My brother has a MA Divinity from an Ivy League school - smart guy. He believes the world is 5-6000 years old. It is literally beyond me how he can believe this in light of the numerous fields of science that assert an age of 4.5 Billion years. Its easy to call creationists idiots and scientists atheists but my bro is not dumb or uneducated and Im not an atheist. How can our viewpoints be so different?

Creationist Site
http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

Science-based claim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

I don't see how they can come up with a 4.5 billion number, or anything like that. It can be a trillion or a few thousand. How do you double check your info on that? Science has been wrong before. Carbon dating has had its flaws.
I believe in creation, but the stuff being made in six days and god resting for a seventh could be a parable.
Its all a mystery. Maybe we're not meant to know some stuff

It's about 55 years old.

=

Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:

The creationists basically claim you can't prove the world wasn't created 5000 year ago with the current isotope ratios. Certainly true. But their evidence for young earth isn't convincing either.

>Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) >dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—>certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last >dinosaur lived.

DNA has a decay rate. Given that, it is distinctly possible given enough DNA, that some would survive, even over very long time periods.

>The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more >than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and >fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

The actually prove this argument false by their own logic earlier. You have no way of knowing what the original field concentration was (i.e. isotope concentrations) or the original field strength or what rates were in the past.

>Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is >escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that >expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium >originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is >still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not >billions of years.

It does escape. It is one of the few elements light enough to do so.

>A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that >it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) >should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the >physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) >SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or >in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would >expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

Not a convincing argument. Stellar evolution is still an evolving science.

>The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, >and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had >started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken >only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum >possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for >evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon >rocks).

Again, assumption of a constant rate.

>Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not >nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. >Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be >more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years >believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the >actual age.

Since they don't believe in constant rates elsewhere, why would they believe that the rate of salt pouring into the ocean is a constant?

>monkeys

Didn't we already have this discussion? We aren't evolved from monkeys.

9XneJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >monkeys
>
> Didn't we already have this discussion? We aren't
> evolved from monkeys.

Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:

How can our viewpoints be so dif Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My brother has a MA Divinity from an Ivy League
> school - smart guy.

There's his problem right there. He has an MA instead of a MS. Master of Arts = fancy degree with little to no education about math and science.

The REALLY dumb ones are the creationtards who actually get engineering degrees, understand physics in daily life, but for some reason believe in a magic invisible friend and a book written by some stoned sand nomads. Even worse, they think it's justification to go kill people.

ctymctu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see how they can come up with a 4.5
> billion number, or anything like that. It can be a
> trillion or a few thousand. How do you double
> check your info on that? Science has been wrong
> before. Carbon dating has had its flaws.
> I believe in creation, but the stuff being made
> in six days and god resting for a seventh could be
> a parable.
> Its all a mystery. Maybe we're not meant to know
> some stuff


One's based on scientific knowledge, and the other's based on traditional stories written by unknown ancient people who didn't have scientific knowledge.

right in the baby-maker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There's his problem right there. He has an MA
> instead of a MS. Master of Arts = fancy degree
> with little to no education about math and
> science.


UVA and W&M both have Master of Arts programs in various science fields as well as a Master of Science. Usually the MA is a non-thesis masters when the school offers both an MA and an MS in the same program.

Blessed are the murderous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2014 11:10PM by eesh.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> right in the baby-maker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > There's his problem right there. He has an MA
> > instead of a MS. Master of Arts = fancy degree
> > with little to no education about math and
> > science.
>
>
> UVA and W&M both have Master of Arts programs in
> various science fields as well as a Master of
> Science. Usually the MA is a non-thesis masters
> when the school offers both an MA and an MS in the
> same program.


Any other obvious pointless shit you want to share? Do high schools have high school diploma programs?

gee, thanks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Any other obvious pointless shit you want to
> share? Do high schools have high school diploma
> programs?



I don't think you understand what I am talking about.

