How old is the earth?

[stevew]

Poll to follow

[sabotai]

.

[Bad-example]

Both.

[WSUCougar]

Both.
Hey, I see what you did there! :cool:

Anyone going to end the shut-out?

[Sun Tzu]

Older than dirt. Not as old as Buccaneer.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

This needs to be a public poll so if someone does vote the later we can stare, point and just say "wow."

[gstelmack]

Where is the "29" option?

[Kodos]

I can only vouch for 42 years, really.

[Suicane75]

I'm 37. That's all I can be sure of.

[stevew]

This needs to be a public poll so if someone does vote the later we can stare, point and just say "wow."

I'm pointing and laughing at you cause it is a public poll.

[DanGarion]

1

[jbergey22]

I'm 37. That's all I can be sure of.

Are you sure? What if years arent actually what you think they are:)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I'm pointing and laughing at you cause it is a public poll.

Oh, so you click on the number! I'm old & don't know the internets. That's why I'm typing on a coconut right now. If you actually can read this, you're crazier than I am.

[sterlingice]

I can only vouch for 42 years, really.

I'm 37. That's all I can be sure of.

Can you really vouch for the first ~5 years of that? I mean, I don't remember much from before I was about 5 and even 5~10 are a bit hazy. But those first five years could have been decades for all I know. The only thing I have to go on is what my parents and records say but those could easily be falsified.

SI

[bulletsponge]

its awfully arrogant for anyone to guess how old the earth is. none of us were around that long and to think we are smart enough to even guess even with tests is foolish.

[Groundhog]

its awfully arrogant for anyone to guess how old the earth is. none of us were around that long and to think we are smart enough to even guess even with tests is foolish.

Is it arrogance to think that we could build prosphetic limbs to replace real ones, or medicine to cure diseases, etc. etc. Radiometric dating is the science behind the current estimate of the Earth’s age. Even if it turns out to be incorrect at some stage in the future, it is a pretty good “ballpark” figure and, when correlated with a ton of other evidence (distance of stars, continental drifting, etc. etc.) it paints a convincing picture that the world is, at the very least, a freakin’ lot older than 6000 years.

[tarcone]

So this is based on a creation of man? So I guess whatever mans guess at what time means would creat the age of the Earth.
It is probably different for people that dont use the same type of calendar I use. They may think it is younger or older.
So according tot he estimates using time which is created by people smarter than me, and which I use, I would guess billions.

[Suicane75]

Can you really vouch for the first ~5 years of that? I mean, I don't remember much from before I was about 5 and even 5~10 are a bit hazy. But those first five years could have been decades for all I know. The only thing I have to go on is what my parents and records say but those could easily be falsified.

SI

I saw Tug McGraw strike out Willie Wilson, I'm positive of that. Ok then, the Earth is at least Gwen Stefani years old.

[revrew]

If nothing else, the results of this poll should be a solid demonstration of how outside the mainstream this board is and the danger of thinking your online friends are a good reflection of what the nation "is really like."

It's been my experience (though I have no polls to back it up) that the online community (those that comment on message boards, Facebook and "comment" sections) is overwhelmingly more youthful, secular/atheist, and politically left of center than the American population at large. This experience would lend anecdotal credence to that proposition.

Case in point: Some national polls have suggested as many as 40% of Americans think the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I think those numbers are far too high and don't trust those polls. But considering other, more reliable polls list the number of conservative Christians in the U.S. at around 40%, I wouldn't be shocked if 15 or 20 percent of Americans preferred the youth earth theory. Yet on this board ... well, you see how far it leans the other way.

[KWhit]

If nothing else, the results of this poll should be a solid demonstration of how outside the mainstream this board is and the danger of thinking your online friends are a good reflection of what the nation "is really like."

It's been my experience (though I have no polls to back it up) that the online community (those that comment on message boards, Facebook and "comment" sections) is overwhelmingly more youthful, secular/atheist, and politically left of center than the American population at large. This experience would lend anecdotal credence to that proposition.

