To Jorge and seanD - assumptions.

[wattsr1]

What assumptions are the calculations of a 6,000 year old earth based on?



Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

What assumptions are the calculations of a 6,000 year old earth based on?



Regards, Roland

Er... Biblical genealogies?




Do I get a prize now? I hope it's a nice one. Nothing cheap and chintzy but something I'll go "Ooooo" when I see it. Even if I go "ahhh" that'll be okay as well. So then... What did I win?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am a YEC but even I will say good luck with those two.

[wattsr1]

I am a YEC but even I will say good luck with those two.

Tch Dizzle.

You'll be joining us all (Christians, atheists, agnostics) in the pig pen if you keep that up.

Trust me.



Regards, Roland

[Calminian]

What assumptions are the calculations of a 6,000 year old earth based on?

If you don't mind me answering, the basic answer is theism. Not that world views are completely assumed, but a theistic foundation is essential to a biblical world view.

Theism is the idea that God not only set the world in motion, but intervenes from time to time. This is in contrast to deism which is the idea that God set the world in motion and then backed off.

Science must presuppose methodological naturalism (or uniformitarianism) which does conflict to a degree with theism. IOW, if theism is true, methodological naturalism (or uniformitatianism) is not always true.

Now you specifically mentioned the issue of young earth. Again, you have to understand this is based on the idea that our world came about supernaturally. IOW, it came about unscientifically. Frankly, I can't see anyone understanding YEC until they've accepted this basic idea.

[rogue06]

If you don't mind me answering, the basic answer is theism. Not that world views are completely assumed, but a theistic foundation is essential to a biblical world view.

Theism is the idea that God not only set the world in motion, but intervenes from time to time. This is in contrast to deism which is the idea that God set the world in motion and then backed off.

Science must presuppose methodological naturalism (or uniformitarianism) which does conflict to a degree with theism. IOW, if theism is true, methodological naturalism (or uniformitatianism) is not always true.

Now you specifically mentioned the issue of young earth. Again, you have to understand this is based on the idea that our world came about supernaturally. IOW, it came about unscientifically. Frankly, I can't see anyone understanding YEC until they've accepted this basic idea.

What gets me is that so many YECs then turn around and want what they admit is unscientific taught as science in the classroom.

[Calminian]

What gets me is that so many YECs then turn around and want what they admit is unscientific taught as science in the classroom.

Hmmm. Who do you know that's advocated YEC teachings in science classrooms?

[rogue06]

Hmmm. Who do you know that's advocated YEC teachings in science classrooms?

:jawdrop: I'll assume you're pulling my leg.

[Calminian]

:jawdrop: I'll assume you're pulling my leg.

Seriously I don't know of any. AiG and CRI have said (if I'm recalling correctly) they don't want YEC taught in schools. They don't mind things like ID, but they don't want public school teachers teaching Genesis because they don't think they'll like the way the teach it. Both of those organizations are pretty upfront about their presuppositional approach. I should probably research this a little more.

[Jaecp]

Its not pushed as much as it used to be, since 1987 when it was officially banned, hence why ID gets the focus. Its like that cartoon with the talking car robots, except instead cool things like Optimus Prime (or rodimus prime <3 ) we get stuff like Michael Behe and he just transforms into an idiot.

[wattsr1]

If you don't mind me answering, the basic answer is theism. Not that world views are completely assumed, but a theistic foundation is essential to a biblical world view.

Theism is the idea that God not only set the world in motion, but intervenes from time to time. This is in contrast to deism which is the idea that God set the world in motion and then backed off.

Science must presuppose methodological naturalism (or uniformitarianism) which does conflict to a degree with theism. IOW, if theism is true, methodological naturalism (or uniformitatianism) is not always true.

Now you specifically mentioned the issue of young earth. Again, you have to understand this is based on the idea that our world came about supernaturally. IOW, it came about unscientifically. Frankly, I can't see anyone understanding YEC until they've accepted this basic idea.

I will pass on your argument here Calminian. I was after something a bit more immediate and practical.

The claim is that 6,000 years can be calculated. Behind anything and everything we ever do, are unstated assumptions.

When the claim is made that we can calculate 6,000 years, then I cam curious to see if either person can list some of those assumptions.

It would appear that both are stumped.



Regards, Roland

[Calminian]

I will pass on your argument here Calminian. I was after something a bit more immediate and practical.

The claim is that 6,000 years can be calculated. Behind anything and everything we ever do, are unstated assumptions.

When the claim is made that we can calculate 6,000 years, then I cam curious to see if either person can list some of those assumptions.

It would appear that both are stumped.



Regards, Roland

My only point is that I am starting with the presuppositions that God acted miraculously, bypassing natural processes. If you are presuming that there is no interventions by a God in the creation process, then any evidence presented to you will not add up. If won't fit into your philosophical model.

[Jaecp]

We don't need to presume no intervention by god anymore than we don't need to presume anything else we can find no evidence for.

If you are right and god acted miraculously, how do you imagine one might prove that?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

What assumptions are the calculations of a 6,000 year old earth based on?



Regards, Roland

Hasn't rogue's response of 'Biblical genealogies' effectively answered the question? Are there other calculations involved in attempting to support a 6,000 year paradigm?

[Tiggy]

What assumptions are the calculations of a 6,000 year old earth based on?



Regards, Roland

Hasn't rogue's response of 'Biblical genealogies' effectively answered the question? Are there other calculations involved in attempting to support a 6,000 year paradigm?

Nope. There's not a single piece of physical evidence on the whole planet that indicates the Earth (and the life on it) is only 6000 years old. Or that a world-wide Flood wiped out almost all living creatures on the planet 4500 years ago.

You'd think such cataclysmic events would leave some teeny bit of evidence behind, ya know?

- T