|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Old is the Earth ? | |||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
This seems fundamental to many creationist's objections to the
theory of evolution, but there doesn't appear to be a single thread devoted to the question at the moment. Creationists argue that the Earth is only about 6000 years old.The original basis for this appears to be tracing back genealogies from Jesus of Nazereth back to Adam. Some other evidences have been put forward, none of which stand too much investigation (in my opinion ... and said in the hope of sparking some 'Well what about this then'). Evolutionists site many evidences, from many different fieldswhich suggest a much older earth (4.5 billion years or there abouts). Perhaps, as it is fundamental to the debate it should be addressedspecifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 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 1508 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 1508 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 1508 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'm sorry too, but I'm glad you're not one of them.It restores my faith in free thinking quote: In what sense unique ? There are plenty of ancient epics with very similar themes,some of which pre-date the Bible. The Epic of Gilgamesh has an almost identicle flood story, and the Indian Veda's also speak of cataclysmic floods. The number 7 is even one of the 'mystic' numbers which recurs throughout ancient mythological literature. If it is uniqueness of content, that to me would suggestthat it was NOT true rather than it was. After all if no other ancient texts talk of these events, how do we know they ever happened ? quote: Not quite sure how that's an indication of veracity, perhapsyou would explain that one a little more. quote: The old testament is NOT very reliable historically. Check it outand the independent verification thread. Some large-scale historical events are alluded to (some erroneously),but much of the main story is uncorroborated. quote: Of what ? If it's places, that's hardly compelling. Many stories areset in real, contempory settings. quote: Prophecy has been talked about before. Show me ONE that does NOTrequire an awful lot of ambiguity to be revealed true. quote: Jesus's message IS powerful. Whether or not he was a divinebeing is another matter. And how that has any relevance to the issue of creation in the OldTestament (pre-existing the new by at least 2000 years) is beyond me. quote: Many ancient cultures had advanced scientific knowledge. Themysterious Inuds valley people had a high culture with complex citadels and cities around 10,000 years ago (conventional dating), and recently under-water ruins have been discovered that indicate a forgotten high civilisation originating as long ago as 13,000 years. quote: Many things can change one's life. I hope the Bible has changedyours for the better, but it's not really relevent in a discussion of it's veracity. I almost think that these points warrant a new thread just to discussthem, since they are off topic. I have opened a thread on Independent Historical Corroboration forBiblical Events, not too far advanced yet, but some interesting stuff coming up. And there's always Is the Bible the Word of God. The real questions over Bible veracity in the context of this threadis 'Can we infer the age of the Earth from Biblical genealogies?'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You are entitled to beieve whatever you want (I think in the USAit's even part of the constitution), but .... Entering into a scientific discussion pre-supposing the outcomeis called BIAS. If we already say there IS a God who created everything 6000 yearsago, then naturally we WILL conclude that (we already have). If you can (this about Earth Age after all) show evidence which showsthat the earth is 6000 years old (Bible not acceptable here since it is a matter of controversy to the debaters here), then please do. Suggesting that radiometric methods are inaccurate (without evidence)doesn't do it. That would only show that the ages in conventional science are suspect (I don't beleive this of course). Find me some evidence which SHOWS the earth to be less than 10,000 years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Not sure of your point here. You cannot have millions of years of evolution if the Earth isonly 6000 years old. Providing evidence for the age of the Earth suports theevolutionist position. I agree that the important thing is how long has life existed onEarth, but without a way of dating the Earth itself we can make little or no useful comment on this. I think we can skip the automobile analogy in any case .. in aprevious reply I already pointed out one major flaw.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Me too. Although, I don't think we ARE looking at the samethings sometimes. quote: Yes they can ... it's called evolution. And they are NOT designs that you see. The end product of adesign is NOT the design itself. You look at the end product and are assuming design without any criteria on which to judge. quote: Maybe. I think there would be a creationist somewhere who wouldargue that God put it there to test our faith though quote: They don't, there is just no evidence to support intelligentdesign. Find some and show it to me. It would be a start to definewhat characteristics are required in order to determine design. All the ID threads seem to have stagnated because of that onequestion. Heres a snippet I posted as message 51 in the Tower of babble
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: And again I scream:: quote: Complexity and design are UNRELATED. A lever is a designed tool ... it is NOT complex. A wheel is designed ... it is NOT complex. A frog is ... well it's a frog. It is very complex, butclearly NOT manufactured (it metamorphoses from a tadpole that comes from an egg that comes from ... oh ... another frog). We cannot detect the use of any tool in the construction ofa frog. All of the fundamental operations which allow a frog to existand move around are explainable by chemistry and physics, and these are natural phenomena. Flip the argument and see if it makes any sense. No definitely designed object exhibits any of the characteristicsof living things (except perhaps complexity), therefore living things are not designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
OK.
