Question to those that subscribe to the young Earth "theory"

There are several things I question here:
1. Why do you assume that a person's belief is based only on Bible teachings?
2. What gives you the idea that God wants us to fully understand him and his word? If that were the case there would be no need for faith or belief; only the facts would then be in dispute. God ask us to have faith in him and in giving us free will (if you believe in God) God has shown his faith in us. JMHO.
3. The Bible is a book of parables; Jesus himself declares it so in many ways. If you take it anyother way then you are mistaken IMHO. Thus to use it to PROVE he is or isn't or that the teachings are false IMHO is an exercise in futility. Which, of course, is not to say you can't it only means you will never be filled with faith by doing so.

 

Unknown to me FinD. I'd have to go do more looking into it than I feel motivated to do. Was hopeful someone here had more knowledge about it.

 

I did some research and the claim was a misrepresentation of data by Paul Taylor.

The measurements were of the age of xenoliths in ~200 year old lava using krypton/argon radiodating. Because these xenoliths are encased in lava and errors in dating arise due to the heat of the lava, contamination by atmospheric argon, etc, xenolith are supposed to be removed before dating is done.

From the literature, there are multiple radiometric methods used to measure the decay of different isotopes. All of the methods return the approximate same age of rocks both here and on the moon (4.54 billion years old +/- 1%). Given that level of "sameness" among the different methods used, and unless the physics of radioactive decay only doesn't work when dating earth and moon (and meteor) rocks, I think the evidence that the earth as a body is just over 4 billion years old.

References:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/190/1/205

 

Could be mistaken, but it was found in some coal. I know there's different kinds of coal, some requiring more time to form than others.

 

I will try to find more later but here is what a Google search yielded:

"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)"

There is also a more detailed explaination of why C-14 can be found in coal and make the coal seem "younger" than it is at the link below.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

 

So, basically, when the results match what they expect, they're valid. When they don't there's something wrong.

 

well that is science.

 

Actually, as I stated it, it is cherry picking. But, it was an unfair restatement, admitted.

 

In the case of the coal issue, I don't think anyone is cherry picking. The article admits that they don't have a good answer and offer two hypothesis. In the lava example, the explanation is reasonable IMO and is widely supported from what I could find.

The basis of science is to ask questions about things that don't make sense. It is not the nature of scientist to blindly accept unreasonable conclusions and the peer review process works to keep scientists focused on keeping guesswork and weak justifications for irrational data out of the mainstream.

Despite what many people may think, if there was overwhelming data to suggest that the earth was young (as there is overwhelming data to show the earth is very old), very few scientist would care one way or another, other than it raises a new set of questions to be answered. Scientists, on the whole, don't have an emotional investment in conclusions that arise from good science.

 

As an aside: To me, "cherry picking" is coming home one day to your wife of 20 years and see her wearing man's business suit then seriously question all you know about her and wonder if she is indeed a man.

 

1. I don't assume anything because assuming causes an *** u me

2. what makes you think he doesn't want us to understand his word. Better yet what if God is a women??? Better yet a black women!!!!

3. Jesus....who's Jesus ....depending on which version of events you believe he was a madmen by some people's accounts. I am not saying that's what I believe I'm just trying to make a point. Faith in what, that when I die I'm going to a place no one can show me exists.


I got some questions for you Ron, not to be a jerk just to provoke meaningful conversation!!!

1. what if religion was nothing more then a way, people of a long time ago, figured out how to get money from people.....kind of like panhandling???

2. Have you ever heard a story told a year after the story occurred. It is nothing like the original version. All the books were stories that were told for 100's of years before they were ever written down................so do we really know what the original events were???

3. Have you ever seen God????

4. Did you know the bible was translated almost 100 times before it was translated into english

5. Did you know the original version of the bible doesn't exist?????

There is so much that can never be answered. I hope it's true. I hope there really is more to this existence we live. Unfortunately, for me, it's a struggle to buy into the methodology. I am very analytical, and it is difficult for me to believe........just for the sake of believing!!!

The last thought i will leave you with is If God created the Earth, heavens and everything in it ......then he created me......so he should understand when I get to the Pearly gates .....he OR SHE made me this way

 

Ok, I'll except that, because I don't want either of us to look like an ***.

1. If you read my answer I think I fully answered this. God isn't black, or white, or any other color IMHO. But if I'm wrong, really, who cares? Not me.

