Changes

::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm not disputing that that's what they believe; I'm disputing that that is relevant to whether or not long ages can be described as atheistic.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)  

::::::::Theism and atheism are both human views on the universe, and as such it is relevant to observe that there are humans that subscribe to theistic old earth view, such a Hindu cosmology, or Christian theistic evolution. It shows that you can combine theism and long ages. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)  

::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.

::::: The Creator God of the Bible is not able to (a) do things that are logically nonsense, like creating a yellow question, or (b) do things that are against his nature, such as lie or contradict Himself.

::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed.  Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago.  The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time.  Time itself began 6,000 years ago.  It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins.  That's nonsense.

::::: The creator God of the Bible is not able to create the Earth 10,000, 100,000, or 100,000,000 years ago, because no such time existed.  Time is part of His creation, so there is no such thing as 10,000 etc. years ago.  The question presupposes that God creates something at a point in time, whereas he actually created time.  Time itself began 6,000 years ago.  It's like asking if God can begin something before it begins.  That's nonsense.

::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::Your last question suggests that you think that I am talking about logical paradoxes, but I am not. If he can create time, he should be able to create any amount of time. That's not a paradox. Lets call the beginning of time year 0. He could then decide to have his son arrive 4000 years later, and have us discuss it 6000 years later, and have the world end some short while after it. I guess this is your view of the world, since it is consistent with a literal interpretation of the bible. But since he can create time, he could also create the universe at time 0, then send his son 10.000 years later, and have us discuss it 12.000 years later. It is as logically consistent as the first version. Theist that believe in an old earth believe that a few million years elapsed between the beginning and the birth of his Son. There is nothing illogical about it. And it consistent with a less literal interpretation of the bible. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.

::::: The real question, therefore, is essentially what He ''did'' do, or more specifically, can the evidence be understood as Him creating everything (including time) billions of years ago.  The biblical answer is a definite "no", and the true scientific answer is "this is beyond the realm of science, because it's history and not observable, testable, nor repeatable".  So with one answer "no" and the other a non-answer, there's no "yes" there at all.

::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)

::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry.  Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them.  And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time.  For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.

::::::: Perhaps history can be considered a science, but it is not an empirical science in the same sense as, say, chemistry.  Scientists cannot observe, measure, or otherwise test unique past events, and in many cases (e.g. Big Bang) are incapable of reproducing them.  And even in cases where they can replicate them, it wouldn't prove that it happened that way the first time.  For example, showing that scales can be turned into feathers shows that such as thing is ''possible'', not that it did actually happen in the past.

::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past.  The only things I can observe are in the present.  Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them.  If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?

::::::: I'd like to know how you can observe ''any'' facts in the past.  The only things I can observe are in the present.  Once they are in the past, I can no longer observe them.  If ''you'' can, may I please borrow your time machine?

::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago.  

::::::::Welcome to my time machine. Lean back and look out of the window. The tree as you see it, doesn't exist anymore, it existed a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. If thats not cool for you, put on your sun glasses and look into the sun. You see as the sun was 8 minutes ago. {{unsigned|Order}}

::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says.  If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it?  Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?

::::::: The biblical answer depends on what the Bible actually says.  If you are driving and encounter a "stop" sign, do you argue with the policeman that what it means depends on how you interpret it?  Or do you recognise that it means that you are to stop?

::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs.  I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it.  Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible.  You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent.  Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.

::::::: You are restating your opinion that whether or not long ages are atheistic depends on the correlation between beliefs.  I have a different opinion, and you are simply restating yours rather than justifying it.  Despite me pointing it out, you are still ignoring the distinction between theism and belief in the Bible.  You ''cannot'' combine an old-world view and belief in the Bible and remain consistent.  Many people do combine the two, but they are not being consistent.

::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)

::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)

How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion?  [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

How do you see a seed spring? Or how do you see the tide? Or how do you see the change in fashion?  [[User:Order|Order]] 02:52, 29 November 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==