ADobbs1989
Regular Member
Stop assuming anything. Either the evidence will lead to a creator or not. Making assumptions in general is useless.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
How we know that the earth is old
- Thread starter minarchist
- Start date
Stop assuming anything. Either the evidence will lead to a creator or not. Making assumptions in general is useless.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Not so. We assume that the same natural laws that apply now, applied 10000 years ago. We rely on assumption. It is unavoidable.
If there is a creator, he will decide where the evidence will lead.
Also, there is no logical reason to think that just because we understand the creation, that we will understand why it was created the way it was, or why it was created at all. Are these not as equally important questions?
OC for ME
Regular Member
I'm kind of cool with just "being." A discussion as to why is great after a few beers......but I'll take just "being" if you don't mind.
March Hare
Regular Member
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
That works for me also, and I will add I am fine with others being what they wish.
ADobbs1989
Regular Member
No, they are not important questions because you have assumed there is a creator. Until you can demonstrate the need for a creator it's useless to branch off an unanswered question and continue asking questions. We don't rely on assumption. We only make assumptions to start the process, at the end of the scientific method it's no longer an assumption but a well founded theory. What natural laws do you mean? Like gravity, etc? Or natural laws like evolution? Because we can look back in time and see that the laws of gravity have always been there. Has it ever been observed that a scientific law has ever changed over time? If the answer is no, then it would be more of an assumption to consider that they were not the same 10,000 years ago.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
minarchist
Regular Member
ADobbs1989
Regular Member
I guess if we try to get technical about it we DON'T know the EXACT age of the Earth. It could be off by 1%.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I apply the general rule of thumb that the IRS generally uses, for the most part: Anything past seven years old is not worth remembering, or caring about unless it is your wedding date or spouse/kids birthdate(s). Forgetting, or not caring about, those events can be very detrimental to your efforts to maintain your personal domestic tranquility.....trust me on this one.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Note about IRS .... non-filers have no "7 yr rule"...they can go after you forever..keep your returns forever
non-filer
Wait a minute here... non-filers have no "7 yr rule". This is true. There is no statute of limitations on non-filers. However, if you keep your returns forever it should mean that you are not a non-filer because if you have a return, it means that you filed. Ouch! Double negatives make my head hurt. Boolean logic can be a real pain.
Wait a minute here... non-filers have no "7 yr rule". This is true. There is no statute of limitations on non-filers. However, if you keep your returns forever it should mean that you are not a non-filer because if you have a return, it means that you filed. Ouch! Double negatives make my head hurt. Boolean logic can be a real pain.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Wait a minute here... non-filers have no "7 yr rule". This is true. There is no statute of limitations on non-filers. However, if you keep your returns forever it should mean that you are not a non-filer because if you have a return, it means that you filed. Ouch! Double negatives make my head hurt. Boolean logic can be a real pain.
They can always claim you did not file. Don't worry, a beer will clear this up.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
To assume a creator merely defers the question of the creation of this universe one step back (who created the creator?). To me that is useless.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
I guess the priority of questions is individually specific. If you assume there is no creator then it would be impossible for you to ever discover one because the process of science has consideration for such things.
Evolution is not a law of any type.
We cannot look back in time. We only extrapolate by assumption.
The degree of assumption is irrelevant to my point. Assumptions are unavoidable. It appears you agree with me on that point.
ADobbs1989
Regular Member
Not assuming a creator is not an assumption. It's the default position to have. That's like saying it's an assumption to not think fairies are at the bottom of gardens, or it's an assumption that there isn't a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow. There has been insufficient evidence to support the claim that there is a creator, you might think you have enough evidence to believe yourself, but that does not mean I have been given enough evidence. And considering the overwhelming majority of Atheists who are scientists I'm going to say that science hasn't provided any evidence either. By the religious own admission belief in a creator is completely based on faith, which is by definition without evidence. Also we are looking back in time every time we look into the night sky. We see the stars as they were how ever many light years they are away from us.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I guess if we try to get technical about it we DON'T know the EXACT age of the Earth. It could be off by 1%.
Time is relative ~ so age must be too
what seems like 5 billion years to you could be a matter of a day for someone else ... food for thought
creationism and evolution can co-exist according to Einstein's theory of relativity ... who am I to argue with Einstein?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Why has no scientist in this advanced day and age been able to create life from elements that are conducive to life, but no life already exists? If life could happen in non laboratory conditions, surely it would be easy to create life in laboratory conditions.
ADobbs1989
Regular Member
Time is relative to gravity. But again it really depends on your definition of creationism. If your definition of creationism is specifically linked directly to the biblical story then no, they can not both be correct, regardless of time relevance. If your definition of creationism is a loose definition that says that something created everything, including the natural processes that we observe then fine. Yes there COULD be a creator, there COULD be an invisible teapot floating around your head, just because something COULD be true doesn't mean it is, and it doesn't strengthen any argument in favor of it. Until there is evidence supporting it, it's a matter of faith, and I personally have no room for faith. There is plenty of things I can learn about that are supported by evidence.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Aside from this being a non-sequitur... How do you figure?