The debate regarding the age of our planet...

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Dragonseer, Aug 11, 2010.

  1. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a wonderful summary of the facts. Plain, simple, so easy to understand that it beggars belief that every child does not leave school with such a basic set of premise in their world-view. No believer has a valid argument about the hard science that underlines your every point. Archaeology and Cosmology have no agenda, not even the consideration of trying to debunk religion. The debunking is a natural consequence of the endeavour to reveal accurate information. I know where I look for truth.
     
  2. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Flatly absurd? I have been an amateur astronomer for 3 decades and in that time have seen an exponential growth in our understanding. If it has taught me anything it is this.... we have only so far looked at the tip of the tip of an iceberg of understanding.
    Our knowledge of solar and planetary magnetosphere's is still in a pre-school stage. And quantum effects within them is not even a science yet. Yet you know enough to call it flatly absurd!
     
  3. Amergin

    Amergin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    We know that the Universe is at least 13.9 billion years old. We also know the following rational ideas.

    1. Earth is older than 4.5 billion years, as the oldest rocks prove. However we understand that Earth took a long time to accrete rocks that eventually heated by gravity and nuclear fission. The rocks we measure were once molten. When they hardened, we were able to measure their age. Earth may have been accreting for millions before the first rocks formed as the molten surface cooled.

    2. We know all animals including human animals developed through Evolution, a natural selection of changing conditions leading to variations that succeeded. The idea that all humans descended from a single couple is biologically impossible and in my opinion, stupid. Remember that Stone Age savages dreamed up the fairie tales we call Genesis. I do not condemn them for their ignorance. They made up stories to explain the mysterious.

    3. We know the Earth is a sphere and not the centre of the universe. Enough on that fact.

    4. We know that consciousness and cognition (thinking) are products of complex circuits of neurons, axons, nerve terminals, synaptic neurochemical connections, receptors, and other neurons. Billions of these circuits are proven to be the thinking networks of the brain by many different neuroscientists. The idea of a soul is unnecessary. I do not deny souls but souls simply are unnecessary.

    5. Steven Hawking has shown us the Universe going back to the Big Bang and how quantum science shows that something CAN arise out of nothing. Particle physicists show that subatomic particles pop into and out of nothingness all of the time. We do not need a Humanoid God to explain creation. God is unnecessary. He was early man's attempt to explain the unknown by the unknowable.

    Bible literalists as shown by Diagoras, choose verses to form obviously false religious beliefs. The darker effect is that irrational faerie tales are used to block children from learning real science. Christianity produced the Dark Ages. Christianity set back human progress by more than a millennium.

    I am shocked to see how backward and scientifically ignorant American young people and children have become. The great country, the USA is great in science and medicine because of an elite educated minority of less than 10% of the population.

    Amergin
    "God, Darth Vader, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn may possibly exist, but they are unnecessary to explain anything." - Me
     
  4. bob x

    bob x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    OK, I stand corrected then. But you were leaping from a finding that there is a variation that amounts to a small fraction of one percent, so that something which was dated 10 million years old might really be 9,970,000 years old instead, to saying that it is uncertain whether the world is a few thousand years old: this is what made me snap at you like you were one of those tedious "creation science" people. If science discovers that the average distance to the Moon is not 238,000 miles like they previously calculated, but more like 237,930 well then that is wonderful that science is refining knowledge; what it is not is evidence for "See! That proves that the moon landing was faked in the Arizona desert!" which is how you were coming across to me.
     
  5. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    Hear! Hear!
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    No we don't. We "know" no such thing. That is our best guess, a best guess I might add that has changed many times over the last 40 years, and it will change again.

    Nuclear fission? Hardly. If you had said Nuclear fusion, I might not have caught it. Volcanic melting "resets" the atomic clock on a rocks age...so this is incorrect.

    Where to begin? Evolution is still a process we do not understand, and I am not going to take the time to enlighten you here now. A lot of what is taught as evolution contradicts the facts in the field...so you are really beginning to sound like a fundamentalist. It was Bronze and Iron age savages that wrote the Old Testament, at least get your facts straight.

    No its not, its pear shaped.

    What is love? Chemicals and neurons? The "exact" same chemicals and neurons are involved with G-d, proven by mainstream science. Does love exist? If love does exist, then so does G-d, proven scientifically. If love doesn't exist, I suggest you do not tell your wife.

    That's funny, all the astrophysicists I've read have mixed feelings on the subject. A lot of them think the universe will keep on expanding until it grows cold and burns out...no big crunch afterall. So much for dogma, eh?

    And I'm to the point now where I just roll my eyes at all of the intolerant fundy bigotry around me in every guise and discipline...usually by groupies that don't really have a clue.