So HOW OLD IS THE EARTH ????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: There ya go! We have an answer, and it's backed up by lots of evidence fromvaried sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they citeevidences for the age of the Earth that have nothing to do with radiometric dating. Few of them can go all the way back to 4.5billion years, butmost of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and some in the order of 100's of millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I say it again ... complexity and design are not fundamentally related. Many verifiably designed objects are NOT complex at all. Inferring design from complexity is NOT logical. The logic is something like:: Some DESIGNED objects are COMPLEXLIVING things are COMPLEX THEREFORE:: LIVING things are DESIGNED. Just replacing a few words (but not changing the logicalstructure) gives :: Some MEN are TALLBUILDINGS are TALL THEREFORE:: BUILDINGS are MEN. It does NOT follow logically that complexity indicates design!
quote: To illustrate the problem:: There is a television factual series running in the UK at the momentconcerning archealogical evidence for pre-ice age civilisations. A part of the potential evidence for this is a large under-seacomplex which the author of the book on which the series is based claims to be man-made (giving evidence and backed up by an emminent Japanese Professor of Geology). Other geologists, however, can provide geological concepts to account for the formation and so claim it as natural and not designed. Both sides are pre-emminent in the field of geology and theCANNOT acgree on whether the observed formations were designed by man or not. quote: I think you'll find that that argument is based upon DNA formingon Earth, and as stated before it's only probablities ... that doesn't really mean anything. The national lottery in the UK has odds of 14million (or so) to 1,and yet there are people who win it with only one or two lines of numbers entered. Probabilities are only a mental aid to liklihood ... they areoften proved wrong. The probablity of surviving a fall of 20-30,000 feet from anaircraft are pretty slim ... if you calculated them up it would most likely be a statistical impossibility, and yet I have read of TWO accounts of people who have survived such falls. quote: Generally speaking 'supernatural' is USED to mean something forwhich there is no natural explanation ... it is BEYOND NATURE not beyond understanding. Praeter(sp?)natural means as yet unexplained.
quote: Who designed the designer is irrelevant if we were dealing withan omnipotent supernatural entity, I agree. quote: But there is lot's of evidence (from before radiometric dating)that Earth is MUCH older than 10,000 years. quote: Please post this evidence. [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I don't infer that natural processes caused their origin. I amseeking a natural process (or set of processes) which can credibly explain the origin of that complexity and structure. Starting from the assumption that God created it all, ends theenquiry there and then. Starting from the assumption that some natural process was theoriginating force, leads to enquiry. This may conclude that NO natural process can be responsible, and thereby proove the existence of God. Even if it finds that there ARE natural processes that could have been responsible, that does NOT deny the existence of your God. quote: A frog. A frog comes from a tadpole, which comes from an egg laidby a pre-existing frog. Therefore no living frog was designed, they emerge from anatural process. quote: Yet.
quote: Nor does it give any foundation for the existence of a creator.
quote: It is your intelligence that applies purpose to these things. Purposeis NOT inherent in the features you mention. DNA and blood clotting are chemical in nature, they have no intelligence, and thus no purpose. They simply do as the rules by which chemistry is observed to operate dictate. Living cells ARE complex, but all of the processes are explainablethrough natural means. Why then should we assume anything other than natural means to explain their origins ? quote: Again ... yet. But there are some testable hypotheses coming out (seethe Quetzal's abiogenesis post). I don't believe that 'right' has anything to do with it. What 'right'do you have to tell me that I cannot investigate based upon the assupmtion that natural processes can explain the origins of life on earth. More than a little presupmtuous on your part don'tyou think ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024