Originally posted by sonhouse BTW, here is what I would consider direct evidence of an ancient Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment
Sediment that accumulates at a rate of less than half a Cm per 1000 years! And the deposits are miles deep in some places.
Of course you are right, and when you trying so hard to convince the YECers here in Science Forum, you just invite them to take their propaganda into the Science Forum.
By playing the game with them, they force us to play it by their rules, and that we don't want. So just let us all please avoid to feed the YEC trolls here in the Science Forum.
Originally posted by RBHILL http://www.raptureforums.com/CreationVsEvolution/ageoftheearth.cfm
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
By Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
Some examples:
Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth
96. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce ...[text shortened]... ked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.
Originally posted by sonhouse BTW, here is what I would consider direct evidence of an ancient Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment
Sediment that accumulates at a rate of less than half a Cm per 1000 years! And the deposits are miles deep in some places.
The difficulty is that the fundamentalists are philosophical idealists, meaning that for them mind comes first, the material world is secondary to it. "In the beginning was the Word." does not just mean that God started the universe by speaking, it is also a statement of their philosophical viewpoint that their idea of God has primacy. So no amount of evidence is going to convince them. The only reason to intervene is when a claim is made that science supports what they are saying, which of course it doesn't. Science is empirical and starts from what we can see or detect. They come to it with the question already answered and simply discount any evidence that contradicts their preconceived position.
Mainstream Christians have a wider conception of God, they have God independent of this universe and although they still put their God first they regard this universe as something they can be empirical about.
Originally posted by DeepThought Science is empirical and starts from what we can see or detect. They come to it with the question already answered and simply discount any evidence that contradicts their preconceived position.
Everyone has a preconceived position. Only nut jobs so caught up in their beliefs actually believe that their preconceived position is absolute truth that every sane person must believe.
Science starts with what we can see or detect, people decide what that means.
If God actually created Adam from dust, how old would Adam appear to science 10 minutes after creation?
Oh, but wait, God would only create something which would be perceived as newly created so that man would not be deceived.
Originally posted by Eladar Everyone has a preconceived position. Only nut jobs so caught up in their beliefs actually believe that their preconceived position is absolute truth that every sane person must believe.
Science starts with what we can see or detect, people decide what that means.
If God actually created Adam from dust, how old would Adam appear to science 10 minutes a ...[text shortened]... ly create something which would be perceived as newly created so that man would not be deceived.
Originally posted by DeepThought And your point is?
Science can neither prove nor disprove an act of God. If the Universe was the result of a miraculous creation by God, then Science would not be able to prove the age of the Universe because Science doesn't not know what the initial Universe looked like, nor how old any part of it was when it was created.
Originally posted by Eladar Science can neither prove nor disprove an act of God. If the Universe was the result of a miraculous creation by God, then Science would not be able to prove the age of the Universe because Science doesn't not know what the initial Universe looked like, nor how old any part of it was when it was created.
The universe looks quite convincingly like it is 13.8 billion years old. This means either it is or it has been made to look that old. If it's been made to look that old then its been created with a history so convincing that we can't distinguish between the created history and a "real" one. So it doesn't particularly matter from a scientific point of view. The normal argument from fundamentalists is that one can tell the difference, partly because there are theological problems with a God that deceives us into thinking the universe is older than it is, and partly because the "false" history appears to contradict the Bible.
Originally posted by sonhouse BTW, here is what I would consider direct evidence of an ancient Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment
Sediment that accumulates at a rate of less than half a Cm per 1000 years! And the deposits are miles deep in some places.
That is not evidence for an ancient earth. I bet nobody measured that for a thousand years. It has already been proven that sediment does not have to accumulate at a constant rate. Volcanic eruptions, mud flow, tornadoes, floods, etc. can cause sediment to accumulate rapidly, like 1000 cm in an hour.
Originally posted by DeepThought The universe looks quite convincingly like it is 13.8 billion years old. This means either it is or it has been made to look that old. If it's been made to look that old then its been created with a history so convincing that we can't distinguish between the created history and a "real" one. So it doesn't particularly matter from a scientific point of ...[text shortened]... rse is older than it is, and partly because the "false" history appears to contradict the Bible.
The universe does not look older than 6,000 years to me. You must be looking at an illusion.
Can science prove the age of the earth?
16 Oct '14 14:56
Back to Top