The Age of the Earth - alternatives, anyone?

[artybloke]

I haven’t interpreted anything.

Yes you have. As soon as you open the book and start reading it you are interpreting it. You don't (nobody does) come to any text, biblical or otherwise, without a set of presuppositions as to how to read it. Your biggest presupposition, and one you seem reluctant to question, is the very modernist (and therefore not ancient) presumption that truth only equals fact. This has more to do with Comptean positivism than it has to do with the much more nuanced view of both pre- and post- modernist thinking. You come to the text with that presumption, largely unquestioned, very time you pick up the Bible.

Therefore - whether you like to think you do or not - you interpret. And what's more, you interpret an already interpreted text - one that is translated from Hebrew (all translation involves interpretation.)

I'll go into other things later. But please don't pretend not to interpret.

 

[shernren]

Scientists now admit there is a phenomenon called a superflood, a catastrophic flood that can transform landscape in a period as short as a few hours. Canyons and valleys as big as the Grand Canyon could have formed in days, not over tens of thousands of years as previously alleged.
Science Magazine, April 2002

Source? Can't find anything like it online, except http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s924714.htm ...
and does your source article say that the Grand Canyon was actually formed by a superflood, or could have been formed by? There's a world of difference.

For refutation of "Grand Canyon could have formed quickly":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

The Great Barrier Reef has been estimated to be 4,200 years old. No living thing is older than about 5,000 years, which is consistent with life forms beginning after the time of Noah's worldwide flood.

What's your source? Mine is:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/coral_reef.html
and it looks pretty credible.

Plus, if we have a worldwide flood that catastrophized the sea-bed, reformation of mature and balanced coral reef ecosystems and deep sea vent ecosystems is a perfect example of rapid macroevolution.

And we have other old living things to deal with here:
AiG says oldest living things are sequoias and bristlecones:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i1/oldest.asp
How behind time are they on current news?
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm
http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

If the Earth were millions of years old there would be billions of tons of atmospheric carbon trapped in the wet ground of northern boreal forests.
Earth Observatory, NASA

I don't see why this is an objection. Elaborate?

Clams are found at the top of Mount Everest (29,035 ft.), evidence that it must have been underwater at some point. Provides evidence of a catastrophic worldwide flood. Every major mountain range on Earth contains fossilized sea life—far above sea level.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

Unfossilized wooden club found in 18-foot deep Stone Age soil layer near

Jinan in eastern Shandong province, China.
Evolutionists claim this tool was fashioned by ape men 700,000 years ago, but the wooden club appears to have been fashioned in more recent times by advanced humans, not ape men. The wood club had not fossilized after 700,000 years, evidence it is not as old as paleontologists claim. New Scientist Oct. 17, 2001

Source? What I can find is:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200110/17/eng20011017_82493.html
http://www.china.org.cn/english/MATERIAL/20603.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20011017/462933.htm

Note the careful use of the phrase "partially deteriorated implement", not implying they dug something whole and flawless out of the ground. Clear reasons are given for the relative lack of fossilization.

Amber (hardened tree sap) with trapped spiders inside, alleged to be milllions of years old, show no evolutionary changes from modern day spiders.
SeattleTimes, September 11, 2000

And? They've dug up coelacanths, why should I be surprised that the spiders haven't changed much since the dinos left? Evolutionary history of spiders:

http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/origins.htm
http://www.earthlife.net/chelicerata/web-evolve.html

As you can see, most of the action happened more than whenever "a few million years ago" was.

Using newly calculated mitochondrial DNA mutation rate, scientists are able to back date the beginnings of the human species. New data indicates there was an "Eve gene," a common mother who was ancestral to all humans, who lived a mere 6,000 years ago!
Science 279: 28-29, 1998

Response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

And why call her Eve? They should call her Noah's wife. Think about it for a little while and you'll get what I mean.

The even relative background temperature throughout most of the cosmos and a "flat" rather than "scattered in all directions" universe are causing scientists to abandon the "big bang" theory.

LondonTimes, April 23, 2001

If you're referring to the "flatness problem", well there's a reason inflationary theory exists.

If you're referring to anisotropy in the CMB, response: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE421.html

I have not seen abandonment of the Big Bang. On the contrary, one of the world's best supercomputers has been put into action simulating it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4600981.stm
If astronomers really were abandoning the theory would they devote precious computing time to it when there are so many other pressing scientific concerns?

Earth's moon has a hot interior. This is evidence of a young origin.
Nicholas Short, Planetary Geology,

Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1975, pp. 175-84

Response: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE130.html

Tim L.

You should be acknowledging your source before quoting verbatim. Namely, the ever-so-unbiased http://www.creationposter.com/sdm.asp ... and work at defending your views! You only used (as far as I can see) one site. I actually had to Google my info ....

 

[ChristianDude777]

For refutation of "Grand Canyon could have formed quickly":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

Hi,

You've got to love all this. It makes such a powerful statement..!

For every theory for and against creation/big bang/evolution, there's another scientific theory to the contrary. So what does that tell us..? No one knows for sure what happened.

Can't anyone else see that? So where does that leave us..? Right back to the One source that won't change depending on whatever scientific viewpoint happens to be popular at the time.

"In the beginning God...."

Tim L.

 

[Vance]

But not all scientific explanations and theories are created equal. Some have evidence to back them up.

 

[ChristianDude777]

But not all scientific explanations and theories are created equal. Some have evidence to back them up.

And more times than not, there's evidence on both sides of the same argument as we have seen here.

Tim L.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Hi,

You've got to love all this. It makes such a powerful statement..!

