I am not a 'Young Earther' I do, however, see the merit in some of the arguments. The arguments I can remeber off the top of my head are; Polly-straight fossils Indiscrepincies in the geological strata Bends in the geological strata Invertabries on mountain tops Archaeological and historical evidence of dinosaurs living with man Flaws in current dating methods ie carbon and radiometric dating Current dating estimates on rivers Lack of evidence for continental drift
Anyway do you think not necessarily that the earth is only a few thousand years old, but is it possible based on the current evidence?
Ok we got off topic on the forum "'God' versus 'The Big Bang'" so I wanted to start a new thread to debate our new topic. For this I am assuming some God exists. Doesn't have to be the christian god, but that is where most my knowlage rests. I think God can have a plan or even just create the universe without needing to control every atom and event ever. He can create us with a general idea of what he wants and just let random events do the rest. The god of the bible seems show this in one way with Noah. Seems odd to think he planned everything out to the letter just to kill everyone and start over more or less with a clean slate. I think he can create Adam and Eve without ever caring if you and I exist. Just caring that humans will and wanting to be praised or whatever his goal is. Now I believe he has the ability to easily control every atom through out the universe at every moment, I just don't see the point to it. I have the ability to put all my clothes into the hamper to be washed, but when I get into the shower I throw my shirt randomly and it ends up on the floor a good portion of the time. I don't think ability to do something means that we have to do that thing. Really the debate falls to "Do you think God controls everything or just set the pieces in motion?" Its not something I've debated before, but might be fun.
Yuno_Lift [121252]"Some would say yes, it was the act of a loving God to destroy his own creation by flood, because it had been corrupted genetically, becoming an abomination."
So then God created something that became corrupted... Obviously an all-knowing being would have seen that coming, and an all-powerful one could have easily prevented it from happening...
 I don't think you can claim a loving God that could blink everybody it if existence would do that. If you really think about the story. I mean drowning is not a pleasant death and how long can you tread water. I can t tread longer then my parents and my kids. How long do you watch loved ones drown as you try and swim?
TedThomas [887131]Highly held by who? There is no "scientific ground" for the existence of ghosts period, let alone that they footprints of souls or whatever the hell you are going on about.
it's highly held by people in general. Before I go into what counts as evidence are you claiming that the events described as ghosts just don't happen? Here I thought we were talking about what we thought these phenomena were.
TedThomas [887131]Because its obvious you just made all that s**t up, thanks for admitting it though.
But I don't understand, if I gave you a citation you would just say that person "made that s**t up" and then if they gave you another citation you would just say the next person "made that s**t up" hence why I fail to see how a citation would validate it. Everything is eventually made up by someone and it's as good an explanation as any given the subject matter, it doesn't matter where I got the idea from it's what I believe to be the truth about "ghosts"
The point being is do you have any evidence that anything that you said is true, and the answer is no. Its made up and no more useful than any other random made up BS about "ghosts". I know that it is made up because there is no possible way for you to test whether what you claim is actual true or not. We cant even verify that it is an actual phenomenon, much less what exactly it is.
Its one thing to say you have seen Bigfoot, its a whole other layer of bulls**t to claim that you know what his favorite food is and what he likes to do on the weekends for fun.
I highly doubt we will have some end all evidence for the existence of ghosts. MB's take on ghosts is a highly held one. It has more scientific ground then first saying we all have souls, then saying that some of these souls just decide to wonder around the earth or get lost on their way to another place that we have no way of proving exsists. Especially sense not one ever makes any real attempt to communicate with us. That makes it seem much less like they have any intelligence behind them and are more of a footprint left behind. I personally agree with MB's theory. I feel there are way too many people around for how few ghosts seem to be around, so a footprint to be left here and there in the right conditions seems plausible. Fading over time it seems that is a better explenation that requires much fewer leaps in logic. Kind of an Occam's Razor kind of thing.
MadameButterfly [1035358]Fair enough, if a creator existed then humans are an accident, the creator would obviously be a Physicist and the real experiment was the creation of the universe as an experiment in Physics, any form of biology is just a flaw, we are nothing more than a foreign pollutant on a petri dish which is evident is the fact that the universe is so large and life occupies a miniscule part of it. The creator wouldn't even know we exist and if they ever found out would most likely abandon the experiment and start again with different variables to prevent further pollution.
