I am atheist,but I do not like science.

[FallentoReason]

What an odd thing for a Christian to say. IE belief without credible evidence= superstition.

What of the belief that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age? Are you skeptical of this claim, or do you know of 'credible evidence' that it is true?

There are 39 other tests apart from the carbon isotope dating test that will show you the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

There's more than enough evidence.

[CliveStaples]

There are 39 other tests apart from the carbon isotope dating test that will show you the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

There's more than enough evidence.

Erm, you still haven't answered the question. How do you know that this "evidence" doesn't depend on the assumption that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age?

You basically just said, "No, you're wrong," without giving any evidence or reason for me to think that you're right. Other than your say-so, which you apparently believe is sufficient to convince people. Don't you have anything more substantive?

[FallentoReason]

There are 39 other tests apart from the carbon isotope dating test that will show you the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

There's more than enough evidence.

Erm, you still haven't answered the question. How do you know that this "evidence" doesn't depend on the assumption that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age?

You basically just said, "No, you're wrong," without giving any evidence or reason for me to think that you're right. Other than your say-so, which you apparently believe is sufficient to convince people. Don't you have anything more substantive?

Oh, my apologies. I completely missed the more subtle point you were making.

What you're saying basically is how do we know that the decay rates have stayed constant since the beginning of the universe. If they weren't always constant then you're right; the appearance of age doesn't mean anything.

Here's a short article that you might find interesting. It's written by a Christian.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/multiple...ient-earth

The evidence suggests that the decay rates have in fact always been constant.

[downbeatplumb]

What an odd thing for a Christian to say. IE belief without credible evidence= superstition.

What of the belief that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age? Are you skeptical of this claim, or do you know of 'credible evidence' that it is true?

Well this would involve magic to have suddenly poofed the universe into existence with no explanation of a process that could possibly do this. But there is evidence that the universe is old and that there is a theory as to how it began and came to be like it is now.
So as in anything I would go with the theory with evidence that doesn't rely on magic.

[CliveStaples]

Oh, my apologies. I completely missed the more subtle point you were making.

What you're saying basically is how do we know that the decay rates have stayed constant since the beginning of the universe. If they weren't always constant then you're right; the appearance of age doesn't mean anything.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, suppose you observe a certain amount of carbon. You then reason, "In order for this amount, c(t), of carbon to be here, given how much we know was present earlier--say, c(0)--a certain amount of time must have passed, given the half-life of these carbon particles."

My point is, how do you know that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with c(t-5) amount of carbon in the particular place you're looking?

Here's a short article that you might find interesting. It's written by a Christian.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/multiple...ient-earth

The evidence suggests that the decay rates have in fact always been constant.

My point is that these models assume a certain amount of continuity in the past.

Maybe I should sharpen the question a bit. How do you know that the universe didn't come into existence an instant ago with the appearance of age--so all of your 'memories' are only an instant old, and there is no actual past?

---

Well this would involve magic to have suddenly poofed the universe into existence with no explanation of a process that could possibly do this. But there is evidence that the universe is old and that there is a theory as to how it began and came to be like it is now.

Looks like someone needs to brush up on quantum mechanics. Isn't it well-known among atheists that Krauss has argued for a "universe that came from nothing"?

[downbeatplumb]

Well looks like a theist needs to brush up on his current science, there are quite a few theories about where the universe came from. From colliding branes to budding off from other older universes. There are still physcisist who think the universe started at a singularity but the idea that there was a "before " is gaining ground. Even by some of the people who put forward the big bang theory. There was a good BBC horizon programme on it a while ago. I'd post a link but this devise won't let me.

[FallentoReason]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, suppose you observe a certain amount of carbon. You then reason, "In order for this amount, c(t), of carbon to be here, given how much we know was present earlier--say, c(0)--a certain amount of time must have passed, given the half-life of these carbon particles."

My point is, how do you know that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with c(t-5) amount of carbon in the particular place you're looking?

Because the studies show that a much longer time has indeed passed. The article explains how a tree from Japan was discovered with 100 000 tree rings. The carbon in each ring matched the theoretical amount of carbon that should be there if we assume the time has indeed passed. So you end up with this discrete set of points on your graph where you can't deny the fact that the ring that should be 1 year old is actually 1 year old, that the tree ring that should be 2 years old .....that the tree ring that is x years old is actually x years old.

My point is that these models assume a certain amount of continuity in the past.

Maybe I should sharpen the question a bit. How do you know that the universe didn't come into existence an instant ago with the appearance of age--so all of your 'memories' are only an instant old, and there is no actual past?

I don't know if you want me to take this as explicitly being a philosophical question now. In terms of philosophy, I'm somewhat inclined to believe there is actually no present. One second ago is considered the past and one second from now is considered the future. 1 x 10^-99 seconds ago is considered the past and 1 x 10^-99 seconds from now is considered the future. The past and the future by definition take up all the space on the time line leaving what appears to be no single 'instant' that can be defined as 'now'. I obviously went on a tangent here.. but I just don't really understand how to make meaning of your question. I think there's more than enough evidence to show the universe wasn't 'created an instant ago'. Is 6 000 years an instant?

