If you are going to have a formal debate then why....

[KerrMetric]

not actually stick to the title of the debate?

On this board I expected to see a nice layman butchering of science on the "Age of the Earth" topic but instead I didn't see a thing pertaining to the title.

Very disappointing!

 

[Willtor]

Ah, Kerr! You're so gruff.

I think the problem is that there is a tendency to conflate the issues when the distinctions are not well understood by one of the parties. You may be disappointed, but I think the situation is to be expected.

On the other hand. . . it seems to me that evolution, alone, can establish that the Earth is not on the order of thousands of years old. A trivial calculation of generations back to the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps puts us in the millions of years. Even if the calculation is off by an order of magnitude (and both lines were begetting generations every 2 years, rather than 20), we're still in the hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[jereth]

On the other hand. . . it seems to me that evolution, alone, can establish that the Earth is not on the order of thousands of years old. A trivial calculation of generations back to the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps puts us in the millions of years. Even if the calculation is off by an order of magnitude (and both lines were begetting generations every 2 years, rather than 20), we're still in the hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm going to preempt the inevitable YECist response: "see, told you so, evolutionists like an old earth because it allows evolution to be true."

Well this is not the case. The age of the earth was not established by the theory of evolution. The earth was determined to be very old (at least millions of years) a whole century prior to Darwin and his Origin of Species. Objective means of dating the earth, the solar system and the universe come from astronomy and geology, not biology.

If the astronomical and geological evidence pointed towards a young earth, biologists would have to find a new theory. Fortunately for biologists, of course, astronomy and geology strongly affirm that our planet is billions of years old

 

[PETE_]

I'm going to preempt the inevitable YECist response: "see, told you so, evolutionists like an old earth because it allows evolution to be true."

Well this is not the case. The age of the earth was not established by the theory of evolution. The earth was determined to be very old (at least millions of years) a whole century prior to Darwin and his Origin of Species.

The earth was estimated to be that old, not proven to be that old.


Objective means of dating the earth, the solar system and the universe come from astronomy and geology, not biology.

If the astronomical and geological evidence pointed towards a young earth, biologists would have to find a new theory. Fortunately for biologists, of course, astronomy and geology strongly affirm that our planet is billions of years old

The same sciences show it to be young if interpreted by different scientist. I can easily see how the dating process would be alter if environmental condition where not constant as in the case of their changes at the time of the Biblical flood.

that said I am not looking for absolute proof for myself. I am confident in God's explaination and that science is set up by His rules. So science will never disprove God.

 

[jereth]

The same sciences show it to be young if interpreted by different scientist. I can easily see how the dating process would be alter if environmental condition where not constant as in the case of their changes at the time of the Biblical flood.

How does the biblical flood change radioisotope concentrations in rocks from the moon, Mars and meteorites?



For that matter, how does the biblical flood change radioisotope concentrations in rocks on earth?

 

[chaoschristian]

The same sciences show it to be young if interpreted by different scientist.

When I was translating Latin in school, it would sometimes be easy to come up with multiple translations of the same sentence. However, I could usually discern that there was only one best and correct translation of all the possibilities. How? Context. When the evidence for the age of the Earth is viewed in its context, there really isn't a reasonable way of continuing to assert for a younger Earth.

While multiple interpretations are possible, not all are correct in a given context.

It reminds of one sentence Prof Z gave us to translate, 'Mala mala mala manduit.'

 

[steen]

The same sciences show it to be young if interpreted by different scientist.

Nope. If a scientist looks at the data scientifically, then the result is the same. Some people who claim to be scientists but who have sold out to dogma have been known to make claims on the reputation as scientists, but with no regard to scientific data or the Scientific Method.

So your claim is a misrepresentation.

I can easily see how the dating process would be alter if environmental condition where not constant as in the case of their changes at the time of the Biblical flood.

You can? really? And what scientific evidence do you have other that "Gee, I can imagine this"? Here is what a Christian Scientists have to say about that:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

that said I am not looking for absolute proof for myself.

Good, then stop misrepresenting science.

I am confident in God's explaination and that science is set up by His rules.

Sure.

So science will never disprove God.

Science never tried, YEC misrepresentations none withstanding. So if that's your fear, then I would suggest you lay off misrepresenting science as that merely breeds hostility towards YEc false witnessing.

 

[Melethiel]

When I was translating Latin in school, it would sometimes be easy to come up with multiple translations of the same sentence.

I take it that you put your time in banging your head against the desk as well?

 

[chaoschristian]

I take it that you put your time in banging your head against the desk as well?

I still have the welt.

 

[IisJustMe]

Nope. If a scientist looks at the data scientifically, then the result is the same.

