Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 145 (4909)
02-18-2002 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
02-15-2002 11:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
I believe that time is circular, and therefore you cannot put a time on the beginning of the universe. The cosmos, which may be composed of an infinite # of universes, never bagan and won't ever end.
I'm not interested in beliefs, only in evidence to support
a particular view.
Even if time is circular, time differences should be detectable
and that's what is of interest in dating the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 11:26 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 47 of 145 (4910)
02-18-2002 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I think one of the biggest issues here is light from such things as quasars (quasars-right?). This light was emitted billions of light years away."
--How really do you know that light is billions of light years away, but I wouldn't be so readilly arguing with that point.

Is there anything in modern science that has actually been worked
out properly ?
It seems to me that the main rebuttal by creationists on the
issue of the age of the earth an the universe comes down to
'But is that measurement technique really right?'
Do you seriously believe that a measurement technique would be
used in a scientific study if sufficient confidence in it HADN'T
been obtained ?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"3) The universe had existed long before humans and earth, and the light had thus been coming towards our planet for millions of years*
(where does it say that in the Bible again?)"
--Concievable, tell you the truth, I don't think I should argue this point because I think this is plausable, but then again I still have humphreys book to read along with other cosmological texts.
--theres other theories, such as light varying in speed, not on its self, but by its environmental conditions, ie, is it a vacuum of space and what not.

If you believe that the universe is MUCH older than the Earth,
then you are implying that the account of Creation in Genesis I
is NOT to be taken literally. That being the case how can
any of the Bible bee taken at face value for dating purposes ?
RE: Humpreys ... I guess you might want to read/re-read the
Starlight and Time thread before you bother reading his book.
Light's speed can be altered ... downward(i.e. slower). If light
from distant stars had been SLOWED that means the light is OLDER
not YOUNGER than we think. I beleive that with the possible exception
of tachyons NO particals travel faster that the speed of light.
This means that the YOUNGEST a star at say 10,000 light years
away could be is 10,000 years. If its light had been slowed during
its progress to earth, then the actual age is greater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:04 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 48 of 145 (4911)
02-18-2002 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by no2creation
02-16-2002 8:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:
One small note. If God did actually create a mature world, a world 4.5billion years old. Then there would be no argument of a old/young earth.
This is a good point. One of the main arguments for a young earth
by YEC's is that radiometric dating is not fool-proof.
If God created a world which appeared old, then YEC assertions
that these dates were wrong, would in fact be erroneous.
On the deception point ... well, God HAS been known to lie to
test faith, so ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 8:45 PM no2creation has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 49 of 145 (4915)
02-18-2002 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 12:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, I think you are very naive about young earth creationism. Such organisations as answereingenesis and ICR DO view the earth as being 10,000 years or less old. They are very active in trying to discredit and rebut all evidence (geological, astronomical etc.) of a 4.5 billion year old earth."
--I am aware they are, I didn't say they werent, so whats that evidence that they are rebuking and is it valid, thats what were here for.
"If you find their "evidence" on the age of the earth unconvincing, you might wonder how good their "evidence" against biological evolution is."
--Whats all the evidence and can we discuss it, or should we just say everyone that attempts rebutal is ignorant and leave it at that.

Well a list of Humprey's 'evidence' is given at :
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
It's ALL rather suspect, and curiously easy to point out the flaws
in the arguments, but it's what a 'leading' creationist
is willing to say publicly!!!
TC has mentioned elsewhere about falsifying the Bible, and
using the bible as an accurate historical record.
I opened another thread on Independent Historical Corroboration
for Biblican Events ... the Bible is by no means universally accepted
as TRUE. Some christians SO view it that way ... but it has not
been verified (unless someone in the above thread can show us
otherwise).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:21 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 145 (4950)
02-18-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Mister Pamboli
02-17-2002 3:19 PM


[QUOTE] Let's take an analogy. Select Help - About from your Internet Explorer menu (if that's what your using) or from some other software. You will find a copyright notice "1995-2002 Microsoft Corp." If this copyright notice said "1942-2002 Microsoft Corp" that would be a deception, because it is untrue.
zim: We can certainly know that Microsoft’s copyright date beginning in 1995 is when it was released to the public for use. If we found that the software required 53 years of research and development there can be an argument that the time stamp on the software should start in 1942. We, as users, have chosen to argue/debate this dating on the software. At no time does this make Microsoft liars and deceivers.
They built this software for our use so we can use it to browse the Internet. If half the users choose to believe the date should be 1942 doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft created the software. Of course I believe the same can be true of God's creation of the earth.
The deception in God's creation would not be in creating a fully developed earth, but in creating an earth with untrue evidence of a development which never happened.
zim: Again I will go back to the power to create. You have the miraculous power to create things out of nothing and you want to create an automobile. You can either create the automobile in a thousand parts needing assembly or you can create it as a completely assembled running car that others can use immediately. You choose to create the fully functioning automobile (no assembly required). Now a friend comes over to drive your car 10 minutes later. After driving the car he quickly realizes that this it is essentially perfect.
He wants to inspect the car and test it in everyway. The car has a beautiful paintjob and the engine is finely tuned to perfection. He comes to the conclusion that this took years to develop and assemble. No way is this only 10 minutes old. Without the power of creation this scenario wouldn’t be possible. If your friend considers such a power possible on what grounds could he question the cars age? If you are seriously considering that creation is possible how can you question what is created? On the other hand if creation in your view is absurd and completely impossible then I understand your conclusions, but that doesn’t make them correct.
[/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-17-2002 3:19 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
zimzam
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 145 (4952)
02-18-2002 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by joz
02-17-2002 3:21 PM


