Young earth vs old earth theory?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by DennisTate, Nov 18, 2020.

?

Do you believe in a young earth or old earth theory?

  1. Old earth... up to five billion or so years old.

    26 vote(s)
    92.9%
  2. A somewhat old earth... perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of years old

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. A relatively young earth.... less than twenty thousand years old

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  4. I believe that the earth is roughly seven thousand years old.

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  1. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not that way. The shortest distance between two points on a plane is the length of the segment with those pts as end pts.. The shortest distance between two points on a sphere is the length of an arc on a great circle through these points.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
  2. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's a reason BYU has students take religious classes and the students want to take those classes. They help kids get more well-rounded with their understanding of life and all people. It helps to go out and to serve others. We are a service oriented Church and I think it's a good thing to learn how to serve one another, don't you? Doesn't mean non-religious people can't sever too. We don't think one dimensionally like atheists tend to do. I do know atheists who serve others when they can and don't condemn people for believing in God. They understand how to respect those that don't think and believe the same as they do. That isn't you. You can't even answer a simple question that school kids can answer. What is the shortest distance between two points? I would think your giant head full of science could answer that. But nope.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that is absoltuely NOT what "creationist scientists" do.

    Somehow, you omitted the part where they totally ignore what is discovered by experiment and observation (the methods of science), choosing to believe the ancient writings of scriptures instead.

    And, the idea that I can't read the Bible or know about your religion is ridiculous. First of all, that is the LAST thing any evangelical Christian would EVER want to be the case. You can't save my soul by telling me that I couldn't possibly understand your religion.
     
    Diablo and Cosmo like this.
  4. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Creation science is pseudoscience.
     
    WillReadmore and Diablo like this.
  5. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These courses are not accredited to transfer to any university in the world for any studies in any science. It’s made up stuff.
     
    JET3534 and WillReadmore like this.
  6. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ahhh... it took you long enough to find the answer on Google. Congratulations even though you had to find the answer. So, the answer to the question depends on your starting point or hypothesis. Are you on a plane or sphere? The answer will depend, won't it. When you try to answer the question of how old is the earth, that also depends on where you start. You have to use the same science, physics or whatever form of science you use, to answer the question, right! Creation scientists don't use a different science than you do. That's absurd. They use the same tests and often tests from old earth-universe scientists. (You don't know that because you are close minded and don't ever delve into their studies) What is different is each takes the same experimental science and based on what they are trying theorize come up with interpretations of their findings. When you read in scientific periodicals, they always have a conclusion. Many times, the way the conclusions are written leave open for other interpretations.
     
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I respect religious people who keep religion where it belongs. That’s to themselves. I don’t respect religious people who pretend religion is some kind of science. Science saves more people’s lives in one day, then prayer to some god has for centuries.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
  8. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what? Why is it important for the classes to transfer? Students understand this and the departments don't include them for students to prepare for their careers nor if they want to transfer to another college. I went there back in the late 70's and was majoring in education. While normally it took 4 years to graduate with an A.S. or B.S, the department and recently made it so one could graduate in 3 years and have their teaching degree as well. The religion courses helped build us up in a better way. To understand our purpose in life so that we could be better prepared to serve those we would teach. Because, we were going to teach students of all backgrounds and beliefs. I don't see what you care if we learn more about God and to serve God and our fellow man better. You are truly an unhappy ignorant person trying to slander those who believe and make them feel bad about it. Shameful.
     
  9. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already you were shown the pretender. Please don’t pretend science and creationism are somehow intertwined. They aren’t. You didn’t even know that the distance between two points is dependent on the where the points are defined....plane or space or on another surface. Just your simpleton question revealed that. But keep trying to discuss science and math and you’ll be wrong.....
    You don’t hear me trying to discuss scripture. I don’t read fiction.
     
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s important if you want to be a scientist or gain credit in a related field that deals with facts, not made up stuff.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  11. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I might believe some if this stuff from Christians if they practice what they preached. Christ was a liberal. Christ believed in forgiving everyone and protecting the poor. He fed the multitudes from the same source. He was a socialist.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, creation scientists always inject material that absoltuely is NOT science.

    You can't mix religion and science and then suggest the result is science.

    Religion and science do not share root assumptions, logic, methodology, or even the definitions of key words (such as theory, hypothesis, evidence, fact, etc.)

    Mixing and matching can not possibly produce anything better than garbage.
     
    dagosa and Cosmo like this.
  13. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly which god are we talking about ?
     
  14. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    According to your perspective and ignorance. Science used to think one could be saved from death with leaches and new science was pseudoscience. As an example, in the 1940's, if you were going to teach someone to do a layup in basketball, the prevailing theory of science and learning was to break down each of the 13 parts of the layup and slowly build up the persons to lay the ball up. That's called "Part-to-Whole" learning. But, scientific testing (found in thousands of psychology periodicals) eventually showed that "Whole-to-Part" learning is better and cuts the time down to learn how to do the layup successfully. But, it took 30 years for the coaching-physical educators of the world to finally accept it as being true. (Whole to Part does work better except when danger is a factor like learning to fly an airplane). Prejudice, money, pride and other reasons keep people from understanding that the facts of experiments don't always conclude what people want them to conclude. And, it takes time to break down the prejudices as well. It took a long time to get society in general to live together and get along when it comes to racism. It's way ahead of religion. Well, at least before Obama. Race relations have gone backwards since Obama-Biden. Expect that to continue.

