Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8145 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2014 12:47 AM
74 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Jon, Malcolm, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric, zaius137 (8 members, 66 visitors)
Chatting now:  Phat
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,236 Year: 24,077/28,606 Month: 1,378/1,786 Week: 240/423 Day: 0/77 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Creative day
steppjr
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 19 (16587)
09-04-2002 6:01 PM


Is it the view of most creationists that the earth is only 6000 years old? Because from what I can see, no were in the bible does it. It says, in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Then god made the life on earth in 6 days. But no were did does it say that the days are 6 24 hour days!
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jase13, posted 09-05-2002 12:13 AM steppjr has responded
 Message 16 by Spud, posted 05-15-2003 6:45 PM steppjr has not yet responded

  
jase13
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 19 (16599)
09-05-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by steppjr
09-04-2002 6:01 PM


The bible does not state that God made life on earth in 6 days, infact he made the earth and night and day oceans excetra in the opening days before life was got around to. You are correct in stating that these periods are not nessecarially 24 hour periods although some believe this to be the case. It is through the study of geneology and the descendents of Adam and their lifespans that the date of creation of adam, seems to be in the order of about 6000 years ago.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by steppjr, posted 09-04-2002 6:01 PM steppjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by steppjr, posted 09-05-2002 2:38 PM jase13 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Apeman, posted 02-06-2003 7:21 AM jase13 has not yet responded

  
steppjr
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 19 (16652)
09-05-2002 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jase13
09-05-2002 12:13 AM


True, that is why there is not evidence of man on earth more that about 6000 years ago. No buildings, no temples, no utensils!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jase13, posted 09-05-2002 12:13 AM jase13 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Weyland, posted 02-06-2003 7:58 AM steppjr has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Karl, posted 02-06-2003 8:02 AM steppjr has not yet responded
 Message 7 by John, posted 02-06-2003 9:20 AM steppjr has not yet responded

  
Apeman
Inactive Junior Member


Message 4 of 19 (31499)
02-06-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by jase13
09-05-2002 12:13 AM


I like this. You might like my entry in the thread about acuracy and eroneosy under why if God limited man's life span etc. Message 54.

------------------
back when I've got time


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jase13, posted 09-05-2002 12:13 AM jase13 has not yet responded

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 19 (31506)
02-06-2003 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by steppjr
09-05-2002 2:38 PM


quote:
True, that is why there is not evidence of man on earth more that about 6000 years ago. No buildings, no temples, no utensils!

Well, that's not strictly true, is it.

We have the cave paintings at Lascaux (along with a variety of artifacts found in there too) dated to around 30,000 years old,
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/

In fact, if you like paleolithic art and constructions, here's a good site:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHprehistoric.html#paleolithic

So, what'll it be: Are these sites all incorrectly dated, are they fakes, or is it possible that mankind is a wee bit older than 6000 years? Inquiring minds want to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by steppjr, posted 09-05-2002 2:38 PM steppjr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Spud, posted 05-14-2003 7:12 AM Weyland has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Cresswell, posted 05-14-2003 2:14 PM Weyland has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 19 (31508)
02-06-2003 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by steppjr
09-05-2002 2:38 PM


quote:
True, that is why there is not evidence of man on earth more that about 6000 years ago. No buildings, no temples, no utensils!

The odd city though:

http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/catal_huyuk.htm

Interestingly, Catal Huyuk shows no evidence of having been flooded. Odd that, methinks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by steppjr, posted 09-05-2002 2:38 PM steppjr has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 19 (31519)
02-06-2003 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by steppjr
09-05-2002 2:38 PM


quote:
True, that is why there is not evidence of man on earth more that about 6000 years ago. No buildings, no temples, no utensils!

Can you explain to me what dating method you are using to get this figure? Becuase, frankly, tools and habitations have been found that date to orders of magnitude greater than 6000 years.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by steppjr, posted 09-05-2002 2:38 PM steppjr has not yet responded

  
Spud
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 19 (40051)
05-14-2003 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Weyland
02-06-2003 7:58 AM


Quote from Weyland:
"We have the cave paintings at Lascaux (along with a variety of artifacts found in there too) dated to around 30,000 years old,
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/

In fact, if you like paleolithic art and constructions, here's a good site:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHprehistoric.html#paleolithic

So, what'll it be: Are these sites all incorrectly dated, are they fakes, or is it possible that mankind is a wee bit older than 6000 years? Inquiring minds want to know."

