Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The scientific community is far from unified on evolution or how the earth works. You selectively choose which scientists you listen to because you agree with their conclusions. I do the same, with different results.
No, I am afraid that you are wrong here. The scientific community, by an overwhelming majority, agrees that evolution through the processes of random mutation and natural selection is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Furthermore, the scientific community also agrees, by an overwhelming majority, that the earth is !4 billion or so years old, that plate tectonics explains continental drift, mountain formation, etc.
There are a very, very few scientists who disagree. There is a somewhat larger number of engineers, doctors etc who do not agree, but they are not scientists.
I am also trying to keep this thread up, it is very interesting to me. I myself am a firm believer in god, But I always have to ask myself. Who wrote the book? It was man. Although the book may say it was god speaking threw someone I still have to come back to that very same question. Is my faith really in god, or the person who wrote the book? The bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old. Science proves that it is not. Which gives me all the more reason to second guess certain parts of the great book. Its kinda like electricians saying lightning comes up from the ground (not true), or fireman saying gas does not explode (how does your car roll down the road?). When do we start using are logic and start thinking for ourselves? After all that is the number one reason we are the most dominate species of the world.
Whoa Bill...and everyone else....hold it a second! The Bible says God created the earth in 6 days, it does NOT say that the earth is only a few thousand years old! Is there a difference? Yes, there is. Science has PROVED that time is NOT a constant, it is a variable...and is dependant on the relative speed (or lack of) the observer, with respect to what is being observed. You can take two atomic clocks, both tracking perfectly. Put one in a lab. Put the other on a spaceship to anywhere...let's say it's to the moon and back. When it gets back from the moon, it will show a DIFFERENT time than the clock in the lab. Why? Because time varies as soon as something is moving. This was first put forth by Einstein a long time ago, and consequently proven my modern scientists. Here is what I THINK happened:
God created in 6 literal 24-hr days. How did He create? The scientists say everything started with a "Big Bang". I think they are right. God spoke a word...and BANG!!! What would have happened in a "Big Bang"? Stuff would have flown outwards at incredible speed...approaching the speed of light. (planets, stars, earth...everything) God didn't move, but everything else did. And still is. The universe is expanding outwards VERY rapidly. The faster something moves, the greater is the disparity in time. What is the OUTCOME of a rapidly expanding universe? From the perspective of where God is, elapsed time would have been exactly 6 days during creation. From the perspective of a person standing on earth, MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years would have elapsed! Did God create animals, birds, people, etc. via evolution, during all that time? I don't know...I'm not proposing that. I'm just saying that time truly is a variable, and depends 100% on the perspective you view it from. The Bible account of creation was written from God's perspective...from where He is, or was...thus only 6 days passed. I know I can't explain this adequately, but my suggestion for anyone that is interested is to do a Google search on Einsteins' theory of relativity, and how it relates to time. The upshot of all this: both sides here, the "young-earthers", and the "ancient-earthers" are 100% correct...but your understanding of how time works is a little thin. It really depends on whether you are measuring time from God's perspective of creation, or from the pespective of a person standing on earth from the very moment of creation to the present day. Because the earth, and everything else, is not in the same space that it was created in....God stayed wherever He was....but, we moved, and still are. Since I am standing on earth today, and always have been, I will gauge time from an earth-bound perspective, and not God's...therefore I will tell you that the earth is BILLIONS of years old. But, it REALLY was made in 6 days....
Does this make sense to anyone?
Why do you say God is a trickster? If the Biblical creation account is accurate, God created Adam and Eve with the appearance of age. He created the animals, birds, and fish with the appearance of age. He created the trees with the appearance of age. Why wouldn't He create everything else with the appearance of age?
And thus, he is a trickster. According to you, he is making the earth appear to be something that it is not (billions of years old, rather than a few thousands). Similarly he is creating the universe to be something that it is not. He seems to have elaborately created something so as to leave absolutely no fingerprints as to that creation (other than one disputed book), but uncounted amounts of evidence showing that natural explanations suffice (and seem to contradict that book).