Blessed are the murderous.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> right in the baby-maker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > There's his problem right there. He has an MA
> > instead of a MS. Master of Arts = fancy degree
> > with little to no education about math and
> > science.
>
>
> UVA and W&M both have Master of Arts programs in
> various science fields as well as a Master of
> Science. Usually the MA is a non-thesis masters
> when the school offers both an MA and an MS in the
> same program.

It's obvious you have neither.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gee, thanks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Any other obvious pointless shit you want to
> > share? Do high schools have high school diploma
> > programs?
>
>
>
> I don't think you understand what I am talking
> about.

Eesh is right! They do have Master's degrees at those universities. How dare you doubt his Internet research?

Big yawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Eesh is right! They do have Master's degrees at
> those universities. How dare you doubt his
> Internet research?


I don't think you understand what I am talking about.

Blessed are the murderous.

The exact designation of his degree is "Master of Divinity (MDiv), Pastoral Studies/Counseling" from a prominent Ivy League University.

Science isnt absolute - it can always be disproven. Its assertions are those most likely given observable data and extrapolations from those data. Challenges from religion are not unwelcome but they have not yet defeated current science dogma - the arguments against dogma are insufficient. Notwithstanding that, the assertions of science supporting accounts in the Bible are simply not there. Evidence for the Bible's claims if not outright refuted by physical science, come nowhere near the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

In short religion makes great (and futile) efforts to defeat the observations of science while using non of that standard of logic to support their own claims. It would be like science claiming its more of a spiritual faith than religion - absurd.

At least a day older than me.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

Nobody believes that evolution bullshit anymore. It's been scientifically proven false by anthropologists. Where do you libturdz get your news? MSNBC? That's satire.

How do you know there isn't a supreme being of intelligent design? All great scientists believed in such a supreme being.

So God's sitting around one day in the dark feeling lonely and unfulfilled.

So out of the darkness he creates some light, engineers a massive universe governed by mysterious, sophisticated scientific complexities, makes the sun, the planets spinning around them, the earth, the oceans, the rivers, the lakes, and streams, and all the various beasts and birds and fishes, and a delicately balanced and interwoven ecosystem, and then he makes a dude named Adam.

Keep in mind, God does all this shit in 6 days, completely out of nothing.

Then God says to himself "Holy Shit! I forgot something."

So despite all of the various building materials scattered throughout his new universe, God reaches down from heaven and rips a rib right out of Adam's side to make jus one more thing - which, you just know had to really fucking hurt for Adam.

And God gives Adam and Eve free will. Then he threatens them with an eternal life in hell if they use their free will to disobey him by snacking on a juicy red delicious hanging from one of the trees in the garden of Eden. So God punishes them for using the free will he gave them.

So, God realizes that Adam and Eve are a defective product of his own making, but God blames them and decides to punish them for being defective.

For example, God makes Adam with a foreskin on his pecker. But God commands Adam to cut that shit off himself and all his male progeny. No anesthesia or nothing. Adam is losing a lot of body parts over this defective design thing.

So, as an after thought, God decides to make himself and his very existence a complete mystery, and decides that anyone who doesn't believe in him, even if they never even fucking heard of him, will burn in hell. I guess God has a hate motor going for those little pygmy negroes and not-dot-head indians living in isolation out in the jungle who didn't ever get the Bible e-fax.

But God has a sense of humor. He decides to troll the shit out of scientists by planting fake dinosaur fossils in the ground with million plus year old carbon date stamps. And to really fuck with the Jews and the Muslims, he makes bacon totally nom nom hongry delicious but says it's off limits.

the question is.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you know there isn't a supreme being of
> intelligent design? All great scientists believed
> in such a supreme being.

What makes you so sure that "all great scientists believed in such a supreme being"? Do you have irrefutable proof of this? Or have you read it somewhere and therefore you believe it to be true? Almost everything we rely on is faith, because without personally reviewing evidence we are simply relying on our belief that someone else was correct.

