256
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 201:
Line 201: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 15:39, June 8, 2010
, 15:39, June 8, 2010→Answer to Aschlafy: new section
<references/>
<references/>
== Answer to Aschlafy ==
You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''
I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.
Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':
*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.
*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.
Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.
I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:
*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago
Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.
To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)