No, you can't. Science doesn't prove anything. Scientific data has to be falsifiable, otherwise you're just acting on faith like the creationist. All those methods that you use to determine age have also been proven to sometimes give false readings. One consistently false reading is enough to send an idea back to the drawing board to better improve it, yet scientists cling to these methods as though they are 100% accurate when, in fact, they are not.
Blueberry it is this type of logic that is so frustrating to me. Yes, any one given method can be fallible. However, there are numerous different ways to date the earth and it's age that have all come up with a pretty close average of approx 4.5 billion years. The famous argument "Well, carbon dating is a bunch of bull because it is inaccurate" just doesn't make a lot of sense. How many different studies using different materials but ending up with almost the exact same answer constitute the right answer? In other words, in algebra, sometimes you can display proof of your work in several different methods. Sometimes you can use graphs, sometimes linear equations, but essentially you can work the problem a number of different ways and still come up with the answer you're looking for. My question is: how many different ways can you work the problem while taking a test before you will confirm to yourself that YES this is the right answer? It's called checking your work. Scientists don't JUST use one dating method to age the earth, however there is only one method that creationists love to try and call false: CARBON DATING.
Here are a few examples of different geological dating methods and what they average the earth to be:
This is taken from: Age of the Earth OK, so here we have six, that's right, six tests that all come pretty darn close to one another in dating the earth. Not only that, but using other methods, we have been able to find that the moon and asteroids also have ages that exceed 4.5 billion years. So, if God created the Earth a few days after the universe than you Christians have some serious disproving to do.
Not only that, but there are NUMEROUS cases around the Earth where simple geographic layering can show an age older than 6000 years. Even 10000. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example, and I love the argument that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. What I find funny, is that we still have floods to this day and although they don't last for 40 days and nights we still have them. So let's say the floods in Texas have been going on for a week now. That's just about 1/6th of the time for 40 days and 40 nights. With the theory that creationists want you to believe there should be a canyon 1/6th the size of the Grand Canyon whenever the flood recedes. Now, if you look even further at the Grand Canyon you can actually visually see different layers of rock from different ages. You can see where sand once was, or lava, or water, or numerous different typed of sediments that formed the depths of it.
I can go on and on, but my fingers are getting sore from typing. In your response Blueberry you also asked for me to back up my claim that hundreds of tests have pretty much come back with similar results in regards to the age of the earth. I'm not going to post a million links but simply going to "Google" and typing "radioactive dating tests" brought back 891,000 links. I'm sure a ton of them will have nothing to do with it whatsoever but take 1% of them and I think you'll find that the answers are all similar. Pay attention to where the studies were done and by different universities, Dr's, geologists. You'll notice there are more than one of these tests that have been performed and they all come out with very similar results.
In conclusion, since this is turning into my thesis, I feel that I can prove without a reasonable doubt that the Earth is older than 6000 years. I have said nothing on evolution, astronomy, astrophysics, etc. etc... to even further my argument. I simply wanted to show that there is quite a bit of scientific evidence to prove the 6000 year theory is wrong. As I said earlier, if it were any other scientific study such as "What kills bacteria in your toilet bowl" several different tests coming up with the same conclusion would have been proof enough. But, because this can stand to discredit someone's belief it is continously shot down by brainwashed church leaders because it can stand to discredit what they have been misleading people with for years. I did not even want to touch on evolution or any other factor in this because that's not what the OP was about. It's simply about the Old Earth theory and all I have done is given a considerable amount of evidence to support my theories and I know that most of the believers will not have even made it this far in my post simply because they are either bored or not wanting to listen anyway.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,203 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
I can go on and on, but my fingers are getting sore from typing. In your response Blueberry you also asked for me to back up my claim that hundreds of tests have pretty much come back with similar results in regards to the age of the earth. I'm not going to post a million links but simply going to "Google" and typing "radioactive dating tests" brought back 891,000 links. I'm sure a ton of them will have nothing to do with it whatsoever but take 1% of them and I think you'll find that the answers are all similar. Pay attention to where the studies were done and by different universities, Dr's, geologists. You'll notice there are more than one of these tests that have been performed and they all come out with very similar results.
