Evidence for an ancient earth

[Faithofchristian]

Everything is just mere speculation, without any actual proof, it's all just a theory and assumption, how the earth actually started. Unless someone was there to witness how the earth and the Universe actually began.
Other than that it just comes down as a theory of speculation and guess work.

I do believe that the earth is Millions to Billions of years old and the bible, scriptures God's word Supports this also.

 

[metis]

Everything is just mere speculation, without any actual proof, it's all just a theory and assumption, how the earth actually started. Unless someone was there to witness how the earth and the Universe actually began.
Other than that it just comes down as a theory of speculation and guess work.

We really don't make "assumptions" as "hypotheses" are not "assumptions", and scientific "theories" are a mixture of hypotheses, theorems, and axioms based on substantial evidence.

I do believe that the earth is Millions to Billions of years old and the bible, scriptures God's word Supports this also.

But notice what you are doing as your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph. You're making an assumption that the creation accounts actually deals with historical and scientific facts whereas they may not.

Most Christian theologians accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all. Most of them view the creation accounts as being allegory or symbolic in some other way. Obviously, they are neither atheists or agnostics.

 

[Faithofchristian]

We really don't make "assumptions" as "hypotheses" are not "assumptions", and scientific "theories" are a mixture of hypotheses, theorems, and axioms based on substantial evidence.

But notice what you are doing as your first paragraph contradicts your second paragraph. You're making an assumption that the creation accounts actually deals with historical and scientific facts whereas they may not.

Most Christian theologians accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all. Most of them view the creation accounts as being allegory or symbolic in some other way. Obviously, they are neither atheists or agnostics.

There is no contradiction, all I am doing is in agreement with those dinosaurs bones as being Millions to Billions of years old.

The big bang theory is nothing more than a theory, unlike the dinosaur bones they are real, which you can not claim the dinosaur bones as being a theory.
When dinosaur Museum's are full of dinosaur bones.
Show one museum where you can actual walk into and touch the big bang with your hand, As you can with the dinosaur bones.

You don't need any proof of evidence that dinosaurs actually existed, when in fact there's the dinosaurs bones as proven evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no contradiction, all I am doing is in agreement with those dinosaurs bones as being Millions to Billions of years old.

The big bang theory is nothing more than a theory, unlike the dinosaur bones they are real, which you can not claim the dinosaur bones as being a theory.
When dinosaur Museum's are full of dinosaur bones.
Show one museum where you can actual walk into and touch the big bang with your hand, As you can with the dinosaur bones.

You don't need any proof of evidence that dinosaurs actually existed, when in fact there's the dinosaurs bones as proven evidence.

Stop right there. Go look up, "scientific theory." Then come back an revise your statement.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Stop right there. Go look up, "scientific theory." Then come back an revise your statement.

Have you any idea what a Theory means. Look it up.
It means that it's someone's theory, but not not real, only a Theory.
There has been even Christians Scientist that has proven the dinosaurs bones to be Millions to Billions of years old.

Therefore it's not a Theory, but evidence.
You can't see this, all because you have been taught by man's teachings that the earth is only 6000 years old.

So you take what you can't explain, and go about trying to fit the dinosaurs bones into what you been taught the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.

 

[gnostic]

There is no contradiction, all I am doing is in agreement with those dinosaurs bones as being Millions to Billions of years old.

There has been even Christians Scientist that has proven the dinosaurs bones to be Millions to Billions of years old.

I wish you would stop saying dinosaurs are billions years old.

Dinosaurs first appeared about 250 million years ago, and went extinct around 66 million years ago.

Not even fishes existed 1 billion years ago, so dinosaurs also doesn't exist 1 billion years ago.

Let's keep in mind that you can say millions of years, or even hundreds of millions of years, but not billions.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I wish you would stop saying dinosaurs are billions years old.

Dinosaurs first appeared about 250 million years ago, and went extinct around 66 million years ago.

