The Danger of Creationism

[BPPLEE]

The Astrology and Physics Departments of major Universities across the world will disagree with you.

Why do think this is the case?

OB

I'm not going to argue with you. Just pointing out not believing some things is not the same as not believing in science. I don't believe someone can test a meteorite and determine its 4.5 billion years old when the same test shows that rocks formed by Mount St Helens are millions of years old

 

[BPPLEE]

Thats like a difference between a car
and a red car.

Believe what you want

 

[Astrid]

Believe what you want

Right. You invent s nonexistent distinction,
and its about me having a belief.
Way to own responsibility for yourself

 

[BPPLEE]

Right. You invent s nonexistent distinction,
and its about me having a belief.
Way to own responsibility for yourself

Do any of those entities mentioned say conclusively absolutely without question the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not going to argue with you. Just pointing out not believing some things is not the same as not believing in science. I don't believe someone can test a meteorite and determine its 4.5 billion years old when the same test shows that rocks formed by Mount St Helens are millions of years old

I assume that your reference to Mt St Helens relates to Dr Steven Austin's dating of the lava dome. Austin's work has been severely criticised based on poor methodology.

Even so - why would you use the results of a single instance of (debatable?) dating as conclusive evidence that all other dating of the Earth's age is wrong?

Dating has been done thousands of time using a variety of dating methods which all tend to centre on an approximate age of the Earth. Dating is accepted by all major universities and natural history museums. Dating methods have been validated by cross comparison and are constantly under review.

There's no need to answer this post but it might be worth thinking about what I've said.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

I assume that your reference to Mt St Helens relates to Dr Steven Austin's dating of the lava dome. Austin's work has been severely criticised based on poor methodology.

Even so - why would you use the results of a single instance of (debatable?) dating as conclusive evidence that all other dating of the Earth's age is wrong?

Dating has been done thousands of time using a variety of dating methods which all tend to centre on an approximate age of the Earth. Dating is accepted by all major universities and natural history museums. Dating methods have been validated by cross comparison and are constantly under review.

There's no need to answer this post but it might be worth thinking about what I've said.

OB

Do they say conclusively absolutely without question the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

 

[Occams Barber]

Do they say conclusively absolutely without question the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

Nothing in life can be said to be absolutely and conclusively true. I can't even give you a 100% guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I also cannot absolutely guarantee you that you won't be killed in a car crash next time you ride in a car. Your risk of death is far more likely than the risk of inaccuracy of radiometric dating - yet you'll still ride in a car. It's called selective (dis)belief.

Absolute belief is the province of religion - not science.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

Right. You invent s nonexistent distinction,
and its about me having a belief.
Way to own responsibility for yourself

When God created Adam he was a full grown man. You could have tested him and found he was 20 or 30 years old. When Jesus turned water into wine he did it instantly. It takes time to grow a vineyard harvest grapes crush them and age the wine. You could have tested it and it would have been a few years old. What if God created the earth the same way

 

[BPPLEE]

Nothing in life can be said to be absolutely and conclusively true. I can't even give you a 100% guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I also cannot absolutely guarantee you that you won't be killed in a car crash next time you ride in a car. Your risk of death is far more likely than the risk of inaccuracy of radiometric dating - yet you'll still ride in a car. It's called selective (dis)belief.

Absolute belief is the province of religion - not science.

OB

So no one knows. They estimate. There's a high probability. But nothing is absolute. See my reply to Estrid

 

[Astrid]

When God created Adam he was a full grown man. You could have tested him and found he was 20 or 30 years old. When Jesus turned water into wine he did it instantly. It takes time to grow a vineyard harvest grapes crush them and age the wine. You could have tested it and it would have been a few years old. What if God created the earth the same way

Thats the story. First 2 people, about 6000 years ago?
You have the one true and infallible understanding?

That of course has zero to do with a made up distinction
between science and historical science.

Science btw never claims " truth", " proof" or " absolutes"
Those are religious claims.

 

[Occams Barber]

So no one knows. They estimate. There's a high probability. But nothing is absolute. See my reply to Estrid

If you want to believe that your God faked it all up to look 4.5 billion years old I'm not going to argue.

I suspect you will get argument from individual Christians and Christian denominations who have no trouble accepting an old Earth and would find the idea of a trickster God a little offensive.

OB

 

[Astrid]

If you want to believe that your God faked it all up to look 4.5 billion years old I'm not going to argue.

I suspect you will get argument from individual Christians and Christian denominations who have no trouble accepting an old Earth and would find the idea of a trickster God a little offensive.

OB

And would want their understanding of
religion, and reality to kind of line up.
A religion that required belief in a moon made
of blue cheese would not suit thinking people
any better than literal genesis does.

 

[BPPLEE]

If you want to believe that your God faked it all up to look 4.5 billion years old I'm not going to argue.

I suspect you will get argument from individual Christians and Christian denominations who have no trouble accepting an old Earth and would find the idea of a trickster God a little offensive.

OB

It doesn't require faking anything.God didn't necessarily make the earth for the purpose of dating techniques to add up. That wouldn't be faking anything. Some believe in the gap theory and that accounts for the old earth. A gap between the first two verses of Genesis

 

[BPPLEE]

And would want their understanding of
religion, and reality to kind of line up.
A religion that required belief in a moon made
of blue cheese would not suit thinking people
any better than literal genesis does.

If you don't take it literally a lot of things fall apart. If there was no Adam who sinned there was no need for Jesus to die for our sins .

 

[Astrid]

If you don't take it literally a lot of things fall apart. If there was no Adam who sinned there was no need for Jesus to die for our sins .

Are you so unaware that millions of chridtians dont
hold to that view?
Simplistic fundamentalist beliefs have their strongest following
from the lower rungs of the socio- economic/;
education ladder.
Give that some thought.

 

[Astrid]

It doesn't require faking anything.God didn't necessarily make the earth for the purpose of dating techniques to add up. That wouldn't be faking anything. Some believe in the gap theory and that accounts for the old earth. A gap between the first two verses of Genesis

Faking

 

[BPPLEE]

Thats the story. First 2 people, about 6000 years ago?
You have the one true and infallible understanding?

That of course has zero to do with a made up distinction
between science and historical science.

Science btw never claims " truth", " proof" or " absolutes"
Those are religious claims.

I would hate to know I had faith in something with no absolute truth

 

[Hans Blaster]

So no one knows. They estimate. There's a high probability. But nothing is absolute. See my reply to Estrid

Given the geological data, what age (or range of age) do *you* think is likely for the Earth?

 

[BPPLEE]

Are you so unaware that millions of chridtians dont
hold to that view?
Simplistic fundamentalist beliefs have their strongest following
from the lower rungs of the socio- economic/;
education ladder.
Give that some thought.

Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and there are many who find it.

 

[Astrid]

I would hate to know I had faith in something with no absolute truth

Bingo. Its all about emotion