Who Believe the Earth is 6000 Years Old???

[s2a]

Hello FFH,

My apologies...

It was never my interest or intent to engage you in pointless discussions regarding either cosmological origin theories, or the validity of the tother angential scientific disciplines that overwhelmingly support naturalistic explanations of the cosmos.

If I appeared to suggest such an interest, I am sorry that my commentaries might lead you to surmise as much.

Your valiant (albeit predictable), efforts to "cut and paste" old, tired, dated, hackneyed, and utterly debunked "arguments" (which only seek to present rhetorical "suspicions" or "doubts"; not to propose alternative testable scientific hypothesis or theories) only reminds me of how tiresome and futile any earnest efforts in painstakingly outlining/illustrating the failures/fallacies in dealing with yet another iteration of:
"Oh yeah? Well what about this idea that can't be tested or falsified?".

Suspicion, doubt, and "gap theories/proposals" are not evidentially predicated falsifications, or credible disproofs. They're not.

Some sorts of rationale recall instances wherein an DNA expert testifies at the trial of a murder suspect; and after careful testing, he reports and concludes that:

"The blood type match found would only correspond with one person in 12 billion."

Heck, that's a greater statistical number than the total count of known humans on the planet!

But then, the defense lawyer asks the expert witness...
"Can you state unequivocally, beyond any and all doubts...that the sample you tested could only have come from the defendant, and no one else?"

The DNA scientist/expert replies..."no, but..."

"Thank you. That's all. The witness is dismissed.", says the defendant's lawyer.

Does anything less than a testifying 100% certitude/certification, therefore constitute a reasonable standard of plausible doubt; no matter how extremely remote or implausible a supposed alternative explanation may be?

Again...the available DNA evidence and support is substantially overwhelming in it's reasonable conclusion. The burden of disproof is now shifted upon those that deny/doubt/disclaim such overwhelmingly evidenced conclusions.
Abject doubt; suspicion (of either motives or means); or lack of provisional, absolute certitude and consensus is rendered summarily insufficient, and impotent--at this point.

The burden is placed squarely upon those that discount scientific understandings to therefore define, with specificity, just what compelling evidences would constitute an acceptable disproof of the "truthful" claim of [a] supernaturalistic cause of "creation".
In other words, what evidential disproof does any "God did it" theory suggest as prospective falsification of that theory?

What is true, is that cosmological origin theories do not speak to, rely upon, nor seek to invalidate--any specified or generalized claims of supernaturalistic causation. NONE. "God"...in such cases...is simply not a factor.

If one claims that "God" IS a factor in attributable primary causation...then one must inquire--Is there ANY evidence? Any at ALL...that would possibly serve to invalidate or disprove the claim?

ANY? Any at all?

If not...then the "God Theory" is not scientific. It's only a testament to (and of) faith, and faith alone. Doubting science does not validate faith, nor serve any claim of authoritative credibility/validity of supernaturalistic cause as some "default" explanation.

Faith has a tendency (even a propensity) to challenge any ideas or empirical conclusions that may invalidate (or ignore) supernaturalistic necessities. That's fine (in faith), but it's not scientific...and it's not based upon any testable evidences or prospectively falsifiable hypotheses/theories.

What testable predictions do cosmological "God theories" present? If Carbon Dating (assuming foer the moment that it was the only means of age verification available, which it's not) is flawed...then what predictions of testable and independently verifiable (and as yet, undiscovered) evidences does a "God theory" propose/posit as reasonable validation?
What standard of measure is more accurate, validated, independently verified, and otherwise eerily in line with other diabolical disciplines of age dating?

If C14 dating methodologies suggest wildly inaccurate findings/conclusions, then what methodologies (faith-based or scientific) would offer more accurate and evidentially supportive conclusions?
What [or which]?
Exactly?

C'mon. Spare an old man unnecessary indulgences of yet more decades-old debunked disputations borne of a piously ascribed adherence...and just cut to the chase instead.

Science "proves" (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the Earth (and the cosmos) is more than 6000 years old.