Not even fishes existed 1 billion years ago, so dinosaurs also doesn't exist 1 billion years ago.

Let's keep in mind that you can say millions of years, or even hundreds of millions of years, but not billions.

I never said that dinosaurs were billon of years old.
I said, dinosaurs were Million ( to ) billions of years old.
That covers from a million up to billion years old.

 

[sayak83]

Have you any idea what a Theory means. Look it up.
It means that it's someone's theory, but not not real, only a Theory.
There has been even Christians Scientist that has proven the dinosaurs bones to be Millions to Billions of years old.

Therefore it's not a Theory, but evidence.
You can't see this, all because you have been taught by man's teachings that the earth is only 6000 years old.

So you take what you can't explain, and go about trying to fit the dinosaurs bones into what you been taught the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.

Dictionary.com - The world’s favorite online dictionary!
Scientific theory has a completely different meaning than the word theory itself. Here,
scientific theory

• Examples

noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

 

[gnostic]

I never said that dinosaurs were billon of years old.
I said, dinosaurs were Million ( to ) billions of years old.
That covers from a million up to billion years old.

Then leave out the plural to billion.

When you use "billions" (plural) than it is more than 1 billion.

You have been using plural "billions".

 

[Faithofchristian]

Dictionary.com - The world’s favorite online dictionary!
Scientific theory has a completely different meaning than the word theory itself. Here,
scientific theory

• Examples

noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

No matter how you try to cut it, it still comes out it's just a theory.

 

[sayak83]

No matter how you try to cut it, it still comes out it's just a theory.

No it's a scientific explanation of a set of natural phenomena that has been widely and unambiguously confirmed by countless observations, evidence and predictive success. No matter how much you deny it, scientific theory will always be
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.

 

[gnostic]

No matter how you try to cut it, it still comes out it's just a theory.

In your profile it is clear to me, that you believe in the Old Earth Creationism (OEC), as opposed to the Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and that you can accept the dinosaurs have been around tens of millions of years, and that the Earth can be billions of years old.

It would seem that you want to know more - to learn more. Am I right?

Well, this statement with regarding to "theory", is the very antithesis to understanding and learning.

If you there is something that you don't understand, then ask around. If there are something that you don't know much about, like science, then read up, do a little research, and again ask questions.

Just don't pretend that you know what you are talking about, when you clearly don't know.

I don't know you, and I don't know how much you know about science, but from your declaration that it is "just a theory", only demonstrated how little you know.

I am neither a physicist, nor a biologist, and certainly not aastronomer or cosmologist. However, my studies in civil engineering, when I was younger, and in computer science later in life, I did have to learn some physics, chemistry, maths, etc, that are related to the courses.

But when I want to learn something like biology or astrophysics/cosmology that I didn't study in colleges, then I would find textbooks, and just read and learn.

No matter what I have learned over the years, I think sapiens and sayak know more than I do about science. Metis for instance, is retired anthropologist, so he would know more than you and I would about history, archaeology and anthropology, as well as theology.

They are trying to help you by explaining what you clearly don't understand about basic science, but you dismissed their posts as you know more.

I am more of engineer than a scientist, but even I see that you don't know as much as you think you do, by these statements:

Have you any idea what a Theory means. Look it up.
It means that it's someone's theory, but not not real, only a Theory.
There has been even Christians Scientist that has proven the dinosaurs bones to be Millions to Billions of years old.

Therefore it's not a Theory, but evidence.

And this quote, below, where you say "it is just a theory", showed that you are no different from every other creationists who don't know what a "scientific theory" is:

No matter how you try to cut it, it still comes out it's just a theory.

A scientific theory required it to be verified by verifiable or testable evidences.

Theory is the explanation, that should contained some test results that have fulfilled the predictions made in the explanation.

A scientific theory is different to the normal everyday use of the word theory.

Sayak and sapiens are right with their definitions.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In your profile it is clear to me, that you believe in the Old Earth Creationism (OEC), as opposed to the Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and that you can accept the dinosaurs have been around tens of millions of years, and that the Earth can be billions of years old.

