Which do you believe in the age of the Earth?


System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread for reference purposes.

September 14, 2009, 1:52 pm: System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread for reference purposes.

I don't know that I believe fully in either. But I sure as shit don't think creationism should be taught in a public school science class. I have absolutely no problem with them discussing it in religous studies.

Quote from redwing634 : neither creation or evolution can be proven. both require faith to a varying degree

Every time I see this thread necromanced, I get the sinking feeling that I'm actually in the movie "Groundhog's Day"

Quote from mammothwoolly : I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and I do not believe in the level of redaction you're ascribing to the text. Sure, some people changed a few words here or there, changed place names which no longer meant anything, stuff like that. But there is good evidence that the Pentateuch as a whole is as ancient as Moses himself.

If it is inerrant, then words and names and such would not be changed, you are contradicting yourself. Why would one section call it the staff of Aaron and other places Mose's staff.? Did Moses receive the Torah on Sinai or Herob? Of course that is only one of hundreds of contradictory doublets which give me strong evidence that this book was man-made, not divine. It all has to do with the various political and geographical separation of the various peoples and their own versions of the stories. In order to believe in the biblical inerrancy, your faith must supersede common sense. I'm sorry, I really don't want that to sound mean-spirited, I respect people's beliefs, but there is too much evidence against biblical inerrancy even among some very religious people.

Quote from superdan54 : Every time I see this thread necromanced, I get the sinking feeling that I'm actually in the movie "Groundhog's Day"

If nothing else, it's nice to see the old crew again. How's life Superdan?

Quote from IMMensaMind : I think you're drawing conclusions without basis. God is everywhere, and existed prior to existence. The very concept of God requires that. I have chosen to identify Him as the Designer. As for why a maker is required: this reality is clearly incredibly complex, and arose from nothing. I can think of no other way to explain it except that it was developed by something far outside of our realm of understanding

Believe it or not I have an instinctive belief that the universe was "made" by something (not necessarily an intelligence..but certainly some phenomenon beyond our understanding). It seems self evident that "something" can never come from "nothing"..but this brings us back to that damn infinite regress paradox. The question "Where did the maker come from?" shatters the issue into a million pieces for me and puts it beyond rational discussion.

Quote from IMMensaMind : This statement makes no sense. You think that Science has made belief in God unnecessary, but you also think that it's different than saying that it has eliminated the possibility of a God?

Making something unnecessary is different from eliminating it as a possibility.

e.g., Laptops have made desktops unnecessary. (A limited example, but you get what I mean)

Waiting on your replies to my other two posts...

Also, I flagged Gavica's post for ya.

Quote from Libertarian : Believe it or not I have an instinctive belief that the universe was "made" by something (not necessarily an intelligence..but certainly some phenomenon beyond our understanding). It seems self evident that "something" can never come from "nothing"..but this brings us back to that damn infinite regress paradox. The question "Where did the maker come from?" shatters the issue into a million pieces for me and puts it beyond rational discussion.

I struggle with your position, as I consider it close to breaking through to where I am. How can you instinctively believe that our universe was "made" (and i agree), but then not be at peace with the equally logical belief that what made it was Intelligent? It is purely logical to conclude that something not intelligent cannot create something complex out of nothing.

It would have to be intelligent! Further, our own Science has established that both Time and Space had to simultaneously spring into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. That means that what preceded it would have to be, by definition, infinity, thus eliminating your infinite regress paradox argument.

Quote from Epiphyte : Making something unnecessary is different from eliminating it as a possibility. e.g., Laptops have made desktops unnecessary. (A limited example, but you get what I mean) Waiting on your replies to my other two posts... Also, I flagged Gavica's post for ya.

Thanks - it was certainly an asshatish response I thought. Those pictures are old regardless. My oldest is now almost as tall as my wife, for crissakes.

Quote from Epiphyte : Why will no alternate answer never be forthcoming?? You can predict the future now?

No, as I've said - and as has already been acknowledged - Science only has the power to determine constructs within its own environment. It has to be wielded under the auspices of the Laws of Nature. Those Laws didn't exist pre-Big Bang. Thus: Science cannot and will not be applicable to any discussion/research/discovery prior. Faith is needed there; metaphysics is required there.

Quote : Just because it seems impossible to find out today, does not mean it will be impossible to find out tomorrow. Just last century our understanding of space and time radically changed. Why are you absolutely certain it won't happen again?

Because the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands that we had a beginning, along with Time and Space. That gives Science a hard boundary over which it cannot cross.

Quote from IMMensaMind : You cannot establish this as fact, because you cannot quantify the effect that something which you do not acknowledge has. It requires complete understanding of everything about our existence to do so, and you cannot establish that.

Are you serious?
I don't need to establish the non-existence of a god as fact to not believe in one.

Quote : Strawman - again. I'm getting tired of the strawmen in here. If you have to conjure an argument in order to defeat it, you should instead investigate the weakness of your defenses.

