Obey No1kinobe

This conversation is closed.

How old is planet Earth?

My understanding from Science is that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

The current universe is about 13.6 Billion years.

Some claim Earth and the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

This is not a trivial difference.

My understanding is the young earth theory is the view of some creationists. Other theists take a less literal approach to holy books and are comfortable with an older universe and even evolution.

Do YEC have it right and various radiometric dating techniques are completely flawed or are they relying on a few bogus results and ignoring what is valid science on the whole.

Is this a huge blind spot for science? Or a conspiracy? Or a bit of both?

I have to admit that it would surprise me if radiometric dating was completely misleading. I would have thought these issues would have been worked through, that there would be continuous improvements in techniques and methodology and more accurately estimating the age of the Earth.

What do you think?

Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe

Thank you everyone who contributed. You'd think the age of the earth is something we could follow the science and agree on. Apparently not.

Science indicates 4.6 Billion years. Bible inspired young earth creationist below say between 5700 and 13000 years. This is a huge difference.

To believe this you need to ignore or disagree with the science in many fields:
Geology - plate tectonics, sedimentary rock formation,
Biology -evolution
Astronomy - star and galaxy light distances
Physics - radiometric dating

Also each different creation myth or interpretation conflict.

Some of the science is ignored based on divine intervention which could make a world that looks 4.6 billion years ago 6,000 or so years ago.

Looking into some of the Christian materials, they state up front that the bible is the truth. Any apparent conflicts between the bible stories and science, then the bible trumps.

I guess no one has changed their minds. But the discussion has helped me better understand some of the issues.

I'm going to stick with science. I see no evidence for any god or that the bible is anything special.

If Bible literalists want to stick with the apparent mythology of a post Canaanite tribe as described in the bible, that is their choice. I would suggest the bible is not a great scientific resource - it says pi is 3, bats are birds, whales are fish and that displaying striped patterns to a pregnant cow will make it give birth to striped cats. Burning bushes and talking donkey's.

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. But I almost admire the creatively and arguments developed to counter the science. Although the ones I looked at appeared flawed or relied on supernatural intervention of the type we never see now that we have mobile phone cameras.

Thanks for the discussion.

  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: As a christian, I am ashamed that my peers insist on reading Genesis chapter one as a literal account, when it's clearly poetical. If God created the Sun on the fourth day, how did he create light on the first? Once you understand that Genesis is not literal, all objections to evolution and cosmology melt away.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: Hi Lawren.
      I am not ashamed of you, if you follow Christ then you are my brother. That we disagree at some point is not surprising, as we are both still human. a couple of points :-
      1) The Jews; for the most part; consider Genesis as history. Their Callander has us at 5772 years from creation.
      2) God took it literally.
      Exodus 31:16-17 (NIV)
      [17] It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”
      3) Paul took it literally .
      Hebrews 4:4 (NIV)
      [4] For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”
      4) Both the genealogies from Adam to Jesus are wrong, if Genesis is poetic.
      5) If sin did not enter the world through the sin of Adam, then the resurrection of Jesus has achieved nothing.
      6) There is no reason within the bible to deny Genesis. The only motivation I know of is to try & splice in evolution.
      Many church leaders today, Pope etc, try to harmonise the two, However I have found that most Atheists see the flaw in this argument, let alone Christians.

      God Bless
      :-)

      PS. On the sun thing you mention :-

      John 8:12 (NIV)
      When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

      Revelation 21:23 (NIV)
      The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: You bring up some interesting points, so let me explain further.

        The genealogies from Adam to Jesus are not wrong, but they are abbreviated, skipping over many generations. This is commonly accepted by almost all theologians. I encourage you to check out a commentary from your church, and engage your church leadership in conversation on the matter

        As you know, the ancient Hebrews took the number seven as a symbol for completeness. The ancient Hebrews had a form of poetry which consisted of three parts, three counterparts, and an ending (seven parts, and complete set). In the case of Genesis, God creates places in the first three parts, the residents of those places in the second three parts (light and dark - sun and moon; sky - birds; land and sea - fish and land animals. And then God was complete on the seventh day. That Genesis lists creation in this way and is so incomplete in it's list of items tells us that Genesis is meant to explain the Who and Why, and cares not about the How and When.

        That God created man and that he he needs the grace of God (is sinful) does not require a literal Adam, or a literal Genesis.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: Hi Lawren.
          You are calling on extra-biblical sources. Scripture translates scripture. Commentaries are just man's interpretation. I agree that the bible points to the number 7 as being completeness, but that would tend to confirm the literal 7 days. 6 for creation, plus 1 for rest.
          I have been in church leadership for many years, & know that neither I nor my peers would advocate taking this line. One thing is consistent in all this. When man adds to the bible he always demeans the work of Christ on the cross, & that's never a good sign. Tread carefully my friend.
          :-)
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: Peter, to your 6th point, of course there's no evidence within the bible, it's a bit like saying within Harry Potter there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't all real.
        And this kind of logic would be applicable across all religions and all would have to receive equal value using that logic.
      • thumb
        Jul 27 2012: Hi Peter,

        I'd just point out that relying on a book like the bible you can get lots of different meanings taking words and verses in different ways.

        Jesus says he is the light. I guess that is a metaphor.
        God creates light before light sources, so you assume the light in this case is a metaphor for Jesus. How convenient.

        I guess the point is if you continually reinterpret the words to fit your understanding of reality, and assume supernatural events without real evidence, you can probably maintain some sort personal coherency.

        This indicates the problems of basing everything on a jumble of old books written in pre scientific times with nothing to indicate supernatural understanding of the universe. There are so many internal contradictions you can find or interpret a verse to support many alternative views.
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: Just adding a thought. The bible as referred to by the majority of todays christians was translated through at least three languages before it got to english. Anyone who has read the instructions for a chinese manufactured appliance has experienced the problems of translation. And thats with instructions, I would assume the translation of parables is quite challengimg.
      • Jul 27 2012: Pete,


        While I am generally with you on this one (once you start accepting scientific facts that contradict parts of the bible, the whole Christianity thing collapses), I have a comment on this part (but have not read carefully the rest):

        You said: "6) There is no reason within the bible to deny Genesis. The only motivation I know of is to try & splice in evolution."