First of all, I'm not going to debate the science. (In another thread, I designated mams as the ambassador for such debates. ) We are both firmly entrenched, and it won't get us anywhere. You can believe the conclusions you want, and I'll believe the ones I find more reasonable. What is the yardstick by which you measure truth? Mine is the Bible. We might not like each other's yardsticks, but that is our prerogative.
Second, you didn't claim that hundreds of tests have come back with similar results. You claimed that there were hundreds of thousands of studies. HUGE DIFFERENCE! The difference is not only in the numbers, but in tests vs. studies. A study is much more comprehensive than a test! Why do you find it necessary to inflate your claim? Further, just because Google has so many hits, doesn't mean there were either that many tests or studies. Most of this information is coming from the same studies, rehashed and disseminated on various sites.
Quote:
Yes, any one given method can be fallible. However, there are numerous different ways to date the earth and it's age that have all come up with a pretty close average of approx 4.5 billion years.
Yes, and each of those methods have assumptions that the results are consistent over time. Those assumptions aren't falsifiable since people haven't been around that long to provide data. Maybe this argument will hold up in another 4.5 billion years if we make the attempt today to preserve data!
However, we have at least two pretty reliable sources for dating history that are conveniently ignored. The written record of human history goes back 6,500-15,000 years and stops. Dendrochronology (tree ring studies) only dates to about 5000 years if I remember correctly. Both of these are much more reliable dating methods, and both line up much more closely with the Biblical record than they do the old age theory.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,203 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch00
And thus, he is a trickster. According to you, he is making the earth appear to be something that it is not (billions of years old, rather than a few thousands). Similarly he is creating the universe to be something that it is not. He seems to have elaborately created something so as to leave absolutely no fingerprints as to that creation (other than one disputed book), but uncounted amounts of evidence showing that natural explanations suffice (and seem to contradict that book).
He's not a trickster. He left us a written record. You don't believe the record. He's even raised up scientists that back up the written record. You don't believe those scientists. He has appeared to people on the earth over time; He even came and lived among the people as Jesus for those who needed to see with their own eyes. You don't believe the accounts of Jesus' existence. He's given you lots of evidence. If you've been duped, it's not God's fault!
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,203 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch00
overwhelming majority
"Overwhelming majority" does not equal unification.
Whether you like it or not, there is a minority of experts that is not in sync with the others. They disagree with the conclusions of the majority, using the same data. Same data, multiple conclusions. To decide which conclusions to support, we need to look at the bias of the scientists and the assumptions of their data analysis. History has shown that the minority is often right.
First of all, I'm not going to debate the science.
But that's actually the subject of the conversation. This thread is filled with all sorts of evidence from various points of view that illustrates that the earth is indeed ancient. This is one of those subjects that I find really irritating because in religious American culture there still exists a strong reaction to the thought that the earth might be billions of years old. It really is billions of years old or things in the natural world would have to be completely different than they are. Why is it that believers will read a passage in Revelations that says something about "a pale horse" and they'll come up with all sorts of elaborate explanations for it other than a light colored horse and yet when we're talking about Genesis every single word has to be taken as a literal explanation?
Last edited by MontanaGuy; 07-08-2007 at 06:36 PM..
Reason: spelling
Hmmm, put my trust in God (and His Word) OR put my trust in man...I'll take God!
But you are not trusting God. You are trusting a book, which was written by men. If you believe God created the universe, then you need look only to the universe to see God's work. Looking to the Creation, we see that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. If that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, then it's the interpretation that must be questioned...unless you subscribe to the idea that God created the earth to appear old.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) We are both firmly entrenched, and it won't get us anywhere. You can believe the conclusions you want, and I'll believe the ones I find more reasonable. What is the yardstick by which you measure truth? Mine is the Bible. We might not like each other's yardsticks, but that is our prerogative. 
