I reiterate
I seem to have missed it altogether
Perhaps you could give me a transcript of the talks as
I seem to have missed it altogether
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
YECs, did the universe begin?
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
Scientific explanations as to the beginnings of the universe is at the epicentre of man's foolishness.
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
While not in the talk, I did find this in regards to NT Wright:
"In terms of biology, I dont dispute that Darwin put his finger on a massive truth."
Wisdom in a Troubled Time by the Bishop of Durham, Dr. N. T. Wright
And another video, which argues for theism over epicurean deism
N.T. Wright - Evolution - YouTube
This is my interest at the moment in the science-faith discourse, the Biblical narrative must be understood through Hebrew philosophy, not this ultimately when it comes down to it Augustinian and Epicurean landscape where God is off in his bubble in this place called heaven and that is where we end up going when we die. I don't think the problem is "Creation or Evolution" but rather "Theism vs. Deism" and unfortunately I see too many people on the Creationist side on the deistic side, purely because they believe that God is off in his bubble or that they're going to go be with God in the bubble, our eschatology is thoroughly unbiblical when we state that God is going to put us on clouds playing harps and in many ways it is our eschatology that shapes how we view God.
Upvote
0
progmonk
Ok I have it now . You make a statement and say it is backed up by somebody, but when that persons public statements are checked nothing seems to back up your assertions. Then when you produce "the evidence" it still doesn't back up your statements . Tell me is there any reason why we should believe anything else you say?
Ok I have it now . You make a statement and say it is backed up by somebody, but when that persons public statements are checked nothing seems to back up your assertions. Then when you produce "the evidence" it still doesn't back up your statements . Tell me is there any reason why we should believe anything else you say?
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
TasManOfGod said:
He does. Finding a quote where he says it in those words might be hard to find as its a given in most of the circles he moves in, and it's not normally a topic he would be addressing. He's not a scientist and tends to leave the science side of things to those who are - especially John Polkinghorne who he very much admires on the science/theology interface. He's also a NT Scholar, so ends to spend his time talking about the other end of the story.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Try around 3 mins into this
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...mgQyOQ9PHhNvPTyrA&sig2=3k8YYB07wtEbp1faeNuimQ
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...mgQyOQ9PHhNvPTyrA&sig2=3k8YYB07wtEbp1faeNuimQ
Upvote
0
1robin wrote:
Did you even read my post #54? Here, I'll repeat this important point again:
The consensus view of the experts is very important in evaluating a truth claim. To point out the consensus view of the experts is not a fallacy, it is rather the appropriate way to deal with many claims, and we each correctly do this every day.
The fallacy of the appeal to popularity is when one points out that many people who are NON-EXPERTS hold a certain view. The opinion of non-experts is irrelevant.
1robin, do you understand that the view of the experts matters, while the view of non-experts is irrelevant? Do you see the difference between them?
I don't care what you think - and I hope you don't care what I think, because neither of us are experts. I was pointing out that the experts have long concluded that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
My point wasn't that you were doing this. My point was that creationist have fooled you on many points using these methods, and you have been too lazy to find out the truth (such as in the pine example).
I'm not asking you to "counter" them. I'm only asking you to see what the experts say.
No, you apparently have a lot of confidence in a creationist humans interpretation of Genesis, so much so that you ignore the theologian's interpretation of Genesis that allows for theistic evolution.
As for your cut and pasted list of creationist canards, there are too many long debunked falsehoods to get into. Could you please tell us first which creationist website you cut and pasted that from? Next, could you state if you are admitting all your previously pasted canards are false, before we get into new ones? And lastly, those aren't off the beaten path. If you had only checked the page I gave earlier, you'd have see that they are all long debunked creationist PRATTS.
Your last post shows why creationist is so harmful to Christianity. Creationism like your posts here makes it look like you are unable to reliably test the truth of all kinds of crazy claims. When someone looks like they are gullibly believing all kinds of junk, and then they turn around and present the Gosple, it makes the Gospel look bad. That's what I'm trying to prevent you from doing.
