Proof that the Earth is millions of years old?

[drich0150]

Reality is not subject to change, but our perceptions of it are.

How does this differ from what i said?

I honestly think the bible is a lot of stores and lies. It just seems impossible for a book to keep it's integrity through translation, two millennium, roman consoles, and the genesis period where Christianity was first spreading. Not to mention, it's assumed that parts of the bible was written decades after Jesus death. I think it's much easier to believe the bible is just a collection of stories.

How can one truly "explore Christianity" if one has already made up his mind before he comes here? If you are not here to "explore" you are here to disrupt.. If you can verify this statement then you as a person and your intentions have been established. If you are still curious, ask again what I think about You specifically as an atheist.

as far as your "Beliefs" are concerned on scripture, at least you are willing to now admit that all you have posted are the simple beliefs, of an unbelieving man. Nothing more or less. It is your faith that has you blindly bound to your system of belief. Again all things being equal it is our belief and faith that will be judged. Will you be ready for that judgment? What will be your defense? Your faith? Your belief? What will you say when God shows those who use the same measure of faith to believe? What then? All you will have left is the condition of your heart. So i ask again, is your heart ready for that judgment?

 

[SkyWriting]

Fossils.

Carbon dating.

Can these things even be disputed? I'm a christian but there is no way the world is only thousands of years old.

whats ur take?

Reading through any version of the scientific method, you'll note that the foundation of the method is repeating an experiment by multiple people or by anyone interested in checking the experimenters facts.
This rules out "testing" history.
No version supports the testing of past events. The most sophisticated computers in the world can get the weather about 1/2 right 1/2 the time over a 3 day window. So beyond 3 days, we shouldn't give the predictive aspect of science much respect, forward or backward.

 

[Blue Man]

How does this differ from what i said?

What you said is that my reality changed. There is no such thing as "my reality". There is only the reality that I exist and my perception of it. Perhaps god exists. It wouldn't matter if I disbelieved or not, that would be the truth. Things do not simply pop into existence because I have begun to perceive them. They existed, and I perceived them as I experienced them.

Sorry if that sounds insulting, but there are arguments out there that perception creates existence, and the only reason we are able to perceive things we have not before perceived is because others have perceived it, and the only reason we're able to perceive new things is because god has perceived everything.

How can one truly "explore Christianity" if one has already made up his mind before he comes here? If you are not here to "explore" you are here to disrupt.. If you can verify this statement then you as a person and your intentions have been established. If you are still curious, ask again what I think about You specifically as an atheist.

What do you think about me specifically as an atheist?

as far as your "Beliefs" are concerned on scripture, at least you are willing to now admit that all you have posted are the simple beliefs, of an unbelieving man. Nothing more or less. It is your faith that has you blindly bound to your system of belief. Again all things being equal it is our belief and faith that will be judged. Will you be ready for that judgment? What will be your defense? Your faith? Your belief? What will you say when God shows those who use the same measure of faith to believe? What then? All you will have left is the condition of your heart. So i ask again, is your heart ready for that judgment?

I suppose I would plea that I am a good person, and given the lack of certainty on the matter, I chose to live as a good person instead of a person with faith and belief.

Now let me ask you the same question, what if Alah is god and you stand before him. How would you handle it?

 

[razeontherock]

I chose to live as a good person instead of a person with faith and belief.

This is not a rational dichotomy.

 

[razeontherock]

The most sophisticated computers in the world can get the weather about 1/2 right 1/2 the time over a 3 day window. So beyond 3 days, we shouldn't give the predictive aspect of science much respect, forward or backward.

I'll have to remember that one

 

[jonmichael818]

AGAIN, It takes a measure of FAITH to believe that those rates of decay remain constant throughout the "Millennia," and that no other variables can effect that rate of decay after our verifiable evidence proves.

The philosopher David Hume brought up something similar to what you are saying here, it is called "Hume's Problem of Induction."
It is generally answered by stating that one must start out with "laws of thought" or a set of very basic assumptions about reality in order to start a rational/logical discussion, otherwise we would have widespread very radical skepticism and society would not be able to function. Dealing with laws of physics, something is considered to be true based on the high degree of probability, and yes our understanding about those truths can and probably will change with the more information and advances we make in science. Thats the beauty of science, we are always learning more about this reality we live in.

