How old is the universe?

[Underdog77]

Is this a case of lying or do you just repeat falsehoods you have heard.

Again, this is what you might wish to believe but it is not so.

Is this a case of lying or are you totally blind and stubborn?

This may be what you believe but that does not make it so.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No - but I'm a research physicist with 20 + years of scientific investigation and you are a 17 year old kid parroting Kent Hovind or some other person who deliberatlely lies on this issue.

Why not check the geological/paleontological journals yourself and look at the dates they get.

 

[Ron21647]

I also remember reading an article (I'll try and find it) that descibed how in 1991 a Oxford University radiocarbon accelerator unit dated some rock paintings found in the South African bush at 1200 years old, they were quite excited until an art teacher turned up and declared that they were her students paintings that had been stolen!

I'm not using this example as a full on refutable against this age business, but it does go to show that scientific dating methods are not infallible, so maybe there is a good reason to be skeptical.

Did your article give an explanation for the erroneous date? Carbon dating can be quite accurate if it is used correctly. In any case, one bad example does not prove the method wrong. And carbon dating is (or should be) your friend. It is the method used to determine things like the age of Jericho or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Other (radioactive) methods are used to date fossils and the age of the earth.

Ron

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Did your article give an explanation for the erroneous date? Carbon dating can be quite accurate if it is used correctly. In any case, one bad example does not prove the method wrong. And carbon dating is (or should be) your friend. It is the method used to determine things like the age of Jericho or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Other (radioactive) methods are used to date fossils and the age of the earth.

Ron

Hi Ron,

I read the article from a respectable website that did not go into the details you request, unfortunately. But like I said it was just one example and not meant as a full all out rebutable as clearly it proves nothing just makes you think, that's all.

Yes it can be your friend if you need physical evidence to strengthen your faith or to strengthen your position when debating with Non-Believers.

 

[artybloke]

Yes it can be your friend if you need physical evidence to strengthen your faith or to strengthen your position when debating with Non-Believers.

Wrong reason for using it.

Carbon-dating (or other forms of radiometric dating) isn't there to confirm what you already know. All forms of scientific evidence, in any science, whether dating evidence or physical evidence, is there to be the evidence on which the theory is based, not to confirm your already arrived at conclusions. Any hypothesis, however good it sounds, has to be tested by reference to the evidence.

If the hypothesis tells you that the earth is square, and photographs from space show the earth to be spherical, then, until proven otherwise by further evidence, the earth is spherical. The evidence always wins, and the original hypothesis is falsified.

The same is true of dating methods. If the hypothesis says that the earth is 6000 years old, but the dating method says 4.5 billion years old, until new evidence arrives to correct that date, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

I'm afraid that what a very strange and outmoded interpretation of the Bible says is the age means diddly squat to the evidence.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Wrong reason for using it.

Hi there,

I don't think it is the wrong place to use it. If by it you can prove the age of the dead sea scrolls or authenticity, and the age of jericho then this can only strengthen an argument.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

I'm afraid that what a very strange and outmoded interpretation of the Bible says is the age means diddly squat to the evidence.

So my interpretation is very strange and outmoded is it? Well all I can say is there's alot of strange people out there!

Arty, if you disregard what the Bible says or use a symbolic interpretation then where do you draw the line? I mean when God says something and means another thing then eventually you could come to the conclusion that it's all symbolic.

Also, what is the point in preaching to Christians that the age of the earth contradicts what the Bible says? We shouldn't be at all bothered with the age of the earth in all honesty, I am because I think these sorts of "theories" are what drives some good people away from God and those are the ones I try to dialog with, even though I'm still learning like all of us.

If the creation story is symbolic or whatever, is the flood story do you think?

Sorry for the length of this one I just had to get it out.

Thanks

 

[artybloke]

Hi there,

I don't think it is the wrong place to use it. If by it you can prove the age of the dead sea scrolls or authenticity, and the age of jericho then this can only strengthen an argument.

And if by it you prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in 1853, or that the age of Jericho is wrong, bang goes your argument. Besides which, it it's supposed to be unreliable, how do you know it's a true date?

Arty, if you disregard what the Bible says or use a symbolic interpretation then where do you draw the line? I mean when God says something and means another thing then eventually you could come to the conclusion that it's all symbolic.