        I kinda agree with the first sentence (there are some internal inconsistencies, but lets leave that alone). However, the motivation is not "to splice in evolution," but to let in reality. If reality does not cut it for you, then you could have said science. Many fields of science contradict genesis, and evolution is only one. I would suggest you to use the proper names of each discipline (geology and cosmology, for example, are not evolution) lest it make you appear as a mere propagandist.
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2012: I would suggest that appropriate radiometric dating is at least good enough to indicate the world is millions or billions of years old. But lets put that aside for the minute.

    Working back from now using our knowledge of the universe, an old one is consistent with much of what we see.

    Star formation would take a long time if occurred due to gravity, as would planet formation once the necessary elements were generated inside the first generation of the appropriate class of stars. Through hubble we see stars forming, back in time.

    The light from the stars and galaxies, in a natural universe, takes years, to millions to billions of years to reach us. We see older less well formed galaxies.

    A YEC probably needs to assume that god made al the stars and planets pretty much as is, but close together, then pushed them out to near where they are now, slow them down then accerate them again I'm not sure what sort of distortions this would have on the observation of distant galaxies.

    Evolution of life to what we have now took billions of the years. Alernatively a god may have made it look exactly as if we evolved, via the DNA and physical relationships, even fossils from older to newer. No rabbits fossilised with dinosaurs.

    Plate tectonics and the position of the continents is also is consistent with an old Earth. Unless a supernatural event occured splitting up them up and moving them quickly to metres of their current position.

    So a natural universe would be old based on what we see and understand, the force of gravity, star formation etc.

    Now you can inject a supernatural being that is very powerful and say it made everything say 6,000 to 13,000 years ago so that it looks like it is much older. You can explain nearly anything with this sort of idea.

    Except there is no compelling evidence for its existence or intervention in any of this.

    Nothing since we had progressed to the point of being able to evaluate supernatural phenomena. All in the ignorant past.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2012: Hi Obey.
      ""Star formation would take a long time if occurred due to gravity, as would planet formation once the necessary elements were generated inside the first generation of the appropriate class of stars. Through hubble we see stars forming, ...""
      Stars would need to have formed at around 30,000 per second on average over long angers time frame. This is unlikely given what we know. How can you tell if a star is forming, or gas is dispersing from in front of an existing one?

      ""We see older less well formed galaxies""
      As I understand it, far away (older) galaxies look very similar to close-up ones.

      ""Plate tectonics and the position of the continents is also is consistent with an old Earth. Unless a supernatural event occured splitting up them up and moving them quickly to metres of their current position.""
      I agree. Someone once said that the energy available from the current movement would be insufficient to raise the mountains. Higher impact speed would be required. Sounds reasonable, but who knows?

      ""Now you can inject a supernatural being that is very powerful and say it made everything say 6,000 to 13,000 years ago so that it looks like it is much older. You can explain nearly anything with this sort of idea.""
      Yup, you sure can !

      :-)
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: The current speeds can create mountains? Everest is still growing at a steady rate with varied results for the rate of growth but growing non the less.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: "As I understand it, far away (older) galaxies look very similar to close-up ones."
        No they don't! Quasars for example only occur at vast distances indicating they were a feature of the early universe. Also far away galaxies are younger because we look back in time!
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2012: Hi Peter.

          ""ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2006) — An international team of astronomers based at Yale and Leiden University in The Netherlands found that "old stars" dominated many large galaxies in the early universe, raising the new question of why these galaxies progressed into "adulthood" so early in the life of the universe.""

          Quite difficult to get info on this. I would be interested in what a 'young' galaxy looks like. It has been said that spiral galaxies must be young, as the spiral will quickly wash out. Much like a Catherine wheel firework.

          :-)
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: You need to look on a bigger time scale. The universe is much older than any one galaxy. If you look at a distant spiral galaxy you are probably seeing it at an earlier stage of development than the Milky Way due to the time it took the light to get here, but there were lage features like quasars that existed before there were any spiral galaxies. The light we receive from quasars is billions of years old so they probably aren't there now. They represent an earlier generation of galaxy that no longer exists. One of the complicating factors when thinking about this is that the lifetime of a star is inversely proportional to its size, so big stars get old quicker than small stars. When you look at distant galaxies the big stars are easier to see, so you have to be very careful about estimating the age of the group.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: One think which perplexes me about people who rant on about radiometric dating is this.
    yes carbon dating hasn't always worked. But there are other isotopes of other elements which take far longer to decay. So fair enough this arrow head may not be 10,000 years old, but the potassium in this rock has been sitting there for 1 billion years! And they never seem to touch on the 11 other methods of radiometric dating. Only carbon dating.
    Other things around this elude people as well. I think the current estimate for age of the earth is believed to be right within 1% or something very similar. And if you look at the history of this story, it doesn't make it any better for YEC. I think it was once said that Earth was maybe a few million years old and the universe was roughly 3 billion years old, I think this comes from Hubble's first set of equations citation needed here, but the idea is, it's progressively got older. We've never found anything ever to make us think it's younger than we originally thought.
    And there's other ingenious dating methods I love. Neil Degrasse Tyson mentioned this one, not a dating technique but a measure of minimum age. it takes light 1 million years to travel from the center of the sun to the outside of the sun. This is measured by the density and gravitational strength of the sun to work out how long light takes to travel.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2012: Please confirm the time needed for light to travel from the center of the Sun to the surface of the Sun. The Sun's radius is 700,000 Km. A photon will travel 9,500,000,000,000,000,000 Km in a million years. Science is about accurate quantification.
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: That's in a vacuum. The sun is not only NOT a vacuum but incredibly dense. In the same way light slows down in water and glass it travels incredibly slowly through the sun and the gravity of the sun makes it even slower.
        http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/solar_system/sun.htm Scroll down to the heading Radiation zone. And Neil Degrasse Tyson mentions it in a youtube talk called stupid design.
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: In order for light to travel a mere 700,000 Km in one million years its speed would be 0.7 Km/year. That is immeasurably slow. With all appropriate respect I seriously doubt those numbers.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: It's the strength of gravity, sure if the sun collapsed to a black hole light would never escape. And give it a quick google, time for light to go from centre of sun to outside or something similar. Almost all results will give an answer close to one million
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2012: Montana.edu; Umich.edu; Wikipedia all say the time is approx. 170,000 years. Thats a speed of 4.1 Km/yr, or 6X what you said. I continue to doubt your numbers.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Well I linked you a site and told you of a youtube talk where a million years is used.
        But even if 1 million is too high. 170,000 years still puts a thorn in the side of YEC.
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2012: I looked at those and I thank you for the reference. My purpose is not to defend the Holy Bible's account of creation. My concern is for inconsistencies in Big Bang/Expansion Theory evidenced by this variety of answers from BB academics and scientists. Does science require precise quantification, or are numbers adjustable as required for consistency of theory? Even skeptical laymen know the value of consistency.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: Genesis was written in the age of mythology. It encompasses a time that only goes back to the beginning of early civilizations. It is the beginning of something, but not of the universe or of the earth. It is, however, the beginning of modern man. What happened before was of no importance to the writers of Genesis.

