Log in to check your private messages
Randomt thought on life
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:46 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6741
Location: Sailing into the unknown

I'm confused. Is this about Global Warming or the Earth's age?
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:49 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Aush
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 980
Location: Midwest, USA

Quote:
Science is about facts, religion concerns faith about supernatural things, which, because they are supernatural, can be neither disproven or proven based on the laws of nature. Any attempt to tie the two together will just hamper the progress of science and tie religion unnecessarily into soon outdated science.


And let me say I disagree with this (then I'll promise to leave, I swear). Sometimes, the scientific community makes hypothesis without means to test them. That doesn't mean you can't try until something better comes along later. I also believe, being a man of faith even though others would argue I'm not (shame), I trust that if a God was all powerful, he would prevent us from achieving certain knowledge, but I believe he likes to watch his people grow. Maybe one day, the time will come where we can test the hypothesis "does an all powerful being exist?" but we're limited at this time. Maybe I'm just too optimistic and trusting in science, but it all began with people who were told about God or whatever religion and decided to look more into it because they required more proof for their faith than "blindly" following another. And on that note, not to be too harsh, but if you rely on another to make your own case for your beliefs, what good are your own beliefs?
_________________
"Changes are nice--but so is continuity!"

"Then you saved my life. How disgusting. How unfortunate."
"No, don't gush on so. It was nothing, really."


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Aush
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 980
Location: Midwest, USA

Reepicheep wrote:
I'm confused. Is this about Global Warming or the Earth's age?


I think it was about the Earth's age, and if you read carefully enough, I pointed out how the Earth's age can be tied into the climate change and how they parallel on how people argue about them on either side. Continue discussing whatever you want, I just wanted to get my 2 cents in about why I avoid discussions like this about these matters with these sides because of my conditions and beliefs and am now leaving (I couldn't leave without addressing this question; it wouldn't be right.)
_________________
"Changes are nice--but so is continuity!"

"Then you saved my life. How disgusting. How unfortunate."
"No, don't gush on so. It was nothing, really."


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:56 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Jedi Joe
Master
Master

Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 1523

The earth is projected to be around 4.5 billion years old.

I don't generally accept this because, like OMB said, they are using shaky methods to do this kind of stuff. I really don't know how old the earth is, but I do believe that God created it in more than six days, basically because of the fossil record we found, and how far we can see in the past. Look at the sky, we can see galaxies millions of lightyears away, and we're creating technologies to see farther than that. And, unlike carbon dating, light is a generally reliable source.

Just a little food for thought from an old-earth creationist. Wink
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:46 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6430
Location: Missouri

That's one thing that has always bothered me. They put so much faith in carbon dating yet I'm not so certain it's as exact and reliable as they would have us believe. Have they ever done tests with objects they know how old they are to see if their test are accurate? How thorough of a job did they do?
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:45 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Old Master Ben
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 2259
Location: Georgia

Not sure if you're pointing at me Aush, but I'll give sources to my information, sure. However, I really don't know who you were talking about...but, I just want to state that I always look at an argument from both sides. Not just from my side (note, I haven't even said I believe in a God in this, I'm sticking to the facts, and those facts are that the dating method is not always accurate.) But, anyway, don't want to drag you back into this, if you don't want to be, so high-fives all around. Luckily, we can come in here and discuss things that could really turn people against eachother, and then still go and discuss Star Wars like this isn't even happening. It shows that we have a very unique forum with the maturity of our members.

Okay back to the debate. I just wanted to try to make my point a little more clear, now that I've given examples. Isn't it odd that a scientist can find a rock that hadn't had its formation date recorded when it happened, and date that to be millions of years old, and then take a rock that had its formation date recorded only 20-30 years ago, and have that dated to be millions of years old? It seems very convenient that you can take something that no one had ever record the formation of before, and date it to be as old as your previous theory would need it to be. The problem I have with the earth being millions of years old is that we have no evidence recorded from that time. We can only take items we find today, and try to guesstimate their age.

On to the sources:

The information about the helium problem: http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

The information on the volcanoes are not online, I'm afraid, but in print.

S.A. Austin, Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335–343, 1996

A.A. Snelling, The cause of anomalous potassium-argon “ages” for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon “dating,” in R.E. Walsh (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998.

Creation vs. Evolution (or the big bang, millions of years, whatever) is something I studied during a 9-week course. I'll be the first to admit that the course did display a lot of bias, however, there were some examples that I took from it, such as the three above, that I found to be true from any side of the argument. Because it was just a class, the best I can give you for the last two are the original source. There are a few sites online that cite them, but they're all creationist websites, for obvious reasons (why would the other side of the argument want to talk about these examples?). I wasn't sure if anyone would except my sources being from creationist websites, so I gave the original source.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:47 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Mara Jade Skywalker
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 5527
Location: Beyond Shadows

Jedi Joe wrote:
The earth is projected to be around 4.5 billion years old.

