Young earth vs old earth theory?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by DennisTate, Nov 18, 2020.

?

Do you believe in a young earth or old earth theory?

  1. Old earth... up to five billion or so years old.

    26 vote(s)
    92.9%
  2. A somewhat old earth... perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of years old

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. A relatively young earth.... less than twenty thousand years old

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  4. I believe that the earth is roughly seven thousand years old.

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You choose to deceive yourself.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2020
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a difference, and it is as I have described.
     
  3. Vailhundt

    Vailhundt Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2020
    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science already answered it. We know the age of the Earth.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. Vailhundt

    Vailhundt Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2020
    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, i choose to defer to the mountains of evidence. You are the one at odds with our knowledge.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. Vailhundt

    Vailhundt Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2020
    Messages:
    1,121
    Likes Received:
    628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, what you said was absurd.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You cannot refute an unfalsifiable belief. You can either accept the belief as true (on a faith basis), reject it as false (on a faith basis), or simply shrug your shoulders and say "idk"... To accept or reject it on anything other than a faith basis is not only being dishonest with yourself, but is also committing a circular argument fallacy (and likely numerous other fallacies as your irrational reasoning gets further exposed)
     
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If all you have for me is Argument of the Stone fallacies, then I am not interested...
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You continue to deceive yourself.
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science does not make use of supporting evidence. RELIGION does.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Argument of the Stone fallacy. No valid argumentation presented.
     
  11. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You continue to embarrass yourself.
     
  12. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's an attempt to blur the line between religion and science. Apparently some people think they can re-write the scientific method to their liking.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2020
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    58,734
    Likes Received:
    16,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. Nobody knows whether Trump made a serious decision with God, for example. But, religions do include outward visibility and behavior requirements that affect us all, so I don't see that as somehow off limits.

    Also, someone's relationship with god doesn't affect how this universe works. So, I think that's a reasoanble topic, too.
    I think the passages of Matthew are self explanatory. But, there is a lot written about Matthew 25:30 on. I'd suggest investigating what your own religion has to say.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    58,734
    Likes Received:
    16,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have many laws which do not come from removing the one component of a theory that makes a theory a theory - the mechanism or explaination of why it works that way. Laws come from repeated observation.

    In fact, many (most?) of our laws don't even work outside of certain limits. If you want to use a law, you have to learn what its limitations are as those limits are not described by the law. Suggesting that a law is a formalization of a theory makes it sound like the law should have the validity of the theory - but, that's not the case.

    As for eveidence, I'm well aware from your past posts that you don't believe we can know anything at all unless there was a human there with living eyeballs recording the event. But, that's just plain ridiculous. We don't have to be there to know when something happened.

    And, your idea that science doesn't cross check with lines of evidence and logic that come from disparate sources is counter to the daily reflexes of every legitimate scientist.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    58,734
    Likes Received:
    16,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has nothing to do with whether god thinks the age of Earth is important for us to know.

    There are gigantic volums of knowledge upon which we daily depend and which have no mention in the Bible.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, they come from formalizing a theory (usually into mathematics, as it allows for the quantification of relationships/events).

    Yes, it is. The law is directly derived from the theory. It simply takes the theory and formalizes it (usually mathematically). This formalization of a theory is what allows a person to make predictions with it, as science does not inherently have the power to predict (since it is an open system). Theories, while they do explain things, do not predict anything. It is the formalization of a theory into a closed system (usually into mathematics) which allows for it to be used to make predictions (ie, the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

    Science has no theories about past unobserved events dude... We don't have time machines.

     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That was a side discussion between two Christians. I am well aware that you are not a Christian.

    Never acted like there weren't... I merely mentioned, as an aside, that the Bible has a bunch of knowledge within it... obviously you are ignorant of said knowledge...
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    58,734
    Likes Received:
    16,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have to be a Christian to study the Bible any more than I would need to be a communist to study communism.

    You wrote off huge amounts of human knowledge by simply suggesting that it doesn't mater. I've never seen such a rally cry for ignorance coming from ANY sourrce, let alone Christianity.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,431
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And never did I claim that one needed to be... You seem to enjoy applying bogus position assignments and attacking those instead of what people actually say... Maybe I'll just respond to such instances with the words "bogus position assignment" to save myself time...

    bogus position assignment.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2020
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    58,734
    Likes Received:
    16,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No school of science suggests this is the source of laws.
    Any statement of how this universe works on ANY scale in ANY domain IS a prediction of what will be found.

    The very idea of "no predictions" is just about as ridiculous a statement about science that could possibly be made.

    Predictions are the direct result of building theories and laws. If they weren't predictive they would be GARBAGE.
    This idea that if some human weren't there then we don't know what happened is just plain silly.

    I've never heard of anyone believing anything even slightly similar to that. You are unique!!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    58,734
    Likes Received:
    16,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Bible states explicitly that salvation is through FAITH alone.

    Salvation IS the key Biblical issue with all other issues falling to relative insignificance. And, faith has nothing to do with evidence.

    Christianity is a religion. It doesn't depend on evidence. You don't have to see that as a bad thing - I don't. It's just the way it is.

    On the other hand, there isn't any science that considers one line of evidence to be sufficient. In all cases, multiple lines of evidence are important if not critical.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  22. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't answer the question. You probably got your science degree from the same place you got your driver's license, Disneyland.
     
  23. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's no proof of this. It's just more guessing based on the starting point that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
     
  24. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All secularists have to go on is faith that their theories are correct. There is no fact and no science that proves the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Just give us one scientific fact that says it is. Just one.
     
  25. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is bewildering how people can diss science and scientists when it comes to religion then accept everything they give them when it comes to saving their lives and making their toys less expensive.
     
    WillReadmore and Cosmo like this.

Share This Page