Case in point: Some national polls have suggested as many as 40% of Americans think the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I think those numbers are far too high and don't trust those polls. But considering other, more reliable polls list the number of conservative Christians in the U.S. at around 40%, I wouldn't be shocked if 15 or 20 percent of Americans preferred the youth earth theory. Yet on this board ... well, you see how far it leans the other way.

I notice you're one of the young earthers (according to the poll)

Seriously?

[revrew]

I notice you're one of the young earthers (according to the poll)

Seriously?

Yes. I don't really have time to get into another evolution/creation debate on this board. Goodness knows I've wasted enough time with those endeavors in the past. :banghead:

But if the implied question behind your "seriously" question was, "Can an intelligent person, and not just some nutjob, actually hold to that theory?" The answer is yes. Taking in all the data I've encountered so far, I do believe a young earth hypothesis is more plausible than an ancient earth hypothesis, though I completely understand why many would disagree.

[lighthousekeeper]

But if the implied question behind your "seriously" question was, "Can an intelligent person, and not just some nutjob, actually hold to that theory?" The answer is yes. Taking in all the data I've encountered so far, I do believe a young earth hypothesis is more plausible than an ancient earth hypothesis, though I completely understand why many would disagree.

Is there evidence that the earth is only several thousand years old? I wasn't aware of any.

(Hope this discussion doesn't fly off the rails because I really am curious.)

[AENeuman]

Yes. I don't really have time to get into another evolution/creation debate on this board. Goodness knows I've wasted enough time with those endeavors in the past. :banghead:

Here, I will help you out:

Suppose I built a car and sealed it in a time capsule (without the current date) to be opened in the year 12,012. In 10k years it is possible that the notion and function of the car will be lost on the people. However, given their assumed ability to employ the scientific method, they will undoubtedly deconstruct the car.

The result: "After careful analysis of the mineral and fossil materials, we have determined this object to be a billion years old." ;)

[revrew]

Is there evidence that the earth is only several thousand years old? I wasn't aware of any.

(Hope this discussion doesn't fly off the rails because I really am curious.)

Logical/scientific fallacy in your question.

There is data that exists - everything from the fossil record to the biblical record, from scientific experiments to personal experience and more. Now four questions remain:

1. Which data is relevant?
2. What hypotheses might explain that data?
3. Can the hypotheses be tested, thus giving us more data?
4. Which hypothesis is the best explanation for the data?

The questions have to be taken in that order. Unfortunately, the majority of the scientific community (which supports ancient earth theory) and I would disagree on the very first question, rendering a reasonable discussion of #4 -the conclusion of the matter - virtually impossible.

For example, the naturalist worldview typically discounts as unverifiable any supernatural evidence then turns a blind eye to the anti-supernatural agenda of its movement's predecessors. I would argue that most of the scientific community's experiments (question #3) are tainted by that agenda, but since most refuse to accept that data as relevant ... see, we just can't hardly hold a reasonable discussion with one another.

It's like a Republican who blames socialist agendas and leftist mortgage policies for our current economic mess trying to talk with a Democrat who blames corporate greed and Bush's policies. There's just no common ground upon which to argue what we should do to fix the economy.

And so, we all have the same data available to us, but how we walk through all 4 steps lead us to radically different conclusions. The most famous example of this is the Grand Canyon. We can all see that water ripped through rock layers to make it. But one camp argues a little water over billions of years did it; the other camp argues a lot of water over a short period caused it. How do we know who's right? Well, go back to step one and ... and now we can't agree on a blasted thing.

The "evidence" for young earth is often the same "evidence" that exists for ancient earth, but interpreted differently.

[Crapshoot]

If nothing else, the results of this poll should be a solid demonstration of how outside the mainstream this board is and the danger of thinking your online friends are a good reflection of what the nation "is really like."

