Religion Ask a Christian

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
In which case the natural radioactive decay of isotopes would be measured as minimal, indicating young, recently formed rock. There is NO scientific evidence for a "young earth creation."

That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Who creates the scientific measures that humans use? Humans. I don't claim to have any answers about time, or anything like that, or how long the world has existed. My mind can't comprehend that there was nothing, then there was something, any more than it can answer the question 'who created God.' So I'm happy enough not to convince myself that there is a definitive age of the earth, or that we have somehow found a magic formula to calculate it perfectly. if other people want to accept those measures, it doesn't bother me. I'm happy enough not to, though.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
14,089
10,403
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Who creates the scientific measures that humans use? Humans. I don't claim to have any answers about time, or anything like that, or how long the world has existed. My mind can't comprehend that there was nothing, then there was something, any more than it can answer the question 'who created God.' So I'm happy enough not to convince myself that there is a definitive age of the earth, or that we have somehow found a magic formula to calculate it perfectly. if other people want to accept those measures, it doesn't bother me. I'm happy enough not to, though.
On what basis woud you not accept what virtually every field of science has concluded? Is there any evidence at all to support a young earth creation? If not, why would you entertain the idea that it was true?

The branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism are numerous - containing practically all of known science but most notably these sciences are biology (the theory of evolution and palaeontology), astronomy (starlight problem), geology (volcanic formation, sedimentation, plate tectonics) amongst others.

The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
On what basis woud you not accept what virtually every field of science has concluded? Is there any evidence at all to support a young earth creation? If not, why would you entertain the idea that it was true?

The branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism are numerous - containing practically all of known science but most notably these sciences are biology (the theory of evolution and palaeontology), astronomy (starlight problem), geology (volcanic formation, sedimentation, plate tectonics) amongst others.

The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming.
I believe in what we have been able observe, what we have recorded. I can’t explain it any simpler.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Total Power

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 19, 2004
29,390
10,201
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
I believe in what we have been able observe, what we have recorded. I can’t explain it any simpler.
recorded history only goes back a few hundred years. It doesn't mean anything.

Carbon dating is accurate much further then that. We can also use isotope half lifes of radioactive elements.

All these independent fields of study confirms the same thing.
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 12, 2011
19,954
23,813
AFL Club
Collingwood
I do. At least to an extent, anyway. I don't claim to know how old the earth is, how long ago anything became extinct, but no one else can reasonably make that claim either because we quite simply do not know. We can use tools, testing methods, all sorts of things to get an idea or an estimate but at the end of it all, no one really knows with certainty do they.
Science knows to an absolute of 100%
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 12, 2011
19,954
23,813
AFL Club
Collingwood
That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Who creates the scientific measures that humans use? Humans. I don't claim to have any answers about time, or anything like that, or how long the world has existed. My mind can't comprehend that there was nothing, then there was something, any more than it can answer the question 'who created God.' So I'm happy enough not to convince myself that there is a definitive age of the earth, or that we have somehow found a magic formula to calculate it perfectly. if other people want to accept those measures, it doesn't bother me. I'm happy enough not to, though.
Yes but that is a failing with your mind, not the science
 

LFTWNG11

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2008
1,208
958
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
S.S. Lazio
Well I'm not an expert on carbon dating so I'm not going to pretend
That's so gracious of you...

but I know that layering and things like that are used in some cases for estimating how long certain geographical or geological structures took to form but those methods don't allow for things like natural disasters
:$

ie. something like Mount St Helens took a few hours to create the sort of geographical features that would by most scientific conventions take thousands or millions of years to form naturally.
What?

 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
That's so gracious of you...



:$



What?

Thanks for linking me to a Wikipedia page telling me what Mt St Helens is.

Gracious? Mate I'm trying to, for once, observe the often under-utilised value of respect. Apologies for using a turn of phrase to accentuate that I am not claiming to be some all-knowing font of scientific knowledge. Next time I'll just try and maintain a pretense that I know everything about everything and not preface anything I say with any context.
 

LFTWNG11

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2008
1,208
958
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
S.S. Lazio
Next time I'll just try and maintain a pretense that I know everything about everything and not preface anything I say with any context.
What context? In one breathe you're not an expert in geology; in the next you know that geologist don't account for natural disasters when doing their work...

And to conclude you assert that Mount St. Helens is an example of a geological formation that happened in a few hours...

I think when discussing facts and empirical evidence - respect is earned.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
What context? In one breathe you're not an expert in geology; in the next you know that geologist don't account for natural disasters when doing their work...

And to conclude you assert that Mount St. Helens is an example of a geological formation that happened in a few hours...

I think when discussing facts and empirical evidence - respect is earned.

Where did I say that no geologists account for natural disasters?

I'm an out of work sports journalist posting on a footy forum mate, what pretense am I possibly going to try and maintain that I actually am an expert on any of this sort of thing?

