Notices
Results 1 to 76 of 76

Thread: The Earth is only 6000 years old.

  1. #1 The Earth is only 6000 years old. 
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    OK, so some creationists believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. I've heard these claims as to why this is true:

    Why are mountains that are millions of years old, still jagged, when they should be eroded and smooth by now?

    Fossils can be created in a lab, therefore all fossils are less than 6000 years old...or...God created fossils.

    I'm sure everyone's heard the arguements for a young Earth, but what arguements against a 6000 year old Earth are the most effective?

    edit: whups...can a mod move this to the religion section?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    Bye! see ya in the religion section.


     

  4. #3  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Creationists are painfully stupid, as are their arguments.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
     

  5. #4 Re: The Earth is only 6000 years old. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    I'm sure everyone's heard the arguements for a young Earth, but what arguements against a 6000 year old Earth are the most effective?
    Darwin described On the Origin of Species as "one long argument" for the origin of species by natural selection. There was no single thing that supported the concept, rather it was the combination of evidence, logic and reasoning in its entirety that made the theory compelling. The same is true of the arguments against a 6000 year old Earth: it is the total weight of evidence for and the almost total absence of evidence against (other than misinterpreted mythical stories) that make science's current perception of reality so compelling.
     

  6. #5 Re: The Earth is only 6000 years old. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    OK, so some creationists believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. I've heard these claims as to why this is true:
    there's no accounting for credulity, but claims don't make something true.

    Why are mountains that are millions of years old, still jagged, when they should be eroded and smooth by now?
    mountains that are only millions of years old are not old mountains - they are young mountains, and still growing ...
    old mountains are hundreds of millions or billions of years old, and quite well eroded ...

    Fossils can be created in a lab, therefore all fossils are less than 6000 years old...or...God created fossils.
    logical fallacy ...
    diamonds can be created in a lab, therefore all diamonds are manufactured?
    ova can be fertilised in a lab, therefore we are all test-tube babies?
    water can be disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen in a lab, therefore the oceans could not possibly exist?

    I'm sure everyone's heard the arguements for a young Earth, but what arguements against a 6000 year old Earth are the most effective?
    Effective in what way?
    Effective at convincing "young earth creationists"?
    None ... faith is rarely swayed by evidence or logic.
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
     

  7. #6 Re: The Earth is only 6000 years old. 
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    OK, so some creationists believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. I've heard these claims as to why this is true:
    there's no accounting for credulity, but claims don't make something true.

    Why are mountains that are millions of years old, still jagged, when they should be eroded and smooth by now?
    mountains that are only millions of years old are not old mountains - they are young mountains, and still growing ...
    old mountains are hundreds of millions or billions of years old, and quite well eroded ...

    Fossils can be created in a lab, therefore all fossils are less than 6000 years old...or...God created fossils.
    logical fallacy ...
    diamonds can be created in a lab, therefore all diamonds are manufactured?
    ova can be fertilised in a lab, therefore we are all test-tube babies?
    water can be disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen in a lab, therefore the oceans could not possibly exist?

    I'm sure everyone's heard the arguements for a young Earth, but what arguements against a 6000 year old Earth are the most effective?
    Effective in what way?
    Effective at convincing "young earth creationists"?
    None ... faith is rarely swayed by evidence or logic.
    Well, if you're feeling rather bored, have a look at the Politics and Religion section of the stock market forums, and observe some of the points made in the arguement for creation:

    http://www.hotstockmarket.com/forums...splay.php?f=58

    There are no fewer than 5 active threads on religion vs science in the past week or so.

    Here's one worthy of a chuckle:

    Everyone agrees people have always believed in a God or gods, always.

    So when man "became smart" and invented atheism because he no longer wanted to follow Gods rules must prove that God does exist
    This is what I'm up against over there.
     

  8. #7 Re: The Earth is only 6000 years old. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    This is what I'm up against over there.
    It seems you have two choices, suicide, or stay here.
     

  9. #8 Re: The Earth is only 6000 years old. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT

    Well, if you're feeling rather bored, have a look at the Politics and Religion section of the stock market forums, and observe some of the points made in the arguement for creation:

    http://www.hotstockmarket.com/forums...splay.php?f=58
    I tend to ignore discussions/arguments over politics and religion, Gen1GT ... and for the same reason ...

    There are no fewer than 5 active threads on religion vs science in the past week or so.

    Here's one worthy of a chuckle:

    Everyone agrees people have always believed in a God or gods, always.

    So when man "became smart" and invented atheism because he no longer wanted to follow Gods rules must prove that God does exist
    My usual thought when these things pop up is, "the Vatican can and does embrace science ... what's the issue?"

    This is what I'm up against over there.
    Seems to me like you're in the wrong place ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    OK, here's the response I got from someone when I told them the onus was on them to prove that God exists, rather than me disprove it:

    Prove evolution... or prove the earth is millions of years old... or prove we came from monkeys Etc.

    Thats my point.. You can not prove squat.

    Science can prove lots of things... but mysteriously can prove NOTHING that shows the Bible is wrong.[/
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Don't our dating techniques prove the Earth is millions of years old? We can trace human lineage all the way back to Africa, which is where we find all of the pre-Homosapien, hominids.

    The fact of the matter is we have overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, if we didn't it likely would have been overthrown by a better theory by now.

    They want proof of evolution? How about bacteria that can digest Nylon, a substance that has only existed for 74 years. How about bacteria that are resistance to anti-biotics. All of that is evolution. You may argue semantics about that being "micro" evolution, not "macro" evolution, but what do both of those terms end in? Evolution.

    However the domestication of dogs is likely the best form of micro and macro evolution. You would have to agree that dogs are pretty far from acting, and looking like their wolf ancestors.

    Evolution doesn't work the way a lot of creationists think. A monkey isn't going to give birth to a human. A cat isn't going to give birth to a dog. Macro evolution is the accumulation of beneficial and neutral changes over long periods of time, not the sudden huge change into a completely different species. Have them look up the evolution of the horse, that one is very well understood.

    They have one book/account that says what they believe happened. We have thousands or millions of books, papers, and journals that all support evolution, the origin of the Earth, the origin of the Universe, etc.

    Evolution is accepted world over as being correct, by just about every rational person, and every scientist that is qualified to have an opinion on the subject. Creationism is accepted by religious extremists and fundamentalists, who tend to have little to no scientific training. What is more likely to be true?
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Science can prove lots of things... but mysteriously can prove NOTHING that shows the Bible is wrong
    It sad that he really believes this part. Ask him why the entire Bible has to be right for him to believe in God? Ask him if he believes because someone told him to, by reading book written by humans (the Bible), or because he feels the presence of God in his life.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Science can prove lots of things... but mysteriously can prove NOTHING that shows the Bible is wrong
    It sad that he really believes this part. Ask him why the entire Bible has to be right for him to believe in God? Ask him if he believes because someone told him to, by reading book written by humans (the Bible), or because he feels the presence of God in his life.
    Good point.
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Have them look up the evolution of the horse, that one is very well understood.
    Never recommend that one. The conventional explanation was flawed. At best it was bad science. At worst it was data manipulation. The more adept creationists can nail your ass to a wall with the horse example.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    20
    Prove evolution...
    The history of the carnivora animals we call dogs.

    or prove the earth is millions of years old
    Dating techniques.

    or prove we came from monkeys Etc.
    Aside from the fact that being a primate doesn't equal being a monkey (otherwise you might as well call Lemurs monkeys) we can deduce that humans are descended from extinct primates based on the fossil record. We can also deduce that humans are related to other living primates like chimps because of DNA.

    Science can prove lots of things... but mysteriously can prove NOTHING that shows the Bible is wrong.
    I'm fairly sure there's a lack of evidence that definitely supports the existence of a global flood.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Dating techniques.

    There are a large number of them, and it would take a book to describe them all adequately. Let me just describe just one.

    Alpine lakes.
    By this, I mean any lake that is liquid in summer, and covered with ice every winter. A large number of such lakes have been identified.

    Now, over summer, the lake is stirred up by winds, since there is no ice cover. Because it is stirred up, only heavy particles settle to the bottom. However, over winter, with ice on the top, the water is still and fine particles can settle. This creates an annual layer. Summer coarse particles, sitting on winter fine particles.

    This can be, and has been, proven by the simple experiment of dropping a bucket to the bottom of the lake, leaving it ten years, raising it and counting the layers.

    Now, such lakes can be studied by cores. A cylindrical sample is taken from the bottom of the lake, dropping a coring tool to pull up cores of up to a kilometre long. In this core, we can count annual layers. The oldest lake I am aware of is 2 million years old. That is, the researchers have counted 2 million annual layers.

    Of course, this is far from dating the Earth itself, which is 4.5 billion years old. However, it is a pretty good reply to some nutter who claims the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Alpine lake dating is 2 million. And that does not take into account the millions of years of strata under the lake!!!
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Have them look up the evolution of the horse, that one is very well understood.
    Never recommend that one. The conventional explanation was flawed. At best it was bad science. At worst it was data manipulation. The more adept creationists can nail your ass to a wall with the horse example.
    Ah I'll keep that in mind, thanks. I had heard it mentioned numerous times as being a good example, is this situation I was merely a parrot.