It's been my experience (though I have no polls to back it up) that the online community (those that comment on message boards, Facebook and "comment" sections) is overwhelmingly more youthful, secular/atheist, and politically left of center than the American population at large. This experience would lend anecdotal credence to that proposition.

Case in point: Some national polls have suggested as many as 40% of Americans think the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I think those numbers are far too high and don't trust those polls. But considering other, more reliable polls list the number of conservative Christians in the U.S. at around 40%, I wouldn't be shocked if 15 or 20 percent of Americans preferred the youth earth theory. Yet on this board ... well, you see how far it leans the other way.

If the mainstream (and your word choice is chilling) believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, the mainsteam is not very smart.

[lighthousekeeper]

Logical/scientific fallacy in your question.

There is data that exists - everything from the fossil record to the biblical record, from scientific experiments to personal experience and more. Now four questions remain:

1. Which data is relevant?
2. What hypotheses might explain that data?
3. Can the hypotheses be tested, thus giving us more data?
4. Which hypothesis is the best explanation for the data?

The questions have to be taken in that order. Unfortunately, the majority of the scientific community (which supports ancient earth theory) and I would disagree on the very first question, rendering a reasonable discussion of #4 -the conclusion of the matter - virtually impossible.

For example, the naturalist worldview typically discounts as unverifiable any supernatural evidence then turns a blind eye to the anti-supernatural agenda of its movement's predecessors. I would argue that most of the scientific community's experiments (question #3) are tainted by that agenda, but since most refuse to accept that data as relevant ... see, we just can't hardly hold a reasonable discussion with one another.

It's like a Republican who blames socialist agendas and leftist mortgage policies for our current economic mess trying to talk with a Democrat who blames corporate greed and Bush's policies. There's just no common ground upon which to argue what we should do to fix the economy.

And so, we all have the same data available to us, but how we walk through all 4 steps lead us to radically different conclusions. The most famous example of this is the Grand Canyon. We can all see that water ripped through rock layers to make it. But one camp argues a little water over billions of years did it; the other camp argues a lot of water over a short period caused it. How do we know who's right? Well, go back to step one and ... and now we can't agree on a blasted thing.

The "evidence" for young earth is often the same "evidence" that exists for ancient earth, but interpreted differently.

OK I'm with you so far. I agree that's a good order to approach things. Starting at #1: all relevant data is relevant - this could include fossil records as well as historical accounts (Bible) and even supernatural occurrences (e.g. if an alien appeared today and punched me in the face, I would believe it to be true even though I couldn't reproduce the same results through scientific method. So the supernatural has its validity.). So what data is there that you start with at #1?

[Passacaglia]

It's a fallacy to ask if there's evidence of something?

[lighthousekeeper]

Well there is a fallacy in thinking that the scientific method can be used to answer everything. There is a weakness in the scientific method in that it requires results to be reproducable. And not everything, every event can be reproduced and accounted for via the scientific method. I think that's his argument.

[AENeuman]

So what data is there that you start with at #1?

Oh wow, you just teed that one up.... you start with the Word of God, of course.

Now fun part may be: which word of god do you start with? So maybe this will help:
1. Which god is relevant?
2. What hypotheses might explain that god?
3. Can the hypotheses be tested, thus giving us more words of god?
4. Which hypothesis is the best explanation for god?

If you start with a single, unshakable, unknowable, unbelievable truth, all things are possible.

[KWhit]

Logical/scientific fallacy in your question.

There is data that exists - everything from the fossil record to the biblical record, from scientific experiments to personal experience and more. Now four questions remain:

1. Which data is relevant?
2. What hypotheses might explain that data?
3. Can the hypotheses be tested, thus giving us more data?
4. Which hypothesis is the best explanation for the data?

That's fine and all, but what data supports a young earth theory? Other than the Bible?