Sounds Legit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So God's sitting around one day in the dark
> feeling lonely and unfulfilled.
>
> So out of the darkness he creates some light,
> engineers a massive universe governed by
> mysterious, sophisticated scientific complexities,
> makes the sun, the planets spinning around them,
> the earth, the oceans, the rivers, the lakes, and
> streams, and all the various beasts and birds and
> fishes, and a delicately balanced and interwoven
> ecosystem, and then he makes a dude named Adam.
>
> Keep in mind, God does all this shit in 6 days,
> completely out of nothing.
>
> Then God says to himself "Holy Shit! I forgot
> something."
>
> So despite all of the various building materials
> scattered throughout his new universe, God reaches
> down from heaven and rips a rib right out of
> Adam's side to make jus one more thing - which,
> you just know had to really fucking hurt for
> Adam.
>
> And God gives Adam and Eve free will. Then he
> threatens them with an eternal life in hell if
> they use their free will to disobey him by
> snacking on a juicy red delicious hanging from one
> of the trees in the garden of Eden. So God
> punishes them for using the free will he gave
> them.
>
> So, God realizes that Adam and Eve are a defective
> product of his own making, but God blames them and
> decides to punish them for being defective.
>
> For example, God makes Adam with a foreskin on his
> pecker. But God commands Adam to cut that shit
> off himself and all his male progeny. No
> anesthesia or nothing. Adam is losing a lot of
> body parts over this defective design thing.
>
> So, as an after thought, God decides to make
> himself and his very existence a complete mystery,
> and decides that anyone who doesn't believe in
> him, even if they never even fucking heard of him,
> will burn in hell. I guess God has a hate motor
> going for those little pygmy negroes and
> not-dot-head indians living in isolation out in
> the jungle who didn't ever get the Bible e-fax.
>
> But God has a sense of humor. He decides to troll
> the shit out of scientists by planting fake
> dinosaur fossils in the ground with million plus
> year old carbon date stamps. And to really fuck
> with the Jews and the Muslims, he makes bacon
> totally nom nom hongry delicious but says it's off
> limits.

Typical anti science, anti God libturd atheist who takes everything literally and is incapable of independent thought and thinking outside the box.

If this universe was not created by intelligent design (clearly not a lib) then how?

Can you comprehend something as simple as the scientific method? If so, why do you not support it?

Prove the Faith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the question is.... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How do you know there isn't a supreme being of
> > intelligent design? All great scientists
> believed
> > in such a supreme being.
>
> What makes you so sure that "all great scientists
> believed in such a supreme being"? Do you have
> irrefutable proof of this? Or have you read it
> somewhere and therefore you believe it to be true?
> Almost everything we rely on is faith, because
> without personally reviewing evidence we are
> simply relying on our belief that someone else was
> correct.

Shit, every scientist that developed any theory or law that has formed our civilization has acknowledged a supreme power of some sort. You'd have to be a completely ignorant libtard not to think it's possible. People like Einstein and Galileo are regards to libs.

dumbass libturdz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical anti science, anti God libturd atheist who
> takes everything literally and is incapable of
> independent thought and thinking outside the box.
>
> If this universe was not created by intelligent
> design (clearly not a lib) then how?
>
> Can you comprehend something as simple as the
> scientific method? If so, why do you not support
> it?

You middle earth people are hilarious.

Surgeon General Warning: Fox News will rot your brain.
Attachments:

No one knows how old the earth is. All methods used to date it have serious gaps and flaws that must be addressed with further hypotheses that are, as of yet, unprovable.

The Bible does not provide any dating of the earth either. There is no way to know how long Adam sat around without Eve or how long Adam and Eve sat around before they fell or how long a fallen Adam and Eve sat around before they had kids, etc. The Bible doesn't provide that information. Again, gaps that must then be filled in by guessing.

Q.E.D. No one knows how old the earth is.

This is the millionth time we have created the Matrix and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

It's a tale, told by the stupid, to make themselves feel (note that term) better about themselves.