    So, Noah's Flood discussion comes up quite a bit. You believe it was a myth or maybe just a local event. I believe that the Genesis account happened. So, I would have to have geological and experimental scientific evidence. Well, here is an article that gives just one piece of evidence using information from non-creationist experiments. This statement is from the conclusion: "The cooler temperatures exhibited by subducted slabs of lithosphere in the mantle create a thermal dilemma for secular and old-earth geologists. They must demonstrate how these slabs could have remained cold for millions of years. Cold subducted slabs like the one below China are best explained by runaway subduction thousands of years ago during the global Flood." You can find it in this article, https://www.icr.org/article/plate-beneath-china-verifies-rapid-subduction/

    As with my question about what is the shortest distance between two points, you have to understand that there can be two different hypothesis. I'm sure that there are scientists that will try to answer this question for the old earthers. There is nothing wrong with that. As there should be nothing wrong going the other direction as well. We know that atheists, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives all have one thing in common. They are right and everyone else is wrong.
     
  15. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's your problem, not mine to get out of being unhappy and angry with people that they can't change and corrupt.
     
  16. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Real science begins with a question and looks for the answer wherever it may be found. It isn't about dogma; it's about open inquiry. Unlike creationists, real scientists aren't afraid to change their hypothesis if the facts don't support it. Real science doesn't make excuses for evidence.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
    dagosa likes this.
  17. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was asking the question, not you. I was hoping you would just answer the question from your own inept learning and understanding and say, "A straight line." When I would ask my geometry students the same question, they had the same concrete understanding and knowledge as you did. Then, I would toss a tennis ball to someone and say, that was the shortest distance. They would respond that if I would have thrown the ball harder, it would have been a straight line and not a curved line. Which started the discussion on curved surfaces and introduce space-time as well. So, which line depends upon your hypothesis is a plane or in space (spherical with gravity involved). So, here is the challenge: You - I'm a space cadet. You can only see the answer in space.
    Me - I'm a plane cadet. I'm a plane in space so I can see both plane and space. Space cadets are more ignorant than me. And, I understand that. So, I have a need to serve you and help you understand your challenge.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We receive light (photons) and other transmissions from galaxies that are far enough away that those photons are HUGELY older than you think our universe is.

    So, how do you explain that - other than that your god is manufacturing photons in flight in patterns carefully made to fool us? Or, do you really think we can't detect LIGHT??

    You are NOT proposing tiny tweaks to what we find. You are rejecting all modern science as being founded on garbage. And, you are doing so with NO evidence.


    You are free to have full faith in your god. I'm not attacking that. But, there is no possibility of accepting nonsense about how this universe works when we can LOOK at this universe and see how it works.
     
    JET3534 and Cosmo like this.
  19. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's your assumption. You would be incorrect. It's actually bass-ackwards. Creationist scientists mostly all came from your point of view. They mostly are from MIT and other universities. They are more apt to accept when they haven't proven something. In there writings and presentations, they do this all the time. Real scientists likewise. When they find their conclusions aren't following the science, they continue to seek for their answer or like most creation science, quit trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You use the word "dogma" to create the idea that something is false to destroy belief in others. Shameful.
     
  20. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO shameful is an apt description for the term "scientific creationism"; it's an oxymoron.
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is shameful is your accusations concerning those who are scientists and Christians - at MIT or anywhere else.

    You get to do science and you get to do religion. You don't get to mix and match and then call it science.

    Every scientist of every religious persuasion at MIT knows that. And, you need to stop with your shameful and baseless accusations about them.
     
    Cosmo and dagosa like this.
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A straight line is not the shortest distance between two points. A line is infinitely long. A LINE SEGMENT on a plane represents the shortest distance. Now you’re just rambling and pretending I should have answered it wrong ? No wonder some people who are into religion just make up stuff. They don’t know enough to do anything else.
    We math / science people have the courage that just religious non science people don’t and can say one thing. Like science, sometimes, “we don’t know.”
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
  23. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. He’s not even speaking for Christianity. Many Christians believe science.....like Catholics. Many scientists are spiritual.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2020
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  24. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, you’re smarter because you believe made up stuff ? Sounds like a Trump supporter.
     
  25. Cougarbear

    Cougarbear Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "In most galaxy formation scenarios, galaxies only start to show a well-formed disk around 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The fact that the astronomers found such a disk galaxy when the Universe was only ten percent of its current age, indicates that other growth processes must have dominated. Or perhaps it illustrates that something is wrong with secular ideas about galaxy formation. Or that something is wrong with the assumption that distant light takes billions of years to reach us. Or perhaps both." - https://www.icr.org/article/most-distant-rotating-disk-galaxy-secular-models/

    In Genesis chapter 1, the universe starts out without the earth being formed. Then, God divided the void into light and dark. He placed "a" firmament (Heaven) between the two. Below, he formed or organized our earth. The rest of the universe was already formed. How long did it take? He's God. 13 billion years or 1 day? The earth, however, looks like a few of his days or time periods. But, the article points out, that galaxy's light is way off based on a 13 billion years of existence. 1.3 billion? Maybe 1 billion years is as one day to God. A 1,000 days is what the people then would understand as a long time period. Then, the earth was formed. It took a few days to organize and place man on it. A 1,000 years or one billion years for one of God's days? Point is, we don't know. But, I have read and seen where all of it certainly could have done this in 6 1,000 years. I'm open minded when we see things like in the above article. You aren't.
     

Share This Page