How Old Is The Earth?

[Pegg]

If that's true then why do we have evidences of Neolithic settlements of both Jericho and Damascus dated as far back as over 10,000 years ago?

the dating of settlements is not 100% absolute. It is as much opinion as it is a science.

But one thing that is absolute is the fact that the written language has a definite starting point in human history... the oldest written languages appear within the past 6,000 years. I think that is evidence that humanity as we know it is relatively young.

 

[MEMNOCK]

we believe that the age of 'mankind' on earth is only 6,000 years... but not the earth. The earth is obviously much older and the genesis account says nothing of the age of the earth itself. It only gives us the age of mankind by listing the geneology of Adams offspring.

Ahhh, Please explain how that is possible when we have human tools and remains that are much older? That is where I have trouble understanding how a religion can come to that conclusion. Regardless if the bible can be interpreted as that, if the facts show differently, there must be something wrong with the biblical interpretation...right?

 

[MEMNOCK]

Hi, I believe God created the earth and that it is not very old. I'm a Christian, but not all Christians believe that.

Hey Javajo, what brings you to that conclusion if you dont mind me asking?

 

[gnostic]

the dating of settlements is not 100% absolute. It is as much opinion as it is a science.

And is belief in a god, 100% absolute? (Edit: that should have been a question mark, not full stop.)

I don't see god, I don't hear god, nor do I feel god...and can you see, hear or feel god yourself, like the way you can see, hear and feel your parents or your husband or your children.

If I don't and you don't, then I would consider your belief in your god to be 99% false. Your belief is based solely on your faith, and not on physical and tangible evidence.

Do not confuse faith with evidence, because they are not the same. Faith (in gods) is like your personal opinion, so it can never be 100% absolute.

And what of people of different religion to yours? They may have different faith to another god (or more), so how you be absolutely sure that your god is real and their is not.

Science is about what can be observed and tested. There are evidences in Damascus and Jericho, and other ancient sites that are older than 6000 years. Whether they 10,000 years or plus-minus 100 years for margin of error, those remains of 2 cities are still older than Adam's supposed creation.

 

[Pegg]

Ahhh, Please explain how that is possible when we have human tools and remains that are much older? That is where I have trouble understanding how a religion can come to that conclusion. Regardless if the bible can be interpreted as that, if the facts show differently, there must be something wrong with the biblical interpretation...right?

It may not be the biblical interpretation that is wrong, why cant it be the dating of the artifacts as wrong?

Do you think that everything they date is 100% absolutely accurate? Perhaps those tools that they find may not be as old as they think they are.

 

[Pegg]

And is belief in a god, 100% absolute.

I don't see god, I don't hear god, nor do I feel god...and can you see, hear or feel god yourself, like the way you can see, hear and feel your parents or your husband or your children. If I don't and you don't, then I would consider your belief in your god to be 99% false. Your belief is based solely on your faith, and not on physical and tangible evidence.

every physical thing around us is a demonstration of Gods existence. The laws of nature are a demonstration of a lawmaker, those laws themselves cannot create information or living beings, nor can those laws create consciousness, nor can those laws put information in to the dna

so everything around us demonstrates that God exists.

Do not confuse faith with evidence, because they are not the same. Faith (in gods) is like your personal opinion, so it can never be 100% absolute.

that may be true for some, but true faith is really based on knowledge. Knowedge leads to faith in God because knowledge gives a firm foundation for belief in the first place.
The more we learn about nature, the more we come to realize that it is a supernatural miracle that it even exists....we dont need faith to know this. The more we learn about Gods dealings with mankind over the centuries, the more confidence we have that he is a God of action and he always does what he says he will do.
Faith only comes into the picture regarding the things we are yet to see him do...the things he promises that he will do in the future. So yes, i have faith...but not faith that God exists because we dont need faith to realise that the physical world is impossible without him.

And what of people of different religion to yours? They may have different faith to another god (or more), so how you be absolutely sure that your god is real and their is not.

there is only one God. All mankind have chosen different ways of worshiping him. I choose to adopt the method he gave to Israel because he proved to be with Israel...he wasnt with any other nation.

He also proved to be with Jesus. so its just a logical decision to go with those who God proved to be with. And this is what makes religion a conscious decision and a matter of free will...if God was with every form of religion, it wouldnt matter which one we chose to adopt, but if he was only with one, then we have the option of choosing to worship him.

Science is about what can be observed and tested. There are evidences in Damascus and Jericho, and other ancient sites that are older than 6000 years. Whether they 10,000 years or plus-minus 100 years for margin of error, those remains of 2 cities are still older than Adam's supposed creation.

its a matter of debate really. The bibles history is so well founded that it has proved a much more reliable source then any other...for that reason it would be wrong to ignore it in favor of the opinions of people who may be wrong.

 

[Photonic]

its a matter of debate really. The bibles history is so well founded that it has proved a much more reliable source then any other...for that reason it would be wrong to ignore it in favor of the opinions of people who may be wrong.

There is no debate about this. We KNOW for fact that there are things millions of years old. This is not up for discussion, these things are essential facts about existence. Denying them is denying reality itself.

