Is the world really 4.5 billion years old

[greatcalgarian]

And the best part is that none of these "prove" the earth is only 6000 years old, just that it isn't 4.5 billion years old. That is, assuming they are correct (yeah, sure).

You spot how the creationists argue, good for you, and frubal to you:clap

 

[chuck010342]

Let me start the ball rolling:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
11. Agriculture is too recent
12. History is too short
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

It is fun to read and try to spot the way facts are distorted to fit the arguement.

WOOT AIG WOOT :clap

 

[scitsofreaky]

WOOT AIG WOOT :clap

LOL, ok apparently chuck did not read the entire post or my post. Chuck, shame on you:tsk:

 

[chuck010342]

As requested by Steve. He says he will now show his scientific evidence that it is 6000 years old.

Can I bring some evidence?

 

[scitsofreaky]

Can I bring some evidence?

You may, but are you able?

 

[jonny]

Me? Well since the consensus is 4.5 billion years, I'll go with that. I haven't seen any valid evidence otherwise.

No disagreement here.

 

[Steve]

Hi all,

As requested by Steve. He says he will now show his scientific evidence that it is 6000 years old.

Actually no thats not what i said, as anyone can see here - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21520&page=4
Its intersting that you got the title of the thread right but then in your first sentance tried to changed the thrust of the thread.

Let me start the ball rolling:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

4. Not enough sodium in the sea

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast

6. Many strata are too tightly bent

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years

9. Helium in the wrong places

10. Not enough stone age skeletons

11. Agriculture is too recent

12. History is too short

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

It is fun to read and try to spot the way facts are distorted to fit the arguement.

In light of the actual thread title, id have to say good post

Me? Well since the consensus is 4.5 billion years, I'll go with that. I haven't seen any valid evidence otherwise.

ever looked?

I believe the universe to be around 11-22 billion years old, though I cannot know for sure. I expect that Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Of course, it did not, at the time, have any solid rock, all rock was liquid magma.

"Of course"? which evidence is it that makes you think the earth started out like this?

In fact, the first rocks formed around 3.7 billion years ago, according to current evidence.

Really, "in fact", what evidence do you have of this and does it really stand up to critics?

200 million years after that, the first evidence of life came around. This life was likely groups of chemical reactions bound to a flat crystal surface in a boiling salty bath. The surface held the chemicals in place; so that the various chemicals could come in contact with each other, rather than randomly drifting. These chemical reactions became, eventually, "self-catalyzing reaction cycles, or "prions".
These had the earliest genetic equipment, if it could be called that. These produced fatty byproducts, which eventually became the earliest skins (used to protect against open seawater when life began to drift).

Wow it all sounds so simple it also sounds like a fairytale, any evidence that this is even possible? Do you just gloss over the complexity of this first "theorized" self replicating cell because in reality real science is actually quite opposed to the idea. People let themselves belive this could all just happen, its not based on science - you belive it because if it couldnt happen via only natural causes then it must have been something else, this is a conclusion you will not accept no matter how improbable your natralistic theories are.

Anyone interested in more on abiogenesis...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/ISD/baumgardner.asp
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp

I believe Earth to be around 4.5 billion years ago because all evidence points to that as a reasonable, logical, and scientific conclusion.

Simply not true, all evidence does not point to such an age. Which evidence is it that makes you so sure?

 

[Druidus]

"Of course"? which evidence is it that makes you think the earth started out like this?

Because it contained an enourmous amount of thermal energy from it's time as part of the sun (before the sun spun into a semi-disc like structure and let out mass into the solar system creating the planets).

Really, "in fact", what evidence do you have of this and does it really stand up to critics?

Not if the critics expect it to abide by the rules of idiocy. Otherwise, yes. Various dating methods exist to properly date the birth of rocks.

Wow it all sounds so simple

No, it doesn't. It's quite complex.

it also sounds like a fairytale

You mean like the majority of the Bible? At least that has magic.

, any evidence that this is even possible?

Quite a lot, thank you.

Do you just gloss over the complexity of this first "theorized" self replicating cell because in reality real science is actually quite opposed to the idea.

Prions, as these were known, still exist today. They were not cells; as I said, they were self-catalyzing protein cycles. Basically they were proteins that replicated themselves. Not a cellular form of life, not even life in the basest of senses. But a form of semi-life and the precursor to life.

People let themselves belive this could all just happen, its not based on science

Of course it is based on science. And haven't you let yourself believe that everything in the Bible could "just happen"?

- you belive it because if it couldnt happen via only natural causes then it must have been something else

Do you realize that I believe in "Gods", The Source, psionics, and a few other things not currently supported by science? I believe these things because I have found sufficient validation for myself. I disbelieve the young-Earth theory and other creationist dogmas as I have not found sufficient validation.

, this is a conclusion you will not accept no matter how improbable your natralistic theories are.

My theories are improbable? What's the probability of some omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity just, out of nowhere, creating the universe?

The current theories are quite probable. In fact, it is even theorized that life is still "forming" in undersea thermal vents.

