Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Because evolution needs an old earth and the Bible describes creation in a young earth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Age of the Earth.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Because evolution needs an old earth and the Bible describes creation in a young earth.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Ever heard of loose the battle but not the war?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yet empirical evidence points to a very old earth.
I know, I know....you do not "accept" the evidence presented, yet you consistently fail to present empirical scientific evidence of a young earth.
Gabethewiking
Active Member
Yeah, just like Flat-Earthers want our schools to show the Controversies about Round-World Theory, yet you show no care about the Flat-Earthers.. Wonder why when I can point lots of evidence against Round-World.
gnostic
The Lost One
RedOne77 said:
You say you want to focus on evidence, but I don't think you do.
And for the record, I am not just talking about what only evolutionists say about the evidences (like dinosaur fossils) support old earth theory. There are many other scientists like biologists, geologists, archaeologists and anthropologists (though I am not sure if anthropology is science or not), all of which understand that the earth is older than creationist's faith that their bible are correct - which is young earth (between 6000 and 13000 years old).
- Scientists relied on solid, physical evidences. They test the evidence, and repeat the tests on the same evidences, or use other evidences.
- Creationists don't, and they never have.
Not only that, there are creature on land and sea that flourished before the dinosaur, now exist in fossilized form, which also indicate the earth is older than
That means the earth is older than creationist's paradigm of a young earth.
- Some of the creationists support the view that dinosaur died out in Noah's Flood about 4000-4400 years ago. There are no evidences that dinosaur existed in the time of man.
- While other creationists support the view that God created fake fossils, which would mean that no dinosaur lived. There are no evidences support this view too.
Do you think the evidences collected and tested by dating system used in science to be wrong in the estimation of time of how old the earth is?
You say you support only where the evidences go, and yet you ignore findings by scientists in other fields (OTHER THAN EVOLUTIONISTS), so basically you don't believe in the evidences, at all. Or is just science, you don't believe?
Do you believe that geologists are all wrong with their dating techniques on the strata/layers of rocks?
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
But whether ToE is correct or not is independent of the age of the earth. Even if ToE is false, the earth is still billions of years old.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Ever heard of the truth? The actual level of dust on the moon is consistent with the moon (and earth) being billions of years old.
I call this dishonest form of argumentation, "heads I win/ tails you lose." If the level of dust on the moon is X, the earth is young, so you should believe the earth is young. Actually, the level of dust on the moon being X means the earth is old--but that doesn't mean MoF should believe the earth is old.
In other words, special pleading.
Where does the Bible describe creation in a young earth?
The length of the creative days are Not mentioned.
There is no mention if each of the creative time periods were of the same length. Doesn't Genesis 2:4 sum up all of the creative days as a 'day' ?
So 'day' is a relative term and not always a literal 24-hour day.
Genesis even calls the daylight hours as day.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Evolution is not the point right now as far as the thread question.
What testable evidence can you present that confirms your assertion the earth is young?
If you have testable evidence what method was used in determining these findings?
NONE of the questions I've asked above require you to deal with evolution at all. I'm not interested in prehistoric man, biology of any sort...etc...etc....Just the earth....
Last edited:
RedOne77
Active Member
What I meant by that is to only focus on the methodology of dating methods, without bringing in fossils and stuff. Later we can bring in fossils and the like, but for now I just want to focus on the dating methods specifically until I have a better understanding of them. Unfortunately school work has not permitted me to really study the methods yet, but I will get back to you all on this when I have the time to look it over and respond.
I think the previous 2 posts sums up the problem why creationism will never be scientifically accepted:
Then Red One Answers
This is newspeak for: I am going to study your ('evolutionist') dating methods from a creationist website. I am going to try proving your dating methods wrong.
RedOne, the aim is to get your (creationist) evidence; the aim is to see how your (creationist) dating methods work. The aim is to get testable evidence to confirm your dating methods. What methods do you use to try and verify creationism?Falsifying 'evolutionist' methods won't get creationism automatically accepted. Show us your work!
Dirty Penguin said:
Then Red One Answers
This is newspeak for: I am going to study your ('evolutionist') dating methods from a creationist website. I am going to try proving your dating methods wrong.
RedOne, the aim is to get your (creationist) evidence; the aim is to see how your (creationist) dating methods work. The aim is to get testable evidence to confirm your dating methods. What methods do you use to try and verify creationism?Falsifying 'evolutionist' methods won't get creationism automatically accepted. Show us your work!
gnostic
The Lost One
If you are really interested in evidences, then why are you wasting time with creationism or the so-called "creationist science", which is not science at all.
Creationism, or creationist science, Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and even Intelligent Design, are all theology, and relied on faith (and deception and Christian creationist propaganda), and never on evidences. All these relied on deliberately misrepresenting science.
Evidences that can be tested, repeatedly, or by independent evidences or independent tests.
If you really want to know the age of earth, then ask geological scientists. Ask people who actually do the radiometric datings. Seek out answers from astronomers or astrophysics if you want to know the age of solar system, galaxy.
Creationism, or creationist science, Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and even Intelligent Design, are all theology, and relied on faith (and deception and Christian creationist propaganda), and never on evidences. All these relied on deliberately misrepresenting science.
Evidences that can be tested, repeatedly, or by independent evidences or independent tests.
If you really want to know the age of earth, then ask geological scientists. Ask people who actually do the radiometric datings. Seek out answers from astronomers or astrophysics if you want to know the age of solar system, galaxy.
