Age of the Earth 2

[mobile21]

Again, this is all baseless "blah blah" and baloney.

It's easier to say that than actually answer my points I guess.

Your point was you tried to give a pseudo-scientific argument and then get away with it!!!!!

LOL

better luck the next time you throw a pseudo-sientific argument

There's no way to tell the level of certainty about this and if you agree with David Hume then you'll agree with me

Listen, a word of warning: you're talking to David Hume's greatest fan - who's actually read his essays and books - and I'm guessing you havn't. No, I'm sure you havn't, it's not a guess, it's dead money.

David Hume says: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"

You do not do that.

You accept you do not do that.

You are not his biggest fan after all I guess.

Now, it's funny you should mention baseless baloney, because this is it if I ever saw it. Is there anything else you'd like to accuse me of? Perhaps I masterminded the 9/11 attacks? Was I behind the grassy knoll for JFK?

If you'd claim you masterminded 9-11 then I would ask you for your proof.

Same here.

Thanks for proving my point.

I reassert that I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, just as I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist - but I believe in neither.

I reassert whenever a human being believes in something is for a reason, it's because he has proof. As long as you are a human being, you are contradicting yourself.

If you want to keep on believing that I'm lying, and that I can disprove God's existence but am too embarrassed to try, you keep on believing it, that's your right. Just don't bother me with it again until you have actual evidence.

My evidence is you support an idea and then you deny you reached to that conclusion through a logical mental process.

As long as you support this absurd proposal, I have evidence.

[Bread_of_Life]

Mobile21

Your point was you tried to give a pseudo-scientific argument and then get away with it!!!!!

Firstly, this is not an argument against me, nor evidence that I am wrong - it is simply a bald assertion that my argument was pseudo-scientific.

Secondly, ironically, my argument was not even meant to be scientific or empirical, but mathematically based.

David Hume says: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"

Presumably this is the only piece of David Hume's work you've seen then, and even then you were only exposed to it from my signature.

You do not do that.

I do always try to, however there are other sorts of evidence other than direct empirical testing. Clearly I have not empirically tested evolution on other planets, but I can make an a priori statistical and theoretical argument about why the humanoid bauplan is unlikely to arise many more times.

If you'd claim you masterminded 9-11 then I would ask you for your proof.

You are asking me to prove that I do not have an argument to prove the non-existence of God. This, as any rational person would see, is an impossible demand to meet - since without complex brain-scanning technology to probe the inner sanctum of my mind, technology that we do not have, I cannot prove to you that I have no such argument.

Therefore, developing evidence is going to be impossible. I can only offer you my word, and reasons why I do not think one needs such an argument to be an atheist.

I reassert whenever a human being believes in something is for a reason, it's because he has proof.

Then you are wrong, prima facie. I have no proof that invisible leprechauns don't push my red blood cells around my body, creating my heart as a decoy to hide their covert activities - but I don't believe in it. Indeed, there are many theories that I can think of which are impossible to disprove - but I don't believe in them either.

My evidence is you support an idea and then you deny you reached to that conclusion through a logical mental process.

Firstly, I did not claim this. I did go through a logical mental process when deciding that God and blood-leprechauns didn't exist. What I claimed is that I had no proof they did not exist. In actual fact, the reason I disbelieve in these things is not that I have proof or evidence against them - but that they are highly complex and unlikely to exist, and that I have no evidence for them. So in fact, my rational reason for disbelieving in both is probabilistic, rather than empirical or deductive. That's the second time in one post you've failed to recognise the possibility of non-empirical evidence.

Secondly, it is perfectly possible to form a conclusion without going through a logical process. Indeed, it is possible to form a conclusion without going through any conscious process at all. It's called being irrational - and many people are irrational to a certain extent. Therefore, not only are you wrong in your assertion about my disbelief in God, youy are also wrong in your basic premise that it is impossible to form beliefs irrationally.

[Guest mscoville]

I wonder seriously Nikolai, (not trying to play stump the Atheist here) Isn't a common sense question about all these dating methods, Since we don't have anything that we know to be 5 billion years old, how can we be sure by using these methods, that they aren't just consistently wrong? I understand the mathematical part of the decay chain and I do see how this could give a good solid date, however it seems to me we're making a big assumption that we know nothing has messed with those calculations since we're dating things so far back in the unobserved past. I'm interested, but I'm sure you know that some hard heads like me will never believe that the earth is Billions of years old, (insert flat earth society joke here) but I do really want to understand your side of this (as I said before you've done a great job explaining all that to date). Will you start your thread about ethics morals etc. so we can hear your agnostic framework? Sorry, had to stick in the agnostic thing.

~ Martin

Edited May 7, 2004 by mscoville

[Khristeeanos]

I believe that God created the earth perfect when He said He did.