[CliveStaples]

Because the studies show that a much longer time has indeed passed.

And how do you know that these studies don't implicitly assume that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age?

The article explains how a tree from Japan was discovered with 100 000 tree rings. The carbon in each ring matched the theoretical amount of carbon that should be there if we assume the time has indeed passed. So you end up with this discrete set of points on your graph where you can't deny the fact that the ring that should be 1 year old is actually 1 year old, that the tree ring that should be 2 years old .....that the tree ring that is x years old is actually x years old.

But how do you know that the tree didn't pop into existence 5 minutes ago with the proper number of rings and the proper amount of carbon that would be expected if the tree had been there longer?

I don't know if you want me to take this as explicitly being a philosophical question now. In terms of philosophy, I'm somewhat inclined to believe there is actually no present. One second ago is considered the past and one second from now is considered the future. 1 x 10^-99 seconds ago is considered the past and 1 x 10^-99 seconds from now is considered the future. The past and the future by definition take up all the space on the time line leaving what appears to be no single 'instant' that can be defined as 'now'. I obviously went on a tangent here.. but I just don't really understand how to make meaning of your question. I think there's more than enough evidence to show the universe wasn't 'created an instant ago'. Is 6 000 years an instant?

Wow, you're really not understanding my argument. Let me try to explain it better.

The things that you think of as "evidence" assume a continuity not only from instant to instant (which I'm not arguing about), and that there is a past.

For example, let's look at your tree example. Say you look at a tree and it has 100 rings, and experience has shown that every year a tree gets two rings (corresponding to a growth season and a winter season). Let's even assume that tree rings actually do accrue in such a fashion.

How do you know that the tree didn't come into existence just a second ago with 100 rings?

[Cato]

There are 39 other tests apart from the carbon isotope dating test that will show you the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

There's more than enough evidence.

Erm, you still haven't answered the question. How do you know that this "evidence" doesn't depend on the assumption that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age?

You basically just said, "No, you're wrong," without giving any evidence or reason for me to think that you're right. Other than your say-so, which you apparently believe is sufficient to convince people. Don't you have anything more substantive?

Clive,

Hello, I'm Cato. With the evidence I have I can claim that I posted to this forum before you joined; therefore, I submit that my historic postings relative to you are real and did not poof into existence with the appearance of age at the time you chose to grace me/us with your presence at AF.

To put it another way...
If you are sincere with your 'appearance of age' shit, you must adhere to the idea that your mother and grandmother were non-existents before your birth and only came into existence at the moment of your birth with the appearance of age.

At this point you can argue that nothing existed five minutes ago and we were all created (with common memory of what we call history) five minutes ago. Which is more likely? There was existence and history before us or we were all just created with appearance of age parading around as history?

[FallentoReason]

Because the studies show that a much longer time has indeed passed.

And how do you know that these studies don't implicitly assume that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age?

The article explains how a tree from Japan was discovered with 100 000 tree rings. The carbon in each ring matched the theoretical amount of carbon that should be there if we assume the time has indeed passed. So you end up with this discrete set of points on your graph where you can't deny the fact that the ring that should be 1 year old is actually 1 year old, that the tree ring that should be 2 years old .....that the tree ring that is x years old is actually x years old.

But how do you know that the tree didn't pop into existence 5 minutes ago with the proper number of rings and the proper amount of carbon that would be expected if the tree had been there longer?

I don't know if you want me to take this as explicitly being a philosophical question now. In terms of philosophy, I'm somewhat inclined to believe there is actually no present. One second ago is considered the past and one second from now is considered the future. 1 x 10^-99 seconds ago is considered the past and 1 x 10^-99 seconds from now is considered the future. The past and the future by definition take up all the space on the time line leaving what appears to be no single 'instant' that can be defined as 'now'. I obviously went on a tangent here.. but I just don't really understand how to make meaning of your question. I think there's more than enough evidence to show the universe wasn't 'created an instant ago'. Is 6 000 years an instant?

Wow, you're really not understanding my argument. Let me try to explain it better.

The things that you think of as "evidence" assume a continuity not only from instant to instant (which I'm not arguing about), and that there is a past.

For example, let's look at your tree example. Say you look at a tree and it has 100 rings, and experience has shown that every year a tree gets two rings (corresponding to a growth season and a winter season). Let's even assume that tree rings actually do accrue in such a fashion.

How do you know that the tree didn't come into existence just a second ago with 100 rings?

Ok, I think I get it now. You believe the past is practically non-existent. To this I say look at your watch for 5 minutes. You can then be absolutely confident that this memory of yourself looking at your watch wasn't some random memory implanted into you from who knows where, but that it was an historical truth that really did happen in the past.