Present either your disproof of that empirical/inductive conclusion, or produce your more compelling evidence supporting the alternate populist theory that "God did it".

Or is that asking too much?

 

[FFH]

s2a, here are more evidences of a young earth...

Skip to post number 48 on this page

 

[s2a]

s2a, here are more evidences of a young earth...

Skip to post number 48 on this page

You can't answer just one simple, direct question?

I ask again, in case you just glossed over it (Maybe I hammered that nail too far into the wood):

"If one claims that "God" IS a factor in attributable primary causation...then one must inquire--Is there ANY evidence? Any at ALL...that would possibly serve to invalidate or disprove the claim?

ANY? Any at all?

If not...then the "God Theory" is not scientific. It's only a testament to (and of) faith, and faith alone. Doubting science does not validate faith, nor serve any claim of authoritative credibility/validity of supernaturalistic cause as some "default" explanation."

I appreciate the effort you expended in crafting very attractive clickable links to the source "lectures" you consider as "evidence" (I watched the first installment--it does provide a lovely testament of faith by a redeemed and newly convicted believer; it's touching, but not very compelling, or even factual), but your evasion from tendering answer to my inquiry is much more revealing.

I'll make you a deal.

I'll watch the entirety of the lecture series you recommended if you'll just answer these two very simple questions, OK?

1) What is your "God [or "Creation"] theory", and can it be [empirically] falsified? If so, what would serve as, or constitute acceptable disproof to your theory?

2) What predictions does your "God theory" posit, and by what means or measures can we experiment in testing that theory, in order to unveil something utterly new, and previously undiscovered (but predicted to exist beforehand)?

[I'll provide examples for like comparison--
Einstein predicted that strong sources of gravity would bend cosmic light. That was later demonstrated as true.
Hawking predicted the existence of black holes before any had been discovered. We now find black holes throughout the cosmos--even a super-massive one at the center of our own galaxy.
Hawking also predicted that his Big Bang theory would suggest discovering the residual heat leftover from that initial "bang" (in the form of background cosmic [microwave] radiation). After 13 or so years, that predicted radiation was eventually discovered. Since that radiation is both measurable and observable, we now have a "map" of the cosmos that proves it to be least 14 billion years old.]

Please spare me yet more "cut and paste" links, articles, and testaments of faith.

If you can provide answer to the two questions above, please do so in plain text, of your own craft, in this thread.

If you can not (or will not) lend direct answer to the two questions as outlined above, then I am but left to conclude:

"...then the "God Theory" is not scientific. It's only a testament to (and of) faith, and faith alone. Doubting science does not validate faith, nor serve any claim of authoritative credibility/validity of supernaturalistic cause as some "default" explanation."

It really is...as simple as that.

 

[nutshell]

I just visited an ancient site where the Maidu used to live. It's estimated they were there at least 7,000 years. Pretty sure that makes the earth older than 6,000 years.

 

[s2a]

I just visited an ancient site where the Maidu used to live. It's estimated they were there at least 7,000 years. Pretty sure that makes the earth older than 6,000 years.

Oh c'mon nutty...tell me those estimates weren't predicated upon the "questionable" C14 methods? Heck, they're practically debunked by Creationists!

Tell me that those estimates were based on perhaps: Stratigraphy and Seriation; or Dendrochronology; or other "wild" radiocarbon methods; or crazy methods like obsidian hydration, potassium-argon, or fission track...

Be fair to creationists, and allow them to at least catch up enough to scientific disciplines that have arisen/developed within the past one hundred years or so...multiple confirmations of demonstrable fact take a little longer to dismiss as fable and conspiracy,,,

 

[greatcalgarian]

Sorry, I didn't mean to allude to the one day equals a thousand years as being in the Book of Moses, but is found in 2 Peter 3:8

Joseph Smith Translation 2 Peter 3:8
But concerning the coming of the Lord, beloved, I would not have you ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

King James 2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Moses 7:64
And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

Moses 7:65 And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years;

So when God made Moses write Genesis, he forgot to tell Moses to put in a footnote: HEy this beginning part of the Genesis, the days are refering to MY days, which is a thousand years, other days in the rest of the holyscript are for your human day, 24 hours......
Anyway, if you find problem reconciling one with the other, just interprete the way you like, it is okay.

