[rainee]

Hi Taikoo
Sorry about misreading moral high ground for oral high ground.
And I was beginning to get attached to the phrase!
Maybe we could hang on to it and use it?

Also, I do appreciate education and science. However, neither are perfect.

Most importantly of all please do not think I am withholding any respect from you I am not. Whether you are a graduate or not you still are extremely smart - because you are human. Humans are smart. I know I know - I agree we can be dumb too if that is what you are going to say.
But not an education nor science saved any human from that or folly did they?

Please understand this, I do not live by sight but by faith, so actually it is you who are hanging onto numbers like 6 thousand years.

As far as you saying a young earth might "blow all the physical sciences to shreds," does this mean you are young? Really young?
Impossibly young?

I thought Quantum physics already tried to blow all the physical sciences to shreds?

Yet I bet you take it all in stride now.

And what about the Hole Theory, that is going a ways back though.
Hmm.

I guess I should understand why you would ask if I have ever met a scientist, lol.

Originally Posted by taikoo

it is the theists alone who say things, about how the other guys are vile and depraved.

MORAL high ground on that level of commentary goes to the atheists.

Id like to see if you recognize that factoid.

Factoid was coined fairly recently but it originally meant a possible or most likely falsehood printed as a fact regarding the press writing about Marilyn Monroe. Norman Mailer did it.
But I do not think you meant it that way.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by rainee

.


But Evolutionists must have an Old Earth or it becomes obvious the theory would never work.

Doesn't matter what evolutionists "must have". The earth is old, that is what the evidence shows. Got other evidence that holds up to that nasty old peer review? Then you can start spending that Nobel $.

[John Ladder]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

As the starter of this thread I can say that you've brought nothing nothing of value to it. On the basis of your 'contributions' so far it's pretty obvious at best you have a layman's understanding of science and I wager that's being generous, and that's when you're actually bothering to address the topic at all. Other than that you've deflected all legitimate inquiry with bluster, smileys and some irrelevant link about psychotic illnesses, the irony of the latter almost amusing....

Really, Brain? Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you're immune to criticism, or that you have a clue.

With all your bluster about hard science, you spend way too much on soft, moldy ad hominem. You're not a scientist, right? You're not an engineer, right? If not, then just shut up and sit down and eat some humility.

The age of the Earth, and the universe, is so far incalculable, and it is a quite worthless bit of trivia. You have shown nothing to the contrary.

[taikoo]

Originally Posted by rainee

Hi Taikoo
Sorry about misreading moral high ground for oral high ground.
And I was beginning to get attached to the phrase!
Maybe we could hang on to it and use it?

Also, I do appreciate education and science. However, neither are perfect.

Most importantly of all please do not think I am withholding any respect from you I am not. Whether you are a graduate or not you still are extremely smart - because you are human. Humans are smart. I know I know - I agree we can be dumb too if that is what you are going to say.
But not an education nor science saved any human from that or folly did they?

Please understand this, I do not live by sight but by faith, so actually it is you who are hanging onto numbers like 6 thousand years.

As far as you saying a young earth might "blow all the physical sciences to shreds," does this mean you are young? Really young?
Impossibly young?

I thought Quantum physics already tried to blow all the physical sciences to shreds?

Yet I bet you take it all in stride now.

And what about the Hole Theory, that is going a ways back though.
Hmm.

I guess I should understand why you would ask if I have ever met a scientist, lol.






Factoid was coined fairly recently but it originally meant a possible or most likely falsehood printed as a fact regarding the press writing about Marilyn Monroe. Norman Mailer did it.
But I do not think you meant it that way.

Nope, that aint what I meant by factoid.

As for quantum theory, not it absolutely does not blow all of physical science to shreds. Discovery that the earth is only a few thousand years old would.

As for oral high ground, that is a slippery slope.

[rainee]

Originally Posted by taikoo

Nope, that aint what I meant by factoid.

As for quantum theory, not it absolutely does not blow all of physical science to shreds. Discovery that the earth is only a few thousand years old would.

As for oral high ground, that is a slippery slope.

Lol, slippery slope, very good.

You do not have to mean the original meaning of factoid, you can mean something almost opposite. If originally it meant "something that looked true but really wasn't" then now it may grow to mean "a little truth." People's usage will ultimately determine what the word will mean no matter what the coiner of the word meant. It is a very evolutionary world - the world of language. And that is true.

However, if one loves language (and I do) then one should mark well what makes it evolutionary. The ability to change is what does it.

Like you said "As for quantum theory, not it absolutely does not blow all of physical science to shreds..."

And why can you say that? Because of the term "Classical Physics."

And it is such a sweet term too.
So agreeable. And friendly.

But do you respect "Classical Physics," Taikoo?

Do you?

Let's see.
Here is the definition on Wiki:

What "classical physics" refers to depends on the context. When discussing special relativity, it refers to the Newtonian physics which preceded relativity, i.e. the branches of physics based on principles developed before the rise of relativity and quantum mechanics. When discussing general relativity, it refers to the result of modifying Newtonian physics to incorporate special relativity. When discussing quantum mechanics, it refers to non-quantum physics, including special relativity, and general relativity. In other words, it is the physics preceding the physics of interest in one's discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics

So do you accept, believe in and trust "Classical Physics" with all your heart for as long as you shall live?