 

[McBell]

The bibles history is so well founded that it has proved a much more reliable source then any other...for that reason it would be wrong to ignore it in favor of the opinions of people who may be wrong.

This is nothing more than a combination of wishful thinking, plain old fashioned denial, and willful ignorance.

 

[Pegg]

There is no debate about this. We KNOW for fact that there are things millions of years old. This is not up for discussion, these things are essential facts about existence. Denying them is denying reality itself.

the earth has been here for billions of years, but you cannot, without doubt state the same about the human race.

If a human picks up a piece of rock and turns that rock into a tool, of course the tool itself could be millions of years old because the material used was millions of years old. But you cannot claim the human who made the tool is as old as the material he used.

ps, everything is up for discussion

 

[oldbadger]

It's 4.54 billion years old. With some deviation.

Please tell me..... is 4.54 billion.........

either:- 4.54 thousand million
or:- 4.54 million million

I don't know whether astronomers are using a billion like the bankers do, or like in the old days. So..... do you know? Please? Cos it makes a difference!

 

[oldbadger]

There is no debate about this............. This is not up for discussion........

Excuse me hacking your quote up, but you're wrong.... aren't you?
We are having a debate.......this is a discussion......
It started out as a debate about the age of the earth, which Pegg happens to believe is as old as science can put a date on. But then so many decended, like wolves into the fold, over her belief about the age of mankind. Is that what was planned here?

Neanderhal man was around for a long time, and although not so advanced, could still make jewellery, tools and weapons. People like Eric von Daniken reckon that mankind was produced here about 6 thousand years ago. Hence the biblical reports in the bible of space ships collecting prophets (Elijah) etc. I don't expect that Pegg wants to stand beside the 'God was an astronaut' crew, nor am I saying that I accept all this, simply that respectful consideration must be given to all beliefs. Yes?

 

[Looncall]

Excuse me hacking your quote up, but you're wrong.... aren't you?
We are having a debate.......this is a discussion......
It started out as a debate about the age of the earth, which Pegg happens to believe is as old as science can put a date on. But then so many decended, like wolves into the fold, over her belief about the age of mankind. Is that what was planned here?

Neanderhal man was around for a long time, and although not so advanced, could still make jewellery, tools and weapons. People like Eric von Daniken reckon that mankind was produced here about 6 thousand years ago. Hence the biblical reports in the bible of space ships collecting prophets (Elijah) etc. I don't expect that Pegg wants to stand beside the 'God was an astronaut' crew, nor am I saying that I accept all this, simply that respectful consideration must be given to all beliefs. Yes?

No respect should be given to beliefs that are shown to be flat-out false, especially when they are held only to support superstition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please tell me..... is 4.54 billion.........

either:- 4.54 thousand million
or:- 4.54 million million

I don't know whether astronomers are using a billion like the bankers do, or like in the old days. So..... do you know? Please? Cos it makes a difference!

It's 4.54 thousand million.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may not be the biblical interpretation that is wrong, why cant it be the dating of the artifacts as wrong?

Do you think that everything they date is 100% absolutely accurate? Perhaps those tools that they find may not be as old as they think they are.

Radiocarbon dating is very accurate, and it works for things up to about 50,000 years old.

As long as a person (or any living organism) is alive, they're taking in carbon from the environment - this is how we build our bodies and have a functioning metabolism. This carbon we take in isn't all one isotope: some of it is stable, but some of it is unstable forms that will break down over time. We know the rate at which these isotopes will break down based on fundamental principles of nuclear physics.

In the environment around us, these isotopes are in a particular ratio with each other. In a dead organism, though, the ratio will vary: the unstable isotopes will break down over time, changing the ratio between them. This means that scientists can look at the ratio to figure out an organism's age.

As I mentioned, this form of dating is very accurate and precise. Not only does the sciencr work on its own, it's been confirmed many, many times by dating things of already-known age: when we date something that we know to be from the time of Jesus, for instance, we get an age of 2,000 years.

These same methods tell us that there are examples of homo sapiens that are older than the maximum that carbon dating can date. They also tell us that things like animal pigments used in cave paintings in France are about 40,000 years old.

I suppose you can always find an excuse to disregard this evidence; maybe God made the laws of physics different in the past, maybe it was "angels" who did those paintings and not humans, maybe "deceiving demons" have fooled every nuclear physicist who has ever lived... but those sort of hand-waving dismissals aside, the evidence does point with very high certainty to humanity being at least an order of magnitude older than 9,000 years.

If we werr trying to reconcile a difference of like a century or two, sure: maybe we could appeal to imprecision in dating methods. However, you're claiming that humanity's age is less than a tenth of what reliable dating methods say it is. If those dating methods are that wrong, then all of physics is wrong. This would mean that satellites and nuclear power plants just wouldn't work the way we think they should. I don't know about you, but I get my power from nuclear and my lights still work.

