|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23135 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
ringo hasn't participated in a while. We think it possible that he passed away in February of 2023.
Science is based upon evidence, and evidence tells us that the Earth is ancient - very ancient, about 4.54 billion years. You don't say anything about the age of the Earth in your post, but I presume you believe in a young Earth that's about 6000 years old. Since you believe in supernatural evidence, you could compare your supernatural evidence for a 6000 year old earth to the Hindu supernatural evidence for a 4.32 billion year old Earth, or to the Buddhist supernatural evidence for an immeasurably old Earth, or to the Jainism supernatural evidence of an infinite age, and so forth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 835 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
All science ignores that which can't be tested and so since there is no way to detect nor test the supernatural it is left with only the natural to test. Again this isn't unique to Evolutionary science but all science and it has proved a very useful process that has led to all the technology and other advances in knowledge. How else would you suggest that scientists proceed to expand human understanding of the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23135 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
dad3 writes in Message 1500: Evoism: Demand only the natural be used.pretend that defeats a supernatural creation.rinse.repeat This thread is about data correlations for an old Earth. If you'd like to discuss your supernatural evidence for an old Earth you could start a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. Your thread proposal could just briefly outline your evidence, or you might have your own ideas for how to proceed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9626 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
dad3: Sadly, Ringo is now an integral part of nature.​ quote: I can't help feeling that you've missed something important. Science would agree with you that it can't know anything about the supernatural, it concerns itself with what exists. What is it that you think you are arguing against?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
Thanks for the reply
It is strange that I think both the poster I replied to and the thread originator passed away I don't want to discuss supernatural evidence so much as to make it clear that all correlations from science involve only the natural. Therefore if we use the results as ages, the ages are basically a statement that only the natural is involved in causing the universe and man to come to exist. Once we confirm that, the dating correlations are put into their place - as a statement of faith that only the natural was involved. Why faith? Because no one knows either way. I agree that correlations exist. Testable in many cases. For example the correlation of radioactive isotopes in a rock or layer. However those correlations are not about 'an old earth' They are only about using just the natural to explain earth and the universe's origins and 'age'. Unless ONLY the natural was involved, then all such models are comically wrong. Another poster here already admitted (tangle) that only the natural is involved in the correlations of 'age' This is a statement based on not knowing if the natural was all that was at work or not. Would you not agree that science is supposed to be about knowing, rather than 'not knowing'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
One cannot say that only that natural exists. In science, one can limit oneself to that, and must do so. But you cannot then claim that is all that exists! All you can say is something like 'IF there was just the natural and natural processes that caused what we see, then ... old ages and yada yada blah blah'
That is nothing more than a statement of faith that nothing else exists
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: No, it is a statement that the evidence from nature is not deceptive. And when the evidence is so broad and so consistent then only a deliberate deception can explain it. Since I don’t see any point in joining an idolatrous cult that tells me that God is a deceiver I think you should peddle your religion elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9626 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
dad3 writes: One cannot say that only that natural exists. Well one can, here I go "only the natural exists"
In science, one can limit oneself to that, and must do so. Science limits itself to what can be observed, directly or indirectly.
But you cannot then claim that is all that exists! Science doesn't claim that.
All you can say is something like 'IF there was just the natural and natural processes that caused what we see, then ... old ages and yada yada blah blah' ​ That is nothing more than a statement of faith that nothing else exists You're very confused. Science forms conclusions about what it observes and so far that has all turned out to be natural. It makes no statements about things supernatural.
That is nothing more than a statement of faith that nothing else exists Science makes no statements of faith, but I can so here I go again "only the natural exists"Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23135 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
dad3 writes in Message 1505: It is strange that I think both the poster I replied to and the thread originator passed away See In Memoriam. Ringo's not there because we were unable to confirm. Usually a friend or family member reaches out.
I don't want to discuss supernatural evidence so much as to make it clear that all correlations from science involve only the natural. Another way of saying the same thing is that science deals with what can be observed, i.e., with phenomena that are apparent in some way to our five senses. Anything you think supernatural that can be observed is actually natural.
Therefore if we use the results as ages, the ages are basically a statement that only the natural is involved in causing the universe and man to come to exist. Once we confirm that, the dating correlations are put into their place - as a statement of faith that only the natural was involved. Why faith? Because no one knows either way. But saying that only the natural was involved is just another way of saying that only what we can observe was involved. Again, if you think the supernatural can be observed then it is actually natural.
