• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lothar said:
My point was it's irrelevant that you don't know. You don't get to just throw out God's name because you don't know. Well you can, but it makes just as much sense to throw out Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus or elves and pretend they're on the same level as science.
Click to expand...

To quote Kinitari, on the subject of God (everything else aside) the flying spaghetti monster, santa clause, and elves would constitute as superfluous to the subject. But if someone believed that Santa Clause had enough power to create the world, then Santa Clause would be their "god" and yes they would have every right to throw him out there as a means to explain something. But for an intelligent discussion of God, elves are not generally mentioned. Buddah, Yaweh, Zeus yes...santa clause no.
 
Pro said:
To quote Kinitari, on the subject of God (everything else aside) the flying spaghetti monster, santa clause, and elves would constitute as superfluous to the subject. But if someone believed that Santa Clause had enough power to create the world, then Santa Clause would be their "god" and yes they would have every right to throw him out there as a means to explain something. But for an intelligent discussion of God, elves are not generally mentioned. Buddah, Yaweh, Zeus yes...santa clause no.
Click to expand...

How about Xenu?
 
Sanky Panky said:
So equipment is accurate and samples show no contamination when the dates corroborate preconceived notions of how old the rocks should be, despite not knowing how much of the element was there at the beginning.
Click to expand...
put a grain of rice on your bathroom scale. what, the scale didn't move? I GUESS I'M UNDERWEIGHT, WOOHOO NO NEED TO DIET! SCALES ARE A LIE!

We are just repeating stuff now, so there is no point in continuing. As expected, the "refutations" reinforce the bias in the assumptions.
Click to expand...
refutations? you're mistaken to assume your position is even worth humouring. What i'm doing is closer to 'mocking'.

what you are suggesting would require either contamination of previously decayed ar40, which is pointless for an argument about the age of the earth as the potassium clearly had to decay somewhere, so the mere existence of ar40 goes as far as we need to establish an ancient earth even if we humour the possibilty that it could not be used for any singular rock.

or that the known ration of k39 to k40 has not been constant and there was a massive store of k40 that existed in the past, decayed while somehow failing to melt the entire planet and then up and magically disappeared without leaving a trace. and somehow, the half dozen other radiometric dating methods all managed to do the same thing despite some pretty spectacular ranges in half-lives.

those are the assumptions you need to make to turn k-ar might be flawed into a young earth is possible. and if you dont make those assumptions the known ratio of k39-k40 can be used to verify the accuracy of a k-ar dated sample, as we can irradiate k39 and measure the ratio of ar40-ar39 to verify that yes, that ar40 has been there for a fuckton of time.
 
Pro said:
To quote Kinitari, on the subject of God (everything else aside) the flying spaghetti monster, santa clause, and elves would constitute as superfluous to the subject. But if someone believed that Santa Clause had enough power to create the world, then Santa Clause would be their "god" and yes they would have every right to throw him out there as a means to explain something. But for an intelligent discussion of God, elves are not generally mentioned. Buddah, Yaweh, Zeus yes...santa clause no.
Click to expand...

When these Gods are, by all evidence, man made constructs - how does one differ from the other? Why is one more deserving than another, because it's older?

And a God -in general- is superfluous. It's simply adding another characteristic past the point of unknown. "What happens here is unknown" - not superfluous "This unknown is God" superfluous. You are adding unnecessary complexity.
 
Sanky Panky said:
So equipment is accurate and samples show no contamination when the dates corroborate preconceived notions of how old the rocks should be, despite not knowing how much of the element was there at the beginning.

We are just repeating stuff now, so there is no point in continuing. As expected, the "refutations" reinforce the bias in the assumptions.
Click to expand...
Scientists can determine the accuracy of their equipment and the sources of contamination (for example, from xenoliths). They don't necessarily need to assume anything. Scientists also generally known which rocks contained the necessary amount of argon upon their formation to derive an accurate date, but in any case they can corroborate it with different dating methods, some of which do not even require the scientists to know the composition of the rock at the moment of its formation.
 
Pro said:
The point I was trying to make with that statement is that to someone who doesn't believe in God, you just don't know. Mengy wants his GF to show him proof of what she believes but as far as he is concerned there is no 100% indisputable proof that science is the 1 and only answer as well. There may be more, but there is not 100%
Click to expand...


