how old is the earth?

Gsus_Rawks · 10-07-2005, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qingu

Many of these scientists are Christians who do believe that God is somehow metaphysically responsible for the Big Bang or the natural laws of the universe. It is impossible to disprove the existence of such a being.

Stephen Hawking put it best. In A Brief History of Time, he said that his model of the universe does not rule out the existence of God. It just makes God unnecessary, as the universe would not need an external cause--it would just BE.

There cannot be both God and the Big Bang. If there was, God would be imperfect. And God cannot be Imperfect, or the standard of Perfection would change. He is all powerful, he sets the standard for perfection.

Silent One · 10-07-2005, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qingu

Time and space are not similar;

If time and space are not similar, then how can you keep making comparisons of time before the big bang, to distance north of north. You trying to make a point about time using space as an example.

Qingu · 10-07-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

No. Time cannot start. That is unreasonable, What event triggered the start of time? there wasnt 1 nanosecond before that?

Okay. Take a breath and think about what you are saying. Seriously. It's a hard concept to grasp, but I know you can do it.

Words like before, after, event, and trigger are time-words. An event is something that happens in time. A trigger is something that causes something else, and both the cause and the effect must exist in time.

Are you with me so far?

Now, think about what you are asking. A trigger for the start of time? There is simply no such thing. It's like you're asking for a square triangle. In order for something to trigger time, that something must exist in time. This is a paradox:
time cannot exist without a trigger (your claim)
the trigger cannot exist without a prior concept of time.

So obviously, your claim is not true. Time must exist without any sort of temporal trigger. Otherwise we have a paradox on our hands.

Quote:

The Universe cannot exist without God.

Why?

Qingu · 10-07-2005, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent One

If time and space are not similar, then how can you keep making comparisons of time before the big bang, to distance north of north. You trying to make a point about time using space as an example.

When I said they weren't similar, I meant that they were more than just "similar." They do indeed function similarly--this is because they are part of the same fabric.

I use space to visualize time because it's a lot easier to visualize time this way. In the same way, we visualize 3-D objects on 2-D paper by symbolizing one dimension with another.

Qingu · 10-07-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

There cannot be both God and the Big Bang. If there was, God would be imperfect. And God cannot be Imperfect, or the standard of Perfection would change. He is all powerful, he sets the standard for perfection.

Why couldn't God be responsible for the Big Bang and the universe and still be perfect? I don't understand what you're saying.

Gsus_Rawks · 10-07-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qingu

Okay. Take a breath and think about what you are saying. Seriously. It's a hard concept to grasp, but I know you can do it.

Words like before, after, event, and trigger are time-words. An event is something that happens in time. A trigger is something that causes something else, and both the cause and the effect must exist in time.

Are you with me so far?

No, Im not. Sorry, but I get easily confused by false nonsense.

Quote:

Now, think about what you are asking. A trigger for the start of time? There is simply no such thing. It's like you're asking for a square triangle. In order for something to trigger time, that something must exist in time. This is a paradox:
time cannot exist without a trigger (your claim)
the trigger cannot exist without a prior concept of time.

So obviously, your claim is not true. Time must exist without any sort of temporal trigger. Otherwise we have a paradox on our hands.

You are partially correct. There has to be some sort of trigger. In my belief, the trigger is simply, it always has been. But for time to start there would logically have to be some sort of reason time chose to start at that particular moment...

Tell me if i am totally off the mark you are trying to confuse me with...

Quote:

Why?

Thats what we have been discussing this whole time. Re-read all of my posts and you will find out why. It has alot to do with all cells being alive and not dead.

Gsus_Rawks · 10-07-2005, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qingu

Why couldn't God be responsible for the Big Bang and the universe and still be perfect? I don't understand what you're saying.

God said he created the heavens and the earth... on the first day he created light (etc.) So if he is a liar, he cannot be perfect... comprendo?

Gsus_Rawks · 10-07-2005, 01:27 AM

Ok... Im sleeping now... sleep is my friend...

and that brings me too another point...

How did evolution create sleep? and how did it make it so that our red blood cells were the right shape for life?

JerryLove · 10-07-2005, 07:32 AM

You should really cut down on the rudeness. I'm not sure how you got lucky enough to get Q in such an obliging mood, but I would have torn you a new one by now. You have no idea what you are saying, much less what you are reading, and you respond by calling it "nonsense".

