Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

Without specific references as what is the problem with specific cases for fast evolution is in these claims, this is a canard. The extremely rapid evolution is still in terms of hundreds of thousands of years if not a million out of the whole history of life which is billions of years.

Yes, the mechanisms are given concerning the periods of rapid evolution. The periods of evolution that may occur faster are when there are ideal conditions that encourage a diversity of varieties and sub-species, such as in today's tropical rain forests. The evolution of horse is an example of rapid evolution documented by the fossils showing a diversity of anatomical features within species, and many closely related species existing at the same time.

You have failed to respond to some key questions to back up your claims in previous posts, The problem is you are making these claims based on a religious agenda without a good academic foundation for understanding the science of evolution.

Concerning the book and the website, I gave a specific response with a reference concerning the the false claim of the missing delta of the Colorado River, Like all large rivers in history there is often more that one delta for the river.

The book does not make on claim regarding a missing delta of a river, it cites hundreds of anomalies in your field.

 

[sayak83]

I believe it is possible that the Earth is indeed very old (billions of years). Why would I refute something so logical? What I would like to do, however, is use my time effectively. I don't think I should prepare much time citing hydroplate theory because some people (not you) are dismissive.

Thanks for the clarification.
I would be interested in knowing the reasons why you think it's only a possibility. What kind of evidence or reasons are causing you to withhold full on acceptance? I believed your statement from the Grand Canyon was one of them. That is why is wished to understand what you understood from that book that causes you to suspect that the earth is not old.
Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are completely ignoring that those "marine fossils" are over 30 million years old.

A jawbone of a whale was found in the Himalayas, and that was dated just over 53 million years old. Other marine fossils showed that some up dated even earlier than the whale jawbone, while others are dated to before 30 million years.

The date all predated the 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age.

And the estimation of time to the Genesis date, using the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Tanakh or what Christians called the Old Testament) put it within the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE - meaning between 2499 and 2000 BCE.

I don't think those marine fossils on the Himalayas meet with date to the Genesis flood. The Himalayas may be younger than other ancient mountains, but they are not that young.

The Indian tectonic plate is still pushing into Asian plate, so the uplifting and folding is still causing the mountain to rise 5 mm per year.

Multiplying 5 mm with 4500 years, you would get 22,500 mm, which is 22.5 metres. So in 2500 BCE, Everest would be at 8826 m high, 22.5 m shorter than today's 8848 m.

So the Himalayas, including Everest, were still "very high" highland. The water in Genesis Flood would have to be over 8830 metres, so where would all that water come from, and where did the water go afterward?

Can you provide evidences or cite scientific (preferably peer-reviewed) sources that these fossils are less than 4500 years old?

1. I didn't date the Flood to circa 4,500 BCE.

2. You are using circular logic. 99% of ALL fossils extant are marine. Perhaps the fossils are dated incorrectly. You cannot carbon date a 33-million-year-old organic anything. You look at surrounding rocks and make... assumptions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now that reply contain so many illogical and straw man claims.

I don't worship science.

Science is just a method of acquiring knowledge and that knowledge is a tool that enable people to their work effectively.

Take for instance, a baker. A baker require knowledge to make dough from flour, water and any other ingredients he may add, and he would shape dough as bread loaf or as roll, knowledge in how to use the oven, knowing how hot the oven needs to be and how long to bake it, and so on. A baker don't worship his flour, dough, bread, oven or fire.

Similarly, a fisherman will need knowledge to catch fish or carpenter to construct a cabinet for living room. What a person needs to do the their work, are tools and materials, knowledge, skill and experience of how to do any work. It doesn't require god, prayers or miracles.

It is the same with science. Science provide the know how.

Only primitive ignorant people think God can teach him how to do their works or expect the god to do for him.

Do you pray to or worship a god to know how to farm or how to fix the plumbing?

It is not worshipping science to use science. You are just being dishonest fool to make such obvious dishonest claim that people worship science, BilliardsBall.

Ah, but you must worship science because you have conflated and confused the values of relying on prayer and God as your tools and relying on science as (all) your tools.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The general concept of a god/creator is unfalsifiable. That's not exactly a good thing. It's extraordinarily easy to come up with unfalsifiable/untestable explanations. If I kill my neighbor, I can say the Devil did it and framed me. There is a good reason why unfalsifiable explanations are not accepted in science. The fact is, a creationsist can just make up whatever they want on a whim, whenever they can't explain something. You are free to adjust your creation explanation as much as you like to fit the evidence / our observations, even if it sounds ridiculous (e.g. the ERVs explanation is definitely cringy). If you can't explain something then <insert magic here>. It's a pointless exercise and doesn't further our understanding of anything.



