the earth

michaelpi

michaelpi

New Member
do you bevle all the stuff they are saying that the earth is arond 4.2 billyin years old and we evaled from apes and arangatanes?
 
Firstly, you really need to work on your spelling, grammar and punctuation. I'm not one to harp on about things like that normally - most of my friends are Dutch and commit daily atrocities upon the English language - but your post is almost illegible.

Secondly, I'm not sure HOW old the Earth is. Actually as everything comes from Hydrogen fusion, it's possible that what we're stood on is recycled star from one of the earlier star generations and is far, far older than 4.2 billion years. In point of fact science believes that the lowest limit for the Earth's age is 4.5 billion years - alas the surface of the earth was molten before then, which precluded the formation of any structures that can be radiocarbondated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


Moving onto your second question, I don't think that anyone suggests we're descended from the Great Apes (such as the Gorrilla or Orangutan). What is suggested is that we share some common ancestors - way back in the dim past. The best hypotheses that I've read suggest that we adapted to the deforestation of Africa by beginning our slow evolution into the form we wear today.
 
Let's put this simply: I am more than willing to believe things that are defensible and testable rather than things I am told to take with a leap of faith. If you want me to believe as a YEC, you better offer up some evidence.

And please, don't point me to aig.com.
 
michaelpi said:
do you bevle all the stuff they are saying that the earth is arond 4.2 billyin years old and we evaled from apes and arangatanes?
Click to expand...

Nope! Don't believe it at all. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of one kind of animal evolving into another. Zip...none whatsoever.

What there is evidence of is change within a species. For example, through selective breeding we can change the size of a dog or the color or to a small degree it's shape...but it is still a dog. Some call that micro evolution.

As for the age of the earth...some scientists believe in the old earth but definitely not all scientists. The science used to date the earth is extremely fallible. It is a hypothesis that has so many holes, I find it unbelievable.

Many scientists point to evidence that the earth is closer to 6,000 years old. If a person is not a Christian then the old earth theory is easier for them to swallow.

I am biased toward the young earth theory because I am a Christian and Eon is biased toward the old earth theory because he is not a Christian. Look at both sides of the evidence. Public schools and colleges only show you the old earth theory, so to see the young earth theory you've got to look on your own.
 
There is no, I repeat, NO credible scientific evidence for the world being 6,000 years old. We have identified living organisms that are older than that - some clonal colonies of Creosote bushes and some bacterium that were thrust into suspended animation when buried in the intestines of a mammoth that became preserved in a peat bog. There are fungi older than 6,000 years.
 
Eon said:
There is no, I repeat, NO credible scientific evidence for the world being 6,000 years old. We have identified living organisms that are older than that - some clonal colonies of Creosote bushes and some bacterium that were thrust into suspended animation when buried in the intestines of a mammoth that became preserved in a peat bog. There are fungi older than 6,000 years.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
And the dog shall chase his own tail YET again.....could we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop beating this dead horse? There have been innumerable threads and flame wars on just this subject.
 
lol...dodge that question:) I didn't ask for proof that the earth was not 6,000years old. Besides the debunkery didn't debunk a thing.

You made a statement of 'fact' that I quoted from you and asked for proof Eon.

DV your post is based on faith. Faith in dating systems used by some scientists that haven't thrown them out yet. They are questionable at best and you know it. Your side of the argument cannot be proven with science and neither can mine.
 
You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I think you are relying on old, biased opinions of dating methods.

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I could have given you the same information anywhere, but I thought you'd swallow this pill easier knowing it was written by Christians.

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
 
Didn't debunk anything? It debunks ALL of the more common Creationist opinions, I thought - providing both science and background on them. I don't agree with your stance on Radiocarbondating either - that's a bit like saying that just because no method is 100 percent perfect, it's better to use no method at all and just make a guess!

Radiocarbondating may NOT be perfect (I don't know a single scientist who claims that it is) but it is pretty reliable in general - the key is to grab a series of datum and see if they meet with observable phenomena. And they do seem to.

But accepting proof from any one source unsupported is a recipe for eggy face and blushes.

And Arkanjel, this thread specifically asked about evolution and the age of the Earth, so the line of enquiry is valid in this case. If it had been a more general topic that had become hijacked then I could see your point.
 
The difference between what I have been saying and your statements Eon is this:

I have admitted that my position cannot be proven with current science. I am not trying to prove it to you. It cannot be done. Your position has the same restraints on it. There is absolutely no way that you can prove to me that the earth is billions of years old. You stated your position as 'fact' in the way it was worded.

Now Eon and DV, you both posted links to sites that support your point. Eon your sight attempted to refute a few of the arguments for a young earth. DV yours was a support site for dating methods. So you found a website that supports your claims...I can post five that support mine. Then you could post five more that support yours. Then I could post five more that support mine. We could do this for a year and probably never run out.

My point from the beginning is this, neither of us can prove our belief on this topic. All three of us are biased as I admitted in my original post in this thread. You can admit your bias or try to drag me through the ringer for suggesting it. You do not beleive in God and that must effect how you view this topic.

To admit that the earth may be young would throw your whole world into a spin. Viewing dating methods as legit makes it easier to accept the old earth arguments.
 
Actually Didasko, it would mess up my worldview a lot less to be proven wrong on this one, because belief in the Scientific Principle allows for errant ideas to be thrown onto the bonfire of history.

It's creationists that have the problem of having to hold this line or risk their entire worldview coming crashing down around their ears.

