Age of the Earth 2

[Work in Progress]

BTW, His son - the quote feature is pretty easy to use. Not sure if you know how or not, but you can click on the "quote" box above your reply area and it will cause this - (QUOTE) (with brackets, not parenthesis) to appear in your reply box. Then you paste in the quote (that you have copied) and then click the quote box again to close the quote feature.

It's even easier to just manually type the (QUOTE) and (/QUOTE).

Or, if you are unable or unwilling to use the feature, you could do it like this:

"You said -

****************************

type in here what you are quoting

****************************

That way, it doesn't all run together and is easier for the person to read and respond to.

[Bread_of_Life]

Artsylady

The AUSTRALIAN legend even uses the same Biblical name - Noah!

Oops. You didn't read to the end of the paragraph there, did you? If you had, you'd have found out that the Australian flood myth is nothing more than:

"undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native flood stories from Australia."

That explains why the name "Noah" is used in the Australian myth.

Now, as for that website in general, how surprising is it for example that every flood myth involved "destruction by water"? Not very. How surprising is it that most flood myths involved humans being spared? Not very surprising either. And how surprising is it that myths that involved humans or animals being spared involved preservation in a vessel of some sort? Not at all surprising, how else would they be spared, transported to Mars? Suspended animation? And are we surprised that about half had a divine cause? Nope, I'm not - considering that when large scale disasters happen man is opt to blame God, even in these days of technology where we understand weather and flooding better.

The only really interesting features of some myths were that birds were sent out in 5 of them (2 of them however were assyrio-babylonian myths, which were from the same geographical area as the Red Sea flood, and may therefore be mutated versions of the same myth). That leaves 3 myths with birds being sent out to look for land - which is an interesting similarity, although it isn't unthinkable that several cultures could think of the same thing. After all, several realised that the first land visible would be the tops of mountains, and included that in their myths - why should several think of sending out animals to find it, and the only animal capable would either be a whale/fish or a bird.

So all in all, not too surprised with these facts.

But the stories of dragons go back much much further than the last 1000 years.

Sure, of course they do, and so does knowledge and experience of large lizards by tribal people.

Pteradyacles flew. So did the North American Indians "Thunderbirds".

They didn't breathe fire though, and they wern't massive, like the dragon St George apparantly slew.

What if our dating methods are just wrong?

They arn't, that is what this thread was meant to show, just how accurate they are!

Green Ink

Of course, I still believe the earth is billions of years old and that there was no world-wide flood.

Phew!

Two books I found enlightening were "Scaling the Secular City" (I'm sorry, I cannot recall the author), and "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis. SA, you sound so well read that you've probably looked at this sort of stuff, but if not, I highly recommend these two especially.

I would recommend "The Existence of God" by Richard Swinbourne, and the atheist reply to this, "The Miracle of Theism" by JL Mackie. Both are/were Oxford Professors (Mackie died in 1980).

I think I had read that despite what scientists had thought awhile back, the likelihood for the spontaneous creation of life on earth is much smaller than previously thought.

I've read this idea many a time (mostly on creationist websites). There is no scientific basis for it as I see it, and is usually based on faulty assumptions. Here is an expose on TalkOrigins on the subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Also, on evolution, I think I saw some reports that as more fossil and other evidence has been gathered, instead of pointing to gradual evolution, it has shown periods where there are explosions of new species in very short time periods, and species show up with complex structures essentially fully formed, but no precursor forms.

Okay, you're talking about 2 different things here. The first is called "punctuated equilibrium", and it's the theory that evolution happens in short spurts, and then has long periods of stasis. Punctuated equilibriumists point to fossil finds such as the North American Horse, which used to show gradual evolution, now show a more punctuated picture now that more fossils have been found. The reason creationists got interested in this theory is because it is easy to misquote P.E. papers and make them look as if they're saying that there were no transitional fossils at all.

