Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

I did some work on lotr fellowship and two towers. One of my prize possessions is a boxed trilogy signed by the cast and crew. Interesting work but to me it's the story of a long walk.

Yes I've read 3 different babbles cover to cover and parts of several others. Interesting how the babble is only just being recognised as more violent than the Quran, I've known this for over 20 years.

To be honest of the 3 i considered the niv a joke. Whenever a religious person cites that tome at me i fall about laughing.

If not thousands of interpretations then why are there over 200 different English language versions of the babble and who knows how many in other languages? These different books give rise to over 60,000 different sects of Christianity, each claiming their own interpretation of the particular babble they favour is the correct and only interpretation.

I'm a big LOTR fan, used to run fan conventions and worked with organizers of the bigger LOTR con events. It's more than "a long walk" to me.

Why do you write "babble" and not "Bible"? Have you considered how I feel when I read your posts?

The issue you skirted is that though are many denominations/sects, most of their interpretations are virtually the same. When you disagree with a book report given by 60,000 book reviewers...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Either the model is Useful, and capable of Interesting Predictions with regards to the system it is modeling?

Or it isn't.

By that criteria, you could be silly and say it's 50/50.

Useful Models can be made to help provoke research directions, which the subsequently uncover Interesting Phenomena.

But--- and this is key -- it is just a Model. It may or may not reflect the underlying reality. It may be so far removed from underlying reality, that it's laughable when you dig very deep into the details.

For example: Do I "believe" in Newtonian Physics? No. Do I find Newtonian Physics a useful model? Absolutely! Does it matter that Newtonian Physics is, at best, an approximation? Not in the least-- modern physicists well understand the limitations under which Newton's maths work-- and where they fail.

1) long-time frames, Newton's failure t account for subtleties of motion, will accumulate, and your prediction of where a moving body ought to be, and where it actually is, do not match.

2) very dense and/or massive objects. Newton's physics, again, cannot account for subtle affects of very massive objects, and their affects on spacetime. We are speaking of masses much larger than our sun's mass-- orders of magnitude larger. But even then? If you limit your calculations to very short duration, and are willing to make mid-course corrections? Newton is a darn sight easier to calculate than other models.

3) very fast relative velocities. Once you go past some value of C, (I don't remember, sorry) objects moving at such speeds, do not behave in Newtonian fashion. And therefore, predictions as to their behavior (eventual destination, path, etc) do not match, if you calculate them using Newton's.

So. Do I think Newton as *wrong*? Or was he *right*? No, and No.

Your problem is you have a FAITH-BASED world view.

I DO NOT. The above is likely beyond your ability to visualize, due t the aforementioned FAITH-BASED.

You absolutely must rely on some Authority.

I have no such limitations-- I am free to question everything-- no matter what.

You? You are absolutely forbidden from questioning your Authority. Upon pain of -- something Bad.

Among other things, the theistic model predicted a specific creation event, which was absolutely validated despite being mocked by atheists as 'pseudoscience' for not conforming to their restrictive beliefs.

Multiverses offer no such verifiable prediction, they are inherently (conveniently) beyond scientific investigation altogether. after every other atheist model being utterly debunked, the atheist goal posts have been moved off the scientific pitch entirely.

Similarly with classical physics, many atheists were very fond of this simplistic model for it's apparent ability to leave no room for 'supernatural' mysterious underlying forces guiding physical reality.

Is it complete coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheist beliefs just like Lemaitre?

Similarly darwinists are only now beginning to accept what ID science predicted all along, that the gaps are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record as originally predicted 150 years ago.

The common thread here, is that atheism inherently, constantly, seeks to close the case with the simplest superficial 'God refuting' answer at hand

When we remove this ideological barrier to scientific progress, we are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the implications may be for some

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's a "bomb" to tell you the truth? The truth that the BB has some issues, and that Genesis cosmology has some issues?

Genesis is 100% issue-filled. In every single verse, in both creation myths, there are issues that are provably false.

Yes, the Big Bang model is far from prefect-- but it's just a model.

Being imperfect does not automagically mean, "Gawd, What? 'Eee done it, hey?"

That is a logical fallacy -- it presumes a Dichotomy where there is none.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think money/power/land is a priority STILL for the Roman "church".

It is hardly confined to Catholics. *All* christian churches-- no exception-- require money.

Proof? They ask for donations/money every service. And they have ways to guilt you into paying.


