Thanks for the read up tips, I'll try to find something regarding that!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old...
- Thread starter Mengy
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the read up tips, I'll try to find something regarding that!
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I don't know any such material off the top of my head, but back in my college years I read tons of literature about how the Bible historically came to be. I found it fascinating to be honest. At the same time it angered me because I was 20 years old, had gone to church all of my life, and no one at all had taught me any of what I learned in my own research. It opened my eyes to how slanted the church is towards controlling information about its own origins.
I would encourage anyone with such questions and curiosity to pursue learning the historical origins of the Bible.
I could give you a brief synopsis of the how the Bible came to be, the history behind how and why it was written, if you want. Would take me some time to write it up. I'm sure there are websites today that detail it out better than I could anyway.
I think you're mislead, Muhammad had lucid dream of an angel from "god" in a cave or something and started scribing his words... circa 610 a.d.
Still ridiculous...
I'm sorry, I mispoke. If you think that the Bible is the literal word of god, you are misled. My understanding is that the Koran is the word of god, perhaps not written by him in a literal sense.
No worries, it's just I came from an Islamic background and I'd hear a conversation of this from time to time....
Ever heard of a guy named Erasmus?
Also, all people, not just religious ones, are fundamentally superstitious. Pigeons are also superstitious. The mind automatically seeks patterns in cause and effect situations, thus creating superstitions.
This is a big part of why critical thinking is hard for some people. It's a manual override of our (irrational) inborn tendencies, so it takes effort and at least a little intelligence to maintain.
Jesus, Interrupted is a great book that discusses the history and contridictions within the bible. It's written from a fairly unbiased view, which is saying a lot given the context.
I recommend the book to anyone really. It's flat out amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE
If that's the history channel show I was thinking of, it's good. Not sure though.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Bible literalism is a minority position in modern christianity and for a good reason. Barring the insane position of covering one's ears and shouting la la la while ignoring well stablished and researched facts and scientific theories, there's only two answers:
a) To understand that the Bible ultimately is meant to be a spiritual guide and thus most of its content is either allegorical or exemplifying.
b) The devil, god, a wizard, did it.
a) To understand that the Bible ultimately is meant to be a spiritual guide and thus most of its content is either allegorical or exemplifying.
b) The devil, god, a wizard, did it.
The Earth isn't 6,000 years old, but it's also impossible for it be billions of years old. The Sun loses Mass at a constant rate every year. If you add up all the mass it would have lost over millions of years, It's impossible for the Earth and Life to have even existed, with the Sun engulfing it. The only way life as we know it could have started to exist is anywhere from 100,000 to a million years ago.
GraveHorizon
poop meter feature creep
How much does it lose per year, and how much did it start out with? Also, how much does it regain through natural processes?
slidewinder
Banned
Citation, please. A quick Google suggests, unsurprisingly, that this is utter horseshit.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
A book written by some divine being should be taken literally
The Bible has never been considered to be authored directly by God.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Have a read. Link
"There are two different lines of argument concerning a shrinking sun. The first one refers directly to the classical Kelvin-Helmholtz theory of the sun shining through gravitational contraction. The second line is based on a supposed change in the measured diameter of the sun.
The gravitational-contraction theory was perfectly respectable mainstream science, in the 19th century. As described in the historical section above, it was abandoned in the early part of the 20th century, for good scientific reasons that had nothing to do with creationism. Some creationists, notably Barnes (1974), appear to be unaware of developments in science beyond 1895 or so, and continue to invoke Kelvin's arguments as if they were still valid. But even if we didn't know anything about nuclear fusion (or if fusion for some reason didn't work in the sun), Eddington's (1920; 1924) refutation of the gravitational-contraction theory would still remain solid. This directly contradicts the claims of Akridge (1980), that the theory was abandoned solely because evolution required more time: "Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun. This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. Then Helmholtz's explanation was discarded because it did not provide the vast time span demanded by the theory of organic evolution on the earth. The substitute theory was introduced by Bethe in the 1930's precisely because thermonuclear fusion was the only known energy source that would last over the vast times required by evolution. Science may now be on the verge of disproving the substitute evolutionary model of the sun." (ibid, p 3). Akridge's last sentence is also misleading, in that the standard model of the sun isn't "evolutionary" in any sense connected with the Darwinian evolution that he's referring to elsewhere in the quote (and of course also misleading in that science is nowhere near disproving it).
Akridge (1980) is also the primary source for the other line of argument, claiming that the shrinking of the sun has been measured. He bases this claim entirely on the results of Eddy & Boornazian (1979). Remarkably enough, it nevertheless appears as if he hasn't even read their paper he does not refer directly to it, but only to a popularization (Lubkin 1980, see ref in Akridge 1980). It is also interesting to note that Akridge implies that E&B observed 400 years of shrinking, whereas the title of the E&B paper is 'Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953', with only a 90-year period. Despite these (and other) obvious flaws, Akridge's claim has nevertheless become standard creationist fare, repeated in numerous creationist publications, from Brown (1995) to Molén (1991).