Papias
Did you even read my post #54? Here, I'll repeat this important point again:
The consensus view of the experts is very important in evaluating a truth claim. To point out the consensus view of the experts is not a fallacy, it is rather the appropriate way to deal with many claims, and we each correctly do this every day.
The fallacy of the appeal to popularity is when one points out that many people who are NON-EXPERTS hold a certain view. The opinion of non-experts is irrelevant.
1robin, do you understand that the view of the experts matters, while the view of non-experts is irrelevant? Do you see the difference between them?
I don't care what you think - and I hope you don't care what I think, because neither of us are experts. I was pointing out that the experts have long concluded that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
My point wasn't that you were doing this. My point was that creationist have fooled you on many points using these methods, and you have been too lazy to find out the truth (such as in the pine example).
I'm not asking you to "counter" them. I'm only asking you to see what the experts say.
No, you apparently have a lot of confidence in a creationist humans interpretation of Genesis, so much so that you ignore the theologian's interpretation of Genesis that allows for theistic evolution.
As for your cut and pasted list of creationist canards, there are too many long debunked falsehoods to get into. Could you please tell us first which creationist website you cut and pasted that from? Next, could you state if you are admitting all your previously pasted canards are false, before we get into new ones? And lastly, those aren't off the beaten path. If you had only checked the page I gave earlier, you'd have see that they are all long debunked creationist PRATTS.
Your last post shows why creationist is so harmful to Christianity. Creationism like your posts here makes it look like you are unable to reliably test the truth of all kinds of crazy claims. When someone looks like they are gullibly believing all kinds of junk, and then they turn around and present the Gosple, it makes the Gospel look bad. That's what I'm trying to prevent you from doing.
Papias
Upvote
0
I have to say that the people I have been discussing with in this thread have seemed far less arrogant or condescending that I am used to seeing from evolutionists but it is usually so prevelant I am always expecting it. I appreciate your candor.
He should not be completely dismissed solely because of his education however I understand the point. Many people have made huge breakthroughs that weren't formally educated. Is a PhD a requirement to be considered a scientist? (just curious)
Please keep in mind I have a background in math and engineering to some extent but not enough to consider myself completely able to evaluate advanced points, so much of my point of view whether I find the presenter credable. I recognize my limitations but what I was posting early in this thread was an attempt to indicate the volume of counter arguments against an old earth not the validity of any particular one. I know Christians apologists sometimes over reach or selectively choose data. I was taking that into account and even if 50% of the arguments for a young earth are bad science, (that still leaves 50%) I still think it is worth keeping an open mind as there is no need to make a binding decision about it./quote]
I did not pick any of these points or arguments for the reason that I have checked into them and find them especially good ones. As I have stated I was interested in volume at this point in the discussion and this was probably the first one I saw. It does come down to who you believe in many instances. This one is not one of those but many will be good science by good scientists and it will come down to which sounds more credible. It would require a very high degree of education to evaluate every claim independently on your own. This reminds me, I have asked many times what credentials the people have who are addressing me, and I have yet to get it.
I have heard this argument many times before but so long ago I can't remember exactly what it was. I think it applies a known star death rate against the known number of dead stars and this indicates a young universe The only thing that could make it invalid is if new stars are coming into existence hence the no new stars point. Don't quote me but I think that was it. From here on out I will only post claims I have checked out and have found logical. I hope this satisfies why you wanted me to respond to post #37 as that was 30 minutes I will never get back (just kidding
Upvote
0
It didn't actually state that they worked together it implied they worked in the same type of field and had a common viewpoint. The invention of the steam engine is contreversial but some sources list Watt as the inventor regardless they both advanced the technology of steam power. What does this have to do with the arguement itself?
Upvote
0
There is no way I can adress the many points that put forth by 3+ people expecting them. I have limited time and have disussions in other forums as well I would like any rubuttals to the points made before listed below:
Age of the earth:
(1) James Watt and Mr Newcomb (Inventors of Steam Power and the science of
Thermodynamics) estimated the earth age based upon thermal decay which is
how we determine about all of our heat processes and adding an error factor
of 2 to the calculation giving an older age the earth still falls less than
10,000 years old.