And to me? This is proof that there are no gods behind a single one!

"Why does God need a starship?" ~ James T Kirk.

Why does the Ultimate Creator of the Universe need your money, anyway?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Now that we're done with me admitting I have strong opinions and strong biases and you calling me and many people I love liars and guilty, what would you like to discuss or argue?

I thought we were arguing! That's why I came. If I had wanted the Abuse Clinic, I'd have stopped in room 4A. /end sarcasm

The fact is? If you cannot permit data that contravenes your deeply held belief?

You are forced to lie to yourself-- the worst of all possible lies.

As an Unbeliever? I can go where the data and facts take me-- even if it is Something Weird or Strange.

This has always been the difference between Believers and NonBelievers.

As Tim Minchin said:

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But you must learn to not tell me what I think, please. I didn't say I have to allegorize Genesis. I'm a Creationist because I believe in a literal Genesis.

Oh. I did not know that--- I thought you were still capable of logical reasoning. I am so sorry!

That is too bad--- a Literal Genesis is 100% impossible-- it contradicts itself!

Just the two Creation Stories are inconsistent: Did man come before the animals, or after?

One says "before"

The other says "after"

WHICH IS IT? You cannot resolve this UNLESS YOU LIE.

That's only one of 100's of self-contradictions.... you must IGNORE ONE? Or Lie about them both.... !

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But I never said "God did it!" All I said was "it required an extraordinary catalyst to expand the BB". DO YOU DISAGREE? N d Tyson doesn't disagree! Does he have confirmation bias, too?

I lack sufficient information to make an informed conclusion. It remains an open question. The only thing for sure? Is that it happened-- the universe expanded from a smaller size. That is without question-- the data all points backwards to that.

And is not it a SIN to bear false witness? Dr Tyson agrees with what I just said, above--- taking someone's words out of context is lying.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Among other things, the theistic model predicted a specific creation event, which was absolutely validated despite being mocked by atheists as 'pseudoscience' for not conforming to their restrictive beliefs.

Multiverses offer no such verifiable prediction, they are inherently (conveniently) beyond scientific investigation altogether. after every other atheist model being utterly debunked, the atheist goal posts have been moved off the scientific pitch entirely.

Similarly with classical physics, many atheists were very fond of this simplistic model for it's apparent ability to leave no room for 'supernatural' mysterious underlying forces guiding physical reality.

Is it complete coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheist beliefs just like Lemaitre?

Similarly darwinists are only now beginning to accept what ID science predicted all along, that the gaps are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record as originally predicted 150 years ago.

The common thread here, is that atheism inherently, constantly, seeks to close the case with the simplest superficial 'God refuting' answer at hand

When we remove this ideological barrier to scientific progress, we are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how uncomfortable the implications may be for some

blah-blah-blah-- yes, I simply skimmed over much of what you wrote, without bothering with most of it.

Why? Because you keep using "atheist beliefs" -- which is a contradiction in terms!

So unless you quit LYING? I won't bother to read your drivel.

 

[ChristineM]

It's a "bomb" to tell you the truth? The truth that the BB has some issues, and that Genesis cosmology has some issues?

I don't recall denying a creation ex nihilo from Gen 1:2. All matter/energy wasn't in this timespace and then it expanded into it.

Does the bb have issues, can't say I've ever seen you provide evidernce for this claim. Genesis cosmology? You must be joking... right?

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Void? Waters? God magic!

Could you please explain your 2nd paragraph, are you saying the universe came from nothing?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

blah-blah-blah-- yes, I simply skimmed over much of what you wrote, without bothering with most of it.

Why? Because you keep using "atheist beliefs" -- which is a contradiction in terms!

So unless you quit LYING? I won't bother to read your drivel.

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat Bob,

I don't think you are a driveling idiot just because you have different beliefs than mine, I use to share them.

 

[ChristineM]

Huh? We don't need to look into outer space to perceive objects that recede from us. But we do need some serious science to know that we in motion around the Sun and so on.

But the statement "everything is moving away" is including our own absolute motion as an assumption. One possibility - the universe has no center. Another - we are near or quite near the center and cannot detect our lack of absolute motion.

You can vehemently disagree, but certain things you are saying are "facts" are listed by all reputable cosmologists and astronomers as axioms and assumptions.

No it is not an assumption as polymath and other's have explained to you often enough. It is observed and accurately measured.

