What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[funyun]

profound ignorance? or profound disagreement with many geological presuppositions?

It's of continuing amusement to me that people in desperation will refer to facts and testable knowledge as "presuppositions", "assumptions", or "presumptions".

 

[Uphill Battle]

It's of continuing amusement to me that people in desperation will refer to facts and testable knowledge as "presuppositions", "assumptions", or "presumptions".

you cannot test that contenental shift has always been constant. you can only assume it.

you cannot test that ice layers have been put down exacly like we say today. you can only assume it.

etc...
etc...

 

[funyun]

Look at plate tectonics. Look at ice ring formation, look at lake varves. What do they all have in common? Those who support these things as proof of old age earth, believe that the conditions in which things are currently working, is how it always has been. There has always been one annual layer. The plates have ALWAYs moved such and such a distance per annum. How can we possibly know this? We can't. We assume that they always have, so you can stretch it back in time and make a calculated guess at how things were in the past, correct? problem being is, I do not believe that all these systems have proceeded without change. I have seen evidences of rapid laminations. There is no way of knowing that the ice cores are taken from an area that has no signifigant changes in years past. We have know way of knowing that the continental shift has always been constant.

Uphill Battle, may I introduce you to the fundamentals of logic, starting with Okham's Razor? Just because something "could be" means absolutely nothing, and by "absolutely nothing" I don't mean a little bit. I mean positively darn-sure squat. My parents could actually be aliens disguised as humans who have been tricking me my entire life. Do you see why this is, given all the evidence, possible, yet a wholly unreasonable assumption? When you do, you will have a better understanding of the scientific method.

 

[nvxplorer]

Look at plate tectonics. Look at ice ring formation, look at lake varves. What do they all have in common? Those who support these things as proof of old age earth, believe that the conditions in which things are currently working, is how it always has been. There has always been one annual layer. The plates have ALWAYs moved such and such a distance per annum. How can we possibly know this? We can't. We assume that they always have, so you can stretch it back in time and make a calculated guess at how things were in the past, correct? problem being is, I do not believe that all these systems have proceeded without change. I have seen evidences of rapid laminations. There is no way of knowing that the ice cores are taken from an area that has no signifigant changes in years past. We have know way of knowing that the continental shift has always been constant.

While uniformitarianism is usually an assumption of geology, it applies to other sciences as well. Physics applies to everything. The implications of rapidly moving plates cannot escape the laws of physics. Not only would there be clear geological evidence of such movement, but such catastrophic events would leave their marks on life itself.

Being someone who believes in the global flood, it's not hard to see where Uniformity doesn't fit?

You are welcome to your personal presuppositions. I object only to the attempt at placing science on the same level. If there were flaws in science, they would have been detected by now.

 

[funyun]

you cannot test that contenental shift has always been constant. you can only assume it.

you cannot test that ice layers have been put down exacly like we say today. you can only assume it.

You're the one assuming things, since apparently you think you need a time machine to test things which occured in the past. I refer you to my post above, about Okham's Razor. A theory which multiplies entities beyond necessity is pointless-- and worse, worthless.

 

[Guywiththehead]

So, Uphill Battle, it is completely by coincidence that all these things point to an old Earth, but were actually faster in the past for no reason? Of course, they stopped slowing down once we could measure them, right?

You honestly don't see how pathetic and ridiculous that argument is?

 

[MartinM]

you cannot test that contenental shift has always been constant. you can only assume it.

you cannot test that ice layers have been put down exacly like we say today. you can only assume it.

Unmitigated nonsense. We test these things precisely by assuming them. We assume something to be true, work out what should and shouldn't be observed in that case, and compare to reality. It's called scientific method. Handy, eh?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Look at plate tectonics. Look at ice ring formation, look at lake varves. What do they all have in common? Those who support these things as proof of old age earth, believe that the conditions in which things are currently working, is how it always has been. There has always been one annual layer. The plates have ALWAYs moved such and such a distance per annum. How can we possibly know this? We can't. We assume that they always have, so you can stretch it back in time and make a calculated guess at how things were in the past, correct? problem being is, I do not believe that all these systems have proceeded without change. I have seen evidences of rapid laminations. There is no way of knowing that the ice cores are taken from an area that has no signifigant changes in years past. We have know way of knowing that the continental shift has always been constant.

There is still a problem here that you don't seem to be able to acknowledge. I will try to break it down further.

1) You say the Earth "looks" about 6000 years old.
2) You say we can not trust geological uniformitarianism essentially because "we have know way of knowing..."
3) If we do not know that geological processes operated similarly today as 4 billion years ago, then it follows from (2) that we do not know how they would have operated differently.
4) The Earth age of 4.6 billion years is arrived at by mathematically modeling said processes under the framework of uniformitarianism.
5) The Earth age of 6000 years is arrived at...?

If you deny uniformitarianism then without a replacement framework, anything goes. You have no way to deduce a 6000-year-old Earth by observation, inference, extrapolation, or anything other than an absurd formula cooked up by a self-important clergyman, using 3000-year-old Hebrew legends.

I really hope you follow me this time. I am getting tired of watching you engage in doublespeak.

Being someone who believes in the global flood, it's not hard to see where Uniformity doesn't fit?

A global flood and anti-uniformitarianism will not help you explain the meanders in the Grand Canyon.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So, Uphill Battle, it is completely by coincidence that all these things point to an old Earth, but were actually faster in the past for no reason? Of course, they stopped slowing down once we could measure them, right?

