|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Old is the Earth ? | |||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Excellent. I look forward to discussing them with you.
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 1.42*10^17 hours (approximately?) [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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...]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024