    Which is why I also threw in the evolution of the dog as better proof. Hard to argue against that one.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Which is why I also threw in the evolution of the dog as better proof. Hard to argue against that one.
    Easy. They are still the same kind. :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    the simple experiment of dropping a bucket to the bottom of the lake, leaving it ten years, raising it and counting the layers...
    Bulletproof. I love it.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    124
    well, how old are you dude ? 30 ?

    You know this because of your memories right ... but you have no way of knowing that they were not implanted into your brain by an alien-species yesterday morning.

    You just have no way of knowing whether you are 30 yrs old or 1 day old.

    Now you could say that that's ridiculous etc... but then if you consider how large the universe is ... maybe it's possible, who knows.

    You also have to say that as a homo sapiens even you can see yourself how primitive and flawed the species is and perhaps we shouldn't be so sure of ourselves.

    If you want certainty - if you need it - then take science or God. If you don't need it you can be open to possibilities.
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    the simple experiment of dropping a bucket to the bottom of the lake, leaving it ten years, raising it and counting the layers...
    Bulletproof. I love it.
    Demonstrate that the alternation of stagnant and agitated periods are annual. It it entirely possible these varves represent, until recent years an alternation between night (cold and frozen) and day (warm and ice free). Indeed those 2,000,000 counted varves are pretty much one a day for 6,000 years, so the data actually confirm a 6,000 year old Earth.

    As bulletproof as tissue paper.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    No, not really. In all actuality, Ophi, you'd then count 3652 layers, not ten, in the bucket. And also, many alpine lakes don't completely freeze over night, it takes days of below freezing temperatures to assure that the lake will freeze, not a single 16 hour span, and after the frozen stagnation it would then take time for the constituents to settle.

    While it certainly isn't bulletproof, it is rather strong.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ophiolite

    You cannot get layers in alpine lake sediment from day/night alternations, because the fines take too long to settle. A single night frozen leaves so few fine particles settling, there is no layer. It takes a whole winter to get enough fine material to produce that layer. And this is not assertion. This has been shown by actually doing the test.

    Alpine lake sediment layers demonstrably are annual (2 layers per year), and they can be counted.

    Sorry, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000. I will describe a number of other ways the dates have been worked out. There is nothing casual about dating. All kinds of dating systems have been checked against each other, and they clearly confirm each other.

    For example, in a way very similar to the alpine lake sediment layers, layers in glaciers have been observed forming. From direct measurement over a number of years, we see the layers appear. We know from this direct evidence that there is one layer per year. Scientists then take deep core samples from glaciers and count layers. They go back some millions of years.

    Similarly, we get dates from tree rings. Sets of rings from one group of trees can be compared to older tree trunks dug up from swamps or the bottom of lakes, and the rings dated back. One set may go, for example, from the present back to 1000 BC. A second set can be shown to have young rings corresponding to a time 2500 years ago, and the older rings in these trunks then go back to perhaps 4,000 years ago. These are compered to yet older trunks. This process has already been extended back to some tens of thousands of years ago.

    In addition, these tree trunks of known age (from counting rings back) can be used to double check carbon dataing, and have shown that carbon dating is accurate to within known error factors. Carbon dating can date organic objects back to about 50,000 years ago.

    A more crude method of dating to based on observations of the rate of sediment settling in oceans, under various sets of conditions. The sediment is then compared to various kinds of sedimentary rock, and an estimate made of how long it takes to form each metre thickness of each kind of sedimentary rock. The thicknesses of sedimentary rock strata are easy to measure, and a rough idea of how long it takes to form that layer can be easily calculated. Admittedly, this method has a large error factor, but it is still very clear that even quite thin layers of sedimentary rock took millions of years to form.

    An early system of dating bones was based on the known rate of fluoride leaching, which was determined by direct experiment. Fluoride in bones is easily determined chemically, and the amount lost is a direct measure of how long the bones have been lying. Such dates extend way beyond 6,000 years.

    And I have not even begun on the various methods of radioisotope dating.

    The age of the Earth and its various components did not come from any simple, single test. It came from a wide range of different tests which were checked against each other, until a coherent whole picture was derived. You can argue about error factors, but you cannot credibly suggest the Earth is less that 4 billion years old. The best date for the Earth is 4.5 billion, plus or minus a small error.
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Guys,
    tap..tap...tap. Anyone at home. Septic, you said it was bulletproof. I gave you an off the cuff response in the style of a creationist. Do you really think a creationist pays attention to the fine detail. If you insist I'll counter every single objection you have raised to my objection.

    In essence you can't win because I shall be employing a suite of tools that are more extensive than your puny scientific arguments. These include misquoting research, cherry picking evidence, appeals to authority, misinterpreting data, denial of uniformitarianism (with extensive, genuine scientific support), ridicule, exposure of controversies within science. And that's only the beginning. These will be ineffective against anyone who has been inoculated with a scientific education, but that would not be my target audience. I would be aiming at the undecided.

    Arcane, as a case in point you are arguing for the same temperature regime and settling events as we see today. The creationist will point out it is just an assumption on your part that they were the same.Indeed, the fact that the varves in the oldest Alpine lake neatly match the 6,000 year old age established in the Bible is clear cut evidence that this must be true.

    At this point, still in creationist mode, I would note one of two things, both intended to deflect you away from your attempt at detailed rebuttal. Either I would declare your ideas were only a theory. This would generate a spate of posts, some of which would be contemptuous and filled with ad hominems. I could then point out how rude scientists were (because of their atheism) and start another deflection by declaring theories were worthless because they were all based on assumptions.

    Alternatively I could declare that the settling rates were far faster in the past because gravity was greater then. This would let me push the debate into a sub-set of Expanding Earth Theory. The scientific contingent continue to become more and more frustrated by the string of nonsense being spouted, but the creationist sits back smugly, knowing that the uninformed have been kept unconvinced by the scientific arguments, for those have not been carried to completion.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    oh, you little devil's advocate, you!
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Your post should be stickied Ophiolite.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'm generally only sticky after sex.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Guys,
    tap..tap...tap. Anyone at home. Septic, you said it was bulletproof. I gave you an off the cuff response in the style of a creationist. Do you really think a creationist pays attention to the fine detail. If you insist I'll counter every single objection you have raised to my objection.

    In essence you can't win because I shall be employing a suite of tools that are more extensive than your puny scientific arguments. These include misquoting research, cherry picking evidence, appeals to authority, misinterpreting data, denial of uniformitarianism (with extensive, genuine scientific support), ridicule, exposure of controversies within science. And that's only the beginning. These will be ineffective against anyone who has been inoculated with a scientific education, but that would not be my target audience. I would be aiming at the undecided.

    Arcane, as a case in point you are arguing for the same temperature regime and settling events as we see today. The creationist will point out it is just an assumption on your part that they were the same.Indeed, the fact that the varves in the oldest Alpine lake neatly match the 6,000 year old age established in the Bible is clear cut evidence that this must be true.

    At this point, still in creationist mode, I would note one of two things, both intended to deflect you away from your attempt at detailed rebuttal. Either I would declare your ideas were only a theory. This would generate a spate of posts, some of which would be contemptuous and filled with ad hominems. I could then point out how rude scientists were (because of their atheism) and start another deflection by declaring theories were worthless because they were all based on assumptions.

    Alternatively I could declare that the settling rates were far faster in the past because gravity was greater then. This would let me push the debate into a sub-set of Expanding Earth Theory. The scientific contingent continue to become more and more frustrated by the string of nonsense being spouted, but the creationist sits back smugly, knowing that the uninformed have been kept unconvinced by the scientific arguments, for those have not been carried to completion.
    It's too bad 99% of creationists aren't so well written and put forth challenging arguments.
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Gen1GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    50% of scientists today believe in some form of personal God, according to a recent poll...
    Also according to a recent poll, 9 out of 10 dentists recommend brushing your teeth to help fight plaque.

    I think that 50% number is extremely generous. But even if we went with that large of a number, what does it tell you that the most intelligent humans on the planet are less likely to believe in God?
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    All kinds of dating systems have been checked against each other, and they clearly confirm each other.
    I disagree. In his book "Die Millionen Fehlen" (ger. ="The millions are missing") Hans-Ruedi Stutz gives 12 kinds of dating systems that can be employed to find the age of the earth, including: radiometric dating, the salt content of seawater, fossils and sedimentation, the Earthpopulation, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the lifespan of comets and the cooling of the earth's crust. If you put all those values into a graph you get something that looks like the Eiffel tower next to several cottages; the radiometric dating being the Eiffel tower. The difference in years between the age that the radiometric dating will give you and the closest one of the others (the salt content of seawater) is 4,538,000,000 (when the radiometric dating gives an age of 4,600,000,000 years) years, while the average of all of them is around 11 million years. And here we have a problem, because that does not fit into the evolutionary concept, but it also doesn't agree with the 6,000 that the creationists postulate. As far as I know it's an unsolved riddle.
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    All kinds of dating systems have been checked against each other, and they clearly confirm each other.
    I disagree.
    Disagree all you wish it will not alter the facts.