[revrew]

OK I'm with you so far. I agree that's a good order to approach things. Starting at #1: all relevant data is relevant - this could include fossil records as well as historical accounts (Bible) and even supernatural occurrences (e.g. if an alien appeared today and punched me in the face, I would believe it to be true even though I couldn't reproduce the same results through scientific method. So the supernatural has its validity.). So what data is there that you start with at #1?

Yikes. I'm really busy right now, but I'll try to squeak in a few answers.

1. We have the natural data - fossils, geological features, astronomy, etc
2. We have the biblical account, supposedly "breathed" by the creator himself through human authors, which would be an eyewitness testimony, if it were allowed in the discussion.
3. That biblical account also introduces the concept of a worldwide flood and may even suggest the coexistence of humanity with dinosaurs
4. We have a supernatural being appearing to humanity in Jesus, who testifies to the veracity of the biblical account and demonstrates his superiority over the natural world
5. My personal experience causes me to believe the word of the supernatural Christ is superior in truth to any human reasoning, no matter how plain or obvious to the naked eye. In other words, I trust Him more than I do my own 5 senses.
6. We have a group of scientific philosophers in the mid- to late- 1800s who plainly testify that their goal in proposing purely naturalistic explanations of the universe is to eliminate God from society. Their work forms the basis for much of "science" today.
7. Furthermore (though now I'm getting into step 3, but it's relevant to step 1, too), several of those "scientists" have been demonstrated to have falsified their experiments and ignored contradictory experiments (much like today's "climate science") to achieve the results they were seeking. Furthermore, some of the reasoning in science, like isotope and fossil dating, is based on previous, faulty science and/or circular reasoning. All this is to say, simply, that many assumptions popular science makes today are faulty.
8. We have a host of philosophical arguments that would suggest the creation of the universe and particularly the human species was not by accident but by design.
9. We have a handful of renowned scientists who prescribe to a God-created earth.
10. We have a majority of scientists, also renowned, who hold forth any number of experiments, calculations and natural data to suggest an ancient earth.
11. Around #10 above is built a "scientific consensus," which also at times violently protects its own conclusions against contradictory evidence, a clear and startling example of groupthink.

Now, that's the bulk of it, though boiled down. There are a handful of hypotheses that can be raised from that data in step 2, yet by the time we get to step 4, believing in an ancient earth would require me to accept data point #10 and some of the data from data point #1 above over the remaining ten data points.

A person could quite reasonably come to that conclusion, particularly if they reject data points 4 and 5 above. I, on the other hand, don't.

[Blackadar]

That's fine and all, but what data supports a young earth theory? Other than the Bible?

There is none.

[revrew]

It's a fallacy to ask if there's evidence of something?

In this case, yes. It's a fallacy to ask for natural evidence "for" a young earth theory, as the same data or "evidence" is used by both camps to "prove" their hypotheses. The fallacy is in believing there's some evidence "for" ancient earth and some "for" young earth -when often it's the same data -and then expecting the two can be weighed against one another.

I don't mean to belabor the point. Perhaps it isn't so much a fallacy as it is an underlying assumption I was trying to combat.

[revrew]

If the mainstream (and your word choice is chilling) believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, the mainsteam is not very smart.

No, no, the mainstream accepts an ancient earth. My post was suggesting only about 15-20% of Americans believe a young earth.

BTW, what's "chilling" about "mainstream"? Perhaps it has a connotation I'm unfamiliar with ...

[revrew]

There is none.

Well, it's interesting that the poster you were responding to said "other than the Bible". Demonstrates my point that certain data points are often not permitted in the discussion. I imagine Jesus, philosophy and personal experience aren't permitted either.

I freely admit, that if nothing supernatural or philosophical is permitted in the discussion and we must limit the argument to naturalistic proofs, then the best explanation we have - though it has often been revised and demonstrated faulty - is ancient earth and evolution. I mean, if God didn't do it, it certainly didn't happen overnight - the odds are astronomical. Heck, the odds suggest billions of years isn't even enough. I'd go for trillions. Then, maybe.