I agree that correlations exist. Testable in many cases. For example the correlation of radioactive isotopes in a rock or layer. However those correlations are not about 'an old earth' They are only about using just the natural to explain earth and the universe's origins and 'age'. The correlations that point to an ancient Earth are what we observe.
Unless ONLY the natural was involved, then all such models are comically wrong. Again, what we observed is always alll that is involved. From our observations we can build internally consistent models of the universe. Put another way, if there are things that cannot be observed, then it isn't possible for us to ever become aware of them and no way for them to ever affect our models.
Another poster here already admitted (tangle) that only the natural is involved in the correlations of 'age' It's less an admission than a simple fact that no one is trying to hide. We consider anything observable to be part of the natural world.
This is a statement based on not knowing if the natural was all that was at work or not. Everything that can be observed is considered open to scientific study, and that's what we call natural. If there's something you consider supernatural that can be observed, then it is actually natural.
Would you not agree that science is supposed to be about knowing, rather than 'not knowing'? Most people in science want to develop a better understanding of our universe. The question I have for you is why you're so sure that unobservable phenomena exist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
Using only the natural is a statement that all you need is the natural. So that says that no creation happened, but rather a long sequence of natural processes. Since you have no evidence that this is the case, you cannot claim anything is deceptive. IT is simple a choice to accept/use.believe only in the natural.
The results are meaningless if there was a creation by God, and since you do not know either way, you actually have zero evidence. You simply call all the natural things and processes you have 'evidence'. Whatever they do evidence does not include any support for the belief that there is only the natural and nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
quote:You can say almost anything, but not as fact or science quote:Correct, and that means just the natural. Will you admit that if there was a supernatural creation, that what you are able to observe could never explain how it happened? quote: By claiming the universe and man came to exist a certain way, they certainly do claim that the naturalonlydunnit
quote:Yes it claims that only the natural dunnit all. That is as clear a statement as one could get. No different than a Goddiddit statement. One cannot prove that the supernatural does not or does exist. Especially using ONLY the natural!
quote: Your statement is not evidenced or supported. Obviously you do not speak for science. Natural science does not deal in anything but the natural, so could not tell us if anything else existed or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
quote:The supernatural cannot be observed. So it is not actually natural. Science deals only with the natural it observes. quote: No, I do not think the supernatural can be observed. That does not mean it is real or unreal. We cannot observe God creating a universe with a few words one day. That does not mean it never happened. Millions of people observed miracles. They happened. What caused them was not observed. For you to say that only what you observed caused the miracles would be comical. The same is true if you claimed you saw the universe created and God did not create it. All we see is natural processes and things. Then we use these and these alone to extrapolate backwards and form a model of how it came to exist. That is a statement of belief that the naturalonlydunnit. No proof. No evidence for the statement. You think that would be science?
quote: The natural only processes that you believe created the earth are what point to age. Unless only those processes did it, the so called ages are meaningless across the board.
quote:History tells us that most people on earth have always accepted the supernatural for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences. The same is true as we speak today. So there is no question that the supernatural exists. If we used a very rough statistic, it might be that 25 billion people over all history have experienced enough to believe the supernatural does exist. If we counted all the natural experiments in laboratories that show the natural exists, we might only have say, a hundred million tests. So if we accept the one, why not the other? The supernatural tests were not observing what caused something, but only the event itself. Hundreds saw Jesus alive again after dying. They did not see how He turned a decrepit old body into a new powerful body. They just saw Him risen. So it was both observed and unobserved. If the creation by God happened, then no one observed how it was done or the event itself. Yet we do observe the results it is believed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2362 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
History tells us that most people on earth have always accepted the supernatural for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences. The same is true as we speak today. So there is no question that the supernatural exists.
wow that's a dumb argument. History tells us that people for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences thought (and still think) that the Earth is flat, but we know those sister fucking hillbillys are wrong.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23135 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I don't want to draw this thread further off-topic, so I've posted my reply at Message 208 of the Studying the supernatural thread.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
Contempt for overwhelming evidence. On the issue of the correlations that are the topic here, they are ALL based on the natural only. That is a premise you cannot defend, and for which hatred of an identifiable group of people and big swear words won't help. Unless you do better we might as well ask Dr Pepper
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025