Evidence for an ancient earth

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

Sapiens said:
Science most assuredly does deal with justice, love and logic.

How convenient, your invisible friend only talks to you and your fellow travelers. My daughter grew out of that fantasy when she was eight.

Yes, it is convenient. If he spoke to you, you would treat Him with disrespect. I also withdraw from people who are abusive to me.

God is eminently logical in His behavior.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

gnostic said:
I didn't say you did, but anyone with basic arithmetic or a calculator, can use the OT, to calculate backward, starting with known archaeological and historical event, namely the fall of Jerusalem, can calculate the following:

the reigns of kings of Judah, all the way to Solomon's beginning his temple building programme on his 4th year of reign (1 Kings 6:1);

where in this same verse (1 Kings 6:1), it also referred to when Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, 480 years before Solomon's 4th year on the throne;

and during Israelites leaving in Egypt (Exodus 12:40-41), it stated Jacob and His ancestors were living in Egypt (according to Masoretic Text) or in Canaan and Egypt (in the Septuagint) for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41);

and depending if you are using Masoretic and Septuagint, the 430 years in the former (Masoretic) would mean when Jacob arrived in Egypt (Genesis 46), while the 430 years in the later (Septuagint) being Abraham receiving his covenant from god (Genesis 15). The Masoretic context is impossible, because it would mean that Jochebed, daughter of Levi and mother of Moses, would have to be between 261 and 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses (note that we have no detail about how old Levi was when Jochebed was born, but I am guessing she was born in Egypt since her name never appear in Genesis 46. So the 430 years is most likely the date of Abraham's covenant.

And finally calculating forward from Adam to the birth of Abraham in Genesis, we can the estimate of passage of time between Noah's Flood and the birth of Abraham.

From all the numbers above, depending if I use the Masoretic or Septuagint for Exodus 12's 430 years, I would get my final calculations for dating the Flood, 2104 BCE and 2340 BCE, respectively.

That's how I get 4500 years. I am thinking 2340 BCE is more likely.

Either ways, both dates are wrong, because there were never any global flood, and both archaeological and geological evidences point to there being no such flood, and all of Genesis are nothing more than a collection of myths (e.g. Creation, flood, Tower of Babel, the three patriarchs, etc, are myths).

"Son of" in the Bible means also "descendant of" and there are Bible examples where it clearly is skipping generations. Jesus is a "Son of David" despite their being 14 generations between them and almost 1,000 years. I would question, therefore, anyone who sets a specific Flood date.

I would say the rest of your answer shows you have more to study in archaeology, for one. There are wonderful pages on line listing dozens and hundreds of evidences for the biblical events and the patriarchs, etc.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

gnostic said:
And you are being terribly uneducated.

You don't "carbon date" any fossil older than 50,000 because radiocarbon (C14) dating are known to have limitations.

Any archaeological evidence, particularly within the Holocene epoch, such as the Neolithic period, Bronze Age and Iron Age can be dated with some accuracy, using C14 dating.

The problem with radiocarbon dating, is that the older fossils and other materials containing carbons, the less carbon-14 there are. The upper limit for radiocarbon dating is 50,000 years, and it has only a half-life of 5730 years.

Geologists and palaeontologists already know this limitations since the 1960s, so they often used other radiometric dating methods, such as

Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating, would date rocks from 1000 years to 1 billion years, .

Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) dating, would date rock from 1 million to over 4.5 billion years, with 0.1 to 1 percent precisions.

With fossils from the Himalayas, K-Ar or U-Pb dating would be used, not C14 dating.

Your 1st mistake is thinking that geologists and palaeontologists are stupid enough to use radiocarbon dating on marine fossils on the Himalayas. Apparently the only stupid people are creationists, who still think radiocarbon dating is only radiometric dating method being used, ignoring K-Ar and U-Pb radiometric datings, because they are so stupid from learning their mistakes.

Tell me, why are you ignoring K-Ar, which is far more accurate than C14 dating?

Second...your 2nd mistake...is about dating the fossils and organic materials.

Carbon-14 is lost, when dating fossils, the older fossils get, which I have already said.

They don't "carbon date" these older fossils (than 50k years), but they can date those fossils with K-Ar method, because the fossils would still have radioactive isotopes calcium-40.

If you know even the rudimentary biology, you would know that calcium are found in bones, teeths, ivory, and shells, and these materials are what last in fossils, not skins, muscle tissues, organs, hairs, etc.

K-Ar method (with isotopes 40 for potassium and 40 for argon) can date anything that has calcium, from a few thousand years to 1 billion years, with 0.1 to 1 percent precision.