One possibility is right, your another does not make sense

Please reference these axioms and assumptions

 

[ChristineM]

I have no objections to learning or knowledge. I've not looked carefully at the latest science and am doing so now. The Earth could well be billions of years old. I don't fear unusual knowledge. If you don't fear it either, be open to Jesus.

I remember my strong reactions against the gospel when I first heard it. I'm not good enough for utopia on my own? I'll mess up Heaven because I sin? I need to be transformed by a perfect God? Jesus died for me?!

I think Jesus died and rose to solve a logical problem (via love) that I need to be changed to be on my best behavior always or I'll muss Heaven up for its citizens. Does that make sense?

May i suggest you take a look at https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca

No it doesn't make sense to me, i done believe in mythology and magic but you have your faith.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Huh? We don't need to look into outer space to perceive objects that recede from us. But we do need some serious science to know that we in motion around the Sun and so on.

But the statement "everything is moving away" is including our own absolute motion as an assumption. One possibility - the universe has no center. Another - we are near or quite near the center and cannot detect our lack of absolute motion.

You can vehemently disagree, but certain things you are saying are "facts" are listed by all reputable cosmologists and astronomers as axioms and assumptions.

It's a good point, much of modern inflationary theory is predicated on Earth NOT being near the center of anything, since that would have terribly unfashionable intellectual connotations. But that could also account for observations- consistency of the CMBR etc, perhaps without all the difficulties of getting dark matter/energy to add up properly to account for expansion rates

 

[ChristineM]

Now we're just being silly. Finding something is correct in its precision to 0.00005 is equivalent to saying it has odds of 1:10^5 against.

My math is okay, my social sciences are strong, I admit my physics and cosmology are weak. But I have an "insider view" on some things!

Thats 10e-5, the minus sign is important, it makes a difference of orders of magnitude

 

[sayak83]

I've prefaced my remarks saying "prior to the last century". The curve looks much different when you trim the sharp end.

One estimate I saw said in revolutionary times there were 100 million souls here. Has anyone here done the math in Excel? It seems like people are afraid to learn there were 8 people 6,000 years ago.

There are literally countless remains of modern humans, their ceramic pottery, burnt flint and kiln, burnt animal bones from their hearth that have all been directly dated to anywhere from 100,000-9000 years all over the world by 4-5 different dating techniques like thermoluminescence, electron-spin-resonance, fission track, Uranium series and radio-carbon dating. One example are the remains of humans along with bone ornaments (shell beads), body coloring (ochre), burnt animal bones and flint found in two caves in Israel that are dated to 100,000 years, even before the Neanderthals were there

When Neanderthals Replaced Us | DiscoverMagazine.com

Shells and ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: indications for modern behavior (Yoseph Mayer et al 2009)
Qafzeh Cave, the burial grounds of several anatomically modern humans, producers of Mousterian industry, yielded archaeological evidence reflecting their modern behavior. Dated to 92,000 yrs BP, the lower layers at the site contained a series of hearths, several human graves, flint artifacts, animal bones, a collection of sea shells, lumps of red ochre, and an incised cortical flake. The marine shells were recovered from layers earlier than most of the graves except for one burial. The shells were collected and brought from the Mediterranean Sea shore some 35 km away, and are complete Glycymeris bivalves, naturally perforated. Several valves bear traces of having been strung, and a few had ochre stains on them.

Evidence for 90,000 Year Old Human Burials at Qafzeh Cave, Israel

The oldest levels are dated to the Mousterian Middle Paleolithic period, about 80,000-100,000 years ago (thermoluminescence dates of 92,000 +/- 5,000; electron spin resonance dates 82,400-109,000 +/- 10,000). In addition to human remains, the site is characterized by a series of hearths; and stone tools from the Middle Paleolithic levels are dominated by artifacts made using the radial or centripetal Levallois technique. Qafzeh cave contains some of the earliest evidence for burials in the world.

According to Coqueugniot and colleagues' analysis, Qafzeh 11, a juvenile aged between 12-13, suffered a traumatic brain injury about eight years before his or her death. The injury would likely have impacted Qafzeh 11's cognitive and social skills, and it appears as if the juvenile was given a deliberate, ceremonial burial with deer antlers as grave goods. The burial and the survival of the child, reflects an elaborate social behavior for the Middle Paleolithic inhabitants of Qafzeh cave.


