Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

Good that you used the word "believe". Because you can only believe, when it comes to evidence of gardens of Eden and Universal floods.



I suspect that the chances of science vindicating creationists are even lower than the chances that Jesus returns. That is: same ballpark with zero.

Ciao

- viole

But your comments assaulting what Christians believe doesn't undo my axiomatic truth, that science evolves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you haven't learn a single thing about radiometric dating.

There are more than one methods of dating fossils (e.g. K-Ar and U-Pb methods), and radiocarbon dating would never be used in fossils older than 50,000 years.

Those marine fossils are older than 30 million years, and K-Ar and U-Pb would be used, since they have greater half-life than C-14.

Carbon 14 keep disappearing for every 5730 years (which is the half-life of C-14), until they are all gone by 50,000-plus years.

Calcium (or more precisely calcium isotopes 40 or Ca -40) can remained in fossils for 1 billion or more years, which is why K-Ar and U-Pb were used instead.

Calcium-40 can also be found in minerals such as mica (found in some igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks), and clay-minerals. So, K-Ar dating can be used

Radiocarbon can only be used in the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, as well as the Bronze Age.



Of course, I can learn more of archaeology, and I would love to learn more. I valued education in history and archaeology, more than I can say about you.

You, on the other hand, don't want to learn anything more, especially if it contradicts the bible. For you ignorance is bliss. You don't like your faith being questioned or challenged.

I, on the other hand, I don't mind challenging historical or archaeological findings, provided that there are evidences to question or challenge it, which you apparently don't have.

You keep wanting to date fossils with radiocarbon, but only idiots would bother to use radiocarbon dating to date fossils that are older than 50,000 years.

The only way you can prove that those marine fossils in the Himalayas are younger, like 4300 years old, would be to find human fossils with those marine fossils.

All you have, are just conjectures and ignorance.

I don't understand what underlies angry, false statements like yours that: "I valued education in history and archaeology, more than I can say about you."

I adore studying history (not so much archaeology) but both sciences validate countless truths in the Bible. We can be informed by history, enjoy history, and also see Bible truths within.

 

[viole]

But your comments assaulting what Christians believe doesn't undo my axiomatic truth, that science evolves.

Yes, it evolves. The problem is that it seems to evolve in the direction of leaving no space to a creator. He is probably suffocating in that ever shrinking gap.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is amazing how self-contradictory you are.

You may withdraw, but you alleged god is recorded in your bible not as a shrinking violet, but as a mighty smite kinda guy.

Past performance is said to be the best predictor of future actions.

I've not been smited.

There is no preferential smiting of skeptics going on.

The logical conclusion is the your god in no more real than the boogieman under the the bed.

It is quite impossible to exhibit disrespect to the nonexistent.

You've not been smited? You are the sole human for whom the law of reciprocity, of reaping what you sow, has never occurred? Fascinating!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Get it right, there is no such thing as an organic fossil. Fossils are rock, organic material is "remains."

Everyone here, save you, comprehends what you wrote. Kinda odd, no?

One you process a single, first sample, then (maybe) there's an assumption. After thousands of samples, when they are all the same, that's viewed as a "fact".
No, it is a process, not a thing or a concept.
True or false, is Schrödinger's Cat alive?
Etc.

A claim without evidence.

Y'all need to get your act together.
They are overturned by data that first falsifies an existing theory, they a modified theory that solves the falsification problem is advanced and tested. You are failing badly on both counts.

Schroedinger's Cat came to mind when I wrote this, because skeptics are so open-minded, don't you know.

Schroedinger's cat is a hypothetical cat. At any given moment, any given real cat is alive or dead and cannot be both simultaneously.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Do you know how they (scientists) can date to this age?
What methods do you think they would use, to date it?​

Well, they certainly wouldn't use radiocarbon dating (C-14). It would be U-Pb dating; that how they date the oldest rocks or minerals.

U-Pb (Uranium-Lead) dating is far more accurate than all other radiometric dating methods, because it can be used to date any types of rocks (igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rocks), even when lead 206 or 207 isotopes are gone from the rocks.

The only problem is that it cannot date rocks with accuracy, younger than 1 million years.

This is why K-Ar are used to date anything as young as couple of thousands of years to as old as over 1.3 billion years. K-Ar can date rocks in the Bronze Age, but it can date anything in the Cambrian era and part of the Late Precambrian.

What you can't seem to grasp that fossilisation of life, takes time to "fossilise", turning bones, teeth, ivory and exoskeleton (e.g. shells) into rocks. These contain calcium so when the circumstances are right, calcium in bones and teeth "mineralise". Tissues, skin, organs rarely survive long enough to mineralise.