So dating marine fossils on the Himalayas (with K-Ar) are not a problem. U-Pb method can also be used, in this case.

If you want to date some fossils older than 1 billion years, than you would use U-Pb method with isotopes

(A) U-238 and Pb-206,
or (B) U-235 and 207

(A) has longer half-life than (B), which was used to date the age of Earth's oldest rocks.

Sorry, BilliardsBall, but you have been so blind with creationist propaganda about radiocarbon dating, that you have ignored other dating methods available to geologists and palaeontologists. I am quite sure that a lot of members here have already explained to you why other alternative radiometric methods are being used.

Seriously, BB. Why do you keep repeating the same mistakes and the same misinformation about radiometric dating? Cannot you not see other alternatives and why?

My point still stands. 1) You cannot carbon date (or date AT ALL) organic fossils older than X. 2) You use assumptions and nearby or adjacent geologic features to thus (in an assumptive manner) date organic fossils.

Your entire post is an excellent defense of my point. So please take a moment to comprehend what I write before setting off on an epexegetical explosion assaulting me, when you are defending my viewpoint utterly.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

shunyadragon said:
First, it is terribly misleading to say 99% of all fossils are marine fossils, and yes. not true. By the numbers it is ~95%, but only because of the deposition in a marine environment preserves more fossils.

As far as dating anything estimated to be 33 million years old whether land or marine fossils it would not be dated by carbon 14.

Addressed elsewhere. I'm well aware you cannot date fossils of ancient age without making assumptions regarding what you are dating that is nearby or adjacent.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

Malicex said:
I don't want to talk about a lot of things all at once, so I'll focus on this. What exactly are you getting at when you say science is based on apriori assumptions, such as "truth exists" and "the law of noncontradiction"?

Also, do you believe that believing in a creator God or gods doesn't make these assumptions or somehow fixes this problem?

To learn anything in any field as true, whether science, the scriptures or how to play tennis, we must accept axiomatic truths. For example:

If we accept evolution as factual, we are axiomatically accepting of the following:

1. Evolution is a thing or concept
2. Things and concepts exist
3. Truth/facts are real
4. Things can be true or untrue, but not both simultaneously
5. Etc.

The pre-existence to modern science of truth, logic, love, etc. point people to an obvious conclusion--there is a purpose in life and a Creator of purpose.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

metis said:
Except the water level never got anywhere close to the tops of these mountains. Evidence shows that the peak of high water was only 120 meters from where it currently is. -- https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

The article you cited went back 120,000 years only. A little presumptuous for a 4.5 billion year-old planet, with fossils a billion years old atop the highest mountain ranges.

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

Polymath257 said:
Genesis 5.3: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Total: 130+105 = 235 years

Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Total: 235+90 = 325 years

Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

Total: 325+70 = 395 years

Genesis 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

Total: 395+65 = 460 years

Genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

Total: 460+162 = 622 years

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Total: 622+65 = 687 years

Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

Total: 687+187 = 874 years.

Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

Total: 874+182 = 1056 years

Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Total: 1056+600 = 1656 years
This gives the date of the flood according to the Bible.

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Total: 1056+601 = 1657 years
This gives the date of the end of the flood.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Total: 1657+2 = 1659 years
This is a bit ambiguous: is the two years measured from the beginning or the end of the flood? I used the end of the flood.

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Total: 1659+35 = 1694 years

Genesis 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

Total: 1694+30 = 1724 years

Genesis 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

Total: 1724+34 = 1758 years

Genesis 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

Total: 1758+30 = 1788

Genesis 11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

Total: 1788+32 = 1820 years

Genesis 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

Total: 1820+30 = 1850 years

Genesis 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

Total: 1850+29 = 1879 years

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Total: 1879+70 = 1949 years

Genesis 21:5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
Note: Abram and Abraham are the same person.

Total: 1949+100 = 2049 years.

Genesis 25:26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

Total: 2049+60 = 2109 years

Genesis 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

Total: 2109+147 = 2256 years

This means that Jacob went into Egypt at

Total: 2256-17 = 2239 years.

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Note: this is an over-estimate: some people think the 430 years starts when Abraham went into Canaan.

Total: 2239+430 = 2669 years.

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Note: some would add to this the 40 years in the desert.

Total: 2669+480 = 3149 years.

The temple stood for 410 years:

Total: 3149+410 = 3459 years

Destruction of the temple of Solomon by Neuchadnezzer was in 587 BC.

This means that Adam was formed 3459+587 = 4046 BC.
The global flood ended 4046-1657=2389 BC.