    The poster is implicitly referring to dating systems that have been well proven and validated. That practically limits one to radiometric methods. As he says these show pretty good conformity in their results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    In his book "Die Millionen Fehlen" (ger. ="The millions are missing") Hans-Ruedi Stutz gives 12 kinds of dating systems that can be employed to find the age of the earth,
    That would be the pro-creationist book "Die Millionen Fehlen" wouldn't it? Do you expect to get good science in a pro-creationist book?


    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    ) Hans-Ruedi Stutz gives 12 kinds of dating systems that can be employed to find the age of the earth, including: radiometric dating, the salt content of seawater, fossils and sedimentation, the Earthpopulation, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the lifespan of comets and the cooling of the earth's crust.
    I don't know what answers Stutz came up with, but you need to ask yourself why any of these answers would be relevant.

    Salt content of seawater: it has been understood for decades that the salt content of seawater does not reveal the age of the Earth, but the residence time of salt in the oceans. Keep in mind it is recycled through subduction and subsequent vulcanism.

    Fossils: Since all we can arrive at through palaeontology are relative ages of fossils it is rather pointless to even attempt an absolute age from these. Do you wish to develop Stutz's argument on his behalf? I'll be happy to correct any misunderstanding you or Stutz may have.

    Sedimentation: some plausible estimates were made for the age of the Earth based upon known seimentation rates and observed sediment thickness. These actually give good results of the same order of magnitude as the correct answer.

    The Earth's Population: this is just silly. The population of what? Rabbits? Goldfish? E.coli? Oh, you mean humans? Is that just homo sapiens or would you include homo habilis and homo ergaster? Are you taking into account the near fatal results for the species of the explosion at Lake Toba?

    Atmospheric Helium Content: This is actually an interesting one, but not because it reflects on the age of the Earth, but because it demonstrates we don't have a good handle on what determines the residence time of helium in the atmosphere, or have overlooked some aspect relating to helium sources. However, the helium content of the atmosphere is not a valid method of determining the age of the Earth. (It would be equivalent to determing the age of people on the basis of how much they stooped.)

    Lifespan of Comets: yet another residence time issue. Comets in the inner solar system either become inactive after losing their volatiles, or break up, or impact o a planet, or are ejected from the solar system. However, they are constantly replenished from the Oort cloud, so all the comets we see now are comparatively youthful in terms of their residence in the inner solar sysytem.

    Cooling of the Earth's Crust: hmm. Lord Kelvin has been dead for over a century. Don't you think it's time to put this one to bed.

    Welcome to the forum, by the way.
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    I owe you two thank you's, Ophiolite. One for the welcome and the other for the corrections.

    I do have a question though, which I should have already asked last time. What do you mean by
    All kinds of dating systems
    ?

    Do you expect to get good science in a pro-creationist book?
    Why not? Are you denying that creationists can do proper science? If so, why? Do you think that there are no good creationist scientist?
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    I owe you two thank you's, Ophiolite.
    My pleasure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    I do have a question though, which I should have already asked last time. What do you mean by
    All kinds of dating systems
    ?
    I am not sure who orignally posted the phrase 'all kinds of dating systems', but I took it to mean - this context - all kinds of radiometric dating systems. There are many of these, each one having particular strengths and weaknesses. The number of available techniques, the precision of these techniques and their reliability has steadily increased over the past few decades.

    Before radiometric dating was introduced (by Ernest Rutherford, just over one hundred years ago) scientists relied on relative dating techniques, generally using fossils. Attempts were made to arrive at absolute ages using some of the methods mentioned in Stuz's book. The problem with using things like sedimentation rates, or ocean salinity, are the assumptions one has to make in order to arrive at an answer. The assumptions turn out either to be wrong, or to have to wide a range of values to let one get any accurate results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    I owe you two thank you's, Ophiolite. One for the welcome and the other for the corrections.

    I do have a question though, which I should have already asked last time. What do you mean by
    All kinds of dating systems
    ?

    Do you expect to get good science in a pro-creationist book?
    Why not? Are you denying that creationists can do proper science? If so, why? Do you think that there are no good creationist scientist?
    I should clarify that there are many scientists who believe in God and who belive in the act of creation. They also believe that this creation took place 13 billion years ago and see no conflict between what science has discovered of the universe and its creation by a supernatural God. I was not speaking of these scientists.

    I was speaking of the Young Earth Creationists and those who reject the theory of evolution. These are the onee generally called creationist scientists.

    I don't think creationist scientists do proper science. I believe they could do proper science, but they choose not to. Scientists must always have an open mind. They may favour a particular hypothesis and seek to find further evidence supporting that hypothesis, but they must always be ready to reject the hypothesis if evidence shows it to be wrong. Creationists start from the premise that God created the universe, probably 6,000 years ago, and that man was not descended from the animals. They seek to use science not to support this hypothesis, but to disprove the alternative hypothesis. It's not science.

    I'll be happy to discuss this in more detail if you wish, or to answer any points you may have about what I've said.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    On cooling of the Earth's crust. This is no longer regarded as a suitable method for dating the Earth. Since Rutherford, we know that the decay of heavy atoms releases heat. The Earth has substantial amounts of radioactive Uranium 235 in its core, which decays releasing heat. In fact, the Earth is constantly reheating itself from nuclear fission. Thus, cooling is not a method to determine dates.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    The problem with using things like sedimentation rates, or ocean salinity, are the assumptions one has to make in order to arrive at an answer.
    I think I see what you mean, but I also see a small problem. As far as I can see the same goes for Carbon14 dating (that's the only one I can only speak for, because that's the only one I know about enough) , as the assumptions are that the organisms being dated had the same kind of carbon-input as similar organisms today. (Please correct if I say something wrong, this is not exactly my field of expertise.) I seem to remember reading that after some major volcanic explosion (might have been Mount St.Helens) scientists found a drastic increase in the level of carbon14 in trees' age-rings for that year. This would show that the carbon-input can and does vary, which would mean that the dating method wouldn't be very precise anymore.

    Scientists must always have an open mind.
    I agree with you here, but with a limitation. That openness of mind that a "perfect scientist" should have is limited by human nature. We simply cannot do science without any beliefs, much as we would like. That is easy to prove. A basic form of Gödel's second law (I don't know what it's proper name is) states: "One cannot prove a system using itself." It was originally meant for mathematics, but can also be applied to the natural sciences. One assumption that every scientist has to make is that the human mind is capable of drawing correct, logical conclusions. This assumption is impossible to prove or disprove, but every scientist has to believe. Why? Because otherwise he could work with any accepted scientific method. Likewise I believe that every scientist who looks into the origin of the universe has to have an a priori belief: either he believes that God exists, or he doesn't. If he believes that God exists he can furthermore decide whether he wants to believe that the Genesis account in the Bible is literal or not. These decisions are entirely up to him and should not in themselves hinder his scientific work. Of course he may decide to do unscientific work in order to further his beliefs (which, sadly enough, has been done by both sides in the Evolution controversy) but this is not a necessity of believing whatever he chose to believe. For this reason I do not think that we should call somebody's work unscientific purely on the basis of beliefs. It is the wrong criteria.

    Creationists start from the premise that God created the universe,
    And atheists start from the premise that there is no God. In my opinion these are two equal premises that can both be used for the interpretation of data. As these are both outside science (as they cannot be scientifically proven or disproven) they should be considered as such and not be called either scientific or unscientific.

    They seek to use science not to support this hypothesis, but to disprove the alternative hypothesis.
    Many creationist scientists (especially geologists) have come up with models to explain observations from nature in a creationist framework, so this is not quite correct; although many also do what you have said.

    Apart from that, I'd highly recommend the book "God's Undertaker: Has Science buried God?" by John Lennox (an Oxford professor, so don't worry about the level) to you. It's got a lot more detail on the theory of science in it that is extremely interesting.
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Creationists start from the premise that God created the universe,
    And atheists start from the premise that there is no God. In my opinion these are two equal premises that can both be used for the interpretation of data. As these are both outside science (as they cannot be scientifically proven or disproven) they should be considered as such and not be called either scientific or unscientific.
    You seem to be implying that the opposite of "creationist" is "atheist" and it is not. The opposing view to creationist would more accurately be described as evolutionist or even realist. One need not be an atheist to question the validity and irrational nature of creationism. Indeed many theists, several on this board, consider themselves evolutionists in the sense that they understand evolution is the mechanism by which life has flourished on this planet for millions of years.

    Finally, your assumption that creationist premises are outside the realm of science is one that might seem intuitive to you, but it really doesn't make sense. Either the world looks like life evolved (and all evidence points to this) or it doesn't. This is scientifically measurable and observable.

    The nonsense posited by various creationist myths, while based on religious mythology, is also testable by science since it involves affects in reality. Either they happened or they didn't. There seems to be no sign of creation in reality.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Just a point on carbon dating.

    This is based on theory but tested against fact. A clear cut dating system is tree rings. The science is dendrochronology. And there are dendrochronology museums with, on display, sections of trees with tree rings counted backwards to tens of thousands of years ago.