If that were actually true, there wouldn't be an discrepancies among scientists. But you cannot name a field that doesn't have divisions and disagreements about even the most basic science. Physicists disagree about the true nature of colloids, astronomers argue over whether the speed of light is constant or in flux, biologists are at odds over the human genome. Science isn't perfect, and no one agrees all the time

Some people who claim to be scientists but who have sold out to dogma have been known to make claims on the reputation as scientists, but with no regard to scientific data or the Scientific Method. ... So your claim is a misrepresentation.

Not really, but yours is a dream that will never come true.

Here is what a Christian Scientists have to say about that: followed by your website link

All well and good, but of course there are opposing viewpoints, such as by Dr. William B Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.

"The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists."

The link (which I can't post yet, sorry) is at Dr. Dino ... do a search for "radiometric dating"

Science never tried, YEC misrepresentations none withstanding.

Your hostility to YEC teaching calls into question your ability to fairly assess the work done in support the creationist theory. You appear rather like the naysayers who have poo-poo'ed the work of scientists thoughout history, not out of education, but out of jealousy. Perhaps you should let the two sets of researchers do their work, and let the science speak for itself.

 

[Willtor]

Oh, no, oh, no, oh, no. You say you hold 3 degrees (in another thread), and after citing a Kent Hovind link, I have to ask you what those degrees are. Mr. Hovind is not exactly a reliable source.

 

[steen]

If that were actually true, there wouldn't be an discrepancies among scientists.

Sure there would. hence the peer-review and research on models until the evidence is solid enough to include it into Scientific theories.

But you cannot name a field that doesn't have divisions and disagreements about even the most basic science.

Sure. Evolution. There is no disagreement on the basic premise of Evolution among scientists doing research in the field.

Physicists disagree about the true nature of colloids,

That's not exactly a "basic premise," though.

astronomers argue over whether the speed of light is constant or in flux,

They are looking into whether there are localized conditions that can affect it, that's all. What "disagreement" is it you are talking about?

biologists are at odds over the human genome.

In what way? That really is a very minor aspect of biology, BTW. It is not even remotely close to a "basic" premise in biology.

Science isn't perfect, and no one agrees all the time

Correct. that is why we have the Scientific Method. You know what that is, right?

Not really, but yours is a dream that will never come true.

Ah, so instead of making an intelligent, on-the-issue remark, you make a lame denial and a personal attack. yeah, good one. Your true colors are rapidly unfolding.

All well and good, but of course there are opposing viewpoints, such as by Dr. William B Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.

Uhum. Disagreement with no evidence.

The link (which I can't post yet, sorry) is at Dr. Dino ...

BWAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. You have GOT to be kidding????

Your hostility to YEC teaching calls into question your ability to fairly assess the work done in support the creationist theory.

And now you are lying about me. I have no hostility against YEC, other than when YEC lies. Nice try there, REALLY misrepresenting me.

You appear rather like the naysayers who have poo-poo'ed the work of scientists thoughout history, not out of education, but out of jealousy.

really? Asking "where is the evidence for your claim" is a demonstration of jealousy? Funny, I must have missed where the definition of the word changed. or is this some revisionist linguistic YEC hyperbole?

Perhaps you should let the two sets of researchers do their work, and let the science speak for itself.

The Scientific Method does so just fine. But I am puzzled why you reacted so strongly to merely having evidence presented? Don't you like evidence?

 

[IisJustMe]

I have no hostility against YEC

Oh really? So I guess this was just a slip of the keyboard ...

BWAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. You have GOT to be kidding????

You said that in response to the post listing my source as Kent Hovind's web site. Your prejudice against good scholarship and responsible alternative views to evolution shows through here. Evolutionists typically hate Hovind, but I find it interesting his offer to pay one of them $250,000 if they can prove evolution still stands, the challenge not even accepted, much less the effort made. I'd think if he was such a fraud, someone who be more than willing to take up the gauntlet and shut him up.

Thanks for showing your true colors, steen. You are what you accuse me of being.

 

[gluadys]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]All well and good, but of course there are opposing viewpoints, such as by Dr. William B Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.

"The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists."

The bolded statement shows that Dr. William B Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th. either knows nothing about c14 dating or is a liar.

In the first place, it is not the amount of c14 in the atmosphere that is relevant. It is the proportion of c14 to c12 that is relevant.

In the second place, scientists don't even claim that the proportion has been constant over time. They know that proportions have changed, and use various ways to measure the change in proportion from one era to another. This allows for a correct calibration of the resulting decay against a date.

Do I assume that Dr. Tripps PhD was also in theology? Perhaps he should have studied physics before getting egg on his face.

The link (which I can't post yet, sorry) is at Dr. Dino ... do a search for "radiometric dating.

Why am I not surprised. Sorry IisJustMe, but you can pretty much count on Kent Hovind not having any reliable science on his site. Quite the opposite.

