Age of the Earth 2

[artsylady]

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?

[artsylady]

Secondly, as I have said before, floods are very common indeed.

I don't know that they are very 'common' at all now.

However, there's proof of flooding all over the earth, isn't there?

[artsylady]

QUOTE 

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.

Maybe there are still many things man cannot explain. Like why there is such a huge intelligence difference between man and the rest of the animals. Why do other animals not go into any of these kinds of scenarios. They run on instinct, nothing more. Humans have far greater intelligence than that and yes, we are always trying to figure much out.

It seems that although there is so much unknown to the human minds about us and about our world, you, for some reason, have already come to the conclusion that, very simply, there just isn't a God. On a secular level, we don't know why the earth came together, what else is out there in the universe, etc, etc, etc. Knowing there is so much that we DON'T yet know, why do some feel that it is so brilliant to discount something bigger than ourselves and say, there certainly can't be a god? Is this really intelligent?

Maybe people on earth are all worshipping something because we were created as spiritual beings.

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.

Well, if the athiests all think they're so smart (and they do) why aren't they in the priesthood controlling us? (Just kidding - ) But do you really think that men who are ministers and priests are doing it to control the rest of us dummys? lol. Okay, maybe a few out there that are doing it for big bucks (won't name names here) but I've met some ministers and I've met some missionaries that certainly consider themselves nothing more than servants called to do God's work.

[artsylady]

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.

First of all, you can't prove a negative, but you say you can prove a negative with 'mountains of evidence"?

And there is evidence of flooding around the world. The only real dispute are the dates and dating methods involved.

[artsylady]

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!

Of course it's possible. If there is a God and you once prayed regularly to Him, He is still, in part, with you. Maybe that's why you're here, fighting against it so fervently. Because you have no choice. When was the last time you had peace, just sitting back contented in your athiestic beliefs? When was the last time you didn't want to keep reinterating in your mind by debate or reading athiestic literature that you were on the right path and that your beliefs were truth? How long a period did it last?

So at the ripe old age of 7 or 8 you decided God didn't exist. Have you been trying to disprove Him since that age, or did you have moments at all where you thought you might be wrong in your thinking? How long did those moments last and what did you do to reevaluate your opinion?

[artsylady]

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.

It's still a 'mystery'. If you think you have a theory about how it happened that makes sense, then try to get it published. Until then, the general consensus is that they just don't know how it 'evolved'.

QUOTE 

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?

You make light of it but it's quite significant.

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.

Well, how were they dated? So what method was used?

[artsylady]

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

So it would obviously be incorrectly dated.

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%).

So first they have to decide what they think the date will be, then they use the full-proof method to actually date it?

But then, if it comes back with a date they think is totally wrong, they just ignore it?

[artsylady]

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?

I was kind of 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, completely independant from the knowledge that others in various widespread geographic locations were also picking names from the same list?

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.

[Bread_of_Life]

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.

Well, it would surprise me that there were ever winds violent and widespread enough to give birth to such a story - but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people living in parts of the world that are prone to hurricanes and tornados had "wind" myths and Gods (although it's surprise me if they had them wiping out an entire situation, high winds rarely cause a lot of death).

Also, don't forget, the same story with all these elements hasn't gone throughout the world. There are simply stories with some of the same elements around the world.

I don't know that they are very 'common' at all now.

However, there's proof of flooding all over the earth, isn't there?

Firstly, flooding is very common, secondly, there's absolutely no evidence at all of a worldwide flood, and lots of evidence against.

Like why there is such a huge intelligence difference between man and the rest of the animals.

It's hardly "huge" - and it is readily explainable, since our new-found bipedal nature allowed us to fashion and use tools.

Why do other animals not go into any of these kinds of scenarios. They run on instinct, nothing more.

I'm not being nasty, but you've clearly never studied the animal kingdom in any depth, especially mammals. We know that mammals use tools, remember and enact complex social relationships, have local cultures, and even mourn their dead.

Knowing there is so much that we DON'T yet know, why do some feel that it is so brilliant to discount something bigger than ourselves and say, there certainly can't be a god?

I've never said that. Look back through my posts, and you'll see that I'm telling the truth. I have never said that there certainly can't be a God.

Well, if the athiests all think they're so smart (and they do) why aren't they in the priesthood controlling us?

They probably are.

But do you really think that men who are ministers and priests are doing it to control the rest of us dummys?

I'm sure in ancient times and tribal societies there were probably many who did, and many to this day use it to make money. Of course, there are always going to be actual true believers also!

Until then, the general consensus is that they just don't know how it 'evolved'

And where did you learn of this "general consensus"? From a creationist website perhaps? Or maybe you read an article in nature? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

You make light of it but it's quite significant.

It's hardly significant that one piece of evidence does not contradict your theory. What you need though is actual supporting evidence, and no contradictory evidence that disproves your theory. Unfortunately, you have none of the former and plenty of the latter.

Well, how were they dated? So what method was used?

I don't know actually, can't remember. Usually these finds are dated directly though - normally dating techniques are applied to the layer the find is found in.

So it would obviously be incorrectly dated.

Probably, yes. In a find that young, K-Ar dating is going to give you an inaccurate date. However, it's not going be over a million years out, that's about the limit of error. Therefore K-Ar finds of 4.2 billion years old, independently verified using Rb-Sr dating as 4.2 billion years old, cannot be the result of such error.

o first they have to decide what they think the date will be, then they use the full-proof method to actually date it?

No. If they tested a sample that was too young, then they would come out with a date of less than 10 million years, and they'd simply disregard the data, because the error would be too high.

In order to avoid this happening too much, scientists do not use K-Ar if the rock came from a layer they suspect to be young, they'll use Uranium decay series, or some other form of young age dating. However, if these results prove that the rock is much older than 10 million years old, K-Ar can be used to verify this.

But then, if it comes back with a date they think is totally wrong, they just ignore it?

No, if it comes back with a date below 10 million years, they ignore the K-Ar date (because the error will be too high), and date it would younger-age dating methods. They don't just throw away the sample, that'd be silly!!!

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?

Well, there are 3 possibilities. They could be real creatures as described, going to other planets and breathing fire. They could be based on large birds or what have you, with some myth added. Or they could be a myth. I would say it's probably a mixture of the last two.

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?

Actually, there are creatures around who fire liquids that burn and combust, so in a way, some creatures already breath "fire". but I would say a creature that actually breathed fire is unlikely. It's possible of course, but not likely.

But... you would certainly stop it at 'breathing fire', right? That's just ridiculous, isn't it? Why?

No, I wouldn't stop at this, we just have no good evidence at all that it really happened, unless you decide to think that every single myth and legend you hear is true.

I was kind of 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.

I already said what I thought of that. Firstly, it's unsurprising that some myth passes into city names, especially in europe and the middle east, where the myth originated and spread. Secondly, it's not unlikely that tribal names were used by the author of genesis for the names of Noah's sons - so as to explain the origin of these tribes. Hence, as these tribes spread, so did these names.

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.

I havn't left, I do still post there.

Edited May 6, 2004 by ScientificAtheist

[Bread_of_Life]

ps. You seem very confident that dating methods are wrong. Yet, I've written two detailed threads all about dating methods, and you've not responded to any of them. In fact, noone has. I've had posts about the flood, and about myths, and about my morality, and about my religion - but none at all about the dating methods I've written up.

The closest we've got is your comments on sources of error in K-Ar dating. Now, cmon, if you're certain that dating methods are wrong, engage me on them!!!