could have much younger OR older dates on Earth rocks than we presently generate. I don't hate science or the scriptures and hope you don't, too.

 

[Parsimony]

However, if there were solar radiation fluxes of great magnitude we could have much younger OR older dates on Earth rocks than we presently generate.

What evidence do you have that solar radiation (of any plausible intensity) could affect nuclear decay rates? Also, how would living things have survived such intense radiation? Let's also keep in mind that not all nuclei are equally likely to interact with radiation (different nuclear cross-sections), so if such an event occurred, then dating methods using different isotopes would be inconsistent with each other (but would be consistent with other dating attempts using the same isotopes). I'd also like to know how radiation of such intensity could have impinged on Earth without melting the rock that the isotopes were in, therefore resetting the isochrons. Keep in mind that isochron plots measure how long ago it was when a given sample of rocks solidified. So if a sample of rocks melted ~6,000 years ago, the isochron would reveal that same age (or a much, much younger age if you are positing that the radiation that caused the melting was also intense enough to accelerate nuclear decay).

Another thing: if decay was accelerated by radiation from the Sun, then you'd expect deeper rocks to be better shielded from the Sun's radiation and therefore reveal younger ages (since their decay wouldn't have been as accelerated). Deeper would "look" younger. However, we find the opposite to be true.

 

[McBell]

Source please

Some scientists believe human life in the womb doesn't begin until the 15th week of gestation, some believe it begins at the 11th week. Both are scientists, should I believe both camps simultaneously?

 

[gnostic]

Well, please don't collide with me for being honest! Of course I might misunderstand the scriptures. Are you willing to say you might misunderstand not science, but conclusions drawn from the available data? For example, I understand to a reasonable extent the goals and ideas and practices of radiometric dating. However, I consider how the practices may be rigorous and scientific but based on logic, proceeding from errant original dating/time assumptions, the final conclusions may be in error. Does my invalidation of the syllogism make sense?

Put another way--I totally get that scientists going from present rates of decay and present solar radiation and present standard pressure and temperature ranges and etc. extrapolate backwards to tell us a rock is 2 Billion years old. When I was a little science kid, I thought that was wicked cool, too. However, if there were solar radiation fluxes of great magnitude we could have much younger OR older dates on Earth rocks than we presently generate. I don't hate science or the scriptures and hope you don't, too.

I have never claimed to know everything, especially in science or in religion.

But I am certain that religions (like the scriptures) have no place in science, because every descriptions of natural phenomena, are based on limited knowledge, and a great deal of superstitions.

Genesis 1 to 11 is nothing more than myths (6-day creation, creation of Adam and Eve, Flood myth and the Babel incident), fables (talking serpent), and historical-archaeological inaccuracies (Egypt, Uruk).

Job 38 to 41 further demonstrate the story reliance on superstition.

And all the miracles that supposedly take place in the bible, required faith, not on verifiable evidences, for it to believe. Science required evidences, not on wishful thinking.

If I want to understand radiometric datings, I certainly wouldn't rely on the church, bible or any creationist to tell me anything useful, logical and testable.

If I am going to understand astronomy and physical cosmology, I would again, wouldn't rely on religion (church, bible or creationists) to give honest, logical and verifiable answers.

And it would be the same for every single fields or branches of science, whether the be maths, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.

And in that case, religion is useless to me, unless I am interested in fanciful stories, myths. Even the morals and laws taught in the bible, which is the only thing useful in a religion, is often outdated and sometimes barbaric or brutal.

It is one of the reasons why I am thankful that I lived in secular society. Australia is not perfect, but I can choose to follow or not follow a religion; it is my personal choice, and no one can force upon me. And I am thankful of separation of state and religion, of law and religion, and of education and religion.

But yes, I don't know everything, but at least I read scriptures without attempting to mix it with science. And that the big mistake all creationists and some theists make, mixing religion with science.