    You may ask, "how can this be done, when no tree lives for more than a few thousand years?"

    It is done by using packets of tree rings, like bar codes, which provide a unique dating code for a prticular decade. If a tree is felled, that is 3,000 years old, you can isolate many of these 'bar codes' showing dates up to that 3,000 year old mark. If you then dig up a sub-fossil tree and find those same 'bar codes', but on the outside of the truck, you know when it died. You can then count back from the known date some more thousands of years. Then an even older tree is related to that one by new 'bar codes' and so on.

    This process has gone back several tens of thousands of years already. In fact there is a research project under way here in my country, New Zealand, in which an especially durable tree (the Kauri - Agathis australis) is being dug up out of swamps. Carbon dating has shown some of those trees are more than 50,000 years old.

    Anyway, the point is that tree sections are located with known dates, from counting tree rings, back to several tens of thousands of years. The old wood is then carbon dated, and the date compared to the date from counting rings. This has shown, conclusively, that within known error factors, carbon dating is a reliable method.

    There are other dating systems also, including annual layers in glaciers, and annual sediment layers in mountain lakes, where trapped organic fragments can be carbon dated, and the date checked against the known age from counting layers. Again, carbon dating is confirmed.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    skeptic wrote:
    Just a point on carbon dating.
    I concede that this does appear to be a problem for the creationist point of view. However, you have to remember that no theory on the origin of the universe is without problems. For example, how do evolutionists explain this observation? In several places around the world one finds that two rocklayers, though they are one above the other and touching directly, have datings that are millions of years apart. In itself that is not so special, but the strange thing is that there are next to no traces of erosion where they join. This should definitely not be the case if they are indeed so many millions of years apart.

    SkinWalker wrote:
    You seem to be implying that the opposite of "creationist" is "atheist"
    Sorry, technical error. I should have used "theist" instead of "creationist".

    Indeed many theists... consider themselves evolutionists in the sense that they understand evolution is the mechanism by which life has flourished on this planet for millions of years.
    I do realize that, as a matter of fact I know some like that myself. With the paragraph that you were referring to I simply wanted to show that how "scientific" one's work is does not depend on what one believes.

    Either the world looks like life evolved (and all evidence points to this) or it doesn't.
    I'm afraid that it's not always as black and white as this. In science there are various occasions when there will be two schools of thought, both of which can explain certain aspects of the same sets of observations. For example, in geology there is a controversy whether the reason that the level of the oceans fluctuate is due to tectonic activity or due to the oceans themselves. It is therefore perfectly possible to have two seperate explanations for the same question.

    all evidence points to this (evolution)
    This is too general a statement. While there is plenty of evidence of microevolution (genetic change that moves either laterally or downward; e.g. the change in colour of the peppered moth or the fruit flies on the Kerguelen Islands that have a tendency to be born without wings); there is no evidence that I'm aware of for macroevolution (i.e. a genetic change that moves upward, e.g. if a new organ came into being due to a number of mutations). This is despite the fact of thousands of generations of E.coli being grown for the specific purpose of observing mutations (if they had a human lifespan, the number of generations bred would have accounted for over 10,000 years).

    various creationist myths
    Which ones? The flood? There's plenty of geological evidence for that one.

    Either they happened or they didn't.
    Either (macro)evolution happened or it didn't. What is the point of that remark?

    There seems to be no sign of creation in reality.
    The amazing complexity of life, the extreme fine-tuning of the physical laws to suit life on earth; those are the broad hints that there is something more than just pure chance involved in the world. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    various creationist myths
    Which ones? The flood? There's plenty of geological evidence for that one.
    I would love to see the evidence you speak of
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    The thing is with floods is that they are incredibly common throughout human history, and really prove nothing. Flood myths abound every civilization that lives near water. Nothing really spectacular about finding geological evidence in support of that.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    About the flood.

    There is heaps of evidence of changes in sea level. No surprise there. Changes in sea level fits nicely with the modern scientific view of the world.

    However, the myth of Noah's flood is of rainfall leading to the entire world being underwater, and that some time in the last few thousands of years.

    That description of flood has exactly zero evidence of a scientific basis. For example ; there is no fresh water sediment dating a few thousand years in the world's highlands, anywhere on this planet. Noah's ark was supposed to have settled on Mount Ararat in Turkey. Why is there no sign of a flood on the slopes of Mount Ararat?

    About macroevolution.

    You talked of new organs and of E. coli. Of course E. coli does not have organs, so the example is ridiculous. Macroevolution for E. coli is shown by biochemical changes, and plenty of these changes have been demonstrated.

    Macroevolution in larger life forms? These take millions of years, so it is no surprise that we have not seen that. However, we have a very detailed record in many fossil record lineages.

    Example is birds from dinosaurs. There are fossils now showing every intermediate stage you might like to think about. From two legged dinosaurs with feathers, but teeth and no wings, to others with feathers and gliding wings, to more with strong sternum (to hold flying muscles) and feathers and teeth, to those with no teeth, etc. all the way to modern birds.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic

    About macroevolution.

    You talked of new organs and of E. coli. Of course E. coli does not have organs, so the example is ridiculous. Macroevolution for E. coli is shown by biochemical changes, and plenty of these changes have been demonstrated.
    Maybe you misunderstood the point. I doubt that this person is arguing that there is no evidence biological diversity occurred because clearly it did. At the most basic level there was once no life and now there is a broad spectrum of life. This person correctly points to the fact that the process by which macro changes have occurred remains unverified. The most common theory has natural selection acting on genetic mutations as accounting for all observed diversity. This person correctly points out that that theory is nothing more than a just so story.

    Macroevolution in larger life forms? These take millions of years, so it is no surprise that we have not seen that. However, we have a very detailed record in many fossil record lineages.
    More speculation. Each new form identified by the fossil record could have occurred in a blink of an eye and the fossil record would be no different than what it is. The remarkable aspect of the fossil record is sudden appearance of new forms followed by stasis and then extinction. This pattern seems inconsistent with the popular theory.

    Example is birds from dinosaurs. There are fossils now showing every intermediate stage you might like to think about. From two legged dinosaurs with feathers, but teeth and no wings, to others with feathers and gliding wings, to more with strong sternum (to hold flying muscles) and feathers and teeth, to those with no teeth, etc. all the way to modern birds.
    Oh please, interpreting fossils involves creative license. Speculation and artistic interpretation is rampant. The facts are far less exciting than you describe.

    Even more significant, the fossils tell us nothing about the process that resulted in a new form and again let me remind you it is the process that the poster was focused not the diversity that occurred.
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Cypress

    Obviously we cannot observe as it happens events that take millions of years. Clear cut evolution with every step visible can be observed for certain microorganisms, such as foraminifera.
    http://www.foraminifera.eu/evolution.html

    Where a species reproduces rapidly, and leaves a clear cut fossil, heaps of fossils can be collected covering a period of change, and evolution can be seen very clearly indeed, as in the foraminifera mentioned, and also for radiolaria.

    For larger animals which produce far fewer fossils, it is like a process trapped as a series of still photos. The evolution of birds from dinosaurs is like this. Fossils of dinosaurs with feathers such as Sinosauropteryx are clear cut, showing a feathered dinosaur that is most definitely not a bird.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

    Later feathered fossils such as Microraptor or Archaeopteryx are much more bird like, though still have dinosaur qualities such as teeth, claws on the fore limbs, and a lack of a strong sternum for wing muscle attachment, and a reptilian tail with many vertebrae.

    Hesperornis was much more bird like, but still had teeth, while Confuciousornis had a bill with no teeth. However, Confuciousornis retained the wing claws that were characteristic of dinosaurs.

    These are just a very small number of the fossil pre-birds that have been discovered. There is a very clear cut picture of a progression from feathered dinosaur, to gliding feathered dinosaur, to flying dinosaur/bird intermediates, to birds with reptilian features to true birds.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    skeptic
    You talked of new organs and of E. coli. Of course E. coli does not have organs, so the example is ridiculous.
    You got mixed up there. New organs and E.coli were two seperate examples; the new organs referring to a hypothetical example of macroevolution and the E.coli to a real experiment with recorded observations. I never claimed either that E.coli has organs, or that new organs forming are the only example of macroevolution are new organs. By the way, I find it interesting that these experiments with the E.coli have shown that species seem to have quite a small "genepool"(i.e. after a relatively small number of different mutations the mutations that continue to occur are simply repeats of what has been before). This also shows that mutations do not seem to be capable of endlessly producing new variety, something that would basically stop macroevolution in its tracks.

    Noah's ark was supposed to have settled on Mount Ararat in Turkey.
    Correction: it was supposed to have landed on Ararat.
    and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The Bible, Genesis 8:4, ESV
    I know that modern Mount Ararat is in Turkey, but who says that one was? The text might be referring to a different mountain that had the same name at the time that it was written.

    There are fossils now showing every intermediate stage you might like to think about.
    However, we have a very detailed record in many fossil record lineages.
    According to whom? I'm not very well informed about the birds, but what about all the other "missing links"? James Valentine recently stated that species that can be found in the fossil record appear already completed, change very little and then disappear again the way they came ("On the Origin of Phyla").