Right. We should worhsip a god that thinks it's a good idea to avoid telling people he's the real god, because it makes so much more sense to choose a few people here and there, so that they can write it down, and then tell other people, that god told them, to tell us, that he is real. Makes complete sense. Perhaps after he's done playing peekaboo with the universe, he'll start coming up with better ideas. We can only hope.

I appreciate your thoughts here, but you (and others) skipped my point--science is based on a priori assumptions regarding creation and nature of reality and knowledge. Science cannot weigh justice, love or logic.

And what you skipped in your explanation of the gospel is this:

God only talks to open people and reveals more to open people then closed people--just like you.

God desires a deep relationship with those who desire one in return--just like you do.

Etc.

Once you allow God to live in your mind where it regards love, wisdom and relationships, not just scientific notions of testability and falsifiability--you can begin to understand.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does that entail that the other half does not believe in creation for bad reasons?

By the way, is it true? Here in Europe YEC are as ubiquitous as flat earthers. I suspect your education system needs a review, if those numbers are right.

Ciao

- viole

Why is it a fault of an education system. I've asked skeptics the same questions about evolution for years now, and they always say the god of evolution will soon solve the issues I've raised.

 

[Sapiens]

You are a geologist and not an evolutionary biologist, yes?

It was said that punctuated equilibrium describes events including rapid speciation across 50,000 year time frames. We have 5,000 of recorded data until now extant. Why are we clearly not in a time of punctuated equilbrium now?

I am an evolutionary biologist and a trained geologist (that's the nature of oceanography ... add fluids, physics and chemistry).

We are currently in the sixth extinction. Rates of evolution appear to be a function of available niche space, there will lots of niche space in the near future, so there will be an explosion of new replacement species ... I suspect the current experiment with primates is all but over.

 

[Sapiens]

I appreciate your thoughts here, but you (and others) skipped my point--science is based on a priori assumptions regarding creation and nature of reality and knowledge. Science cannot weigh justice, love or logic.

Science most assuredly does deal with justice, love and logic.

And what you skipped in your explanation of the gospel is this:

God only talks to open people and reveals more to open people then closed people--just like you.

God desires a deep relationship with those who desire one in return--just like you do.

Etc.

Once you allow God to live in your mind where it regards love, wisdom and relationships, not just scientific notions of testability and falsifiability--you can begin to understand.

How convenient, your invisible friend only talks to you and your fellow travelers. My daughter grew out of that fantasy when she was eight.

 

[gnostic]

1. I didn't date the Flood to circa 4,500 BCE.

I didn't say you did, but anyone with basic arithmetic or a calculator, can use the OT, to calculate backward, starting with known archaeological and historical event, namely the fall of Jerusalem, can calculate the following:

1. the reigns of kings of Judah, all the way to Solomon's beginning his temple building programme on his 4th year of reign (1 Kings 6:1);
2. where in this same verse (1 Kings 6:1), it also referred to when Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, 480 years before Solomon's 4th year on the throne;
3. and during Israelites leaving in Egypt (Exodus 12:40-41), it stated Jacob and His ancestors were living in Egypt (according to Masoretic Text) or in Canaan and Egypt (in the Septuagint) for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41);
4. and depending if you are using Masoretic and Septuagint, the 430 years in the former (Masoretic) would mean when Jacob arrived in Egypt (Genesis 46), while the 430 years in the later (Septuagint) being Abraham receiving his covenant from god (Genesis 15). The Masoretic context is impossible, because it would mean that Jochebed, daughter of Levi and mother of Moses, would have to be between 261 and 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses (note that we have no detail about how old Levi was when Jochebed was born, but I am guessing she was born in Egypt since her name never appear in Genesis 46. So the 430 years is most likely the date of Abraham's covenant.
5. And finally calculating forward from Adam to the birth of Abraham in Genesis, we can the estimate of passage of time between Noah's Flood and the birth of Abraham.

From all the numbers above, depending if I use the Masoretic or Septuagint for Exodus 12's 430 years, I would get my final calculations for dating the Flood, 2104 BCE and 2340 BCE, respectively.