    Now if you could only find a way to explain anything the way it actually is rather than how you imagine it. It is popular opinion, widely reported, that the invisible unicorn is pink. Those in the know, that actually study these things, have realized invisible unicorns might actually be purple.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  7. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is very pedantic and ironically falls to the same criticism you voiced. The date for the ageing of that area we refer to as our universe is getting ever more refined and just under 14 billion years is indeed the date the science reveals. This is done by reversing the observed extent of expansion to the point it must have all shared a common space. We are now at the point where we can look back by viewing the very deepest field objects to within 300 million years of that estimate. The physics tells us that our next generation of instruments should confirm with much greater clarity what we can already observe, that the deepest field galactic structures adhere to the primitive stage of evolution the theories predicted. It is easy to say science is always changing its mind because it is ever tinkering looking for greater refinement. But it is disingenuous to use this as you do to dismiss what is in fact a well studied and highly credible model.
    Again you fall back on pedantry revealing only that you do not have a stronger case. If you deny the evidence of the millions of observations that support the basic premise of evolution theory then you can have nothing less than a wilful ignorance. And please enlighten us what aspects of "taught" evolution are "in contradiction to observations in the field"?
    P......E.......D.......A.......N........T !
    Love is a part of the evolved biology of a large brained social animal. Love is a mechanism that evolved through the evolutionary selection of empathic individuals making a better job of living in socially cohesive groups, and thus out-surviving those that did not. People are loathe to relinquish their romantic association with the biological facts, that does not mean they are not fully understood by those that study the development of social communities in nature.
    "So much for dogma"? Where is the universal crutch of dogma in science. By your very own words you cite its splits and divisions. These essential splits and divisions that are the driving force behind the new ideas that test our models. Why do you seem to see the very strengths of science, as well as the mark of its honesty, as a fault....when it suits you?
    This begs the question...who's groupie are you?
     
  8. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    the Torah has no problem with the universe being 14 billion years old, nor with evolution. as a religious jew and (i hope) as rational and scientifically-minded as i am educated enough to be, neither do i.

    biblical literalists are idiots. virtually nobody really understands what's actually going on at all levels of the ma'aseh bereisheeth (Creation account/s) in any case and they're certainly not going to be able to establish credibility or authority in this field.

    look, this is pretty basic stuff. the "days" "existed" before the "sun" and "moon" were "Created", so that ought to give you enough evidence even for the uneducated that we aren't exactly in literalist territory here.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  9. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    Thank you for noticing. Give that person the booby prize! Do you think maybe I was dishing out a second helping right back at those who figured they were right to sling hash?
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    Just some casual light reading for you, I suggest this first:

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/scientific-fundamentalism-11730.html

    here's one,

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/applied-anthropology-4598.html

    another,

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/morality-within-evolution-1360.html

    another,

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/evolution-question-9358.html

    another,

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/greatest-proof-of-a-lack-598.html

    another,

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/debate-on-science-11665.html

    and when you are finished, I recommend this,

    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-evolution-conflict-877.html

    then I will graciously accept your apology for your prejudicial jump to conclusion.
     
  11. Virtual_Cliff

    Virtual_Cliff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it really matters if the Earth is 4000, 4 million, or 4 trillion years old. It is unlikely to have the slightest bearing on my life.

    What bothers me is that there are people who think the Bible is a scientific text book when it is something far more valuable and useful.
     
  12. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fair enough.
    And for the record, I am not one of those types of people who make such statements indicated above.
    The info in the article I linked (Fermilab) indicates that this data has many people scratching their heads and seeking to find out the other implications of this find.
    Some have gone so far as to state that if it happens now it most likely has happened before and we don't know how often or to what degree, so this does raise a lot of questions as to accuracy of previous "solid" statements.

    It does look as though it will be developed into a reliable solar flare early warning device, and with CME's posing a danger to electronics on earth this would be nice to have.
     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  14. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    That's pretty cool stuff Shawn.
     
  15. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    445
    We *so* need a board to ridicule the fundy atheists who feel it is their imperitive to ridicule others...
     
  16. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    12
    Let's keep from personal attacks, please - we should be able to discuss civil issues with civility. :)
     
  18. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I have read here so far you have to post that on at least 20 more threads. The hatred for the non-believer is palpable.
     
  19. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too true.
    Better not kick any sacred cows by having an alternative viewpoint.....LOL.
     
  20. Dragonseer

    Dragonseer Soul Searcher

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    True, true.

    I'm with you. Heck, even the Roman Catholic Church doesn't claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate. :D To my mind, it teaches of a soul's evolution; to get bogged down with nitty-gritty details is to miss the greater message.
     

Share This Page