What is the age of the Earth?

[KerrMetric]

First off, thanks for the insult, however, im not a scientist, i have what the rest of the world uses to get by, its common since, and the literature resources

It was not meant as an insult - just a fact.

by the way:


Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

A complete distortion and outright lie about the actual research and the fossil issue.

STOP getting science from people who basically lie or distort wildly.

No dinosaur blood cells have ever been found - what was found was some breakdown products of haemoglobin. No fully intact DNA "strands" have ever been harvested from amber - these are degraded fragments. No soft tissue in the sense of what everyday usage of the term means has ever been found in dinosaur bones.

I'm not sure of the current status of the salt inclusion bacteria. I know many people doubted this result. Though I think people considered this possible because they were inside salt inclusions in rock and that the DNA may be oxidation proof in such a location - though I admit I don't really know the state of this research.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million.

where do you get this 1-10 Million population number?
i've seen analysis of a human population bottleneck at 70Kya due to volcanic activity that pegs the population at 2-10K. a stable human population of 100-250K for millions of years is the most common population figure i've seen. perhaps you can reference something for us to read regarding the source of your 1-10M figure?

notes:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20939

 

[KerrMetric]

simplyg123,

you have just posted a bunch of stuff you have no clue about one way or the other. You raise 20 objections or supposed points against standard science yet you expect answers to all of them which would take hours.

What is sad is that you don't even know what these are even saying since your science knowledge is basically zero.

And you posted these supposed evidence not because you have researched this or even looked into it BUT because you like the sound of it.

What you did was a classic Creationist technique of list 30 objections to science and when we cannot post 30 rebuttals in 5 minutes you think ha ha - there must be truth in them.

Nonsense - it's all pure garbage from people who basically I call liars for Christ.

 

[simplyg123]

so basically your argument is everyone who doesnt believe what you believe is a lier

these men who did do the research and did spent the time studing the issue, went to the same schools as you and your scientists.

Your telling me a man with tons of refrences and a phd in physics and a lifetime career as a scientist is a lier

what makes hime the lier, because his facts cause a contridiction to your belief?

How do we know what you or others were taught was correct?

 

[KerrMetric]

so basically your argument is everyone who doesnt believe what you believe is a lier

No. But I do think many of the Creationist groups have people in them who do lie and distort. This isn't really up for debate. Too many of them have been caught doing it - repeatedly I might add.

these men who did do the research and did spent the time studing the issue, went to the same schools as you and your scientists.

NO - they don't do any research. Most of them are not even educated in the areas they write about. Most of them ceased to work as scientists when they left grad school often decades before. Almost to a man or woman thay are not working scientists who work in the key issues in this debate. You can moan and complain about my synopsis but it's a fact.

Your telling me a man with tons of refrences and a phd in physics and a lifetime career as a scientist is a lier

I assume you are referring to Russell Humpheys?

He has almost NO references in science. He has a lot of creationist articles however.

He also did not work as a nuclear physicist either. He was in an engineering support group at a government lab for a while. Check his publication record. He has had no physics publications since graduate school 35 years ago.

He's a paid hack at ICR who writes in areas he clearly has no expertise in.

Actually I have never called him a liar. Though he certainly has retracted prior statements and fudged around the issues somewhat when challenged.

what makes hime the lier, because his facts cause a contridiction to your belief?

I haven't called him a liar. Though I will call him incompetent in several areas he writes in. Simply because he is incompetent OR he is indeed pulling a fast one on the gullible creatioinist readership.

How do we know what you or others were taught was correct?

Because science works. Because that thing you are typing on, the car you drive, the shampoo you use etc etc etc all work and were developed out of mainstream science.

By the way - if you add up all the whackos at AIG and ICR like Humphreys you have at most a few dozen people with PhD's in science (though most of them don't actually work in science). Contrasted with a worldwide science community of active researchers in pure science of several hundred thousand researchers.

Hmmm - which is more likely to be correct? The few who got a bad case of evangelism and then became creationists or the several hundred thousand scientists of all faiths and creeds who don't see a need to twist and pigeonhole a young earth conclusion into the data?

 

[simplyg123]

well obviously you are convinced of your theory, other then the many insults you thrown at me i have enjoyed the conversation.

You are right, i am not educated in this field at all. But you have opened my mind to explore the possabilities of both sides further, but merely on you faith in your belief.

I was looking for rebuttles, but you didnt really have any. Makes me wonder if you are as familiar with the study as you claim

You did make decent points, that i am open to explore

 

[Melethiel]

I was looking for rebuttles, but you didnt really have any. Makes me wonder if you are as familiar with the study as you claim

There are many rebuttals available on sites like TalkOrigins. Most of us here, however, don't like copy and pasting much, and writing out a decent rebuttal takes time and research.

 

[KerrMetric]

well obviously you are convinced of your theory, other then the many insults you thrown at me i have enjoyed the conversation.

I have never once insulted you - and that is an insult by claiming I have.

You demonstrated that you have no science knowledge. How is it an insult to state that? You not only don't understand the concepts but even the terminology and usage of language in science or the process it operates by. All I did was point this out - telling the truth cannot be an insult.