    The book of Genesis does not state this, it does not imply it or make any other references to such a claim. That is because it is about the establishment of law, which was necessary in order for humans to get along in an ever increasing population growth. Prior to the period described in Genesis, there was no law (rules pertaining to humans that is).

    If you trace human history backwards, you run out of recorded history prior to the beginning prescribed in Genesis. You don't run out of history recorded in the geological structure of planet earth. So we are dealing with two kinds of history. We must not confuse the two or negate one in regards to the other. We are comparing apples to oranges.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2012: Hi Roy, I agree about the mythological aspects. The indigenous people of New Zealand and Australia also have interesting creation stories. I guess a more 21st Century interpretation might still find some meaning in these stories.

      I wonder what the general trend was in regards to what people believed in regards to these stories in the past. Did they take them literally or not. I note today there is a mix.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: Hi Obey,
        The ones who wrote mythology didn't take it literally. But many who came to interpret them did. How else do you get from mythological gods to idol worship.

        In an age without books, myth was a way of preserving information. The ones who wrote myth were highly intelligent. The idiots who try to interpret it take it literal because that is all they are capable of understanding. Unfortunately, there is power in numbers. So when enough people claim it is literal, how do you argue with them? The Catholic Church overpowered Galileo. We know which one was right!
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: Thanks Roy.
          I guess truth is not a popularity contest or democratic but there must be some comfort in numbers.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: Here is a thought for you. The same science that tells us radiometric dates are accurate also tells us how to make computers work. This means that if YEC is correct then you couldn't get a reply because computers wouldn't have been invented.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2012: This science is only 100 years old; most of it started by YECs; how is your point relevant to millions of years?

      :-)
      • Jul 23 2012: How if science were started by YECs would it make YEC correct? Wouldn't you expect that absent scientific evidence (since science was just starting), people would be YECs because they know no better?

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2012: That's entirely possible.

          :-)
  • Jul 26 2012: How old is the Universe? As much as we can count.
    And how long will it remain? As much as we can count.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2012: 1 day left.

    Thanks for the comments so far.

    I have to admit being almost impressed with how young earth creationists counter all the evidence and consistency of an old earth and universe. Some of it is quite creative and inventive.

    I note some explanations require assumption on assumption. When you can leverage an assumed supernatural being that can bend the laws of nature at will anything is possible. A supernatural being could have given early humans lifespans of 700 to 1000 years. Its incredible to think that some people believe the earth is about 6000 years old and for the first 1000, 1/6 of the life of the universe, the original inhabitants were still alive and kicking. That they had some perfect DNA or something that allowed them to interbreed from one couple. That the galaxies were created closer to earth, less than 6,000 light years away then moved further away.

    I guess I could come up with similar arguments for any number of young earth stories, that life was started by super cats. The ones we see today are their descendants.

    What we get is stories about what happened. Not real explanations about how, because in the end theists just throw up there hands and say my god is eternal and all powerful and we know this through faith. God made the sun. How. With his word. What??????

    I'll go with science that seems to follow the evidence better than starting with the assumed answers and working back.

    Have to say thanks to Peter for offering an alternative view.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 23 2012: I'm sorry to say this, but you haven't read anything scientific on the age of the Earth if you think the main evidence is carbon dating. Carbon dating only works up to 60,000 years. And whats more is the fact that carbon dating is a last resort for dating things.
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
      We've also got the fact we can observe distant galaxies which are billions of light-years away. Reversing the big bang makes all the galaxies meet at around 13.72 billion years ago.
      It takes a photon of light anywhere from 100,000 years to a million years to go from the center of the sun to the surface of the sun.
  • Jul 22 2012: Good discussion, much better than expected.

    I have little to add except for my cynicism regarding the scientists on both sides of the debate.

    Yes, some scientists delight in having old theories contradicted, but many cling desperately to the old and fight the new with every weapon available. Look how long it took to change the treatment for stomach ulcers, when the science was clear. Almost all scientists have an agenda, even if it is unconscious.

    Closer to the topic, I am just a layman, but I think logically, and every explanation of isotope dating I have ever read or seen in a documentary casually drops assumptions that are impossible to validate. Every time my eyebrows pop up. Scientists are desperate for dating technology, and they will use the best they can get, even if it isn't very good. There have been dating results of key discoveries which were later found to be grossly inaccurate. How many other inaccurate dating results are still undiscovered, and those results are still being used by scientists as the basis of further work and conclusions?

    IMHO, the best argument here is the one based on consistency by Obey No1kinobe.
  • Jul 21 2012: Dear Obey No1kinobe,
    Your questioning of time is one of my favorite hobbies. Here's a way to generate a 'binocular' sense of time:

    Adopt the 4B+2012 calendar.
    It is the best idea I know to help save the world or, maximize the survival of humanity thru time. Because it's:
    1. simple
    2. costs nothing
    3. takes 5 minutes or less to learn
    A proposed change to the calendar I heard about fits these guidelines, and so could prove useful:
    A paleobiologist recommended adding 4B+ to our calendar, to reflect the age of the Earth.
    "B" stands for billion, and 4 billion years is aproximately the age of life on the world.
    Thus his calendar would read 4B+2012 this year.
    He mentioned this could help people reconcile geologic time and human historic time.
    It might also allow humanity to survive thru geologic time - by keeping the world's time scale next to ours.
    The theory of relativity states that spacetime needs at least two points - or in this case times - to measure anything. This calendar offers that crucial second measure, without making things too complicated.
    Using this system, people could think and plan for truly long term goals. Like the year 4B+10,000.
    So just add "4B+" to the calendar in your head, because it's
    1. simple
    2. costs nothing
    3. takes 5 minutes or less to learn
    If you find this idea useful, please propagate it. Thanks.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2012: Thanks Andrew. Interesting idea. I've lived in Countries that have non Christian histories and have different calendars. One had year 0 on the day Buddha was believed to die. Good to see them fighting European cultural imperialism. I note Your suggestion still involves the Christian calendar and is also likely to be rejected by YEC.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: Hey Obey/Andrew.