 

[drich0150]

What you said is that my reality changed. There is no such thing as "my reality". There is only the reality that I exist and my perception of it.

Which is precisely what I said, maybe you should go back and reread what was originally stated.

Perhaps god exists. It wouldn't matter if I disbelieved or not, that would be the truth. Things do not simply pop into existence because I have begun to perceive them. They existed, and I perceived them as I experienced them.

But, at the same time your acknowledgment of certain aspects of reality will change, thus changing the way you interact with your environment. In essence your personal reality had change. Granted Reality is a standard, but our grasp of it is not. it varies with our personal understandings of it. No one can speak from, or represent this absolute standard of reality with out being all knowing. this is why I very specifically said to you: Today YOUR reality changed, note I didn't say The reality of cosmos changed to fit your understanding of it.

Sorry if that sounds insulting, but there are arguments out there that perception creates existence, and the only reason we are able to perceive things we have not before perceived is because others have perceived it, and the only reason we're able to perceive new things is because god has perceived everything.

It does not sound insulting to me nor does it read that way. Your statement reads as if you were trying to shift attention from the subject matter of "Faith" in science or religion to a matter of personal philosophy on reality.

What do you think about me specifically as an atheist?
I suppose I would plea that I am a good person, and given the lack of certainty on the matter, I chose to live as a good person instead of a person with faith and belief.

As i said unless you confirm your presents here as being purely disruptive, there is not much for me to say. Because my opinion would be based on your actual intentions on a Christian Forum that was set aside for those who wanted to explore Christianity.

Now let me ask you the same question, what if Alah is god and you stand before him. How would you handle it?

Note I asked you first. I will answer your question and I expect you to answer mine.

I would ask why is righteousness based on works? Why if you are indeed God did you not provide any sort of atonement for sin? Did you not foresee the need to bridge the gap from your perfect standard to what "we" are able to accomplish on our own efforts? Did you not know that having a performance based religion with 50 virgins as being your sole motivation or an eternity in hell for a deterrent would only bring the worst people to the top of this particular system of religion? Why would you only want to attract these types of religious fanatics, as your vanguard? If this is not the case why is your "bible" written that way? Meaning if you closely follow the Koran you do not work well with others outside of this degree of faith.

I can go on and on and on but at some point I am sure he would stop me and show me to my new home. Which brings me to my next point: If for some reason the descriptions of Heaven and Hell were some how reversed in the past and Hell was what we know to be paradise, but the God of the bible did not live there, and Heaven was a fiery pit but God did live there would you still want to goto Heaven (The fiery pit?)

 

[drich0150]

The philosopher David Hume brought up something similar to what you are saying here, it is called "Hume's Problem of Induction."
It is generally answered by stating that one must start out with "laws of thought" or a set of very basic assumptions about reality in order to start a rational/logical discussion, otherwise we would have widespread very radical skepticism and society would not be able to function. Dealing with laws of physics, something is considered to be true based on the high degree of probability, and yes our understanding about those truths can and probably will change with the more information and advances we make in science. Thats the beauty of science, we are always learning more about this reality we live in.

So, faith is required in science and in scientific explanation otherwise the very fabric of society will be torn from stem to stern, but faith in anything else is foolishness?

I believe you are trying to classify my efforts under someone else's work. So that it is more easily addressed. Honestly I have never heard of Davie Hume, I am not trying to undermine anything. What I am doing is pointing out (For what ever reason you feel it is justified) The Faith those of science have in their belief of "Facts" and the faith in what they consider to be "truth."

Look at the opening statement of this thread. This person honestly believes that just because "we" collectively believe in a specific process or branch of science. That there is absolutely no faith involved. When in fact all science is, is just another avenue in which to have faith. Faith in facts and theory is still faith.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Reading through any version of the scientific method, you'll note that the foundation of the method is repeating an experiment by multiple people or by anyone interested in checking the experimenters facts.
This rules out "testing" history.
No version supports the testing of past events. The most sophisticated computers in the world can get the weather about 1/2 right 1/2 the time over a 3 day window. So beyond 3 days, we shouldn't give the predictive aspect of science much respect, forward or backward.