I won't even comment on what kind of poor cognitive skills to say in the same breath that you don't understand something and that it's nonsense. You have access to a compitent teacher willing to cater to your ignorance, and you are just being a jerk about it. You *should* take full advantage of it.

Casey · 10-07-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You should really cut down on the rudeness. I'm not sure how you got lucky enough to get Q in such an obliging mood, but I would have torn you a new one by now. You have no idea what you are saying, much less what you are reading, and you respond by calling it "nonsense".

I won't even comment on what kind of poor cognitive skills to say in the same breath that you don't understand something and that it's nonsense. You have access to a compitent teacher willing to cater to your ignorance, and you are just being a jerk about it. You *should* take full advantage of it.

Agreed.

Gsus_Rawks, your immaturity in this discussion is very, very apparent, being displayed through your rudeness. How old are you?

Fred_space · 10-07-2005, 02:33 PM

Forgive me if what I belive evolution is but isn't it the devlopment or the changes to a life form over time, not actually how it came about?

Taking that definition to be true eveloution is true, it has been observed (though to a very small degree) in single cell life forms of course who multiply very rapdily. There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record to show the eveloution of species.

What some of you are talking about if the creation of life. This may come under evoloution but I don't consider it to yet as though there are may theories there is still alot of research to go into this before anything credibal comes out of this.

So God may have put the first single celled life forms on earth, or maybe they evolved out of floating rocky things, or from clay. But evolution is happening however you think life got here in the first place.

JerryLove · 10-07-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Taking that definition to be true eveloution is true, it has been observed (though to a very small degree) in single cell life forms of course who multiply very rapdily. There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record to show the eveloution of species.

Mutation has been observed in every form of life we've looked at. Morphological changes are observed, I would say, in most. Speciation has been observed pretty accross the board including salmon, chiclids, rats, grapes, and goatsbeard.

fallinguprawks · 10-07-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evo81

Using the genealogies in the bible I think the earth is about six or seven thousand years old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well a group of scientists just completed a multi year study on this. It was comprised of PHDS's nd Masters in their fields. Thier research project was known as R.A.T.E. (radioisotopes and the age of the earth) and showed why the radiometric dating methids are very flawed and that the earth is indeed much much much younger than secular science theorizes.

Based on best available evidence I would say the earth is 6-10 thousand years old.

Yeah. Carbon dating is only accurate up to about 7 thousand years, and I believe it is because there is no material older than that.

Fred_space · 10-07-2005, 03:12 PM

How did evolution create sleep? and how did it make it so that our red blood cells were the right shape for life?

I don't know about sleep but clearly there is the benifit of allowing creatures bodies to recover and all the other benifits it provides, so the first creatures that did this (though it would have been a gradual change) would gain more advantage over other creatures which did not, hence they would survive and pass on their sleeping genes.

Same with red blood cells, there are just the right shape because they have had plenty of time to develope with that shape. Look at sickle cell amienia, a different shape that does the job, but not as well. You can see that people with this genetic disorder are at a disadvantage (except when it comes to malaria), hence until recently most people who had this died before passing on their sickle cell genes, where as more people with the red blood cell genes survived to pass it on.

This would have happened with other cell shapes before, and is boud to happen again, someone will gain a mutation that allows their cells to carry more oxygen, etc they would survive to pass that on. Of course we have reached an interesting time in our evolution where we are reaching the point that in the devloped world at least, we are able to treat, or at least keep people alive for a lot longer, even if they have gentic disorders, which means these 'bad' genes are being passed on a lot more, so we get the idea of inscurence comapnies not helping people with 'inferior genes' and so on.

Of course I do not think we should stop helping people with genetic disorders, I am just raising this point which I realise is not complelty on topic.

I reckon i made a few spelling errors there too, sorry

While of course I

fallinguprawks · 10-07-2005, 03:22 PM

Alright how do you explain away the fact that enzymes and substrates had to have developed simultaneously? They co-exist. Our bodies have thousands different kinds of them, and without any given one of them for one minute could really mess us up or kill us. Also, what about other co-existent things, such as animals and plants? We rely on eachother for oxygen and carbon dioxide, and could not develop or survive long without eachother.