News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

How old is the Earth?

Started by Tank, August 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:53:23 PM
Assuming there was a big bang, there had to be a big banger, no?

no.  And that's for another topic.

Tank

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:59:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:53:49 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Quote from: Gawen on August 27, 2011, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
Evidently not.  :D
Hey, I admit to being biased.
lol Admitting one is biased does not excuse the bias, it makes thing worse as you are saying you don't care that your bias effects your judgement.
I hope you are not suggesting that you are biased free.
I am most definitely stating I am bias free. Bias is an irrational emotional attachment to an idea. If you go to the God Hypothesis thread and state your case there I will evaluate what you propose and if I feel your hypothesis worthy of consideration then I will take it on board. Please don't derail this thread anymore, feel free to start a thread on bias if you are that concerned about it.
By responding to your post I'm derailing the thread? That does not make sense and is unfair.
By posting unrelated comments you are derailing the thread. It makes sense and it's not unfair to ask you to remain on topic, a topic I started. If you want to bring up other subjects then feel free to do so in a parallel thread, there is nothing unfair about that at all, in fact it would give us all more things to discuss carefully in their own thread.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Black36

Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.

Tank

#33
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistent, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentary varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
What's an 'ine day'?

EDIT:

I assume you're getting at something like this



So one gets the 'appearance' of stratigraphy. Volcanic eruptions do give a layered 'stratified' output. However other geological processes, such as erosion, work over much greater periods of time and it is sedimentary stratigraphy interspersed with growth stratigraphy (caused when the sedimentary layers become the surface) and volcanic layers that actually make up large areas of the surface of the Earth and make up the subject area of a whole area of science called Geology.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Whitney

Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?

I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.

I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.

Tank

Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?

I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.

I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
It didn't.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Whitney

Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?

I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.

I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
It didn't.

ya...it was volcanic ash...it would come up in the layers as massive volcanic activity. 

I wonder if AiG has been pushing some false idea that whenever scientists see volcanic ash in the layers they assume it is old?  Which is silly because then they'd be wondering who built a time machine to sandwhich old dirt between two younger layers :)  I bet AiG has been telling people that when a volcano erupts it spews old layers all over the place....  They have great imaginations, too bad they don't put them to good use.

Recusant

My understanding of the YEC position regarding science and the age of the earth:

Why would science be so consistent in the agreement between various disciplines regarding the age of the universe and the earth? It's simple: The "father of lies" is clouding the minds of all scientists (except those who assume the literal truth of the Bible). Of course assuming the truth of a religious text as axiomatic isn't a part of the scientific method, so the scientific method itself must be another creation of the father of lies, or of those in his thrall. The fact that it has been shown to work reliably and repeatedly is merely evidence of the power of the father of lies. This is an ever-present, powerful and malicious being intent on drawing all of humanity into hell, and those who refuse to acknowledge his existence are dupes at best, willing servants at worst. So the YEC works to expose the lies. Woe to the arrogant fools (including heretic Christians) who refuse to listen to the literal truth of the holy Bible!

Black36, feel free to correct my understanding.  I think that it's useful to know the basis of the YEC position, and if anything I've said is incorrect in your view, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Black36

Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
What's an 'ine day'?

I think he meant nine...the ash stayed in the air for a while.

I don't know what he means about the ash creating a false record.
It was a typo. I meant 'one'

Tank

#39
Repeated as B36 may have missed the edit.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistent, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentary varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
What's an 'ine day'?

EDIT:

I assume you're getting at something like this



So one gets the 'appearance' of stratigraphy. Volcanic eruptions do give a layered 'stratified' output. However other geological processes, such as erosion, work over much greater periods of time and it is sedimentary stratigraphy interspersed with growth stratigraphy (caused when the sedimentary layers become the surface) and volcanic layers that actually make up large areas of the surface of the Earth and make up the subject area of a whole area of science called Geology.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Black36

Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectivly they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.

Tank

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Velma

Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
I am a member of Theologyweb.com. A while ago I asked if Answers in Genesis was considered a reasonable source of a description of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) world view. In particular this page How old is the Earth?. There were many views of my question and many responses, but not one from a YEC. No YEC would confirm, or deny, that the AiG article was a valid description of their world view.

The most often cited creation date was produced by Archbishop James Ussher. The AiG page references "The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.", which is impressive as according to the Wiki page he died in 1656.

So if we have any YECs here, I would really like to know if the AiG page is a reasonable representation of the foundation of the YEC world view?
As a former fundamentalist christian, I can say the article is a fairly accurate representation of my views at that time.  You probably couldn't get anyone to say so because they know how atheists view Answers in Genesis.
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.~Carl Sagan

Black36

#44
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.
We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.
I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.
In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.
I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.
To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.
I gave you an answer from my worldview. You gave an answer from yours. Neither one of us can offer an exact age of the earth.