But fossils are used in one set of dating methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy
fantôme profane;1905367 said:
Oh. come on now, everyone knows that our flat earth is only 6 thousand years old and was created at the same time as this universe of ours, which was created in six twenty four hour days, which universe revolves around our sun. Now stop annoying me, while I finish interpreting the words of the Holy Bible. I want that the people who will live here in 1,500 years time, 2,000 years from the day of our Lord, will understand the truth that has been revealed to me, according to the data that has been accumulated by the mind of man until this day 403 AD. Jerome.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Well the thread question is not aimed at those that accept and understand that the earth is billions of years old. It seems to be aimed at (YEC). I personally feel there's nothing wrong with challenging the (so-called) "creation science" on their findings.
So far there's seems to be no real method as to how they determine the age of the earth. It appears they take a literal approach starting with their bible. Unfortunately for them their bible is not spot on when dealing with sciences such as biology, mathematics, geology, paleontology, or history....etc...etc....etc...
Now with all of this against them I'm astounded at the lengths they go to in order to to align the known natural world with their religious beliefs.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Couple of thoughts on this.
First, neither you nor I has a high level of expertise about this. The people who do are called physicists. They subjected these methods to the highest level of scrutiny, made them jump over every hurdle they could think of, before accepting them. That's how science works. So do you really think that you are going to come up with some objection they didn't think of, test, and overcome decades ago?
And again, without even learning the physics, think about this. Imagine that radiometric dating is a black box. Set aside, for the moment, what's inside. You put a rock in, and a number comes out. They have tested that number against every possible annual event that we know about: trees, ice cores, coral rings, varves and I don't know what all. And it has matched all of them. Over and over again, thousands of times. For it not to work, all of these annual methods: tree rings, ice cores, coral rings, varves and others would have to be wrong at the same rate every time. That's how we know that it works, and that's without understanding the physics.
As for the physics, the key thing is the rate of decay. Well, physicists tried everything they could think of to change that rate. They heated the sample and froze it and pressurized it and sent it into space and to the bottom of the ocean and centrifuged it and subjected it to ever condition they could think of, and no matter what they did, they could not get it to change.
Putting these two things together: the methodology and the calibration--that's what makes scientists so confident that radiometric dating works.
Finally, there's no reason I can think of, no conspiracy or special interest that would make all these or even any of these scientists twist the results. What do they care if the earth is 4 billion years old or 40 billion or 4000? The don't care; they just want to know the answer. None of these results makes God any more or less likely, so it's not some kind of atheist conspiracy. It turns out that all the data is consistent with 4.56 billion, and 4.56 billion explains all the data so far, so we accept that as the best answer we have, with a reasonable d3gree of scientific certainty, higher than 99% at this point. And in science, we call >99% certainty as good as it gets, otherwise known as a fact.
So we can say that it's a fact, scientifically speaking, that the earth is around 4.56 billion years old.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
A couple of other things (even though I am typically loathe to debate YEC, as it is only ever so slightly above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale)...
1) Scientists had realized that the earth was very, very old long before radiometric dating came along and allowed them to put a definitive date on things. Specifically, European geologists who were predominately Bible-believing Christians saw geologic phenomena that they immediately recognized falsified Noah's flood and indicated a very, very old earth. If you read some of their writings from the early 1800's, this realization was pretty painful for them, but they could not deny the data. So even debating whether the earth is 6,000 years old or very ancient is essentially taking science back over 200 years.
2) The three main mechanisms for radio isotope decay are alpha decay, beta decay, and electron capture. These mechanisms are completely independent of each other. So when we derive dates for geologic strata using an isotope that decays via beta decay and another range of dates using an isotope that decays via electron capture, and those ranges of dates overlap, that's an extremely powerful indication that the results are accurate. YEC's have never been able to explain how completely different decay mechanisms give congruent results, let alone identify a specific mechanism that would affect two independent mechanisms in the exact same way.
3) The idea of accelerated decay, as Auto pointed out above, has been tested exhaustively, and no matter what scientists try, they simply cannot get the rate of decay to change. Further, even if radioactive decay did accelerate to a level such that the earth really is only 6,000 years old, but our results show it's 4.6 billion years old, creationists cannot answer the question of: Where did all the heat go? That level of accelerated radioactive decay in such a short span of time, over the entire globe, would absolutely fry every living organism on the planet (and do some other really, really ridiculously horrible things). YEC's have never been able to address this very simple problem.
1) Scientists had realized that the earth was very, very old long before radiometric dating came along and allowed them to put a definitive date on things. Specifically, European geologists who were predominately Bible-believing Christians saw geologic phenomena that they immediately recognized falsified Noah's flood and indicated a very, very old earth. If you read some of their writings from the early 1800's, this realization was pretty painful for them, but they could not deny the data. So even debating whether the earth is 6,000 years old or very ancient is essentially taking science back over 200 years.
2) The three main mechanisms for radio isotope decay are alpha decay, beta decay, and electron capture. These mechanisms are completely independent of each other. So when we derive dates for geologic strata using an isotope that decays via beta decay and another range of dates using an isotope that decays via electron capture, and those ranges of dates overlap, that's an extremely powerful indication that the results are accurate. YEC's have never been able to explain how completely different decay mechanisms give congruent results, let alone identify a specific mechanism that would affect two independent mechanisms in the exact same way.
3) The idea of accelerated decay, as Auto pointed out above, has been tested exhaustively, and no matter what scientists try, they simply cannot get the rate of decay to change. Further, even if radioactive decay did accelerate to a level such that the earth really is only 6,000 years old, but our results show it's 4.6 billion years old, creationists cannot answer the question of: Where did all the heat go? That level of accelerated radioactive decay in such a short span of time, over the entire globe, would absolutely fry every living organism on the planet (and do some other really, really ridiculously horrible things). YEC's have never been able to address this very simple problem.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Genesis is rediculous.