But how odd it is to me that we should be discussing truth and not allow philosophy (from the Greek, "love of truth") and theology (discussion of the one who said, "I am the truth") in the discussion. I am simply not a naturalist.

[Chubby]

In this case, yes. It's a fallacy to ask for natural evidence "for" a young earth theory, as the same data or "evidence" is used by both camps to "prove" their hypotheses. The fallacy is in believing there's some evidence "for" ancient earth and some "for" young earth -when often it's the same data -and then expecting the two can be weighed against one another.

I don't mean to belabor the point. Perhaps it isn't so much a fallacy as it is an underlying assumption I was trying to combat.

so the evidence of carbon dating something beyond 2100 years old can be used to support a young earth argument?

[Blackadar]

In this case, yes. It's a fallacy to ask for natural evidence "for" a young earth theory, as the same data or "evidence" is used by both camps to "prove" their hypotheses. The fallacy is in believing there's some evidence "for" ancient earth and some "for" young earth -when often it's the same data -and then expecting the two can be weighed against one another.

I don't mean to belabor the point. Perhaps it isn't so much a fallacy as it is an underlying assumption I was trying to combat.

No one is going to change your mind, revrew. I'm not going to try. What you posted above boils down to the fact that you believe an invisible fairy over your 5 senses and much of science was created to disprove the existence of this invisible fairy. There's no arguing with that because there are no facts there, no logic with which to argue. You believing that is your prerogative. I can't convince you you're wrong any more than I can convince you that 2+2 =/= 3.

But don't, under any circumstances, try to claim that there are logical facts that prove a young earth theory. There aren't. Facts can be proven and disproven. They stand the rigors of logic and scrutiny and, yes, even the scientific method. Don't confuse logic and fact with belief and faith.

Your earlier post asked "Can an intelligent person, and not just some nutjob, actually hold to that theory?" The answer is yes." I think some of the prerequisites for intelligence are reasoning. logic and problem solving. Ignoring facts isn't reasonable, logical and doesn't lead to solving problems. It leads to ignoring them. However, the flip side isn't that the person is automatically a nutjob. I'd say the correct term is "willful ignorance". And most people are willfully ignorant about something in their lives.

[DaddyTorgo]

OK I'm with you so far. I agree that's a good order to approach things. Starting at #1: all relevant data is relevant - this could include fossil records as well as historical accounts (Bible) and even supernatural occurrences (e.g. if an alien appeared today and punched me in the face, I would believe it to be true even though I couldn't reproduce the same results through scientific method. So the supernatural has its validity.). So what data is there that you start with at #1?

The Bible is not a historical record.

[Blackadar]

Well, it's interesting that the poster you were responding to said "other than the Bible". Demonstrates my point that certain data points are often not permitted in the discussion. I imagine Jesus, philosophy and personal experience aren't permitted either.

I freely admit, that if nothing supernatural or philosophical is permitted in the discussion and we must limit the argument to naturalistic proofs, then the best explanation we have - though it has often been revised and demonstrated faulty - is ancient earth and evolution. I mean, if God didn't do it, it certainly didn't happen overnight - the odds are astronomical. Heck, the odds suggest billions of years isn't even enough. I'd go for trillions. Then, maybe.

But how odd it is to me that we should be discussing truth and not allow philosophy (from the Greek, "love of truth") and theology (discussion of the one who said, "I am the truth") in the discussion. I am simply not a naturalist.

Because this isn't a philosophical discussion. It's simply a geologic one.

[revrew]

so the evidence of carbon dating something beyond 2100 years old can be used to support a young earth argument?

Actually, I'd argue that isotope dating, whether carbon or otherwise is completely impermissible, because it's based on circular logic, or at least an unprovable assumption.

Carbon dating, for example, is based on the concept that all life has a certain percentage of radioactive, decaying carbon and that this carbon has an established rate (half-life) of constant decay. Yet how do we know it remains constant and isn't changeable? That's a big assumption.