That's how I get 4500 years. I am thinking 2340 BCE is more likely.

Either ways, both dates are wrong, because there were never any global flood, and both archaeological and geological evidences point to there being no such flood, and all of Genesis are nothing more than a collection of myths (e.g. Creation, flood, Tower of Babel, the three patriarchs, etc, are myths).

 

[gnostic]

I was a civil engineer, not a biologist, so I have never studied or researched fossils. My geology subject in civil engineering course, never brought up fossils. But I know enough about geology, to know if there were flood, there would be evidences in the earth, that can be dated.

No such evidences can be found that a single flood covered the earth, even cover that of the "highest mountains". There are simply zero evidence for Genesis Flood.

 

[gnostic]

Ah, but you must worship science because you have conflated and confused the values of relying on prayer and God as your tools and relying on science as (all) your tools.

Computers are tools, and I don't worship computers. I used Microsoft Windows, but I don't worship Bill Gate or Microsoft.

And I used to be a civil engineer, I don't worship my drafting pens, tables, or any of the surveying equipments (e.g. theodolite, level, etc).

I eat rice, meat and vegetables, doesn't mean that I worship cereal, cows, and plants. My main tools for cooking is wok, frying pan, pots and oven, does that mean I worship these tools or equipment.

You are using "worship" and "tools" too loosely and your common sense has dwindled to a tiny electron-size. Basically you are being st####.

 

[shunyadragon]

The book does not make on claim regarding a missing delta of a river, it cites hundreds of anomalies in your field.

The website describes that the delta is missing to account for the sediment eroded by from Grand Canyon. I believe the book also makes this claim. It is claimed as one of the anomalies in Geology that is not explained by current scientific evidence. In reality it is very well explained by present scientific.

In reality all the anomalies described by the non-scientific Bible based anecdotal claims are bogus. Some in reality have been explained by science, others are vague biased arguments from ignorance as cited,

 

[Malicex]

I appreciate your thoughts here, but you (and others) skipped my point--science is based on a priori assumptions regarding creation and nature of reality and knowledge.

Science cannot tell us how long a murderer should spend in jail (metaphysics). Science cannot exist with a priori assumptions (truth exists, the law of noncontradiction and other logic laws, etc.)

I don't want to talk about a lot of things all at once, so I'll focus on this. What exactly are you getting at when you say science is based on apriori assumptions, such as "truth exists" and "the law of noncontradiction"?

Also, do you believe that believing in a creator God or gods doesn't make these assumptions or somehow fixes this problem?

 

[metis]

The Appalachians are presumed older when it could be that they were laid down by post-Flood silt and other deposits.

Except the water level never got anywhere close to the tops of these mountains. Evidence shows that the peak of high water was only 120 meters from where it currently is. -- https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

 

[Polymath257]

1. I didn't date the Flood to circa 4,500 BCE.

2. You are using circular logic. 99% of ALL fossils extant are marine. Perhaps the fossils are dated incorrectly. You cannot carbon date a 33-million-year-old organic anything. You look at surrounding rocks and make... assumptions.

Genesis 5.3: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Total: 130+105 = 235 years

Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Total: 235+90 = 325 years

Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

Total: 325+70 = 395 years

Genesis 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

Total: 395+65 = 460 years

Genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

Total: 460+162 = 622 years

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Total: 622+65 = 687 years

Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

Total: 687+187 = 874 years.

Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

Total: 874+182 = 1056 years

Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Total: 1056+600 = 1656 years
This gives the date of the flood according to the Bible.

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Total: 1056+601 = 1657 years
This gives the date of the end of the flood.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Total: 1657+2 = 1659 years
This is a bit ambiguous: is the two years measured from the beginning or the end of the flood? I used the end of the flood.

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Total: 1659+35 = 1694 years

Genesis 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

Total: 1694+30 = 1724 years

Genesis 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

Total: 1724+34 = 1758 years

Genesis 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

Total: 1758+30 = 1788

Genesis 11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

Total: 1788+32 = 1820 years

Genesis 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

Total: 1820+30 = 1850 years

Genesis 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

Total: 1850+29 = 1879 years

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Total: 1879+70 = 1949 years

Genesis 21:5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
Note: Abram and Abraham are the same person.

Total: 1949+100 = 2049 years.

Genesis 25:26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

Total: 2049+60 = 2109 years

Genesis 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

Total: 2109+147 = 2256 years

This means that Jacob went into Egypt at

Total: 2256-17 = 2239 years.