The second thing that you're talking about, the sudden explosive appearance of fully formed fossils, I believe is referring to the "Cambrian Explosion". Before the Cambrian era, very few fossils are found, and none of them are of creatures with hard parts. Then in the Cambrian, there is a sudden explosion in fossil numbers, and over a short geological period all of the major phlya appear in the fossil record. This of course was due to the appearance of hard parts, making creature far more easily fossilised. Creationists normally emphasise the words "sudden appearance" from papers and journals to peddle the creationist viewpoint. By sudden of course, we mean sudden geologically speaking - a period of about 90 - 100 million years. That isn't sudden to a 6 day creationist. Many also claim that no fossils are found before this point (which is an outright lie).

Nebula

To imagine that a bunch of atoms can exist at all, and be bound together to form elements and compounds - doesn't that just fill you with wonder that such is even possible?

No.

How is it that the elements can be categorized in a chart (the Periodic Table) that so nicely is able to categorize them together by their unique properties so orderly?

Because there are discreet differences between them. Matter is discreet. There is no such thing as half a proton, or half a neutron. Therefore of course matter is going to be neatly categorisable - because it is by it's very nature discreet. However, of course, we could have lived in a universe where matter was continuous, not discreet, and then categorisation would have been hazier (as it is in the natural kingdom, where sex and evolution blur boundaries between species). But as it happens, we don't.

Doesn't that just blow your mind that it can be so?

Sure, we live in an amazing place, that's why I'm a scientist, cos I'm amazed. But I don't think that the best explanation for it all is a God.

artsylady (again)

Just one more, if you don't mind. May I ask you if you had been a Christian at one time?

Yes, I was brought up a Christian, and believed until I was about 7 or 8.

So, if humans have to be taught to speak and taught at a young age, how could speech start?

I did describe it at the end of page 2, maybe you missed my post?

There is much evidence for a global flood - so much so that I'm not sure where to begin.

Well, whenever you want to start, why don't you create a new thread and we'll discuss it!

John 3:16

If the law of thermal dynamics states that matter can neither be created nor distroyed, then where did all of this matter come from?

Unfortunately, the law of thermodynamics does not state this. In fact, there is no "law of thermodynamics", rather there are 3 laws of thermodynamics.

Before matter, there had to be nothing, from nothing you get nothing.

What does any of this have to do with the Age of the Earth. After all, this is what this thread is about right?

If you want the cosmological argument, I suggest you start up a thread on the cosmological argument.

You then go on in your post to talk about consciousness and design. If you want the argument from design or the argument from consciousness, again, start about threads on them!

Theophilia

Ok - I have a really hard time with this one...for both sides of the argument...you can never prove anything to anyone. Basic philosophy class will teach you that.

Really? How so? I rather think it depends on your standards of proof.

A Stone

Beginning at Gen. 1:2a, I believe is the RESTORATION of the earth and not the original creation of it. At that point is where 'creationists' are correct in that, man made in God's image, was created. The earth was restored; man was created.

Then why do we find human remains and settlements that are many tens of thousands of years older than the Gen 1 account? Also, what about all those pesky intermediates to humans that we find in the fossil record, were they part of the old creation?

Work in Progress

Personally, I can't believe this statement did not raise a red flag and stop all the "debate". A statement like this shows a complete lack of understanding of God, the works of His son and our faith. This statement shows the all too prevalant belief that Christianity is one of the "world religions" that one can choose to follow, or dump at will, rather than a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. All the intellect and degrees in the world can not make one understand the work of the Holy Spirit, because it is beyond human understanding.

I think you might want to look back through my posts here and see if I ever claimed an understanding of the holy spirit. To save you time, I didn't.

However, I do claim an understanding of radiometric dating, and also an understanding of the various other proofs that the earth is old. That is what this debate should be about, evidence, not about my faith, or your faith, or anyone elses faith. Who I am or what I believe is irrelevant - the only relevant object of debate is evidence, evidence for whom I am merely a vessel.

Proverbs 53:1 - "The fool has said in his heart "There is no God"; they are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice".

*rolls eyes*

I see that you are more comfortable arguing against me (ad hominem) than you are arguing against the evidence, which is the real object of debate.

I would think, from Scripture, we would already know this. Satan's first step is to plant seeds of doubt.