 

[Melethiel]

Evolutionists typically hate Hovind, but I find it interesting his offer to pay one of them $250,000 if they can prove evolution still stands, the challenge not even accepted, much less the effort made. I'd think if he was such a fraud, someone who be more than willing to take up the gauntlet and shut him up.

They have. He just dismissed their evidence.

 

[Willtor]

Oh really? So I guess this was just a slip of the keyboard ...
You said that in response to the post listing my source as Kent Hovind's web site. Your prejudice against good scholarship and responsible alternative views to evolution shows through here. Evolutionists typically hate Hovind, but I find it interesting his offer to pay one of them $250,000 if they can prove evolution still stands, the challenge not even accepted, much less the effort made. I'd think if he was such a fraud, someone who be more than willing to take up the gauntlet and shut him up.

Thanks for showing your true colors, steen. You are what you accuse me of being.

IisJustMe, you don't seem to realize what it looks like when you cite Mr. Hovind. Even the other creationist orgs are ashamed of him and think he's a fraud. When a person cites him with confidence (and many passersby do, until they realize that only he and his followers - none of his peers, even in the creationist community - take him seriously) the person looks very foolish and uninformed.

 

[steen]

Oh really? So I guess this was just a slip of the keyboard ...

No, it is you taking my point out of context and misrepresenting my post, which is not very nice. What I stated was that I did not object to YEC, but rather that I object to false claims by YEC. I fail to see why you found it necessary to distort this?

You said that in response to the post listing my source as Kent Hovind's web site. Your prejudice against good scholarship and responsible alternative views to evolution shows through here.

Hovind is a known and proven liar,.

 

[shernren]

All well and good, but of course there are opposing viewpoints, such as by Dr. William B Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.

"The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists."

The link (which I can't post yet, sorry) is at Dr. Dino ... do a search for "radiometric dating"

It's particularly painful for me to hear quotes like these from people. Is science education these days so atrocious that people can't immediately tell what's wrong with a simple statement like that?

C-14 dating is completely unreliable with anything older than a million years (and that's extremely liberal), due to the comparatively short half-life of C-14. It isn't used to date anything on that scale of age. Rather, its usefulness comes in dating recent organic material.

Essentially, creationists trying to criticize old-earth geology by hitting C-14 is like saying the World Cup is lousy because the Saudis can't play for nuts. It's the category error of assuming that if you disprove one particular brand of radiodating you disprove the whole works. And yet you don't. Creationists who are so gung-ho about assumptions don't realize that C-14 dating has to include assumptions and models of consistent C-14 uptake throughout an organism's lifetime, something few other models of radiodating (especially those involving minerals) have to take into account. How is the assumption that C-14 has always been constant in the atmosphere (if it were even assumed) going to call into question the fact that meteorite rocks have been uranium-lead isochron dated to billions of years?

 

[IisJustMe]

Oh, no, oh, no, oh, no. You say you hold 3 degrees (in another thread), and after citing a Kent Hovind link, I have to ask you what those degrees are. Mr. Hovind is not exactly a reliable source.

Hovind is controversial, but to say that 1) he has dismissed the evidence for evolution, 2) that he is "not exactly a reliable source" or 3) to just dismiss him with a rude and unchristian-like laugh is, sadly for those who engage in such arrogance, nothing but proof of the arrogance. The reality is, Mr. Hovind does an excellent job of exposing the bad science, the circular reasoning, and the double-mindedness of the people who perpetuate evolution as valid theory. You don't like Mr. Hovind because much of what he says exposes the obvious, and often turns science back on itself to prove what is being said isn't even consistent with the balance of their hypothesis. Also, the fact that Dr. Tripp's work is on Hovind's web site has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Dr. Tripp's science. Frankly, I find this blind negativism about Hovind's work to be supreme but ill-conceived arrogance on the part of those who despise him.

By the way, as if it is any of your business, my degrees are in engineering (BS, and MS, University of Missouri-Columbia, both obtained while I was on active duty in the United States Army, from which I retired after 20 years, a major and with over 6,000 hours in combat rotary wing aircraft, fully a third of those hours in actual combat in the course of three wars and several hazardous situations, some in locations I still can't discuss or disclose) and in Biblical Counseling/Pastoral Studies (double major) with certifications in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Reality Therapy, Grief Therapy and Addictions Management. Any further questions?

 

[Willtor]

The reality is, Mr. Hovind does an excellent job of exposing the bad science, the circular reasoning, and the double-mindedness of the people who perpetuate evolution as valid theory. You don't like Mr. Hovind because much of what he says exposes the obvious, and often turns science back on itself to prove what is being said isn't even consistent with the balance of their hypothesis. Also, the fact that Dr. Tripp's work is on Hovind's web site has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Dr. Tripp's science. Frankly, I find this blind negativism about Hovind's work to be supreme but ill-conceived arrogance on the part of those who despise him.

Hmmm... Maybe.