And furthermore, couldn't subjecting the remains to extreme circumstances change the amount of an isotope within it?

I have heard of experiments that show recent life (cotton Teddy Bears, I think, were in one and a human foot inside a cowboy boot in another) that after being subjected to extreme circumstances, carbon dated over 10,000 years old. I don't think they made cowboy boots back then.

But alas, now we're getting into the nitty gritty. And I really can't afford to spend more time on this. I'm going to have to work late as it is, over the time I've spent on this today. I hope I've made a decent case for someone other than a nutjob or idiot preferring the young earth theory. As for convincing y'all I'm right, I have no such ambitions.

[Chubby]

Actually, I'd argue that isotope dating, whether carbon or otherwise is completely impermissible, because it's based on circular logic, or at least an unprovable assumption.

Carbon dating, for example, is based on the concept that all life has a certain percentage of radioactive, decaying carbon and that this carbon has an established rate (half-life) of constant decay. Yet how do we know it remains constant and isn't changeable? That's a big assumption.

And furthermore, couldn't subjecting the remains to extreme circumstances change the amount of an isotope within it?

I have heard of experiments that show recent life (cotton Teddy Bears, I think, were in one and a human foot inside a cowboy boot in another) that after being subjected to extreme circumstances, carbon dated over 10,000 years old. I don't think they made cowboy boots back then.

But alas, now we're getting into the nitty gritty. And I really can't afford to spend more time on this. I'm going to have to work late as it is, over the time I've spent on this today. I hope I've made a decent case for someone other than a nutjob or idiot preferring the young earth theory. As for convincing y'all I'm right, I have no such ambitions.

I think faith of any kind would be a perfect example of "unprovable assumption" which, by your argument, would render it completely impermissable.

[sabotai]

6. We have a group of scientific philosophers in the mid- to late- 1800s who plainly testify that their goal in proposing purely naturalistic explanations of the universe is to eliminate God from society. Their work forms the basis for much of "science" today.

What were their names?

[revrew]

Because this isn't a philosophical discussion. It's simply a geologic one.

Facepalm.

Of course it's a philosophical discussion. What is truth? I argue geology alone cannot define it, because naturalistic proofs alone cannot define it. It seems to me you're arguing (particularly with your other comments about logic/reason/willful ignorance - I'm not offended by that, BTW, I understand your assertion) that only natural proofs are allowed. That only that which can be proven scientifically is logical. That's a major philosophical assertion there.

If we're talking about what is and isn't, then we're talking about truth. And if we're talking about truth, we're talking philosophy. Inseparable. And at the risk of being offensive - though I hope not to be - I do think it's incredibly self-deceptive for the naturalist to claim that his "science" isn't inherently a philosophy.

OK, really. I gotta go.

[Kodos]

Do we really have to do this? There is a reason it is called faith. I don't see the need to belittle Rev for being a man of the faith. I happen to believe scientists, but I don't need to scoff in the face of religious people. Aren't we polarized enough already?

[Sun Tzu]

I believe the Earth was created 1000 years ago by a giant octopus named Oxynmyxnomicon. Oxynmyxnomicon doesn't like it when you question his existence, and fossils/scientific evidence were actually put here by Oxynmyxnomicon to test our faith.

I know I'm right. Wanna know how I know? You can't prove me wrong.

I also heard that some scientists from a long time ago were really just out to make up shit and get people to stop believing in Oxynmyxnomicon.

:)

[Sun Tzu]

I also believe that 2+2 = 3, and the color yellow is really just a stressed out red.

It's my God-given, Red-blooded, American right to believe whatever I want! Freedom! Justice!