Note: If you think the 430 years starts when Abraham went into Canaan, the dates would be:
Adam formed: 4006 BC
Global flood end: 2349 BC

If you think the 2 years for the begetting of Arphaxad was at the beginning of the flood, then the dates are
Adam formed: 4004 BC
Global flood ended: 2347 BC

I'm aware of the Bishop of Usher's 4004 BC calculation. Are you aware that the biblical "son of" also means "notable descendant of"? The most popular biblical title for Jesus Christ is "Son of David" despite a nearly 1,000 year separation between the two. Anyone who dates the Flood to that recent or even gives a specific date is suspect to me. I would place the Flood some thousands of years earlier by my best guess....

BilliardsBall · Jun 7, 2017

viole said:
Well, if someone follows a serious course about geology, and still believes that the earth is 6000 years old, then the problem might be somewhere else. Between chair and desk, I guess .

So, evolution is not relevant. By asserting a young earth, you are forced to throw in the garbage bin virtually all of science. Geology, astronomy, astrophysics, anthropology, cosmology, nuclear science, relativity, etc. etc. Evolution is just a tiny negligible bit.

So, what is more likely: that all scientists are so wrong (by a factor of millions) about virtually any discipline, or that a group of ancient herders did not know what they were talking about?

The answer to that riddle should be obvious. Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

I believe the Earth is ancient, billions of years old, but I also believe there is good evidence for a universal Flood, a Garden of Eden, etc.

But one thing you should know--it is an axiom of science that science evolves. One universal fact in science is that virtually 100% of scientific theories overturn over time.

viole · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
I believe the Earth is ancient, billions of years old, but I also believe there is good evidence for a universal Flood, a Garden of Eden, etc.

Good that you used the word "believe". Because you can only believe, when it comes to evidence of gardens of Eden and Universal floods.

But one thing you should know--it is an axiom of science that science evolves. One universal fact in science is that virtually 100% of scientific theories overturn over time.

I suspect that the chances of science vindicating creationists are even lower than the chances that Jesus returns. That is: same ballpark with zero.

Ciao

- viole

gnostic · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
My point still stands. 1) You cannot carbon date (or date AT ALL) organic fossils older than X. 2)

And you haven't learn a single thing about radiometric dating.

There are more than one methods of dating fossils (e.g. K-Ar and U-Pb methods), and radiocarbon dating would never be used in fossils older than 50,000 years.

Those marine fossils are older than 30 million years, and K-Ar and U-Pb would be used, since they have greater half-life than C-14.

Carbon 14 keep disappearing for every 5730 years (which is the half-life of C-14), until they are all gone by 50,000-plus years.

Calcium (or more precisely calcium isotopes 40 or Ca -40) can remained in fossils for 1 billion or more years, which is why K-Ar and U-Pb were used instead.

Calcium-40 can also be found in minerals such as mica (found in some igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks), and clay-minerals. So, K-Ar dating can be used

Radiocarbon can only be used in the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, as well as the Bronze Age.

BilliardsBall said:
I would say the rest of your answer shows you have more to study in archaeology, for one. There are wonderful pages on line listing dozens and hundreds of evidences for the biblical events and the patriarchs, etc.

Of course, I can learn more of archaeology, and I would love to learn more. I valued education in history and archaeology, more than I can say about you.

You, on the other hand, don't want to learn anything more, especially if it contradicts the bible. For you ignorance is bliss. You don't like your faith being questioned or challenged.

I, on the other hand, I don't mind challenging historical or archaeological findings, provided that there are evidences to question or challenge it, which you apparently don't have.

You keep wanting to date fossils with radiocarbon, but only idiots would bother to use radiocarbon dating to date fossils that are older than 50,000 years.

The only way you can prove that those marine fossils in the Himalayas are younger, like 4300 years old, would be to find human fossils with those marine fossils.

All you have, are just conjectures and ignorance.

sayak83 · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
Thanks for the correction. Since there are as many scientific, verified markers of an old Earth as of an old universe, I do accept, fully.

I would, however, retain a different outlook on global catastrophe, and would say that book and others give good reasons to accept a universal Flood event.

So you accept and old Earth and an old universe but consider there is good evidence for a universal flood? In which case the reason for me posting in this thread is at an end, since it's meant to establish the ancient age of the earth and the universe only.

The basic problem with your POV is this. The sediments that are considered evidence for a singular flood contains crystals that can be radioactively dated to different periods of very ancient times. However the Flood theory is very elusive thing. Every one has his own unique theory. So I would need to know the theory of flood you hold and the evidence you believe that supports it in at least a brief outline to assess its scientific merit (or lack thereof). If you do this, please alert me and I will take look.

