Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 1 of 54 (449683)
01-18-2008 6:38 PM


Granny Magda made an interesting point on imageinvisible's post:
quote:
This sounds just like the nineteenth century uniformitarianism that you are so critical of.
Original Source
Creationists often attack uniformitarianism, yet seem to have no problems using it in their own claims for the age of the Earth. Yet when attacking uniformitarianism, they claim that a different set of physics existed prior to the entry of the current laws of physics yet can provide no good reasoning or evidence for this.
My question is, how can you determine the age of the Earth when your belief operates on the premise of two different sets of laws of physics, one of which cannot be determined in the way it functions? And are the dates given by creationists who DO use uniformitarianism essentially hypocritical?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 5:47 PM obvious Child has replied
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 01-20-2008 11:02 PM obvious Child has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 54 (449697)
01-18-2008 7:40 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 3 of 54 (449893)
01-19-2008 5:16 PM


C'mon. There has to be at least someone who can try give this a shot.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 54 (449900)
01-19-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
01-18-2008 6:38 PM


Contradictory beliefs
Many creationists do tend to believe into "fine tuning" arguments,
whereby the world is finely tuned for human existence, and just slight changes would make life impossible.
They also tend to believe that world was vastly different at the time of the alleged great flood, but was perfectly fit for human existence at that time.
They seem oblivious to the apparent contradiction between these views.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 01-18-2008 6:38 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 01-19-2008 7:31 PM nwr has replied
 Message 48 by gregrjones, posted 09-29-2008 9:31 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 5 of 54 (449915)
01-19-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
01-19-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
quote:
They seem oblivious to the apparent contradiction between these views.
So that's why I'm not getting any replies?
I can't wrap my head around how one can determine the age of anything when the primary laws of physics cannot be determined. It just doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 5:47 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 7:58 PM obvious Child has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 6 of 54 (449920)
01-19-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by obvious Child
01-19-2008 7:31 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
They are using the book of Genesis to determine age.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 01-19-2008 7:31 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by obvious Child, posted 01-19-2008 10:45 PM nwr has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 7 of 54 (449946)
01-19-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
01-19-2008 7:58 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Even though it doesn't make any rational sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 7:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 10:59 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 54 (449948)
01-19-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by obvious Child
01-19-2008 10:45 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
"Rational" is a relative term. What's irrational to you might be rational to somebody else.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by obvious Child, posted 01-19-2008 10:45 PM obvious Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 01-19-2008 11:28 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 9 of 54 (449953)
01-19-2008 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
01-19-2008 10:59 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
It's not even a matter of rationality. If their premise was true, all of their conclusions would be perfectly valid. If the Bible, as written, it truly infallible, then the world really is 6-10,000 years old.
The problem is that the premise has no evidenciary basis, and a mountain of contradictory evidence (including contradictions within itself!).
They're willing to give total confidence, even above what they see with their own eyes, to the Bible, because they beleive it is the literal Word of God.
Given that premise, everything else, including denying uniformitarianism (except when it suits them) and handwaving the contradictions that look to the rest of us like cognitive dissonance are completely rational.
The problem is that the only evidence for the existence of the deity is in the book...and the book is only infallible if the deity wrote it. The premise is fallacious, so any conclusions drawn from that premise, regardless of how rational the reasoning, are similarly flawed.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 10:59 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2008 11:37 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 10 of 54 (450139)
01-20-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
01-18-2008 6:38 PM