    Escherichia wrote:
    Quote:
    various creationist myths


    Which ones? The flood? There's plenty of geological evidence for that one.

    I would love to see the evidence you speak of
    I'm afraid it's been some time since I read about that, I'd need to check that one up again to make sure I don't bring any false statements.

    Clear cut evolution with every step visible can be observed for certain microorganisms, such as foraminifera.
    http://www.foraminifera.eu/evolution.html
    I looked at that site, but as far as I can see that only talks about microevolution.
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    Noah's ark was supposed to have settled on Mount Ararat in Turkey.
    Correction: it was supposed to have landed on Ararat.
    and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The Bible, Genesis 8:4, ESV
    I know that modern Mount Ararat is in Turkey, but who says that one was? The text might be referring to a different mountain that had the same name at the time that it was written.
    Semantics...

    Escherichia wrote:
    Quote:
    various creationist myths


    Which ones? The flood? There's plenty of geological evidence for that one.

    I would love to see the evidence you speak of
    I'm afraid it's been some time since I read about that, I'd need to check that one up again to make sure I don't bring any false statements.[/quote]
    I can wait. Again, I'd love to see your evidence of a flood. And, for that matter, any evidence of an ark that held a breeding pair of all of the species of the world.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Evidence of a flood is easy. The sea level has risen 120 metres world wide since the end of the last glaciation period about 12,000 years ago. For example : there are coral species (dead) 120 metres deep off the edge of the Great Barrier Reef which are dated back that far (by carbon dating) and which are known to thrive in shallow waters only.

    There are even stone age human artifacts found off shore from Britain, from settlements that are now under water.

    However, a rise in sea level is not Noah's flood. If the religious True Believers among us bring forward evidence of a flood, I do not want to see what scientists already know. I want to see evidence of the specific flood that is mentioned in the bible. One caused by heavy rain (fresh water) and which covered the world.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    The best evidence that I could think of quickly of the worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible is found in anthropology. On every continent there are cultures that have the story of a similar flood in some form or another, over a hundred all together. Many of these live far away from the sea (there's at least one that's right in the middle of Asia), so this worldwide flood could not have come from experience of a smaller flood. There are also many stories of some kind of tower being built like the Tower of Babel in the Bible. As several ancient stories have been shown to have a true underlying fact (think of Iliad and Schliemann finding Troy), it is highly probable that there is some element of truth in these stories. Apart from that, as the Bible is the oldest of these stories (as far as is currently known), it is reasonable to suggest that it is the true version.
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    Many of these live far away from the sea (there's at least one that's right in the middle of Asia), so this worldwide flood could not have come from experience of a smaller flood.
    That is an illogical conclusion. Small, local, but disastrous floods are commonplace over a long time interval. It is wholly reasonable that many cultures would preserve the memory of such floods. (I take it you have never been the victim of a flash flood in a desert wadi. If youhad been your great grandchildren would still be telling the tale to their grandchildren.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    As several ancient stories have been shown to have a true underlying fact (think of Iliad and Schliemann finding Troy), it is highly probable that there is some element of truth in these stories.
    I've used this argument myself, but would you like to give me three examples that are not Troy? I shall be surprised if you can give me one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    Apart from that, as the Bible is the oldest of these stories (as far as is currently known), it is reasonable to suggest that it is the true version.
    The Bible version is predated by a Sumerian version.
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    The best evidence that I could think of quickly of the worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible is found in anthropology. On every continent there are cultures that have the story of a similar flood in some form or another, over a hundred all together. Many of these live far away from the sea (there's at least one that's right in the middle of Asia), so this worldwide flood could not have come from experience of a smaller flood. There are also many stories of some kind of tower being built like the Tower of Babel in the Bible. As several ancient stories have been shown to have a true underlying fact (think of Iliad and Schliemann finding Troy), it is highly probable that there is some element of truth in these stories. Apart from that, as the Bible is the oldest of these stories (as far as is currently known), it is reasonable to suggest that it is the true version.
    Asia, Where the most devestating floods on the planet happen, is your "evidence"? Rivers are the core supply of life. Rivers flood. You don't need a sea to experience a flood. Just look at the Yangtze, The Yellow River, The Mississippi, The Colorado, The Amazon, The Nile, etc, etc.

    Floods happen everywhere, all the time, regardless of what's around. Death Valley floods, as do the Gobi, and even The Sahara(Though not in whole at any one point in time).



    Every culture likes towers. Tall is anthropologically seen to be a sign of power. I's extravagant, and as such is not easily attained. So, of course there are tower stories in every culture. Honestly, there is no evidence here of anything



    What stories have proven underlying fact? Are these "facts" distinguishable through the massive embellishments? Are these "facts" indicative of other stories being based on facts? Are all ancient stories based on facts?



    As for the Bible, as has been posted, in this thread even I believe, The epic Gilgamesh predates it. And many stories in the bible are obviously not based on fact, and even the ones that might be, the stories are heavily embellished, changed, and none of it is first hand knowledge. Seriously, dude, there is nothing contained in the bible that is useful as "evidence". The fact that you think the bible is evidence of anything simply shows your dogmatic bias.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    The best evidence that I could think of quickly of the worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible is found in anthropology.
    As an anthropologist, I feel uniquely qualified then to address this.

    On every continent there are cultures that have the story of a similar flood in some form or another, over a hundred all together. Many of these live far away from the sea (there's at least one that's right in the middle of Asia), so this worldwide flood could not have come from experience of a smaller flood.
    There are, indeed, several stories around the globe that bear striking resemblance to the noachian flood myth, as well as its earlier, albeit less devastating, Mesopotamian progenitors. However, there is much to be said for what the common element truly is: people. Humans throughout history and prehistory have resided near water, particularly in the lacustrine and riverine environments so prone to significant, devastating floods which no doubt wiped out entire settlements. Such is the nature of humans: we need water and to be close to it. For drinking; for bathing; for irrigating crops; to hunt or gather wild game and plants; and just because its aesthetically pleasing.

    There's also much to be said, though somewhat less than the above, about cultural diffusion. The Christian Spaniards who invaded Mesoamerica brought with them cult doctrines which they demanded to be followed and revered. The only written texts of the New World belonged to the Maya, which Bishop de Landa systematically destroyed all trace of. The Popol Vuh, which today contains a flood narrative, may very well have been influenced by the cult doctrines and practices of the Spaniards, their own cult practices becoming a palimpsest of dogma.

    There are also many stories of some kind of tower being built like the Tower of Babel in the Bible.
    Mesopotamian cult practices included the erection of ziggurats, these monumental temples that were built to lift the priestly class "on high" as is customary of Sumerian and Akkadian cult found in texts preserved in fired clay tablets. These ziggurats were not uncommon in Mesopotamia and were the largest structures known. They may very well have been the impetus for the "tower of Babylon" story in biblical mythology. Such myths often have some kernel of truth, though it is generally far removed from the resulting narrative.

    As several ancient stories have been shown to have a true underlying fact (think of Iliad and Schliemann finding Troy), it is highly probable that there is some element of truth in these stories
    .

    To be fair, Troy is still an assumed site. To my knowledge, there has yet to be a discovery in any of the levels of the site of an artifact that says "this is Troy." In nearly every ancient city of its day, Athens, Sparta, etc., there are clear indicators that X marks the spot with regard to the site. Still, I think its very likely that this is the same city that inspired the oral stories from which Homer wrote The Iliad and The Odyssey, but I see no reason to think these stories are historical accounts. Like biblical mythology, they speak of real places and events that may or may not have happened, but the larger claims of the narratives are mythical at best.

    Apart from that, as the Bible is the oldest of these stories (as far as is currently known), it is reasonable to suggest that it is the true version.
    "As far as is currently known" by whom? There are currently known stories that are far older than any of the biblical myths. Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, ... just to name a few. Much of biblical mythology can be directly traced to other ancient Near Eastern texts. It is, therefore, not reasonable in the slightest to suggest that biblical mythology is "the true version." Indeed, such a suggestion makes sense only from the one-sided position of preconceived conclusion held by superstitious followers of Judeo-Christian cult doctrine.
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    As an anthropologist, I feel uniquely qualified then to address this.
    In fairness, since other anthropologists could address it, it doesn't actually make you unique. :wink:
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    As an anthropologist, I feel uniquely qualified then to address this.
    In fairness, since other anthropologists could address it, it doesn't actually make you unique. :wink:
    So true, but the uniqueness I felt wasn't that I alone could address it, but that I finally have a topic I know something about. Among the many math, chemistry and physics geeks on this board, I suddenly stand out from the crowd :-)
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    First of all, concerning the Gilgamesh. According to Alexander vom Stein this is actually not the older than the Bible account, but I'd have to read up the details again.

    I agree with SkinWalker when he says that a few flood-stories might have been inspired by missionaries, but that would not explain all of them, because quite a few of the tribes that had these stories were discovered by anthropologists, not missionaries.