You are right, i am not educated in this field at all. But you have opened my mind to explore the possabilities of both sides further, but merely on you faith in your belief.

Check it out - and be skeptical.

I was looking for rebuttles, but you didnt really have any. Makes me wonder if you are as familiar with the study as you claim

And you are being obtuse here. How can I in a few minutes type up rebuttals to about 20 points you raised?

I even predicted you would say this in an earlier post of mine.

This is classic creationism nonsense. Throw 20 pieces of you know what hoping that one will stick or that the opponent cannot get round to them in time and so claim a (Pyrrhic) victory.

That's pathetic. Google. There are hundreds of rebuttals to this childish creationist claptrap.

What you posted even have their own name - PRATT's.

Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

You did make decent points, that i am open to explore

Explore away.

 

[simplyg123]

your knowledge base is insufficient

Not very nice

What is sad is that you don't even know what these are even saying since your science knowledge is basically zero.

sounds like insult

I have never once insulted you - and that is an insult by claiming I have/[quote]
you dont seem to be a very credible truthful person

You not only don't understand the concepts but even the terminology and usage of language in science or the process it operates by

yeah i think im insulted.

telling the truth cannot be an insult.

if the pope had a large mole on his nose would you tell him?

what if your son couldnt hit the ball at t ball parctice? would you tell him he wasnt very good?

Just give me one reason why you believe the earth is of old age

 

[simplyg123]

Because science works. Because that thing you are typing on, the car you drive, the shampoo you use etc etc etc all work and were developed out of mainstream science.

by the way my "scientific based computer" that im typing on just froze up a moment ago, and my wife called to tell me the car was over heating"

 

[rmwilliamsll]

in a case of claimed slander or libel the defense that the statement is true is sufficient.

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

from: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

your knowledge base is insufficient
Not very nice

if it is true and furthermore that it is pointing out a deficiency that the person might be unaware of, it is not only nice but a kind remark.

the statement that someone is an ignorant fool and is incapable of learning. is unkind and not nice. point out deficiencies is neither.

What is sad is that you don't even know what these are even saying since your science knowledge is basically zero.
sounds like insult

as an observer of this conversation, it not only does not sound like an insult, but is a kindness if if encourages you to study the topic.

telling the truth cannot be an insult.
if the pope had a large mole on his nose would you tell him?

doesn't it depend on the circumstances?
if you are his dermatologist and looking for skin cancer i'd say it is a most helpful and professional remark.

KM is a professional physicist, his remarks can simply be interpreted as a kindly prof offering you free physics counselling, something that many are now paying for.

what if your son couldnt hit the ball at t ball parctice? would you tell him he wasnt very good?

not that he is morally "not very good", but rather tell him he demonstrated less ability than he really has and ought to practice and do better next time. pretty much the tenor of KM's remarks here.

Just give me one reason why you believe the earth is of old age

radioactive decay.
stellar data-ie distance to stars.
supernova, pulsars etc that encode distance in their light.
but i'm a layperson in physics, listen to KM on the topic.
plus i can't even count. 1=/= 3

 

[simplyg123]

if it is true and furthermore that it is pointing out a deficiency that the person might be unaware of, it is not only nice but a kind remark.

I stated many times that i was not a scientist.

the fact that he repetedly called this out, makes it an insult, i was not using my knowledge of the issue, but others, and that was stated also.

 

[pgp_protector]

People need to separate them selfs from there ideas.
Someone attacking / not agreeing with an Idea, is NOT an attack on the person that supports the Idea.

 

[pgp_protector]

And I guarantee that the reasons it "froze" or the car "overheated" are based on science.

Either the science of computer programming, or thermal physics for the overheating.

 

[simplyg123]

People need to separate them selfs from there ideas.
Someone attacking / not agreeing with an Idea, is NOT an attack on the person that supports the Idea.

My intellection was attacked, i have no problem with him disagreeing, stating that i have no knowledge on the subject was irrelevant considering i wasnt using my knowledge but resources gathered elsewhere

 

[simplyg123]

And I guarantee that the reasons it "froze" or the car "overheated" are based on science.

Either the science of computer programming, or thermal physics for the overheating.

yes apparently those sciences didnt work to well

 

[pgp_protector]

yes apparently those sciences didnt work to well

That or someone didn't perform the required maintance, and protection.

 

[simplyg123]

shhhhh

 

[FallingWaters]

I believe God spoke the universe into existence, in a span of six 24 hour days, about 6,000 years ago.

 

[KerrMetric]

you dont seem to be a very credible truthful person

Why - point out one thing that I said that was a falsehood?

Just one.

I might be many things (some bad, some good) but I don't lie, I don't soft soap people and I have credibility on scientific issues.

Ask me about carpentry or plumbing and I am NOT your guy.

Ask me about physics, astronomy and most things scientific and I usually am.

How is this dishonest or not credible. Have I made a single post where you said to yourself "Hmmm this guy is obviously in error or it sounds like he doesn't have a scientific clue" ?

Answer - no you have not.