You honestly don't see how pathetic and ridiculous that argument is?

if, as I believe, there was a worldwid catastrophe, it would explain why things happened differently in the past.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

if, as I believe, there was a worldwid catastrophe, it would explain why things happened differently in the past.

Yeah, and if, as I believe, pi once equalled 4, the world would have been very different. However, there's no evidence that pi ever equalled 4, and there's no evidence for the worldwide catastrophe about which you are talking.

Of course, I can continue to believe that pi once equalled 4, and you can continue to believe in your worldwide catastrophe...but neither is a rational belief.

 

[Uphill Battle]

There is still a problem here that you don't seem to be able to acknowledge. I will try to break it down further.

1) You say the Earth "looks" about 6000 years old.
2) You say we can not trust geological uniformitarianism essentially because "we have know way of knowing..."
3) If we do not know that geological processes operated similarly today as 4 billion years ago, then it follows from (2) that we do not know how they would have operated differently.
4) The Earth age of 4.6 billion years is arrived at by mathematically modeling said processes under the framework of uniformitarianism.
5) The Earth age of 6000 years is arrived at...?

If you deny uniformitarianism then without a replacement framework, anything goes. You have no way to deduce a 6000-year-old Earth by observation, inference, extrapolation, or anything other than an absurd formula cooked up by a self-important clergyman, using 3000-year-old Hebrew legends.

I really hope you follow me this time. I am getting tired of watching you engage in doublespeak.


A global flood and anti-uniformitarianism will not help you explain the meanders in the Grand Canyon.

1) no, I say the earth looks young. the 6000 year old number isn't important to me, as I stated earlier.
2)right...
3) I don't claim to know how they would have operated differently.
4) right...
5)through biblical geneologies. I know that, you know that. If I believe the bible to be true, than it wouldn't be far off that mark. But the actual number is unimportant to me. I said "about 6000 years" because it isn't hard for me to believe it.

to be fair, I have never looked at the "meanders" in the Grand canyon. I have looked at other evidences that to me, suggest it was formed catastrophically. Let me look into that, and I will get back to you on that one point, if you care what my opinion is on it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Unmitigated nonsense. We test these things precisely by assuming them. We assume something to be true, work out what should and shouldn't be observed in that case, and compare to reality. It's called scientific method. Handy, eh?

what I really think bothers you, is that someone who is well educated, with reasonable intelligence (not claiming to be a genius, but I do not believe I am a moron.) can look at the same evidences you do, and disbelieve them. Isn't that really it? He MUST be an idiot, if he doesn't believe this! That IS the position, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[nvxplorer]

what I really think bothers you, is that someone who is well educated, with reasonable intelligence (not claiming to be a genius, but I do not believe I am a moron.) can look at the same evidences you do, and disbelieve them. Isn't that really it? He MUST be an idiot, if he doesn't believe this! That IS the position, correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you miss the point. Science tests its predictions and assumptions with evidence. You seem to be testing yours with scripture. Your assumption and test are one and the same.

 

[Donkeytron]

what I really think bothers you, is that someone who is well educated, with reasonable intelligence (not claiming to be a genius, but I do not believe I am a moron.) can look at the same evidences you do, and disbelieve them. Isn't that really it? He MUST be an idiot, if he doesn't believe this! That IS the position, correct me if I'm wrong.

The annoying part is that an educated person can have all the evidence in the universe and understand the scientific method and all its successes but still disregard them at his leisure when science conflicts with his understanding of hebrew mythology.

 

[Beastt]

What is the point of people who do not believe in God or the living word of God to feel so pressed to discuss matters of the Bible or the existance of God?

It has a lot to do with people who do believe in God and believe the Bible to be the word of God using their beliefs in conjunction with political power to control people of other beliefs. For me it also has a lot to do with people who use scripture as support for the belief that they are the only sentient beings of any real importance on the planet -- a belief they use to justify sickening levels of cruelty. As it is preached most religion is about love and caring. As it is practiced it's all too often about cruelty and control.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, you miss the point. Science tests its predictions and assumptions with evidence. You seem to be testing yours with scripture. Your assumption and test are one and the same.

Scripture aside, I still wouldn't believe in an old earth though. I learned about TOE before I became a christian. And I didn't believe it. BEFORE the scripture.

 

[Beastt]

what I really think bothers you, is that someone who is well educated, with reasonable intelligence (not claiming to be a genius, but I do not believe I am a moron.) can look at the same evidences you do, and disbelieve them. Isn't that really it? He MUST be an idiot, if he doesn't believe this! That IS the position, correct me if I'm wrong.

This would seem to be the position some Christians take when speaking to atheists.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It has a lot to do with people who do believe in God and believe the Bible to be the word of God using their beliefs in conjunction with political power to control people of other beliefs. For me it also has a lot to do with people who use scripture as support for the belief that they are the only sentient beings of any real importance on the planet -- a belief they use to justify sickening levels of cruelty. As it is preached most religion is about love and caring. As it is practiced it's all too often about cruelty and control.

is this science? or religion? cruelty is not restricted to religion.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This would seem to be the position some Christians take when speaking to atheists.

I agree. That is the positions that some Christians take when speaking to athiests. That doesn't make it right.

 

[Beastt]

1) no, I say the earth looks young. the 6000 year old number isn't important to me, as I stated earlier.

What about the Earth do you associate with being a young planet? How many old Earths have you compared this one to? Saying it looks young is one thing but so far, I don't recall seeing any qualification for the statement. What would it look like if it were older? How would it be different?