The 6000 Year Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter heiscominginthe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
That would be in the multiverse scenario. 👍 So God did it or He didn’t. You did not post an alternative. All of your silliness fell under God did not.
Click to expand...
Err no that would not be a multi verse scenario, you see i can substitute “god” with anything i like and it still has the exact same evidence to support it. Hence why your claim does not hold water.

You claim “A did it” A - being god.

I can substitute in Magic Rabbit, Magic Dog etc. So by YOUR reasoning there are only two alternatives Magic Dog did it or Magic Dog didn’t do it. Your reasoning is flawed.

Your talking about binary searching, where the answer is either yes or no (zero or one). Lets take the alphabet. Say the answer we are after is letter K. We start at A. A is either K or it isn’t K (God either did it or he didn’t). A is not K. So where does that leave us? Well it leaves with 25 more letters to search through, it does not leave us with the solution.

The ONLY way to find K is to examine K. Now when it comes to the origin of the universe we have NO idea what caused it. This DOES NOT mean god did it, it means we have potentially infinite causes. If you want to group a set of infinity into “god didn’t do it” by all means go ahead, but don’t complain when people laugh at you. 👍👍👍👍
 
buffalo said:
None - Things that occur in nature like hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals are patterns.

Codes, language and symbols always come from a mind.
Click to expand...
More like our minds look for patterns. A basic chemistry class would aid you in understanding the formation of these “patterns”.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
You are wrong on so many levels i don’t know where to start. Einstein did NOT falsify Newtonian mechanics he built on them. His laws still stand up today, and i for one have worked with them, i wonder if you have?

You also seem to have little to no understanding of biology. Evolution has not only progressed exponentially in the last 150 years, but your claim we have no transitional fossils is nothing short of obtuse. Ignorance is NOT a good argument.
Click to expand...
Good Morning to you as well Charles,🙂
You sound like a completely zealous disciple for evolution but I’m not sure you’ve told us yet why that is. Maybe you could make the point. Also it would be better to have an objective conversation about it here and trade real information rather than all the quasi adhominum attacks. After reading your posts to other members I can say they do little to illuminate anyone to your cause except perhaps to put the thread in jeopardy of being closed due to excessive vitrol. If we want to talk about substantial things concerning any of these things it will serve everyone much better. We should at least agree on that much - yes?👍

You’ll also have to cut and paste where I said Einstein falsified Newtonian mechanics, so as not to bear false witness against thy neighbor, as I never said he did. What I said is Einsteins theory is superior to Newtons and that they do not use Newton mechanics to explain what happens at either the subatomic levels nor in the deeper celestial mechanics. Case in point:
Fitelson UC Berkley; by the way is not a propent of ID quite the opposite:
The orbit of Mercury precesses, and the magnitude of its precession is p.This evidence was intriguing to the scientific community in 1900 because it appeared that the prevailing theory of celestial motions (T1) was unable to adequately predict or explain (E). Indeed, Newton’s theory seemed to predict a value (p*) for the precession of Mercury’s orbit that was significantly different than the observed value p. In other words, the analogue of question (Q3) would have been answered “YES” by (the majority of2) the scientific community in 1900, concerning Newton’s theory of celestial motions, because there was existing evidence (E) that Newton’s theory seemed unable to adequately explain or predict. In other words, the precession of Mercury’s orbit (E) constituted a gap (or anomaly) for Newton’s theory (T1) in 1900. Einstein showed that his general relativistic theory of celestial motion does accurately predict and adequately explain the Mercury evidence.
Click to expand...
The point above being that Einstein’s relativistic mechanics is superior and gives us a clearer picture and can explain the universe to a much greater depth than Newton’s could. I posted that Einstein himself believed that the order he saw in the universe pointed to design and actually I posted it on another thread. That thread has now been closed & quite frankly I don’t think this thread is far behind, in regard to that final destination, unless we can be more objective in our debate.

See my former posting on Einstein
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5293133#post5293133

The point to making the point of Einstein and Newton really was that theories are useful for positing and explaining phenomena. Newton did that back in the 17th century and Einstein gave us a better theory for explaining phenomena in the 20th. When we come to belief in an omnipotent God as creator of the universe we really need no argument as proof of explaining what happend before t=0 - After all He always was, always is, and forevermore will be. How he did it is another question, even understanding all the laws He put in place is enough to keep us busy until He rolls the universe up as a scroll.

By the way have you seen the movie expelled? Having dialog is a good thing even if we strongly disagree. 😉

May your search for the truth bring you into the light of God,
In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios
 
StAnastasia said:
I am not sure why your doubts about evolution not adding up should matter in the slightest to scientists. I might not be positively sure that the moon is not made of green cheese, but I have no right to expect astronomers to take my “cheesism” seriously. StAnastasia
Click to expand...
And that is what they call “blind faith”
 
Charles_Darwin said:
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, carbon dating is used to date to a max of about 60 thousand years…
Click to expand...
That is interesting, how do they get "… is XX.XXX billion years old then?
i always found it interesting when they say that something is 14.3 Billion years old… is their “science” that exact that that can differentiate between 14.3 and 14.5, or even 15 billion years… how do they do that?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
More like our minds look for patterns. A basic chemistry class would aid you in understanding the formation of these “patterns”.
Click to expand...
Even in advanced chemistry I didn’t see any maps, instructions or symbols.

Do you see intelligence in a hurricane?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Err no that would not be a multi verse scenario, you see i can substitute “god” with anything i like and it still has the exact same evidence to support it. Hence why your claim does not hold water.

You claim “A did it” A - being god.