There is no reason to believe in man's theories--they are based upon faulty assumptions and biased research.

They start with the question already answered and do the research until they find a mold that fits what they already believe.

My Jesus is not the author of death or suffering, He is the author of LIFE.

Praise the Lord!

[artsylady]

Well, it would surprise me that there were ever winds violent and widespread enough to give birth to such a story - but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people living in parts of the world that are prone to hurricanes and tornados had "wind" myths and Gods (although it's surprise me if they had them wiping out an entire situation, high winds rarely cause a lot of death).

Also, don't forget, the same story with all these elements hasn't gone throughout the world. There are simply stories with some of the same elements around the world.

You have a strange way of answering the question. Would it surprise if a story about the wind and the hole and the cat surfaced around the earth? Yes or no.

Some of the stories regarding Noah's flood have strikingly similar elements. You have to realize this.

QUOTE

I don't know that they are very 'common' at all now.

Firstly, flooding is very common, secondly, there's absolutely no evidence at all of a worldwide flood, and lots of evidence against.

Again, you didn't answer the question. The question was 'there is proof of flooding all over the earth correct?" Now have you seen a flood? One that was so high that you could see any life and one where people drowned in? Have any of your ancestors seen such a flood?

QUOTE 

Like why there is such a huge intelligence difference between man and the rest of the animals. 

It's hardly "huge" - and it is readily explainable, since our new-found bipedal nature allowed us to fashion and use tools.

Then why aren't you on a message board debating apes? Are they not challenging enough? Fine, go and debate with dolphins - the most intelligent creatures after mankind. Maybe they can help you develop your language theories and solve the 'mystery' of language evolution. (Hope you can take a joke, Sir. )

I'm not being nasty, but you've clearly never studied the animal kingdom in any depth, especially mammals. We know that mammals use tools, remember and enact complex social relationships, have local cultures, and even mourn their dead.

I'm not being nasty, but are you for real? Do I really have to point out the obvious intelligence differences here?

QUOTE

Knowing there is so much that we DON'T yet know, why do some feel that it is so brilliant to discount something bigger than ourselves and say, there certainly can't be a god?

I've never said that. Look back through my posts, and you'll see that I'm telling the truth. I have never said that there certainly can't be a God.

Must have been part of your name - the athiest part, that confused me. I'm sorry and I'm glad you haven't written off the possibility.

I'm sure in ancient times and tribal societies there were probably many who did, and many to this day use it to make money. Of course, there are always going to be actual true believers also!

You're very sure of many things that you have no proof of - language evolution, why origins myths arose, why men become spiritual leaders. Is this scientific, or are these beliefs of yours based on what you WANT to believe?

QUOTE

Until then, the general consensus is that they just don't know how it 'evolved'

And where did you learn of this "general consensus"? From a creationist website perhaps? Or maybe you read an article in nature? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

No. I thought it was common knowledge that there are no real answers regarding this. I've actually never looked at a creationist site regarding language evolution, to be honest.

It's hardly significant that one piece of evidence does not contradict your theory. What you need though is actual supporting evidence, and no contradictory evidence that disproves your theory. Unfortunately, you have none of the former and plenty of the latter.

Well you have none of either.

There are plenty of evidences that do not contradict creation. All evidence is subject to interpretation.

I don't know actually, can't remember. Usually these finds are dated directly though - normally dating techniques are applied to the layer the find is found in.

Based on assumptions of course, first. I know how they date stuff. They find it and guess how old it will should be. Then if they date it and it supports their belief, they accept it. If it doesn't they either throw it out or start rewriting their theories.

QUOTE 

So it would obviously be incorrectly dated.

Probably, yes. In a find that young, K-Ar dating is going to give you an inaccurate date. However, it's not going be over a million years out, that's about the limit of error. Therefore K-Ar finds of 4.2 billion years old, independently verified using Rb-Sr dating as 4.2 billion years old, cannot be the result of such error.

So there are obviously a lot of assumptions being used here. You have to admit this.

As well, if everything in the earth was in fact, very young, K-AR would be utterly useless.

QUOTE 

o first they have to decide what they think the date will be, then they use the full-proof method to actually date it?

No. If they tested a sample that was too young, then they would come out with a date of less than 10 million years, and they'd simply disregard the data, because the error would be too high.

But you said that they first decide how old it is. I know this is true.

In order to avoid this happening too much, scientists do not use K-Ar if the rock came from a layer they suspect to be young, they'll use Uranium decay series, or some other form of young age dating. However, if these results prove that the rock is much older than 10 million years old, K-Ar can be used to verify this.

In any case, if it's all 'young' material, it will definitely be dated incorrectly.

QUOTE 

But then, if it comes back with a date they think is totally wrong, they just ignore it? 