 

[s2a]

Your conspicuous silence is deafening...FFH...;-)


Is it really that difficult to concede that "Young Earth" (or "God did it") "theories" are utterly unscientific, and naught but subservient affirmations of belief?

If you want to believe in supernatural causation of the cosmos, that's fine with me. If you want skeptics to believe (or suitably accept beyond reasonable doubt) your "god theory"...then you're going to have to provide at least some mechanism or means by which to prospectively falsify that claim/hypothesis. ANY valid scientific hypothesis is subject to that standard. ANY.

If you assert (some, as yet undefined) special exception--again--that's fine with me. Just acknowledge and concede that ANY "god theory" is first and foremost utterly unscientific.

If scientific understanding of radioactive decay (like C14 dating methods) is flawed, then we can safely assume that power-generating nuclear reactors are but figments of our wild imagination, and that thermonuclear bombs are but a myth, and a flight of fancy or self-destructive wish borne of a fable.

***echo***

***hello?***

 

[TommyN]

Actually the world may be millions or even billions of years old. Gen. 1 speaks about the Spiritual blue print and Gen. 2 speaks about the actual physical creation which is many many years older than 6000 or even 13000 years old.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have heard this a few times in the past and it has peaked my interest. Who believes that the earth is only 6000 years old? More so than that, Why?

Not me......


Because science has shown that it isn't......:sarcastic

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Pet peeve: people who know nothing about the language arguing for a mistranslation.

Sheesh.

I thank you for the accepted translation of the word. I will be careful when using the Hebrew or Arabic words here.

I was just wondering why the sarcasm if you were simply trying to show a translation of the word......

I got the translation from a rabbi who does not share the creation explanation. I will try to use more mainstream scholars.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh c'mon nutty...tell me those estimates weren't predicated upon the "questionable" C14 methods? Heck, they're practically debunked by Creationists!

Tell me that those estimates were based on perhaps: Stratigraphy and Seriation; or Dendrochronology; or other "wild" radiocarbon methods; or crazy methods like obsidian hydration, potassium-argon, or fission track...

Be fair to creationists, and allow them to at least catch up enough to scientific disciplines that have arisen/developed within the past one hundred years or so...multiple confirmations of demonstrable fact take a little longer to dismiss as fable and conspiracy,,,

I really like you mannnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yes:


I love how you put things......So eloquent.....but straight to the point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

According to the account given by Job this creature had scales, nostrils and a neck.

Never seen a whale with scales, nostrils or a neck, let alone a fire breathing one...(insert fire breathing smiley here). :rainbow1:

A seal would fit this description more closely than a whale, and even then there are no scales and the size is all wrong of course...

The Hebrew translation is as close to anything we have of similar size, but is not anything like what Job described...

This is "ASSUMING" the "STORY" is true or just that...A STORY.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A suggestion that something might be true, but has not been proven as such, because of various missing links in information gathered, which would complete the "equation".

Sounds like the definition of God(s) or most of the information contained in your bible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, the truth is boring to someone who wants or thinks there is more to our existence than just a more intelligent being than ourselves who created us...

Not rocket science, just a loving God who is the Father of our spirits...

Go knock yourself out trying to figure some other explanation....

Waste of time...

You seem to be cought up in some sort of hype.

Almost brainwashed in a way.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Psychics and Mystics are only channeling the thoughts of Satan and his angels who do his bidding for him....Mystics and psychics are only Satan's pawns on this earth and are feeding people full of lies on a nonexistent time, with nonexistent places, people and events.

It's nothing but made up people, places and events created by the father of lies the devil/Satan...

To believe anything more than this would be to believe in the father of lies himself...