Oh hell no, I never claim that science is 100% correct or even the only answer, I only claim that science has the most data and evidence to back it up. The age of the Earth, the age of the universe, how long ago the dinosaurs lived and died, the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, those are things that have scientific data and evidence to support them. Tests can be performed with repeatable results to determine them. I'd never claim they were 100% correct, but certainly today I would say those answers are well within a margin of error.

Does God exist? I have absolutely zero proof of that. Is there an alien race living and thriving on Jupiter's moon Europa? I have just as much evidence for that as I do for the existence of God. But you never hear anyone claiming that the Europans created the universe or brought the Earth into being 6000 years ago.

And this brings me back to the point of my original post: There isn't any scientific proof to support a 6000 year old Earth. None. Yet the SDA church teaches it as if it was a hard solid fact. And people believe it, contrary to all the huge amounts of scientific data to the contrary.

Any proof, even a little, is far more convincing than none at all...
 
Pro said:
Microevolution refers to changes in an organism that would not result in it being referred to as a different species. Macroeolution is larger changes in organisms that would classify them as different species. An organism can adapt to its surroundings. This doesn't mean that given enough time it will change species completely. It's species will stay the same. So the species of primates has always been the same just as the species of humans has always been the same. Macroevolution did not take place to turn primates into humans. However Microevolution can take place for a primate to say grow fur that has a similar color to its surroundings (not saying that would happen but on the level of scales we're talking about something smaller like that).
Click to expand...

We have observed speciation in our lifetime. Checkmate.
 
Kinitari said:
I'm not sure what your argument is then - if enough people believe it, it has merit?
Click to expand...

No argument. As usual with these things, they get way off topic and branch off onto little ones. I wouldn't classify Santa Clause and Elves in the same class as someone's God simply because they are generally known to not be gods. We generally know who the different gods are of each religion and yes we do know what the world religions are. We don't need to get caught up in an endless debate that religions can be anything (the Force/Jedi argument).
 
Pro said:
No argument. As usual with these things, they get way off topic and branch off onto little ones. I wouldn't classify Santa Clause and Elves in the same class as someone's God simply because they are generally known to not be gods. We generally know who the different gods are of each religion and yes we do know what the world religions are. We don't need to get caught up in an endless debate that religions can be anything (the Force/Jedi argument).
Click to expand...

Your original argument is that the OP doesn't have any evidence that there is no God, thus he shouldn't be dismissing his girlfriends viewpoints, because he can't know anything for certain.

You then cited your criticisms of Evolution theory, which spoke of a... lack of understanding of the theory. Which I would love for you to reply to.

You then went to an 'anything is possible' sort of argument -

But now you are dismissing God's that don't fall into your world view? Look, it's really important to discuss these things I think - all points made. If you are coming into this thread with the opinions you have put forth, you seem to -want- discourse. A lot of us here want discourse too, and we would love to discuss these thoughts you have. So lets nail these down shall we?

1. Do you or do you not think that all concepts of God(s) should be met with an open mind? If not, what is your criteria?

2. Would you actually like to discuss Evolution theory, or are you content with your... incomplete understanding? I warn you that if you try to bring the arguments you have brought in any real attempt at a debate in real life, you will be embarrassed if the person you debate against is learned. It's better to spend some time researching, or admit you don't have any real knowledge of the subject.

3. Do you think that Science used as a metric to foster understanding of our universe is more or less accurate than metaphysical musings?
 
Pro said:
No argument. As usual with these things, they get way off topic and branch off onto little ones. I wouldn't classify Santa Clause and Elves in the same class as someone's God simply because they are generally known to not be gods. We generally know who the different gods are of each religion and yes we do know what the world religions are. We don't need to get caught up in an endless debate that religions can be anything (the Force/Jedi argument).
Click to expand...

So we 'generally know' that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and yet using the same amount of evidence (ie, none), we can't say we 'generally know' that God doesn't exist?
Why are the standards different?
 
Divvy said:
Should the Jedi church not count because not as many people believe in it?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't get tax exempt status or political influence. Even in this ostensibly peaceful republic. But the Rebel Alliance is a real threat. So I don't know where I stand.
 
Pro said:
But if someone believed that Santa Clause had enough power to create the world, then Santa Clause would be their "god" and yes they would have every right to throw him out there as a means to explain something.
Click to expand...

Well they have the right to say it but they should be laughed at when they do.

Making up an explanation out of thin air based on nothing when you don't know how something works is crazy and not something that should be taken seriously. It also means you're almost 100% guaranteed to be wrong every single time since it's just a pure guess. The more fantastical things you add on that belief whether it be giving him the title of Santa Claus or saying he had a son who was crucified named Jesus or that he's made out of spaghetti, the more likelier it gets that it's nothing but pure fantasy.
 
