Question regarding age of universe & light from distant stars

[Gerioke]

Gerioke,

First let me apologize for publically questioning whether or not you are a troll.

Secondly, let's go back to the tree rings. Yes, we presently observe tree rings forming anually. From this, we can deduce that certain trees are thousands of years old. Similarly, we presently observe a steady rate of decay of radioactive material. From this, we can deduce that the universe is in fact billions of years old. Thus, your argument that scientists are unable to know the age of the universe simply because no one was there in the distant past to observe its antiquity must be dimissed.

Wouldn't the characteristics of the earth have to be consistant for scientific deductions to be accurate?

From what I understand, at one time Earth had only one continent surrounded by water. It never rained until after the flood and the Earths's magnetic poles have been bouncing around all thruogh history.

[heresyhunter]

Wouldn't the characteristics of the earth have to be consistant for scientific deductions to be accurate?

Did you mean to say "constant"?

From what I understand, at one time Earth had only one continent surrounded by water.

Right.

<snip>

the Earths's magnetic poles have been bouncing around all thruogh history.

Yes, the poles have reversed many times in the past. What is your point? What bearing does this have on the rate at which radioactive elements break down?

[Gerioke]

This is probably why mosts scientist do not like God. He discredits their profession.

That makes for a funny joke, Gerioke, but I'm curious: Do you really think most scientists do not like God?

I work in the life sciences and I LOVE God. Science helps me appreciate God and the genius of His Creation. Now, I know a lot of my colleagues don't believe in God, but I can't think of ANY that dis-like him. Either you don't know God, or you know God and love Him.

I think anybody who denies the obvious has a dislike for it. If you listen carefully, the way athiests talk about God, you will notice that they address Him as if He's real but deny His existance.

Pride in action.

So every time an atheist references god, you expect them to say, "hypothetically assuming god exists" or call him "supposed god"? If you were discussing a fictional character from TV like Dr House, you wouldn't reference him by saying "the fictional character known as Dr House", you'd just call him House. This doesn't imply that you believe in House's existence, does it?

If God were a fictional TV character, you might have a good point.

You're missing the point. Whether God is on TV or not is irrelevant. Atheists believe him to be imaginary, like House, so we reference him in a similar way to any other fictional character. My point is that in the same way that I say House every time I reference the fictional character, I say God every time I reference that character that I believe to be fictional. I don't need to say 'the fictional character known as Mickey Mouse', so I don't need to say 'the fictional entity known as God'. Hence, by referencing God by simply calling him God, I am not implying his existence.

I know House is a fictional character. You believe God is a fictional character. You capitalize God as if that were His name. It's not His name, but His title. Or are you giving reverance to someone you don't believe in?

[mikeinsarasota]

This is probably why mosts scientist do not like God. He discredits their profession.

That makes for a funny joke, Gerioke, but I'm curious: Do you really think most scientists do not like God?

I work in the life sciences and I LOVE God. Science helps me appreciate God and the genius of His Creation. Now, I know a lot of my colleagues don't believe in God, but I can't think of ANY that dis-like him. Either you don't know God, or you know God and love Him.

I think anybody who denies the obvious has a dislike for it. If you listen carefully, the way athiests talk about God, you will notice that they address Him as if He's real but deny His existance.

Pride in action.

So every time an atheist references god, you expect them to say, "hypothetically assuming god exists" or call him "supposed god"? If you were discussing a fictional character from TV like Dr House, you wouldn't reference him by saying "the fictional character known as Dr House", you'd just call him House. This doesn't imply that you believe in House's existence, does it?

If God were a fictional TV character, you might have a good point.

You're missing the point. Whether God is on TV or not is irrelevant. Atheists believe him to be imaginary, like House, so we reference him in a similar way to any other fictional character. My point is that in the same way that I say House every time I reference the fictional character, I say God every time I reference that character that I believe to be fictional. I don't need to say 'the fictional character known as Mickey Mouse', so I don't need to say 'the fictional entity known as God'. Hence, by referencing God by simply calling him God, I am not implying his existence.