        I'd prefer the Jewish version, these guys are meticulous at keeping count. (5772)

        :-)
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: If I remember correctly most of the helium produced from the radioactive decay is still held within the rocks. It should be dispersed in the atmosphere if the timeframe is correct. Also C14 is still present in everything which would have contained it at any time, including diamonds. C14 should be undetectable after 50k years. Check it out, am I wrong.
    http://www.icr.org/rate/

    Does anyone have any real evidence for an old earth that does not rely on radiometric dating ?

    :-)
    • Jul 20 2012: Yes the genetic molecular clock (lol nvm that uses it too sometimes). BTW I did read the data on the problem YEC has with carbon dating and I can't find a single experiment that has been published in a major scientific journal with peer review. If you could link me one I would like to read it. There were 8 scientists tied to the issue (including 2 geologists) and none published (that I could find).

      *edit, I've been reading some of the scientific publications on other subjects that John R. Baumgardner has (the Geophysics on the article), and even he is dealing with billion year time scales. And not a single one will claim any numbers for their "young earth" in a major scientific journal (leaving them in the billions), not to mention their claims have been accounted for, keeping them within the same billion year times scales. Creationist are grabbing at straws.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Hi Robert.
        You will do well to find peer review on anything that contradicts the old age/ evolution worldview. Any scientist endorsing YE views would be in hot water. I might as well say that I can find no mainline papers that have been reviewed by YECs. If you read Gabo further down you will get the typical reaction of mainliners to YECs. Chalk & cheese.
        Regarding Mr. Baumgardner. I don't think the problems with radiometric dating is restricted to those of a YE persuasion. It is a complex & contentious subject. For this forum it maybe better to concentrate on other evidence for the age of the earth.
        The momentum for the old earth is considerable, & I certainly won't persuade anyone here. The evidence is easily googled, but not so easily accepted. This became obvious to me when Mary Schweitzer discovered the soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Up until that point everyone was well aware that soft tissue could not last more than a few centuries. Now we are looking for a mechanism that allows it to remain intact for 70 million years. Not for one moment would we dare question the age of the bones.
        :-)
        • Jul 21 2012: Peter I'm sorry but,

          "You will do well to find peer review on anything that contradicts the old age/ evolution worldview. Any scientist endorsing YE views would be in hot water."

          This is because there is no properly executed scientific experiments that show any data that brings the age of the earth to anywhere near 6-10k years.The scientists involved with this know this very well, which is why they have NO data to post that suggests anything substantially different - they merely go by "appearances" and we know appearances can easily be wrong -- which is why we do experiments and collect data. I have read their publishing’s and the best they can come up with is a few thousand years off of 4.3 billion, which is well within the standard deviation. But for you guys this is some big conspiracy by scientists to hide some ancient story tale. If these guys did find real empirical data they would not be shunned they would be awarded by the scientific community. The fact is there is no real problem, sorry.

          "The evidence is easily googled, but not so easily accepted."

          Again there is no evidence, which is why these guys have ZERO scientific publishing’s saying anything different. I have look all over and the only place that anything is published is on creationist web sites. When I looked into this to find out if they just where not given the opportunity (in order to be fair and through) I found that they are heard at several different scientific conventions. But according to the National Academic Press their presentations are always vague and without empirical data.
        • Jul 21 2012: *continued

          “The momentum for the old earth is considerable”

          It has nothing to do with momentum; they simple have no scientific findings that have any significance. This is why they say “young earth”, because if they had any solid scientific cause to make a claim then they would make a claim. But, they don’t because they have NOTHING to back it up. They know it and so does the scientific community. If they do present any empirical data it will be heard and published if it is worthwhile – which is why the empirical arguments for minor changes (like 4.3billion to 4.29 billion) have been published. Any empirical data that assists in a more accurate picture of our universe is reviewed, because that is what science is all about.

          "This became obvious to me when Mary Schweitzer discovered the soft tissue in dinosaur bones."

          It seems like everything to you is proof as long as it goes with your belief in God and the bible, as soon as something contradicts it then it just must be wrong no mater how much evidence there is -- if it doesn't go with your belief then you chose not to accept it (which is your choice). Science does not have that choice though. It seems like to you this is some big Anti-God conspiracy, but the fact is scientist will evaluate all data in order to come to the correct answer, not just the answer they want to believe. That's what separates science from creationism. It's fine to think something looks like it might be what you're looking for, but in order to substantiate that appearance you have to do experiments. To just say it looks like it might be (insert observation), and have no experiments to substantiate it, is just not good enough.

          John Baumgardner is not an idiot, if he had empirical data it would be published in science and nature just like several of his other publishing’s. The fact is, there is none, sorry.
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2012: Hi Peter,

          I would suggest that appropriate radiometric dating is at least good enough to indicate the world is millions or billions of years old. But lets put that aside for the minute.

          Working back from now using our knowledge of the universe, an old one is consistent with much of what we see.

          Star formation would take a long time if occurred due to gravity, as would planet formation once the necessary elements were generated inside the first generation of the appropriate class of stars. Through hubble we see stars forming, back in time.

          The light from the stars and galaxies, in a natural universe, takes years, to millions to billions of years to reach us. We see older less well formed galaxies.

          As a YEC you probably need to assume that god made al the stars and planets pretty much as is, but close together, then pushed them out to near where they are now, slow them down then accerate them again I'm not sure what sort of distortions this would have on the observation of distant galaxies.

          Evolution of life to what we have now took billions of the years.

          Alernatively a god may have made it look exactly as if we evolved, via the DNA and physical relationships, even fossils from older to newer. No rabbits fossilised with dinosaurs.

          Plate tectonics and the position of the continents is also is consistent with an old Earth. Unless a supernatural event occured splitting up them up and moving them quickly to metres of their current position.

          So a natural universe would be old based on what we see, the force of gravity etc.

          Now you can inject a supernatural being that is very powerful and say it made everything say 6,000 to 13,000 years ago so that it looks like it is much older. You can explain nearly anything with this sort of idea.

          Except there is no compelling evidence for its existence or intervention in any of this.

