(February 6, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(February 6, 2014 at 9:08 pm)whateverist Wrote: Quite the ambitious reply. But all that aside what do you yourself believe to be the case regarding the age of the universe and the origins of man. Do you yourself seriously believe the earth is so young and that evolution so limited as Ham believes. Frankly I don't think so.
Young in comparison to what? I believe that if you start with the axiom that God does not exist you will arrive at an age for the Earth somewhere around 4.5 billion years (for now, this number will probably eclipse five billion soon). On the other hand, if you start with the axiom that God does exist and that the Bible is what it claims to be (as I do) then you will arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is just over 6,000 years old. Same evidence; two very different conclusions. Both of these positions are far more consistent than a Christian who believes it is billions of years old or a materialist who believes it is thousands of years old.
I don't subscribe to any god's nonexistence on an axiomatic level. Instead I take as an operating hypothesis that the causes we find determinative going forward were likewise determinative in the past arriving at the present. I know that may sound wild eyed on the face of it but there you have it. If future discoveries knock a wheel off my operating hypotheses I shall revise and continue.
It is a very different matter than claiming an axiom. I believe you if you say you believe the bible is from god. For the life of me I can't imagine why you think that. From the outside it sure looks as though the wishing and the believing amount to the same thing.
Still it just shows poor judgement to hold up as equal that which you believe axiomatically to what I believe as a working hypothesis. They really aren't the same. My way asks the world what it is, yours tells it what it is. My approach is inquiry, yours is declarative. Apples and oranges.