I can substitute in Magic Rabbit, Magic Dog etc. So by YOUR reasoning there are only two alternatives Magic Dog did it or Magic Dog didn’t do it. Your reasoning is flawed.

Your talking about binary searching, where the answer is either yes or no (zero or one). Lets take the alphabet. Say the answer we are after is letter K. We start at A. A is either K or it isn’t K (God either did it or he didn’t). A is not K. So where does that leave us? Well it leaves with 25 more letters to search through, it does not leave us with the solution.

The ONLY way to find K is to examine K. Now when it comes to the origin of the universe we have NO idea what caused it. This DOES NOT mean god did it, it means we have potentially infinite causes. If you want to group a set of infinity into “god didn’t do it” by all means go ahead, but don’t complain when people laugh at you. 👍👍👍👍
Click to expand...
Catholics know the cause (whatever it is) as God.

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
[32](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/32.htm’)😉 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

[33](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/33.htm’)😉 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.
[34](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/34.htm’)😉 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
[35](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/35.htm’)😉 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
 
Erchomai_Kyrios said:
Good Morning to you as well Charles,🙂
You sound like a completely zealous disciple for evolution but I’m not sure you’ve told us yet why that is. Maybe you could make the point. Also it would be better to have an objective conversation about it here and trade real information rather than all the quasi adhominum attacks. After reading your posts to other members I can say they do little to illuminate anyone to your cause except perhaps to put the thread in jeopardy of being closed due to excessive vitrol. If we want to talk about substantial things concerning any of these things it will serve everyone much better. We should at least agree on that much - yes?👍

You’ll also have to cut and paste where I said Einstein falsified Newtonian mechanics, so as not to bear false witness against thy neighbor, as I never said he did. What I said is Einsteins theory is superior to Newtons and that they do not use Newton mechanics to explain what happens at either the subatomic levels nor in the deeper celestial mechanics.

Ok lets forget about newton, for it has nothing to do with discussion.

You claimed that since Darwin said his theory would stand or fall on fossil evidence that evolution has failed to meet its burden of proof.

I can only imagine you must be unaware of the amount of fossils there are, you must also fail to understand the significance of unique character combinations. However that aside your missing one KEY point. Darwin lived 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has not only progressed 10 fold in that time, but so has the evidence that supports it. Even if there were NO fossils, the evidence we do have still overwhelmingly supports evolution.

In short to claim we should still judge a theory by the understanding we had 150 years old is pretty obtuse to say the least. As knowledge advances so does understanding, education is a GOOD thing ;).
Click to expand...
 
Bradleyc said:
That is interesting, how do they get "… is XX.XXX billion years old then?
Click to expand...
They use other radiometric dating methods.
i always found it interesting when they say that something is 14.3 Billion years old… is their “science” that exact that that can differentiate between 14.3 and 14.5, or even 15 billion years… how do they do that?
Click to expand...
Read Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

rossum
 
Bradleyc said:
That is interesting, how do they get "… is XX.XXX billion years old then?
i always found it interesting when they say that something is 14.3 Billion years old… is their “science” that exact that that can differentiate between 14.3 and 14.5, or even 15 billion years… how do they do that?
Click to expand...
There are various different methods used to date the universe. Carbon dating is not one of them.

I would have no issue with 14.3 - 15 billions years. Thats only about a 5% error.

Whats very telling is the fact you have no idea how these dates are worked out, yet you still feel totally secure in dismissing them. :confused:
 
buffalo said:
Catholics know the cause (whatever it is) as God.
Click to expand...
I would have no issue with you calling the cause god. Call it what ever you like. However that is not where you stop, you then make all sorts of wild unfounded claims about “God”.
 
buffalo said:
Even in advanced chemistry I didn’t see any maps, instructions or symbols.

Do you see intelligence in a hurricane?
Click to expand...
My apologies i miss read the initial post.

You claim that instructions language and symbols always come from a mind? What is the basis for this claim and what do you mean by “come from”. For example RNA can reproduce without the need for a mind.

Also for by your reasoning I take it then there must have been a mind behind your god?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
My apologies i miss read the initial post.

You claim that instructions language and symbols always come from a mind? What is the basis for this claim and what do you mean by “come from”. For example RNA can reproduce without the need for a mind.

Also for by your reasoning I take it then there must have been a mind behind your god?
Click to expand...
God is mind itself.
 
Orogeny said:
Raising questions about the find.Think about that again. If “blind faith” was used, how was the fraud ever found?
Click to expand...
now wait a minute… it took 40 YEARS… if your scientist would have done their work they would have figured it out in less then a week… how can you possibly believe that?
I don’t know if you know this, but Pluto still exists. It is no longer classified as a planet, but it is still there.
Click to expand...
Do not confuse the point, i am NOT saying that pluto does or did not exist… i want to know, HOW the classification has changed when for several years we were taught that pluto was a PLANET… but now it’s not… that is another one of those scientific “facts” that took several years to figure out that the “fact” was not a “fact”.
the newly announced *Darwinius masillae *(the “missing link”, Ida) will now be subjected to very intense scrutiny by vertebrate paleontologists. It is completely unclear at this time that the claim that Ida is an early ancestor to apes and humans will hold up to scrutiny, regardless of the claims of the scientists that described the fossil.
Click to expand...
will that take 40 years too?
Since you levelled the charge, please give us an example of a scientist that has embraced evolution only because of funding.
Click to expand...
I have examples of scientists that have been ostiricized because of their belief to the contrary of evolution.
What is your scientific background? Do you also feel that you are qualified to evaluate the claims of quantum physics?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do feel that I am qualified, it’s called free will… do you feel that just because someone tells you something that you should always believe it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top