No, if it comes back with a date below 10 million years, they ignore the K-Ar date (because the error will be too high), and date it would younger-age dating methods. They don't just throw away the sample, that'd be silly!!!

I didn't mean throw out the sample. If their assumptions are wrong and it's dated incorrectly, they just disregard the sample. Either that, or start rewriting the theories.

How many times does the theory of evolution have to change. It changes constantly. And while evolutionists say it is a strength, it is a blatant weakness. (I know this debate itself will go on and on, but think about it first) How strong was the original theory of Darwins, or early evolutionists. Look at all these theories change constantly. It shows how wrong the original theories were in the first place. How can constant change really be a strength of some theory that is supposed to be a solid one???

Well, there are 3 possibilities. They could be real creatures as described, going to other planets and breathing fire. They could be based on large birds or what have you, with some myth added. Or they could be a myth. I would say it's probably a mixture of the last two.

Okay.

Actually, there are creatures around who fire liquids that burn and combust, so in a way, some creatures already breath "fire". but I would say a creature that actually breathed fire is unlikely. It's possible of course, but not likely.

Okay, good enough for me.

No, I wouldn't stop at this, we just have no good evidence at all that it really happened, unless you decide to think that every single myth and legend you hear is true.

No, I certainly don't think that every myth is fact, of course. I just think that the combination of myths from various places with commonalities is very interesting.

QUOTE

I was kind of still wondering about the descendants of Noah and their names scattered on the names of many many ancient geographic locations- as widespread as Africa to Moscow and further.

I already said what I thought of that. Firstly, it's unsurprising that some myth passes into city names, especially in europe and the middle east, where the myth originated and spread.

These names also go into Africa and Russia. So these people all of course, had copies of Bibles. Is that what you believe? Do you find it strange that they are all from the same list in the Bible? The geneology of Noah?

Secondly, it's not unlikely that tribal names were used by the author of genesis for the names of Noah's sons - so as to explain the origin of these tribes. Hence, as these tribes spread, so did these names.

Definitely not a possibility. The geneology was written before Moscow and many of these other places got their names.

[artsylady]

ps. You seem very confident that dating methods are wrong. Yet, I've written two detailed threads all about dating methods, and you've not responded to any of them. In fact, noone has. I've had posts about the flood, and about myths, and about my morality, and about my religion - but none at all about the dating methods I've written up.

I'll try to re-read through the beginning. Sorry, I jumped in here late. I asked you if you minded discussing anthropology and you indulged me for awhile, but if you insist we talk about dating methods, okay then.

The closest we've got is your comments on sources of error in K-Ar dating. Now, cmon, if you're certain that dating methods are wrong, engage me on them!!!

Well, on another forum, I debated about K-AR with a geologist who finally left, so I was pretty sure he was either stumped or just plain old tired of me. But you're right, I should look at some other methods too.

[artsylady]

For beginners, "radiometric dating" of rocks is a process that scientists use to tell how old rocks are. Radioactive elements in a rock when it is formed will decay into stable (daughter) elements at a predictable rate over it's lifetime - allowing scientists to pick the tock up at a later date, and tell how old it is by measuring how much radioactive element has decayed.

Would a flood that lasted a year on the earth affect this dating method. If so, how?

[artsylady]

These quotes aren't from a creationist site. They're from March 5ths, NY Times, regarding a new hominid fossil that has people once again re-writing their 'solid' theories. Interesting admissions regarding ASSUMPTIONS from leading evolutionists. I'll repost the original article so that you don't accuse me of taking this out of context or anything like that.

"The material is so fragmentary," he said, "that we really can't know, and so our differences often are a reflection of different philosophies and experience in research."

LOL. An admission.

Dr. Alan Walker, an anatomist at Pennsylvania State University who specializes in hominid research but was not involved in the kadabba analysis, said that too few fossils had been discovered to justify either interpretation. He noted that it was easy to be misled by variations that are normal within the fossil collections of any single species.

That's about ANY SINGLE SPECIES!

"People who believe in a bushy family tree will look for bushiness in their fossils, and those who don't won't," Dr. Walker said in an interview. "We are generalizing far too much, with not very many fossils spread over a long period of time."[/B]

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

This is TYPICAL of what happens when a new fossil is found but there are a lot of interesting admissions here.

[artsylady]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAA0894DC404482

Oops, guess it's archived, but if you seriously think i'm misquoting or taking this out of context, you can spend the 2.95 to check it out.

I posted the whole thing in March on the "evolution - do you believe it or not" thread and none of the athiests accused me of taking it out of context or anything like that.

[artsylady]

So at the ripe old age of 7 or 8 you decided God didn't exist. Have you been trying to disprove Him since that age, or did you have moments at all where you thought you might be wrong in your thinking? How long did those moments last and what did you do to reevaluate your opinion?