How old is the Earth?

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps there's no alternative to teaching evolution to school children, as it's the mainstream opinion. i think it's rubbish, but that's the way of the world.

The theory of evolution is the reality of natural selection and can be tested.
The evolutionary theory of origins is not scientific beyond what can be tested tomorrow.
Yesterday is just speculation for science.

 

[Fascinated With God]

The theory of evolution is the reality of natural selection and can be tested.

That is logical at least.

The evolutionary theory of origins is not scientific beyond what can be tested tomorrow.
Yesterday is just speculation for science.

Only by assuming a 6,000 year old limit to biology can you make such a statement seem reasonable. If that timetable is totally off, as an enormous mountain of evidence proves, then your argument falls apart. If the universe is much older then evolution because a necessity, the only possibly explanation. So you have all your eggs in one basket, hoping you are right on one data point, hoping against all hope since it is completely devoid of any evidence to support it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Only by assuming a 6,000 year old limit to biology can you make such a statement seem reasonable. If that timetable is totally off, as an enormous mountain of evidence proves, then your argument falls apart. If the universe is much older then evolution because a necessity, the only possibly explanation. So you have all your eggs in one basket, hoping you are right on one data point, hoping against all hope since it is completely devoid of any evidence to support it.

I have no age limits. Science cannot see the past, only predict future observations.

My truth about God comes from my experience with Him, and the observations of other
peoples experience interacting with Him as well. What do you think a team of investigators,
experts, skilled technicians, or schooled engineers is going to publish, "We found no reason
for this event to have happened, so God must have stepped in." ?

 

[Adaephon]

I have no age limits. Science cannot see the past,

Yes, it can.

 

[troodon]

Yes, it can.

Well, we can see the effects of the past as they currently exist and extrapolate from that information what actually happened. It's really no different than a historian - a historian takes all of the data available and constructs a narrative for what happened in humanity's past.

Geologists and paleontologists do the same, but instead of written accounts by historical contemporaries we use data gathered from physical sources. A rock tells you its history every bit as much as a written account by a historical individual, you just have to know how to interpret the rock properly. The same is true for a genome or a fossil sequence. The past made them what they are today, we just have to determine what conditions and events can account for what we see in the present.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, we can see the effects of the past as they currently exist and extrapolate from that information what actually happened.

That doesn't always produce a picture of what actually happened.

"Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally."

Just as my wife never makes mistakes, science clings to the
contrived logic that all false theories are just being improved
by the "superior process of peer review". Then in the next breath
they will decry any form of skepticism.

I'm sure you can understand that if a Supernatural event were under
investigation, it could only be analyzed in natural terms. Natural
events are the only ones that can be repeated.

 

[troodon]

That doesn't always produce a picture of what actually happened.

"Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally."

Of course we can make predictions, don't be purposefully dense.

A few of the multitude of examples:

Dino-bird link: "If birds are descended from predatory dinosaurs (theropods) then we should find either non-feathered birds or feathered dinosaurs". Boom, we find feathered dinosaurs. LOTS of them.

Turtle origins: "If turtles evolved from something more closely resembling an ordinary reptile we should see some sort of a transition between the two." That's exactly what we've found. Turtles are toothless and have a two-part shell, the upper carapace and the lower plastron - Odontochelys has teeth and only the lower part of the shell (the plastron).

Alvarez hypothesis: "We see a global iridium layer at the K/Pg boundary, which could be indicative of an asteroid impact. If this is the case then we should see a large impact crater 65 million years old". This was confirmed with the later realization that Chicxulub was an impact crater and matched with the proposed age.

Of course you're quoting someone talking about forensic pathology, and not geology or paleontology or anything like that. So it's really no wonder that what they said isn't correct for what we're actually talking about.

Just as my wife never makes mistakes, science clings to the
contrived logic that all false theories are just being improved
by the "superior process of peer review". Then in the next breath
they will decry any form of skepticism.

While I'm sure that your opinion on how scientists go about doing their jobs is 100% accurate based on your own extensive experience, I'll just say that it doesn't match up well with mine. When I go to a conference and give a talk about my research my peers will follow up my talk by expressing skepticism regarding my findings, my methods, and my conclusions. It's then up to me to address this criticism and defend my findings. Science depends on skepticism, otherwise we'd go around believing in bigfoot, Nessie, and creationism.

I'm sure you can understand that if a Supernatural event were under
investigation, it could only be analyzed in natural terms. Natural
events are the only ones that can be repeated.

I can't even imagine how science would operate if it allowed for the supernatural to be invoked.

"This experiment didn't produce as much halite as I expected - I wonder if my wife cast a hex on me!"

Goodness gracious, you inhabit a world I want nothing to do with.

 

[Aman777]

These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."

False. Some creationists show that evolution is Scriptural. Read Genesis 6:4.

 

[troodon]

Take it up with Feduccia

 

[Aman777]

Take it up with Feduccia

Dear Tro, I don't pay much attention to a man's view when I can support my views with God's Holy Word. God says He created but Feduccia doesn't seem to agree.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Hello again, hiscosmicgoldfish.

I'll repost what I said earlier, even though I know you yourself have already read it:

YEC physicists have multiple theories for reconciling long-distance starlight with a young earth. I suggest going to creation.com and searching for "John Hartnett" or "Russell Humphreys".

I bought Humphreys' book a while ago. I have a physics education so it was a good read. He's made some changes to his model since then, which can be found on the web site above.

Hartnett's model is more mathematically rigorous, but more difficult to follow, imo.

Each attempts to explain what we see with an "economy of miracles". That is, to marry a literalistic approach to Genesis 1 with as few miracles as necessary.