Do you make other unbelievers feel this welcomed also? Perhaps you only accuse knowledgeable unbelievers, who present real objective evidence of doing Satan's handiwork?

They may begin to question what the Holy Spirit has instilled in them - the very thing we are warned against.

I am yet to encourage anyone to question the holy spirit, or their religious inclinations. It is you who has questioned my religious inclinations, not the other way around.

Sorry, but when I see a relatively new person who denies the Gospel come into a 'room' full of believers to "educate" them - my red flag goes up and I become very protective of the Gospel of Christ.

Okay, then keep that red flag up, and enjoy watching it flutter!

Scientist, I'm glad you are here

You could've fooled me!

but don't believe we should be engaging in "debates" with you, as Scripture tells us not to do that.

I would rather you entered into a debate with yourself over the evidence I present to you. I can give you evidence, and I can answer your questions about it - but at the end of the day, you don't have to answer to me - you only have to answer to yourself, and that'll mean being comfortable with the evidence I present.

In other words, I could convert to Christianity tomorrow - but the first page of this thread would still exist, and the evidence it talks about would still exist. My faith or lack of it is fleeting and subject to change - but as much as it changes, the evidence will not. You might be able to formulate smart answers about my faith or lack of it, and reasons why people shouldn't debate with me, but at the end of the day, it's not smart answers about me that you need, it's smart answers about the evidence.

[artsylady]

Scientific Athiest:

Regarding the flood legends and striking similarities in these legends. Sorry I didn't read the last half of the Australian legend and it would have saved us both some time. Anyway, if you read more of these legends, you'll see that there are remarkably similar accounts. I was also wrong on the 250 legends. There are closer to 500. Am I to believe that you beleive that these accounts are simply 'legends' having to do with a massive flood, a god who sent it because of sin, a man and his family and animals being saved on a boat are all independantly arise on different parts of the globe because.... there is a water around most peoples? Why would they all even make up such a story?

Along those lines, if you don't mind philosophising, why does every human tribe or people from every remote area of the earth worship something, when animals don't appear to pray or worship.

Now, as for that website in general, how surprising is it for example that every flood myth involved "destruction by water"?

Why would many civilizations independantly make up similiar stories of complete destruction by water? I don't understand why they'd make up such a story.

What if there was a similar ancient legend that went like this. The earth was populated but man was sinful. A god who was angry with man's sin decided to destroy the earth by violent winds. One man's family, aware of the impending doom, built a large underground shelter, saving his family and taking with him a few of every animal. When the man thought it might be safe to come out of the hole, he sent a cat outside to make sure it was okay but the cat didn't return. Then he sent another and the cat eventually wandered back to the hole so he knew it was safe. All humans started from this man's family.

Would it surprise you at all if this similar legend popped up on different parts of the earth? Would it be something you would completely disregard, or would it make you curious at all?

QUOTE

But the stories of dragons go back much much further than the last 1000 years.

Sure, of course they do, and so does knowledge and experience of large lizards by tribal people.

So you do believe in this case, that the legends of the dragons are probably true, but that they were large lizards, greatly feared?

QUOTE

Pteradyacles flew. So did the North American Indians "Thunderbirds".

They didn't breathe fire though, and they wern't massive, like the dragon St George apparantly slew.

Let's stick with flying birds for a moment. Thunderbirds are not the only giant flying birds either. There are quite a few of these 'legends'. Do you think it's possible that these could have been real creatures?

If you went to another planet and found snakes that breathed fire, you would simply say 'well, that's how they evolved, wouldn't you? Evolution seems to have no limitations. It can bring a one-celled creature to a human being. It can supposedly account for variances of creatures that spew poison, light up in the dark, glow in the dark, change colors within seconds, shoot quills, cause instantaneous nasty smells for miles, send electrical shocks through water. But... you would certainly stop it at 'breathing fire', right? That's just ridiculous, isn't it? Why?

Gotta run before I answer any more of the post but quickly, I'm still wondering about the descendants of Noah and their names scattered on the names of many many ancient geographic locations- as widespread as Africa to Moscow and further. Do you think they picked these names, independant of each other, for some reason from the sons of Noah as listed in their copies of the Bible?

As well, I don't know if you wanted to answer this or just forgot, but I was kind of wondering why you left the other Christian forum to come to this one. If you'd prefer not to answer, that's okay.

[artsylady]

Scientific Athiest:

A hypothetical question if you will. If the earth and everything in it, was 6500 years old, how old would K-AR dating methods date everything that was found on the earth?

[artsylady]

Yes, I was brought up a Christian, and believed until I was about 7 or 8.

The reason I asked is it seems most staunch athiests had once been Christians. If you don't mind my point of view on this, is that God was once with you - a part of you. You've rejected Him - that's obvious. But because God is real and His spirit within you was/is real, you have a need to fight God - through debating His people, through athiest literature, through whatever manner you are able to fight - you will fight Him. Is this remotely possible? Can you try to imagine that it is?

Did something happen when you were 7 or 8? (Again, I know this is a science thread, so feel free to ignore me on this.) Just curious.

[artsylady]

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.

The ability for feral children's inability to speak had nothing to do with their vocal chords. So far as I've learned, their vocal chords weren't the problem. It is about socialization.

And yes, it could be that parts of the brain associated with language probably aren't stimulated early enough in these children, as you stated. And that IS the problem. If they aren't stimulated early, (before 2 years) they won't learn to communicate in any form.

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.

You have to be taught to speak and you have to be taught before you're two. So even there was a child suddenly able to communicate, who would teach them?

And it's not just about speaking either. In the case of two sisters abandoned together, they had no ability to speak, but they also had no system of communication between them- no hand signals, no grunts, no nothing. (pardon the english)

These children wouldn't have to have parents speaking to them in english, they would just have to around animals who made natural noises.

You make it sound like the evolution of language is not a mystery, when clearly it is. You're making up some theories, when even evolutionists find it a mystery. Maybe you've got something to your theories. I don't know.

But, regarding language, you do have to admit one thing that does not contradict and definitely falls in line with Biblical reasoning. The absolute proof of written language is, thus far, is no earlier that creationists say the earth was formed.

[Bread_of_Life]

Am I to believe that you beleive that these accounts are simply 'legends' having to do with a massive flood, a god who sent it because of sin, a man and his family and animals being saved on a boat are all independantly arise on different parts of the globe because.... there is a water around most peoples?

All of these elements are not contained within every single flood myth, as that page showed. Only a few have all of these elements.

Secondly, as I have said before, floods are very common indeed. A large flood many well give rise to a flood myth. If it were catastrophic enough on the local area, people might well think that it was a judgement from God - or a lesson from God - because they had no other way of explaining catastrophe. And, in people's who interpretted the flood as global (covering "their" world), then they must have some account as to how humans and animals survived - and I guess many of these accounts will involve boats, because that is how people can survive on water.

All of these elements are quite logical, they are the most obvious course for such a myth to progress. Presumably some myths took other courses. Some will have had total anhilation and then recreation. Some will have had partial flooding with a few animals and humans spared.

Nevertheless, they don't present very sound evidence that there really was a worldwide flood, especially when we consider the mountains of evidence against such an occurence.

Along those lines, if you don't mind philosophising, why does every human tribe or people from every remote area of the earth worship something, when animals don't appear to pray or worship.

Because man likes to explain things, and there are many things that man cannot explain. When ancients saw the weather, and the seasons, and they changed, they invented super-powerful beings that controlled and regulated them. These beings were often anthropomorphic (they resembled human beings in emotion and form etc) because that is all that humans could understand in terms of personality (and some were animalistic, because humans also understood this from their experience). Some of these beings could be pleased and displeased, and appeased in various ways.

People also quickly realised that religion could be used as a form of power. The more quick minded among us became priests, who often wield much power over believers.

A hypothetical question if you will. If the earth and everything in it, was 6500 years old, how old would K-AR dating methods date everything that was found on the earth?

They would date it as 6500 +/- ~0-1 million years.