Why is it that true prophets never mention this, but we are so willing to accept false prophets, having "itching ears" ourselves...

Meaning we want to know more than what's been plainly explained to us in scritpture, so the devil is willing to tell lies just because people won't accept the truth as plainly layed out and taught in scripture.

You make it seem like the bible doen't speak on this.....

Interpereting dreams

water to wine

casting downa staff to become a snake

on....and on.....and on........>>>>>>>>>

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've already explained my position on this thoroughly just a few pages back.

Scientists have their agendas, just as we all do. Many scientists readily accept that their findings are only theories and not fact, but the general public picks up on these findings and starts to pass them off as fact and there are also scientists who have theories who may decide to pass of their findings as fact to make themselves look better of for money's sake so they can sell more books, have a bigger following, aquire more frubals , etc...

See what I mean people have their reasons for lying to the public.... Money can be a big motivator, not to mention the desire to discredit Christian theories or facts so they can satisfy their own consciences...
</IMG>

Just like that crackpot prophet's website you provided...

He'll even let you shop for stuff on his site......

I bet you he doesn't spread his word to a large group of people for free....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The earth was literally tilted on it's axis which brought the waters from the oceans and the earth up and over the earths surface, with the help of some rain too of course, but the world was literally moved or tilted, wheras before it was parallel or only slightly tilted in it's rotations on it's axis in relation to the sun.

That will sink in later, hopefully I described it so it is understood,.

Were there seasons prior to the flood or was the earth's axis parallel or almost parallel to the sun's axis, which would have made the seasons if there really were any more mild and much less harsh, which would have allowed vegetation to flourish which would have been able to supports such large creatures as described in Job 40 and 41, which were as large as any dinosaur we could imagine...

PROVE YOUR ASSERTION......!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can assert that the Earth and dinosaurs were here before the earth was knocked on it's axis by a huge metor. This massive meteor was responsible for hitting the earth and blocking the sun with a cloud of dust and the lack of light caused certain species to die. Additionally this meteor was responsible for putting the earth on a 22 degree axis. It wasn't until millions of years time had gone by and through the evolution of certain species that survived we find ourselves here today.

Now what makes your assertion anymore truth than that?.....NONE.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I believe, only by studying the Word of God you would come to that knowledge.
Scientist will always be against it, thats what they get paid for!
With God all things is possible, man could never understand the mind of God, lets not try so hard, you may come up with some other mumbo jumbo.
Anyway History tells us, by giving us the geneology, From the creation of this world to Noah was 2,000years, From Noah to Jesus was another 2,000yrs, and from Jesus to us is another 2,000YEARS. Whatever others come up with does not make sense to me.

You know...it's dribble like this that get me fired up....here we go.....

You are assuming scientist get paid big money. that is just not true. some of them have to struggle and beg to have certain projects funded. A lot of them aren't driving mecedes, lexus, porche etc......

You might want to check some of these preachers and so called prophets who are living lage on the wllets of their congregations or followers. The ones with websites selling their knowledge for pennies on the dollar.

Prove to me that there are gods and then prove to me they have minds.... cause the only thing being proven by those statements is ignorance. The car you drive, the water you drink, the close you wear, the computer you type on, the internet that brought you here.....I coild go on but i think you get the jist....science is responsible.......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you serious?

Did you recently change your avatar?????

If so...I like it....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Gnostic, you brought up some good points....

First of all Genesis 1-13 is missing quite a few pages in the King James. Joseph Smith had to restore about 13 pages of it and is recorded here; Book of Moses

NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY NOW.....

You said in an earlier post that the bible needs no affirmation.....

....the Bible needs no affirmations, from any man, concerning it's accuracy, as long as it's translated correctly, that is unless you doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible....

SO if it needed no affirmation and was accurate then why are you proclaiming that pages are missing???

If the book was so infallible and accurate then what would even be the purpose of the book of Moses?

Starting to sound a little weak to me.....

Just in case you believe I'm misquoting you here is the original...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47037&page=4


Now do you see what I mean????