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway. If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']is merely a body in the Solar System[/FONT]e:
I am not claiming these arguments in particular are any better than any others. The reason I am interested in these is they were given to me by a very educated personal aquaintance who is a contributing author to several secular scientific journals and I have never heard them before. Also I have asked many times for the educational credentials of the people making counterpoints to any young earth claims I have made. I will respond as best I can but do not expect I will be able to adress every contention.
Thnaks,
Age of the earth:
(1) James Watt and Mr Newcomb (Inventors of Steam Power and the science of
Thermodynamics) estimated the earth age based upon thermal decay which is
how we determine about all of our heat processes and adding an error factor
of 2 to the calculation giving an older age the earth still falls less than
10,000 years old.
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway. If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']is merely a body in the Solar System[/FONT]e:
I am not claiming these arguments in particular are any better than any others. The reason I am interested in these is they were given to me by a very educated personal aquaintance who is a contributing author to several secular scientific journals and I have never heard them before. Also I have asked many times for the educational credentials of the people making counterpoints to any young earth claims I have made. I will respond as best I can but do not expect I will be able to adress every contention.
Thnaks,
Upvote
0
1robin, you really don't have time to answer this point??
(Copied from before)
P. S.
You wrote:
Did you read my post #54, where I responded to this? Maybe point out to your friend that regardless of what 1robin's credentials are, that practically all scientists reject creationism?
More importantly, you will not find a more impressive set of credentialed endorsememts than what is found here:
Talk Origins Archive Awards Page
(Copied from before)
Did you even read my post #54? Here, I'll repeat this important point again:
The consensus view of the experts is very important in evaluating a truth claim. To point out the consensus view of the experts is not a fallacy, it is rather the appropriate way to deal with many claims, and we each correctly do this every day.
The fallacy of the appeal to popularity is when one points out that many people who are NON-EXPERTS hold a certain view. The opinion of non-experts is irrelevant.
1robin, do you understand that the view of the experts matters, while the view of non-experts is irrelevant? Do you see the difference between the relevance of the views of experts vs non-experts?
PapiasThe consensus view of the experts is very important in evaluating a truth claim. To point out the consensus view of the experts is not a fallacy, it is rather the appropriate way to deal with many claims, and we each correctly do this every day.
The fallacy of the appeal to popularity is when one points out that many people who are NON-EXPERTS hold a certain view. The opinion of non-experts is irrelevant.
1robin, do you understand that the view of the experts matters, while the view of non-experts is irrelevant? Do you see the difference between the relevance of the views of experts vs non-experts?
P. S.
You wrote:
Did you read my post #54, where I responded to this? Maybe point out to your friend that regardless of what 1robin's credentials are, that practically all scientists reject creationism?
More importantly, you will not find a more impressive set of credentialed endorsememts than what is found here:
Talk Origins Archive Awards Page
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are right, I shouldn't dismiss him soley because of his education and that is why I went on to address the argument itself.
Like who?
At the very least they should be working the field with the actual data itself.
I contend that 100% of them are bad, as you will see as we go through them 1 by 1, until you give up on it.
So you are admitting that the amount of space dust implying the universe is young is a bad argument. Thank you for your honesty. Let's move on to the next argument you choose to use.
It would require a high degree of education which is why I look to what they experts are saying and provide references for my counter arguments.
I don't have the credentials of a scientist. I'm currently working on a business degree. Science is a hobby of mine, I am fascinated by it.
Thanks for replying, post #37 probly took me a half hour as well.
Please let me know what your next argument is that you would like to look at closely.
Upvote
0
1robin-
First, the most important point will continue to be the consensus view of the experts. I myself am a practicing scientist, with a dozen publications (including in the journal NATURE), yet even that is not enough to disagree with the experts. So I have the sense not to disagree with the experts, practically all of whom support evolution and a 4.6 billion year earth.
Second - I can give a short response to your cut- and - paste. If I do so, will you please respond to the point that credentials only matter if someone is disagreeing with the experts?
