Log in

View Full Version : Quick Question


shinsukato
December 31st, 2007, 09:59 PM
It seems pretty pointless to bring up an argument of Theism in a forum that seems to be comprised entirely of Atheists or Agnostics, but it's been on my mind alot what with the recent Christmas season.

My belief set is basically this. I do believe in a higher power. I came to that conclusion after a while of thinking about it and I do not feel it to be an act of faith. That, however, is not the point.

Just in case there are any people out there who know much on the subject, is there any physical proof of the existence of the BIBLICAL god? In order to potentially prove the god of the bible all you'd have to do is prove a significant amount of other tellings in the bible to be true.

The only argument I've heard coming close to this is over the salinity of the Ocean. Although modern science and carbon dating tells us that the Earth is PROBABLY 4.5 billion years, if you measure the recent rate of ocean salinification and reverse it, the Ocean would be entirely freshwater about 6 thousand years ago, which is when the Bible says God created the world.

I have turned to Google and she has told me much on the subject, but I'd like to know what everyone here has to offer information-wise before I form my opinion.

Loki
December 31st, 2007, 10:16 PM
Hi shinsukato and welcome to CoG.

The only argument I've heard coming close to this is over the salinity of the Ocean. Although modern science and carbon dating tells us that the Earth is PROBABLY 4.5 billion years, if you measure the recent rate of ocean salinification and reverse it, the Ocean would be entirely freshwater about 6 thousand years ago, which is when the Bible says God created the world.

Linky please :D - I've no idea about the research you're quoting. I'd like to see it, really!

shinsukato
January 1st, 2008, 06:28 AM
The most informative site so far has been

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2006/20060524_salt.htm

however, the information on that page conflicts a little with what I mentioned. Let's assume, for all intents and purposes, that the ocean salinification theory is evidence not necessarily of a 6 thousand year-old Earth, but certainly a young one.

GeoffBoulton
January 1st, 2008, 11:20 AM
The most informative site so far has been

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2006/20060524_salt.htm

however, the information on that page conflicts a little with what I mentioned. Let's assume, for all intents and purposes, that the ocean salinification theory is evidence not necessarily of a 6 thousand year-old Earth, but certainly a young one.

The normal Creationist tactics are:
Find an isolated piece of 'supportive' research.
Such research should preferably be:
discredited
written by a Creationist 'scientist' with a PhD in Theology from an obscure 'university' somewhere in the bible belt.
Ignore all research that contradicts the 'supportive' research, (often ALL other research)
Use that 'supportive' research to make totally unjustified assumptions.
Use those assumptions to support their biblical 'young Earth' accountI don't know the particular research being referred to but I can show a similar argument that Creationsists use regarding the sun.
The Creationists took a single piece of 'supportive' research work that appeared to show that the sun was shrinking.
The 'supportive' work was:
discredited and shown to be false but that fact was ignored.
The large body of evidence showing that the sun both increased and decreased in size by small amounts was ignored.
The assumption was made, using the single piece of 'supportive' research, that the sun had ALWAYS been shrinking at the SAME constant rate.
The creationists used the false evidence and assumption to state that the world must be young because the sun would have been as big as the Earth's orbit only a few tens of thousands of years ago and couldn't therefore have supported life until a few thousand years ago. (Carry this to its 'logical' conclusion though and the Sun would have just got bigger and bigger the further back in time you went and the Earth could not have existed at all as it would be 'inside' the sun)Bearing that in mind, read the Creationist 'evidence' again with a critical eye and I'm sure you will find similar falsehoods and incorrect assumptions in the desalination theory.

Loki
January 1st, 2008, 06:16 PM
Thanks for the link shinsukato.

Pretty much what Geoff just said. I noticed that the original article spawned from AiG (Answers in Genesis) - not really the best site for unbiased scientific theories I'm afraid ;). Unless you're fond of vegetarian T. Rex frolicking around the ark with Noah and his kiddies.

Did you notice that the original article was written by a Dr Frank DeRemer (Frank dreamer???)LOL - it smells of piss take to me.

The biggest cock-up in the idea is the assumption that rate of change (ocean salinity) is linear so that you can easily extrapolate to time = zero.
Not the case, have a look at;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061006074312.htm

sudikics
January 2nd, 2008, 01:52 AM
The salinity of the ocean is in no way linear. I know that point has been made, but I wanted to add how the salinity was in no way zero 6000 years ago because ice cores in Greenland dating back 180,000 years with measurements of salt in the water.

GeoffBoulton
January 2nd, 2008, 10:18 AM
The salinity of the ocean is in no way linear. I know that point has been made, but I wanted to add how the salinity was in no way zero 6000 years ago because ice cores in Greenland dating back 180,000 years with measurements of salt in the water.

Yeah, but everyone knows the Greenland ice sheet was put there by God at the same time as the fossil record when the water from 'The Flood' froze after depositing the mud that buried the dinosaurs! ;)

Wallsy
January 4th, 2008, 02:50 PM
My belief set is basically this. I do believe in a higher power. I came to that conclusion after a while of thinking about it and I do not feel it to be an act of faith.

Do you have evidence supporting your hypothesis (that this higher power exists)? Since no one else does, I'm going to assume that the answer is no and that it therefore is faith, regardless of what you think.


to potentially prove the god of the bible all you'd have to do is prove a significant amount of other tellings in the bible to be true.

Allow me to demonstrate the fasehood of this statement:


1. Wallsy is the supreme overlord of Earth.
2. The Earth is the third planet in the star system of the star commonly known as Sol.
3. There are 7 other planets in this system.
4. Water is the most abundant substance on Earth.
5. Unicorns are real.
6. Potatoes are often mashed with butter and milk.
7. Carrots are delicious.
8. Zebras are striped.
9. Wallsy lives in Melbourne.
10. This is written in English.

Since most of those are true, according to you, it must follow that they are all true. This is clearly absurd. Carrots taste terrible.


Wallsy.