You should look into science as a forensic endeavor. Of course you can't "repeat" the Cambrian, but we are able to apply current technology to help us understand quite comprehensively what things were like. To suggest something is unknowable because it is not capable of being reproduced is fatuous, and leads one to accept nonsense as a better explanation.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Look at the opening statement of this thread. This person honestly believes that just because "we" collectively believe in a specific process or branch of science. That there is absolutely no faith involved. When in fact all science is, is just another avenue in which to have faith. Faith in facts and theory is still faith.

Can you explain K-Ar radioisotope dating of igneous rock?

 

[drich0150]

Can you explain K-Ar radioisotope dating of igneous rock?

Will it help you to know God?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Will it help you to know God?

Let's start with something better defined, and stay with K-AR radioisotope dating of igneous rock. Could you please explain?

 

[Blue Man]

Which is precisely what I said, maybe you should go back and reread what was originally stated.


But, at the same time your acknowledgment of certain aspects of reality will change, thus changing the way you interact with your environment. In essence your personal reality had change. Granted Reality is a standard, but our grasp of it is not. it varies with our personal understandings of it. No one can speak from, or represent this absolute standard of reality with out being all knowing. this is why I very specifically said to you: Today YOUR reality changed, note I didn't say The reality of cosmos changed to fit your understanding of it.


It does not sound insulting to me nor does it read that way. Your statement reads as if you were trying to shift attention from the subject matter of "Faith" in science or religion to a matter of personal philosophy on reality.

That was sort of my intention. You had begun to give answers that weren't reasonable or persuasive. However, the perception of reality is also a good debate.

As i said unless you confirm your presents here as being purely disruptive, there is not much for me to say. Because my opinion would be based on your actual intentions on a Christian Forum that was set aside for those who wanted to explore Christianity.

Note I asked you first. I will answer your question and I expect you to answer mine.

I did answer your's

I would ask why is righteousness based on works? Why if you are indeed God did you not provide any sort of atonement for sin? Did you not foresee the need to bridge the gap from your perfect standard to what "we" are able to accomplish on our own efforts? Did you not know that having a performance based religion with 50 virgins as being your sole motivation or an eternity in hell for a deterrent would only bring the worst people to the top of this particular system of religion? Why would you only want to attract these types of religious fanatics, as your vanguard? If this is not the case why is your "bible" written that way? Meaning if you closely follow the Koran you do not work well with others outside of this degree of faith.

I can go on and on and on but at some point I am sure he would stop me and show me to my new home. Which brings me to my next point: If for some reason the descriptions of Heaven and Hell were some how reversed in the past and Hell was what we know to be paradise, but the God of the bible did not live there, and Heaven was a fiery pit but God did live there would you still want to goto Heaven (The fiery pit?)

So you would attack him with stereotypes and hate. Somehow I don't think god would be impressed with your answer (the Christian god, not Alah).

And as far as your question, I would want to go to hell. Did you ever consider the possibility that the devil actually wrote the bible, lead the Jews, and embodied himself as Jesus to get people on his side? Perhaps the real god created us, gave us sexual lust, compassion and love, and the devil came by and told everyone it was wrong, told everyone that they should pair up and get married, told them to kill brothers in his name, failed to rescue them from slavery for several years, lead them through the desert for 40 more years, told them to pray to no one else, inspired wars and such. I think it's a fair question.

 

[drich0150]

Let's start with something better defined, and stay with K-AR radioisotope dating of igneous rock. Could you please explain?

My involvement on this web site is not a matter of pride nor is it to be anyone's personal research assistant. If my efforts in explaining the K-Ar radioisotope method would help you get closer to God then I would do my best to explain this method to you. But as it is I will not simply droll on in a direction that will help you make a point against what it is I am trying to do here.

So if you want me to be involved in this particular conversation any more than I already am, then please explain to me How any of this will help you Explore Christianity further. Or How will any of this help you Humble yourself before God and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.

Otherwise you will have to simply make your point with out a lead in.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

My involvement on this web site is not a matter of pride nor is it to be anyone's personal research assistant. If my efforts in explaining the K-Ar radioisotope method would help you get closer to God then I would do my best to explain this method to you. But as it is I will not simply droll on in a direction that will help you make a point against what it is I am trying to do here.

So if you want me to be involved in this particular conversation any more than I already am, then please explain to me How any of this will help you Explore Christianity further. Or How will any of this help you Humble yourself before God and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior.

Otherwise you will have to simply make your point with out a lead in.

Your earlier statements regarding radiometric dating were, in a word, wrong. That you may not understand the process does not mean others don't. Your point was to somehow imply that somehow faith in god and 'faith' in radiometric were in someway on the same playing field, when they're not. If you have what you feel is a valid argument for a particular faith, then I suggest you make it without conflating that which we know to be a fact.

 

[drich0150]

Your earlier statements regarding radiometric dating were, in a word, wrong. That you may not understand the process does not mean others don't. Your point was to somehow imply that somehow faith in god and 'faith' in radiometric were in someway on the same playing field, when they're not. If you have what you feel is a valid argument for a particular faith, then I suggest you make it without conflating that which we know to be a fact.

then please by all means explain what you believe this process to be, and allow me the role as judge. If the truth be on your side then you have nothing to fear from my assessment. That is unless you are trying to misrepresent one method of radiometric dating for what I had originally posted.

Either way you have Failed to explain how any of this is relevant to your Exploration of Christianity. Therefore your efforts can be easily be identified by the Mods as a debate or even possibly flaming.. Both as you are well aware are against the rules. For your sake for the sake of your Christian Exploration I ask that either you make you point quickly or that you make your desire known so that all of your efforts are not simply deleted..

If you want to debate then start a thread in the correct place for this type of debate. If you want to know more about Christianity then I ask that you get to your point quickly.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

then please by all means explain what you believe this process to be, and allow me the role as judge. If the truth be on your side then you have nothing to fear from my assessment. That is unless you are trying to misrepresent one method of radiometric dating for what I had originally posted.

Either way you have Failed to explain how any of this is relevant to your Exploration of Christianity. Therefore your efforts can be easily be identified by the Mods as a debate or even possibly flaming.. Both as you are well aware are against the rules. For your sake for the sake of your Christian Exploration I ask that either you make you point quickly or that you make your desire known so that all of your efforts are not simply deleted..

If you want to debate then start a thread in the correct place for this type of debate. If you want to know more about Christianity then I ask that you get to your point quickly.

As I stated earlier, your understanding of radiometric dating is specious, thereby rendering your judement on this process even more so.

The point is, the process of radiometric data and obtaining the age of igneous rock is well understood. It is used and accepted world wide, about this there is not debate. You insinuated that somehow this process makes certain assumptions, and accepting it's metrics was somehow limited, and nothing beyond 5,000 years cannot be accurately known. This is false.

My entire reason for posting in this thread was to keep you 'honest.'

 

[drich0150]

As I stated earlier, your understanding of radiometric dating is specious, thereby rendering your judgment on this process even more so.

The point is, the process of radiometric data and obtaining the age of igneous rock is well understood. It is used and accepted world wide, about this there is not debate. You insinuated that somehow this process makes certain assumptions, and accepting it's metrics was somehow limited, and nothing beyond 5,000 years cannot be accurately known. This is false.

My entire reason for posting in this thread was to keep you 'honest.'

You have misrepersented my claim i simply stated that there is no way to verfiy data to support any dates prior to the artifacts found that have been sucessfully documented at or around 5000 years old. You see it does not matter what the popular belief is. If there is no proof, then there is no proof. whether you can admit it or not, your "proof" stops about 5000 years ago. Any dated items before that period will have to be taken on faith, as there is no direct proof to the age of the item in question.

In the spirit of keeping people honest, Please show me where I have misrepresented or even represented the process of obtaining K(Potassium)-AR (Argon) radioisotope data for dating of igneous rock. Perhaps you are confused or you simply believe I am. As per the OP my efforts were to generally explain the process known as Radio Carbon (c-14)dating. Which I have indeed represented accurately.

This is precisely why I would not describe a process that I did not originally represent. Because these two processes can be easily confused. If you are confused then it would be next to impossible for me to get past the pride one must have, in order to assert such a claim without checking his data. If you are not confused then I suspect that you are simply involved in an underhanded tactic.(Bait and switch) Neither of which I want to be apart of. Because either way if we start a discussion about your topic of choice you win, in that you have successfully changed the topic completely.

Again, if you wish to simply argue the pros and cons of these two procedures then please find the appropriate place to start your thread. We reserve this area of the site for people who earnestly are seeking Christ, not for those looking for a foolish or underhanded argument.

You would do well to remember that "the Word" is a double edged sword in that it cuts both ways. you claim to want to represent honesty, Honesty is what you have found. Now the question is: Can your efforts measure up to the same standard which you have so valiantly sought?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You have misrepersented my claim i simply stated that there is no way to verfiy data to support any dates prior to the artifacts found that have been sucessfully documented at or around 5000 years old. You see it does not matter what the popular belief is. If there is no proof, then there is no proof. whether you can admit it or not, your "proof" stops about 5000 years ago. Any dated items before that period will have to be taken on faith, as there is no direct proof to the age of the item in question.

In the spirit of keeping people honest, Please show me where I have misrepresented or even represented the process of obtaining K(Potassium)-AR (Argon) radioisotope data for dating of igneous rock. Perhaps you are confused or you simply believe I am. As per the OP my efforts were to generally explain the process known as Radio Carbon (c-14)dating. Which I have indeed represented accurately.

This is precisely why I would not describe a process that I did not originally represent. Because these two processes can be easily confused. If you are confused then it would be next to impossible for me to get past the pride one must have, in order to assert such a claim without checking his data. If you are not confused then I suspect that you are simply involved in an underhanded tactic.(Bait and switch) Neither of which I want to be apart of. Because either way if we start a discussion about your topic of choice you win, in that you have successfully changed the topic completely.

Again, if you wish to simply argue the pros and cons of these two procedures then please find the appropriate place to start your thread. We reserve this area of the site for people who earnestly are seeking Christ, not for those looking for a foolish or underhanded argument.

You would do well to remember that "the Word" is a double edged sword in that it cuts both ways. you claim to want to represent honesty, Honesty is what you have found. Now the question is: Can your efforts measure up to the same standard which you have so valiantly sought?

Are you or are you not claiming that we are not capable of dating anything past 5kya?

 

[drich0150]

That was sort of my intention. You had begun to give answers that weren't reasonable or persuasive. However, the perception of reality is also a good debate.

It is often difficult to find reason with one who disagrees with you. Perhaps this is why you are having such a difficult time identifying it.

So you would attack him with stereotypes and hate. Somehow I don't think god would be impressed with your answer

You misunderstand, there is no hate, only disappointment in that where I want to see a God of Love, who has sacrificed everything for the forgiveness of sin I find, an empty seat. a lacking deity who does nothing for his children other than to bribe them with a 50 carrot reward or an eternal stick. I see a God limited by the desires and fears of man. A God who can not conceive anything greater than what only the worst among us strives for.. seriously all stereotypes aside, Who wants 50 virgins? What kind of man wants, what the Koran translates into Virgins? the words can be translated into 50 unharvested (usually dealing with grapes) Or 50 young girls/virgins.. not women virgins but pedophile virgins.. and then what is your other choice? Hell.. So yeah I will be a little disappointed and welcome hell.

(the Christian god, not Alah).

absolutely no disrespect, but you would know this how? you do not even know God well enough to believe in Him, let alone make a judgment call about His character. Can you give one biblical example of God's grace and mercy to "other gods?" i believe you are confusing popular spirituality with actual Christianity.

And as far as your question, I would want to go to hell.

I want you to know that this response, Your response will ring in your head over and over as you pass through those gates.. Because you will indeed get what your heart wants.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the devil actually wrote the bible, lead the Jews, and embodied himself as Jesus to get people on his side? Perhaps the real god created us, gave us sexual lust, compassion and love, and the devil came by and told everyone it was wrong, told everyone that they should pair up and get married, told them to kill brothers in his name, failed to rescue them from slavery for several years, lead them through the desert for 40 more years, told them to pray to no one else, inspired wars and such. I think it's a fair question.

Yes when I was very young I present a question like this to my pastor and I though I was the bees knees for asking it Sunday after Sunday because he could not give me a satisfactory answer to me. Or at least I thought it was unsatisfactory when I heard it. What changed? I took his advise and earnestly ask God to open my eyes, ears and heart to the truth. this request took me through "hell" but never the less it opened my eyes ears and heart.