Sapiens · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
Yes, it is convenient. If he spoke to you, you would treat Him with disrespect. I also withdraw from people who are abusive to me.

God is eminently logical in His behavior.

It is amazing how self-contradictory you are.

You may withdraw, but you alleged god is recorded in your bible not as a shrinking violet, but as a mighty smite kinda guy.

Past performance is said to be the best predictor of future actions.

I've not been smited.

There is no preferential smiting of skeptics going on.

The logical conclusion is the your god in no more real than the boogieman under the the bed.

It is quite impossible to exhibit disrespect to the nonexistent.

Sapiens · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
My point still stands. 1) You cannot carbon date (or date AT ALL) organic fossils older than X. 2) You use assumptions and nearby or adjacent geologic features to thus (in an assumptive manner) date organic fossils.

Get it right, there is no such thing as an organic fossil. Fossils are rock, organic material is "remains."

BilliardsBall said:
Your entire post is an excellent defense of my point. So please take a moment to comprehend what I write before setting off on an epexegetical explosion assaulting me, when you are defending my viewpoint utterly.

Everyone here, save you, comprehends what you wrote. Kinda odd, no?

BilliardsBall said:
Addressed elsewhere. I'm well aware you cannot date fossils of ancient age without making assumptions regarding what you are dating that is nearby or adjacent.

One you process a single, first sample, then (maybe) there's an assumption. After thousands of samples, when they are all the same, that's viewed as a "fact".

BilliardsBall said:
To learn anything in any field as true, whether science, the scriptures or how to play tennis, we must accept axiomatic truths. For example:

If we accept evolution as factual, we are axiomatically accepting of the following:

1. Evolution is a thing or concept

No, it is a process, not a thing or a concept.

BilliardsBall said:
2. Things and concepts exist
3. Truth/facts are real
4. Things can be true or untrue, but not both simultaneously

True or false, is Schrödinger's Cat alive?

BilliardsBall said:
5. Etc.

Etc.

BilliardsBall said:
The pre-existence to modern science of truth, logic, love, etc. point people to an obvious conclusion--there is a purpose in life and a Creator of purpose.

A claim without evidence.

BilliardsBall said:
I'm aware of the Bishop of Usher's 4004 BC calculation. Are you aware that the biblical "son of" also means "notable descendant of"? The most popular biblical title for Jesus Christ is "Son of David" despite a nearly 1,000 year separation between the two. Anyone who dates the Flood to that recent or even gives a specific date is suspect to me. I would place the Flood some thousands of years earlier by my best guess....

Y'all need to get your act together.

BilliardsBall said:
I believe the Earth is ancient, billions of years old, but I also believe there is good evidence for a universal Flood, a Garden of Eden, etc.

But one thing you should know--it is an axiom of science that science evolves. One universal fact in science is that virtually 100% of scientific theories overturn over time.

They are overturned by data that first falsifies an existing theory, they a modified theory that solves the falsification problem is advanced and tested. You are failing badly on both counts.

shunyadragon · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
Addressed elsewhere. I'm well aware you cannot date fossils of ancient age without making assumptions regarding what you are dating that is nearby or adjacent.

Not sure where you are going with this but many fossil can be often dated by many other means such as Potassium Argon. Most often more than one dating method is used.

gnostic · Jun 7, 2017

shunyadragon said:
Not sure where you are going with this but many fossil can be often dated by many other means such as Potassium Argon. Most often more than one dating method is used.

BilliardsBall, as well as many creationists, cannot seem to be able to grasp concept that geologists and palaeontologists can alternative radiometric dating methods to radiocarbon dating (C-14).

The two more frequent used radiometric dating for older rocks and fossils than 50,000 years, are:

Potassium-Argon (K-Ar), like you said shunyadragon, potassium-40 isotopes to argon-40, with half-life of about 1.3 billion years
Uranium-Lead (U-Pb), is different, as it have two different sets of isotopes can be used that have different half-life:
1. U-235 to Pb-207, half-life of 700 million years
2. U-238 to Pb-206, half-life of 4.5 billion years

Both K-Ar and U-Pb can be used to date the marine fossils on the Himalayas.

The oldest whale ever to be found, has been found in the Himalayas, where they found a jawbone, and scientists have dated this fossil to 53 million years. Scientists wouldn't radiocarbon, as K-Ar and U-Pb dating are more accurate, and date rocks and fossils when C-14 are gone.