I don't generally accept this because, like OMB said, they are using shaky methods to do this kind of stuff. I really don't know how old the earth is, but I do believe that God created it in more than six days, basically because of the fossil record we found, and how far we can see in the past. Look at the sky, we can see galaxies millions of lightyears away, and we're creating technologies to see farther than that. And, unlike carbon dating, light is a generally reliable source.

Just a little food for thought from an old-earth creationist. Wink


Well, I firmly believe God created the Earth in 6 days because that's what the Bible says. But if age concerns you (such as being able to see the other galaxies), who's to say that God didn't create the Universe/Earth at an advanced age? I mean think about it...did God create Adam as a baby? No, as an adult. So why couldn't he have created the Earth or Universe as an adult, not as a baby? If that makes any sense.

So yes, it's something I believe on faith, but that's my theory. Smile
_________________

"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker



View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:55 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6741
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Yes! I was just going to post that!
God is in a position to do literally anything. Sometimes I think God created the world in such a way that people would get ideas like what is 'generally accepted', so that believing in him would be a leap of faith. I know that it wouldn't be God's style to let Creationism be fact because than you'd know it's true but you wouldn't believe it's true.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


Last edited by Reepicheep on Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:53 pm; edited 2 times in total


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:50 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Aush
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 980
Location: Midwest, USA

Jedi Joe wrote:
I really don't know how old the earth is, but I do believe that God created it in more than six days, basically because of the fossil record we found, and how far we can see in the past. Look at the sky, we can see galaxies millions of lightyears away, and we're creating technologies to see farther than that. And, unlike carbon dating, light is a generally reliable source.

Just a little food for thought from an old-earth creationist. Wink


Is six days for God the same as six days for us? Could it be an interpretation issue? And how do people know a galaxy is millions of lightyears away? How is light more reliable when it bends around the masses of stars, altering the distance away things may be? And even if light is a "generally reliable source", the scientific community also considers carbon dating a "generally reliable source" although it may not be as "accurate" as light is. Also, as I discussed previously, sometimes the means don't exist to test some theories so alternatives need to be found; since a vast majority of things don't emit light, we have to look at alternative means to date things that don't emit light, hence carbon, radon, etc. And there is more than just carbon dating (like ice cores, people get a general idea of past climate by comparing different isotopes of oxygen [I believe 16 and 18]), so the scientist try to use all the methods in existence that have been tested and accepted as "adequate" in the scientific community to try and test their theories; and when contradictions occur, further testing is done to see what went wrong or if another more accurate method can be developed and tested for accuracy.

I'm not arguing the age of the earth or the cosmos, but want to point out the scientific procedures that people appear to not consider or know when discussing carbon dating being inadequate when a community in that field (how many people here are scientists?) know that in order to prove a theory, it must be repeatable with the same outcome to be accepted. Of course, there have been bad publications, but that's why the extensive peer review process at key academic journals exist. Also, after quickly using Google Scholar to search for "carbon dating", just by reading a few of the titles, carbon dating isn't just one method, but at least alternative ways to measure carbon dating are being researched to make it more accurate. And of course, I'm sure they did carbon date something they knew how old it was to see how well the method works and didn't just pull the idea out of thin air to test it (I'd have to try and fine an article that I don't need to pay money to view, and older articles tend to be free to review and include ways to contact the authors for further information), but if you think they did, fine; I know I won't be able to change your thoughts. And although I can't provide any links now besides my quick search key words, look at what Wikipedia says for sources, and check those sources out, too.
_________________
"Changes are nice--but so is continuity!"

"Then you saved my life. How disgusting. How unfortunate."
"No, don't gush on so. It was nothing, really."


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:29 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Old Master Ben
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 2259
Location: Georgia

Quote:
, I'm sure they did carbon date something they knew how old it was to see how well the method works and didn't just pull the idea out of thin air to test it (I'd have to try and fine an article that I don't need to pay money to view, and older articles tend to be free to review and include ways to contact the authors for further information), but if you think they did, fine; I know I won't be able to change your thoughts.