Please read message 50. Having said all of this I believe that the earth and universe were created 6,000 years ago and not 4.5 billion years ago. The apparent age that we place on that creation is a moot point. If creation is not possible and there is no God then let the evidence speak for itself. But, if we are actually to consider the miraculous power of creation to be possible then we cannot argue the evidence without it. To say that God can create whatever he chooses but not a mature earth is foolishness. I would rather entertain arguments that God does not exist.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
You must remember that not only is the apparent age due to distant starlight, expanding universe, radiometric isotope decay, stellar generations etc but also the fossil record which if created to give an aged look to the universe would be an act of direct deception... [/B][/QUOTE]
Does the fossil record provide proof of life on earth greater than 6,000 years old? What proofs, not theories, can you show me to think otherwise? Perhaps it is life on earth where we should focus our debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by joz, posted 02-17-2002 3:21 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by joz, posted 02-18-2002 4:08 PM zimzam has replied
 Message 53 by Quetzal, posted 02-18-2002 4:11 PM zimzam has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 145 (4954)
02-18-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by zimzam
02-18-2002 3:37 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by zimzam:
[B]To say that God can create whatever he chooses but not a mature earth is foolishness.[B][/QUOTE]
The point is that while your God would be capable of creating a universe with apparent age this would be in effect fabricating evidence that decieves, your infinitely good God is morally precluded from deception by virtue of his goodness and therefore your God could NOT have produced a universe with apparent age...
You are a policeman yes? You are perfectly able to pull out your gun and shoot a random passer by, you presumeably wouldn`t because you have a moral sense that murder is wrong. Here you are capable of performing the action but are morally prohibited from doing so this is directly analogous to the case of an omnipotent and ifinitely good creator who is morally prohibited from deception.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by zimzam, posted 02-18-2002 3:37 PM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:25 AM joz has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 53 of 145 (4955)
02-18-2002 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by zimzam
02-18-2002 3:37 PM


Hey, I've got an idea, Zimzam: Why don't you provide POSITIVE evidence of your assertion that the world is only ~6000 years old? Since you're the one trying to throw out several hundred years of scientific research in geology, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology, paleontology, etc, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you.
I await your revelations with baited breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by zimzam, posted 02-18-2002 3:37 PM zimzam has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 4:35 PM Quetzal has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 145 (4958)
02-18-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Quetzal
02-18-2002 4:11 PM


"Hey, I've got an idea, Zimzam: Why don't you provide POSITIVE evidence of your assertion that the world is only ~6000 years old? Since you're the one trying to throw out several hundred years of scientific research in geology, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology, paleontology, etc, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you.
I await your revelations with baited breath. "
--Is there really anything that is an indicator that the earth is such an age without the argument of radiometric dating methods?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Quetzal, posted 02-18-2002 4:11 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 5:17 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2002 1:56 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 145 (4967)
02-18-2002 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 4:35 PM


Yes, using relative dating methods we were able to determine that the age of the Earth was much older than 6000 years because we understand how geological formations occur:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html
One of the more frustrating aspects of your question is that you are too ignorant of the history of science to now already know this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 4:35 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:32 PM lbhandli has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 145 (4971)
02-18-2002 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 5:17 PM


"One of the more frustrating aspects of your question is that you are too ignorant of the history of science to now already know this."
--I was aware of different dating methods, I was looking for ones that will give you 4.5 billion as your 'age of the earth'. I am not aware of any that will give you this number, but I am aware of the different geological relative dating methods by which you have addressed.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 5:17 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 6:07 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 145 (4979)
02-18-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 5:32 PM


No, and this still demonstrates the ignorance. Do you have something specific to say about radiometric dating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:15 PM lbhandli has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 145 (4986)
02-18-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 6:07 PM


"No, and this still demonstrates the ignorance. Do you have something specific to say about radiometric dating?"
--It does not demonstrate ignorance, unless ofcourse you can provide me with a vast list of obvious dating techniques that give the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. This is what I asked for in regardence to the fact that I have only heard of radiometric dating methods all on its lonesome for the age of the earth.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 6:07 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 6:49 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 61 by wj, posted 02-18-2002 6:58 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 145 (4988)
02-18-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 6:15 PM


Yes, because it indicates your very limited knowledge of the issues again. Despite that limited information you have chosen to make claims based on it. Now, I am going to ask you again, do you have some substantive information on radiometric dating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:15 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 6:54 PM lbhandli has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 145 (4990)
02-18-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 6:49 PM


"Yes, because it indicates your very limited knowledge of the issues again. Despite that limited information you have chosen to make claims based on it."
--Then can you give me an example that is non-radiometric associated that will give you such an age? I have not made claims on it yet, obviously, because there is no basis to argue on as of yet.
"Now, I am going to ask you again, do you have some substantive information on radiometric dating?"
--Not currently, I am not arguing with radioisotopic methods right now.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 6:49 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 6:59 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 65 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 7:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024