The results can be fascinating. I think Humphreys's idea is especially interesting because he's about as literal as a Christian can be regarding Genesis. So when Genesis 1 begins with water, the idea of which is repeated in 2 Peter 3, Humphreys' model begins with a ball of water big enough to contain the mass of the universe. It collapses on itself, ignites, and voilà, a kind of big bang emerges. Definitely outside-of-the-box stuff.

I'll suggest something else. We're all creationists, because scripture says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". We're just not all young earth creationists.

"John Hartnett" or "Russell Humphreys" have good ideas, but neither of their specific theories is necessary to explain starlight. Not even Setterfield's theory is necessary. In fact no mathematics at all is necessary to understand how it is possible. All God has to do is run the universe outside say the orbit of pluto at warp speed until starlight from the stars gets here.

The present is not the key to the past. Only God's Word is.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course we can make predictions, don't be purposefully dense.

No, I'm correct. You can only make predictions about the future.

A few of the multitude of examples:

Dino-bird link: "If birds are descended from predatory dinosaurs (theropods) then we should find either non-feathered birds or feathered dinosaurs". Boom, we find feathered dinosaurs. LOTS of them.

You could make a much better argument (many have) to say that neanderthals evolved into modern humans.

Alvarez hypothesis: "We see a global iridium layer at the K/Pg boundary, which could be indicative of an asteroid impact. If this is the case then we should see a large impact crater 65 million years old". This was confirmed with the later realization that Chicxulub was an impact crater and matched with the proposed age.

Asteroids can be found in groups all with the same composition.
That may not be the right crater. If it was a murder suspect I'd
have to vote the crater not-guilty.

Of course you're quoting someone talking about forensic pathology, and not geology or paleontology or anything like that. So it's really no wonder that what they said isn't correct for what we're actually talking about.

The reasoning for the scientific process is the same and is applied the same. Neither of those fields are considered learned professions where anyone has to pass a test or keep their training up to date or take remedial classes. The is no licensing for the field of rocks in a field.

While I'm sure that your opinion on how scientists go about doing their jobs is 100% accurate based on your own extensive experience, I'll just say that it doesn't match up well with mine. When I go to a conference and give a talk about my research my peers will follow up my talk by expressing skepticism regarding my findings, my methods, and my conclusions. It's then up to me to address this criticism and defend my findings. Science depends on skepticism, otherwise we'd go around believing in bigfoot, Nessie, and creationism.

Thanks to skepticism I've seen researchers in handcuffs.

I can't even imagine how science would operate if it allowed for the supernatural to be invoked. "This experiment didn't produce as much halite as I expected - I wonder if my wife cast a hex on me!"

You are repeating my point, that Science cannot examine anything
that is not naturally based. And Creationism is not natural by definition.

 

[troodon]

No, I'm correct. You can only make predictions about the future.

This is being deliberately dense. We can make predictions about what historical evidence we will find in the future. We're Sherlock Holmes (or my favorite Hercule Poirot) saying "They buried the knife in the flower garden" and then successfully finding the knife buried in the flower garden.

 

[Jadis40]

13.4 billion years or so, with the earth being 4.6 billion years or so.

 

[The Dark Knight]

The Earth is as old as God wants it to be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"John Hartnett" or "Russell Humphreys" have good ideas, but neither of their specific theories is necessary to explain starlight. Not even Setterfield's theory is necessary. In fact no mathematics at all is necessary to understand how it is possible. All God has to do is run the universe outside say the orbit of pluto at warp speed until starlight from the stars gets here.

The present is not the key to the past. Only God's Word is.

Why would God deliberately falsify the historical record? Why impregnate the universe with false memories?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SkyWriting]

Why would God deliberately falsify the historical record? Why impregnate the universe with false memories?

-CryptoLutheran

God has no memories. Nor does the universe. Memories require "Past" and only sinners experience "past" or "future". God Created before man sinned which is what causes time to flow. What is time except the path to death?

Without time flowing, God created. Still, God knew we would need some structure, so He used a model for a 7 day week. Kids need structure.

 

[ViaCrucis]

God has no memories. Nor does the universe. Memories require "Past" and only sinners experience "past" or "future". God Created before man sinned which is what causes time to flow. What is time except the path to death?

Without time flowing, God created. Still, God knew we would need some structure, so He used a model for a 7 day week. Kids need structure.

If I managed to create a perfect genetic replica of an adult human being, and planted a lifetime of memories into this person, I am falsifying, deceiving.

A universe with a false history is analogous to a human being with false memories. The universe can be observed, a record of its past painted across the stars in the sky--what is being suggested here is that this record is false, they are effectively false memories of events which have never taken place in the cosmos. Further, apparently God is the one who has implanted these false memories into the universe, apparently to trick us into believing the universe is much older than it really is, and of events happening in the universe's history that never happened.

At best that's some of the worst theology ever, at worst it's vile blasphemy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChetSinger]

Why would God deliberately falsify the historical record? Why impregnate the universe with false memories?

-CryptoLutheran

If this is regarding distant starlight in particular, Hartnett and Humphreys don't posit false memories, such as "light in transit". Rather, old and distant stars really are that old and distant. What's happened is that time has passed at different rates at different times and locations during the creation.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

If this is regarding distant starlight in particular, Hartnett and Humphreys don't posit false memories, such as "light in transit". Rather, old and distant stars really are that old and distant. What's happened is that time has passed at different rates at different times and locations during the creation.

i think the world is old. the only bit of evidence left is the moon's orbit. perhaps there's a good debunking of that YEC theory as well, somewhere, i just havn't found it yet.