Marine fossils wouldn't "fossilise" in a mere 4500 years, on the Himalayas. If you think that can in 4500 years, then you really don't know much about palaeontology and geology at all.

Here's what we both know about fossilization--it cannot be commonly observed in nature today, because it takes extraordinary conditions to be present. Animals dying tend to not fossilize but to be consumed by internal and external processes and predators. The fossils we do have extant are a great pointer to the reality of the Noahic Flood.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, since the passages specifically state the ages when the descendant was born, this objection carries no weight. In many of the cases, the birth is specifically stated as being to the wife of the previous ancestor listed.



Yes, many Biblical events are historical *after* about 900 BC. Before that, the agreement between the Bible and archeology is rather poor.

I appreciate that fact but you are skirting the Hebrew, the consensus of Hebrew scholars, etc. The agreement between the Bible and ancient archaeology fades in part over time, yes, but older and older art

Ok... The pre-existence of truth etc points to a purpose to life and a creator of purpose? And this is obvious? What pre-existence of truth? Why does this point to a being that creates things?

The Law of Noncontradiction (if A is true, A cannot also be false) holds as axiomatic these presuppositions:

*truth exists
*reality exists
*states of being exist (true, false, A, not A, etc.)

Something pre-exists even this universe--the potentiality for this universe to stably exist in the laws of nature.

Either the "things" that made this universe are preexistent beings or the material things themselves are eternal.

 

[gnostic]

I don't understand what underlies angry, false statements like yours that: "I valued education in history and archaeology, more than I can say about you."

I adore studying history (not so much archaeology) but both sciences validate countless truths in the Bible. We can be informed by history, enjoy history, and also see Bible truths within.

You are avoiding the questions, BB.

Why do you ignore my points that palaeontologists and geologists use K-Ar dating and U-Pb dating, not C-14?

K-Ar and U-Pb are more accurate, when dating fossils older than 50k years.

The oldest fossil of whale jawbone found at site in the Himalayas was dated to 53 million years old, long before Genesis was written, long before the mythological Noah, long before humans were ever around.

The age of this bone tell me that it wasn't any Flood of Genesis in the Himalayas. The site indicate before the Himalayas, and before the Indian tectonic collided with the Eurasian tectonic plate, ocean separated the two plates. When the plates did mean, what was ocean bed, caused the land folded, rise upwards, thereby creating the Himalayas.

They wouldn't use radiocarbon dating on those mountains or on any fossil found there. K-Ar dating would be the preferrred method.

I have brought up K-Ar and U-Pb several times, but not once you have addressed it.

That tell me 2 things:

(a) you are either blindly ignorant to those dating methods, or
(b) you are ignoring or evading my points, which makes you dishonest.​

How many times must I ask you to address my points?

Do you think geologists and palaeontologists wouldn't know to use K-Ar and U-Pb on much older fossils?

Why do you always focus on radiocarbon?

From past experiences with you, I don't think you will answer me. You always skirt around when people ask you direct questions.

 

[gnostic]

Here's what we both know about fossilization--it cannot be commonly observed in nature today, because it takes extraordinary conditions to be present. Animals dying tend to not fossilize but to be consumed by internal and external processes and predators. The fossils we do have extant are a great pointer to the reality of the Noahic Flood.

You are avoiding questions.

We were talking about the Genesis Flood.

We are not talking about animals dying that don't fossilised. No, we are talking about the ones that have been found and the ones that we can date.

You were the ones who brought up the marine fossils found in the Himalayas. You were the one who claimed these fossils were caused by Genesis Flood. These discovered fossils can be dated.

I am refuting your claims that these (discovered) marine fossils were not caused by any Flood occurring in the Himalayas, less than 4500 years ago.

most of these marine fossils are older than 30 million years ago, and the whale jawbone found in one of the sites was 53 million years old.

If you had the brain, you can google "whale jawbone Himalayas", and you will find articles as well as data of how old that jawbone is.

If you ever look at the geological history of the Himalayas, you would know that scientists indicate that mountains of the Himalayas were caused by the Indian plate pushing into the Eurasian plate. What was underwater was push upwards.

 

[Polymath257]

Something pre-exists even this universe--the potentiality for this universe to stably exist in the laws of nature.

Why does that pre-exist rather than simply co-exist?

Either the "things" that made this universe are preexistent beings or the material things themselves are eternal.

You are assuming that time existed prior to the universe. Since time is *part* of the universe, that is a contradiction.

My position is that the universe is uncaused. The current expansion may be caused, but if we include anything prior to this expansion phase, then the full universe cannot be caused.

 

[gnostic]

My position is that the universe is uncaused. The current expansion may be caused, but if we include anything prior to this expansion phase, then the full universe cannot be caused.

Same here.

I don't think there was any divine and immortal (or eternal) being(s), whether it be a Creator or the Designer.

