Teh Creationist Thread

[MRT144]

right, and just because there is a margin of error or difference in results means its false? is that what you're saying?

[Ben Kenobi]

In the first one (Gen. 1,1 - 2,4), humans are created at the end, in the second one (Gen 2,5 - 2,15) before all other creatures.

They are two creation stories. One talks about the creation of the world and the other talks specifically about the creation of man.

I'm not sure why you think they contradict one another. It's like taking one book, and then writing another book about a chapter in the previous book.

[Ben Kenobi]

right, and just because there is a margin of error or difference in results means its false? is that what you're saying?

No, it just means that there is a considerable amount of work left to do. As with anything in science, nothing is ever totally finished. The last time they said that was after Maxwell's equations that everything was solved.

Then came Einstein... When I look at astronomical tables even today, I see considerable sketch and guesswork as we build assumptions based upon our other assumptions. If I were to look at a celestial navigation table, it would be like taking a trip to china, and knowing that it would take you 5 weeks to get there when it is really 10.

That is the precision right now for many distances even out to about only 1000 light years away from us. Completely useless if we ever want to reliably travel to and from the stars.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have a feeling that this thread was created for the sole purpose of showing off that YouTube video. I must say that I approve...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I have a feeling that this thread was created for the sole purpose of showing off that YouTube video. I must say that I approve...

actually no I saw thayt video ages ago, and then read teh BBC article today, so I made the thread for that, and when I had to decide abotu the banaban optoion i remember teh video and used it instead :nodL

[Drake Tungsten]

So you actually made a non-ironic "evolution v. creationism" thread...

[LordShiva]

I didont think there were so amny creationists Leek:

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh well. You appear to be drunk, so I forgive you.

[LordShiva]

I wasn't when I made it htough

[Drake Tungsten]

You were when you foolishly admitted your sincerity in making it, though.

[Deity Dude]

could there be a 3rd alternative?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh nonsense, if the science said the world had always existed as it is then the myths would be in conflict because they all claim the world went thru a process of creation.

I'm surprised to see this coming from somebody who supposedly has read all this analysis on origin myths.

Do you want to back off this one, or want me to get you some obvious counter examples?

And that's the most important part of those creation stories (creation vs always existing). If we change more "minor" details, it almost doesn't affect the "correlation" with science.
Therefore the correlation is meaningless in the first place.


Even your current "correlation" isn't that great.

[SIZE=1]
This is, as far as we know, when plate tectonics began. I'm not talking about the volcanic out gassing that must have occurred during the formation of the proto-Earth, but the actual building of continents and the clash of plates - the process by which "land appeared" from underneath the waters. The collision was bad enough to melt or strip older rocks away from the planet's surface (why do meteorites date back 4.5 billion years?)

I really don't see were you're going with your story.
The giant impact hypothesis has nothing to do with "land appearing" from underneat the waters....

The oceans appeared 350 millions years after the proposed date for the impact, and would have done so even without the impact. They couldn't before because of heat.

Basically a giant object hit the Earth and probably formed the Moon. Then later volcanism created an atmosphere and once the it was cool enough so that the crust was solid and water could condense, the oceans appeared.


Not only is you scientific story very sketchy, I don't even see how it fits that well with the creation myths you were referring to.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As I said, it's an interesting question, and well worth the discussion as to how the scientific community established the age of the earth and the universe to be as old as it is. There still is not consensus,

As for the methods, radioactive dating of still existing rock give a lower bound that's very close to the accepted figure, and some comparison methods of different isotopes in meteorites improve the figure a bit.

As to consensus, the age of the Earth is agreed to much less than 10% error. Probably less than 5% in fact once you agree on your definition of "created" (since it was a very gradual process, it's not exactly clear what one should choose as THE moment).

I don't know if that's what you were trying to say i.e. "no consensus=discussion on the 3 digit of precision". Otherwise you're wrong.

and the consensus that there is relies upon evidence in need of considerable refinement.

Care to enlighten us on what exactly needs to be refined about radioactive dating?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That being said we can date many of the events in the bible to a fair degree of accuracy, which improves as we gain archaeological evidence.

So for example when would you date Cain and Abel with respect to that new "archaeological evidence" called the dinosaurs?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


MRT, you forget I was a physics major before I was a Christian.

What I am referring to is the use of standard candles that they use to determine distances and thus estimate the age of the universe. Each of them have error margins which when you stack one upon the other leads to larger errors in the final calculation.

To say that scientists have pinpointed these ages is not correct, but they do have a good idea of the order of magnitude, which is really the main issue here.

Sure if you're talking about the age of the Universe, it is not clear exactly how precise accepted figures are (maybe a factor or 2).
You mentioned the age of the Earth earlier though and the figures are much better known in that case.