OP = Faggot.

take your pick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ctymctu Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't see how they can come up with a 4.5
> > billion number, or anything like that. It can be
> a
> > trillion or a few thousand. How do you double
> > check your info on that? Science has been wrong
> > before. Carbon dating has had its flaws.
> > I believe in creation, but the stuff being
> made
> > in six days and god resting for a seventh could
> be
> > a parable.
> > Its all a mystery. Maybe we're not meant to
> know
> > some stuff
>
>
> One's based on scientific knowledge, and the
> other's based on traditional stories written by
> unknown ancient people who didn't have scientific
> knowledge.


True, but the 4.5 billion number can be no more than an educated guess. There is no way to double check that number. The meteor that possibly created the Yucatán peninsula, or other major events, like the ice age, can change those numbers dramatically. Scientific theories have been proven wrong many times. Science is always evolving, and 200 years from now the accepted scientific theory could be an earth is a million years old. I believe in creation, but I cannot state with certainty that the earth is only 5-7 thousand years old. Some take all of the bible as historic fact, but in the new testament, Jesus often spoke in parables to make a point. I believe the same could be true in some of the old testament stories. Creationism and science are not nessicarily incompatable unless you begin with a prejudicial outlook. The miracles in the old testament are often aided by forces of nature (can we call that science?) at opportune times. Like the parting of the red sea (or sea of reeds) by a great wind. God didn't put his palm down and carry them across, or blink a great temporary bridge into existence, he sent a wind. But, for that wind to come at that needed time? Let science explain that. There was a recent news story on how the parting, scientificly, may have happened, and what appears to be chariot parts that were violently destroyed where legend says the Hebrews crossed. Makes the story seem very possible. As great as our science is, there are many cases of people who should have died from a number of different factors, and doctors (some who don't believe in god) have no answer for their survival and recovery except for some kind of supernatural intervention. Its been shown that one cannot prove or disprove the other

Earth has been here since the creation of time which doesn't have a begining nor will it have an ending. Only the feeble minded human race encompasses time constraints.
Most humans are hung up on dick size or what they believe they own/control.
It's a little larger picture then what we can comprehend.

If Earth was the only inhabited planet....then what a waste of space.

Just Go With the Flow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earth has been here since the creation of time
> which doesn't have a begining nor will it have an
> ending. Only the feeble minded human race
> encompasses time constraints.
> Most humans are hung up on dick size or what they
> believe they own/control.
> It's a little larger picture then what we can
> comprehend.
>
> If Earth was the only inhabited planet....then
> what a waste of space.

Cool story bro. Is your blood type Be Negative?

Just Go With the Flow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earth has been here since the creation of time
> which doesn't have a begining nor will it have an
> ending. Only the feeble minded human race
> encompasses time constraints.
> Most humans are hung up on dick size or what they
> believe they own/control.
> It's a little larger picture then what we can
> comprehend.
>
> If Earth was the only inhabited planet....then
> what a waste of space.

If God is responsible for letting libtardz live on earth than he totally failed. Oh that's right, judgment day is coming.

>No one knows how old the earth is. All methods used to date it have serious gaps and flaws that must be addressed with further hypotheses that are, as of yet, unprovable.

We have a pretty good idea for the age of the universe, so there is an outside limit for the age of the Earth. Further, Earth is relatively young since it had to be formed from supernova remnants (i.e. elements heavier than iron). Given what we know about nuclear synthesis of heavier elements, we have a pretty good idea when the stuff formed that the Earth is formed of. How long did the Earth take to condense? When it is 'officially' created? Open questions.

>The Bible does not provide any dating of the earth either. There is no way to >know how long Adam sat around without Eve or how long Adam and Eve sat around >before they fell or how long a fallen Adam and Eve sat around before they had >kids, etc. The Bible doesn't provide that information. Again, gaps that must >then be filled in by guessing.