          Nothing since we had progressed to the point of being able to evaluate supernatural phenomena. All in the ignorant past.
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2012: http://www.betalabservices.com/biofuels/astm-d6866.html Go onto this site, press Cntrl-f and type in continuous production. It will take you to the part of the link which shows how C14 is constantly produced in Earth's atmosphere.
      And old earth evidence, expanding universe, nebular model, life span of stars required to make elements etc etc.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Hi Stewart.
        I am well aware of C14 production & life cycle. The question remains as to why it is detected in diamonds, oil, coal, etc when it should by now be undetectable.
        :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 21 2012: One of life's mysteries. You probably got this from answering genesis which I just read an article from on it. So the creationists did a bad experiment and found C14 and then some other scientists in California did a similar experiment and concluded something about the machinery I couldn't fully understand the site's wording.
          And maybe high temps and pressure slows down radioactive decay.
    • Jul 21 2012: As any arguments from creationist quacks, the helium one relies on looking only at the pieces of information that allow them to conclude what they want, rather than figuring out all the parameters necessary to verify if the claim has any merit. That one and other "YEC" arguments failures are exposed here:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

      Jump to "Common Young-Earth "Dating Methods" if you are not interested in the whole thing. Still, this page also has refutations to creationist claims against radiometry.

      Scientists know the possible problems with C14 dating, and avoid using it if they know that the sample has problems, or know ways for correcting for such problems. However, C14 is a poor isotope to attack by creationists, since C14 does not work for much more than 60K year-old stuff, which has to contain carbon in the first place. But they insist because C14 is problematic for being dependent on knowing how much C14 was present in a sample at the beginning. Easy target, but mere distraction tactics.

      Creationists quacks have a harder time attacking the isotopes actually used for millions and billions of years because those involve measurements that do not depend on knowing the original amount of the parent isotope to work well. They rely on rations of parent to daughter isotopes, which make the process self-correcting. Not only that, scientists do not rely on a single isotope, but on many. Since the many isotopes concur, there is no doubt that our planet is much older than suggested by the Biblical myths. But that does not matter. Creationists will never admit to anything said by a scientist even if shown that the creationist quackery they read is filled with lies and misrepresentations. With rhetoric rather than with science.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Hi Gabo.
        Talk Origins brings up the argument on atmospheric Helium. Whether it is escaping the atmosphere or not. However, surely we can measure the Helium that remains in the rocks & calculate that against how much should have been produced over time & come up with a time for dispersal. If that makes sense .
        As I said to Robert above, I feel this is too complicated to discuss here & suggest more mundane pointers to the earth's age. Maybe short-term comets, magnetic field deterioration, or Mary's dinosaur soft tissue.
        When I google old earth I seem to get as much religion as with young earth. Radiometric stuff aside; what convinces you ?

        :-)
        • Jul 21 2012: Peter,

          What convinces me Is knowing how horrible creationists understanding of evolution is. And since my knowledge and understanding on that subject is extensive it is obvious when they misrepresent something by stating half a fact then going off on some tangent about how they would be afraid to live in a world with evolution.

          In addition to that, I know how science works, we love to be wrong, that's half of what makes it so interesting. But, we don't just take thing's at their "appearances" we also do experiments and collect data, then we make a claim based on those experiments and data sets and give it to other scientists to have then repeat the experiments to verify the results. So if creationist actually had empirical data saying that the earth was 6000 years old, it would be in every scientific journal known to man, but they don't -- which is exactly why they say "young earth" and not 6000 year old earth. Where scientists say 4.3 billion year old earth.

          As a small example: When it was found that the universe was not only expanding, but accelerating it went against what everyone thought. Scientists were convinced that they would find the universe to be either static or contracting, but to EVERYONE's surprise it was expanding?!?!? The experiment was repeated all over the world, the data was shared, and it was found to be right. This was a great day; scientist all over the world were so excited. This is how science works, and the scientists involved with YEC know this -- which is exactly way they make no claims -- they have no experiments to repeat and in turn no data to share and review they simple want it to be so and don't care to test it. But other scientists have tested it. They did experiments, shared the data, and asked other scientists to repeat the experiments to see what they find. All the numbers converge on the same time frames -- 4.3 billion years. If you don't like it, do an experiment and put it up for review.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: Hi Robert.
        YEC & ID are both fairly recent offshoots of mainstream science. They seem to be growing however, so I guess their technical output will increase. If, as you & Gabo say, it is totally spurious, with no content of merit, then what is the motive? Did these guys go through all the training, build a well funded career for themselves, & then chuck it all away; just so they could be ridiculed by the rest of you. I love watching the debates on this. When the subject is hammered out on stage it is obvious that there is a serious debate to be had.
        There is a bit here about YECs going for peer-review with some examples; if you're interested :-
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/04/15/creationists-publish

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: I'd guess their motive would be to generate something which sounds vaguely scientific and so they can create their ideological goal of an all religious education.
        • Jul 22 2012: Peter,

          "When the subject is hammered out on stage it is obvious that there is a serious debate to be had."

          Actually there isn't, which is why the court cases for I.D. are loosing. People can debate rigorously until they are blue in the face about anything they want to, all they have to do is simply play up conjecture and playing down fact. But "appearances" can be deceiving which is why when I.D. does finally make claims science addresses them -not just pushing aside like I.D. The problem is I.D. doesn't say anything much past "It appears like it's designed".

          "http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/04/15/creationists-publish"

          This article is from 1998 and addresses other articles from mostly the 80's... Take this article for example: "Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer" it was in 1984. There have been quite a few advancements since then, including full evolutionary explanations of these mechanisms along with verified experimentation all the way back to abiogenisis (This article is actually talking about abiogenisis, not evolution)

          "then what is the motive?"

          These scientist have an investment in their belief in God not purely the truth. Creationists see it as an attack, so for no other reason then their faith, and they are doing everything they can to down play fact and play up conjecture. Here are 3 quotes from John Baumgardner's Bio on answeringenesis:

          "John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John.”

          "Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr. Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution's false claims."

          "he entered a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood"
        • Jul 22 2012: *continued

          so, the motive is clear, he believes in God and wants to prove his beliefs; he's not interested in anything to the contrary.

          That said, I respect John Baumgardner because he is trying to do it the right way by getting educated, doing experiments, and presenting data (which is why I keep talking about him, because unlike the others he at least does experiments and submits data, but he still doesn't make age predictions because his findings don't suggest anything much different than what is already known). But, in all of his scientific publications he makes no predictions and leave his articles completely open ended. When his data is looked at it only finds small possible variations that are accounted for by standard deviation.