I had a quick look but didn't see anything on the method used to date these constructions. But like most forms of dating these days, it is more than likely highly inaccurate.

This is a good artical carbon dating, and other forms.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Weyland, posted 02-06-2003 7:58 AM Weyland has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Gzus, posted 05-14-2003 2:41 PM Spud has not yet responded
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2003 2:48 PM Spud has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-14-2003 2:52 PM Spud has not yet responded

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 19 (40094)
05-14-2003 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Weyland
02-06-2003 7:58 AM


quote:
We have the cave paintings at Lascaux (along with a variety of artifacts found in there too) dated to around 30,000 years old,
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/
Hmm, the site linked to says 15000-17500 years old for Lascaux. Though elsewhere it does give information about other cave art (such as Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc) that is 30000 years old. Mind you, 15000 is old enough to disprove the original assertion that there's no evidence for humans before 6000 years ago.

In addition to the 14C dating of the pigments, the Lascaux paintings also include depictions of constellations that were particularly prominent in the sky 17000 years ago. Article on BBC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Weyland, posted 02-06-2003 7:58 AM Weyland has not yet responded

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 19 (40095)
05-14-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Spud
05-14-2003 7:12 AM


quote:

This is a good artical carbon dating, and other forms.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

Oh boy, here we go again...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Spud, posted 05-14-2003 7:12 AM Spud has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 11 of 19 (40096)
05-14-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Spud
05-14-2003 7:12 AM


Re: Evidence
The simple fact is that carbon dating refutes YEC claims, so YECs like Answers in Genesis make up excuses to try to deny the truth,

The simple fact is that dendrochronology does give an independant check because the dates are established by tree-ring counts. Different fragments are matched by comparing patterns within the rings.
(see http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/ for plenty of information
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm describes the methods actually used)

Other methods to check C14 dating include lake varves and ice cores.

(e.g http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm
a more popular article is at http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/carbon0220.html)

C14 is quite accurate enough to disprove YEC claims - and that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Spud, posted 05-14-2003 7:12 AM Spud has not yet responded

    
Dan Carroll 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 2904
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 19 (40097)
05-14-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Spud
05-14-2003 7:12 AM


quote:
This is a good artical carbon dating, and other forms

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the 'half-life.' So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

I'm not a world expert on carbon dating, but you'd think someone writing a scientific article would know that you can keep cutting something in half over and over again without ever running out of it.

------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Spud, posted 05-14-2003 7:12 AM Spud has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:27 PM Dan Carroll has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 19 (40103)
05-14-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dan Carroll
05-14-2003 2:52 PM


I'm not a world expert on carbon dating, but you'd think someone writing a scientific article would know that you can keep cutting something in half over and over again without ever running out of it.

Well, in the real world, eventually you're coming down to one half of an atom or something - way past the point where you could detect the radioisotope in question.

Of course, how long it takes to get to that point depends on how much raw material you start out with. A large sample could be dated way far back.

If you're going to try and argue the inaccuracy of radiodating you'll have to explain why it matches so well with the relative ages of the fossil record as well as dendrochronology, varve dating, etc. It's highly unlikely all these dates would be wrong in exactly the same way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-14-2003 2:52 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-14-2003 3:34 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Dan Carroll 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 2904
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 19 (40104)
05-14-2003 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
05-14-2003 3:27 PM


quote:
Well, in the real world, eventually you're coming down to one half of an atom or something - way past the point where you could detect the radioisotope in question.

True. My problem was that the article implied that by the time you reach about 1/500th of the original sample there isn't any left, which simply isn't true. (I don't believe there are any samples that started with only 500 atoms.) I should have been clearer about that, though.

quote:
If you're going to try and argue the inaccuracy of radiodating

Um... I'm not.

-----------
Dan Carroll

[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:27 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 4:10 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 19 (40107)
05-14-2003 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dan Carroll
05-14-2003 3:34 PM


Um... I'm not.

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" specifically, but rather "you" in the sense of people reading this who aren't me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-14-2003 3:34 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014