Oh, my thoughts can easily be changed. A man had me thinking that President Obama was the way to go for a few months, even though me and you know that I'm Republican. He provided me with enough examples and evidence that I was thinking very differently than how I had been at the beginning of the election. Heck, on inauguration day I joined the fans and enjoyed his speech, and thought "Wow, this guy could do something." I won't get into where I stand now, but the point is, if you can give me clear enough facts to show me I'm wrong, than I'll willingly change my views. The man did that for me with Obama(though I will admit, he was a good enough speaker that he made me forget about the points against the president) However, we're on a topic where your own personal ideas are needed to decide what you believe, as there are no facts for a young or old earth, that prove the other is not possible. So, yes, it will always be hard to sway anyone's thoughts without having solid facts to back it up. I couldn't change anyone into thinking that there was a God very easily, if they a) had already decided they wouldn't believe in one and b) I had no real facts to give them. So goes the problem with trying to sell something like a God, and so is the problem of trying to sell evolution, the big bang, or whatever other side of the argument there is (the reason I think that these are so easily accepted is because it's coming from professionals. After all, who are we mere mortals to question the leaders in their field? May we never again question our president, our congressmen, or the CEO's of the biggest businesses again. After all, they are the best in their area.)

One thing I notice is that you seem stuck on the fact that you can't change people's thoughts. Trust me Aush, you could change my mind on many things. For one, if I were to think that a meteorologist simply does guess work, I'm sure you would have no problem changing my mind. I'm sure you have plenty of facts of what your job entails. It's an argument I would easily loose, because, though I did have an opinion beforehand, I would have no option but to accept that I was wrong when I'm proven so. So far, nobody can prove that the earth is old or young. I'm sorry, they can't. If they had, we wouldn't have an argument. I don't see anyone in here arguing that we live on a planet, or that the laws of gravity exist. Those are proven things. You really only have one side you can take, unless you're just playing devil's advocate for no reason. In this argument, it's hard to change someone's mind when you can't prove them wrong. The same goes for me; I've given real examples that show some of the flaws, but I'll admit, the dating method used for the volcanoes is just one way of dating. Others may have shown more accurate results. However, as it's not something like gravity, where this is a definite wrong and right; it will always be hard to sway an opinion like this. I thought my examples were good enough to show that the dating is not a pure way to go, and yet people still dispute it, because there's always a counter-argument. But, don't think you can't change my mind. You give me the 100% undeniable, universally accepted, proven facts that the earth is millions of years old, and I'll agree. Until you can, I've decided to take the opposite stance, and I'll stay there .

As for looking at Wikipedia, I've tried, and everything written on any scientific page comes from the view of evolution, with no mention of opposite theories. Not sure I can trust what they give me, when they fail to acknowledge that evolution may be wrong. They treat it like every text book in a public school: evolution is right, because the scientists say so. And then they give the good examples of why, and leave out the bad ones. Now, I don't know where you stand on evolution, so that's just an example. However, it's the same with things like millions of years. Every text book and science website will say millions of years without ever examining the counter-arguments. I don't know how we define narrow-minded here, but that's a good case of it.

And, to end this post, I hope we've all caught on to my short sentence about how mature we are here. This argument isn't something that needs to carry on in our relationships outside of this specific thread. I'm sure all of the Christians here get in arguments with their non-Christian friends, but that doesn't end the friendship. Usually... Confused


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:27 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Jedi Joe
Master
Master

Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 1523

Aush, there are other aspects of the Bible that are simply metaphors or symbolism for something else. Look at Revelations, many of that is symbolism, and is very hard to read at times, but I find it one of the best books in the Bible. I believe the 6-day Genesis story is a symbolic take on how God created the universe. Because the order of creation matches the fossil records. On th 4th day,

For example, the Bible says on the fourth day, God filled the sea with life and then created birds to roam the earth. Many believe that microbes and fish were the first type of animal life, and then dinosaurs came up, which scientists say are prehistoric birds. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Mara, glad to hear your input. That's something to think about. Smile
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:07 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6430
Location: Missouri

So you don't think there's going to be flying locusts with lion like human faces and scorpion tails going around punishing the wicked? I absolutely love all the strange creatures that are described in Revelations. I'll be disappointed if they're just symbolism.
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:30 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6741
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Interesting thoughts Jedi Joe. I also believe some of the things in the Bible are symbolic, but wether or not the Beast will be a literal beast remains to be seen. I think it's definately possible that there will be literal things like the 4 horsemen or they could be human beings who are just very colourfully described. I must say this is one of the best threads we've ever had, so thank you Caedus! Smile
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:29 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6430
Location: Missouri

Could you imagine if the four horsemen were real people, I mean picture a guy on a horse with a sword who is invincible and slays a 1/3 of the world. The sheer tension and terror would be rather impressive. I always thought that would be a good idea for a movie, show the four horsemen in a realistic aspect as four invincible beings going around slaying people. You can't stop them. All you can do is wait and see if you are spared.
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:25 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Rouge77
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 599

Darth Skuldren wrote:
So you don't think there's going to be flying locusts with lion like human faces and scorpion tails going around punishing the wicked? I absolutely love all the strange creatures that are described in Revelations. I'll be disappointed if they're just symbolism.


Even if they would be coming after you? Cool


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 3 of 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield