Age of the Earth 2

[Manofwork]

Hey SA wheres my answer or aren't i scientific enough for you?

[Bread_of_Life]

traveller

I find it extraordinary that a very well spoken, highly educated man such as yourself, would go to a Christian forum board to discuss science.

It would be extraordinary if I chose *only* to discuss science on Christian bulletin boards - because after all I am hardly going to find the scientific content of the arguments I hear challenging, nor will I probably hear anything substantially new or innovative in the scientific field.

However, I do have other circles that I mix in. What I do find challenging about places like this is educating those who are both uneducated, and anti-education. It's one thing teaching science to those who don't know much about science, it's quite another thing teaching science to those who are ethically and religiously opposed to its conclusion. That is a challenge - and it requires a level of understanding, clarity, transparency and simplicity that conversation with my scientific peers does not. I can't use "code words" or "science speak" - I can't assume knowledge - I have to understand things from their very basic level up.

Not only that, but on a site like this educative pursuits really are fulfilling - because it opens the eyes of a generation who may never come across someone like me, a real live scientist, in their everyday lives. It also improves upon the off-rote learning that school children tend to learn in textbooks.

Are you here because there is a doubt in your resolve that there is no God? Even a small one?

There is always doubt of course, in matters that are not certain - although little doubt remains in my mind of the existence of a Judeo-Christian God. The possibility that there is a (particularly shy) God remains open of course.

Are you here because the Lord drew you to this place?

How could I possibly know?

Also, you might want to know, this is exactly what the people at the last Christian site I visited said to me. 4800 posts later, and many many prayers, I'm still an atheist.

SA, have you always believed in man only?

No, I was a Christian as a child, although stopped believing in Christianity and God at 8 years old.

Dr Luke

So it is built upon empirical evidence , mathematics that is. By the way that was my worst subject. It's foundation is based upon experiment and observation?

No. Not quite. Mathematics is not founded on observational or experimental principles - or inductive experiment. However, in order to formulate and understand mathematics, we do need to experience certain concepts in order to understand them, those concepts being nothingness and wholeness. However, I would not call this an observational or inductive basis, not like science anyhow, that relies on empirical evidence. Mathematics does not rely on empirical evidence, merely abstract concepts, it's just that we need some experience of something to formulate and understand these abstract concepts.

So under observation it had better bear out that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

No, 2 is defined as 1 + 1. Actually, more accurately, 2 is defined as the next whole unit after 1, which is defined as the next whole unit before nothingness.

Are you and I conversing via a Computer generated Bulletin Board?

Probably so, although I cannot hope to prove it outright. However, I can show beyond reasonable everyday doubt that this hypothesis is the most probable.

Nebula

Yes, the translation of numbers and symbols is our invention, but the principles behind them? Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 is the language we invented. But, did we invent the principle or did we discover it?

We certainly didn't invent the principle of nothingness and wholeness, we discovered these. From these, we define a number series, and hence invent basic arithmetic, multiplication, fractions, and then calculus.

Do you not find it amazing that the universe can be described at all?

No, since we have tools to describe both order and randomness, and these are the only two options. Any universe with any random set of physical laws will be able to be described, and, if it is at all non-random, predicted to a certain extent.

How so? What basis or evidence do you believe that on?

Well, firstly, I have empirical evidence that it can happen, in evolution. Secondly, I have a theoretical understanding of how order can build naturally from disorder, given energy (by means of non-random selection).

The simplest example of natural order building up that I can think of is a hole on a beach. A hole on a beach will have pebbles and stones washed over it, but it will only let in pebbles and stones small enough to fall in, while it will reject those that are too big, and these will wash over it. This non-random but perfectly natural sorting mechanism will eventually build up a 1,0 digital pair (small inside, large outside) - information, order, decrease in local entropy.

[mobile21]

Mobile21

But you do believe in leprechauns.......... at least due to the mathematical probability of life in the universe, you must believe that there are at least a dozen planets inhabited by some of the leprechaun species

Firstly, this isn't true - the chances of life on other planets being humanoid, far less leprechaun like, is extremely unlikely.

Secondly, this is avoiding my point, which was that I don't need to disprove the idea of leprechauns existing not to believe in them. There could be an invisible leprechaun living on my ceiling for all I know, I can hardly disprove this - but it is sufficiently unlikely that, without very good evidence, I will believe it false.

The equation of life contains no way to know "how many" are "humanoid" because there are no specific requirements for the "evolution of humanoids" so it's false to say it's "highly unlikely" or "likely" or whatever .

As for your leprechaun, you can say it exists or that it doesn't because the idea of leprechaun has already been reasoned in your brain and it has come to a conclusion on the basis of proof, this means there's always proof backing a logical conclusion so it's impossible for you to say "I don't believe because I don't have proof". The truth is you always do but you conceal it because you know it's not self-evident to others.

[Bread_of_Life]

The equation of life contains no way to know "how many" are "humanoid" because there are no specific requirements for the "evolution of humanoids" so it's false to say it's "highly unlikely" or "likely" or whatever

Humanoid is just one "bauplan" (body plan) - one of an almost unending number imaginable. It is insignificantly unlikely that on another planet, with different conditions, different initial evolutionary starting points, maybe even a different genetic code, and certainly different selection pressures that creatures should evolve with the same bauplan as us, especially *that* similar (not only is their body shape similar, but also their facial configuration, their pentadactyl limbs etc).

The truth is you always do but you conceal it because you know it's not self-evident to others.

Are you telling me that I am concealing my proof that leprechauns don't exist so as to trick you?

Well then, since I have come across this proof, and I'm hardly a leprechaun expert - why don't you try to work it out? What sort of an experiment might I have done to prove that leprechauns don't exist? What sort of observations might I have made? What sort of reasoning could I have gone through?

I submit again, that I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist. I can't prove that there arn't several invisible leprechauns in my room watching me type at this very instant. But I don't believe in it (and nor do you), despite having no proof that it isn't so.

[artsylady]

One quick point about the comment on carbon dating...actually its believed to be accurate to 50,000 years not 8,000...but the whole scheme of carbon dating is thrown off and very unpredictable after about 2500 years...right about the time of the flood. Trust me I'm an archaeologist and I see how wrong Carbon dating is on a regular basis. Its almost never accurate and the researche simply chooses the dates that are closeest to his/her idea of the find. Very much preconcieved notions here.

God Bless

Steve

www.bairdclan.com 

I borrowed this from another thread. Your thoughts?

[artsylady]

A bit on anthropology:

Did you know there are about 250 flood legends from around the world, many of which speak of a man building a boat, taking his family and animals on the boat, saving themselves?

Why so many legends surrounding 'dragons' from around the world as well? When ancient man clearly invented a creature, it was a combination of creatures they already knew - a human with a horse's body, the sphinx, etc. These ficticious creatures are specific to a general geographic location. However, the 'dragon' appears numerous times all over the globe.

In the study of feral children (about 30 have been observed) they were never able to communicate to any degree once discovered. Even two sisters who had been abandoned together at a young age had no form of communication between each other - no handsignals or anything. Meaning: You have to be taught how to speak at a young age. If this doesn't happen, you simply don't and cannot learn. Yet evolutionary thinking leads us to believe that language somehow evolved not just once, but hundreds of times around the globe in the form of many languages. Another point of languages, linguists believe that speech did develop about 6000 yeas ago and that we all began with one language. It all fits with Biblical reasoning, but definitely not with evolutionary thinking.

[artsylady]

Scientific Athiest:

Noah's sons and grandsons are named in the Bible. Did you know that the names of these men's are actually ancient names for geographic locations and cities?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/noah.asp

This is a fascinating link for those who would like to see where the descendants of Noah migrated to.

[Bread_of_Life]

artsylady,

I borrowed this from another thread. Your thoughts?

Well, firstly, I cannot comment on insinuation and rumour about the workings of un-named scientists and un-named labs, which is essentially what the post consisted of.

Secondly, C-14 dating is irrelevant in dating the age of the earth.

Did you know there are about 250 flood legends from around the world, many of which speak of a man building a boat, taking his family and animals on the boat, saving themselves?

I'm not at all surprised that flood legends are common. Floods are very common (and Tsunami and massive waves are also fairly common in some parts of the world), and coastlines even more common. I certain that there are many legends of great storms also, because this is another common force of nature.

Why so many legends surrounding 'dragons' from around the world as well?

Dragons are essentially big lizards. There are several giant lizards living in the world today (although they are smaller than the dragons of legend - time and tide has clearly enlarged them significantly, and allowed them to fly and breathe fire etc).

Yet evolutionary thinking leads us to believe that language somehow evolved not just once, but hundreds of times around the globe in the form of many languages.

No, it doesn't. Language was probably only evolved one or a few times (the ability to talk only once), then differentiated and "mutated" (changed) and specialised.

In the study of feral children (about 30 have been observed) they were never able to communicate to any degree once discovered.

Are feral children typical of our ancestors? No, because our ancestors lived in communities, where communication was vital. I'm not surprised that feral children don't talk, they havn't been exposed to any other creature capable of meanigful speech or understandable communication.

Noah's sons and grandsons are named in the Bible. Did you know that the names of these men's are actually ancient names for geographic locations and cities?

I didn't know that, but again, I'm not surprised at all. Popular myths have to have some starting point - and they also tend to influence cultures that invent or are exposed to them.

artsylady, I appreciate your posts, but the fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no physical evidence of a worldwide flood in the near past (or at any time in the past in fact) and there is plenty of physical evidence against this hypothesis. This physical evidence comes from as diverse fields as biology, anthropology, geology, archaeology, biochemistry, physics and paleontology.

However, there is some evidence of a local flood (the Red Sea flood) that may well have passed into legend as a worldwide flood (the "world" of the ancients being so much smaller than our world).

[artsylady]

Well, firstly, I cannot comment on insinuation and rumour about the workings of un-named scientists and un-named labs, which is essentially what the post consisted of.

Secondly, C-14 dating is irrelevant in dating the age of the earth.

The quote came from an archaeologist who is on the board. Steve Baird.

I'm not at all surprised that flood legends are common. Floods are very common (and Tsunami and massive waves are also fairly common in some parts of the world), and coastlines even more common. I certain that there are many legends of great storms also, because this is another common force of nature.

The legend also passed down, which is very significant, tells the story of a man whose family and the animals were saved on a boat. It's not just the flood. And if the story were just of a worldwide flood where all perished, how would that story even get passed along?

Dragons are essentially big lizards. There are several giant lizards living in the world today (although they are smaller than the dragons of legend - time and tide has clearly enlarged them significantly, and allowed them to fly and breathe fire etc).

Yes, I agree they are big lizards. But in all parts of he earth? And the dragons of legends were larger. You're right. Alexander the Great slayed a dragon. Possibly they were dinosaurs?

No, it doesn't. Language was probably only evolved one or a few times (the ability to talk only once), then differentiated and "mutated" (changed) and specialised.

If it only began 6000 years ago, then it's not possible for it to have started only once, as according to evolutionary theory, people were scattered around the globe much longer than 6000 years ago. It had to have evolved independently all over the globe.

Are feral children typical of our ancestors? No, because our ancestors lived in communities, where communication was vital. I'm not surprised that feral children don't talk, they havn't been exposed to any other creature capable of meanigful speech or understandable communication.

But the point of the conclusions of studying them is that children (later found) could not later be taught to talk! Therefore, they had to start talking at a young age. It's a chicken-egg scenario. Which came first? The first child capable of speech wouldn't have been able to speak anyway because it would have had to have been taught to speak. Understand.

Language is an evolutionary mystery.

I didn't know that, but again, I'm not surprised at all. Popular myths have to have some starting point - and they also tend to influence cultures that invent or are exposed to them.

Did you see how widespread across asia and europe these names go? Do you think people settled in these areas and just decided to pick the sons of Noah out of the Bible to name their areas - all these peoples using the same exact manner to name their locations independant of each other?

[Bread_of_Life]

The quote came from an archaeologist who is on the board. Steve Baird.

Agreed, but it wasn't about Mr Baird, it was about unnamed people.

The legend also passed down, which is very significant, tells the story of a man whose family and the animals were saved on a boat.

Here I'd like you to name and quote how many involve this particularly story. I'd also point out that if someone (or a community) create a legend involving a worldwide flood - they are also going to have to include a mechanism for the survival of the human race - otherwise the question "then why is there anyone left" would destroy the legend.

A boat (or boats or rafts etc) full of animals and people is one of the few mechanisms I can think of.

Yes, I agree they are big lizards. But in all parts of he earth?

No, but communication has become better in the last 1000 years, and travel has become much more common. And legends spread.

And the dragons of legends were larger. You're right. Alexander the Great slayed a dragon. Possibly they were dinosaurs?

The dragons of legend also flew and breathed fire out of their noses. Dinosaurs didn't do that.

Also, the last dinosaur fossil we ever found was dated to be 65,000,000 years old, which is a long time before alexander the great, or Saint George ever killed any dragons. Some believe that there are still marine dinosaurs living somewhere in a small population - and say that the Loch Ness Monster is one of them, or a group - and this has some surface plausibility, because the oceans are mostly unexplored. We actually recently caught a fish we believed had been extinct for millions of years, proving it can happen. Even then, I don't believe a bit of it, because it's so unlikely.

As for dinosaurs still existing on the ground, it just aint possible, not in any large numbers anyhow. A small population is a very isolated and as yet unexplored region could theoretically be possible, but to sustain a small population for 65 million years at a stable level, well, it's very unlikely.

If it only began 6000 years ago

No, it didn't. Written remains have been found from about 8000 years ago (some indian Vedas I believe). But that doesn't mean language itself only started 8000 years ago. It means that durable written expression of language started around then. Language and culture probably started a long time before writing was invented.

But the point of the conclusions of studying them is that children (later found) could not later be taught to talk!

I'm not surprised. They probably cried for a while, and, realising noone was coming, stopped. Vocal chords, if unused for long periods, probably wont be able to form words. Furthermore, the parts of the brain associated with language probably arn't stimulated early enough in these children.

It's a chicken-egg scenario. Which came first? The first child capable of speech wouldn't have been able to speak anyway because it would have had to have been taught to speak.

But you see, you're assuming that the first child capable of speech was born out of someone totally incapable of speech. Suddenly, from someone completely mute, there was a child whose brain and vocal chords were capable of forming sentences. Of course, that isn't how it happened.

Apes are capable of making sounds, most animals are. They also have basic communication (such as grunting when annoyed, crying when distressed etc). However, as our ancestors moved into the plains, communication became more important, as a warning of danger. People who were born more alert to sounds of fear or distress would be selected for, since these people would be more likely to escape danger. These children wouldn't have to have parents speaking to them in english, they would just have to around animals who made natural noises.

Furthermore, since our ancestors lived in large groups, intelligence became selected for - and especially social intelligence. Animals who had a wider range of vocal skills, and who were better able to understand subtle nuances in calls and oral communication (as well as non-oral communication, body language etc) would have been selected for, especially if they happened to become alpha-male.

When our ancestors started to hunt in packs, communication became even more strongly selected for, both vocal and non-vocal. Children who were already growing up in an environment where calls, grunts etc were already used to communicate feelings, and the position of predators could easily have adapted these skills to communicate the position or prey, or their readiness to hunt etc. Those who were best at adapting their communication to these means were the ones who ate best.

You see where this is going right? Gradual improvement on what is already there, starting from simple grunts and groans of distress, pleasure or displeasure growing and diversifying into more subtle and specialised forms of communication.

Did you see how widespread across asia and europe these names go?

Yes. It is interesting how Moses and the Jewish people used the names of commonly known tribes in his story isn't it, and how those tribes spread into Europe. But it emphatically doesn't show that the story is true.

Indeed, there is a simple empirical test for this, using the DNA of our mitochondria (little inclusions in our cells that produce energy, but have their own DNA). Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of 200 women from across the world show that they have a common mitochrondrial ancestor 150,000 to 200,000 years ago - in other words, there is 150,000 years worth of mutational difference between these women's DNA. Bang goes the flood myth.