Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
Pete
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 145 (5064)
02-19-2002 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 7:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"That's exactly what you were doing.
--The question that I asked ... is, are there any other dating techniques not associated with radiometric dating that gives you 4.5 billion years as your date for the age of the earth.

Well not sure that any go all the way back to 4.5 billion years,
but there ARE other methods that date the Earth to MUCH more
than 10,000 years.
TC you usually seem pretty ready to a web-search or other
research before posting, so I wonder why you haven't (as I just
did) done a search for "Age of earth". Ignore the creationist
sites (because you know what they say already) and look at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/AgeEarth.htm
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/CJAmmon/HTML/Classes/PhysicalGeology/Notes/SciUniversality/P07.html
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/geotime.html
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/Notes-1998-Fall/Earth/clocks_rocks.html
I would ALSO like to ask why you reject radiometric methods, when
cross referencing several different methods gives consistent
results (within an error tolerance ... as ALL scientific measurements
are ... in the degree level physics course I did at undergraduate
level we were penalised for not putting error bars on graphs
of experimental data!!)
http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/frown.gif[/IMG])

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 7:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 02-24-2002 1:36 AM Pete has not replied

  
Pete
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 145 (5065)
02-19-2002 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by zimzam
02-19-2002 5:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
In response I have several things to say.
1. In part I joined this discussion to educate myself about these so called proofs regarding the earth being more than or less than 6-10,000 years old. What I do know is only what I have read and what others have taught me. Up to this point it seems there have always been 2 sides to everything. An evolutionist claims that evidence X proves his side while a creationist can take the same evidence X and say it proves creation. I just got done reading 25 posts between TC and the rest of you arguing geological proofs without anyone giving a single one. I will admit that is frustrating.

I agree it is intensely frustrating.
Considering the usual quality of TC's debating I can only assume
that he/she him/herself is not themselves convinced of the
biblical version of the age of the earth, and is trying to deflect
the debate away from this area.
Perhaps I am just being cynical.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

2. Reference apparent age of the earth I will have to go back to my post in message 50 regarding the created automobile analogy. You as the creator represent God, the car represents the earth and your friend represents mankind. Lets agree that you had created the car for your friend. You knew he was coming over in 10 minutes and you also knew he would want to drive the car when he arrived. Because of this you created the car as an assembled and fully functioning automobile. Your friend complains that the car has got to be older than 10 minutes because everything he knows tells him that the metal, plastic, wiring and paint job on the car takes longer than 10 minutes to prepare and finish. He now questions your intentions and your response is:
"Why are you struggling with and questioning this cars apparent age? Would you rather I created the car unassembled then had you wait around for 10 months while I assemble and give it a tune up so you can drive it? I did it this way so you can enjoy the car now. When did I ever tell you how old the car is? When did I ever tell you how I created the car? The important facts are that I created the car, I created it 10 minutes ago, and I created it for you to use."

The 10 minute automobile would, however, show no evidence of
wear and tear, or of usage. The engine and exhaust system (if
examine in enough detail) would reveal the true age of the vehicle.
Even if old components were used, the gaskets and other fixings would
show a 'newness' under detailed examination.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

3. Maybe my point is that I feel that arguing the age of the earth is indeed a moot point. How will this change anything? The focus shouldnt be on the age of the earth but perhaps on the time life has been on the earth.

The reason for DISCUSSING the age of the earth (as I pointed out
in the initial post) is that it is the MAJOR source of
rebuttal to the theory of evolution put forward by creationists.
For evolution to be feasible the Earth MUST be much older than
10,000 years, so that life can have existed on earth much longer
ago that 6000 years.
This question is, therefore, fundamental to the Creation Vs Evolution
debate (i.e. THIS FORUM).
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:

4. Being a creationist/christian/fundamentalist there are certain truths I base my beliefs on. These truths come from The Bible, science, and common sense. It is hard for me to argue one without the others. Most of you seem more educated in the science department than I and I will kindly ask you to explain these geological proofs. I would also be very happy to answer any questions regarding the Bibles vaildity, accuracy and message.

While I DO NOT want to attack your faith, on what grounds do you
hold the Bible to be truth?
Most people I have met who hold it to be true do so because they
have been brought up to beleive it true ... and have never sought
to question it.
Questioning your faith is a GOOD thing ... at worst it will reveal
YOUR truth to you (whichever way you eventually turn).
It is (often) hard to look at scientific evidence and claims
that people make of the bible without seeing contradictions, but
if you take the trouble to research, and think for yourself
you may find that your faith at the end of it all is even stronger.
quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
5. I need to know the following:
Do you consider God, creation, and supernatural events as a possibility?
If you dont why?
If you do what evidences are you willing to accept?

My opinions on the matter are irrelevant.
Give me an hypothesis or assertion and sufficient, credible
evidence to back up the claim, and I WILL accept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM zimzam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:36 AM Pete has not replied

  
Pete
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 145 (5105)
02-19-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
02-19-2002 10:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
See if you can answer my question in message 45 (at the bottom), if you doubt the accuracy of radiometric dating methods.
Mark

I've similarly asked TC what his objections to radiometric dating
methods are.
No replies yet though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 02-19-2002 10:36 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024