The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Thee Alex]

here's a good argument in favour of the Earth being older than 6000/10000 years

Re: What definitive proof is there for the age of the earth?

[Rebelius]

if you could simulate the whole universe in a computer game and the people in it could think for themselves then they could prove that the world is over 6000 years just as well as we can. But their world would only be an hour old.

Carbon dating only works if our science is perfect - and as we've seen in the past, even great scientific theories can be wrong. Newton anyone?

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

Just to bring up the whole "6000yr old world is nonsense" thing that you mentioned on the first page Alex, do you know anyone who is over 6000 years old? Can you prove without any doubt that the world is older than 6000 years?

You can prove without any reasonable doubt that the world is more than six thousand years old.
This is one of creationisms most ridiculous arguments. There are plenty of ridiculous things I could say that no-one could prove wrong. Can you prove that their isn't an invisible, ethereal God-pig living in your scrotum controlling the universe with a wee joystick shaped like Gavin Esler?
Science starts with the evidence and leads where that follows. It doesn't start with a number gathered from a book written millenia ago and then goes about accumulating the evidence. You only have to assess which is a more sound way of observing the world and coming up with objective facts?

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

Carbon dating only works if our science is perfect - and as we've seen in the past, even great scientific theories can be wrong. Newton anyone?

Newton's laws weren't wrong, they work absolutely perfectly and are used in the construction of every single man made thing you see around you right now.
They can't describe the motion of massive objects or extremely small (subatomic) objects, but that doesn't make them wrong.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by LesMts

I've nothing against them teaching creationism in school. I'd even, gasp, encourage it.
I'll fight tooth and nail to keep it out of our science classes, though.
Keep that baws for RE or philosophy.

Personally I feel that RE should be taught in the same way as English Lit is. No-one believes 'Great Expectations' actually happened, do they?

[LesMts]

Here's a wee video I made as a response to a science/religion debate on another forum type thing.
It's not brilliant, I bashed it out pretty quickly (I had desperate-to-reply disease). I'm going to sit down and think it out better and make a longer, nicer, generally better one.
Anyway, hope you enjoy. (best with sound)

LiveLeak.com - Creation.Nature.Design

[Thee Alex]

INDICATORS OF AN "OLD EARTH" - this page made me shake my head with disbelief at the garbage it peddles.

A couple of crackers for those who don't want to click the link -

Indicator: The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 millennia.

Rebuttal: Believers in a young earth might argue that God created our galaxy less than 10,000 years ago, complete with light rays going in all directions from each star, in order that the galaxy would appear to be more ancient than it really is. That is, God created the universe as if it had a history at the time of creation. Also, the above indicator assumes that the speed of light has remained constant. There is no proof that this is true.

(highlighting my own)

Indicator: In the Green River there are varves (millions of annual layers of sediment) laid down over the past 20 million years. 4

Rebuttal: These varves may not represent annual layers of sediment; perhaps they are something like hourly layers caused by some unknown factor. Alternatively, when God created the river, he might have created it as if it had a multi-million year history of varves.

This is the kind of nonsense that Creationists come up with when faced with cold, hard, FACT.

perhaps they are something like hourly layers caused by some unknown factor

Yes, Mr Creation Believer, perhaps they are....

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by LesMts

Here's a wee video I made as a response to a science/religion debate on another forum type thing.
It's not brilliant, I bashed it out pretty quickly (I had desperate-to-reply disease). I'm going to sit down and think it out better and make a longer, nicer, generally better one.
Anyway, hope you enjoy. (best with sound)

LiveLeak.com - Creation.Nature.Design

Les, I wish I could give out positive rep twice in one day to you! That's fantastic.

[Thee Alex]

Oh, this is REALLY good.....

Indicator: Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years.

Rebuttal: This calculation assumes that the Atlantic Ocean is increasing in width at a constant rate. Under the influence of the Noahic flood, the rate of increase may have been much higher in the past than it is at present. This would greatly influence the accuracy of the above calculation.

'Rebuttal: blah blah blah Noah blah blah blah bad science blah blah complete lack of understanding of the original Indicator'

Genius.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

Alex, in firmly believing that no god exists, you're just as "wacky" and "out there" as religious types who firmly believe there is a god.

I've always found this line of thinking to be massively inconsistent, since people that espouse this point of view are very selective in the belief systems they apply it to.

These people say that believing in God is as wacky as believing in God, yet they wouldn't take the same position if I told them that the world was created by a monster made out of jelly and cardboard boxes.

If there's insufficient evidence for something, then there is nothing wrong or arrogant about saying that it doesn't exist. Sticking to your belief that it doesn't exist, when new evidence shows otherwise would be arrogant.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

Personally, I'm an agnostic - I don't worship any god and I don't really care what other people believe in.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Alan G on here, for example, considers himself an agnostic atheist (or he did at one point), for example.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is inherently unknowable.

If you don't believe in a god, then you are an atheist.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is inherently unknowable.

There are "can't know" agnostics, like you just described, but there are also "don't know" agnostics who just haven't made their minds up yet.