If it's a straw man, then restate your claim and be clear. I'm sorry I misconstrued it but it appeared you were using the idea of the Big Bang, including Hawking's comments to establish that there must have been a creator of the universe and it should be obvious to anyone. Are you now not saying that?

Quote : I said that I stick by my beliefs because they are rational and defensible. I am the one being targeted with vitriol and disdain. I have not uttered such a tone against anyone else. It it obvious I am just defending the legitimacy of my views here.

I am not attacking you. Please keep your comments to me about me.

Quote from IMMensaMind : This statement makes no sense. You think that Science has made belief in God unnecessary, but you also think that it's different than saying that it has eliminated the possibility of a God?

If you can't grasp the distinction, I'm not sure what else I can say to help you.
It is well believed that Darwin made the idea of a god unnecessary, even many religious people have said this as an accusation. However, science hasn't eliminated the ability to believe in a god as demonstrated by the millions of theists that accept evolution.

Let's say I can make an engine that can run on water. I have made gasoline unnecessary but I have not eliminated the fact that gasoline can still be used to run engines. In the same way eliminating the necessity for a god to intervene does not eliminate the possibility that one has done such. Science cannot speak to those things outside the realm of observation and experimentation. Just because I don't see a need for supernatural interference doesn't make that possibility nonexistent.

My personal beliefs about how the world works should have no bearing on yours or anyone else.

Quote : You're parsing, and contorting yourself. Earlier in this thread (like 70 pages ago), you and others were denying that Science was being used to this end. Now you're contradicting what you said - and exposing that my earlier assertion was totally correct.

There is no contradiction, it is a figment of your imagination. Look at redmaxx's sig line. Science does not attempt to disprove god. It does happen to be a by-product for some individuals.

BTW, nice looking family.

Quote from Epiphyte : You could use the same reasoning to discredit ANY scientific theory.

How? This argument is particularly applicable to the assertion that we've all evolved from nothing, and did so with no deistic involvement.

Quote : As I've said, every theory has its boundaries. Evolution does not deal with the start of life any more than Plate Tectonics deals with the initial formation and initial movement of plates.

I both agree and disagree here. The pure study of evolution can merely make observations about what is taking place in the present; what may happen in the future, and what may have happened in the past. Blanks in knowledge, however, are often filled in with political and loaded statements, such as the one darkfrog made, saying that Science has made belief in God unnecessary (which is baseless, IMO).

Those people's statements then beg the question: if they are correct, how can they prove it? They'd have to establish the nature of the origin of life, and explain it without involvement of a powerful outlier entity. That's not possible.

Quote : So, when you try and discredit it by pointing out something it does not address, you're not commenting on evolution at all.

As you should have seen throughout this thread, I'm not addressing the pure science of anything. I'm addressing the political motives of those who are attempting to use science as a bullhorn for their own socio-political reasons.

Quote : Edit: Evolution deals with how life changes. If there is no life, it obviously cannot change. So, asking "how did life spring from non-life?" is not a question about evolution because it doesn't deal with life changing, it deals with life forming.

This is a mischaracterization of what I've stated, and uses tortured logic. Evolution is the study of the advancement of life, not merely the changing of it. It is not a random process, because clearly things like sentience developed from non-sentience, and did so without programming - a fully natural process (if we are to believe the positions of the secular evolutionist). As such, it begs the question: if life is advancing, where did it start, and how did it start, if it was purely natural?

Quote from darkfrog : Are you serious? I don't need to establish the non-existence of a god as fact to not believe in one. If it's a straw man, then restate your claim and be clear. I'm sorry I misconstrued it but it appeared you were using the idea of the Big Bang, including Hawking's comments to establish that there must have been a creator of the universe and it should be obvious to anyone. Are you now not saying that? I am not attacking you. Please keep your comments to me about me. If you can't grasp the distinction, I'm not sure what else I can say to help you. It is well believed that Darwin made the idea of a god unnecessary, even many religious people have said this as an accusation. However, science hasn't eliminated the ability to believe in a god as demonstrated by the millions of theists that accept evolution. Let's say I can make an engine that can run on water. I have made gasoline unnecessary but I have not eliminated the fact that gasoline can still be used to run engines. In the same way eliminating the necessity for a god to intervene does not eliminate the possibility that one has done such. Science cannot speak to those things outside the realm of observation and experimentation. Just because I don't see a need for supernatural interference doesn't make that possibility nonexistent. My personal beliefs about how the world works should have no bearing on yours or anyone else. There is no contradiction, it is a figment of your imagination. Look at redmaxx's sig line. Science does not attempt to disprove god. It does happen to be a by-product for some individuals. BTW, nice looking family.

Thanks for the compliment.

Let me circumvent the rest:

Do you respect those who believe in God, and do you understand why it is logical to do so?

Quote from IMMensaMind : It is purely logical to conclude that something not intelligent cannot create something complex out of nothing.

True, it is supremely logical to assume that something never comes from nothing..including an intelligent and complex creator. I can't budge on that.

Quote from Libertarian : Something never comes from nothing..including an intelligent and complex creator. I can't budge on that.

You're not comprehending what it means to have the power to create Time.