          I like this guy because he seems to take a real scientific approach by doing experiments and submitting data, he also seems to be bright, but with all of that he has yet to find anything that drastically changes our view of the world. Kudos to him if he does and it will be an exciting day, but with all his efforts so far nothing.

          After reading these articles it is quite like Gabo said creationism is really deforming facts like they do with the 1 in a billion error argument -- they say one thing and neglect to tell you the rest. So keep on playing down the whole facts by giving half ones, and keep on speculating, until actual experiments are done, data is submitted, claims/predictions are made and they allow themselves to accept facts (a big part of the issue) creationists will never be respected by the scientific community.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2012: Hi Peter,

          I just had a look at answers in genesis.

          If you could imagine for a minute what a similar site for Muslim belief would look like you might come close to my response.

          It really does my head in if Christians can not see how weak some of the arguments are. So many fallacies and assumptions.

          - You can believe fallible man’s ideas that there is no God, or trust the perfect Word of God. So you start with the assumption the bible is correct. Ignore the hundreds of internal inconsistencies. You can find a verse for nearly any position you want in the bible.

          - Everything that has a beginning requires a cause. But God doesn't have a beginning. Special pleading. Argument from ignorance

          - The argument from design. Weak. Snowflakes look designed so there must be a designer for each one I guess. If I saw a watch I would think it is designed. You can tell designed stuff from natural stuff including life.

          The basic assumption is if the results of science conflict with the bible you go looking for other more elaborate explanations rather the simplest and most consistent.

          I suspect you really must want to believe this stuff to be convinced. Some of the rationales are quite weak.

          Each to their own I guess.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2012: Hi Robert.
        I hear what you say. It is true that when the Christian penny drops that the whole world changes. However our boss; Jesus Christ; is very clear that we must seek the truth. Nothing is of any value if it isn't true. So if we, as Christians, are advocating for a lie, then we are in direct opposition to that which we claim as paramount in our own lives.
        What we have is a different worldview. My life has been largely spent in mechanical engineering. Designing & making "stuff" to fulfil a purpose. I never had a white coat, and so could never get my head around biology. Recently, with the aid of better microscopes, computer animation etc. the principles are a bit more accessible. So now, when I read about, or watch an animation on the workings of a cell, I can understand something of how it works. It is analogous with a car assembly plant, or a jet engine production line; both of which I am familiar with. The cell however is many orders of magnitude more complex in it's organisation, quite appart from its small size. The principles are much the same. The drawing office holds the plans (which it previously formulated). They are passed to the factory as required by the various departments; either as paper drawings, or digitally for automated machines. Each department sends it's contribution to the assembly line. More info comes from the drawing office for assembly, & eventually a new car or whatever is delivered. Same idea with DNA, mRNA, proteins etc.
        Now, with the best will in the world, if you want me to believe that either of these factories arose by chance over zillions of years, then your evidence will need to be cast iron. It's not that I won't accept evidence, I will; but to date there has been nothing that is greater than the evidence of my own eyes.
        How I got from this to Christianity is another story, but hopefully you get my drift.

        :-)
        • Jul 23 2012: Peter,

          “I never had a white coat, and so could never get my head around biology. Recently, with the aid of better microscopes, computer animation etc. the principles are a bit more accessible. So now, when I read about, or watch an animation on the workings of a cell, I can understand something of how it works. It is analogous with a car assembly plant, or a jet engine production line; both of which I am familiar with… It's not that I won't accept evidence, I will; but to date there has been nothing that is greater than the evidence of my own eyes.”

          See peter this is the fallacy of I.D, it preys on ignorance (for lack of a better word). Einstein once said, “A little knowledge is dangerous thing,” and it’s true beyond measure. At first appearances, it makes complete sense that someone might think it has been designed. I mean after all that’s how the whole God(s) myth started, people sought out to explain things that looked like absolute miracles (and understandably so). To live 2000 years ago and see the aurora borealis would seem like you were looking at magical spirits dancing around in the sky, is that what it is? No. We only know that it’s not magical spirits because we have finally been able to explain it through science. As we gain knowledge we gain the understanding that the way things look and the way things are can be two completely different things.

          As we look deeper into life’s mechanisms, we realize that it’s not designed. Instead, it’s just a simple series of chemical reactions that has a complex effect. As you know, Michael Behe once said that evolution could never explain the human immune system because it was just too complex to have formed naturally and without design. As you also know that was proven to be wrong, and the processes that the human immune system evolved through are now known.
        • Jul 23 2012: *continued

          I dough there is a single biologist out there that doesn’t think biology is anything short of stunningly beautiful. But the realization of how beautiful it really is comes when you understand and know enough information to realize how it all evolved. Let’s take cell receptors for example: if you take any cell receptor you have two things: first you have the parts it’s made of-- which you can take apart and make something completely different with (without changing the parts themself), and second – you can take the whole receptor and combine it with other ones to get a new mechanism. It all works this way because it all came from very simple chemical reactions. All DNA has to do is a make a few proteins and BAM! You can make any life on earth.

          I know you don’t think that god tinkers in all of our bodies every second of everyday, to make it all work. So how does it work then? Chemical reactions. These chemical reactions have been churning away for billions of years. They have combined and recombined to make all of the life on earth (this is not speculation all of this has been proven and explained with genetics and organic chemistry). Now if you want to believe that God set that all in motion, then go ahead.

          In 2009 we watched the first RNA molecules form naturally and spontaneously (with no chemical combinations that do not occur naturally). But, scientists aren’t sure this is exactly it how it happened yet, so they are still doing experiments and passing the information around to be tested. Until that is confirmed (which might be a while) you are plenty welcome to believe God set that in motion (and after it’s proved if you want to continue to believe that is your choice). But, God simply isn’t needed for it to occur. All of this can be explained naturally and is made every day -- purely by nature.
        • Jul 23 2012: **continued

          Like a string of dominos, maybe one day science will find that 15+billion years ago there was a being that set all these dominos to fall. But, the universe hasn’t “needed” God (physically-- I’ll leave the spiritual aspect of that statement up for debate) for billions of years.

          “However our boss; Jesus Christ; is very clear that we must seek the truth. Nothing is of any value if it isn't true. So if we, as Christians, are advocating for a lie, then we are in direct opposition to that which we claim as paramount in our own lives.
          What we have is a different worldview.”