 

[Photonic]

Excuse me hacking your quote up, but you're wrong.... aren't you?
We are having a debate.......this is a discussion......
It started out as a debate about the age of the earth, which Pegg happens to believe is as old as science can put a date on. But then so many decended, like wolves into the fold, over her belief about the age of mankind. Is that what was planned here?

Neanderhal man was around for a long time, and although not so advanced, could still make jewellery, tools and weapons. People like Eric von Daniken reckon that mankind was produced here about 6 thousand years ago. Hence the biblical reports in the bible of space ships collecting prophets (Elijah) etc. I don't expect that Pegg wants to stand beside the 'God was an astronaut' crew, nor am I saying that I accept all this, simply that respectful consideration must be given to all beliefs. Yes?

I disagree. When those beliefs make a falsifiable claim, that claim, and consequently the belief built on that claim, is not a valid one.

Not to mention, dating is literally set in stone. we do truly and completely know that the Earth, and human civilization stretches quite far beyond the scope of the Bible.

Ever heard of Mesopotamia?

 

[oldbadger]

It's 4.54 thousand million.

Thankyou....... brilliant! At last I know! (been wondering about that for yonks).

 

[oldbadger]

No respect should be given to beliefs that are shown to be flat-out false, especially when they are held only to support superstition.

No respect should be given........ ?? I think that respect should be given to all people, as long as they aren't brandishing machine guns etc.

And although I have accepted science's dating technique for a long time I would never consider that the age of mankind smashes to pieces a whole faith, or a whole religion. Such intolerance....... of course, ..... intolerance. That is one of the words that describes 'bigotry' in my dictionary.

9/10ths Penguin's description was given with the grace and wisdom of a teacher. I just think that this is the best approach. No offence meant to you, but.....

 

[oldbadger]

I disagree. When those beliefs make a falsifiable claim, that claim, and consequently the belief built on that claim, is not a valid one.

Not to mention, dating is literally set in stone. we do truly and completely know that the Earth, and human civilization stretches quite far beyond the scope of the Bible.

Ever heard of Mesopotamia?

Yeah ..... yeah..... I accepted mankind as hundreds of thousands of years old a long time ago. I have studied anthroplogy for some decades now. Used it to help develop nvg-id training for detectives.

Just think that debate and discussion is what this forum is for. I hope that the Jehovah's witnesses can hold-up despite the fact that mankind is well-old.

I have learned too much from Pegg not to react to that kind of approach, that's all.

 

[Looncall]

No respect should be given........ ?? I think that respect should be given to all people, as long as they aren't brandishing machine guns etc.

And although I have accepted science's dating technique for a long time I would never consider that the age of mankind smashes to pieces a whole faith, or a whole religion. Such intolerance....... of course, ..... intolerance. That is one of the words that describes 'bigotry' in my dictionary.

9/10ths Penguin's description was given with the grace and wisdom of a teacher. I just think that this is the best approach. No offence meant to you, but.....

People deserve some respect, more if they earn it. Beliefs are not people. Why should one respect false beliefs?

If a crucial belief of a religion turns out to be false, that's tough. After all, what can one expect of ideas formed in the times of humanity's ignorance?

I think it is a real test of people's honesty when they find a belief is false. Honest people let go of their false beliefs and carry on. Dishonest one cling to them, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Pegg]

Radiocarbon dating is very accurate, and it works for things up to about 50,000 years old.

As long as a person (or any living organism) is alive, they're taking in carbon from the environment - this is how we build our bodies and have a functioning metabolism. This carbon we take in isn't all one isotope: some of it is stable, but some of it is unstable forms that will break down over time. We know the rate at which these isotopes will break down based on fundamental principles of nuclear physics.

scientists have to assume that the rate of decay was the same millions of years ago as it is today....that creates a degree of doubt.

They know what the rate of decay is today, but they dont know what it was 5,000 years ago... does the atmosphere contain the same amount of radioactivity as it did 10,000 years ago or a 100,000 years ago? Is the atmosphere the same now as it was back then? These are possible variables that they do not know for sure.

The rate of decay may not have been as severe as it is today...can all the additional pollutants in todays atmosphere increase the rate of decay? Considering nuclear waste and the nuclear bombs that have been released into the atmosphere in the past 100 years, it would be naive to assume that the atmosphere is the same now as it was back then, right? Things may appear much older then they might actually be.

As I mentioned, this form of dating is very accurate and precise. Not only does the sciencr work on its own, it's been confirmed many, many times by dating things of already-known age: when we date something that we know to be from the time of Jesus, for instance, we get an age of 2,000 years.

and it is based on the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today, but has the level always been the same as it is now? That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially.
So it is only 'assumed' that the atmosphere and the rate of decay is the same today as it was back then.

Has our atmosphere changed in recent times? Yes it has. We know global warming is caused by the release of carbon, so the atmosphere is not always stable...that being the case there is no point assuming the atmosphere is always the same. Its not. Even when the sun sends out a solar flare, we know it sends so much radiation to earth that there can be a sudden spike in the temperature. This is why radiocarbon dating may not be as accurate as believed...it is good for dating relatively young objects, but still should not be considered 100% accurate.