2. AS I stated in the beginning If you are looking for phyical proof I'm not your guy, sorry. My "proof" has been shared in the Religious thread, if you are interested.

Ok I'll be glad to talk to you, I'm not offended, I hope you won't be either. I can't give you the phyical evidence you seek but by the same token you can't shake my faith in what I feel and know to be true.

1. There have been many belief systems in this world so which Religion do you speak of. As a side note let me state that I have little use for the organized church, it is run by men and women who, for the most part have their own agenda. Its the reason I always separate "the Church" and christians

2. My point exactly. The Bible is a book of parables. Just to make sure we are on the same page I believe the Bible is nothing more or less than God's rule book. It is not intended to "prove" he is or isn't (some may try to use it that way butthe intent was not to prove) it is to give us a map in which he hopes we will live our lives. It has been written by men who make mistakes never the less the rules are worth following JMHO.

3. Every day and in every way but to truly your question the way you mean it (as if he were a person) No. I have felt him within me several times and there is no way to describe that most wonderful feeling.

4. and 5. So what difference does it make? Men (and women do these things) not God.

6. This is where faith comes in IMHO.

7. And I will answer your thought with - Surely he will, God doesn't make mistakes and he loves you no matter what. Please keep searching, you will be given your answer, I believe that with all of my heart.

And I will leave you with one of mine: Is there a God? You may believe what you will as it cost nothing in this life but just for the sake of arguement lets say there is; surely don't you want to hedge your bet? I'll see you on the other side.

 

I was referring to Christian. Separating Church and God like you have changes a lot for me. Maybe what I don't believe in is the organized church. It has always been the people or the church that have pushed me away from God.

I actually love the morals and ethics that religion teaches and feel they are sorely missed form our society today.

 

I basically rejected religion all these years because I believe it is a way for these organizations to get people to give them money.....kind of like panhandlers on steroids.

What bothers me even more is the fact that they pay $0 in taxes. To me this is a crock of ****. Why are they exempt? I see some of the nicest and richest churches built on some of the most expensive plots of land that a person can buy.............huge, gigantic churches!!!!! When I say Gigantic I mean it....one just built here in a suburb of Atlanta is 450,000 square feet with a main worship hall that is 180 feet round with a leaded glass dome ceiling that is 65 feet tall. I believe they spend 12 million dollars on it.

Where do they get this type of money from????

 

IMHO you gave 2socks wonderful advise "Stop letting others pick your direction." and then you proceeded to give him direction. The very thing you say you have distain for.

I respect your belief system, whatever you want to call it, why? Because I was not put here to judge you just as I don't judge 2socks. He came to me, I didn't seek him out or have I tried to change his thinking, my only challenge to him was to continue to seek the truth.

And then you go beyond that by saying there is only one rule that he should follow and you give him your rule. Just what are you afraid of him finding out by going his own way without interference from you; or I?

 

Others have done the very same thing and for that very same reason. You are not alone.

 

If I misunderstood what you wrote I'm sorry but you see just going by your first remark in this post (my bold) I think not. Why? Because you imply a contest of sorts "Nice try." I only wished him well in his search and gave him no rules or direction and all of this was after he engaged me in conversation.

Just as your beliefs are yours and mine are mine his will be his, just how he goes about getting where he ends up is a road only he will travel and the best rule he could have is the one/ones he demands from himself (I think from all I've seen from 2socks I have no fear; he will trust his own council) and nothing you or I say should have any effect unless he deems it so IMHO and I'll leave it at that. Again if I misread you, sorry.

 

no because nothing = nothing

 

I'm not sure how to answer your question other then it has never been proven their are alternate plains. I certainly don't believe that the writers of the 7 books (Mark, Luke, John, Genesis,etc) had any inclination what so ever that there could be alternate plains. Some have suggested that 1+1 may not equal 2. Which really isn't a bad argument considering math is MAN Made, we created it to express thoughts. The same could be said about "GOD" we (man) created him ....so maybe he never existed, or exists today other then in Faith!!!!!!

Furthermore, we have yet to establish the existence of God or discuss "GOD" because the thread started out talking about the earth and GOD and then got into light and space and time conversation.

No one has answered my first question which was " If God created the heavens and the Universe and everything that exists, then where or what created GOD???