    The fact that you think the bible is evidence of anything simply shows your dogmatic bias.
    Of course it does, but don't tell me that you don't have any. As I believe I pointed out earlier it is necessary to have certain a priori beliefs when investigating the beginning of this Universe.
    And many stories in the bible are obviously not based on fact, and even the ones that might be, the stories are heavily embellished, changed, and none of it is first hand knowledge.
    You obviously have a bias against the Bible. I would like to know though why you have such strong feelings against it. Especially because several stories in the Bible have archeological and other historical evidence for them.

    would you like to give me three examples that are not Troy?
    I couldn't quite come up with three, but I believe that Timbuktu was thought to be a legend back in Victorian times, until it was actually discovered. Or the tale of El Dorado, though later greatly exaggerated, was based on an ancient South American custom. Unless my (non-Christian) books tell lies, these are further examples of what I was talking about.
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    I agree with SkinWalker when he says that a few flood-stories might have been inspired by missionaries, but that would not explain all of them,
    The rest are expectedly explained by the very fact that people live near water, weather and climate are unpredictable, and the effects of extreme weather can be flooding -sometimes disastrous and catastrophic. These sorts of significant events will always be told as stories by humans. If you ever visit Johnstown, PA and hang out at a local public house, you're very likely to hear someone of a young generation tell a tale about the flood that wiped out the town in 1889. Over 2,000 people were killed, but the story has taken on mythic proportions in just a few generations.

    because quite a few of the tribes that had these stories were discovered by anthropologists, not missionaries.
    Which "tribes" are these and where are the accounts of their stories?
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Escherichia said :

    "Especially because several stories in the Bible have archeological and other historical evidence for them. "

    And if I read the novels of Wilbur Smith, I will find that a lot of the historical references are exactly correct. Yet this does not alter the fact that these are fictional thrillers about people who never existed, and about events that never happened. The novels of Wilbur Smith are, however, ethically a major step above the bible, since Smith admits they are fiction. Those who tout the bible are too dishonest to admit that it also is fiction (apart from the historical background).
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    First of all, concerning the Gilgamesh. According to Alexander vom Stein this is actually not the older than the Bible account, but I'd have to read up the details again.
    Wikipedia disagrees with Alexander vom Stein

    Plus, I couldn't find much about this person through an internet search aside from the fact that he is a certified biologist who wrote a book on creation... I doubt he's qualified in the necessary fields to refute the age of a Sumerian text.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    Which "tribes" are these and where are the accounts of their stories?
    I'm afraid I don't know that detail.

    I doubt he's qualified in the necessary fields to refute the age of a Sumerian text.
    In the sense you mean yes; but have you considered the possibility that he got that from somebody who is qualified? I read the passage in his book again, and he does actually refer to an expert; namely the assyrologist Dr. Werner Papke.

    Those who tout the bible are too dishonest to admit that it also is fiction (apart from the historical background).
    Interesting that you should say that, as the Bible repeatedly gives commands (in both testaments) that those who follow it should be honest (Exodus 20:16, to give but one example). Apart from that, at least for the New Testament, it does not make sense that the authors should have invented what they said. Many of them were killed for refusing to stop believing in what they had witnessed and recorded. Which human would choose to be killed instead of admitting that a lie that he himself had invented was false? Anybody who made up a story, no matter what the importance for the rest of the human race would not go to that extent, unless he was a lunatic. And don't tell me that there were a few hundred lunatics at one time in one place who all suddenly believed in the same thing! (Paul in one of his letters refers to a time when the risen Lord Jesus appeared to 500 witnesses at a time, see 1 Corinthians 15:6.)

    And if I read the novels of Wilbur Smith, I will find that a lot of the historical references are exactly correct.
    You are comparing an apple with an orange here. All respect for Smith, but I doubt that he can say the following about his novels. The Bible was written over a time span of over a thousand years by about 40 authors. These authors came from all classes of various societies; among others there were: a farmer, a shepherd, a medical doctor, a fisherman, a tax collector and a king. They wrote many different types of literature, such as poetry, theological discourses and history; but despite all this there is never a real clash in what they say. However, the biggest evidence for the truth of the Bible is the prophecies that it made. For example, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, which occured in a.d. 70; and one of the Old Testament prophets prophecied that Israel, after being scattered, would become a nation once again. The Bible includes several thousand prophecies, of which about half have already come true. And one more thing. How is it that people from every level of society, be they little children or professors, can read, understand, and never get tired of the Bible? I don't know about you, but I don't see any possibility for all of this happening without God being involved. And if God was involved, then why do you say that the Bible is not true (as God does not lie, which is shown by the fulfilled prophecies)?
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Escherichia

    Lots of people have died for lies. Ever hear of Jonestown?

    Biblical prophecies are like the prophecies of Nostradamus. They are written in a strange and dead language, in highly ambiguous wording, and can be interpreted in a thousand different ways. After the event it is really easy to match them to whatever you want.

    Historical background to the bible is only roughly correct. That is also true of almost every historical novel ever published. And those novels are openly fictional. The bible is mythical. That is : the writers probably, mostly, believed what they were writing, because the people who wrote the stories were repeating something passed down over centuries. And every time word of mouth is passed on, even more errors creep in.
     

  59. #58  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    However, the biggest evidence for the truth of the Bible is the prophecies that it made. For example, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, which occured in a.d. 70; and one of the Old Testament prophets prophecied that Israel, after being scattered, would become a nation once again. The Bible includes several thousand prophecies, of which about half have already come true. And one more thing. How is it that people from every level of society, be they little children or professors, can read, understand, and never get tired of the Bible? I don't know about you, but I don't see any possibility for all of this happening without God being involved. And if God was involved, then why do you say that the Bible is not true (as God does not lie, which is shown by the fulfilled prophecies)?
    Philosophically I must ask, if the prominent condition of existence is deterministic, then why bother getting the fornicating heck out of bed in the morning? Furthermore I challenge your assertion of, half of several thousand prophecies, coming to fruition. Really? Prove it!
    Now, as to the specific mentioned "prophecy", the destruction of Jerusalem. It is mentioned in three of the four gospels, not in John. Go figure. I mean, in a court of law, if three of four witnesses provide an account different from the fourth's. Who would the jury believe? But I digress, back to The Christ's "prophecy" of the destruction of the temple, and not the whole of Jerusalem.
    Now I am going to concentrate on the accounts of Mark and Luke because once again, where they agree, the account in Matthew is either incomplete, or temporally misplaced. I will be referencing Mark 12:41 through Mark 13:2, and Luke 21:1 through Luke 21:6. In which both accounts speak of The Christ, while in the temple, commending to his disciples the action of the woman who put into the offering receptacle "two mites". These passages indicate that The Christ was concerned, not with the material amount offered, but the spiritual integrity of a particular action. Immediately after, outside the temple, an unspecified disciple indicates the physical structure of the temple to The Christ. The Christ respond's by stating that one day, not two stones of the temple will stand.
    When The Christ spoke of the temples inevitable end, he was not making any "prophecy" whatsoever. In this statement, The Christ was illuminating, to his disciples, a simple concept of spirituality that is obvious to any philosopher worth half their weight in straw and dross. St Francis of Assisi said it this way. "The visible is temporal, the invisible eternal". Sting, of police fame, said it simply, "We are spirits in a material world". Do not misconstrue me here, I make no prima facia assumption of soul. But, the question of consciousness is far to profound to be subject to dismissal, or assumption.

    For myself, I have found that, critically examined, and within an Atheistic context, The Christ Dharma shines as profoundly as the Dharma of any decent master. That is one of the great tragedies of faith, and belief. They separate a person from the infinite potential of what is.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    However, the biggest evidence for the truth of the Bible is the prophecies that it made. For example, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, which occured in a.d. 70;
    How this proves anything? It was written decades after it happened.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    Which "tribes" are these and where are the accounts of their stories?
    I'm afraid I don't know that detail.
    It would seem irrelevant then.

    I doubt he's qualified in the necessary fields to refute the age of a Sumerian text.
    In the sense you mean yes; but have you considered the possibility that he got that from somebody who is qualified? I read the passage in his book again, and he does actually refer to an expert; namely the assyrologist Dr. Werner Papke.
    I've read at least one of Papke's works as well as some of his translations of some of the Gilgamesh tablets (MUL.Apin). His translations are fine, but he has a strange interpretation of the story as a sort of "astro-poem." Papke may be on to something, and some of his correlations are interesting. Others, however, seem to be appeals to numerology. He dated the tablets he worked with to about 2340 BCE. Far older than even the more liberal estimates of the age of the oldest biblical tales, which date to about 950 BCE.

    The noachian flood myth is a copy of the Gilgamesh tale, which is probably a written version of a much older tale passed through the generations as an oral tradition in the same way the Iliad and the Odyssey were.