Potassium-40 has a long half-life, so even very very little argon contamination will offset dates by almost a million years. We have found new rocks with enough non-radiogenic argon to date the rock at about a million years old. It is not uncommon to find rocks with up to a few hundred thousand years of non-radiogenic argon trapped inside.

All this means that scientists don't date any rock suspected of being under 10 million years old with K-Ar, and if a date comes back at less than 10 million years, it is ignored, because the potential error will be too high (more than 10%).

Is this remotely possible? Can you try to imagine that it is?

Well, it's possible, but it'd be odd. Nothing particularly bad or noteworthy happened to me at age 7 or 8 - I was a fairly happy young chap, and prayed every night!

Did something happen when you were 7 or 8?

I stopped believing in Santa Claus - does that count as "something"??

You make it sound like the evolution of language is not a mystery, when clearly it is. You're making up some theories, when even evolutionists find it a mystery.

I'm just telling you that your assumptions are incorrect. A baby wasn't born fully capable of speech from a mute mother. Evolution happens with gradual improvement, not sudden saltation.

But, regarding language, you do have to admit one thing that does not contradict and definitely falls in line with Biblical reasoning.

Well, there was bound to be one thing that did right?

Actually, I believe that non-written communication, in the form of paintings, art and cultural symbols, have been found as early as around 100,000 years ago. I saw an article in New Scientists of a recent jewelery find from 70,000 years BC for example, proving (as with most of the evidence) that human culture goes back a lot farther than 6,000 years.

[nebula]

Nebula

To imagine that a bunch of atoms can exist at all, and be bound together to form elements and compounds - doesn't that just fill you with wonder that such is even possible?

No.

How is it that the elements can be categorized in a chart (the Periodic Table) that so nicely is able to categorize them together by their unique properties so orderly?

Because there are discreet differences between them. Matter is discreet. There is no such thing as half a proton, or half a neutron. Therefore of course matter is going to be neatly categorisable - because it is by it's very nature discreet. However, of course, we could have lived in a universe where matter was continuous, not discreet, and then categorisation would have been hazier (as it is in the natural kingdom, where sex and evolution blur boundaries between species). But as it happens, we don't.

Doesn't that just blow your mind that it can be so?

Sure, we live in an amazing place, that's why I'm a scientist, cos I'm amazed. But I don't think that the best explanation for it all is a God.

Well, I'm still not grasping the concept of how there can be such "order" to "everything" - and it being "no big deal" - as if it is logical and expected for it to be so.

Or how would you expalin it?

[mobile21]

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).

LOL

You get at it again.

"insignificantly unlikely" "different conditions" "different initial evolutionary starting points"

"maybe even different genetic code" !!!!!!!!!!!

Again, this is all baseless "blah blah" and baloney.

There's no way to tell the level of certainty about this and if you agree with David Hume then you'll agree with me

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.

You won't say when you decided God doesn't exist based on proof, your proof. Of course, you don't say it because you think your proof is probably ridiculous to others like an unanswered prayer, maybe?.

[Bread_of_Life]

Again, this is all baseless "blah blah" and baloney.

It's easier to say that than actually answer my points I guess.

There's no way to tell the level of certainty about this and if you agree with David Hume then you'll agree with me

Listen, a word of warning: you're talking to David Hume's greatest fan - who's actually read his essays and books - and I'm guessing you havn't. No, I'm sure you havn't, it's not a guess, it's dead money.

Now listen, stop dropping names, and start formulating arguments and responses. Thanks.

You won't say when you decided God doesn't exist based on proof, your proof. Of course, you don't say it because you think your proof is probably ridiculous to others like an unanswered prayer, maybe?.

Now, it's funny you should mention baseless baloney, because this is it if I ever saw it. Is there anything else you'd like to accuse me of? Perhaps I masterminded the 9/11 attacks? Was I behind the grassy knoll for JFK?

I reassert that I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, just as I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist - but I believe in neither. If you want to keep on believing that I'm lying, and that I can disprove God's existence but am too embarrassed to try, you keep on believing it, that's your right. Just don't bother me with it again until you have actual evidence.