Science, CSI and the Evolution/Creationism Debate

[Cabal]

OK. Im back.

It seems that wiki says: "Mots and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2] "

Biblical age according to google is still the same as my maths.
So there are still no proven stady fact that the world is over I dont know haw many million years.

Erm...what exactly is not "proven stady" (steady?) about that observation? Geologically speaking, it's pretty accurate.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Erm...what exactly is not "proven stady" (steady?) about that observation? Geologically speaking, it's pretty accurate.

I've been looking at a few site on google, but none seems to proof the same amount of years. 2-3 say between 4.5 - 5.5 Billion years. Other said 100 - 500 billion years (and to make it interesting, they sell there books to proof this. Not something I personaly would buy.
But still, I'll read the online quites and see why they state this.

Personaly I'll stay with the biblical count.

 

[Split Rock]

I've been looking at a few site on google, but none seems to proof the same amount of years. 2-3 say between 4.5 - 5.5 Billion years. Other said 100 - 500 billion years (and to make it interesting, they sell there books to proof this. Not something I personaly would buy.
But still, I'll read the online quites and see why they state this.

Personaly I'll stay with the biblical count.

I don't know any legitimate geologist that is claiming 100-500 billion years for the age of the earth. The universe it self is estimated to be only 13.5 to 14 billion years based on Hubble expansion.

 

[Dream3wb723]

I don't know any legitimate geologist that is claiming 100-500 billion years for the age of the earth. The universe it self is estimated to be only 13.5 to 14 billion years based on Hubble expansion.

It's the way it goes. The things people will do for money. That is mostly why I dont even look at these figures any more.
But I'm listening. seeing 2 of you stated almost the same count. (Cabal and Split Rock).

 

[LightSeaker]

Personaly I'll stay with the biblical count.

Oregon, the state I live has in the past been a major area of violent geological activity that can only be accounted for by plate movement over a long period of time. To start of, the basic land mass has been transported in from others places around the globe and than glued together by lava. The old continent base rock is along the Idaho/Oregon boarder. The oldest piece of land transported here is 200 million years old. We have had 2 major mountain chains grow and than erode away. The third mountain range is in in the process of growing right now. St. Helens in Washington is part of that 3rd mountain chain growing event. We have a major Basalt flow, consisting of many individual flows, that covers large parts of Washington and Oregon state. In Pasco it's over 5 miles deep. We also have a history of major glacier activity with spectacular valleys carved. The Bible does not and can not account for all of that geological activity. Especially in only 6000 years.


.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I've been looking at a few site on google, but none seems to proof the same amount of years. 2-3 say between 4.5 - 5.5 Billion years. Other said 100 - 500 billion years (and to make it interesting, they sell there books to proof this. Not something I personaly would buy.
But still, I'll read the online quites and see why they state this.

Personaly I'll stay with the biblical count.

What sites are claiming 100-500 billion? That just doesn't make any sense.

Our solar system (and therefore the Earth) is pegged at 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating of meteorites as well as helioseismic readings from the Sun. So you've basically got these two completely independent methods that yield the same age of the solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our solar system (and therefore the Earth) is pegged at 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating of meteorites as well as helioseismic readings from the Sun.

I thought it was based on the age of Zircon?

 

[LightSeaker]

I've been looking at a few site on google, but none seems to proof the same amount of years. 2-3 say between 4.5 - 5.5 Billion years. Other said 100 - 500 billion years (and to make it interesting, they sell there books to proof this. Not something I personaly would buy.
But still, I'll read the online quites and see why they state this.

Personaly I'll stay with the biblical count.

No one says the earth is 100 billion years old. But just to put things into perspective, let's give you a HUGE fudge factor to work with. For this exercise, let's say that the scientist have way over estimated the age of the earth and say that it s only 100 million years old. No matter how one counts, that's still points towards an earth that is a LOT older than what one gets if they stay with the Biblical account.


.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one says the earth is 100 billion years old. But just to put things into perspective, let's give you a HUGE fudge factor to work with. For this exercise, let's say that the scientist have way over estimated the age of the earth and say that it s only 100 million years old. No matter how one counts, that's still points towards an earth that is a LOT older than what one gets if they stay with the Biblical account.


.

I wasn't aware the Biblical account gives the [physical] age of the earth.

 

[anagnostic]

Erm...what exactly is not "proven stady" (steady?) about that observation? Geologically speaking, it's pretty accurate.

I don't think scientific accuracy rates highly around here. Scientists are a sort of wacky bunch who just make stuff up. Those crazy scientists even realise they are wrong sometimes, and have to start all over again. They're always arguing and disagreeing, like they can't make up their minds. How did they ever get those little rovers going on Mars? It beats me.

 

[mpok1519]

I thought it was based on the age of Zircon?

lol

 

[uke2se]

So am I still, at worst, a "liar" --- [crosses fingers]?

As your defenition of the terms was still faulty, and your explanation about their origins was a bunch of malicious BS,

yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

So am I still, at worst, a "liar" --- [crosses fingers]?

As your defenition of the terms was still faulty...

yes.

--- EEEEEE_YES!

 

[Cabal]

--- EEEEEE_YES!

YouTube - the simpsons yes? yes!

 

[loveiseverywhere]

(b) they also seem to have convinced themselves that belief in one particular creation mechanism is practically as important as salvation - or at least that's how it comes across.

That's been my point exactly for some time now. I keep pointing it out to AV. It certainly comes across as if they think that believing in creation is tantamount to salvation when it's clearly stated in the Bible that,"By grace you are saved through faith..."

Period.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

Even I believe in evolution --- to a point.

Limited Evolution or Microevolution or Adaptation, I suppose you could call it.

But when it comes to macroevolution, I draw the line.

I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a sin nature.

And when I see someone sin against God by breaking one of the 10 Commandments, that to me is proof that macroevolution doesn't exist.

Ok, AV, I'm drawing the line here. If you were to visit a Mental Health practitioner and tell them you don't believe you're human...I'm afraid they might lock you up. I'm clearly stating a fact here.

I'd sincerely like to know what you think you are, if you are not a Homo Sapien? Please, indulge me.

 

[mpok1519]

he is a homo sapien; he just doesn't like being one.

 

[Cabal]

Ok, AV, I'm drawing the line here. If you were to visit a Mental Health practitioner and tell them you don't believe you're human...I'm afraid they might lock you up. I'm clearly stating a fact here.

I'd sincerely like to know what you think you are, if you are not a Homo Sapien? Please, indulge me.

It doesn't really matter what he thinks he is, this whole homo sapiens malarkey is based on a misrepresentation anyway. Taxonomy (which in and of itself has sweet nothing to do with evolution) doesn't take into account moral classifications like sin.

We're not homo sapiens because we "don't have a sin nature" or whatever it is he claims we're claiming, but don't, we're not homo sapiens because we evolved from apes, we're homo sapiens because that's just what we are, that's the classification for us.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were to visit a Mental Health practitioner and tell them you don't believe you're human...I'm afraid they might lock you up. I'm clearly stating a fact here.

Thank you for your concern, but I would not visit a Mental Health practitioner and tell him I'm not human; I would tell him I am not a Homo sapiens.

I'd sincerely like to know what you think you are, if you are not a Homo Sapien? Please, indulge me.

I'm a man.

 

[loveiseverywhere]