Strahler (1987) reviews the data available at the time of Akridge's writing, and contrasts it with Akridge's (1980) presentation. He notes that Eddy & Boornazian (1979) themselves do not interpret their result as evidence of an ongoing change. Their interpretation of their own data is dismissed out of hand by Akridge (1980). Other measurements, not showing any significant shrinking, were available in 1980, but were completely ignored by Akridge (1980). Subsequent measurements, published between 1980 and 1987, do not support Akridge's claim.
The issue of the solar diameter has become of some interest recently, with the arrival of precise helioseismological data. Eddington's (1920) argument against gravitational contraction, from the frequency stability of variable stars, applies with a vengeance to helioseismology, which is much more precise. Helioseismology is so precise today, that comparison between theoretical calculations and measurements require a better knowledge of the solar radius than is currently available. Furthermore, as the sun is not a solid body, it does not have a well-defined surface at which to measure the radius (Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini 1998). The difference between different definitions amounts to a century's worth of Akridge-shrinking, making it plausible that the apparent shrinking reported by Eddy & Boornazian (1979) might well be due to systematic errors when comparing data taken over long periods of time by different observers using different instruments and, quite possibly, different definitions.
A recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 ± 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. The issue of surface definition is discussed at some length, leading to the conclusion that their definition is about 500 km smaller than that used in most previous estimates. Even over such a short period of time, their time series is sufficient to exclude an ongoing shrinking at the Akridge rate of five feet per hour, albeit at a modest statistical confidence level. I extracted the data from figure 2 in Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and did some line fitting, finding that the best fit to the data is a slight, statistically insignificant, growth of the diameter of the sun. No support whatsoever for shrinkage.
For a slightly longer time base, I'll use the value from Allen (1973), cited by both Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini (1998) as the standard reference value before the 1990s. Working from Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998), I have re-calculated both their measurement, and that of Allen (1973) to what I believe is the same surface definition, obtaining a value for the angular diameter of the sun of 1919.31 ± 0.19 arcseconds in 1973, and 1919.359 ± 0.018 arcseconds on average 1981-1988. Akridge's alleged shrinkage corresponds to about 0.25 arcseconds over the same length of time, no trace of which is visible. It appears that the sun has stopped shrinking."
In a nutshell.
So basically you're assuming that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.
There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.
So both religion and science are incorrect. The only person right in the world is Cubsfan23. That takes some ego.
AlberichMX
Member
OP you need a new girlfriend.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
He is giving a process that you can inspect on its logic and flaws. This is nowhere near "god did it and that's the end of it". The theory is specific, defined and fully within a shared metaphysical domain. It doesn't get any better than that.
Sutton Dagger does it right btw. Go for the flaws, not the eyes.
Please tell me you're not talking about this.
EDIT: Bah reacted without reading the rest of the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyN142myzkY
Some beg to differ.
I really think this girl is a masterful troll.
They have the same nature, but they're distinct individuals.
The bolded is simply not true. Bart Ehrman is a notorious biblical critic. That being said, his books are worth reading as long as you know that there are scholars which have responded to Ehrman's criticisms and the issue of New Testament internal consistency is a debatable area.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
So last night I sat down to watch a Neil DeGrass Tyson video from Vegas last month on youtube and the gf watched it with me. She thinks Tyson is a wonderful speaker and always enjoys watching him with me.
But it took us five hours to watch an 80 minute video. As you can imagine we again ended up talking and debating about the Bible versus Science. For many hours. It was as fun and entertaining as always, but this time I think I learned something new. With this thread fresh in my mind, the posts here over the past couple of days probably helped me focus our talk towards what really fuels my gusto about her beliefs.
I don't look down on her for thinking the Earth is 6000 years old, or think she is stupid because of her beliefs. I don't respect her less as a person for believing in something different than me. HOWEVER, what does bother me, and what I just can't wrap my head around or understand, is HOW she can completely ignore all of the scientific evidence and data to the contrary. How she can casually dismiss all of that knowledge and simply choose to ignore it like it just has no merit at all.
And this is what I discovered last night, her root reason for being content to treat science like it doesn't matter:
The Bible tells her everything she needs, it answers all of her questions, and that's enough for her.
She really just doesn't even care to look any further than the Bible. It's not a concern at all for her. The Book is the Word of God and perfect, and mankind is imperfect and fallible. That's her reason. So all of these tests and experiments and techniques that scientists use to date fossils, to map geologic events, to learn about the history of the Earth and the universe, ALL OF IT is subject to human error and therefore suspect as to it's validity. Where as the Bible is divine and perfect, so it can't be wrong. To her, all of the scientific data and evidence in the universe can't prove the Bible wrong, because science is done by men, and men can make mistakes.