[lighthousekeeper]

Do we really have to do this? There is a reason it is called faith. I don't see the need to belittle Rev for being a man of the faith. I happen to believe scientists, but I don't need to scoff in the face of religious people. Aren't we polarized enough already?

i am just trying to understand 'the other side' better, without scoffing at the position.

i thought maybe there was some scientific evidence pointing to 'thousands of years' rather than the several billions of years that i had come to understand. several thousand years is a pretty specific timeframe. based on revrew's explanation it sounds like this number is influenced by christian beliefs.

but arguing that the world is 4.5 billion years old isn't an argument against a god created earth, so i think revrew should discard his points #8 and #9.

[Blackadar]

Facepalm.

Of course it's a philosophical discussion. What is truth? I argue geology alone cannot define it, because naturalistic proofs alone cannot define it. It seems to me you're arguing (particularly with your other comments about logic/reason/willful ignorance - I'm not offended by that, BTW, I understand your assertion) that only natural proofs are allowed. That only that which can be proven scientifically is logical. That's a major philosophical assertion there.

If we're talking about what is and isn't, then we're talking about truth. And if we're talking about truth, we're talking philosophy. Inseparable. And at the risk of being offensive - though I hope not to be - I do think it's incredibly self-deceptive for the naturalist to claim that his "science" isn't inherently a philosophy.

OK, really. I gotta go.

Under your burden of proof, I can claim that I created the world 1000 years ago and it's equally as valid as your assertion or any scientifc assertion. You can't disprove it, but it doesn't make it a factual statement. Facts don't work that way. A fact is verifiable. That's Nothing you claim is verifiable, it can't be observed or experimented with. Therefore, they aren't facts.

The core problem is that you argue science is a philosophy. It isn't. Philosophy, as the term is commonly used today, deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment. Science is the systematic method of acquiring knowledge based on observation and experiment. They aren't the same. Now if you're talking Epistemology and Ontology, then I can even grant you your point - the search for facts can be considered a philosophical endeavor. But both of those branches use logic and deductive reasoning as the basis for finding the truth. Nothing you've posted uses logic or deductive reasoning. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth - you demand a burden of proof that's not possible from one side while espousing something of which you demand no burden of proof. I'm applying the same burden to both sides. That the essence of logic. It's the essence of rationalism.

[Blackadar]

Do we really have to do this? There is a reason it is called faith. I don't see the need to belittle Rev for being a man of the faith. I happen to believe scientists, but I don't need to scoff in the face of religious people. Aren't we polarized enough already?

Pointing out the inequality in his demands for the burden of proof and the irrationality of his position isn't belittling him.

[Solecismic]

There is a weakness in the scientific method in that it requires results to be reproducable. And not everything, every event can be reproduced and accounted for via the scientific method. I think that's his argument.

I don't know that I'd call it a weakness. Good science has standards. He referred to the Climategate mess in a couple of his points. Clearly, bad science has repercussions outside its own scope in that it undermines people's trust in the concept of science itself.

My problem with faith of any kind is that it requires a non-scientific approach to knowledge. A scientist seeks the truth, however inconvenient. Faith requires you to alter your observations to fit your belief system.

Hence, to someone with faith, if there's a tiny problem with carbon dating (as Barton pointed out, if you try to use it on objects that knowledgeable scientists say can't be measured using that theory, it will produce inaccurate results), then it reasonably can be concluded that whatever you have faith in must be true.

So, I can't answer revrew's question. Intelligent people have faith. But faith, by definition, is not rational, and faith is (or should be) the antonym of science.

Do we really have to do this? There is a reason it is called faith. I don't see the need to belittle Rev for being a man of the faith. I happen to believe scientists, but I don't need to scoff in the face of religious people. Aren't we polarized enough already?

I hope I'm not belittling anyone. My point is that it is not rational to use faith to answer a scientific question.

It wouldn't upset me to find out that some scientists were wrong and the earth really is 5,000 years old. Seems far more likely that the earth is billions of years old, but it really doesn't affect my life one way or another.