Calcium-40 (Ca-40) last longer in fossils than C-14, so K-Ar would be the preferred dating method, while U-Pb can be also on any igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rock, of any age, where the jawbone has been found.

I don't think BilliardsBall has any idea about isotopes and half-life, that's why he continued to use weak argument about radiocarbon (C-14) dating.

He think scientists, geologists and palaeontologists cannot think about using different dating methods, he believed that radiocarbon dating is the only ones they used...which just show BB is no more brighter than the average creationists.

gnostic · Jun 7, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
I believe the Earth is ancient, billions of years old

You believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Do you know how they (scientists) can date to this age?
What methods do you think they would use, to date it?

Well, they certainly wouldn't use radiocarbon dating (C-14). It would be U-Pb dating; that how they date the oldest rocks or minerals.

U-Pb (Uranium-Lead) dating is far more accurate than all other radiometric dating methods, because it can be used to date any types of rocks (igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rocks), even when lead 206 or 207 isotopes are gone from the rocks.

The only problem is that it cannot date rocks with accuracy, younger than 1 million years.

This is why K-Ar are used to date anything as young as couple of thousands of years to as old as over 1.3 billion years. K-Ar can date rocks in the Bronze Age, but it can date anything in the Cambrian era and part of the Late Precambrian.

What you can't seem to grasp that fossilisation of life, takes time to "fossilise", turning bones, teeth, ivory and exoskeleton (e.g. shells) into rocks. These contain calcium so when the circumstances are right, calcium in bones and teeth "mineralise". Tissues, skin, organs rarely survive long enough to mineralise.

Marine fossils wouldn't "fossilise" in a mere 4500 years, on the Himalayas. If you think that can in 4500 years, then you really don't know much about palaeontology and geology at all.

Polymath257 · Jun 8, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
"Son of" in the Bible means also "descendant of" and there are Bible examples where it clearly is skipping generations. Jesus is a "Son of David" despite their being 14 generations between them and almost 1,000 years. I would question, therefore, anyone who sets a specific Flood date.

Actually, since the passages specifically state the ages when the descendant was born, this objection carries no weight. In many of the cases, the birth is specifically stated as being to the wife of the previous ancestor listed.

I would say the rest of your answer shows you have more to study in archaeology, for one. There are wonderful pages on line listing dozens and hundreds of evidences for the biblical events and the patriarchs, etc.

Yes, many Biblical events are historical *after* about 900 BC. Before that, the agreement between the Bible and archeology is rather poor.

Malicex · Jun 9, 2017

BilliardsBall said:
To learn anything in any field as true, whether science, the scriptures or how to play tennis, we must accept axiomatic truths. For example:

If we accept evolution as factual, we are axiomatically accepting of the following:

1. Evolution is a thing or concept
2. Things and concepts exist
3. Truth/facts are real
4. Things can be true or untrue, but not both simultaneously
5. Etc.

The pre-existence to modern science of truth, logic, love, etc. point people to an obvious conclusion--there is a purpose in life and a Creator of purpose.

Ok... The pre-existence of truth etc points to a purpose to life and a creator of purpose? And this is obvious? What pre-existence of truth? Why does this point to a being that creates things?

gnostic · Jun 11, 2017

BilliardsBall:

Why is it that you bring up, radiocarbon (C-14) dating regarding to determining the age of fossils, that you don't think it work accurately?

And yet when I address your points, that you wouldn't use it on fossils older than 50,000 years AND that there other more accurate radiometric dating (e.g. K-Ar dating and U-Pb dating), you are completing silence about those alternative radiometric dating methods.

Why do you ignore that K-Ar and U-Pb can date much older fossils?

I have brought up the alternatives several times, but you won't address those points.

You do know that geologists don't rely on C-14 dating, don't you? Do you think scientists cannot use any other radiometric dating?

Your silence on the matters about alternative radiometric dating, speak volumes of your lack of integrity in debating. You are selectively singling out one method being used over other more accurate methods, showed that you are not being honest with us.

gnostic · Jun 11, 2017

Malicex said:
Ok... The pre-existence of truth etc points to a purpose to life and a creator of purpose? And this is obvious? What pre-existence of truth? Why does this point to a being that creates things?

What I believe he is saying, that this "pre-existence of truth" means BEFORE modern science.

I think it should be apparent that he is still believe that he is living in the Dark Ages, where superstitions and ignorance RULE.

Evidence for an ancient earth

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Ontological Naturalist

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Polymathematician

Polymathematician

shunyadragon

The Lost One

The Lost One

Think & Care

New Member

The Lost One

The Lost One