 

**** Please read the complete post.****

Well lets take your question one step further. If God didn't do it and there is no God because we can't "see" him/her/it. Please explain just how we got a "Big Bang" in the first place? How was Something created out of nothing? Are you ok with there is no meaning to what we are doing? I'm tired and want to check out, is that ok? If there is no rhyme or reason then why do it at all? Just What is the point in going thru all the pain and suffering? To make things better? If thats the case maybe its best if none of us are here? Would that not be the best of all things to have happen? Maybe Earth goes back to being the wonderful place it was before we got here? Of course then it would never be known if it was wonderful or not.

No, on second thought, I like the idea of a Supreme being rather than being the afterbirth of the big bang. That thought just sits well with me.

2socks, please don't get me wrong I am not out to make fun of what you are asking because I know that you really want to know, hell we all do. Never the less we as humans are driven to "Find" the purpose in all of this and every person has to come to terms, in his or her own way, as to what that purpose is to be able to put up with all that we do. In closing I wish you luck, peace, and a smooth journey with no rocks in your path. May the Sun always be in your face and the Wind always at your back and if you get there first save a place for me because if I'm first I'll do likewise.

Ron

 

I Always read your posts completely!!! Actually, is it possible that maybe we are not capable as humans to comprehend the uncomprehendable. Maybe the answers are beyond our intelligence capabilities.

(shrug shoulders)

 

If God exists then he requires nothing to create him. He is everything there ever was and ever will be. The only things we can percieve we only percieve because he made it so.

 

Sure okay....keep telling yourself that. Apparently, you didn't read post #1, I knew someone would say that

 

Maybe it's all just Hollywood and the guy behind the curtain does it.

 

Off topic.....check this out

http://www.teslamotors.com/

go thru the site and let me know what you think.............this may change the world!!!!!

 

Uh post #1? Which exactly would that be, not the first of the thread.

I think the question your asking is a pretty obviously unanswerable question that cant really go very far.

 

Damn that is one fine looking car!! You gonna get one? Man If I had 40 big ones to throw around I'd join you but I'm getting to short for those things anymore. Give me my lazy boy and AC in the summer and a nice fire in the winter with the Fins on the telly and I'm a happy man. Oh, and some Deer meat in the fridg.

 

we got a lot in common

 

Does make one think!!!!!!!!!!

 

??/ Nthing = nothing?

There's another man-made item. What exactly is nothing?

If I look in the air and see nothing, it's only because the particles drifting in the air are too small to see. If I look at a blank sheet of paper and see nothing on it, is there really nothing on it or is there some fine dust I can't see really there.

The vacuum of space. Is it really nothing or does light travel through it? If something travels through "it" then the it is something.

For those math folks, I give you the following Einstein problem:

http://www.debate.org/debates/1-1-2-Math/1/

Where's the missing dollar?

 

It's on topic. Math is being used to define the speed of light and so on. If the underlying math is unreliable, then everything derived from the math is suspect.

Give me a bandaid please. Papercuts are painful.

And, sure it is. The room cost $30 to rent. 3 persons were using the room, thus 3 persons x $10 is $30. They each got a $1 refund, so it cost each person $9. 3 persons x $9 = $27. That's how much they paid for the room--from their perspective. Add in the $2 that the boy kept and you now have $29. We're still missing a dollar.

How does my point relate?

If you're not looking at the problem from the right perspective, you will always get the wrong answer--especially if you don't have all the facts, or are using a system that is imperfect.

 

The question is not defined as $30 each. The total room bill is $30 and it is divided amongst the 3 men staying in the one room. From the perspective of the men staying in the room, they paid $10 each and each got a $1 refund--meaning each man had an out of pocket expense of $9. The total out-of-pocket expenditure for all three men is $27. From their perspective, that's how much they paid. Add in the $2 that the boy pocketed and you get $29--the problem.

The reality is that the hotel received $30 and that should be the focus and starting point of the problem. After the deduction, the hotel has in it's vault $25. The reason I say it is a perception issue is it depend on what perspective you look from.

If there's a problem with the room, the men are going to demand $27 in refund money because that's how much they really paid--even though the hotel only got $25 in the end.

 

The solution to the puzzle was posted the same forum in which the original question was posed:

also here:

http://www.hive-mind.com/mindgames/hotel/hotsol.html

 

nothing is a concept, therefore it does not exist unless nothing = something.

 

If a Carradine had a "happy moment" in a room in Thailand (while noosed and suspended in a closet) but no one saw him "smile", was he actually "happy"?