Evidence for an ancient earth

[ratiocinator]

Can anyone out there give me one possible.reason why humanity has no absolute proof of the existence or non- existence of a Creator.

For the same reason that there is no absolute proof of the existence or non-existence of the tribes of sub-atomic goblins called Eric that painstakingly move stuff around to make us think there is gravity: it's an unfalsifiable guess.

 

[ratiocinator]

On the other hand: A well tested experiment should lead to an explainable scientific proof, right?

Not really. Even if every experiment and observation you make backs up a theory, that isn't absolute proof. It only takes one exception to falsify it and we may not have seen it yet.

 

[Evie]

The big bang wasn't an explosion and nobody is suggesting that "nothingness" triggered it. We can have confidence in what there is good evidence for: the universe as we know it now, emerged from a dense hot state about 13 billion years ago.

There are scientific hypotheses on what exactly led to that state (based on the theoies we do have confidence in) but no evidence as yet.

Gods are just pointless guesswork.

Exactly. From where did that dense hot state come ( assuming such a state ever existed). And as you said they have no evidence as to how it came to exist. Even if it did. No matter what is put forward, questions arise. No absolute proof exists. Time and time again it comes down to what individuals choose to believe. So many unanswered questions. One would think that the great minds down through time which have been applied to the questions would have come up with indisputable answers. But no. I have to wonder why.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, according to the "current laws of physics". But are these universal? Most of the laws derives from geocentric measurements as for instants with the Newtonian laws of celestial planetary motions around a "gravity center". A motion which was directly contradicted by the observations of objects moving around galactic centers.

IMO all formations and motions takes place as "a circuit of formation" in an eternal Universe and this of course dismiss the very unscientific idea of a "Big Bang" and all its suppositions.

The "atomic decay" is just a part of the eternal changes of charged and discharged particles which eternally takes place in the Universe.

I have discussed the overwhelming evidence for the universality of the laws in the opening post.
The rest of your post makes no sense to me.

 

[sayak83]

On the other hand: A well tested experiment should lead to an explainable scientific proof, right?

Never. One cannot even prove that the earth is round. Its just a highly probable conclusion based on current observation.

 

[sayak83]

You sound so certain about something which has it's believers and non- believers. Which is where it all rests. On the belief of an individual.

now that is the question, isn't it. There is no absolute answer to that question. The Big Bang theory gives an explanation. But no-one can explain the Big Bang ( if it did occur at all). What was the source of the 'supposed' Big Bang? Nothingness could not trigger an explosion. Even Stephen Hawkins admits this. So what was the source? And from what did that source come into existence?

Yes I am extremely certain of the evidence.
Once again, the thread discusses the age of the earth and associated evidence and not the Big Bang. Do not change the subject. Please make another thread if that is what you are interested in.

 

[ratiocinator]

No matter what is put forward, questions arise.

Yes and a 'creator' doesn't really provide any answers. Where did a creator come from?

One would think that the great minds down through time which have been applied to the questions would have come up with indisputable answers.

Why would you think that?

But no. I have to wonder why.

Because we don't have enough evidence.

 

[Evie]

Never. One cannot even prove that the earth is round. Its just a highly probable conclusion based on current observation.

It has been viewed from space, for one thing. By astronauts. Get real.

 

[Evie]

Yes and a 'creator' doesn't really provide any answers. Where did a creator come from?


Why would you think that?


Because we don't have enough evidence.

 

[Evie]

That would be another unanswered question. Even should a Creator be proven as an existing entity, then from where did that Creator come? But the religious belief is that of the Creator being an eternal Being.

 

[sayak83]

It has been viewed from space, for one thing. By astronauts. Get real.

Proves nothing. A proof is a deductive structure of logic where the conclusion inevitably follows from its premises, like mathematics or logical proofs. All observation based conclusions are inductive and are about updating the probabilities of different outcomes based on observations. This always makes the conclusion chancy. New observations can therefore overthrow previous conclusions. For example maybe tomorrow some enterprising scientist will discover a hitherto hidden 4th dimension of space into which earth extends, making its true shape cylindrical in 4 dimensions. No such possibility arises in the proof that the angles of an equilateral triangle sum upto 180 degrees. Hence the latter is proof, while the former is just likely conclusions based on evidence and always revise-able.
Science is completely unambiguous in this matter. No scientific idea can ever be proved, ever. Only verified to very high likelyhoods.

 

[Native]

I have discussed the overwhelming evidence for the universality of the laws in the opening post.
The rest of your post makes no sense to me.

And:

Never. One cannot even prove that the earth is round. Its just a highly probable conclusion based on current observation.

This doesn´t leave you in a very certain scientific position on your initiate "universal evidences" in your opening post, does it?

 

[Altfish]

This doesn´t leave you in a very certain scientific position on your initiate "universal evidences" in your opening post, does it?

Science is NEVER certain; it always allows for the possibility that it might be wrong if new evidence arises.

That is one of the main differences with religion; religion claims certainty.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Something cannot evolve from nothing.

That is not very certain.

"A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

 

[Evie]

Re

Science is NEVER certain; it always allows for the possibility that it might be wrong if new evidence arises.

That is one of the main differences with religion; religion claims certainty.

Religion is based on Faith. Faith is the things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no answer to that line of thought, is there?

sayak83 is correct,your rambling off topic and . . .

Again . . .

You need to present a coherent argument based on objective evidence concerning the topic of the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is not very certain.

"A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error."
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

This is not the "nothing" that Theists refer to. They refer to the philosophical absolute nothing. The Hypothesis that the sum of the energy equal zero is not equivalent to absolute nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no answer to that line of thought, is there?

As per the topic of the thread, the simple physics of Thermodynamics is what YEC Creationists have avoided a coherent argument to address. The only way the physics of the thermodynamics of the history of the earth and solar system are explained is with an earth and solar system billions of years old.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Hypothesis that the sum of the energy equal zero is not equivalent to absolute nothing.

What if it is? We don't have the last word.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

T

The fact will always remain: Nothingness cannot bring forth something.

Actually? That is not automatically true. In Quantum Mechanics, scientists have observed that if they try to create a perfect vacuum, i.e. as few particles as they can get?

Something weird occurs: in that vacuum-- a particle-free space-- they observe spontaneous generation of particle-pairs. These things suddenly appear, and usually, suddenly vanish. Sometimes they persist.

So, it appears that if you have nothing? The natural order of things is for particles to suddenly appear within the "nothing".