That's her root reason for believing the Bible over anything scientific.
It really comes down to the fact that she just doesn't understand what a scientific theory or observation is, she doesn't understand science at all, and she freely admits that. But she does not care to learn about anything to do with science either, because it's not important to her. Because the Bible tells her what she needs to know, and it is infallible. Period.
I love to learn about the Earth and the universe, the stars and the galaxies. I'm eager to understand new things and how the world around me works. I am constantly searching out not only the answers to questions but new questions as well. Where as to her it's just not something she's interested in. The Bible explains it good enough to pacify her questions, but for me it does not.
I wonder how many other creation believers are like her, content and happy enough in how the Bible explains things that they just don't want to bother to look any deeper? It's a willful lack of intellectual ambition mixed with a conscious decision to ignore evidence that I will never understand nor comprehend...
But it took us five hours to watch an 80 minute video. As you can imagine we again ended up talking and debating about the Bible versus Science. For many hours. It was as fun and entertaining as always, but this time I think I learned something new. With this thread fresh in my mind, the posts here over the past couple of days probably helped me focus our talk towards what really fuels my gusto about her beliefs.
I don't look down on her for thinking the Earth is 6000 years old, or think she is stupid because of her beliefs. I don't respect her less as a person for believing in something different than me. HOWEVER, what does bother me, and what I just can't wrap my head around or understand, is HOW she can completely ignore all of the scientific evidence and data to the contrary. How she can casually dismiss all of that knowledge and simply choose to ignore it like it just has no merit at all.
And this is what I discovered last night, her root reason for being content to treat science like it doesn't matter:
The Bible tells her everything she needs, it answers all of her questions, and that's enough for her.
She really just doesn't even care to look any further than the Bible. It's not a concern at all for her. The Book is the Word of God and perfect, and mankind is imperfect and fallible. That's her reason. So all of these tests and experiments and techniques that scientists use to date fossils, to map geologic events, to learn about the history of the Earth and the universe, ALL OF IT is subject to human error and therefore suspect as to it's validity. Where as the Bible is divine and perfect, so it can't be wrong. To her, all of the scientific data and evidence in the universe can't prove the Bible wrong, because science is done by men, and men can make mistakes.
That's her root reason for believing the Bible over anything scientific.
It really comes down to the fact that she just doesn't understand what a scientific theory or observation is, she doesn't understand science at all, and she freely admits that. But she does not care to learn about anything to do with science either, because it's not important to her. Because the Bible tells her what she needs to know, and it is infallible. Period.
I love to learn about the Earth and the universe, the stars and the galaxies. I'm eager to understand new things and how the world around me works. I am constantly searching out not only the answers to questions but new questions as well. Where as to her it's just not something she's interested in. The Bible explains it good enough to pacify her questions, but for me it does not.
I wonder how many other creation believers are like her, content and happy enough in how the Bible explains things that they just don't want to bother to look any deeper? It's a willful lack of intellectual ambition mixed with a conscious decision to ignore evidence that I will never understand nor comprehend...
Steve Youngblood
Member
I would venture to say a lot.
I don't know, I kind of get it. Mind you, I don't advocate it as something that's ideal, but I get it. When we're talking about knowledge of prehistoric Earth, I don't think there's a lot of utility therein. I mean, there's utility for the various scientists who study these fields, but for most people? For instance, a new finding that gives us a more accurate picture of when and why dinosaurs became extinct doesn't really matter.
I think knowing these kinds of facts are interesting. However, I kind of got at this with a much earlier post, the curiosity about ascertaining this kind of information almost has more to do with having my brain filled with more stuff that could win me a trivia night. If new evidence inexplicably arose tomorrow that whackjob religious people and their silly "6,000 year old" Earth theories actually have it right, I would say, "Heh. Wow. Didn't see that coming." And then I'd move on with my day.
In that light -- given the perception that it has little impact on day to day life in the current era -- I can understand why someone would just stick with their holy book if they think it gives more meaning to their life. I'm not saying that I think that's the way it should be, but I get it.
Probably a lot but I imagine most religious are simply able to reconcile the two few people question belief or the lack of it in general. It goes back to how much people enjoy the debate on it. I would argue most don't enjoy it at all.
Keep in mind that the interest in science is a mental thing. Most people don't care about scientific method especially when it's used to explain things science isn't equipped to observe.
things that don't exist.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I do love her, but I don't think it is a dealbreaker. I don't think I'll ever understand this part of her though.