From my current position, I think all religions were man-made, and the gods and spirits were all invented by men's imaginations and superstitions, because there are no evidences of any god existing independent of man.

And that include the Christianity, and the belief of some of these theists, called Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design adherents.

 

[gnostic]

I appreciate that fact but you are skirting the Hebrew, the consensus of Hebrew scholars, etc. The agreement between the Bible and ancient archaeology fades in part over time, yes, but older and older art

And yet, most of the times, those scholars - but not just Hebrew scholars, but Christian scholars too - got it wrong when they tried to match bible - from Genesis to Joshua - with history and archaeology.

Adam supposed created about 6000 years ago (about 4000 BCE), and yet the earliest settlement on Jericho has been dated to about 9500 BCE (11,500 years ago). So the first people living in Jericho predated the mythological Adam by some 5000 years.

They even discovered fortified stone wall around Jericho and a tower, and 70 dwellings, dated to mid-9th millennium BCE, hence a very sizeable Neolithic town.

New settlement was built over and on top of older settlements in Jericho, and there has been as many as 20 successive settlements before the current modern city.

The largest settlement in Jericho in the Bronze Age was built in 2600 BCE. Which bring me to my next and last point, because this settlement is very important to archaeology of Jericho. There are no signs (evidences) of devastation to the city caused by any Flood that date between 2400 and 2100 BCE.

The fact that Jericho, and other 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age cities, eg Jerusalem, have no evidences of the Flood at this period, indicate that there was no global flood.

Any Flood of great magnitude, would show evidences, but there are none...not in Jericho, and not in Jerusalem.

 

[gnostic]

There are also no archaeological evidences or historical evidences that Egypt kept Israelites for over 200 years, followed by mass exodus out of Egypt of freed slaves.

And it is funny how large the homeless nation of Hebrews were, about over 600,000 fighting men, not counting old people, women and children, were camp outside at the foot of mount Sinai, awaiting Moses to bring the tablets (Ten Commandment) down from the mountain. And yet there are no evidences such camp of that size being found.

And there are also no evidences to support Joshua's invasion into Canaan, in the 2nd half of 2nd millennium BCE.

Historical and archaeological evidences were only found to match the biblical events, during the two Iron Age kingdoms in the 1st half of 1st millennium BCE - Israel and Judah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And yet, most of the times, those scholars - but not just Hebrew scholars, but Christian scholars too - got it wrong when they tried to match bible - from Genesis to Joshua - with history and archaeology.

Adam supposed created about 6000 years ago (about 4000 BCE), and yet the earliest settlement on Jericho has been dated to about 9500 BCE (11,500 years ago). So the first people living in Jericho predated the mythological Adam by some 5000 years.

They even discovered fortified stone wall around Jericho and a tower, and 70 dwellings, dated to mid-9th millennium BCE, hence a very sizeable Neolithic town.

New settlement was built over and on top of older settlements in Jericho, and there has been as many as 20 successive settlements before the current modern city.

The largest settlement in Jericho in the Bronze Age was built in 2600 BCE. Which bring me to my next and last point, because this settlement is very important to archaeology of Jericho. There are no signs (evidences) of devastation to the city caused by any Flood that date between 2400 and 2100 BCE.

The fact that Jericho, and other 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age cities, eg Jerusalem, have no evidences of the Flood at this period, indicate that there was no global flood.

Any Flood of great magnitude, would show evidences, but there are none...not in Jericho, and not in Jerusalem.

I don't wish to argue your straw men. You are disproving the Bible by taking an age for the birth of Adam that I don't subscribe to. Google the discussions between competent Hebrew and Greek scholars on the issues.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why does that pre-exist rather than simply co-exist?



You are assuming that time existed prior to the universe. Since time is *part* of the universe, that is a contradiction.

My position is that the universe is uncaused. The current expansion may be caused, but if we include anything prior to this expansion phase, then the full universe cannot be caused.

1. You are correct - time and light are linked to we who live in linear time, but I find words like "before" helpful in context.

2. If the universe is uncaused, why is it a leap of faith for you to say it has an uncaused Creator? I honestly don't understand. I don't consider the universe small in any sense but containing a tremendous amount of balance, design and order within.

 

[Polymath257]

1. You are correct - time and light are linked to we who live in linear time, but I find words like "before" helpful in context.

What do they even mean in context?

2. If the universe is uncaused, why is it a leap of faith for you to say it has an uncaused Creator? I honestly don't understand. I don't consider the universe small in any sense but containing a tremendous amount of balance, design and order within.

If the universe is uncaused, why assume a creator (which means there is a cause)?

 

[viole]

Why does that pre-exist rather than simply co-exist?



You are assuming that time existed prior to the universe. Since time is *part* of the universe, that is a contradiction.