All religious language - all language that refers to God - is by definition symbolic. You can't talk about heaven using earthbound language without using pictures, analogies, metaphors, poetry and allegories. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist: that would be rather like saying that falling in love doesn't exist except as activity in the brain. Just because something is symbolic doesn't mean it isn't true; it just means that we can't describe it in any other way.

And what you do is read each book for the kind of literature it is. Genesis 1 is a poem with a liturgical shape; Genesis 2 is written in the form of an ancient fable etc. The Gospels include history and theological wisdom all mixed up etc...

No doubt, like other literalists, you have a basically rationalist view of truth=fact. Even if you include the supernatural in your worldview, your default mode is truth=fact. I don't; facts are all true, but truth can be expressed in very many different ways. The idea that all our language about God is symbolic doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; it just means that words can't possibly encapsulate the mystery that is the heart of God.

Well all I can say is there's alot of strange people out there!

Make that a small minority of the total number of Christians worldwide. Where I come from, I don't anyone who is a creationist.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

And if by it you prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in 1853, or that the age of Jericho is wrong, bang goes your argument. Besides which, it it's supposed to be unreliable, how do you know it's a true date?

I do know that carbon 14 dating is the most reliable, and that it's accuracy is limited to thousands of years and not billions.

No doubt, like other literalists, you have a basically rationalist view of truth=fact. Even if you include the supernatural in your worldview, your default mode is truth=fact. I don't; facts are all true, but truth can be expressed in very many different ways. The idea that all our language about God is symbolic doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; it just means that words can't possibly encapsulate the mystery that is the heart of God.

What facts are you talking about exactly?

Make that a small minority of the total number of Christians worldwide. Where I come from, I don't anyone who is a creationist.

It is a shame, as long as they don't preach old earth theories as this can only be detrimental to a young Christian. Once the old earth dates are accepted then all of a sudden Darwin's theory becomes all the more practical and thus we came from monkies (or a common ancestor if we want it to sound better) which does oppose the Bible or God might as well not have bothered telling us these things.

BTW you didn't answer my question on whether you believe the flood story? Could you please let know.

Thanks

 

[Ron21647]

Hi Ron,

I read the article from a respectable website that did not go into the details you request, unfortunately. But like I said it was just one example and not meant as a full all out rebutable as clearly it proves nothing just makes you think, that's all.

Yes it can be your friend if you need physical evidence to strengthen your faith or to strengthen your position when debating with Non-Believers.

well, it is entirely possible that part of the paintings used old materials. That would be my first guess, not knowing the details either.

For example, John Woodmorappe (not sure if he is with ICR or AIG) has written an article titled something like "400 cases where radioactive dating is wrong". It turns out that 95 of his examples are from another paper concerning potassium - argon dating, and the point of this paper is possible errors in the method and how to avoid them. He listed the errors without stating that he knew they were wrong, and the explanantions for why they were wrong were in the same article he was quoting.

Another example is the Steve Austin article. I am pretty sure he is AIG, and his original paper and several rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals are listed on the Talk Origins web site. He took volcanic material containing old unmelted rock (which he admitted that he knew) and sent it to a lab that had a several million year limit in the minimum age they could do. They dated it older than that, and then he said it was less than 200 years old. It turns out that the older portions (which had not melted sufficiently to release the argon) was dated correctly.

Ron

 

[Ron21647]

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

I still find your signature offensive....

Ron

 

[artybloke]

BTW you didn't answer my question on whether you believe the flood story? Could you please let know.

Yes of course I believe the flood story. I just don't believe it happened.

Ron21647 has given a few good examples of how YEC "scientists" work, by the way: decietfully.

And by the way, I am a Darwinian. Darwinian evolution is the only game in town. Creationism has been a falsified theory for over a hundred years. And the vast majority of Christians throughout the world think so too. Creationism is supported by lies, bad theology and even worse science.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Hi Ron, I was going to write sooner but got caught up with something else, apologies.

well, it is entirely possible that part of the paintings used old materials. That would be my first guess, not knowing the details either.

Yes, maybe I will post articles that I have at hand next time, so we can debate them realistically. Apologies.