For every theory for and against creation/big bang/evolution, there's another scientific theory to the contrary. So what does that tell us..? No one knows for sure what happened.

That's right. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.

That statment includes YECs, I presume?

Can't anyone else see that? So where does that leave us..? Right back to the One source that won't change depending on whatever scientific viewpoint happens to be popular at the time.

"In the beginning God...."

The writers of the OT?

 

[Vance]

And more times than not, there's evidence on both sides of the same argument as we have seen here.

Tim L.

But that is the point, the evidence on the side of Young Earth'ism has been shown to be false, exaggerated, misapplied and, at the very best, weak and unconvincing. Again, it is a matter of a vasty unequal amount of quality of the scientific evidence and arguments. YEC's like to say "arguments on both sides", but that is like saying myself and Einstien might have differing theories about a particular physics phenomenon. Yes, there are two positions, but they are definitely not of equal value.

The problem is that Creation science is really just apologetics. They start with a position and then go out and look for evidence to support it. Real science is made of up theories which were determined FROM the evidence.

 

[shernren]

Hi,

You've got to love all this. It makes such a powerful statement..!

For every theory for and against creation/big bang/evolution, there's another scientific theory to the contrary. So what does that tell us..? No one knows for sure what happened.

Can't anyone else see that? So where does that leave us..? Right back to the One source that won't change depending on whatever scientific viewpoint happens to be popular at the time.

"In the beginning God...."

Tim L.

*blink blink blink* So you can't actually refute what I've said?

Let's say theory A and theory B purport to explain the evidence. Theory A requires drastic push-and-shove with the data, use of antiquated and error-prone measurements, and very frequent references to assumed and irreproducible initial conditions. Theory B explains most of the data, makes testable further predictions (which then begin to be verified independently) and paves the way for a whole lot of new science.

You choose which is the better theory.

Amen to Genesis 1:1! We all agree that God created. If only people realised that this actually already counts for a lot.

"In the beginning God spoke. And there was a Big Bang! Except Hebrew didn't have words for 'ekpyrotic events' .... "

 

[Remus]

Well, Remus, how about this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#pbiso

Trying to get back on topic. Is this the source that you want to stick with shernren? Is there a source that we could both agree to be unbiased?

 

[invisible trousers]

I don't know, can you show examples where talkorigins.org is using faulty data or unscientific principles?

 

[shernren]

Well, it's just a graph, Remus, I'm not asking you to refute the entire article. If you can find any unbiased isochrons floating around on the net we'll take a look. Meanwhile, I'm just asking if there is any other way to look at the data. The data itself is unbiased. Talkorigins says it indicates an old earth, and I tend to agree. How would the data indicate a young earth, according to any presuppositions and physical methods you may choose?

 

[Remus]

Well, it's just a graph, Remus, I'm not asking you to refute the entire article. If you can find any unbiased isochrons floating around on the net we'll take a look. Meanwhile, I'm just asking if there is any other way to look at the data. The data itself is unbiased. Talkorigins says it indicates an old earth, and I tend to agree. How would the data indicate a young earth, according to any presuppositions and physical methods you may choose?

That's the problem, it is just a graph. It's a graph of 7 plots that fall on the line. Now, from what I've seen in lab tests and in scientific articles, it's not typical to get such results without leaving data out. Even when testing one sample several times, you will get slightly different results. I’m not trying to suggest that the graph is necessarily wrong (at least not at this time), but I think it would be best if we used all the information. What I would like to see are the actual measurements of each sample for each element. I assume that you’ve checked out the source, so this information should be easy to obtain.

 

[shernren]

What I would like to see are the actual measurements of each sample for each element. I assume that you’ve checked out the source, so this information should be easy to obtain.

... I'll have to look it up. now I get what you mean. I'll try my best to find it.

 

[Remus]

Thanks. If you can't find this information on the one from TO, then any other that does have this information should do.

 

[shernren]

I've been looking, and the problem is that papers simply aren't published online. Most I can get is probably abstracts, which wouldn't have the numbers to indicate if there was any fudge in the results. I've got a feeling I've bitten off a bit more than I can swallow in this latest question ... anybody? ... aren't there Christian geologists on CForums?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've been looking, and the problem is that papers simply aren't published online. Most I can get is probably abstracts, which wouldn't have the numbers to indicate if there was any fudge in the results. I've got a feeling I've bitten off a bit more than I can swallow in this latest question ... anybody? ... aren't there Christian geologists on CForums?

our resident geologist is Glenn Morton.

 

[shernren]

So he's a geologist and a theologian ... wow. that's a fantastic combination. Studying rocks and the Rock...

 

[prodromos]

How about "God created the universe 6000 years ago, but gave it the detailed appearance of being billions of years old"?

A physician examining Adam moments after his creation would probably have to conclude from the evidence before him that he was quite a few years old.

John

 

[shernren]

Yup prodromos, but we can't go from there and say that every 5-minute-old human being will be 5 feet 4 (or whatever height Adam was when he was created). See what I mean? You can say that God created a young universe that looks old, but then by definition there would be no way to study that statement scientifically.

 

[Remus]

I've been looking, and the problem is that papers simply aren't published online. Most I can get is probably abstracts, which wouldn't have the numbers to indicate if there was any fudge in the results. I've got a feeling I've bitten off a bit more than I can swallow in this latest question ... anybody? ... aren't there Christian geologists on CForums?

Fair enough. This does make me wonder about something though. From what I've read of your posts, it seems that isochron dating is one of the main reasons that you've rejected creationism. Is this true or am I off in left field?