Kinitari said:
Your original argument is that the OP doesn't have any evidence that there is no God, thus he shouldn't be dismissing his girlfriends viewpoints, because he can't know anything for certain.

You then cited your criticisms of Evolution theory, which spoke of a... lack of understanding of the theory. Which I would love for you to reply to.

You then went to an 'anything is possible' sort of argument -

But now you are dismissing God's that don't fall into your world view? Look, it's really important to discuss these things I think - all points made. If you are coming into this thread with the opinions you have put forth, you seem to -want- discourse. A lot of us here want discourse too, and we would love to discuss these thoughts you have. So lets nail these down shall we?

1. Do you or do you not think that all concepts of God(s) should be met with an open mind? If not, what is your criteria?

2. Would you actually like to discuss Evolution theory, or are you content with your... incomplete understanding? I warn you that if you try to bring the arguments you have brought in any real attempt at a debate in real life, you will be embarrassed if the person you debate against is learned. It's better to spend some time researching, or admit you don't have any real knowledge of the subject.

3. Do you think that Science used as a metric to foster understanding of our universe is more or less accurate than metaphysical musings?
Click to expand...

I'll respond to Kinitari because from what I gather he is about the only one interested in a real discussion.

1. Yes, I believe the concept of God(s) should be met with an open mind. That being said it should be met with a learned mind of who each god is and what defines each god and what each god teaches.

2. I am content with my incomplete understanding of evolution theory. I am aware I don't know a lot about the evolution theory, but I do know enough to compare with what the Bible teaches and believe what I do. How complete is your understanding of the Bible and the history of it? We are all learned in different areas. But if researching evolution theory can make me discuss it more intelligently then perhaps it is one thing I will try to learn (amongst so many others)

3. I honestly believe there is nothing wrong in using Science as a means to foster the understanding of the universe. But I believe it should be used hand in hand with what the Bible teaches. Much scientific evidence discovered can and is completely accurate but the conclusions it reaches are skewed from man's interpretation. (i.e. dating techniques show the world to be 4.6 billion years which is true, but God created the world to appear as if it were already 4.6 billion years old amongst other things). These are not metaphysical musings. This is using my knowledge of the Bible to compare with the knowledge we as humans have achieved to have a complete picture. I don't dispute science by any means but when it disputes the Word of God, I look for an explanation. And there always is one.
 
(i.e. dating techniques show the world to be 4.6 billion years which is true, but God created the world to appear as if it were already 4.6 billion years old amongst other things)
Click to expand...
Where did you hear this? I've taken 2 semesters of Bible study courses and never heard this before.
 
Pro said:
3. I honestly believe there is nothing wrong in using Science as a means to foster the understanding of the universe. But I believe it should be used hand in hand with what the Bible teaches. Much scientific evidence discovered can and is completely accurate but the conclusions it reaches are skewed from man's interpretation. (i.e. dating techniques show the world to be 4.6 billion years which is true, but God created the world to appear as if it were already 4.6 billion years old amongst other things). These are not metaphysical musings. This is using my knowledge of the Bible to compare with the knowledge we as humans have achieved to have a complete picture. I don't dispute science by any means but when it disputes the Word of God, I look for an explanation. And there always is one.
Click to expand...

Why only the Bible?

Also, when you look for explanations for these conflicts between your religion and science, can your bible ever come out wrong in that comparison?
 
Billychu said:
Where did you hear this? I've taken 2 semesters of Bible study courses and never heard this before.
Click to expand...
Not saying every part of the world was created to be viewed in this manner but there is nothing contradictory to scripture to say that when something was created in an instant it wouldn't already look ancient from that moment. Makes sense right if something was in fact created in an instant like the Bible teaches?
 
Pro, you basically seem to be saying that science is right if it coincides with the Bible, but wrong (or misinterpreted) if it contradicts the Bible.

And you are calling other people close minded?


Pro said:
Not saying every part of the world was created to be viewed in this manner but there is nothing contradictory to scripture to say that when something was created in an instant it wouldn't already look ancient from that moment. Makes sense right if something was in fact created in an instant like the Bible teaches?
Click to expand...

Tell me, why do you think the Bible is the word of god?
 
Divvy said:
Why only the Bible?