Hi Obvious Child,
This is quite typical of the creationist attitude to scientific findings. If the findings can be made to look as though they support creationism, they are true. If they make creationism look bad, they're false, perhaps even a deliberate hoax.
Take the example of the fossilised hadrosaur found in 1999, apparently with soft tissues preserved. (for more detail, there is a discussion here in this thread.)
Before the find, scientific thought was that no soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years.
The hadrosaur find brought this into dispute, and scientists had to ask if they had been wrong about their theory. Perhaps soft tissues could survive.
The creationist response was peculiar, if predictable. If scientists said that no soft tissues could survive millions of years, then this find must be younger than millions of years old! It must be more recent. Of course, all that they have to base this on is the former opinion of the scientists that the tissues could not survive for millions of years. The fact that scientist were revising their theory meant nothing. It was a fact that soft tissues could not survive, thus the hadrosaur proves a young earth.
Creationists are dismissive of science only until it appears to serve their interests, or can be made to seem as though it does.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 01-18-2008 6:38 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 22 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 8:22 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 11 of 54 (450144)
01-20-2008 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
01-19-2008 11:28 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
It's not even a matter of rationality. If their premise was true, all of their conclusions would be perfectly valid. If the Bible, as written, it truly infallible, then the world really is 6-10,000 years old.
their=creationist
that bugs me a little
I believe in creation by God.
I believe in the literal Genesis account of creation.
I do not believe the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
In fact Genesis does not say the earth is 6k to 10k years old.
I do agree that a lot of people on here say it is.
Have fun,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 01-19-2008 11:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 12:58 AM ICANT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 54 (450154)
01-21-2008 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
01-20-2008 11:37 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
I believe in the literal Genesis account of creation.
I do not believe the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
In fact Genesis does not say the earth is 6k to 10k years old.
I do agree that a lot of people on here say it is.
yeah but your definition of "literal" is rather funny.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 01-20-2008 11:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2008 10:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 13 of 54 (450206)
01-21-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by arachnophilia
01-21-2008 12:58 AM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Hi arachnophilia,
arachnophilia writes:
yeah but your definition of "literal" is rather funny.
My definition of "literal"=accepting what is written down free from exaggeration or embellishment.
I don't have to use any fuzzy math.
I get 7 full days between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 2:3 instead of 6 1/2.
I don't have to appeal to a 1,000 year old text that is not in the original Hebrew and was compiled by Jews who did not believe in the deity of Jesus, to translate Genesis from instead of an available 2,300+ year old text that was translated from the original Hebrew text.
I only have to have one verse to explain how the universe as you see it today came into existence. Genesis 1:1.
I do think some copyist misplaced what is now Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 prior to the Septuagint translation. Because it did not say what he thought it should.
Since there was no chapters and verses at that time that would have been no problem.
Those who hold to a 6k to 10, year old earth have to use a lot of fuzzy happenings to squeeze everything into their time frame.
Those who hold to the traditional old earth view have to use some fuzzy math to get their long periods of time in.
Those who hold to the big bang theory have a couple of problems.
One the universe had a beginning.
Two that either requires a creator or creation from the absence of anything.
Those who hold to The oscillating universe model have a problem as after awhile the universe would not be able to reproduce itself. Thus it had to have a beginning somewhere.
Those who hold to the "quantum model of universe" which is another attempt to purge the Big Bang of its creationist implications had a few problems.
Enter Stephen Hawking with a brilliant idea of imaginary time to shore up this model.
I have none of those problems. The universe can be as old as it is,
which no one knows exactly how old it is. It can be as big as it is. I have no shortage of material to construct the universe out of.
As to age there are some pretty good ideas give or take a few years depending on who you are listening to at the time.
Have fun,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 12:58 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 6:16 PM ICANT has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 14 of 54 (450354)
01-21-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Granny Magda
01-20-2008 11:02 PM


I get all of that, no problem.
Specifically for the soft tissue, they more or less lied about what was found. It wasn't 'soft tissue' exactly, more like super dessicated, close to fossilized veins and decomposed blood cells that had to undergo massive work and rehydration to even be studied. But creationists lie. That's a fact of life.
What I don't understand is how they can determine the age of the Earth when a fair portion of it was based on a set of laws of physics that can't be determined. You're missing half of the equation and no way of figuring it out. Rationally, that would mean you cannot come to an outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 01-20-2008 11:02 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2008 6:23 PM obvious Child has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 54 (450383)
01-21-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
01-21-2008 10:09 AM


not a septuagint v. masoretic issue
I don't have to appeal to a 1,000 year old text that is not in the original Hebrew and was compiled by Jews who did not believe in the deity of Jesus, to translate Genesis from instead of an available 2,300+ year old text that was translated from the original Hebrew text.
oof, now there's some funny logic. i'd like to point out that the 2,300 year old jews didn't believe in jesus either, and necessarily so because he hadn't been born yet.
further, it is a translation. and i'm reasonably positive that you're reading it in translation. so opposed to reading something that's at least in the original language, you're reading something that has been distorted by two translation cycles.
further, the masoretic is much older than 1,000. under the same standards you're measuring the septuagint, it's closer to 1,800. if you're going to use the oldest surviving codex, that puts the LXX at about 400 ad.
even further, there is a high degrees of correlation between the masoretic and the DSS, showing that the text (of at least the still-present books) as remained largely unchanged since before the time of christ.
further still, the openning passage of genesis has been translated almost the same way from each for basically as long as translation has been done. meaning that starting with the masoretic hebrew source, and translating into greek, you'd almost certainly get what the septuagint said. it is exceptionally plausible the first verse of genesis in the LXX's source document said the same thing it does today in the masoretic.
and as an aside, what possible motiviation would someone have to change the openning verse because they didn't like jesus? i'm forced to believe your point is nothing more than anti-semitic drivel. and quite surprising for someone who evidently wasted six years of their life studying biblical hebrew. now there's a motivation i cannot figure out.
I only have to have one verse to explain how the universe as you see it today came into existence. Genesis 1:1.
I do think some copyist misplaced what is now Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 prior to the Septuagint translation. Because it did not say what he thought it should.
no, and to do so would be silly, because genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. it's not even a complete sentence. what i do think is that needlessly breaking up the sentence, and rendering that dependent clause as referring to something else entirely, and inserting a whole other story of creation and destruction in there is rather absurd. in the middle of a sentence!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2008 10:09 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2008 8:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024