Because they ignored radioactive decay. However, your source has lied to you. Their calculations showed an age in the millions of years, thus again showing that a literal intepretation of Genesis was wrong. Here is the history: Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
NASA knows well enough to include radioactive decay, so this statement is obviously false.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
If you are going to deny radioactivity, please talk with a Hiroshima resident first.
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
False.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
False.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
False - neutrinos have been routinely detected since the 1960's.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
False - they are plentiful, as any geologist will tell you.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
False - it dominates the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
False, both because these calcs are bogus, and especially because river deltas change location over time. CD211: Age of Mississippi delta
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway.
No evidence for subduction zones? Wow, that's a pretty silly claim. - Geologists confirm that subduction zones are real based on multiple lines of evidence.
If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
No, those are other ocean bottom features. Looking at that makes it clear.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
that's because calcium based sedimentary rock like limestone is from fossilized sea creatures - millions of years of fossilized sea creatures. We can even look at it under a microscope and see the fossils.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
Because a lot of the sediment is small enough to be washed out into the ocean. This guy really is clueless about geology.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
Source? Really?
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']is merely a body in the Solar System
Wow, that's another howler! That's as bad as the creationists who say that the sun actually goes around the earth.
*****************************************
In summary, 1robin, these are terrible. They show massive ignorance of actual science and are an embarrassment to anyone uttering them.
Papias
P. S.
This quote from Saint Augustine is relevant to our discussion:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
St. Augustine
First, the most important point will continue to be the consensus view of the experts. I myself am a practicing scientist, with a dozen publications (including in the journal NATURE), yet even that is not enough to disagree with the experts. So I have the sense not to disagree with the experts, practically all of whom support evolution and a 4.6 billion year earth.
Second - I can give a short response to your cut- and - paste. If I do so, will you please respond to the point that credentials only matter if someone is disagreeing with the experts?
Because they ignored radioactive decay. However, your source has lied to you. Their calculations showed an age in the millions of years, thus again showing that a literal intepretation of Genesis was wrong. Here is the history: Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
NASA knows well enough to include radioactive decay, so this statement is obviously false.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
If you are going to deny radioactivity, please talk with a Hiroshima resident first.
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
False.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
False.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
False - neutrinos have been routinely detected since the 1960's.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
False - they are plentiful, as any geologist will tell you.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
False - it dominates the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
False, both because these calcs are bogus, and especially because river deltas change location over time. CD211: Age of Mississippi delta
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway.
No evidence for subduction zones? Wow, that's a pretty silly claim. - Geologists confirm that subduction zones are real based on multiple lines of evidence.
If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
No, those are other ocean bottom features. Looking at that makes it clear.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
that's because calcium based sedimentary rock like limestone is from fossilized sea creatures - millions of years of fossilized sea creatures. We can even look at it under a microscope and see the fossils.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
Because a lot of the sediment is small enough to be washed out into the ocean. This guy really is clueless about geology.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
Source? Really?
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']is merely a body in the Solar System
Wow, that's another howler! That's as bad as the creationists who say that the sun actually goes around the earth.
*****************************************
In summary, 1robin, these are terrible. They show massive ignorance of actual science and are an embarrassment to anyone uttering them.
Papias
P. S.
This quote from Saint Augustine is relevant to our discussion:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
St. Augustine
Upvote
0
Thanks I am not qualified to critique these type of arguments. I will give your responses to the scientist that sent them to me and see what he says. I do wish you had given me more of a counter argument rather than a general dismissal for some but I will take what I can get.
Was the Augustine quote relevant specifically to me or just the discussion itself. I have went out of my way to state that the bible makes no implicit claims for a young earth. It can only possibly be inferred by extrapolation which is contingent on which interpretation is used.
Are you a believer, I just assume it sometimes?
Upvote
0
1robin wrote:
I suspect your friend isn't qualified either, if he gave you that list thinking it was anything other than a joke. Even a freshman geology student knows better than these. I didn't want to spend the time on more detailed responses to such pathetic and often refuted claims, especially when you yourself don't seem to the willing to look up the answers to these on the talkorigins website I gave you.