As I recall, about the same text length as the creation of the universe. So six days? This would be a reasonable argument but then you would also have to argue that Adam walked around talking to dinosaurs.

kcn4K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >nobody knows how old the earth is. All methods
> used to date it have serious flaws that
> must be addressed with further hypotheses that
> are, as of yet, unprovable.
>
> We have a pretty good idea for the age of the
> universe, so there is an outside limit for the age
> of the Earth. Further, Earth is relatively young
> since it had to be formed from supernova remnants
> (i.e. elements heavier than iron). Given what we
> know about nuclear synthesis of heavier elements,
> we have a pretty good idea when the stuff formed
> that the Earth is formed of. How long did the
> Earth take to condense? When it is 'officially'
> created? Open questions.
>
> >The Bible does not provide any dating of the
> earth either. There is no way to >know how long
> Adam sat around without Eve or how long Adam and
> Eve sat around >before they fell or how long a
> fallen Adam and Eve sat around before they had
> >kids, etc. The Bible doesn't provide that
> information. Again, gaps that must >then be filled
> in by guessing.
>
> As I recall, about the same text length as the
> creation of the universe. So six days? This
> would be a reasonable argument but then you would
> also have to argue that Adam walked around talking
> to dinosaurs.


We know about how old the universe is? And based on that, it gives us an outside limit on how old the the earth is?
That comment makes no sense.
So we base the orb we live on, the one that man has never been beyond its moon, on the age of something that we are still discovering parts of?
That's crazy
All that stuff is scientific THEORY. No way to prove it. No way to back up those claims.
If we know the age of the universe, than how big is it? Than whats beyond it?
Is it in a giant shoe box tucked underneath gods bed? That's just as possible as the claim that we know the age of the universe.
Scientists also said we would be driving around hover cars by the year 2000. All the oil on the earth is supposed to have run out too, but China and India have greatly increased their use of it since that claim, and oils been getting cheaper recently.
Now your question, how long did the earth take to condense?
That's a good question, its molten on the inside and hard on the outside. Like a m&m in the summertime. My question is, how did it become molten on the inside? Was it always like that? Then how did in harden on the outside? If it cooled, than it seems that it would have been easier to cool while it was smaller and still forming. I thought the inside was molten rock. Like lava. We don't make steel out of lava. So how is it an iron mass? Yes it has a magnetic pull (gravity), but isn't that centrifugal force?
All theory. Theory's often turn to shit
If your ever around kids, its funny when you see how much they THINK they know. We say the same about the ancients. What will they say about us in a thousand years?

These threads always bring the lulz from the contards with their magic man in the sky and cute little fairy tales.
Creationists....LOL!!!!!!!

Haha, I love when atheists show their ignorance of philosophy of religion with the "God is a sky fairy" or "God is a man with a beard."

Crude, anthropomorphic, childish conceptions at best.

Anyway, to answer the question. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, +/- 0.2 billion years.

Science and religion aren't in conflict. At worst they are independent. The Conflict myth dates from two 19th century books that were discredited (Draper and White, if you're interested). For a fairly entertaining popular level book, read Galileo Goes to Jail (and other myths), by Ronald Numbers. Don't mistake methodological naturalism with scientific materialism. That's a big mistake that both extremes make, creationists and atheists.

Refer to Lord Martin Rees' (an atheist cosmologist) comment: "Science poses no threat to Christianity."

Someone mentioned something analogous to "science proves things." Not true in the least. Science creates models from the evidence it has. We know that many of our scientific theories are almost certainly wrong, at least in their present forms. What we don't know is which of them, specifically. With what we currently know, the universe began around 13.7 billion years ago. However, once we get a quantum theory of gravity, we may find that the universe is in fact eternal. Moreover, we currently believe that there's some sort of dark matter/energy out there. Again, we may be very, very wrong.


