Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Old is the Earth ?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 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

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 145 (5057)
02-19-2002 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 4:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Is there really anything that is an indicator that the earth is such an age without the argument of radiometric dating methods?
Guess what, TC? Since I'm not the one throwing the science away, I don't have to provide any more evidence than has already been provided. YOU and zimzam and the rest of the creationists who are denying the evidence of geology - including radiometric dating and the other methodologies - are the ones who must provide POSITIVE evidence that your assertions have some basis in fact. IOW, I don't need to prove that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old because that is the concensus opinion of modern science. Your vocal little fundamentalist Protestant minority, which is trying desperately to refute that evidence, needs to provide evidence that will show - beyond reasonable doubt - that the earth is ~6000 years old. Put up or admit you have nothing but your fundamentalist interpretation of the bible to back your claim...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 4:35 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by zimzam, posted 02-19-2002 5:07 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 85 of 145 (5066)
02-19-2002 8:13 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.
Zimzam:
In the first place, no "evolutionist" (whatever that is) claims anything about the age of the earth. Geologists certainly do, and biologists use the information furnished by geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. I don’t particularly feel the need to restate in this forum — or even synopsize in bite-sized morsels — the complex evidence from multiple converging lines of inquiry and multiple disciplines concerning the age of the earth, especially since my forte rests primarily in the biology side of the equation. I am willing, however, give you the benefit of the doubt, in spite of your quite evident bias (see bolded section above). If you truly want to learn (and if so you’ll be the first creationist I’ve ever encountered who does), you’ll need to start out with a little reading. I suggest beginning with the following references:
Age of the Earth from the USGS, which provides a nice, fairly easy to understand general discussion of the methodologies leading to a 4.5 billion year earth;
Introduction to Radiometric Dating also from the USGS, which provides a general, although occasionally a bit technical, introduction to radiometric isotope dating — the primary method used for geology, paleontology, etc to determine the age of rock samples;
Age of the Earth, an excellent article by Chris Stassen that provides an overview of all of the scientific disciplines whose convergent lines of evidence give scientists reason to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
If you have specific questions concerning the information provided in these three articles, I’ll be happy to try and answer them. If you feel you can refute any of the information, I’d be happy to discuss it with you, as well. However, I flat refuse to have anything to do with any discussion which proves you haven’t even attempted to read the information provided. You should be aware that TC has been given these sources multiple times, which is why people on this thread have not felt compelled to repeat information he’s already been given — and consistently evades or denies.
quote:
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."
This is known as argument from false analogy, a very typical creationist ploy. The age of the earth bears no relationship whatsoever to some manufactured artifact. The earth (and the evidence for its age) rests on purely deterministic physics. An automobile, designed and manufactured by a human intelligence, is not analogous. This strawman is a very weak attempt to introduce "creation" into the equation (i.e., the car was designed therefore the earth was designed). Want to talk about frustration? Every time a creationist is asked to produce evidence for creation, they come up with some spurious analogy like this. That's frustrating.
quote:
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.
As Peter pointed out, the age of the earth has everything to do with it. If the geologists, astronomers, physicists, etc are correct and the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, then biological evolution has time to operate as stated. If the creationists are correct, and the earth is only ~6000 years old, the entire ToE must be either substantially revised or thrown out. Guess what? I'm not holding my breath.
quote:
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.
In which case, I'm sure you'd be happy to provide evidence that leads us to agree that the bible is inerrant and completely accurate, geology has had it wrong since at least Lyell, and biologists all need to look for real work to do...
quote:
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?
No, you don't need to know that - at least not to discuss the evidence for the age of the earth. Suffice that I don't subscribe to the primitive myth cycle of ancient Middle Eastern pastoralists. Anything beyond that, I'm willing to entertain positive evidence.