    Which human would choose to be killed instead of admitting that a lie that he himself had invented was false? Anybody who made up a story, no matter what the importance for the rest of the human race would not go to that extent, unless he was a lunatic. And don't tell me that there were a few hundred lunatics at one time in one place who all suddenly believed in the same thing! (Paul in one of his letters refers to a time when the risen Lord Jesus appeared to 500 witnesses at a time, see 1 Corinthians 15:6.)
    In the first place, we have examples of Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. In the second place there is no evidence that the author of the alleged letters of Paul can be trusted. In Galatians 1:16-20, he states that he didn't meet with any apostles for three years after his conversion, finally meeting with Peter and James. In Acts 9, and right after his conversion, the anonymous author says Paul spent time in Damascus "with the disciples!" Then he went straight to Jerusalem and met with the apostles of Jesus. Paul says in Galatians, "I am not lying!" Luckily, no one of reason accepts these myths as historical fact. They're myth.

    They wrote many different types of literature, such as poetry, theological discourses and history; but despite all this there is never a real clash in what they say.
    There are many "clashes." The above is but one single example of the many contradictions in biblical mythology. The literature of the Judeo-Christian texts is dismissed from having to be held up as evidence. Please don't even bother to try.

    However, the biggest evidence for the truth of the Bible is the prophecies that it made. For example, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, which occured in a.d. 70; and one of the Old Testament prophets prophecied that Israel, after being scattered, would become a nation once again.
    "Prophecies" are easy to fulfill. You just write down the stuff you did as if it was predicted or do the stuff that was predicted by earlier people. There's no mystery here. The prediction of the destruction of a temple in the ancient world was probably one of the safest bets one could make. I would have put my money on that faster than a camel race.

    The Bible includes several thousand prophecies, of which about half have already come true
    .

    And, of which, none are demonstrated to have been anything more than literary interpretation, self-fulfilling, or complete fabrication. Biblical "prophecy" is utter horse shit.

    And one more thing. How is it that people from every level of society, be they little children or professors, can read, understand, and never get tired of the Bible?
    You're kidding right? I've yet to meet a professing christian who's read as much of biblical mythology as I have. In fact, I can only think of a couple who I can truly say have read the whole thing. Most people read a verse here and there, usually at the suggestion of their pastors, ministers, The Daily Bread, friends, emails etc. -completely overlooking the complete and utter evil of the main characters like Joshua, Moses, Yahweh, et al -who commit genocide, murder, rape of children, incest, etc. in the name of a "loving" god. Most overlook the contexts of the words and completely avoid the hundreds of contradictions and literary mistakes that demonstrate the Judeo-Christian texts to be Iron Age mythology based on Bronze Age oral traditions.

    I don't know about you, but I don't see any possibility for all of this happening without God being involved. And if God was involved, then why do you say that the Bible is not true (as God does not lie, which is shown by the fulfilled prophecies)?
    This is a nonsensical statement which has no place in a science forum. Please leave your preaching at the door.

    References:

    Papke, Werner (1989). Die Sterne von Babylon. Bergish Gladbach, Germany: Gustav Luebbe Verlag GmbH.
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    This is a nonsensical statement which has no place in a science forum. Please leave your preaching at the door.
    I'm sorry, I didn't mean it that way.

    Lots of people have died for lies. Ever hear of Jonestown?
    Yes, I have. But that is not what I meant. Jonestown was suicide (I was talking about getting murdered for once beliefs). Furthermore, most of the people who died in Jonestown were not the person who came up with the lie (obviously). I know that many "non-apostles" were killed in the early Christian era, but what I want to bring out is the fact that most of the people who wrote the books of the New Testament were killed because of refusing to deny it.

    It is mentioned in three of the four gospels, not in John. Go figure. I mean, in a court of law, if three of four witnesses provide an account different from the fourth's. Who would the jury believe?
    Let me tell you a hypothetical story. In some town a bank was robbed by two criminals. There were four witnesses of the whole event, who were then interrogated by the police. Three of them had been inside the bank, and had seen that there were two robbers. However, the other witness was just crossing the road to get to the bank when the two came out. There was a car partly blocking his sight, and so he told the police that he had seen only one. Did the fourth witness lie? No, because he had seen something slightly different. But apart from this whole court of law business, you seem to disregard that the gospels where written for various reasons and with different perspectives. For example, Luke wrote like a historian, and so included a lot of detail; while John wrote more from a theological point of view, thus leaving out quite a few of the stories in order to get in more teaching. A modern hypothetical example would be if I wrote a book about Newton. I could either write the history of his life or I could look at what he discovered. In both cases I would be writing about facts, but I wouldn't include the same events in both.

    Furthermore I challenge your assertion of, half of several thousand prophecies, coming to fruition. Really? Prove it!
    I can't give you a list like that here, I advise you to get a book on Biblical Prophecy for this one.

    For myself, I have found that, critically examined, and within an Atheistic context (emphasis added), The Christ Dharma shines as profoundly as the Dharma of any decent master.
    Do a bit of simple logic with me:
    1. One of the major statements of the Bible is that God exists. An atheist denies this. Therefore, no atheist can believe the Bible.
    2. The Bible also states that Jesus is the only Christ (or Dharma, as you call him). Atheists deny the truth of the Bible, therefore they deny the truth of this statement.
    3. You wish to disprove this, but in order to do so you consider the statement from the atheistic perspective. However, as shown before, an atheist cannot believe Jesus' claim. By using the atheist perspective you are therefore from the outset denying the possibility of the truth of this claim; which you are now trying to disprove. In short, you are postulating the very thing that you want to prove, namely that Jesus is not the only Christ (if at all He is one).

    The noachian flood myth is a copy of the Gilgamesh tale, which is probably a written version of a much older tale passed through the generations as an oral tradition in the same way the Iliad and the Odyssey were.
    This is quite unlikely. If I remember rightly a few years ago somebody discovered clay tablets in the middle east that date back to the time when Abraham was supposed to have lived and contained stuff like the annals of kings and business records. This shows that people at that time knew how to write already, and raises the chances that the biblical stories were actually written down a long time before they were compiled. Apart from that the book of Genesis contains the phrase "This is the account of..." ten times, which would indicate that the author had actual reports from that time lying in front of him as he wrote. Adding on to that, the Dead Sea scrolls show that in Bible times things were copied accurately. At Qumran a scroll of the prophet Isaiah was found; which, when compared to modern Hebrew versions of the same text; showed that the only difference between what our scholars today read and what the ancient Israelites read are a few punctuation marks.

    In the second place there is no evidence that the author of the alleged letters of Paul can be trusted. In Galatians 1:16-20, he states that he didn't meet with any apostles for three years after his conversion, finally meeting with Peter and James. In Acts 9, and right after his conversion, the anonymous author says Paul spent time in Damascus "with the disciples!" Then he went straight to Jerusalem and met with the apostles of Jesus.
    I can't find any contradiction there. The word "disciples" in the New Testament refers to all followers of Jesus, the word "apostle" on the other hand means the inner core of the Twelve. So it is perfectly possible for Paul to have had fellowship with the disciples without meeting any apostles until much later. Concerning the period between his departure from Damascus and his arrival in Jerusalem, the Bible in Acts 9:26 does not state when he arrive at Jerusalem, it simply says that he did.

    Luckily, no one of reason accepts these myths as historical fact.
    How do you define "someone of reason"? If you are only talking about atheists, then of course. But some of the greatest scientists in history believed this supposed "myth", as well as many scientists today. Examples are Galileo, Newton, John Lennox (a professor from Oxford!) and Siegfried Scherer (a German professor).

    The literature of the Judeo-Christian texts is dismissed from having to be held up as evidence.
    Dismissed by whom?

    And, of which, none are demonstrated to have been anything more than literary interpretation, self-fulfilling, or complete fabrication.
    In Ezekiel there are several times that God mentions that He would bring Israel back to their land after they had been exiled among the nations. This was written before the exiles to Babylon returned to Israel and obviously before the modern nation of Israel was founded.

    You're kidding right? I've yet to meet a professing christian who's read as much of biblical mythology as I have.
    I'm not, actually. Furthermore I would say that either you don't know all that many Christians, or that you've read a remarkable amount of the Bible (in which case I am surprised that you talk as you do).

    completely overlooking the complete and utter evil of the main characters like Joshua, Moses, Yahweh, et al -who commit genocide, murder, rape of children, incest, etc. in the name of a "loving" god
    First of all may I point out that according to the Bible God is also a just God who has to punish sin? Secondly, those it actually speaks for the Bible that it does not hide the bad deeds that it's main characters committed (without calling them good, that is; like the adultery of David with Bathsheba in 2. Samuel) instead of making them out to be superhumans who never make mistakes (this is with the exeption of Jesus, who, according to the Bible, was fully God and thus sinless).

    the hundreds of contradictions and literary mistakes that demonstrate the Judeo-Christian texts to be Iron Age mythology based on Bronze Age oral traditions.
    For example? I know that there are several passages in the Bible that appear to contradict each other, but these contradictions disappear when one looks more closely at the context, and latest when one checks the original languages.
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  63. #62  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Escherichia
    the hundreds of contradictions and literary mistakes that demonstrate the Judeo-Christian texts to be Iron Age mythology based on Bronze Age oral traditions.
    For example? I know that there are several passages in the Bible that appear to contradict each other, but these contradictions disappear when one looks more closely at the context
    No, actually, they do not go away when viewed in context. They get magnified. Curious to learn more? Take your pick:


    http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra
    http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_name.html
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html
    http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Do a bit of simple logic with me:
    1. One of the major statements of the Bible is that God exists. An atheist denies this. Therefore, no atheist can believe the Bible.
    2. The Bible also states that Jesus is the only Christ (or Dharma, as you call him). Atheists deny the truth of the Bible, therefore they deny the truth of this statement.
    3. You wish to disprove this, but in order to do so you consider the statement from the atheistic perspective. However, as shown before, an atheist cannot believe Jesus' claim. By using the atheist perspective you are therefore from the outset denying the possibility of the truth of this claim; which you are now trying to disprove. In short, you are postulating the very thing that you want to prove, namely that Jesus is not the only Christ (if at all He is one).
    Some atheists accept that Jesus may have existed at one time. Under that assumption, it is fairly easy to study what he said and did, without having to believe that he was a god.