As for the Bible: nowhere does it say in Genesis 1 that it was a literal 6 day creation. Most Christians took it to refer to long amounts of time, at least until the late 19th/early 20th century, with the rise of "creation science." There's also the fact that Genesis 1 is a polemic against the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth (yes, Genesis 1 is a creation myth, and that's fine. It serves valuable theological purposes). The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.

The Bible is not a book of science. It is a book that teaches on faith matters.

> If we know the age of the universe, than how big is it? Than whats beyond it?

CMBR and red-shift

> My question is, how did it become molten on the inside? Was it always like that

Yes, we are living on the slag of a cooling iron sphere.

> Yes it has a magnetic pull (gravity), but isn't that centrifugal force?

This statement is very confused. Gravity is a fundamental force. Electro-magnetism is a fundamental force. Gravity is not yet unified with EM. Centrifugal force is a force experienced due to an accelerating reference frame (rotating in this case).

Truth Teller Wrote:
--
> The Bible is not a book of science. It is a book
> that teaches on faith matters.


When inventing a 'god' the most important thing is to claim that it is invisible, imperceptible, and physically undetectable. Otherwise people start to get skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent, and does absolutely nothing,

libs think Einstein was an idiot.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Its about power. In many cases the church is selling Absolute Truth - contradictions by anyone pose a threat to their influence as they see it. If I tell you God created the world in 6 days and science uses information to illustrate that is impossible I have painted myself in a corner. There is no process to what I have told you is true - just believe. 'Do you know its not true' is about the best creationists can come up with.' Its sad because religion and spirituality is so important to the human experience.

Everyone goes to the doctor, everyone uses technology - science is a great tool for telling us about the physical world. If science guesses the earth is 4.5 billion years old that is certainly more likely than several thousand years as inferred by the bible. If religion would give up some of its worldly power it would gain much more in spiritual power.

Its about power. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its about power. In many cases the church is
> selling Absolute Truth - contradictions by anyone
> pose a threat to their influence as they see it.
> If I tell you God created the world in 6 days and
> science uses information to illustrate that is
> impossible I have painted myself in a corner.
> There is no process to what I have told you is
> true - just believe. 'Do you know its not true'
> is about the best creationists can come up with.'
> Its sad because religion and spirituality is so
> important to the human experience.
>
> Everyone goes to the doctor, everyone uses
> technology - science is a great tool for telling
> us about the physical world. If science guesses
> the earth is 4.5 billion years old that is
> certainly more likely than several thousand years
> as inferred by the bible. If religion would give
> up some of its worldly power it would gain much
> more in spiritual power.

The bible is not a science book.

To deny the supernatural is to deny the scientific method.

Libtardz are the most closes minded Nimrods on earth. That is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

> The bible is not a science book.

If the all-powerful god of the bible existed, he would have a measurable effect on the universe. If the creation stories of the bible were true, we would be able to find evidence that supposed those stories. Religion isn't "separate" from science.

^ you didnt even read the post. If you had you would realize you are agreeing with the poster.

MuVYM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ you didnt even read the post. If you had you
> would realize you are agreeing with the poster.


that was to urine idiot dude

> To deny the supernatural is to deny the scientific method.

So if I deny horoscopes, does that make me anti-science?

it's amazing how God created the earth exactly in the same form that would've occurred had it evolved naturally according to the laws of physics. quite a coincidence!

Amazing grace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's amazing how God created the earth exactly in
> the same form that would've occurred had it
> evolved naturally according to the laws of
> physics. quite a coincidence!


Not if "God" has created and/or is subject to and was using the same rules in the same way.

You realize that there are world-renown physicists who believe that this is all just one big-ass mathematical simulation subject to mathematical laws and functions. i.e., basically the same thing with respect to some engineered/created basis just from a different perspective with respect to who/what is considered "God" and the who/why/how being unknown.

the time, courtesy of our libnutz troll.

ReLOLgion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The bible is not a science book.
>
> If the all-powerful god of the bible existed, he
> would have a measurable effect on the universe.
> If the creation stories of the bible were true, we
> would be able to find evidence that supposed those
> stories. Religion isn't "separate" from science.