It would seem that you want to know more - to learn more. Am I right?

Well, this statement with regarding to "theory", is the very antithesis to understanding and learning.

If you there is something that you don't understand, then ask around. If there are something that you don't know much about, like science, then read up, do a little research, and again ask questions.

Just don't pretend that you know what you are talking about, when you clearly don't know.

I don't know you, and I don't know how much you know about science, but from your declaration that it is "just a theory", only demonstrated how little you know.

I am neither a physicist, nor a biologist, and certainly not aastronomer or cosmologist. However, my studies in civil engineering, when I was younger, and in computer science later in life, I did have to learn some physics, chemistry, maths, etc, that are related to the courses.

But when I want to learn something like biology or astrophysics/cosmology that I didn't study in colleges, then I would find textbooks, and just read and learn.

No matter what I have learned over the years, I think sapiens and sayak know more than I do about science. Metis for instance, is retired anthropologist, so he would know more than you and I would about history, archaeology and anthropology, as well as theology.

They are trying to help you by explaining what you clearly don't understand about basic science, but you dismissed their posts as you know more.

I am more of engineer than a scientist, but even I see that you don't know as much as you think you do, by these statements:



And this quote, below, where you say "it is just a theory", showed that you are no different from every other creationists who don't know what a "scientific theory" is:



A scientific theory required it to be verified by verifiable or testable evidences.

Theory is the explanation, that should contained some test results that have fulfilled the predictions made in the explanation.

A scientific theory is different to the normal everyday use of the word theory.

Sayak and sapiens are right with their definitions.

My question to you is, how do you know what I think. I will take upon myself what is or what is not.
If I believe that the earth is much older than 6000 yrs, that's me and not you or anyone else.
You may believe in another way, that's you and not me.
You have every right to believe in what ever you want.
And so do I have that right to believe in what I believe.

 

[gnostic]

My question to you is, how do you know what I think. I will take upon myself what is or what is not.
If I believe that the earth is much older than 6000 yrs, that's me and not you or anyone else.
You may believe in another way, that's you and not me.
You have every right to believe in what ever you want.
And so do I have that right to believe in what I believe.

Fair enough. And I would not have it in any other way.

What you choose to believe in, like religion or god, is indeed your choice.

But in regarding to science, it is NOT about what a person chooses to believe in, or what make a person feel good about himself or his religion.

Science is about acquiring knowledge, explaining it, and testing the explanation, either though evidences or through experiments.

It is the EVIDENCE that objectively determine "what is probable" or "what isn't probable", not the scientist's personality or belief.

The age of the Earth is determine by the evidences available.

And there are number of evidences that the Earth is older than 4 billion years, and I am not talking about fossils.

A number of rocks and minerals have been found that have predated life on Earth.

The bible describe some natural phenomena, but it never explain. For instance, the bible mentioned stars a number of times, and the description are often inaccurate and vague, because the passages containing stars are ten crouched in meaningless metaphors.

For instance, in Job 38:7

when the morning stars sang together
and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?

Stars don't sing. But to understand this verse, you have to remember that these authors weren't scientists, and don't know much about nature, let alone the stars.

And you would have to remember, that these authors were superstitious bunch. So when it described stars "singing", because the ancient Jews used to think the stars were angels, hence stars were metaphors for angels.

And not once, does it ever explain what these stars are, how do they work. It also implied that sun is different and not the same as the stars.

Science not only explain what stars are, but they can explain how stars give off light and heat.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Fair enough. And I would not have it in any other way.

What you choose to believe in, like religion or god, is indeed your choice.

But in regarding to science, it is NOT about what a person chooses to believe in, or what make a person feel good about himself or his religion.

Science is about acquiring knowledge, explaining it, and testing the explanation, either though evidences or through experiments.

It is the EVIDENCE that objectively determine "what is probable" or "what isn't probable", not the scientist's personality or belief.