Nope, she has no problem with modern medicine. Which cracks me up, because I don't think she understands how modern medicine and science are intertwined. Again, it's a lack of knowledge or willful ignorance in many ways. And again, I don't get it.
She sort of said just that last night. Science isn't part of her day to day life, so why bother spending time learning about it? Where I learn about it because I'm curious and interested in learning more than what applies directly to my day to day life. She described it like this: I'm a dry sponge trying to soak up lots of water, where she is a fully soaked sponge that doesn't care to soak up any more water.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
No, fuck that. It satisfies her questions only because she was indoctrinated to believe it does. Nobody from an unfamiliar starting point would look at the creation story and go "Yeah this is good enough for me" if they were presented scientific explanations at the same time.
And if her position is "Well I don't really care so much so I'll just go with the easy explanation" then that's bullshit too. If she didn't care enough to learn then you don't need an answer. What she was really trying to tell you was "I was brainwashed to believe the answers before I knew the questions."
Edit: I said it before pretty flippantly, but if you two ever consider having kids you will really have to think about how her ideology could affect them.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Well, one has an immediacy that the other doesn't. It's easy to defer to science when the prognosis is "here, have a pill, it'll make you better," or "you need a surgery or you'll die." It's another when we're arguing about whether a dinosaur fossil is thousands vs. hundreds of millions of years old.
So it's more like "the bible is all I need. Except when I really need something."
?
Baconsaurus Rex
Member
Had to quote it. Serious contestant for post of the year.
You already know what he's going to say, abiogenesis. Then we'll go on about what it means to "observe" in science. Then he'll go on about us never being able to go back in time and know for sure. Then we'll talk about a lot of things we can't go back in time and know for sure. Then he might mention how we take those things on faith, and how he's fine with that because he takes things on faith too. Then we'll talk about his false equivocation. I think that's where it'll probably end. Maybe a few comments here or there about abiogenesis being science fiction, and some comments here or there about the irony of such high requirements for evidence.
PdotMichael
Banned
only after a 24 hour surgery they will not thank the OP-team but god for some reason.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Yes, agreed completely. She was schooled from Kindergarten to graduation in SDA schools, so her "head in the sand" attitude when it comes to science is most definitely a learned behavior. She was taught for over a decade to distrust scientists and given many reasons to do so during the most formative years of her life. So yeah, brainwashing basically.
I went through it too in my Christian church. It wasn't until I went to college that I really started to exercise my mind without the blinders on. I'm grateful that I did. She is content in not bothering too. Doesn't make her a bad person, just an ignorant one. And I say that not to be demeaning or disrespectful to my gf, I am saying ignorant in the most literal definition of the word.
This is an old debate , but please tell me how science verifies EVERYTHING.
The old example is it can't even verify something as simple as love. For all we know, your parents secretly hate you (Or secretly love you if they told you they hate you. Who knows in this day and age). We have no idea and there's no way to petri dish the reason the OP even loves his girl.
Heck, science can't even "prove" belief no matter how much atheists think they nail it on the head as delusion. Prove it.
Prove how life got here
Prove religion is evil.
Prove why I should like liver
Prove the meaning of faith (I always like this one)
Science is good within the scope of it's purpose, but science has never tried to prove everything, only the things that it can.
This is also why atheists (Not scientists) have this hard time grasping the notion that people can like science and their beliefs. It's not an oil and water mix.
Steve Youngblood
Member
More or less, I assume. I would also venture that not all science is treated equally. For instance, maybe I accept the laws of physics, because they're observable. But dating the age of fossils? The methodology employed is more abstract to a layman. There's a certain "trust me on this one; it's legit" aspect to it all that I don't think everyone really understands or even cares to understand.
Not a single scientist would ever claim that. Unless you specify "about the natural world".
So in your list:
Only the first one applies to science. And very much so. I'm not aware of any scientists doing research on proving or disproving god. Well actually some are trying to do the former, they're called the ICR.
So, yeah, there's no debate here.
Uhhh... what JGS? Your original quote is Science tries to prove things it can't observe - then you go on to say all this:
These aren't things Scientists EVER try to address. Basically the only thing there that Science tries to address is how life got here. And they are addressing it quite well.
Edit: Fuck Yo Couch Raist
These aren't things Scientists EVER try to address. Basically the only thing there that Science tries to address is how life got here. And they are addressing it quite well.
Edit: Fuck Yo Couch Raist
I agree with you. After all, it is what I said. It's used as a basis to try to prove things it can't. By definition science can't try to prove something it doesn't have the ability to. That doesn't mean non-scientist of the board that are allegedly "pro-science" don't try to explain it in scientific terms.
It's why they require scientific reasoning for religious belief when:
a. Science doesn't request it
b. Religious people don't request it
Science has no business even addressing how life got here since it can't accomplish that either.
- Status