|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Old is the Earth ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'm not interested in beliefs, only in evidence to supporta particular view. Even if time is circular, time differences should be detectableand that's what is of interest in dating the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Is there anything in modern science that has actually been workedout properly ? It seems to me that the main rebuttal by creationists on theissue 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 beused in a scientific study if sufficient confidence in it HADN'T been obtained ? quote: 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 theStarlight and Time thread before you bother reading his book. Light's speed can be altered ... downward(i.e. slower). If lightfrom 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 yearsaway could be is 10,000 years. If its light had been slowed during its progress to earth, then the actual age is greater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: This is a good point. One of the main arguments for a young earthby YEC's is that radiometric dating is not fool-proof. If God created a world which appeared old, then YEC assertionsthat these dates were wrong, would in fact be erroneous. On the deception point ... well, God HAS been known to lie totest faith, so ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: 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 flawsin the arguments, but it's what a 'leading' creationist is willing to say publicly!!! TC has mentioned elsewhere about falsifying the Bible, andusing the bible as an accurate historical record. I opened another thread on Independent Historical Corroborationfor 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
[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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zimzam Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
[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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
No, and this still demonstrates the ignorance. Do you have something specific to say about radiometric dating?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024