Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Audie]

Actually, no it isn't. it is a statement of fact concerning the current scientific consensus. There is no debate about whether or not the earth is billions of years old in the scientific community. It is a settled area of knowledge.




There is plenty of evidence, both paleontological and genetic showing the divergence of human ancestors from other primates.

And you are correct, neither Plato nor Aristotle's ideas would be accepted as modern science. They were philosophers at a time when knowledge about the world was very, very limited. In fact, the mistakes that Aristotle made were a big part of the reason the scientific revolution didn't happen earlier.

Among the more pathetic tricks of the creationists such as
above is to immediately start warning against, or claiming
"INSULTS", thinking it wins them the moral high ground.

 

[gnostic]

Fossils do not come with lineage attached. They are evidence of bones, remains. That is it. Everything else is ginned up after the fact.

Except that fossilisation don’t occur less than 10,000 years ago.

You will only find fossils that are older than 10,000 years, and better if they were tens of thousands of years, or better still at hundreds of thousands years or millions of years old.

So time is a factor, if fossilisation occurred.

But fossilisation don’t often occur every single time.

The environment of where the fossils are found, are also factors. For instance, where the animals died, and if the areas formed into layers of rocks (more often occurring where sedimentary rocks formed) would assist body (mostly bones and teeth) in permineralisation.

The area where the bodies laid, have to turn into rock as well. Bodies are normally found in the layers of sedimentary rocks. That’s even more important than time.

Say some skeletal remains of something died about a million years ago, only half buried for all that time in silt (soil). There are no way for fossilisation occurring in such a condition.

If the layer of silt didn’t form into mudstone or shale (sedimentary), then it is not possible for the remains to turn into fossils.

If you buried a person in tomb, like a cave, for instance, and the remains not found a million years later, fossilisation will never occur.

If you were to believe the story of Noah, and there were mass extinction, in less than 4500 years ago, to be all true, then fossilisation would not occur to any man, animal or plant, because 4500 years is far too short a time for mass fossilisation to occur.

Some of more ignorant creationists actually believed that dinosaurs were all killed by Noah’s Flood, less than 4500 years ago.

According to these absurdly ignorant creationists, they actually believed that Noah’s ancestors, such as Adam, Seth, Enoch and Lamech have all walked with dinosaurs.

At no stage were any fossil of dinosaur found with any human remain. No fossil remains of dinosaurs ever found dated to 4500 years ago.

And you wouldn’t use radiocarbon (C-14) to date rocks or fossils as old as the dinosaurs. The most common dating methods used are uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating method or potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating method; both of these are very reliable for dating rocks or fossils that are older than 1 million years old.

U-Pb dating have even a greater half-life than K-Ar, capable of dating rocks and minerals that are billions of years old.

Only idiot creationists would think palaeontologists would only use radiocarbon dating for all dating purposes. Palaeontologists have already known that (C-14) dating anything older 50,000 years would become increasingly unreliable and inaccurate, hence they would either use U-Pb or K-Ar instead of C-14.

What I find funny is that creationists always focused on the limitations of C-14 dating, and always ignored other dating methods, like K-Ar and U-Pb. Or they would ignore Luminescence dating, or the ice core samples (the oldest ice core discovered is 2.7 million years old, which is older than oldest Homo sapiens of 200,000 years old).

 

[Audie]

Except that fossilisation don’t occur less than 10,000 years ago.

You will only find fossils that are older than 10,000 years, and better if they were tens of thousands of years, or better still at hundreds of thousands years or millions of years old.

So time is a factor, if fossilisation occurred.

But fossilisation don’t often occur every single time.

The environment of where the fossils are found, are also factors. For instance, where the animals died, and if the areas formed into layers of rocks (more often occurring where sedimentary rocks formed) would assist body (mostly bones and teeth) in permineralisation.

The area where the bodies laid, have to turn into rock as well. Bodies are normally found in the layers of sedimentary rocks. That’s even more important than time.

Say some skeletal remains of something died about a million years ago, only half buried for all that time in silt (soil). There are no way for fossilisation occurring in such a condition.

If the layer of silt didn’t form into mudstone or shale (sedimentary), then it is not possible for the remains to turn into fossils.

If you buried a person in tomb, like a cave, for instance, and the remains not found a million years later, fossilisation will never occur.

If you were to believe the story of Noah, and there were mass extinction, in less than 4500 years ago, to be all true, then fossilisation would not occur to any man, animal or plant, because 4500 years is far too short a time for mass fossilisation to occur.

