Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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 ?
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 145 (4600)
02-15-2002 11:26 AM


I believe that time is circular, and therefore you cannot put a time on the beginning of the universe. The cosmos, which may be composed of an infinite # of universes, never bagan and won't ever end.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 02-15-2002 3:55 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 5:29 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 145 (4683)
02-16-2002 3:57 AM


Oh. I'm sorry TC. I'm not a cosmologist. But perhaps you could enlighten me. I have a theory on tie, and you are SURE that Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, and the like, are completely mistaken.
I think one of the biggest issues here is light from such things as quasars (quasars-right?). This light was emitted billions of light years away.
I've heard ALL the creationist theories.
1) Satan created the light to deceive us.
2) God created the light to test our faith (well that's kinda stupid)
3) The universe had existed long before humans and earth, and the light had thus been coming towards our planet for millions of years*
(where does it say that in the Bible again?)
*One of the most common ways the creationists counter questions is by throwing things into creationism that are not once mentioned.
For example: I was talking to one creationist, and I asked him how all the plants in the world had regrown so fast. He told me that they had brought seeds onto the Ark. Now can someone please tell me if seeds were brought on the Ark?
If the creationists want to take the bible as a history book, then they better not add bits of history to it just so it all makes sense. You're just gonna have to defend it the way it is.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:04 PM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 145 (4698)
02-16-2002 12:04 PM


Dendrochronology
That means tree-ring counting. Dendrochronologists, by matching patterns in annual growth rings, can establish a sequence in living, dead, and long-dead trees in certain areas of the world. That can be a very reliable dating technique for, say, a beam used in an ancient shelter. But this archeological specialty must be completely useless and unreliable, since in some areas ring sequences extend back through the supposed date of the Flood, showing no evidence of same, and indeed way past the usual young-Earth creation date. One of the conundrums of creationism is that the Earth was apparently created complete with evidence of a past that never happened, including tree rings, other annual layering phenomena, fossils already in the ground, and light from distant stars already most of the way here--revealing cosmic events that never really happened!
From
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Friceinfo.rice.edu%2Farmadillo%2FSciacademy%2Friggins%2Fthings.htm
By
R. J. Riggins
I thought that article was very interesting. I don't think there is disputing the reliability of tree-ring counting and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
If there are trees that go far beyond the creationist's proposed age of earth, how can this be rationally explained.
seems to me to be another nail in the creationist's coffin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 12:27 PM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 145 (7465)
03-21-2002 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by TrueCreation
03-20-2002 10:28 PM


quote:
"Now, if you get to examining the reversal record in its full context (ocean floor, ocean sediment and continental record) you will begin to realize the folly of your previous assertions regarding their temporal relationships."
--I would highly doubt this, as if it is, than the old earth prospect is in itself most likely flawed, as mine is basically a relative 'compression' of your time scale.
TC- you want to compress time so that 1000 magnetic reversals have occurres within the past 6000 years. (magnetic reversals, on scientific time, occure roughly every half a million years. Take 500,000,000 million years of history, and you have 1000 reversals. You're gonna need to provide records of these reversals in ancient geneology and even modern records, from the Europeans, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by TrueCreation, posted 03-20-2002 10:28 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 9:28 AM quicksink 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