Here, also is a series of earliest modern human fossils that predate them,
Meet the Contenders for Earliest Modern Human | Science | Smithsonian


82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior ( Bouzouggar et al 2007)

The first appearance of explicitly symbolic objects in the archaeological record marks a fundamental stage in the emergence of modern social behavior in Homo. Ornaments such as shell beads represent some of the earliest objects of this kind. We report on examples of perforated Nassarius gibbosulus shell beads from Grotte des Pigeons (Taforalt, Morocco), North Africa. These marine shells come from archaeological levels dated by luminescence and uranium-series techniques to ≈82,000 years ago. They confirm evidence of similar ornaments from other less well dated sites in North Africa and adjacent areas of southwest Asia. The shells are of the same genus as shell beads from slightly younger levels at Blombos Cave in South Africa. Wear patterns on the shells imply that some of them were suspended, and, as at Blombos, they were covered in red ochre. These findings imply an early distribution of bead-making in Africa and southwest Asia at least 40 millennia before the appearance of similar cultural manifestations in Europe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat Bob,

I don't think you are a driveling idiot just because you have different beliefs than mine, I use to share them.

I have tried to be polite about your constant misuse of the word "believe".

You absolutely ignore that-- so what's left, but pointing out you are acting like a troll, by continuing to lie about people you are trying to convince?


I concede nothing. You keep lying in your use of terms, in spite of being corrected on the subject.

Insults are most amusing, and in this case? I can use the bald-faced truth--- and you are insulted!

Win-win!

 

[ChristineM]

I've prefaced my remarks saying "prior to the last century". The curve looks much different when you trim the sharp end.

One estimate I saw said in revolutionary times there were 100 million souls here. Has anyone here done the math in Excel? It seems like people are afraid to learn there were 8 people 6,000 years ago.

In 2010, Hyde suggests the population in 4000bc was 28 million, McEvedy and Jones suggest 7 million.

When were revolutionary times. I am British living in France so that makes about 1650 or 1688 or in France the 1790s. So the population reference bureau estimates that between 500 million and a billion, (hyde, mcevedy & jones pretty much agree)

So please provide your source for 8






The only place i see 8 is creation websites and they will not show their research so it is suspect to say the least.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have tried to be polite about your constant misuse of the word "believe".

You absolutely ignore that-- so what's left, but pointing out you are acting like a troll, by continuing to lie about people you are trying to convince?


I concede nothing. You keep lying in your use of terms, in spite of being corrected on the subject.

Insults are most amusing, and in this case? I can use the bald-faced truth--- and you are insulted!

Win-win!

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.
^

Like most people, I call that a belief, a stance, a position, none of those words are insulting.

As I said I used to believe the exact same thing, perhaps not with quite as much conviction as you, but I do understand why people do take that position, and I assume they are honest and capable of critical thought, no need for personal insults. At the very least I find this usually makes for a more interesting discussion.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm a big LOTR fan, used to run fan conventions and worked with organizers of the bigger LOTR con events. It's more than "a long walk" to me.

Why do you write "babble" and not "Bible"? Have you considered how I feel when I read your posts?

The issue you skirted is that though are many denominations/sects, most of their interpretations are virtually the same. When you disagree with a book report given by 60,000 book reviewers...

I write babble because having read three of them cover to cover and parts of several more, knowing how hypocritical, cherry picking and even lying Christianity can be regarding its content, that's what i consider it contains . It started as an error, I'm dyslectic and babble is what my pad kept autocorrecting to, it's an error that made complete sense. No doubt as time passes you will see example's of the babble in the bible as i highlight them. Don't take it to heart.

Interesting, this forum is quite civilised, back on topix there were members of various sects threatening other sects with hell because they didn't believe their personal take on some aspect of the babble. Certainly in history sect rivalry has lead to many wars and deaths.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.
^

Like most people, I call that a belief, a stance, a position, none of those words are insulting.

But. You believe. You have faith in things for which there is no evidence-- you are *sure*. That is belief.

That sort of non-think? Is an anathema to a non-believer. You could not be more insulting if you tried.

I understand you did not intend to be insulting? (I hope not) -- but you keep using the insulting term "atheist belief".

You may as well have said, "nazi jew" ... !

How many times do you need it spelled out? Your continuing to use the phrase makes me think you are intentionally insulting.