Also, when you look for explanations for these conflicts between your religion and science, can your bible ever come out wrong in that comparison?
Click to expand...

Because I am a Christian and base my faith on the Bible. I would implore any member of any other religion to do the same and see what they come up with. In all my studies the Bible has never come out wrong or contradictory and I have studied it quite a bit.
 
Obsessed said:
Pro, you basically seem to be saying that science is right if it coincides with the Bible, but wrong (or misinterpreted) if it contradicts the Bible.

And you are calling other people close minded?
Click to expand...

Don't forget how the Bible is apparently the only valid religious text.
 
Pro said:
Because I am a Christian and base my faith on the Bible. I would implore any member of any other religion to do the same and see what they come up with. In all my studies the Bible has never come out wrong or contradictory and I have studied it quite a bit.
Click to expand...

But can it ever come out wrong?
 
Pro said:
1. Yes, I believe the concept of God(s) should be met with an open mind. That being said it should be met with a learned mind of who each god is and what defines each god and what each god teaches.
Click to expand...

So from what I understand - all religions have some merit - even if they conflict with each other? Or do you think that conflicting messages of different religions are just human error or something? I am probably speaking too much on your behalf here, so if you could elaborate I would appreciate - basically, how are all these different religions equally... valid? And what do you mean when you say "who" each god is?

2. I am content with my incomplete understanding of evolution theory. I am aware I don't know a lot about the evolution theory, but I do know enough to compare with what the Bible teaches and believe what I do. How complete is your understanding of the Bible and the history of it? We are all learned in different areas. But if researching evolution theory can make me discuss it more intelligently then perhaps it is one thing I will try to learn (amongst so many others)
Click to expand...
It's just dangerous territory to discuss Evolution on Gaf without at least ensuring that each of your points is valid. We have honest to god molecular biologists on here, people who study this stuff for a living.

In terms of my understanding of the Bible, it's... rudimentary - but I don't pretend to argue it in detail - on a conceptual level, I understand it well enough and I argue the idea of a God all the time. That being said, I hold up the Bible to the same standard as any religious text, it's pretty much baseless and should be discussed with that in mind - as soon as you give it unnecessary validity you start to take too many concepts for granted.

3. I honestly believe there is nothing wrong in using Science as a means to foster the understanding of the universe. But I believe it should be used hand in hand with what the Bible teaches. Much scientific evidence discovered can and is completely accurate but the conclusions it reaches are skewed from man's interpretation. (i.e. dating techniques show the world to be 4.6 billion years which is true, but God created the world to appear as if it were already 4.6 billion years old amongst other things). These are not metaphysical musings. This is using my knowledge of the Bible to compare with the knowledge we as humans have achieved to have a complete picture. I don't dispute science by any means but when it disputes the Word of God, I look for an explanation. And there always is one.
Click to expand...
This is difficult to argue against. You're basically saying that as long as you can make your Bible work with your understanding of Science, the Science is okay? Why not just forever change your interpretation of the Bible so all Science is okay? Why not just say "the bible is all metaphor and parable" - and then have no issues with Evolution, big bang theory, age of the earth etc? What's stopping you?
 
I don't think I will ever have a serious relationship with a female again, not one that requires me to be monogamous with.

Monogamy is wrong, and being stuck with a single person's opinions and beliefs for the rest of my life? Well... no thanks, I have enough trouble with my own ever changing feelings and beliefs to have to worry about carrying another.

Sometimes love just aint enough.
 
Pro said:
Because I am a Christian and base my faith on the Bible. I would implore any member of any other religion to do the same and see what they come up with. In all my studies the Bible has never come out wrong or contradictory and I have studied it quite a bit.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Pro said:
Because I am a Christian and base my faith on the Bible.
Click to expand...

Why

I would implore any member of any other religion to do the same and see what they come up with. In all my studies the Bible has never come out wrong or contradictory and I have studied it quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't looked at much at all. The only you could think it never came out wrong is if you never bothered opening the book. In that case, why are you trying to discuss it? The first few pages say that plants came before the stars and light came days before the Sun. It says there was a world wide flood which left no physical evidence and logistically could not have happened. It says Earth is 6000 years old and flat. It tells us the Earth was repopulated after the flood to the current population which is impossible. It says different languages came about because God was scared people would make a tower to reach him in heaven. It says zombies, dragons, and talking serpents exist. Telling us that there is nothing wrong or contradictory in the bible is just announcing to us that "I have a closed mind. I'll believe whatever it says as truth without looking into it."
 
