Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[LuisDantas]

Why is it anymore or less wasteful than any other philosophical position? i think that generally philosophy as a whole could be considered wasteful if you claim that agnosticism is wasteful.

Agnosticism may be and sometimes is pursued as a "compromise" of sorts when there is in fact no benefit in any.

Presenting the matter of whether there is a God as a major mystery is a great exageration of its actual importance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, you see, babies can't walk. It's impossible. They're just not strong enough to walk. But they keep trying, don't they. They see they are getting stronger, and they keep trying. They never lose hope. If they did, if it were possible to extinguish such hopes in a small child, I believe they would never be able to walk, until they are given hope.

Well actually its instinct that drives us to walk. Its learning a skill. However this is a very very very very interesting way to put this analogy. And I love it.

You have a baby. They can't walk. But they are primed and ready to walk because after they obtain the strength to do so they can. They learn from others around them and its expected. They "hope" for it. So they try and try and try and eventually they can walk.

Its the same with belief. We start off as weak babies. But eventually we are trained enough and are surrounded by enough people "believing" that we in turn believe. And suddenly we have an unshakable resolve.

But lets go back to walking. The only thing that changed was the baby. The baby learned to walk. The same thing for the believer. They were conditioned to believe. But that just means that no matter if there is or isn't a god they would believe. This is still an argument that if there is not a god you would believe anyway. Because that is what you strived for. Its what you were conditioned for.

Your belief is a product of your conditioning. Not of a god. Even if one exists this continues to be the case.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your belief is a product of your conditioning. Not of a god. Even if one exists this continues to be the case.

At the end of the day, that is the bottom line.

Should a god that needed us to lie to ourselves even received any respect?

 

[dust1n]

Dating fossils and the age of the earth

"When a fossil is discovered, it is not dated using any form of radiometric dating:

"Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."[1]

So how is it dated?

"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from."[2]

"Fossils help geologists figure out the ages of rock strata and the times at which animals and plants lived."[3]

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."[4]

"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."[5]

"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them."[6]

The rocks they are found in date the fossils. It is impossible to really know how old a fossil is unless you know what rock layer it was found in. Therefore, how do you know how old the rocks are? By what fossils are present! Certain types of fossils are called index fossils, and their presence determines what age the rock is. So, the fossils date the rocks, but the rocks date the fossils. That is a prime example of circular reasoning. Clearly the Geologic Column is based upon faulty reasoning, and is itself a faulty system. In fact, it does not exist anywhere in full form on this globe. Not one geologist could take you to a place on the earth and show the entire Geologic Column. The only place it exists is in the textbooks and the imaginations of scientists.

Some think that radiometric dating verifies the ages of the rocks, but even radiometric dating is calibrated to the Column:

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."[7]"
References:

1. Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.
2. Eldredge, Niles, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria" (New York: Simon ad Schuster, 1985), p. 51.
3. Hirschfeld, Sue Ellen, "Earth-History of the Earth," World Book Encyclopedia, vol.6(1996), p. 26.
4. O'Rourke, J.E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 53.
5. Welles, Samuel Paul, "Fossils," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (1978), p. 364.
6. Welles, Samuel Paul, "Paleontology," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (1978), p. 85.
7. O'Rourke, J.E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976) p. 54.

TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Reason In Circles Together

The study of the sequence of occurrence of fossils in rocks, biostratigraphy, reveals the relative time order in which organisms lived. Although this relative time scale indicates that one layer of rock is younger or older than another, it does not pinpoint the age of a fossil or rock in years. The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

About 90 chemical elements occur naturally in the Earth. By definition an element is a substance that cannot be broken into a simpler form by ordinary chemical means. The basic structural units of elements are minute atoms. They are made up of the even tinier subatomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.

To help in the identification and classification of elements, scientists have assigned an atomic number to each kind of atom. The atomic number for each element is the number of protons in an atom. An atom of potassium (K), for example, has 19 protons in its nucleus so the atomic number for potassium is 19.

Although all atoms of a given element contain the same number of protons, they do not contain the same number of neutrons. Each kind of atom has also been assigned a mass number. That number, which is equal to the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, identifies the various forms or isotopes of an element. The isotopes of a given element have similar or very closely related chemical properties but their atomic mass differs.