So, you feel if there was a god he would have to be like we are to a petri dish? I like the petri dish comparison, though I think that if god were to exist that he would have to disobey the laws of physics as we know them and therefor would not have to be physical. Just like to the simple molecules in the petri dish we have to be much more complex then they are to have that experiment be successful. I agree that we could be a mistake though. Life as a whole seems to destroy everything around it
No it wouldn't have to disobey the laws of physics as we know them because the laws of physics as we know them only apply to our universe, "outside" our universe different laws may apply (which is what makes the whole "nothing can come from nothing" argument most creationists are fond of moot) because our universe was not created inside itself, our laws didn't begin until the universe was a few Milli-seconds old (which for the big bang was a long time). The petri dish was just an analogy, something like this couldn't be grown in a lab. If we are assuming the universe was created in a botched experiment and we are assuming there was also a central point or "big bang" it would require something more along the lines of particle acceleration. Maybe our universe is just the product of slamming two of what passes for atoms outside this universe together. Time could also be different, billion of years for us could be mere milli-seconds for them since our Time is a product of the big bang so only exists within our universe bubble. As for " So, you feel if there was a god he would have to be like we are to a petri dish" no, as I said the petri dish was an analogy, don't try to put words in my mouth or twist what I say to suit you. Again if we are to assume we are the result of an experiment in splitting atoms then "the creator" would be around the same technological level as us since it would be fair to assume that a more advanced species would have already learned all they need to know from slamming atoms together and as time passes for us whereas for them it stays stagnant we would surpass them technologically.
You get so defensive. I wasn't putting words in your mouth or twisting what you were saying. I asked a single Question and you seem to have taken your whole analogy back. If we aren't like the Petri dish and God isn't someone using a Petri dish I don't really know where you were going with that. Also you're just arguing simantics by saying he wouldn't disobey the laws of physics he would exsist outside them. I do enjoy the theories of being part of an experiment though and it seems to reason that if we were created byssmashing these, I'm just gonna call then atoms for the sake of ease, together then we would be moving impossibly fast making your time dilation theory sound.
Evolution can only explain so much and I don't feel like it can explain the roots and beginnings. Evolution only refines us. The simplest of life forms are still more then a sand castle so are many other amazing things in this universe.
CatHead [1581564]Another cliche that I'm going to throw out there for the fun of it is this:
I was walking down the road today and I saw a number plate that said "4998748". Out of all the number plates I could have seen, I saw that number plate. What's more, it was red. It was being driven by an old lady who had straight black hair. There was a little dent in the bumper and everything. It drove past me at exactly 33 miles per hour. What are the chances of exactly that happening? They must have been astronomical, right?
No.
The development of the known universe seems so complex to us because we're looking from the tail end (currently) of a massive chain reaction. If you look at the end result of a series of events and apply a list of restrictions onto them (that don't apply) then things seem like they're far more unlikely than they really are. Tonnes of things might have happened differently, true. But what's being proposed here is the impossibility (or even improbability) that a complex chain of events could create something. Remember that the time frame we're speaking about here is all but incomprehensible for humans, the series of events leading to where we are today couldn't ever be listed. We wouldn't know about it if somehow it failed to happen. We wouldn't know if in other parts of the universe a similar chain of events almost happened. We have no idea how many times it might have failed to happen in the past. For as much as we know, our reality could be an inevitability in a universe that expands and crunches infinite times.
An intelligent designer is just another way to fill the gaps. Sure, complex things that are made by humans need to be designed. I've heard said "The evidence is all around you, you just need to look at it." But really, there is no evidence that complex natural processes needed to be designed. Show me evidence of something designing the wind. Show me the evidence of something designing the sun. Show me the evidence of something designing anything that is natural. Complexity isn't evidence in itself, because we don't know what the odds are for the things that happened.
Excellent. Exactly what people aren't realising.
I am only making points here, as I'd rather not argue whether or not there is a god, because frankly, I have no idea. However, many people act like our planet was formed so perfectly in a perfect placement to our sun, and we happened to evolve into what we are so perfectly. The truth is, what happened in our solar system failed to happen trillions of times elsewhere in the universe. The only thing that really mattered odds-wise was whether Earth managed to land in the right spot relative to the sun. Once that happened, our planet was able to support life, and the odds of their being life on Earth actually became a possibility. Whether a comet smashing into our planet brought the basics of life, or whether elements formed molecules, and molecules formed basic life forms, and basic life forms slowly became complex life forms, it doesn't really matter. It was the slow exponential increase of life forming that gave us life on Earth, not us being created instantaneously from dust. Adam and Eve's story could quite possibly be another metaphor in the bible, but that is for each individual to decide. If you take the bible literally, you won't look too intelligent. But if we look at the bible in a bunch of simplified stories that were simplified so people who didn't understand much of science COULD understand it at the time, then you could see it as being potentially legitimate.
