PyramidHead
Active member
You can safely ignore me no matter what, but all your creationist tears wont stop the aforementioned total lack of evidence :jazz: take it home, brotha
toldailytopic: How old is the earth?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You can safely ignore me no matter what, but all your creationist tears wont stop the aforementioned total lack of evidence :jazz: take it home, brotha
PyramidHead
Active member
:surf:
:chuckle:
Nice backflip, PH.
It is atheists who propose a 4.5 billion year old Earth-Moon system. You're not going to tag along with popular theory this time?
It's not just atheists who propose a 4.5 billion year old Earth-Moon system, as it turns out. It's darn near anybody who knows anything about space and the planet earth's history, regardless of religious preferences.
Hmmmmmmmmmm
alwight
New member
Reformatting for clarity done by me btw.
As indicated in my previous post about meteorites, science goes to great lengths to falsify or to find ways in which their conclusions based on evidence could be wrong, while YECs simply look for ways in which their pre-concluded beliefs could conceivably be right.
Scientists are simply individuals who can be wrong and if they are then their conclusions will be open to being falsified by other scientists or anyone, but to my knowledge YEC “scientists” have never managed to do that.
As far as the age of the Earth goes 4.5 billion years as an answer seems to have remained un-falsified for about sixty years now while being confirmed many times over from a variety or sources and disciplines.
You call it “scant evidence” but imo copious evidence comes from a great many different directions and sciences, which says that what you say simply is not true. What real evidence do you have for a much younger Earth? Why can you not falsify claims of an old Earth if you are right?
The light coming from other galaxies has to be billions of years old, so if, as in Genesis, everything was brought into existence during a few days what does that suggest about the age of the Earth?
Show me what evidence actually supports a young Earth.
Seen from my own pov of being a person who doesn’t see any particular need to adhere to a literal Genesis, is then what YEC’s claim, apparently evidence-free, more or less likely to be closer to the actual truth than the opinion of peer reviewed and evidenced science without any pre-concluded doctrine to support?
As indicated in my previous post about meteorites, science goes to great lengths to falsify or to find ways in which their conclusions based on evidence could be wrong, while YECs simply look for ways in which their pre-concluded beliefs could conceivably be right.
Scientists are simply individuals who can be wrong and if they are then their conclusions will be open to being falsified by other scientists or anyone, but to my knowledge YEC “scientists” have never managed to do that.
As far as the age of the Earth goes 4.5 billion years as an answer seems to have remained un-falsified for about sixty years now while being confirmed many times over from a variety or sources and disciplines.
Then I say that you are completely wrong. You have seen some of the evidence and what science has to say and conclude from it. Scientific theories are based on there being at least some available testable evidence, if other evidence coming along fits or falsifies it determines whether it stands or falls. However there is no such falsifiable theory proposed by YECs, only their bald assertions based in a particular doctrine and dogma.
You call it “scant evidence” but imo copious evidence comes from a great many different directions and sciences, which says that what you say simply is not true. What real evidence do you have for a much younger Earth? Why can you not falsify claims of an old Earth if you are right?
So what is evidence of a not quite as young, young Earth have you got, anything?
The light coming from other galaxies has to be billions of years old, so if, as in Genesis, everything was brought into existence during a few days what does that suggest about the age of the Earth?
As above the light from distant galaxies says you’re wrong particularly when combined with your own doctrine. Evidence from the ToE says you’re wrong, astrophysics and meteorites say you’re wrong, plate tectonics and geology says you’re wrong, genetics.....need I go on.
Show me what evidence actually supports a young Earth.
alwight
New member
Yes, I suppose you'd have to presume that else your YEC doctrine rather dries up, crumbles and gets blown away by a wind of reason and rationality.
I'll stick with probably very (elderly, that is).
Yes, every day it keeps getting older and older....
faramir77
New member
It is IMpossible to date the earth for it was created from matter that already existed also the the earth underwent change with the curse and became subject to renewal.
What can be affirmed from the hard [skeletal] evidence just below our feet is man's entire history, it is ALL there from stone age to the present day and nowt [except tadpoles] by way of mutation beneath. Dig they never so deep.
What can be affirmed from the hard [skeletal] evidence just below our feet is man's entire history, it is ALL there from stone age to the present day and nowt [except tadpoles] by way of mutation beneath. Dig they never so deep.
One Eyed Jack
New member
So that would mean then that scientists and me are all a bit thick?
We're all human, after all.
While otoh most YEC however are free to believe in a literal Genesis version of creation happily unencumbered by any annoying inconvenient real world facts and evidence.
You realize these "facts and evidences" count on certain assumptions being true, right?
One Eyed Jack
New member
A lion is every bit as dangerous to a man as a T-Rex would be. Either way, you're gonna be lunch if it catches you.
I can relate to that! :jolly:
genuineoriginal
New member
Do you think Sir Isaac Newton was a reasonable and rational scientist?
Isaac Newton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 [NS: 4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian, has been "considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived."[7]
His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, lays the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution. The Principia is generally considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope[8] and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.
In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 [NS: 4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian, has been "considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived."[7]
His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, lays the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution. The Principia is generally considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope[8] and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.
In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.
alwight
New member
No not entirely, rather like most geniuses. For him the Bible itself was a science book from which he has predicted that the world will end in 2060, so he probably was a bit loony. But had he been around after the Enlightenment he may well have simply stuck to real science rather than expect to find any in the Bible.
WizardofOz
New member
It doesn't depend upon the origin of the Moon at all. The recession rate is what it is and puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth-Moon system.
genuineoriginal
New member
I said earlier, "I credit scientists with having a worldview that affects their ability to interpret the data in any matter that disagrees with the
worldview they hold."
We know from science that Sir Isaac Newton's worldview that "the Bible itself was a science book" did not hinder him from advancing scientific learning. If you read much about him, you will find that his pursuit of scientific knowledge came from a desire to understand the rational and universal principles which God imbued into creation.
Creation scientists are following in his footsteps.
alwight
New member
Yes perhaps so, Isaac Newton was a bit weird and unorthodox it seems.:think:
Are you speaking of the base material of the earth or the top which was once only water until the land appeared and then again in the flood the land was turned over as the deep was broken up.
LA.