The age of the Earth is determine by the evidences available.

And there are number of evidences that the Earth is older than 4 billion years, and I am not talking about fossils.

A number of rocks and minerals have been found that have predated life on Earth.

The bible describe some natural phenomena, but it never explain. For instance, the bible mentioned stars a number of times, and the description are often inaccurate and vague, because the passages containing stars are ten crouched in meaningless metaphors.

For instance, in Job 38:7


Stars don't sing. But to understand this verse, you have to remember that these authors weren't scientists, and don't know much about nature, let alone the stars.

And you would have to remember, that these authors were superstitious bunch. So when it described stars "singing", because the ancient Jews used to think the stars were angels, hence stars were metaphors for angels.

And not once, does it ever explain what these stars are, how do they work. It also implied that sun is different and not the same as the stars.

Science not only explain what stars are, but they can explain how stars give off light and heat.

With all the Technology tools the scientific world has, they can not prove or disprove life after death. The unknown stands there as the unknown.
If I may ask, do you have any proof or disproof of the unknown.
What does anyone have, that with all the Technology tools the scientific world has, they have yet to prove or disprove the unknown after death.

 

[Looncall]

With all the Technology tools the scientific world has, they can not prove or disprove life after death. The unknown stands there as the unknown.
If I may ask, do you have any proof or disproof of the unknown.
What does anyone have, that with all the Technology tools the scientific world has, they have yet to prove or disprove the unknown after death.

I am quite sure that the notion of an afterlife came from a category error, like asking where fire goes when the fuel runs out.

Now, of course, it is used by scoundrels to con the gullible. You seem to have fallen for the scam, hook, line and sinker.

Bear in mind that religions have no way to test the accuracy of their pronouncements.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I am quite sure that the notion of an afterlife came from a category error, like asking where fire goes when the fuel runs out.

Now, of course, it is used by scoundrels to con the gullible. You seem to have fallen for the scam, hook, line and sinker.

Bear in mind that religions have no way to test the accuracy of their pronouncements.

What proof do you have, that with all the high technology tools that the scientific world has, can not prove whether there is life after death or not.

I am sure the scientific world, would like to know where you get your evidence from, When they themselves can not prove whether there is or not, life after a person die's.
I for one as the scientific world would like to know also.

 

[Looncall]

What proof do you have, that with all the high technology tools that the scientific world has, can not prove whether there is life after death or not.

I am sure the scientific world, would like to know where you get your evidence from, When they themselves can not prove whether there is or not, life after a person die's.
I for one as the scientific world would like to know also.

As far as I can see, it is in principle impossible to test the notion of an afterlife. How would one go about it?

Religions are limited just as much as science in this, regardless of the make-believe they peddle.

 

[Faithofchristian]

As far as I can see, it is in principle impossible to test the notion of an afterlife. How would one go about it?

Religions are limited just as much as science in this, regardless of the make-believe they peddle.

Therefore you just proved yourself, there is no way to prove or not prove life after death.

I would rather believe there is life after death, than believe there's not life after death.

Take professional gamblers, and say they have their favorite football team. That they bet on, they will also bet on the opposing team. So even if their favorite football team doesn't win, they still come out a winner. By not taking any chances

I use the same thing. With my belief in life after death.
Let's say that when we die and we find there is no life after we die, I haven't lost anything.
Let's say when we die there is life after we die, I win and you lose. You see by my hedge betting I didn't Wager everything on
There is no life after we die, As you in your Wager on there is no life after dieing.

You see either way I win.because I believe in life after death and believe in God. After death.

You see I covered all my bases, leaving ñothing to chance.
But you only covered only one base and left yourself wide open.

 

[Sapiens]

There is plenty of evidence of a permanent change with death. There is no evidence that any organized part of a being, above the level of molecules endures. Invoking Pascal's Wager has a raft of problems, not the least of which is assuming that living as if God exists entails no cost (there may be much better things to do with Sundays) and that the cost of living a lie is negligible and endurable.