Some of more ignorant creationists actually believed that dinosaurs were all killed by Noah’s Flood, less than 4500 years ago.

According to these absurdly ignorant creationists, they actually believed that Noah’s ancestors, such as Adam, Seth, Enoch and Lamech have all walked with dinosaurs.

At no stage were any fossil of dinosaur found with any human remain. No fossil remains of dinosaurs ever found dated to 4500 years ago.

And you wouldn’t use radiocarbon (C-14) to date rocks or fossils as old as the dinosaurs. The most common dating methods used are uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating method or potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating method; both of these are very reliable for dating rocks or fossils that are older than 1 million years old.

U-Pb dating have even a greater half-life than K-Ar, capable of dating rocks and minerals that are billions of years old.

Only idiot creationists would think palaeontologists would only use radiocarbon dating for all dating purposes. Palaeontologists have already known that (C-14) dating anything older 50,000 years would become increasingly unreliable and inaccurate, hence they would either use U-Pb or K-Ar instead of C-14.

What I find funny is that creationists always focused on the limitations of C-14 dating, and always ignored other dating methods, like K-Ar and U-Pb. Or they would ignore Luminescence dating, or the ice core samples (the oldest ice core discovered is 2.7 million years old, which is older than oldest Homo sapiens of 200,000 years old).

You are generally correct, your heart is in the
right place, but some of what you say about
fossilization really wont do.

 

[gnostic]

You are generally correct, your heart is in the
right place, but some of what you say about
fossilization really wont do.

I am not a palaeontologist, so if I am wrong about something regarding to fossilisation then please explain or clarify.

I have studied geology, but not radiometric dating methods, nor that of palaeontology, because neither of them were covered in civil engineering course, because they are not relevant. So they are not my areas of expertise.

So anything I got wrong, I would welcome corrections.

 

[dimmesdale]

Actually, no it isn't.

Flat Earth and ridiculous is an attack.

it is a statement of fact concerning the current scientific consensus.

Bandwagon appeals unscientific. Who cares what they think, what can they prove?

There is no debate about whether or not the earth is billions of years old in the scientific community. It is a settled area of knowledge.

Yeah that is called orthodoxy. Dissent is blasphemy. Nothing is settled in historical since it is inexact and subject to group bias. Don't throw around words like science when many in the field consider historical about as scientific as psychology. They cannot test their assumptions against what actually happened.

There is plenty of evidence, both paleontological and genetic showing the divergence of human ancestors from other primates.

Yeah that is called an assertion. You can say there is plenty of evidence horses today point to winged pegasus in the past. From Atheist Channel.

A person must support what they are saying...A claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus anyone making the claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

And you are correct, neither Plato nor Aristotle's ideas would be accepted as modern science.

That would be anachronistic. Why would anyone reasonably expect men who lived thousands of yrs ago to purport ideas which are considered scientific by modern standards? Aristitle was considered a philosopher and scientist for his time. From Google.

What is the major contribution of Aristotle?
Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.) Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre. He was a student of Plato who in turn studied under Socrates.

They were philosophers at a time when knowledge about the world was very, very limited. In fact, the mistakes that Aristotle made were a big part of the reason the scientific revolution didn't happen earlier.

It sounds like knowledge about their world is very limited. If not for men like them we would not be here. We stand on their shoulders. ''Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand yrs ago.' Goethe.

 

[Audie]

Creationists raise what they think are "issues"
about things that are face-palms for educated people.

Many of them have so little clue that they can only
speak in the vaguest generalities, empty words
like "assumtiom", "assertion", "orthodoxy", "blasphemy"
and such, that they cannot possibly support with
anything.

Because, of course, they have not the faintest
notion what they are talking about.

Except they know they dont like it.

 

[Polymath257]

Flat Earth and ridiculous is an attack.

No, actually. Flat Earth is a direct comparison to creationism in the aspects of science denial. Ridiculous is a judgement of the claims made.

Bandwagon appeals unscientific. Who cares what they think, what can they prove? Yeah that is called orthodoxy. Dissent is blasphemy. Nothing is settled in historical since it is inexact and subject to group bias. Don't throw around words like science when many in the field consider historical about as scientific as psychology. They cannot test their assumptions against what actually happened.

On the contrary, the way that consensus is made in the scientific community is based on what can be proven based on the evidence.