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 91 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:51 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 100 of 145 (5142)
02-20-2002 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by zimzam
02-20-2002 3:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
I will read your suggested articles on the age of the earth and then pose any questions I have afterwards.
Excellent. I look forward to discussing them with you.
quote:
My point with the automobile analogy is not whether the earth is 4 billion or 6,000 years old but that it was created 6,000 years ago. If it was created then it is a manufactured piece of matter. Its apparent age to me at least is not important. What I will concede to you as very important is what evidence proves that life has been here on earth more than 6,000 years.
Yes and no. I understand your point. If you accept a priori that god or a designer or whatever created everything we see, then I concede that the age of the earth or universe is immaterial: it matters not whether it is 6000 or 60 trillion years (or, for that matter, 6 weeks) old. However, if that is your premise, there is literally no reason for you to continue to discuss the pros or cons of evolutionary theory (or cosmology, astronomy, etc). You simply have no common frame of reference to undertake such a discussion.
quote:
Any decent microbiologist (secular or christian) now admits that evolution gives us no answers as to the creation of life. The evidence is in the details which happen to be infinitely more complex the further we break down its molecular level.
You are sadly mistaken. Yes, evolution does not discuss origins. No, the evidence from science shows that the details become significantly less complex the further we break things down. Now I admit that a strict reductionist approach falls apart at higher levels of complexity, because at this level we begin to deal with emergent properties. But at a molecular level, everything DOES seem to be simple, deterministic chemistry.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:51 AM zimzam has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 145 (5143)
02-20-2002 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by zimzam
02-20-2002 3:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zimzam:
I do think it is somewhat interesting that we can look at the same thing and come up with the exact opposite conclusions. I look at the universe, earth, animals, and man and see amazing designs that can not be explained without an intelligence behind them. If we went to the moon and dug up a simple machine like a bicycle all of mankind would immediately come to the conclusion that intelligent life created it and then left it there. Why do you and others look at everything beautiful and wonderous in the universe and immediately refute any intelligent design?
Nice restatement of the "argument from personal incredulity". Unfortunately, simply because you personally are unable to understand what you're looking at, doesn't imply anything about those who actually study these phenomena. In addition, I find your remark subtly insulting: you seem to be implying that only religious fundamentalists have any sense of beauty or wonder. Not a bit arrogant.
As for me, I find a tremendous sense of awe when I peer through a microscope at the myriad of amazing organisms present in a sample of water from the leaves of a rainforest bromeliad — an entire ecosystem in a cup of water. I find myself marveling at their complexity, the symmetry of their environment, the sheer scale of interractions between them. It would be easy to simply give in to magical thinking and claim that only some deity could have created what I see. And then I remind myself that these organisms and their ecosystem only appear complex because I am looking at the end result of billions of years of ruthless natural selection — they exist because their ancestors for millions of generations were slightly more fit than their competitors. Life has no goal and is not moving toward anything. Life exists only in an eternal now. It has no purpose except to be. Life is, for me, all the more marvelous for that - and even more worthy of preservation; for how can we, mere fellow travelers, predict what COULD be tomorrow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by zimzam, posted 02-20-2002 3:20 AM zimzam has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 145 (5283)
02-22-2002 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Peter
02-22-2002 7:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
OK.
So HOW OLD IS THE EARTH ????

1.42*10^17 hours (approximately?)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Peter, posted 02-22-2002 7:03 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 02-22-2002 3:20 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 118 of 145 (5389)
02-24-2002 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by TrueCreation
02-24-2002 1:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--This wasn't my question, my question was are there any 'not associated with radioisotopic dating methods'. You gave me what I already knew. Basically what I am asking is are there any so I know what to be researching. I also find the Argument of Radioisotopical methods quite unballanced as I must have expertise and you only have to know the argument in-turn. Thus I have alot of research on my part to dismantle it at all. I also found that when you dismantle Radioisotopical methods then you have basically gone to the crux of the old earth.
Hi TC: You've brought this question up before. You have not yet explained specifically what aspect of radiometric dating you find unconvincing or incorrect. In this paragraph, you manage to both claim you can't argue with it because you don't have the knowledge to do so, and at the same time claim that you've "dismantled" radiometric dating and found it wanting. Seems you're contradicting yourself.
Here's a couple of nice yes or no questions for you, simply to establish what the ground rules are:
1. You have sufficient knowledge of radiometric dating to argue that it is inaccurate or invalid.
2. You do not have sufficient knowledge, in which case you would actually like to learn about radiometric dating.
3. You do not have sufficient knowledge, and have no interest in learning more.
Simple yes or no - then we can start discussing the issue substantively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 02-24-2002 1:36 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 121 of 145 (5436)
02-25-2002 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Cobra_snake
02-24-2002 2:46 AM