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Note: this is an over-estimate: some people think the 430 years starts when Abraham went into Canaan.

Total: 2239+430 = 2669 years.

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Note: some would add to this the 40 years in the desert.

Total: 2669+480 = 3149 years.

The temple stood for 410 years:

Total: 3149+410 = 3459 years

Destruction of the temple of Solomon by Neuchadnezzer was in 587 BC.

This means that Adam was formed 3459+587 = 4046 BC.
The global flood ended 4046-1657=2389 BC.

Note: If you think the 430 years starts when Abraham went into Canaan, the dates would be:
Adam formed: 4006 BC
Global flood end: 2349 BC

If you think the 2 years for the begetting of Arphaxad was at the beginning of the flood, then the dates are
Adam formed: 4004 BC
Global flood ended: 2347 BC

 

[gnostic]

2. You are using circular logic. 99% of ALL fossils extant are marine. Perhaps the fossils are dated incorrectly. You cannot carbon date a 33-million-year-old organic anything. You look at surrounding rocks and make... assumptions.

And you are being terribly uneducated.

You don't "carbon date" any fossil older than 50,000 because radiocarbon (C14) dating are known to have limitations.

Any archaeological evidence, particularly within the Holocene epoch, such as the Neolithic period, Bronze Age and Iron Age can be dated with some accuracy, using C14 dating.

The problem with radiocarbon dating, is that the older fossils and other materials containing carbons, the less carbon-14 there are. The upper limit for radiocarbon dating is 50,000 years, and it has only a half-life of 5730 years.

Geologists and palaeontologists already know this limitations since the 1960s, so they often used other radiometric dating methods, such as

1. Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating, would date rocks from 1000 years to 1 billion years, .
2. Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) dating, would date rock from 1 million to over 4.5 billion years, with 0.1 to 1 percent precisions.

With fossils from the Himalayas, K-Ar or U-Pb dating would be used, not C14 dating.

Your 1st mistake is thinking that geologists and palaeontologists are stupid enough to use radiocarbon dating on marine fossils on the Himalayas. Apparently the only stupid people are creationists, who still think radiocarbon dating is only radiometric dating method being used, ignoring K-Ar and U-Pb radiometric datings, because they are so stupid from learning their mistakes.

Tell me, why are you ignoring K-Ar, which is far more accurate than C14 dating?

Second...your 2nd mistake...is about dating the fossils and organic materials.

Carbon-14 is lost, when dating fossils, the older fossils get, which I have already said.

The problem with radiocarbon dating, is that the older fossils and other materials containing carbons, the less carbon-14 there are.

They don't "carbon date" these older fossils (than 50k years), but they can date those fossils with K-Ar method, because the fossils would still have radioactive isotopes calcium-40.

If you know even the rudimentary biology, you would know that calcium are found in bones, teeths, ivory, and shells, and these materials are what last in fossils, not skins, muscle tissues, organs, hairs, etc.

K-Ar method (with isotopes 40 for potassium and 40 for argon) can date anything that has calcium, from a few thousand years to 1 billion years, with 0.1 to 1 percent precision.

So dating marine fossils on the Himalayas (with K-Ar) are not a problem. U-Pb method can also be used, in this case.

If you want to date some fossils older than 1 billion years, than you would use U-Pb method with isotopes

(A) U-238 and Pb-206,
or (B) U-235 and 207​

(A) has longer half-life than (B), which was used to date the age of Earth's oldest rocks.

Sorry, BilliardsBall, but you have been so blind with creationist propaganda about radiocarbon dating, that you have ignored other dating methods available to geologists and palaeontologists. I am quite sure that a lot of members here have already explained to you why other alternative radiometric methods are being used.

Seriously, BB. Why do you keep repeating the same mistakes and the same misinformation about radiometric dating? Cannot you not see other alternatives and why?

 

[gnostic]

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Note: this is an over-estimate: some people think the 430 years starts when Abraham went into Canaan.

You are right, it isn't possible. I don't think it (430 years) has to with Jacob and family entering Egypt.

It isn't possible because of Jochebed, who is both daughter of Levi and mother to Miriam, Aaron and Moses.

Jochebed is not listed in the Levi's family, so I assuming she was born in Egypt. Levi arrived in Egypt at age 48 (2239 AM) and died there at 137. So Jochebed would have been born at some point in this time.

She was married to her nephew, her brother's son.

If Exodus 12:40-41 430 years was when Jacob's arrival in Egypt, then Jochebed would be between the age of 261 and 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses. That would be too old for Jochebed to be pregnant or to go through the pain of childbirth.

If the 430 years is about the time one of the following -

(A) of Abraham arrived in Canaan at age 75 (Genesis 12), or
(B) when he receive the covenant at age 85 (Genesis 15), or
(C) the covenant given just before Isaac was born, when Abraham was age 99 (Genesis 17),​

- then Jochebed's age would not be so drastically old when she gave birth to Moses.

The Greek Septuagint on Exodus 12:40-41 say they were in "Canaan and Egypt" for 430 years.

40 Now the residence of the sons of Israel during
which they dwelt in the land, Egypt, and in the
land of Chanaan was four hundred and thirty
years.

The Greek translation (Septuagint) and Hebrew text (Masoretic) offered different contexts of that passage.

Normally, I don't like the Septuagint, but a little investigation revealed something interesting. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Exodus 12:40 are in agreement with the Masoretic Text, but the Samaritan Penteteuch and the Targum are in agreement with the Septuagint:

Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and fathers of them, who dwelt in Canaan and in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years.

In the Samaritan Pentateuch, it also state "...the children of Israel...", Israel meaning "Jacob", but the "...fathers of them", would imply Abraham and Isaac.

The Syrian translation, the Targum, is even more specific with the passage Exodus 12:40:

And the days of the dwelling of the sons of Israel in Mizraim were thirty weeks of years, (thirty times seven years,) which is the sum of two hundred and ten years. But the number of four hundred and thirty years (had passed away since) the Lord spake to Abraham, in the hour that He spake with him on the fifteenth of Nisan, between the divided parts, until the day that they went out of Mizraim. And it was at the end of thirty years from the making of this covenant, that Izhak was born; and thence until they went out of Mizraim four hundred (years), on the selfsame day it was that all the hosts of the Lord went forth made free from the land of Mizraim.

The Targum put 430 years to Abraham getting the covenant (of circumcision) just before Isaac was born (Genesis 17), when Abraham was age 99.

The main reason why I think it is wrong to associate 430 years (Exodus 12:40) to Jacob arriving in Egypt (Genesis 46) is because of the age of Jochebed would have to be, in order to give birth to Moses.

Sarah's age at 90, is already considered impossible, so Jochebed's 260+ years would be even more so.

What BilliardsBall cannot understand that even though Genesis and Exodus are myths, they do contain enough information to calculate a number of possible timelines to the exodus out of Egypt and to the Flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. I didn't date the Flood to circa 4,500 BCE.

2. You are using circular logic. 99% of ALL fossils extant are marine. Perhaps the fossils are dated incorrectly. You cannot carbon date a 33-million-year-old organic anything. You look at surrounding rocks and make... assumptions.

First, it is terribly misleading to say 99% of all fossils are marine fossils, and yes. not true. By the numbers it is ~95%, but only because of the deposition in a marine environment preserves more fossils.

As far as dating anything estimated to be 33 million years old whether land or marine fossils it would not be dated by carbon 14.

 

[viole]

Why is it a fault of an education system. I've asked skeptics the same questions about evolution for years now, and they always say the god of evolution will soon solve the issues I've raised.

Well, if someone follows a serious course about geology, and still believes that the earth is 6000 years old, then the problem might be somewhere else. Between chair and desk, I guess .

So, evolution is not relevant. By asserting a young earth, you are forced to throw in the garbage bin virtually all of science. Geology, astronomy, astrophysics, anthropology, cosmology, nuclear science, relativity, etc. etc. Evolution is just a tiny negligible bit.

So, what is more likely: that all scientists are so wrong (by a factor of millions) about virtually any discipline, or that a group of ancient herders did not know what they were talking about?

The answer to that riddle should be obvious. Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks for the clarification.
I would be interested in knowing the reasons why you think it's only a possibility. What kind of evidence or reasons are causing you to withhold full on acceptance? I believed your statement from the Grand Canyon was one of them. That is why is wished to understand what you understood from that book that causes you to suspect that the earth is not old.
Thanks.

Thanks for the correction. Since there are as many scientific, verified markers of an old Earth as of an old universe, I do accept, fully.

I would, however, retain a different outlook on global catastrophe, and would say that book and others give good reasons to accept a universal Flood event.