Yeah that is called an assertion. You can say there is plenty of evidence horses today point to winged pegasus in the past. From Atheist Channel.

A person must support what they are saying...A claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus anyone making the claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

What support of the claims will you accept? Links to refereed journal articles?

That would be anachronistic. Why would anyone reasonably expect men who lived thousands of yrs ago to purport ideas which are considered scientific by modern standards? Aristitle was considered a philosopher and scientist for his time. From Google.

What is the major contribution of Aristotle?
Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.) Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre. He was a student of Plato who in turn studied under Socrates.

And the word 'science' had a much different meaning at that time. Aristotle was NOT a scientist, as that concept simply didn't exist at that point. He was a philosopher. Furthermore, he was *wrong* about almost every point related to physics and metaphysics.

It sounds like knowledge about their world is very limited. If not for men like them we would not be here. We stand on their shoulders. ''Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand yrs ago.' Goethe.

Yes, we stand on the shoulders of those who made progress in the past. But that doens't mean that those in the past got things right.

 

[dimmesdale]

No, actually. Flat Earth is a direct comparison to creationism in the aspects of science denial.

Flat earth is a slur and there is no science denial when it comes to experimental. Again, you are conflating experimental when historical.

On the contrary, the way that consensus is made in the scientific community is based on what can be proven based on the evidence.

Bandwagon appeals are unscientific. Science is not a majority rule, it is not a democracy. If not then please show where i am wrong.

What support of the claims will you accept? Links to refereed journal articles?

If you don't know identity then how do you know the creature existed in the first place? Make your empirical case because it sounds like faith no more valid than belief in goblins or fairies. Go ahead show me how smart you are.

And the word 'science' had a much different meaning at that time. Aristotle was NOT a scientist, as that concept simply didn't exist at that point. He was a philosopher. Furthermore, he was *wrong* about almost every point related to physics and metaphysics.

Well you can go to google and tell them they are wrong. You did say earlier there is not debate in history and here you are debating history. Well which is it?

Yes, we stand on the shoulders of those who made progress in the past. But that doens't mean that those in the past got things right.

Same with the present. They are not always right.

 

[Polymath257]

Flat earth is a slur and there is no science denial when it comes to experimental. Again, you are conflating experimental when historical.

No, I am not. It is possible to test ideas even for historical sciences. And flat earth is a slur only because it shows the silliness of science deniers. I consider 'creationist' to be at an equivalent level to flat earthers. Both deny what we have learned over the last few centuries.

Bandwagon appeals are unscientific. Science is not a majority rule, it is not a democracy. If not then please show where i am wrong.

You are right. Science is based on the consensus of those scientists working in the subject.

If you don't know identity then how do you know the creature existed in the first place? Make your empirical case because it sounds like faith no more valid than belief in goblins or fairies. Go ahead show me how smart you are.

We can know things from the evidence they leave behind. In the case of a common ancestor with, say other primates, the DNA in our bodies (and those of modern primates) is part of the evidence that shows a common ancestor.

Well you can go to google and tell them they are wrong. You did say earlier there is not debate in history and here you are debating history. Well which is it?

Huh? yes, Aristotle was wrong about many aspects of science. That was part of what was demonstrated 400 years ago by Galileo and, a bit later, by Newton.

Same with the present. They are not always right.

I agree. But, given the increased amount of evidence and the standard that ideas be testable, we have a much closer approximation than in the past. And, often, an approximation is good enough to show some ideas are just wrong. We can eliminate creationism as a modern scientific theory because its ideas were considered and shown to be wrong over 150 years ago.

Even if the current ideas are not correct in every detail, that doesn't mean any new description will be creationist. That ship has passed. it doesn't fit the facts on the ground. What may well happen is that different mechanisms for species change will be discovered other than natural selection.

 

[Jose Fly]

Make your empirical case because it sounds like faith no more valid than belief in goblins or fairies.

Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry

Abstract
While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received criticism. One primary criticism is that prior methods take sequence similarity as evidence for common ancestry while ignoring other potential biological causes of similarity, such as functional constraints. We present a new statistical framework to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry that avoids this pitfall. We illustrate the efficacy of our approach using a recently published large molecular alignment to examine common ancestry of all primates (including humans). We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species. The novel statistical methods presented here provide formal means to test separate ancestry versus common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data while accounting for functional constraints that limit nucleotide base usage on a site-by-site basis.​