Did you consider actually taking the time to look them up on the website (staffed by actual experts) that I gave you?
To the discussion itself.
Yes, I'm a believer. You can see that from my faith icon, and I'm posting in the "Christians only" section. Be aware that site rules bar the questioning of whether or not another Christian is a "true Christian", though we TE's get that a lot from "Christianer than thou" young earth creationists.
You also might want to ask your friend if he agrees with the statement by the actual experts, here:
sedimentation by the slow layer
from : http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos1_TeachingEvolution.pdf
1robin, I've asked you several times now if you accept that the consensus view of the experts matters, and that the opinions of non-experts is irrelevant. Do you still refuse to answer that basic question?
Papias
I suspect your friend isn't qualified either, if he gave you that list thinking it was anything other than a joke. Even a freshman geology student knows better than these. I didn't want to spend the time on more detailed responses to such pathetic and often refuted claims, especially when you yourself don't seem to the willing to look up the answers to these on the talkorigins website I gave you.
Did you consider actually taking the time to look them up on the website (staffed by actual experts) that I gave you?
To the discussion itself.
Yes, I'm a believer. You can see that from my faith icon, and I'm posting in the "Christians only" section. Be aware that site rules bar the questioning of whether or not another Christian is a "true Christian", though we TE's get that a lot from "Christianer than thou" young earth creationists.
You also might want to ask your friend if he agrees with the statement by the actual experts, here:
Many rocks of over a billion years in age can
now be dated with great precision. The ages of many rocks have been confirmed by repeated tests in multiple laboratories,
often using different isotopic decay schemes. The results are consistent with the processes that uplift the land and cause
the erosion and deposition of sediments. Geologists can now identify rocks that record hundreds of millions of years of
often using different isotopic decay schemes. The results are consistent with the processes that uplift the land and cause
the erosion and deposition of sediments. Geologists can now identify rocks that record hundreds of millions of years of
sedimentation by the slow layer
‐by‐layer accumulation of mud, the rhythmic rise and fall of tides on ancient continental
margins, or the slow back
‐and‐forth meandering of rivers in ancient valleys. Organisms that grow only a few millimeters
each year have formed reefs hundreds of meters thick. Additionally, techniques that date more recent deposits have been
repeatedly and accurately compared to known historical events.
1robin, I've asked you several times now if you accept that the consensus view of the experts matters, and that the opinions of non-experts is irrelevant. Do you still refuse to answer that basic question?
Papias
Upvote
0
I have answered that question many times if you will look back maybe everytime it has been asked. Yes it matters, to me it matters more than any single argument and maybe all of them. However before I slam the door on a young earth I will continue to keep an open mind. As I have said it has no effect on my faith and there is no reason I need to decide on it at this time.
I was not questioning whether you are a true Christian or not, I am answering posts so fast I can't keep track of the details. I asked because I respect your sincerity and wanted to know what you do with evolutions (assuming you believe it) implications of death before sin or why God would use such an inefficient, pointless, sloppy method of getting humans. I have looked up some of your sites but not all. I am mostly interested in discussing actual theological topics and have several discussions going in other threads so I have limited time. As I have stated many times I am not defending a young earth, and I don't even care that much about it or evolution as I have had a personal encounter with God that renders all these considerations less important.
Selah
Upvote
0
Calminian
Senior Veteran
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It is a clever question. When science is taken to its extreme, it comes upon a dead end called the "big bang." Since the Big Bang is illogical in my opinion, it reenforces my theory that science is a very limited epistemological tool, especially in the area of origins. I don't think origins can ever be a scientific question.
And since I don't believe God passively allowed the world to form naturally (i.e. scientifically), I have to turn to logic to determine whether the universe as we understand it had a beginning. My basic axiom is this. Anything with a beginning needs a cause. It is also axiomatic that anything caused must have a beginning. I also believe God caused all things apart from himself.
Therefore, I have to conclude that the universe as we understand it, space, matter & time, all had a beginning.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