My point was merely that a few measures used to estimate the time taken for certain things to happen don't necessarily factor in natural anomalies.

And yes, there were canyons formed from the Mount St Helens eruption that happened rapidly. It isn't a certificate that says 'I'm right.' It isn't irrefutable evidence to wave in the face of every geological expert to ever obtain a degree. It is merely an example that things can happen that don't always fit the timeline of what nature would normally dictate.
 

Total Power

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 19, 2004
29,390
10,201
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
The figure of 4.5bn years is more an estimate of the age of the solar system than of the Earth specifically and is obtained by calculating the ages of meteorites based on the decay of various radioactive isotopes in them.
 

Gameova_

Formerly 'northmelbournefc'
Mar 16, 2011
5,543
5,359
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
What was the point of the tabernacle being built in exodus? Like the details latter pages of 20+ chapter. So boring. Got very boring reading that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
19,762
15,689
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
What was the point of the tabernacle being built in exodus? Like the details latter pages of 20+ chapter. So boring. Got very boring reading that.
It was so the Israelites would have somewhere to kill animals and splash the blood around so the fickle and perfidious storm god wouldn't punish them all for coveting each others donkeys. As tents go it was pretty flash, and they were very proud of it.
 

Gameova_

Formerly 'northmelbournefc'
Mar 16, 2011
5,543
5,359
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It was so the Israelites would have somewhere to kill animals and splash the blood around so the fickle and perfidious storm god wouldn't punish them all for coveting each others donkeys. As tents go it was pretty flash, and they were very proud of it.
Perfidious. New word for my vocabulary. Thx.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
Do you think that geologist don't have processes that can determine if geological formations are created rapidly or gradually?

Not being a geologist, i don't know. Why does it bother you so much? Am I at your door with a torch and pitchfork trying to convert you?
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
That's the problem. A matter of fact should not be something one believes.

That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief. No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.

Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
 

Baltimore Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 12, 2011
19,954
23,813
AFL Club
Collingwood
That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief. No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.

Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
You don't read much at all do you?
See how religion keeps you ignorant (purposely so)

Try these and they will explain that thing that you incorrectly think no one has the answer to
Hawking
Hubble
Bondi
Gold
Hoyle
Penrose

Go on, you know you really want to be proved wrong, so just do it........READ

Here I'll start you off: "The notion of time only exists within our Universe"
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
You don't read much at all do you?
See how religion keeps you ignorant (purposely so)

Try these and they will explain that thing that you incorrectly think no one has the answer to
Hawking
Hubble
Bondi
Gold
Hoyle
Penrose

Go on, you know you really want to be proved wrong, so just do it........READ

Here I'll start you off: "The notion of time only exists within our Universe"
Actually I've read a hell of a lot.

No book is going to enable my head to get around something coming from nothing.
Worried I'll be proven wrong? Mate I'm 36, have been through more in 18 months than most people go through in a lifetime. if you believe what you read from minds far greater than either of ours, that's fine and more power to you.
 

Jason mp

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 31, 2015
20,093
39,242
By the Gabba.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Valleys. Chelsea.
That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief. No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.

Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
There is a hypothesis that the Universe is eternal. That is the one I'd go with over an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, judgemental, participatory sky fairy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etern... hypothetical,throughout most of the universe.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
12,927
24,886
AFL Club
Carlton
That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief.
Really?

Demonstrate this for me, if you can.

No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.
I don't know how familiar you are with these kinds of discussions, but this is a God of the Gaps argument.

Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
Dostoevsky passed away in 1881; needless to say, science has come a ways since then.

And this, too, is a God of the Gaps argument. Here's a link, in case you're unfamiliar with it.

 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
21,280
22,368
AFL Club
Geelong
Really?

Demonstrate this for me, if you can.


I don't know how familiar you are with these kinds of discussions, but this is a God of the Gaps argument.


Dostoevsky passed away in 1881; needless to say, science has come a ways since then.

And this, too, is a God of the Gaps argument. Here's a link, in case you're unfamiliar with it.

Why is it that as soon as someone answers a fairly basic public enquiry for views from those of another system of belief/knowledge/doctrine/whatever you want to call it, that it suddenly becomes a trial?

As postulated, I don’t have the answers.

I would say that those who subscribe to the teachings or learnings of a brilliant mind like Steven hawking will, more than likely, be operating on a lower intellectual plain than he was so some degree of belief and acceptance in what he has theorised and ‘proven’ would by simple virtue of the fact that they themselves didn’t make any discovery, be subscribing to some level of belief.
 

LFTWNG11

Club Legend
Jun 27, 2008
1,208
958
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
S.S. Lazio
Not being a geologist, i don't know. Why does it bother you so much? Am I at your door with a torch and pitchfork trying to convert you?
You have posted on this forum with a certain implication; all I have done is question your implication on this same forum. Forum's typically work by having two-way conversations.

But I do understand your position somewhat - ignorance is bliss.
 

Top Bottom