          Is ignoring and denying the truth really justified because it might change what is important to you? Is spreading speculation without a strong knowledge on the subject a good idea? And I mean you, not Christians. Most Christians believe in evolution and it hasn’t changed their faith one bit. To be Christian is not to deny the truth, and not looking for the truth is not advocating a lie. But to spread an ignorant idea is to teach ignorance, and that is simply not healthy of our world.

          I.D. has a massive audience of religious people with no scientific knowledge to appeal to. Many of these people are willing to accept anything that sounds like it might confirm their faith. They don’t need to care if it’s true or not, because as long as it "sound" like it could be true they can accept it at face value because believing in God is what really matters them.

          Creationism is simply appealing to this ignorance which is why the science is evolution, because science doesn’t cater to ignorance. And yes there are a few scientists that have allowed their religious beliefs to cloud their judgment. But, religious or not, most scientists are not this way. So creationists can argue until they are “blue in the face”, but they are arguing against evidence with pure speculation.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2012: Hi Robert.
        Let's get real. We cannot make a blade of grass grow without acquiring a seed. We cannot prevent disease & death, although that may be easier than the blade of grass.
        Science today seems to work on the materialist principle. Everything must be explained in terms of material. What if we are missing complete dimensions ? Often scientists talk glibly about other dimensions, & even other universes, but deny the one non-material dimension that most of us sense in one way or another. The ID mob don't feel they want to work within such a restricted area. We can mess about with our DNA etc in the same way that a mechanic can change a plug. But that same mechanic could not make a car from scratch. First dig a hole to find iron ore, or better still 'make iron ore from nothing'. Not a chance.
        What is amazing is that we can mess with our DNA. Why should evolution guide us in that particular direction? Much more likely is that our maker thinks along the same lines we do.
        At the end of the day it is faith; nobody knows it all. Many Christians believe in evolution, some don't. The reasons for this are a mixture of science & the bible; each forms there own opinion. Same with evolution, there has been and are lots of differing flavours within the overall concept. That's what makes life interesting, we're all unique.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2012: Why don't you reply to my posts Mr Law?
        • Jul 24 2012: Peter,

          "We cannot make a blade of grass grow without acquiring a seed."

          If you would like to look at it this way, all life on earth comes from the principles of a seed. We don't call all of them "seeds", but some life comes from seeds that isn't "grass". So we can use seeds to make stuff other than grass, why is that? DNA.

          "We cannot prevent disease & death"

          We can prevent some diseases. Once we have a scientific understanding of something we can apply it to understanding how to change it. I see no reason (yet) that we will not someday be able to prevent death. Look at crocodiles, they don't die of old age they die from their environment.

          "Everything must be explained in terms of material."

          This statement is deceptive. Everything has an explanation, but the word material is not necessarily true. But this goes down to quantum physics and back to the formation of our universe. On the topic of evolution, it is a "material" explanation. On the topic of quantum physics, we now know how matter can come into existence with the finding of the Higgs boson (this also talks about the formation of the universe since we know now there is a Higgs field).

          "but deny the one non-material dimension that most of us sense in one way or another."

          Sense with what? What sense organ do you have that I don't?
        • Jul 24 2012: *Added to be a bit more clear.

          "We can mess about with our DNA etc in the same way that a mechanic can change a plug. But that same mechanic could not make a car from scratch. "

          Not yet, but we get closer every day. It doesn't take one person/discipline to build a car. People have to mine the ore, set the steel, make the plastics, manufacture the electronics, make the tools, design them, be educated on how to put them together, know how combustion works, know how electronics works, and so on. With chemistry you don't have to teach it how to work, it all just functions according to the laws of physics. Just think about the problems people have with the very basic two body problems in physics with a frictionless slope an a massless pulley, now try real problems.

          None of this is any small task, and not all of it even pans out. But when we do finally have enough facts/supporting evidence, repeatable experiments, with verifiable data we can then make something a theory.

          In order to understand all of this we have to have people interested in science, then we have to have knowledge to build on. This means we need brilliant people to do more than just ask question they need to develop hypothesis (make claims, not just leave open ended questions), figure out how to test them, and then we need the funding to design and run the experiments. Then we need the time to do them, analyze the data we get, pass it around to be looked at, and figure out how to apply it to make it work for us.

          Remember, we are dealing with billions of years of chemical recombinations. Over that time it has become very complex because one chemical reacted with another to form a molecule , that molecule into another, into another (etc.) for billions of year. "Reverse engineering" that, is a long and complex problem. But, not having all of the answers (yet) does not open the explanation to a millennia old myth. "Not a chance" you say -- well, we can make matter now, which we couldn't do a month ago.
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: Hi Peter.
        Sorry, not intentional. How can I help ?

        :-)
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2012: thanks Gabo. Some interesting information on that website.
    • Jul 21 2012: Pete,

      Sure, helium has been measured in trapped air in antarctic and arctic ice. No accumulations.

      How about we also ask about whether the magnetic field has only "deteriorated" or if it has varied up and down and sideways?

      I am convinced because I understand the science. Example, scientists have measured the ages of the rocks at the bottom of the atlantic. The youngest rocks occur close to the fissure in the middle, oldest closer to the continents on both sides, showing that the plates have been moving, with new rock being formed closer to the middle as it opens. The measurements comply on both sides with each other. Radiometric dating. Then, if the look at the orientation of the crystals in the rocks, they can see how the magnetic field has varied and changed orientation. Again both sides look like mirrors of each other indicating this opening at the fissure and separation of the continents. That confirms the radiometric dating conclusions, and that this continental movement has been going on for millions of years.

      Same is true for many other things. There is no way in which all the geological, cosmological and biological events so far discovered would fit within 6,000 years. There is no way in which mistakes in any measurements would allow for such an enormous difference in ages from 4.5 billion to 6,000. It is ridiculous to even think that such a difference can be bridged. I know you have learned excuses for each of the discoveries that show the whole thing to be so old. But, if you need convoluted excuses to deny straightforward science, then you are the one who is wrong. Pete, you start with your conclusions, and nothing will invalidate them. Scientists like myself, look at the evidence and let it speak for itself. I rather side with those who follow the evidence however it goes, than with those who make convoluted excuses to preserve their conclusions.

      :-)
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: Hi Gabo.
        I don't think there is any disagreement on tectonic movement other than timescale. My view is that today's movement is by way of grinding to a halt after more rapid movement in the past. We don't really know, we weren't there.
        The same with magnetism. It is deteriorating today; it appears to have fluctuated and/or reversed in the past. My view is that it must reduce over time; if not then what force is replenishing it? The only force available is the rotation of the earth. That rotation is certainly slowing as the earth transmits power to the moon to increase it's orbit. Whether some of this power is feeding a dynamo is unknowable at present, but the magnetism is at present in rapid decline. That's my take, YEC explanation here :-
        http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371
        Although there are various theories on either side; you takes your pick .....