Hi Cobra - since you didn't see fit to answer my last post on your theory, I guess I'll jump in here (btw, you're rapidly losing credibility with me).
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
First of all, there is good reason for believing that there is something of greater power than humans know of.
Before I would be willing to entertain this statement as true, you would need to show what those "good reasons" are. IOW, you would need to give at least one concrete example from nature that can NOT be explained* by natural processes (see bottom).
quote:
Existence itself does not make much sense, since nothing can ever turn into something, and nothing could have always existed.
This is again an argument from personal incredulity. It also doesn't have much to do with evolution since that is not what biologists are arguing.
quote:
But wait- don't these rules also apply to a hypothetical Creator? Afterall, God did indeed make something out of nothing and God always has been. The answer is, God is above natural laws. God always has been and always will be, and because of this, he does not need a cause.
This is begging the question. It is also somewhat circular - you need to postulate the existence of a creator in order to prove that a creator created... In the absence of positive evidence for its existence, it cannot be used to explain natural phenomena. IOW, the supernatural cannot be used to explain the natural.
quote:
Since there are no natural laws that show that something can arise from nothing, it is very reasonable to infer a designer. I wouldn't hold my breath for a forthcoming theory that explains why something can come from nothing due to natural laws. The very idea seems to be absolutely ridiculous.
We are now entering the Twighlight Zone of metaphysics. NO ONE, I mean absolutely NO ONE (except theists) claims something came from nothing - at least until you get to the primal monoblock and the Big Bang, which is waaaay beyond evolution or even abiogenesis. Basically, there is no such thing as "nothing". Everything we observe came from something. Hypothesizing an initial "nothing" is metaphysics. And no, I don't want to discuss Big Bang - I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist, and would simply have to refer you to those who are. Let's stick to one planet and an explanation for the diversity of life on it.
quote:
Another problem with your argument is that there is no reason that we would be expected to observe supernatural phenomenon. Humans are in an intellectual box, we can only observe WHAT God created.
You're absolutely correct - one cannot observe the supernatural. That's why the whole question is something of a tautology. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural because it observes no natural laws, is not amenable to analysis, and serves no useful function. Again, you argue the conclusion (we can only explain creation by saying God created) as a first premise (God created).
*I am quite willing to discuss the three current primary theories concerning abiogenesis. I normally don't like getting in to those discussions on an evo-cre forum - besides the fact that it has nothing to do with evolution - for the simple reason that there is a huge volume of organic chemistry and biology that most posters simply don't have. I can discuss both the pros and cons of each hypothesis, but it requires a great deal of background to even understand why a given hypothesis is more or less likely. Background that is almost impossible to either simplify or digest on a necessarily short post in a debate forum. Still, if you insist, we can start a new thread on the topic. Feel free - but please research the topic in advance so we have some basis for discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-24-2002 2:46 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by joz, posted 02-25-2002 10:08 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 130 of 145 (5640)
02-27-2002 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Cobra_snake
02-26-2002 10:44 PM


No problem Cobra - I understand about press of "real life". Between out-of-country conferences (4 in the last 1.5 months) and in-country travel + family, it's often difficult to find a spare moment. Glad to hear you're planning on continuing our discussion. Looking forward to your response.
BTW: joz & TC: I am working on a coherent post on abiogenesis. When I started to reply, turns out my info was all in bits and pieces (looks like I spent most of my time answering others). I am working on getting it arranged into something that makes at least marginal sense. I'll hopefully get it on the board today at some point. Watch for a new thread. [So many refutations, so little time...]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-26-2002 10:44 PM Cobra_snake 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