Potassium (atomic number 19) has several isotopes. Its radioactive isotope potassium-40 has 19 protons and 21 neutrons in the nucleus (19 protons + 21 neutrons = mass number 40). Atoms of its stable isotopes potassium-39 and potassium-41 contain 19 protons plus 20 and 22 neutrons respectively.

Radioactive isotopes are useful in dating geological materials, because they convert or decay at a constant, and therefore measurable, rate. An unstable radioactive isotope, which is the 'parent' of one chemical element, naturally decays to form a stable nonradioactive isotope, or 'daughter,' of another element by emitting particles such as protons from the nucleus. The decay from parent to daughter happens at a constant rate called the half-life. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the length of time it takes for exactly one-half of the parent atoms to decay to daughter atoms. No naturally occurring physical or chemical conditions on Earth can appreciably change the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. Precise laboratory measurements of the number of remaining atoms of the parent and the number of atoms of the daughter result in a ratio that is used to compute the age of a fossil or rock in years.

Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

As we have learned more, and as our instrumentation has improved, geoscientists have reevaluated the ages obtained from the rocks. These refinements have resulted in an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the radiometric time scale. This trend will continue as we collect and analyze more samples.


Isotopic dating techniques are used to measure the time when a particular mineral within a rock was formed. To allow assignment of numeric ages to the biologically based components of the geologic time scale, such as Cambrian... Permian... Cretaceous... Quaternary, a mineral that can be dated radiometrically must be found together with rocks that can be assigned relative ages because of the contained fossils. A classic, real-life example of using K-40/Ar-40 to date Upper Cretaceous rocks and fossils is described in Gill and Cobban (1973).

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer



More info:

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones? - HowStuffWorks

 

[Sonofason]

Well actually its instinct that drives us to walk. Its learning a skill. However this is a very very very very interesting way to put this analogy. And I love it.

You have a baby. They can't walk. But they are primed and ready to walk because after they obtain the strength to do so they can. They learn from others around them and its expected. They "hope" for it. So they try and try and try and eventually they can walk.

Its the same with belief. We start off as weak babies. But eventually we are trained enough and are surrounded by enough people "believing" that we in turn believe. And suddenly we have an unshakable resolve.

But lets go back to walking. The only thing that changed was the baby. The baby learned to walk. The same thing for the believer. They were conditioned to believe. But that just means that no matter if there is or isn't a god they would believe. This is still an argument that if there is not a god you would believe anyway. Because that is what you strived for. Its what you were conditioned for.

Your belief is a product of your conditioning. Not of a god. Even if one exists this continues to be the case.

Great, so you agree with me. How brave of you.

 

[Sonofason]

At the end of the day, that is the bottom line.

Should a god that needed us to lie to ourselves even received any respect?

No but the actual God that Created you does deserve your respect. God is not what you imagine Him to be.

 

[Sonofason]

The study of the sequence of occurrence of fossils in rocks, biostratigraphy, reveals the relative time order in which organisms lived. Although this relative time scale indicates that one layer of rock is younger or older than another, it does not pinpoint the age of a fossil or rock in years. The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

About 90 chemical elements occur naturally in the Earth. By definition an element is a substance that cannot be broken into a simpler form by ordinary chemical means. The basic structural units of elements are minute atoms. They are made up of the even tinier subatomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.

To help in the identification and classification of elements, scientists have assigned an atomic number to each kind of atom. The atomic number for each element is the number of protons in an atom. An atom of potassium (K), for example, has 19 protons in its nucleus so the atomic number for potassium is 19.

Although all atoms of a given element contain the same number of protons, they do not contain the same number of neutrons. Each kind of atom has also been assigned a mass number. That number, which is equal to the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, identifies the various forms or isotopes of an element. The isotopes of a given element have similar or very closely related chemical properties but their atomic mass differs.

Potassium (atomic number 19) has several isotopes. Its radioactive isotope potassium-40 has 19 protons and 21 neutrons in the nucleus (19 protons + 21 neutrons = mass number 40). Atoms of its stable isotopes potassium-39 and potassium-41 contain 19 protons plus 20 and 22 neutrons respectively.

Radioactive isotopes are useful in dating geological materials, because they convert or decay at a constant, and therefore measurable, rate. An unstable radioactive isotope, which is the 'parent' of one chemical element, naturally decays to form a stable nonradioactive isotope, or 'daughter,' of another element by emitting particles such as protons from the nucleus. The decay from parent to daughter happens at a constant rate called the half-life. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the length of time it takes for exactly one-half of the parent atoms to decay to daughter atoms. No naturally occurring physical or chemical conditions on Earth can appreciably change the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. Precise laboratory measurements of the number of remaining atoms of the parent and the number of atoms of the daughter result in a ratio that is used to compute the age of a fossil or rock in years.

Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

As we have learned more, and as our instrumentation has improved, geoscientists have reevaluated the ages obtained from the rocks. These refinements have resulted in an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the radiometric time scale. This trend will continue as we collect and analyze more samples.


Isotopic dating techniques are used to measure the time when a particular mineral within a rock was formed. To allow assignment of numeric ages to the biologically based components of the geologic time scale, such as Cambrian... Permian... Cretaceous... Quaternary, a mineral that can be dated radiometrically must be found together with rocks that can be assigned relative ages because of the contained fossils. A classic, real-life example of using K-40/Ar-40 to date Upper Cretaceous rocks and fossils is described in Gill and Cobban (1973).

Evolution and the Fossil Record by John Pojeta, Jr. and Dale A. Springer



More info:

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones? - HowStuffWorks

You do not know if any dating technique using elemental isotopes decays at the same rates over time. You have no way of verifying that. Any claim that it is, is just a claim. There is no evidence to support this claim of yours.

You do not know the amount of carbon isotopes, or carbon that was in the atmosphere long ago, or any other substance for that matter. You never will. And so you have no base line for comparison. It is all lies. Sophisticated lies, to support a needless job.

 

[outhouse]

Dude stays on ignore for his inability to reason.

Posting garbage biased creationist websites, that uses lies and quote mining to prey on the ignorance of creationist ignorance.

 

[Sonofason]

Mind to answer?

My answer is yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

No but the actual God that Created you does deserve your respect. God is not what you imagine Him to be.

That does not make any sense. Why should I just assume that there is a God, let alone that he is my creator and that some sort of respect is owed to him?

For that matter, how does one even attempt to respect a creator God? By not suiciding?

 

[LuisDantas]

My answer is yes.

That, too, makes no sense. I hope it was not meant to.

 

[Sonofason]

Dude stays on ignore for his inability to reason.

Posting garbage biased creationist websites, that uses lies and quote mining to prey on the ignorance of creationist ignorance.

Lol, garbage, because it degrades your extremist-like faith in evolution.

 

[Sonofason]

That does not make any sense. Why should I just assume that there is a God, let alone that he is my creator and that some sort of respect is owed to him?

For that matter, how does one even attempt to respect a creator God? By not suiciding?

If you don't know by now, I truly believe it is a waste of my time to explain that to you. I do believe it is too late for many people. God will judge this world, and everyone in it. You can call that evil. You can call Him what ever you like. God judges everyone.

 

[LuisDantas]

You do not know if any dating technique using elemental isotopes decays at the same rates over time. You have no way of verifying that. Any claim that it is, is just a claim. There is no evidence to support this claim of yours.

Of course there are ways of verifying that. For one, various measurement techniques are often contrasted with each other.

You do not know the amount of carbon isotopes, or carbon that was in the atmosphere long ago, or any other substance for that matter. You never will. And so you have no base line for comparison. It is all lies. Sophisticated lies, to support a needless job.

That would be both impossible and pointless, you know.

 

[Sonofason]

That, too, makes no sense. I hope it was not meant to.

I don't know. You're the one who asked the question. I just answered it. Don't you remember the question?

 

[LuisDantas]

If you don't know by now, I truly believe it is a waste of my time to explain that to you. I do believe it is too late for many people. God will judge this world, and everyone in it. You can call that evil. You can call Him what ever you like. God judges everyone.

Let him, then. It is not like it would make any difference to me.

No one can expect me to fear any God's judgement. That would be just odd.

 

[Sonofason]

Of course there are ways of verifying that. For one, various measurement techniques are often contrasted with each other.

Who told you that?

That would be both impossible and pointless, you know.

I didn't know that. Please explain how that is so?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know. You're the one who asked the question. I just answered it. Don't you remember the question?

Yes. It was one that your answer does not fit at all. I checked.

 

[Sonofason]

Let him, then. It is not like it would make any difference to me.

No one can expect me to fear any God's judgement. That would be just odd.

Of course. You can't fear what doesn't exist, right?

 

[Sonofason]

Yes. It was one that your answer does not fit at all. I checked.

Well, you're wrong about that. Check again. And again if necessary.