The creation stories are theologically important. They are not to be taken literally, although a lot of people forget that.

Yes, you're correct. Religion is (at worst) independent. I think they actually partially overlap and have constructive dialogue.

The God you refer to would be one who is constantly interfering. That is the god of Intelligent Design and Creationists. That is not the God of Classical Theism.

Different strokes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing grace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it's amazing how God created the earth exactly
> in
> > the same form that would've occurred had it
> > evolved naturally according to the laws of
> > physics. quite a coincidence!
>
>
> Not if "God" has created and/or is subject to and
> was using the same rules in the same way.
>
> You realize that there are world-renown physicists
> who believe that this is all just one big-ass
> mathematical simulation subject to mathematical
> laws and functions. i.e., basically the same
> thing with respect to some engineered/created
> basis just from a different perspective with
> respect to who/what is considered "God" and the
> who/why/how being unknown.

Its one thing to recognize our knowledge is infinitely minute and use faith to guide you spiritually. That does not mean you can just make stuff up (or believe fiction) and Tell Other People that is the Objective Truth. The Bible is mostly made-up. Thats fine and it doesnt diminish its importance to me. It was written so long ago and translated so many times its is silly to quote it as literal truth. Science is and always will be our collective best guess at what goes on in the physical world.

Claiming the wild claims in the Bible are true is childlike.

urine idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bible is not a science book.
>
> To deny the supernatural is to deny the scientific
> method.

Denying the supernatural doesn't deny the scientific method at all. However, the scientific method (and the enterprise of "science," as we know it) did largely come of age in predominantly Christian Europe. That's not to say that Islamic scholars didn't have a big impact- they did.

>> My question is, how did it become molten on the inside? Was it always like that
>
>Yes, we are living on the slag of a cooling iron sphere.

That's actually a surprisingly good question. About a hundred years ago, this debate was all the rage - a scientist named Lord Kelvin calculated if earth started out as a molten sphere and cooled, it'd probably require about 100 million years or so to become stone cold. Hence the earth could be no older than 100 million years, which was a problem for the understanding at the time of how long it takes things to evolve.

Ernest Rutherford figured this one out - the earth is full of radioactive elements which, when they decay, release heat. This is why the earth is still molten inside and could be billions of years old. As Rutherford stepped up at a meeting to announce this idea, he spotted venerable old Kelvin right there in the audience, so how to announce this without making Kelvin look like an idiot?

Rutherford said 'Lord Kelvin calculated that the earth could be no older than 100 million years UNLESS some other source of heat could be found.' Kelvin just smiled at the idea that he'd been prescient rather than simply wrong and put his weight behind the notion rather than fighting Rutherford.

ETA: oh, and the age of the earth is hard to calculate but can (as was said above) be bracketed. The earth keeps recycling rocks so it's hard to find really old ones but I think the oldest bits of rocks are in the 4.4 billion year range, and come from australia. We know how old they are because we can calculate ages using decay rates for really long-lived radioactive element like lead (not carbon, which craps out as a datable material at around 40,000 years old). So the earth's at least that old. Interestingly, were it not for the remodeling of earth's surface, it'd probably be super easy to find older rocks than this. Pick up a rock off the moon or a meteorite and you're probably holding stuff at least as old as anything you could find by scouring the earth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2014 02:33PM by abelard.

Yep, still all bullshit, all of Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the time, courtesy of our libnutz troll.

I think you should be on the manned Creationist Republican mission to the Sun.

Amazing grace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's amazing how God created the earth exactly in
> the same form that would've occurred had it
> evolved naturally according to the laws of
> physics. quite a coincidence!


Evolution is a theory (that has been proven false, but you'd have to pay attention to science to know that) not a law.

One thing is a fact, you're a faggit.

> it's amazing how God created the earth exactly in the same form that would've occurred had it evolved naturally according to the laws of physics. quite a coincidence!