I was having this argument with my girlfriend's cousin a couple of weeks ago. He is not religious, but he is quite emotional about his understanding of certain scientific concepts. This emotion requires him to support a very narrow interpretation of data. The faith he has in this interpretation makes discussion impossible. Every new study must be manipulated to fit this interpretation. As a result, the only point I made that he actually heard (since he isn't religious) was an aside I made that his faith in this concept seemed antithetical to science itself.

It's not possible to approach serious study without any preconceptions. But certainly, if your goal is knowledge, you should aspire to remove as many preconceptions as possible. And accept that your world view might, indeed, change.

I think it's reasonable for a scientist to be religious, as long as he is open to anything. I hope revrew understands that I can disagree with his points (the rationality of the religious assessment of the age of the earth) without ridiculing him as a person.

[Sun Tzu]

Great post by Jim.

My serious thought process here is...Faith-based beliefs on the age of the world are flawed from a logical perspective at their very core. You're appealing to ignorance if you follow this reasoning -

Premise: Nobody can prove that God didn't create the world X number of years ago.
Conclusion: God must have created the world X number of years ago.

[BrianD]

I'd be very interested in hearing an interpretation of the evidence which points to a 6000 year old earth, and for the sake of this discussion, I'd accept the Bible and all of its evidence. From my reading of the Bible, I can't see where a young earth comes from...or any age at all. I also haven't been able to find a religious person near me (in Wisconsin) who holds to the idea of a young earth. I'm genuinely curious where people get that age from.

[Blackadar]

I'd be very interested in hearing an interpretation of the evidence which points to a 6000 year old earth, and for the sake of this discussion, I'd accept the Bible and all of its evidence. From my reading of the Bible, I can't see where a young earth comes from...or any age at all. I also haven't been able to find a religious person near me (in Wisconsin) who holds to the idea of a young earth. I'm genuinely curious where people get that age from.

It derived from simply adding up the genealogies from the Bible. YAC'ers believe in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.

Except when it comes to eating bacon.

[JPhillips]

I'd be very interested in hearing an interpretation of the evidence which points to a 6000 year old earth, and for the sake of this discussion, I'd accept the Bible and all of its evidence. From my reading of the Bible, I can't see where a young earth comes from...or any age at all. I also haven't been able to find a religious person near me (in Wisconsin) who holds to the idea of a young earth. I'm genuinely curious where people get that age from.

It has its basis in ancient Hebrew texts that place the date of creation anywhere from 5500 BC to 3500 BC.

[Sun Tzu]

Except when it comes to eating bacon.

:Looks about a 1/2 inch lower than the letters on this line...right here:

[mckerney]

I'd be very interested in hearing an interpretation of the evidence which points to a 6000 year old earth, and for the sake of this discussion, I'd accept the Bible and all of its evidence. From my reading of the Bible, I can't see where a young earth comes from...or any age at all. I also haven't been able to find a religious person near me (in Wisconsin) who holds to the idea of a young earth. I'm genuinely curious where people get that age from.

I was under the impression it came from adding up all the begatting.

[BrianD]

I was under the impression it came from adding up all the begatting.

This was my first assumption too, but it assumes that the lineage is complete with nothing left out, and it assumes an age of procreation. Understanding that men stay fertile throughout their lives, and some of these guys lived multiple-hundreds of years, that leaves quite a bit of variation.

[Blackadar]

This was my first assumption too, but it assumes that the lineage is complete with nothing left out, and it assumes an age of procreation. Understanding that men stay fertile throughout their lives, and some of these guys lived multiple-hundreds of years, that leaves quite a bit of variation.

Hence the YEC estimates tend to vary from 6,000 years to 10,000 years.

[mckerney]

This was my first assumption too, but it assumes that the lineage is complete with nothing left out, and it assumes an age of procreation. Understanding that men stay fertile throughout their lives, and some of these guys lived multiple-hundreds of years, that leaves quite a bit of variation.

The young earth belief is based on the bible being the absolute and perfect word of God with 100% accuracy so I don't think they have much of a problem assuming the lineage is complete.