Pro said:
Much scientific evidence discovered can and is completely accurate but the conclusions it reaches are skewed from man's interpretation. (i.e. dating techniques show the world to be 4.6 billion years which is true, but God created the world to appear as if it were already 4.6 billion years old amongst other things).
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. You could argue anything with that logic, and never be wrong.
 
Pixel Pete said:
Serious question: why are the standards of evidence for Santa Claus different to those of the Judeo-Christian God?
Click to expand...

Oh thats easy.

Santa is made up to scare kids into being good so they can get a reward at the end of the year.

God is totally real and gives you a reward at the end of your life for being good.

See?
 
Pro said:
Not saying every part of the world was created to be viewed in this manner but there is nothing contradictory to scripture to say that when something was created in an instant it wouldn't already look ancient from that moment. Makes sense right if something was in fact created in an instant like the Bible teaches?
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the layout and authorship of the Bible?
 
Lothar said:
Then you haven't looked at much at all. The only you could think it never came out wrong is if you never bothered opening the book. In that case, why are you trying to discuss it? The first few pages say that plants came before the stars and light came days before the Sun. It says there was a world wide flood which left no physical evidence and logistically could not have happened. It says Earth is 6000 years old and flat. It tells us the Earth was repopulated after the flood to the current population which is impossible. It says different languages came about because God was scared people would make a tower to reach him in heaven. It says zombies, dragons, and talking serpents exist. Telling us that there is nothing wrong or contradictory in the bible is just announcing to us that "I have a closed mind. I'll believe whatever it says as truth without looking into it."
Click to expand...

Interpreting midrash and aggadah as literal stories and/or historical claims only proves you actually know nothing about the Bible or the style of writing with which it was conceived.
 
Hix said:
Interpreting midrash and aggadah as literal stories and/or historical claims only proves you actually know nothing about the Bible or the style of writing with which it was conceived.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Pro is a believer and doesn't seem to give a fig about context or history either.

scar tissue said:
Not that I don't accept evolution as the fact it is, but I've never heard of this.
Any links? What new species formed?
Click to expand...

Take your pick! "Species" has always been a bit of a fuzzy line, but we've definitely crossed it on multiple occasions.
 
Just read the last ten pages. Christ, Panda just got destroyed and I wasn't here for all the fun. I can't even imagine being on the receiving end of a Best-GAF onslaught. Damn you morning classes! Praise be to Science!
 
Hix said:
Interpreting midrash and aggadah as literal stories and/or historical claims only proves you actually know nothing about the Bible or the style of writing with which it was conceived.
Click to expand...

I don't believe any of it as literal (including the Jesus parts) but then, I'm not a christian.

State your proof that the things I listed are not meant for a christian to be taken as literal here.

Be sure to include why much of Genesis reads like a history text with it's long boring lists of genealogies.
 
Lothar said:
I don't believe any of it as literal but then, I'm not a christian.

State your proof that the things I listed are not meant for a christian to be taken as literal here.

Be sure to include why much of Genesis reads like a history text with it's long boring lists of genealogies.
Click to expand...

It's actually not that hard to pick out the historical parts that are supported either by other documents or archaeological evidence, but people get snippy when you tell them that there's no evidence for the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. (Since that story seems plausible enough at face value.)
 
Hix said:
Interpreting midrash and aggadah as literal stories and/or historical claims only proves you actually know nothing about the Bible or the style of writing with which it was conceived.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Bible literalists like mclaren777, pro, dunk, and game analyst.
 
ivedoneyourmom said:
He likely won't, cause Christians got to look out for other Christians even if they are of bat-shit-insane variety. Cause, you know, at least they aren't atheists...
Click to expand...

Religious people who do go out of the way to criticize their dopey extremist/fundamentalist "brothers and sisters" earn a measure of respect from me, though. Not that it counts for anything. :P

(Orayn's respect is redeemable at any Chuck E. Cheese location for ten tokens.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AI Is Now Fabricating What "The Public Thinks"
12
336
IAmRei replied
  • Poll
Blu-ray turns 20 years old - Feeling old yet?
News  2
68
1K
jason10mm replied
I think my girlfriend is cheating on me , should i just break up with her ?
2 3 4 5 6
270
4K
ConkerTheSquirrel. replied
Use the Earth to Spell your Name from NASA
6
271
Moondoggy replied
A message to my 40+ old gaffers and gamers
2
81
2K
lachesis replied
Top Bottom