Even knowing you will have no idea what the words will be referring to until someone tells you?

In twenty years no telling what the term will mean.

Sorry, but I do not believe you really have that great a world in science, you only wish it were at peace and got a long and really knew things.

[rainee]

Originally Posted by Jukia

Doesn't matter what evolutionists "must have". The earth is old, that is what the evidence shows. Got other evidence that holds up to that nasty old peer review? Then you can start spending that Nobel $.

Now where was that peer review I wonder when the Prize went to Al Gore for a book full of errors and assumptions?

Oh yes. I can guess now.

They must have been napping with you, Jukia. Yes?

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by
Memento Mori
I see this a lot. I don't
understand why though. Do
you think a large group of
biologists, geologists,
physicists, etc. are just
messing with you?
ThaThey arent messing with me. They are just indoctrinated to view all evidence in light of an old earth. They start out all studies with this assumption. Havent you ever heard that you will always find what you are looking for? They are looking for evidence of an old earth and its not surprising that they find it.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by rainee

Now where was that peer review I wonder when the Prize went to Al Gore for a book full of errors and assumptions?

Oh yes. I can guess now.

They must have been napping with you, Jukia. Yes?

I see you have an limited understanding of peer review. But thanks for playing. Study a bit more and perhaps you may even get in the game

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by John Ladder

Really, Brain? Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you're immune to criticism, or that you have a clue.

I never claimed it did. If you knock another poster actually contributing while you lay back in bluster and smileys as 'responses' then you ain't immune from criticism either dude.

With all your bluster about hard science, you spend way too much on soft, moldy ad hominem. You're not a scientist, right? You're not an engineer, right? If not, then just shut up and sit down and eat some humility.

You talking about humility is an absolute joke. The last time I checked it wasn't myself insinuating that Christians who don't buy into a young earth are 'closet atheists'. So take your own advice.

The age of the Earth, and the universe, is so far incalculable, and it is a quite worthless bit of trivia. You have shown nothing to the contrary.

How do you know? It's common thought that it's several billion years old so I wager that involves some "calculation" John. It's telling that you think it's 'so far' incalculable as well. Do you think it can be pinpointed in the future then? That the result is going to change to a few thousand years? Oh, and in case you'd missed it the primary aim of this thread was to highlight how irrelevant the age should be in bashing other people's faith with. Something you would never do right?

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Originally Posted by
Memento Mori
I see this a lot. I don't
understand why though. Do
you think a large group of
biologists, geologists,
physicists, etc. are just
messing with you?
ThaThey arent messing with me. They are just indoctrinated to view all evidence in light of an old earth. They start out all studies with this assumption. Havent you ever heard that you will always find what you are looking for? They are looking for evidence of an old earth and its not surprising that they find it.

Um, Voltaire, do you have some kind of problem with the quote function on here? :squint:

[John Ladder]

Don't answer AB. Clearly all he cares for is minutia.

Shadows and dust, Maximus! Shadows and dust!

[gsweet]

Originally Posted by John Ladder

You're not a scientist, right? You're not an engineer, right?

Are you? Have you gone beyond reading tidbits at your computer and actually gotten your hands dirty (pun intended) learning about this planet?

If not, then just shut up and sit down and eat some humility.

I suggest you take your own advice.

The age of the Earth, and the universe, is so far incalculable, and it is a quite worthless bit of trivia. You have shown nothing to the contrary.

No, it's calculable. As are many individual features of it. Stating an opinion is not considered evidence, so uou have shown nothing to the contrary either.

[John Ladder]

What exactly is the value of your post?

Again, what exactly is the point of calculating the age of the planet?

Name one tangible benefit of knowing whether the Earth is 100,000 years old, or 4.3 billion years old or 15 billion years old.

[gsweet]

Originally Posted by John Ladder

What exactly is the value of your post?

Again, what exactly is the point of calculating the age of the planet?

Name one tangible benefit of knowing whether the Earth is 100,000 years old, or 4.3 billion years old or 15 billion years old.

Putting geological features of the earth in a broad chronology helps immensely in resource exploration. For example, should we expect there to be more kimberlite emplacement or komatiite related Cu-Ni-PGE sulfide mineralization events in the future.

[Pam Baldwin]

Originally Posted by nicholsmom

As you ought to know by now, I prefer the young earth position theologically, but not scientifically. I have come to realize that I need a great deal of education in geology and perhaps astronomy before I can really make a decent case either way scientifically.

Hi nicholsmom. What do you mean by that statement? You believe both positions?

Originally Posted by nicholsmom

However, my sense of the history and the nature of God leads me to think that the whole shebang is something less than 10,000 years old.

Trying to use both "science" and God's "nature" to prove anything is sort of like saying that the Scriptures are true....only if they agree with man's wisdom.... When they are in opposition, who or what do you choose to believe?

A person must come to the table with the presuppostion that God's Word is true. Then if there is any "evidence", it must back up the Scriptures. If it doesn't, one must reject the "evidence".

There is no other way.

This is why it is an important issue: the age of the earth.
It shows whether or not a person accepts and believes Scripture.
( not withstanding a person who hasn't really studied Genesis yet)

Pam