I know House is a fictional character. You believe God is a fictional character. You capitalize God as if that were His name. It's not His name, but His title. Or are you giving reverance to someone you don't believe in?

Perhaps cache does it to show YOU and the keepers of this forum respect, not God.

[Gerioke]

This is probably why mosts scientist do not like God. He discredits their profession.

That makes for a funny joke, Gerioke, but I'm curious: Do you really think most scientists do not like God?

I work in the life sciences and I LOVE God. Science helps me appreciate God and the genius of His Creation. Now, I know a lot of my colleagues don't believe in God, but I can't think of ANY that dis-like him. Either you don't know God, or you know God and love Him.

I think anybody who denies the obvious has a dislike for it. If you listen carefully, the way athiests talk about God, you will notice that they address Him as if He's real but deny His existance.

Pride in action.

So every time an atheist references god, you expect them to say, "hypothetically assuming god exists" or call him "supposed god"? If you were discussing a fictional character from TV like Dr House, you wouldn't reference him by saying "the fictional character known as Dr House", you'd just call him House. This doesn't imply that you believe in House's existence, does it?

If God were a fictional TV character, you might have a good point.

You're missing the point. Whether God is on TV or not is irrelevant. Atheists believe him to be imaginary, like House, so we reference him in a similar way to any other fictional character. My point is that in the same way that I say House every time I reference the fictional character, I say God every time I reference that character that I believe to be fictional. I don't need to say 'the fictional character known as Mickey Mouse', so I don't need to say 'the fictional entity known as God'. Hence, by referencing God by simply calling him God, I am not implying his existence.

I know House is a fictional character. You believe God is a fictional character. You capitalize God as if that were His name. It's not His name, but His title. Or are you giving reverance to someone you don't believe in?

Perhaps cache does it to show YOU and the keepers of this forum respect, not God.

Perhaps you are right .

Beg your pardon

[heresyhunter]

Gerioke, please see my last post to you on the last page (post #120).

[Gerioke]

Wouldn't the characteristics of the earth have to be consistant for scientific deductions to be accurate?

Did you mean to say "constant"?

From what I understand, at one time Earth had only one continent surrounded by water.

Right.

<snip>

the Earths's magnetic poles have been bouncing around all thruogh history.

Yes, the poles have reversed many times in the past. What is your point? What bearing does this have on the rate at which radioactive elements break down?

I was using that as one example of how we know the earth's characteristics are not constant. My original point is that there are probably many other inconsistancies that we are unaware of. This is not a scientific conclusion, but a logical one

[heresyhunter]

My original point is that there are probably many other inconsistancies that we are unaware of.

So are you suggesting that the rate at which trees produce rings may vary over time?

Wouldn't the characteristics of the earth have to be consistant for scientific deductions to be accurate?

So, are you suggesting that scientific deduction is not accurate due to the fact that the Earth has changed?

[heresyhunter]

Gerioke

I know House is a fictional character. You believe God is a fictional character. You capitalize God as if that were His name. It's not His name, but His title. Or are you giving reverance to someone you don't believe in?

You capitalize the first letter of House, do you revere him?

It always saddens me when it takes an atheist to reveal the folly of a Christian's thinking. Wake up, brethren. We are the light of the world. Let us not pass the torch to unbelievers.

[Gerioke]

Gerioke

I know House is a fictional character. You believe God is a fictional character. You capitalize God as if that were His name. It's not His name, but His title. Or are you giving reverance to someone you don't believe in?

You capitalize the first letter of House, do you revere him?

It always saddens me when it takes an atheist to reveal the folly of a Christian's thinking. Wake up, brethren. We are the light of the world. Let us not pass the torch to unbelievers.

House is the characters name, God is not the Almighty's name but his title. Where's the folly in that?