    First of all may I point out that according to the Bible God is also a just God who has to punish sin? Secondly, those it actually speaks for the Bible that it does not hide the bad deeds that it's main characters committed (without calling them good, that is; like the adultery of David with Bathsheba in 2. Samuel) instead of making them out to be superhumans who never make mistakes (this is with the exeption of Jesus, who, according to the Bible, was fully God and thus sinless).
    Actually I would say that the acts they are said to have committed have to be viewed as good if you're a believer. God commands, directly, horrible atrocities, but since they are in the name of God, a believer cannot view them as the horrible acts that they are. God orders the destruction and killing of thousands of people, some for no other reason than because they don't worship him.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman Escherichia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zambia
    Posts
    21
    Thank you for your comments, everyone who participated so far! I appreciated them, as they gave me good experience, and also showed me the weaknesses in my arguments. I'm going to a place (actually Boarding school ...) for a few weeks where I won't be able to access this site, so I decided to end my participation in this thread. I'm very interested in science, so I'll keep reading what you and others will write. Thanks a lot, bye for now!

    Escherichia
    "Dubio ergo corgito, corgito ergo sum."
    Rene Descartes

    (I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist.)
     

  66. #65  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    I believe the original question on this thread was, "What's a good argument against a 6000 year old earth"? In the interest of leading another lost conscience to the good gospel of empirical reason, and because a question is not a lie, ask this, "Who but god would have the time or patience, to over thousands of millennia, wear a mountain to beach sand, with wind, and rain"?
    For whatever answer they give, then ask, "Do you mean that god is only 6000 years old"?
    For whatever answer they give, then ask, "Why didn't he do it sooner"?
    For whatever answer they give, then ask, "Is it in the bible"?
    For whatever answer they give, then say, "Oh, that's nice. Myself, I find billions of years much grander than a few thousand".
    Hopefully, a seed of doubt has been planted.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    in the bible, god claims to be the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. to me that means "I am infinite" no beginning, no end. a deity would be nothing less in my mind. in this case perhaps the ultimate equation to explain the universe is really just the rule of recursion.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
     

  68. #67  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. to me that means "I am infinite" no beginning, no end.
    Mr schiz0yd, are you attempting to illuminate a point of duality?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    117
    Fossils can be created in a lab, therefore all fossils are less than 6000 years old...or...God created fossils.


    This is an incorrect statement. Artificial fossils can be made in a Lab.
    I take it you can differentiate between artificial and natural.
    You see science is the study of nature. Religion is the artifice put into place
    when we didn't know any better. One is fact based, the other is pure delusion.
     

  70. #69  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    tszy - Please learn to use the quote feature. We have no idea who to whom you are replying.
     

  71. #70  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Gen1GT
    OK, here's the response I got from someone when I told them the onus was on them to prove that God exists, rather than me disprove it:

    Prove evolution... or prove the earth is millions of years old... or prove we came from monkeys Etc.

    Thats my point.. You can not prove squat.

    Science can prove lots of things... but mysteriously can prove NOTHING that shows the Bible is wrong.[/
    I don't think the onus is on them or science either one, but science has offered a lot of evidence so far, and they've offered very little, so in that sense they're kind of behind in the race and they should be expected to catch up a bit before we take them seriously.

    The trouble with religious zealots is that they expect you to overcome Pasqual's Wager, by proving your view to an absolute 100% certainty. That's an impossible standard, since science is fundamentally statistical. Even theories like gravity have no "smoking gun", because a single confirming experiment is never sufficient to establish a claim. You have to repeat it several times to show it wasn't a statistical fluke.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    In any event it still only took six days.


    4 600 000 000 divided by 6 = 766 666 667

    3833333333
    3066666666
    2299999999
    1533333332
    766666667




    4 600 000 000 billion years ago
    God creates everything including earth
    DAY 1
    2 Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
    end of first day 3,833,333,333 years ago


    start of SECOND DAY 3,833,333,333 years ago
    7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault. 8 God called the vault 'heaven'.
    By 3.5 billion years ago, the Earth's magnetic field was established, which helped prevent the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind,
    formation of the vault or sky or atmosphere starting around 3,942,857,143 years ago.
    end of second day 3,066,666,666 years ago




    start of THIRD DAY 3,066,666,666 years ago
    9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.
    A 2010 Nature article by researcher Minik Rosing presented a new theory, that Earth was able to maintain liquid oceans due to fewer clouds and less land.

    11 God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.' And so it was.

    formation of first life - first photosynthesis able plant life may have begun to increase greatly during this time period and may have started up to 3,000,000,000 years ago.
    end of third day 2,299,999,999 years ago.




    start of FOURTH DAY 2,299,999,999 years ago
    and formation of the lights in the sky

    17 God set them in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth,

    Early in the Earth's history, the Sun's output was only 70% as intense as it is during the modern epoch, the energy output of the sun could have begun to significantly increase during this time.
    end of the fourth day 1,533,333,332




    start of the FIFTH DAY 1,533,333,332

    20 God said, 'Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.' And so it was.
    Around 2,000,000,000 years ago eukaryotes complex cells were created.
    "Even if you do not know the word ‘eukaryote’, you are already familiar with what they are, because you and nearly all other life forms that you experience with your unaided eyes are eukaryotes. The vast majority of eukaryotes that we knowingly interact with each day, mainly land plants and animals, are large – macroscopic – organisms, usually consisting of trillions of individual cells (Fig. 1). Even using our rather limited senses, we can immediately tell that macroscopic eukaryotes represent enormous diversity on many different levels. However, the true diversity of eukaryotes is far greater than ordinary experiences would lead you to appreciate; most of the many millions of eukaryotic species on Earth are hidden from view, because most eukaryotic life forms are microscopic"
    Multicellular life begins about 1.3 billion years ago.
    end of fifth day 766,666,667




    sixth day 766,666,667

    24 God said, 'Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.' And so it was.
    31 God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.

    Animals, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, flowers, seeds, humans were all created between this time and our present time.



    seventh day
    2 On the seventh day God had completed the work he had been doing. He rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing.
    3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he rested after all his work of creating.
     

  73. #72  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    numerology is 'magical' numbers, and as you know magic does not exist.
    The 'six days' of creation is not a magical number, it is pointing out in everyday language that creation occurred in a definite set of stages or events, just as geology separates the creation of the world into a definite set of stages or events.
    The only difference I can see is that while the former is 'revealed' knowledge the latter is observed knowledge and it is interesting to see where stone-age mans revealed knowledge synchronizes [possibly] with modern-mans studied knowledge about this world.
    So, apart from someone screaming "magic!" or "witch!" whenever you think religion has been mentioned in the same breath as a sequence of events [numbers] you can decide for your self the levels of coincidence in the events described by the two parallel branches of knowledge.

    ...or something like that.
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    I guess the Young Earth Creationists wish to preserve the immutability of the species stated in the Bible. The Bible doesn't specifically mention dinosaurs, since no one knew about them when the Bible was fabricated out of old Jewish legends and wishful thinking; however they all fit onto Noah's Ark, or so says the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

    A lot of creationism vs. evolution debate is really old hat now, but for those who don't like the new hats of the facts of science; however, I did interview all of the various creationist gods once, although only in my imagination, since there aren't any real gods. I still have the extensive and even humorous notes. Does anyone want to see them? There are about 7 or 8 Gods, including the Intelligent Designer, the God of the Gaps, The God of Irreducible Complexity, and more, relating to the fallback positions of the creationists going farther and further down the slippery slope of trying to totally undo so many scientific finds.
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by questor
    ... there aren't any real gods....

    You have, of course, some concrete evidence to support this view.
    Apart from the apparent fact that they don't want to talk to you... ....yet...


    My proof in a Creator of the world is the world.
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Nothing like a goal post on wheels.

    There simply is no good reason to believe in magic, as mise says, therefore there's no good reason to believe some magic sky-daddy invented the universe.

    Moreover, this thread is so last year. Since this is a scientific forum, lets stick to science and leave the preaching somewhere else.

    As our new-found creationist friend used last year's thread as a platform to preach, it's currently closed and mise is officially warned.

    If anyone objects or has questions or concerns, PM me.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •