Question about Old Earth

[Melethiel]

A global flood like Noah's would make the earth look a lot older than it really is. It's no surprise that a lot of people think the earth is millions of years old.

Why would it do that? Please provide your reasoning, as I think it would do the exact opposite.

 

[juvenissun]

I think I follow what you are saying, did you mean 'than' instead of 'then'? My big problem here, apart from the fact Jesus showed us God speaks in metaphor, is what you consider 'reasonable'. Is plants aren't alive and animals may not really be alive either, a reasonable understanding?

No. First you would have to show heaven is simply a reconstruction of Eden, then you would have to ignore all the livestock, the birds of the heavens, and beasts of the field wandering around before God made Eve to keep things a bit tidier.

Yes, they can be reasoned. That is why I spent so much thoughts on the issue that plant does not really have a fluid called blood. I suggested that plants are not alive with many reasons, not just an idea.

 

[SkyWriting]

But then I would simply ask a question, which is essentially the heart of the topic and main reason why I opened this thread. What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?

Science has no historical dating methods.
The scientific method has no methodology for confirming
or denying historical events. Any procedure following the
scientific method must have reproducible procedures.
A past event is not a viable source for constructing a
current experiment.

The only thing science can construct is models of theoretical
past events to use as interpretation tools. They may be scientifically
constructed models, but they cannot prove historical events.

Proving my point, the "Shroud of Turin" could be found a perfect match
for every historical reference for location, time, even DNA traces to the people of that location & time. It still would not be "proof" that Jesus existed, died, and rose again for our sins. It would forever remain a matter of "Faith".

Just as all "Scientific History" is a matter of faith.

 

[SkyWriting]

A global flood like Noah's would make the earth look a lot older than it really is. It's no surprise that a lot of people think the earth is millions of years old.

When Jesus made water into wine, it tasted to the "Expert" of that day that it was the best properly aged wine.

9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside
10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

It's no surprise that the earth tastes, looks, smells, and feels like a properly aged wine as well. By every testable estimation, it would be billions of years old. The same is true of most every documented miracle in the scriptures.

Now, if you wish to claim that NONE of them happened, step up and make that claim. Don't beat around the burning bush.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

***Holds up mirror

Um excuse me, but you are better off denying flat out the flood happened whatsoever than argue it was local, because this is clearly a giant extortion of the text.

But we know the flood could not have been anything but literal, or you can explain to me how God managed to exterminate all life on earth "symbolically".

All you want to do is point fingers and pass the bucket? Own up

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I assume it would make them wrong.

I expected something along this line

 

[Papias]

Sky wrote:

A past event is not a viable source for constructing a
current experiment.

Sure it is. All you need to do is be able to make a prediction, such as "if OJ committed the murder, I predict that this blood sample will match his DNA.". The scientific method works perfectly well to study history.

As many people have pointed out many times, scientific facts are based on evidence, not on whether or not someone observed them happening. So we don't have to throw out all the evidence in the OJ trial, the entire field of forensics, anthropology, and so on. I don't know where creationists got the idea that they are to put more credibility in the Qu'ran than in the physical evidence, but they seem to repeat it over and over even after being corrected.

***********************************
Juvi wrote:

Animals ARE rational.

It's an obvious and demonstrable fact that non-human animals are not rational to the degree that humans are. I can't believe I actually have to type that.

***************

Signal4 wrote:

A global flood like Noah's would...

Metheliel asked for some basis for that unsupported statement, and I will too. Or is signal4 just a post and run creationist?

As I pointed out in post #25, the different dating methods would be affected differently, in ways that are likely based on evidence. Have you looked at that post?

Speaking of that, hey, Happy -

Did you see post #25? I haven't seen any response from you to it, and it took some time to check into the methods and their likely responses. Post #25 seemed to directly answer the question of the thread, unlike debating to what extent xylem = blood.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, they can be reasoned. That is why I spent so much thoughts on the issue that plant does not really have a fluid called blood. I suggested that plants are not alive with many reasons, not just an idea.

Just because you think it, does not make it reasonable. Seriously Juv, you are claiming plants aren't alive.

 

[juvenissun]

Just because you think it, does not make it reasonable. Seriously Juv, you are claiming plants aren't alive.

Yes, I serious do. This is one of my best understanding in recent years. I have several reasons (scientific and theological, they have all been polished in CF forums). And I think everyone of them is pretty good.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, I serious do. This is one of my best understanding in recent years. I have several reasons (scientific and theological, they have all been polished in CF forums). And I think everyone of them is pretty good.

And the fact you think it is a pretty good idea is an indication of just how messed up you reasoning process is. How bizarre would a conclusion have to be before warning bells go off in your mind? I remember as a young creationist trying to understand scripture for myself thinking what I really need to do is base my whole world view on scripture. Which was great until I came to those passages that if you take them literally describe a flat earth. Oops. That doesn't work, so I filed it away under 'questions that need answers'. I think I understand now, but the point is, we need to search the scriptures and try to find understanding, but that should not involve losing touch with reality. God is the one who created reality, gave us brains to understand it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Um excuse me, but you are better off denying flat out the flood happened whatsoever than argue it was local, because this is clearly a giant extortion of the text.

But we know the flood could not have been anything but literal, or you can explain to me how God managed to exterminate all life on earth "symbolically".

All you want to do is point fingers and pass the bucket? Own up

I really like that....symbolically saving Noah,s family and symbolically saving just these chosen animals from among the rest of the population while symbolically flooding the entire globe.

But not really doing it.....and....saying that you did.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sky wrote:A past event is not a viable source for constructing a
current experiment.

Sure it is. All you need to do is be able to make a prediction, such as "if OJ committed the murder, I predict that this blood sample will match his DNA.". The scientific method works perfectly well to study history.

As many people have pointed out many times, scientific facts are based on evidence, not on whether or not someone observed them happening. So we don't have to throw out all the evidence in the OJ trial, the entire field of forensics, anthropology, and so on.
Papias

No. It's not. A historical event is not part of an experiment, test , or procedure.

Scientific facts are based on evidence....

No. The facts are the actual evidence. Conclusions may be
based on the evidence IF the evidence is shown to have been
handled in such a perfect way that it is still in it's original condition.
That way it can be retested by a second party for scientific verification.
This was shown not to be the case and OJ was found not guilty
due to lack of evidence.
Or facts.

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

The facts are the actual evidence. Conclusions may be
based on the evidence IF the evidence is shown to have been
handled in such a perfect way that it is still in it's original condition.
That way it can be retested by a second party for scientific verification.

It's good that we agree that science can be used to understand the past. The evidence for evolution has indeed been tested over and over in many cases by other scientists, including finding the same conclusions by many different ways of testing, in different fields.

Regardless of the outcome of the OJ trial, we seem to agree that science can be used to test that event in the past as well.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

And the fact you think it is a pretty good idea is an indication of just how messed up you reasoning process is. How bizarre would a conclusion have to be before warning bells go off in your mind? I remember as a young creationist trying to understand scripture for myself thinking what I really need to do is base my whole world view on scripture. Which was great until I came to those passages that if you take them literally describe a flat earth. Oops. That doesn't work, so I filed it away under 'questions that need answers'. I think I understand now, but the point is, we need to search the scriptures and try to find understanding, but that should not involve losing touch with reality. God is the one who created reality, gave us brains to understand it.

This reminded me an idiom: the higher you go, the colder it becomes.

 

[SkyWriting]

SW wrote:



It's good that we agree that science can be used to understand the past. The evidence for evolution has indeed been tested over and over in many cases by other scientists, including finding the same conclusions by many different ways of testing, in different fields.

Regardless of the outcome of the OJ trial, we seem to agree that science can be used to test that event in the past as well.

Papias

Only those parts that are a factor in current processes such as variations in the species. Theoretical musings on origins is not a reproducible experiment. Nor is the increase of complexity and information over time supported in any way.

 

[Assyrian]

This reminded me an idiom: the higher you go, the colder it becomes.

Hypoxia?

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

Only those parts that are a factor in current processes such as variations in the species.

Why would you say that the scientific investigation of some past events (like Nicole's murder) is valid, while the scientific investigation of other past events (like evolution) is not? What difference is there?

Nor is the increase of complexity and information over time supported in any way.

Sure it is. In fact, we even have current observations on that, where mutations have time and again added complexity and information, and have even added whole new genes. Claiming that we've never directly observed that is like claiming that we've never observed a solar eclipse. Of course, in both situations if we hadn't, then their past existence would be well within the realm of testable science, as we saw in the OJ case.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

SW wrote:

Only those parts that are a factor in current processes such as variations in the species.

Why would you say that the scientific investigation of some past events (like Nicole's murder) is valid, while the scientific investigation of other past events (like evolution) is not? What difference is there?

If your going to challenge my comments: Quote me, then challenge what I've said.

Nor is the increase of complexity and information over time supported in any way.
​

Sure it is. In fact, we even have current observations on that, where mutations have time and again added complexity and information, and have even added whole new genes. Claiming that we've never directly observed that is like claiming ...<snip>

I don't care what it's like in your mind. Mutations are the destroyer of useful information. If you have a favorite published example of increases in complexity or increase in useful information over time, then present it. The idea is a part of modern culture, despite any scientific support for it.

 

[SkyWriting]

And the fact you think it is a pretty good idea is an indication of just how messed up you reasoning process is. How bizarre would a conclusion have to be before warning bells go off in your mind? I remember as a young creationist trying to understand scripture for myself thinking what I really need to do is base my whole world view on scripture. Which was great until I came to those passages that if you take them literally describe a flat earth. Oops. That doesn't work, so I filed it away under 'questions that need answers'. I think I understand now, but the point is, we need to search the scriptures and try to find understanding, but that should not involve losing touch with reality. God is the one who created reality, gave us brains to understand it.

I doubt that the rest of scripture was so clear and easy to understand that the word picture of the earth having four corners threw you for a loop.
Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
It was the language used in that culture, and is still appropriate enough for airline pilots to use as their flight plans. A flat map with four corners.
Imagine the difficulty of Moses going up a mountain. Almost as if the earth wasn't flat for Moses. And it says Jesus went up the mountain as well. The then there is mention of valleys. Even more conflict with the "flat earth theory" that was forming in your head. My grandchild is 4 and I think she could handle the passage without concern.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I don't care what it's like in your mind. Mutations are the destroyer of useful information. If you have a favorite published example of increases in complexity or increase in useful information over time, then present it. The idea is a part of modern culture, despite any scientific support for it.

My thoughts exactly.

This is only underlined by the fact that mutations have been statistically proven to be either deleterious or benign more than 99% of the time. According to natural selection, the vast majority (practically all) of mutations will therefore be selected against and disappear altogether. Yet, mutations are somehow the cause for a seemingly infinite amount of evolutionary processes that produced practically all modern biodiversity in its full complexity from macroscopic common ancestor(s).