        :-)
    • Jul 22 2012: Pete,

      You are forgetting that the data would not fit with rapid movement of the plates. As i said, the radiometry reveals the movement. Why would it reveal the movement if it happened in less than 6000 years? Then the magnetism reorientations, why would they leave a mark on the crystals in the rock if this happened so fast? Truly that many changes in orientation for the magnetism in just 6,000 years? I could go on, but it does not matter, you ignore, rinse and repeat. I don't. The difference, again, is that I accept the facts, your "side" deforms them. There are no theories on your side. There's only denialism, cheap pseudoscience, misinformation, and plain lies. What's wrong with following the facts? Nothing. What's wrong with cherry-picking, deforming, and twisting so that everything fits some old book? Everything. So, yes, I pick the side that admits evidence.

      See ya.

      :-)

      P.S. Pete, ICR is worse than I thought. Why would any actual scientist mistake evolution with geology? Take this quote: "The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories." Man, if anything this exemplifies that ICR is a propaganda machine, not a scientific resource by any stretch of the imagination.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: Hey Gabo, on an unrelated note, you have TED email disabled, would you be willing to enable it so I could ask you a question or two on molecular biology.
        Thanks.
      • Jul 24 2012: "You are forgetting that the data would not fit with rapid movement of the plates."

        This is actually the area their geophysicist John Baumgardner has been avidly working on. And, in the publications that he has in the journals "science" and "nature", he has basically confirmed that the billion year time scales are well within standard deviation, and are accurate (not the intention of his publications I'm pretty sure).
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2012: The tree ring record is reliable over about 20,000 years. I assume we all accept that trees produce one ring per year. There are at least two continuous tree ring chronologies that excede 8000 years. eg Bristle cone pines. Dendrochronology dates match C14 dates back to 8000 years so why would C14 suddenly stop working at that point?
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: Hi Peter.
        Must admit I haven't read much on the Bristle Cone Pine. Very interesting, it seems reliable yet clashes with the biblical flood. Very neat; one up to you.
        C14 dating as I understand it is calibrated using known age artefacts. This makes it very accurate for dating items within the 5000 years or so of recorded history. Beyond that we have no artefacts for calibration. We are then back to assumptions to calculate the ages. One of these assumptions is that there was no worldwide cataclysmic flood. This would of course knock the assumptions & the results into a cocked hat.
        What is interesting however is that coal & oil deposits have a C14 date of thousands(not millions) of years. Contamination usually gets the blame for this, but when it happens with diamond as well, then it isn't so easily dismissed. Naturally, if these readings are correct, then the age of the earth swings toward a biblical perspective. We're still learning; or trying to.

        :-)

        Edit :- GABO I admit that IF the tree ring thing checks out, then I have a problem. Life's like that!
        • Jul 24 2012: Back to assumptions? If both tree rings and C14 concur, then the dating is correct.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: The Holy Bible (come on, keep reading) gives a non-self contradicting timeline from creation to today. The book of Genesis, chapters 5 and 11give a genealogical record which accurately accounts for each year from Adam (creation) to the Flood (Noah) and beyond. By overlaying world history on this timeline it is clear that God created the heaven and the Earth in the year 11,013 B.C. Add 2,012 years and you get a Biblical age of the Universe of 13,025 years.
    • Jul 20 2012: Edward, why then does the bible not describe interactions with species like dinosaurs? You would think there would be some mention of this as humans existing simultaneously with predators that weigh 6.8 metric tons might make for some regular difficulty.
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Job 40:15-18 (NIV)
        “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. [16] What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! [17] Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. [18] Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron.

        :-)
        • Jul 20 2012: Peter, although I enjoy the passage i hardly think this clears up the whole idea of humans being able to live next to velociraptors and tyrannosaurus rex. If you were writing an account of earths history don't you think you would include the vast array of dinosaur species that have existed? Or would you write a couple light descriptions about a grass feeding behemoth. You would think existing with dinosaurs would be rather perilous and therefore you would include some sort of history of their existence and extinction. I hope this passage doesn't "seal the deal" for you in regards to the obvious gaps of earths history found in the bibles account.
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: Your behemoth sounds like a rhino.
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Hello Brian-
        The Holy Bible is not a comprehesive physical history of the Earth or the Universe. There are some specific mentions of some things and events, but, as you point out, there are many "gaps" between the account of the beginning (Genesis) and the end (Revelation) of all things temporal. It would require a massive, multi-volume set of books to document a complete history of the universe with exhaustive scientific explanations of Everything. Of course the Holy Bible is not such a work.--Edward
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Hi Stewart.

        Have you seen the tail on a rhino? Hardly a Cedar..

        :-)
        • Jul 21 2012: Only that the cedar on other translations do not refer precisely to the tail ... but let's look at King James':

          "15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
          16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly."

          A reptile with a navel?

          "17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."

          A reptile whose "stones" are wrapped together like the "stones" of lots of mammals?

          Hum, seems like hardly a dinosaur.

          :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: Would it be the first time ancients have exaggerated? And I think you've got to be consistent in your trust of text. If you grant this behemoth as a dragon do you also accept every other account of dragons and even other monsters which are myths?
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Hi Brian.

        Swop dinosaur (name only invented a couple of centuries ago) for Dragon, & you will have loads to read about.

        :-)
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2012: Hi Edward. First time I recall hearing 13,000 years. I've heard 6,000 before, some around 10,000.

      6 to 13 thousands is double. Not quiet as bad as tripling 4 to 13 billion.

      But I guess with science we update as we improve our understanding. Suggest this is a strength.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: You are correct sir! I have always considered it to be a sign of intelligence to alter one's knowledge base when it is proven to be false. I do think there is a tendency on the part of non-scientists to accept everything the scientific world says as fact. I also think most scientists enjoy this elite status and do little to emphasize the tentative, often mutable, nature of their theories. About the 13,025 years. Ussher made an error in his analysis of Genesis 5 and 11. His number was 4,004 years from creation to the birth of Jesus, which led to the 6000+ year age of Earth. Using the patriarchal geneaologies properly yields the number 11,023 years from Adam to Jesus. Be well.