My position is that the universe is uncaused. The current expansion may be caused, but if we include anything prior to this expansion phase, then the full universe cannot be caused.

May I ask what you think of the block Universe? I personally cannot imagine how timespace can expand, or change in any way, since dynamics is defined only in terms of things within it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

May I ask what you think of the block Universe? I personally cannot imagine how timespace can expand, or change in any way, since dynamics is defined only in terms of things within it.

Ciao

- viole

Spacetime doesn't expand. Space does.

I'm going to go technical because I know @viole has the background knowledge to understand what I am going to say. For others, ask and I will do my best to answer.

Spacetime is a 4-manifold with a Lorentzian metric (signature (+,-,-,-) ). The first approximation assumption is that there is a fibration of spacelike submanifolds and coordinates at each point wherein the slices are homogeneous in the induced 3-coordinates of the slice. If you solve the Einstein Field equations, your find that the spacetime metric is such that there is an expansion factor that only depends on the time coordinate. I can point to specifics if you would like.

The analogy is to look at the latitude lines on the surface of a sphere with time being given by the latitude and a 1-dimensional 'space' being given by the longitude. Then, 'space', given by the latitude lines, 'expands' as we move north from the south pole until the equator is reached, then 'collapses' again. The overall manifold doesn't change, but the scaling factor on the spatial parts does.

 

[gnostic]

I don't wish to argue your straw men. You are disproving the Bible by taking an age for the birth of Adam that I don't subscribe to. Google the discussions between competent Hebrew and Greek scholars on the issues.

Well, I don't think either Adam and Noah to be real historical people. To me, they are merely literary characters, made up mythological figures, that religious people believe in. And I have hard time believing anyone can live to 930 and 950 years.

And I don't think either events as narrated in the Genesis, thus the creation with Eden episode and the Ark event, ever took place.

But with the translations of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the Greek Septuagint (Sept.), it is possible to work out backwards, from the time of Babylonian army sacking Jerusalem in 587 BCE (which was a real, historical event), all the way to creation of Adam.

Only the Orthodox Churches in the east, relied solely on the Septuagint, while the rest of churches (Catholic and Protestant) relied more on MT, but supplemented some passages on occasions with Septuagint.

Depending on which sources (MT and Septuagint) people use, the calculations of age to Adam's creation can be estimated approximately. There are several different manuscripts for the Septuagint, such as the Vaticanus Codex and Alexandrinus Codex, and the generations given in Genesis, differed in some areas, so they are not in agreement.

Although you can compare the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic and Septuagint, there is only fragments of Genesis 5 only 2 verses survive, and Genesis 11 is completely missing in Qumran's scrolls. Other sources include the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Vulgate Bible.

There are no other old sources but the bible and their various translations. And what we do have, we can estimate through a little research and using basic arithmetic.

Now I may not believe in everything Genesis say, including the ages of when they became fathers of their successors or when they died, we don't have any other information, other than the bible.

The Masoretic text, put it between about 2400 and 2100 for the Flood. While the Septuagint get much older dates, but they (remember there are main extant versions) put the creation of Adam around 5500 BCE, and the Flood to about 3258 BCE (5500 BCE - (Noah's birth 1642 AM - his age when the Flood occur 600)).

But dating the first Neolithic settlement of Jericho, still show it is even older than the Septuagint Adam's creation.

Whether Flood occur in 3258 BCE (according to the Septuagint) or 2340 BCE (as Masoretic say), it doesn't matter, because you are wrong that the Flood caused marine fossils being deposited at the Himalayas.

Remember this post, BB, you wrote (esp. highlighted in red):

If you are familiar with their work, you must also be conversant with the numberless anomalies in stratigraphic layers when digs are done worldwide.

99% of fossils are marine life--much it found as high as the Himalayas, coincident with Flood theory.

Those fossils you are talking about are older than 30 million years old. And the whale jawbone that I keep talking about, is 53 million years old.

There are absolutely no correlations between those marine fossils and your Genesis Flood. Man weren't around when these marine life became fossilised.

That's what I am arguing you were about. The marine fossils had nothing to do with Noah's Flood, and not by tens of millions between your biblical account and palaeontology.

Are you so blind that you cannot distinguish 53 million years (whale jawbone discovered in the Himalayas) from 5258 (Septuagint) or 4340 (Masoretic) years?

That's a huge gap between the bible myth and actual scientific discoveries.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do they even mean in context?



If the universe is uncaused, why assume a creator (which means there is a cause)?

If it is possible that the universe is uncaused, it is possible to have an uncaused Creator (or a caused Creator).

If it is possible that the universe is uncaused than it is possible to have a caused universe. Theists consider an uncaused universe as wildly unprobable and skeptics consider an uncaused one.