For example, John Woodmorappe (not sure if he is with ICR or AIG) has written an article titled something like "400 cases where radioactive dating is wrong". It turns out that 95 of his examples are from another paper concerning potassium - argon dating, and the point of this paper is possible errors in the method and how to avoid them. He listed the errors without stating that he knew they were wrong, and the explanantions for why they were wrong were in the same article he was quoting.

This sounds extremely bad, I was not aware of it, I wonder what his motives are/were...

Another example is the Steve Austin article. I am pretty sure he is AIG, and his original paper and several rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals are listed on the Talk Origins web site. He took volcanic material containing old unmelted rock (which he admitted that he knew) and sent it to a lab that had a several million year limit in the minimum age they could do. They dated it older than that, and then he said it was less than 200 years old. It turns out that the older portions (which had not melted sufficiently to release the argon) was dated correctly.

Well this seems like an honest mistake unless this guy knew the reason for the seeming error when he posted the article.

Ron, why do you think these Christian guys seemingly make these things up under false pretenses? I mean, it certainly won't do their Christian walk any good...

 

[Chi_Cygni]

This sounds extremely bad, I was not aware of it, I wonder what his motives are/were...

Because like many members of the Creationist societies fraud is there business to keep the money coming in!

By the way, Woodmorappe is a psuedonym for a guy called Jan Pecis (spelling?) a Chicago area schoolteacher I believe.

 

[Enigma'07]

Because like many members of the Creationist societies fraud is there business to keep the money coming in!

Evolutionists do the same, so what is your point?

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Hi Arty,

Yes of course I believe the flood story. I just don't believe it happened.

When Jesus talked about the flood, it seemed like he was talking as if it actually happened, so it seems to me, but obviously not to you, which I find hard to understand. What else do you think didn't happen in the Bible?

Ron21647 has given a few good examples of how YEC "scientists" work, by the way: decietfully.

Do you think other scientists are completely non-biased? I doubt it myself, I remember a report of a finding of a dinosaur limb that had red blood cells but the story seems to have been brushed under the carpet.

And by the way, I am a Darwinian. Darwinian evolution is the only game in town. Creationism has been a falsified theory for over a hundred years. And the vast majority of Christians throughout the world think so too. Creationism is supported by lies, bad theology and even worse science.

Have you ever considered that what the Bible says involving Genesis is spot on and so too is evolution? Apart from the bit when we evolved from a common ancestor to the ape. Can you give me some evidence that the vast amount of Christians think that Darwin was right and Genesis is wrong?

 

[Ron21647]

Hi Ron, I was going to write sooner but got caught up with something else, apologies.

<snipping a lot of good stuff that I don't have time to reply to right now...>

Ron, why do you think these Christian guys seemingly make these things up under false pretenses? I mean, it certainly won't do their Christian walk any good...

I think they do it because their constituency doesn't know any better and they eat this stuff about about how the poor simple creationist eat up evil evolutionists for lunch.

Most of the people (but of course not all) who buy into ICR and AIG simply do not have the education to understand and see the fallacy of what they are doing. And since it goes along with their religious beliefs, they are home free.


Ron

 

[Ron21647]

<snipping some more>

Do you think other scientists are completely non-biased? I doubt it myself, I remember a report of a finding of a dinosaur limb that had red blood cells but the story seems to have been brushed under the carpet.

<snip>

The dinosaur blood story has extensive coverage if you search for it. It wasn't blood at all, and no scientists said so, as far as I know. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I will and I will post it here. It was covered by Talk Origins on their "What's New" page.

Ron

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

The dinosaur blood story has extensive coverage if you search for it. It wasn't blood at all, and no scientists said so, as far as I know. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I will and I will post it here. It was covered by Talk Origins on their "What's New" page.

Ron

Ron,

I have done a little digging as regards the above and have concluded that considering only 1 bone/fossil was found the discussion has limited value, maybe if a dozen are found we can talk again about it.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Evolutionists do the same, so what is your point?

I'm sure some have but probably at the 0.001% level as opposed to the Creationist 75% level.

By the way, what reason do academic scientists have to do this. Their personal salary is not coming by the the route of donations whereas the Creationists like ICR and AIG are funded directly by donations from the people they are conning.