Otherwise known as the anthropic principle.

Sadly, the atheists can't see how atheism has become a religion in and of itself. They proselytize, they look down on people that believe in God; I think half the people that call themselves atheists just do it as some attempt at feeling smarter. They hear how some famous scientists were atheists, and say to themselves "I want to be like him."

Blessed are the murderous.

libtard mania Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing grace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it's amazing how God created the earth exactly
> in
> > the same form that would've occurred had it
> > evolved naturally according to the laws of
> > physics. quite a coincidence!
>
>
> Evolution is a theory (that has been proven false,
> but you'd have to pay attention to science to know
> that) not a law.
>
> One thing is a fact, you're a faggit.

I think he meant 'formed' not 'evolved' Anyway Evolution is in fact a theory. No it has not been proven false. Some might argue it only passes for a scientific 'model' since speciation cannot be replicated or directly observed but even those arguments have not been sufficient to disqualify Evolution as a scientific theory. I have Faith yet choose to see the world as a scientist when it comes to observations about the physical world. Its a pity others with faith feel so threatened by science...

libtard mania Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing grace Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > it's amazing how God created the earth exactly
> in
> > the same form that would've occurred had it
> > evolved naturally according to the laws of
> > physics. quite a coincidence!
>
>
> Evolution is a theory (that has been proven false,
> but you'd have to pay attention to science to know
> that) not a law.
>
> One thing is a fact, you're a faggit.

How has evolution been "proven false?"

I think that would be pretty big scientific news. All evidence we currently have points towards natural selection and common ancestry.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, the atheists can't see how atheism has
> become a religion in and of itself. They
> proselytize they look down on people that believe
> in God;

WHAT?
Never heard of a single atheist church or any central location to meet. Never heard one atheist ask for money. Never seen one atheist on a street corner trying to get people to convert. Never had one atheist come to my door. Atheists pay taxes, churches don't.

In terms of feeling smarter, it's true that an atheist feels smarter than a creationist, but only about that one area of ideology.

If an atheist sounds proselytizing, it's usually because their civil rights are being abstructed by religious laws and educational stategies (see Texas school books).


I think half the people that call
> themselves atheists just do it as some attempt at
> feeling smarter. They hear how some famous
> scientists were atheists, and say to themselves "I
> want to be like him."


That's absurd! But the truth is, there are atheist assholes and religious assholes. Neither has the crown of superiority.

This thread makes me depressed, knowing there are still so many believers in creationism. It's no wonder why the US is falling behind in technology and education.

The whole objective of Dawkins' God Delusion was to get people to convert. Hell, the whole point of the New Atheism was to shame people out of religious belief.

There are "atheist churches," actually. There are plenty of atheist meetings.

Numbers Wrote:

> It's no
> wonder why the US is falling behind in technology
> and education.



One of the big reasons the US is falling behind is that young people continue to pursue liberal arts degrees instead of STEM-H majors.

Blessed are the murderous.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If an atheist sounds proselytizing, it's usually
> because their civil rights are being abstructed by
> religious laws and educational stategies (see
> Texas school books).

exactly, its a political movement. people who are sick of its influence in the US political system. its not a religion at all, unless you call not believing in Zeus a religion, or not believing in Thor a religion.

in honor of earth day i've produced yet another report on a gov supercomputer (which uses more tha 1/2 a power plant of energy!)

by giving you a more accurate date of the earth i predict you'll save millions in the year 2020, that is why i have a money stream from obama (kidding, the fed pay rate is actually a crime who gets how much a total scam)

yes in the 80's they simply didn't have the knowhow and weren't advanced enough to know such things !

---------------------------------------------
4500008926.870500000000000557589510000004415732941500000000000000000
Attachments:

that's one extra digit than previosly release by another, absolutely spelling me as the smartes person on the planet

(note it's one extra figure but the last 10 figures before that are disputed in 4000 other online reasearch papers)