Now I would very like to see some proofs of a young earth that haven't been scientifically debunked about 20 years ago. If you have some then let's bring them out. For the purpose of comparison - if you can find a website that successfully debunks my debunks, then we'll disallow them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didasko said:
The difference between what I have been saying and your statements Eon is this:

I have admitted that my position cannot be proven with current science. I am not trying to prove it to you. It cannot be done. Your position has the same restraints on it. There is absolutely no way that you can prove to me that the earth is billions of years old. You stated your position as 'fact' in the way it was worded.

Now Eon and DV, you both posted links to sites that support your point. Eon your sight attempted to refute a few of the arguments for a young earth. DV yours was a support site for dating methods. So you found a website that supports your claims...I can post five that support mine. Then you could post five more that support yours. Then I could post five more that support mine. We could do this for a year and probably never run out.

My point from the beginning is this, neither of us can prove our belief on this topic. All three of us are biased as I admitted in my original post in this thread. You can admit your bias or try to drag me through the ringer for suggesting it. You do not beleive in God and that must effect how you view this topic.

To admit that the earth may be young would throw your whole world into a spin. Viewing dating methods as legit makes it easier to accept the old earth arguments.
Click to expand...

Please note which site I used. I did not use an atheist slanted site, but one created by theists, Christians specifically.

I am going to have to disagree with you and point out that I am not biased. Were I a strong atheist, I could not claim that. I have said, on more than one occassion, that I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong. I rely heavily on science and science has absolutely no problems admitting its mistakes. Neither do I. I do not, however, admit them blindly and without evidence, proof and reason.

You said that neither of us can prove our belief...keep in mind that I don't have a belief to prove. Mine is the default stance, not being able to choose one way or the other because of a lack of proof.

You may think I'm being nitpicky, but my position isn't as difficult to understand as some make it out to be.
 
Actually, the 4.5billion year old earth versus a 6000 year old earth has no bearing on the Christian beleif in creationism. The only people who care if the earth is 4.5billion years old are those who need long periods of time to justify their beleif systems and world views. Seeing as no human, as we know it, was there at the beginning to count the number of days and years to today, we have no actual direct data to prove the age of the world.

I could very easily and rightfully say, that God created the whole ball of wax 6,000 years ago to the day and created it all with an apearant age of billions of years. This would all be miraculous and within the realm of God, not any more based on faith then to say the whole ball of wax was created billions of years ago. Neither position can forward any hard facts that would prove beyond doubt their belief is actually correct versus the other. I would hold fast to my belief that the world is 6000 years old, created with an appearant age while the other side of the arguement would hold to their belief that the world is 4.5billion years old as neither could provide the evidence required to debunk the other. The only way to be sure in the age of the universe is to have one who was there at the beginning come to us and say "According to your understanding of time, which is based on the rotations of the earth, revolving around the sun with these assumptions (blah blah blah what ever they may be) the universe is indeed such and such age and the earth such and such age."

Now, I believe that person to be God and no matter how often I read the bible, I see no text or record of God saying such. All I see is the mystery of the evidence and a puzzle that I enjoy coming back to.
 
Actually, a person who'd seen it all would merely be anecdotal evidence, and wouldn't be that compelling.

I have to admit, though, that I have no way of refuting your contention that God created our world with an apparent age of several billion years in a universe with an apparent age of millions of billions of years. There's no way I can prove that this didn't happen.

However the rest of your statement is a little erroneous - you do know that there are reasons for the figures that science has come to, right? They didn't just guess them.
 
Eon said:
Actually Didasko, it would mess up my worldview a lot less to be proven wrong on this one, because belief in the Scientific Principle allows for errant ideas to be thrown onto the bonfire of history.

It's creationists that have the problem of having to hold this line or risk their entire worldview coming crashing down around their ears.

Now I would very like to see some proofs of a young earth that haven't been scientifically debunked about 20 years ago. If you have some then let's bring them out. For the purpose of comparison - if you can find a website that successfully debunks my debunks, then we'll disallow them.
Click to expand...

You still don't get the point of my posts Eon. I never claimed to have proof. You did! You are under the burden of proof here not me.

How many times do I need to say that I do not have scientific proof? There is no scientific proof for either theory. What else can I say to make it any clearer?

What I was hoping for was the same honesty from you. Neither theory of the age of the earth is in any way proveable using the scientific method.
 
Dark Virtue said:
You said that neither of us can prove our belief...keep in mind that I don't have a belief to prove. Mine is the default stance, not being able to choose one way or the other because of a lack of proof.
Click to expand...

DV I understand that you are a soft atheist. That has nothing to do with this argument. Are you saying that you do not believe in the old earth theory?

When you posted support for it (more than once) I assumed that you were an old earth advocate. Am I wrong?

As I have told Eon several times now. Neither theory is proveable using the scientific method. Can we all admit that and move on here?

If not then the burden of proof becomes yours.
 
Didasko said:
DV I understand that you are a soft atheist. That has nothing to do with this argument. Are you saying that you do not believe in the old earth theory?

When you posted support for it (more than once) I assumed that you were an old earth advocate. Am I wrong?

As I have told Eon several times now. Neither theory is proveable using the scientific method. Can we all admit that and move on here?

If not then the burden of proof becomes yours.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not sure what I said to indicate that I did not believe in an old earth. So let's make that clear...I definately believe in an old earth.

I'm not sure why you believe that an old earth theory isn't proveable. Would you mind explaining why? Doesn't the evidence we have available point towards an old earth? Are you tossing out every dating method to come up with this conclusion?

I can understand how the scientific theory can point to an old earth, but not how it could possibly point to a young one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top