 

[Draka]

I'm sorry, but the constant referrals to answersingenesis drives me crazy:areyoucra . Of course this site will tell you what you want to hear, because the people behind it have the agenda to try to make people believe that the bible is the end all of information. It isn't, and you simply cannot make that strict literal interpretation of it work. You want REAL science? Is the USGS good enough for you?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html

Oh, and in case you have doubt about the last it can be explained by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge...explained here:

http://www.coast-nopp.org/visualization_modules/physical_chemical/basin_coastal_morphology/principal_features/deep_ocean/oceanic_ridges/mid_atlantic.html

You need more? ...simply ask. Better yet, try a science class you'll be amazed at what you'll really learn.


Edit: sorry, I overlooked that the first link had already been posted when I posted mine...I guess great minds think alike

 

[scitsofreaky]

Let me start the ball rolling:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
11. Agriculture is too recent
12. History is too short
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

It is fun to read and try to spot the way facts are distorted to fit the arguement.

Ok, since you guys don't seem to be getting what this post is saying, I have highlighted the most important part so that even Ray Charles (RIP) could have seen it. I have already spotted one tactic:

And the best part is that none of these "prove" the earth is only 6000 years old, just that it isn't 4.5 billion years old. That is, assuming they are correct (yeah, sure).

Draka, excellent post, frubals for you.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, so now I'm just getting worked up, so a little fun, for me that is.

11. Agriculture is too recent

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.24

I like this one, good for a laugh. Let's start from the end, "It is more likely..." What an astounding arguement backed up with all sorts of evidence

Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned...should discover that plants grow from seeds.

Um, eventually they did. People 100 years ago were just as intelligent as we are today, so why didn't they invent computers? They seem to fail to mention the horticultural era, which was the stepping stone to agriculture. The horticultural era is marked by the advent of the hoe, and agriculture by the advent of the plow. Like computers, both of these needed technological advances. This is why it took so long.

 

[Bennettresearch]

OK, I'll defend Steve,

How do you know the earth isn't really only 4.498,680,362.36 years old?

 

[scitsofreaky]

OK, I'll defend Steve,

How do you know the earth isn't really only 4.498,680,362.36 years old?

What? You do realize that 4.5 billion is as exact as the YEC 6000 years. You have failed to defend steve.

 

[Merlin]

OK, I'll defend Steve,

How do you know the earth isn't really only 4.498,680,362.36 years old?

Plus or minus 30 minutes maybe?

 

[Merlin]

People 100 years ago were just as intelligent as we are today, so why didn't they invent computers?

Actually, the things the ancients invented were equally as difficult as a computer (which is quite a simple device). Can you imagine working out how to make charcoal; how to smelt first bronze and then iron;etc? With no prior information, and no libraries to consult, this is real invention.

Knowledge is layered. As a new layer is laid down, it creates the information for the next layer.

For what it is worth, I believe that Gods word is like this as well. Each time we are given a new insight, it should lead us to a higher understanding of what He wants from us. My sadness, is each new denomination is just a minor variation of an old one. When will we really get a new one to take us on to the next era of closeness to and understanding of God?

 

[michel]

Actually, the things the ancients invented were equally as difficult as a computer (which is quite a simple device). Can you imagine working out how to make charcoal; how to smelt first bronze and then iron;etc? With no prior information, and no libraries to console, this is real invention.

Knowledge is layered. As a new layer is laid down, it creates the information for the next layer.

For what it is worth, I believe that Gods word is like this as well. Each time we are given a new insight, it should lead us to a higher understanding of what He wants from us. My sadness, is each new denomination is just a minor variation of an old one. When will we really get a new one to take us on to the next era of closeness to and understanding of God?

Good post; I especially agree with you about the bit I have highlighted in red.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Actually, the things the ancients invented were equally as difficult as a computer (which is quite a simple device). Can you imagine working out how to make charcoal; how to smelt first bronze and then iron;etc? With no prior information, and no libraries to consult, this is real invention.

I wasn't comparing complexities, I was asking exactly what my question states: why didn't people invent computers 100 years ago if they are just as intelligent today? I agree with what I have quoted in the context you have given it, but not in the original context.

Knowledge is layered. As a new layer is laid down, it creates the information for the next layer

This is part of my point. The AIG argument makes it sound as if stone age man started the agricultural era out of the blue after sitting around for 100,000 years when they didn't understand the seed. Understanding that a plant grows from a seed would be a layer of understanding needed, but it was certainly not the decisive layer. They have missed a crucial layer, one that is demonstrated in the horticultural era: the ability to efficiently plant many seeds. So by ignoring the horticultural revolution they are missing how the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture occurred.
It appears that AIG scientists are grossly oversimplifying the data to suit their needs.

 

[Merlin]

I wasn't comparing complexities, I was asking exactly what my question states: why didn't people invent computers 100 years ago if they are just as intelligent today? I agree with what I have quoted in the context you have given it, but not in the original context.
This is part of my point. The AIG argument makes it sound as if stone age man started the agricultural era out of the blue after sitting around for 100,000 years when they didn't understand the seed. Understanding that a plant grows from a seed would be a layer of understanding needed, but it was certainly not the decisive layer. They have missed a crucial layer, one that is demonstrated in the horticultural era: the ability to efficiently plant many seeds. So by ignoring the horticultural revolution they are missing how the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture occurred.
It appears that AIG scientists are grossly oversimplifying the data to suit their needs.

Okay. As a matter of interest, what is an integral deist?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay. As a matter of interest, what is an integral deist?

Metaphysical Mush

 

[scitsofreaky]

Metaphysical Mush

Wow, I haven't seen that before, I'll have to go through it and see what I think after work and homework.