To address the clock metaphor: Have you tried shaking a clock for a trillion years non-stop? It seems unlikely that all the pieces would fall together perfectly if you do it for 10 minutes, an hour, or a day straight, but 1,000,000,000,000 years x365 days x24 hours x60 minutes is a long LONG time for something with tiny odds to come true. Just something to think about.
Complexity does make us assume a designer though. Ifyou were walking down the beach and there were no signs of people anywhere. No foot prints no nearby buildings or boats and you saw a large beautiful sand castle would you assume that the wind and water must have made that randomly? We don't know the odd it must be possible, or we are only seeing the end product maybe it is simpler then it seems? No we are going to assume the evidence of the designers got washed away. I don't think you could get anybody
Yuno_Lift [121252]That's the exact same situation as the lava floes tested in Hawaii in the 60s. The test indicated an age of millions of years because of the millions-of-years-old rocks brought to the surface by the eruption. This is data misrepresentation at its finest.
So you state that "there are plenty of scientists with the appropriate credentials that do believe in young earth theories" without actually knowing of a single one? Instead, you've taken Bob Dutkos's word on it?
Are you serious? No I am not a scientist I am somebody with a general interest I look up sources a necessary. I gave you a source to do this yourself. I'm not doing all the work for you. You are now saying every source that doesn't agree with yours is obviously trying to decide us? Where is the record of them dating rocks that are just a few years old then? To disprove, ask they have to do is show accurate dates using these methods then. Saying they could go through and find only the older rocks is stupid. You can't just say nu uh and think that is acceptable. They would have to do more test. The reason they don't us because they can't. it's data misrepresentation at its finest.
Yuno_Lift [121252]Can you give an example of ONE scientist with appropriate credentials who also believes in a young earth?
None of those methods fail when put to the test. In fact, they've been tested over and over and over again and are quite accurate. There will always be a margin of error and anomalies, but when a reading doesn't make sense it isn't just accepted at face value. Young-earthers like to cite a certain study series of studies performed in Hawaii in the 60s as "evidence" of inaccuracy of radiometric dating, while ignoring that we know EXACTLY why the results were so strange and went on to use different dating methods.
If the universe was created with apparent age then the creator is a deceiver, so how can this creator's word be trusted?
Looking at young earth theories from EITHER SIDE of the debate invalidates them.
Again still not arguing in favour of creationism. It's more sound to say that maybe evolution didn't take as long as we think it did We have tested the formation of rocks in the 1980s eruption of mt saying Helen and got results saying that the rocks were more then a million years old when in fact they were days old. Also in this post you again mention these "diffrent" dating methods. I'm not sure if you were the one I've asked twice now but what are these other dating methods. You can't just say "oh those methods are flawed we obviously you the new unflawed method" As far as scientist names go, I don't follow closely enough to care what the names are. I told you that you could YouTube Bob Dutko he lists many over and over ifyou care what the names are you can listen and write them down when they come up.
Yuno_Lift [121252]Our dating abilities *are* strong. Creationist "scientists" like to use dating methods that are not appropriate in order to make it seem like they don't work. There's a reason these people generally don't have any meaningful credentials.
There are plenty of scientists with the appropriate credentials that do believe in young earth theories. The reason you don't see them as often is because it is not the mainstream belief and if they go off making their views known they will not be able to get as many good sense most people are not willing to keep an open mind. When have you seen then able to correctly date something we already know the date of? Because if you can't, then we can't put to much faith in the accuracy of them. I've seen them unable to date things we know the date of. I've seen all major dating methods fall when put to the test carbon dating, radiometric dating, using the geological strata all fail when put to the test. If we had a young earth, all these methods would still tell us it is billions of years old.
Yuno_Lift [121252]Creationism does not have explanatory power. It can *accommodate* science, but this is entirely different. Ken Ham's video there really highlights this. It doesn't matter if something *can* be explained by bible stories if we have a different, tested, substantiated explanation for the same thing. When all of the research points to one answer, proposing a completely different answer because it isn't proven to be false is just insanity.
I'm not saying the bible stories are the right answer either. That is just what the sites that argue against the mainstream theories usually push. I'm just saying that the young earth theories have merit not that god created it all. In fact I could still believe that maybe evolution just took less time then the mainstream belifes are pushing. Thats more scientifically sound then creationism.
It's not scientifically sound at all. The only evidence for a young earth is circumstantial at best, and requires an assumption of youth in order to work as evidence at all.
a lot of it is circumstantial and a lot of it is just looking at the flaws in old earth theories. I feel a lot of old earth theories of circumstantial as well though. Our dating abilities are not strong. It's why I say I don't know how old the earth is.
Yuno_Lift [121252]Creationism does not have explanatory power. It can *accommodate* science, but this is entirely different. Ken Ham's video there really highlights this. It doesn't matter if something *can* be explained by bible stories if we have a different, tested, substantiated explanation for the same thing. When all of the research points to one answer, proposing a completely different answer because it isn't proven to be false is just insanity.
I'm not saying the bible stories are the right answer either. That is just what the sites that argue against the mainstream theories usually push. I'm just saying that the young earth theories have merit not that god created it all. In fact I could still believe that maybe evolution just took less time then the mainstream belifes are pushing. Thats more scientifically sound then creationism.
Yuno_Lift [121252]I'd like to look into this Bob Dutko guy but I sadly don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on his CDs. T_T
Have you dug anything up yet?
Yeah the CDs are ridiculously priced, but you can still listen to them on youtube I believe. No I haven't even started looking. It take forever to search through all the crap and I haven't had the chance.
marduke [426197]IA Cthulhu lol. But seriously now, no I don't have a link... I have the a copy of the magazine itself, but I haven't used its online resources so idk if it'd be on the website, of if it is on the website if their website is subscription fees for some if not all content as well like some newspaper.
Well wasn't sure since multiverse human would count as an alien, but the most probable version of time travel involves traveling to a near identical universe that was created after the universe/timeline that the traveler came from. I suppose that wormholes might be a theoretical work-around but so far we haven't found any to observe and on paper the easiest stuff to work out is the assumption that they don't mess around too much with the 4th dimension when folding space.
I'm not all that interested in starting a time-travel debate. For starters I never took physics and at best I understand algebra. So even though I can grasp the concepts of what is possible, I can't work it out or understand in on paper. So most of the serious replies would go over my head, then there are the fanatics on both sides that think either a)its impossible no matter what, or b)it's already happened because of(insert photo, event, myth, or landmark here). Then, there's also those that try to be silly with it, referencing sci-fi shows for laughs rather than discussing the ideas behind the episodes and shows provided they have merit. Finally, after all that, but before reasonable people, are the people who don't give a crap and just want to post something to try to ruin the thread who may or may not also fall into the previous category. I believe I may have encountered some early on the ebola thread. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, or perhaps the death toll got too high to make fun of it, but that thread's been kinda dead lately... My point is, too much hassle and I have a relatively low mental tolerance for most of that kind of stuff.
Yeah I'm sure the site has fees to read their stuff, but if there are real theories I'm sure I can find something. I will have to wait till I'm in a real mood for it or I won't be able to grasp any of it.
As I understand it, time travel is theoretically possible, it would just take a near infinite amount of energy to obtain it based on the way we currently see things work. Worm holes have their place in some time travel theories too, but we don't have near that kind of control over such things.
Yuno_Lift [121252]Yes, CatHead, there will never be any way to show the existence of God so the supporters of this position resort to attempts to poke holes in science. They're fueled by lack of scientific knowledge, misinformation, and fallacies.
Evolution on a scale sufficient to 'change species' has been observed in nature over relatively short time periods, but you have to keep ignoring that in order to keep up your argument, Tulinz.
I'm not ignoring it I actually started by asking if she had a link to support that idea and instead our discussion went in this direction. Last time I looked it up all I found was evidence for simple adaptation.
There still is no line between "simple adaptation" and evolution, though. The idea that adaptation cannot lead to new species ignores all of the knowledge we've acquired about genetics in the past centuries and can be classified as pseudoscience.
again if that was true, we wouldn't be calling evolution a theory anymore. We can observe simple adaptation, we can test and retest and see it happens yet evolution remains a theory. Why is it that you think that is?
