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

Tank

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?
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 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?
Yes, it is reasonable. However, I am open to the flood being a local event as opposed to being global, even though I lean towards a global flood. I am also comfortable with a date range of 6-10 thousand years.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Black36 on August 22, 2011, 03:12:06 AM
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?
Yes, it is reasonable. However, I am open to the flood being a local event as opposed to being global, even though I lean towards a global flood. I am also comfortable with a date range of 6-10 thousand years.

Are you being serious?  :o
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Squid

Quote from: Black36 on August 22, 2011, 03:12:06 AM
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?
Yes, it is reasonable. However, I am open to the flood being a local event as opposed to being global, even though I lean towards a global flood. I am also comfortable with a date range of 6-10 thousand years.

Please elaborate as to why.  I would be interested in knowing.

Black36

In a theistic worldview, there is room for a creator. There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

Science disqualifies YEC.

I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy.  A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Ihateyoumike

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
In a theistic worldview, there is room for a creator. There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

Well, I for one, would like to thank you for this wonderfully insightful and thought out response to everyone's questions. You have opened my eyes to a new light. I feel like I have a new wealth of knowledge which I shall now distribute amongst the commoners.

I... Am enlightened.
Prayers that need no answer now, cause I'm tired of who I am
You were my greatest mistake, I fell in love with your sin
Your littlest sin.

Whitney

Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

YEC being anti-scientific is a good reason for a theist to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of our origins.  You can think that YEC is bunk yet still believe that god created everything and even still be a Christian.

Black36

#8
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

Science disqualifies YEC.

I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy.  A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
In order to determine how old something is we must know the decay rate of the sample AND the initial conditions said sample has experienced. We don't have the initial conditions. We must assume that current decay rates have ALWAYS been consistant. We don't know if decay rates have always remained consistant. We also must know whether or not the parent and daughter elements in said sample have been altered during the lifetime of the sample in question, in order to determine its age. We don't have that either. Science can only offer current measurements. Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.

xSilverPhinx

#9
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 03:32:03 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

Science disqualifies YEC.

I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy.  A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
In order to determine how old something is we must know the decay rate of the sample AND the initial conditions said sample has experienced. We don't have the initial conditions. We must assume that current decay rates have ALWAYS been consistant. We don't know if decay rates have always remained consistant. We also must know whether or not the parent and daughter elements in said sample have been altered during the lifetime of the sample in question, in order to determine its age. We don't have that either. Science can only offer current measurements. Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.

It's what the data points to, based on built-on knowledge more than on assumptions and biases.

Though they can't give an absolute truth (that's what religion preocupies itself with doing) they can place the age of the Earth within a time period, it's more or less 4,5 billion years old.  6 thousand would have to account for a huge margin of error, and explain why and how decay rates could get so accelerated in the first place. Of course it's possible that what scientists put in the textbooks today could be wrong, maybe they're about a few million years off track. I'd risk saying definitely not billions of years in error.

From Talk origins

QuoteRates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Though some things like electromagnetic field can influence some kinds of decay rate, the people measuring it certainly know that when those sorts of things occur and so are biased toward using materials which allow people to make the fewest assumptions about initial conditions and possible contamination.

YEC would also have to explain why all the other independent fields of science also point to an Earth and universe that are older than 6000 yrs.

Biological evolution itself also disproves YEC. I feel justified in making the assumption that the Earth would have had to have been here for more than 6 thousand yrs based on only that.  
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Black36

#10
You can't escape the laundry list of assumptions required to make your view work.

Also: Biological evolution? What do you mean by this?

xSilverPhinx

#11
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:58:05 AM
You can't escape the laundry list of assumptions required to make your view work.

Also: Biological evolution? What do you mean by this?

Agreed, with the assumption that I'm not just a brain in a vat and so that there really is a measurable reality more or less as I see it being among those assumptions. For pratical reasons, I keep that assumption when evaluating the physical world since I've never encountered any evidence to the contrary.

It's what the evidence and data point to however with the fewest assumptions and so far there's nothing to indicate that the Earth is a few thousand years old, in independent scientific fields. YEC has to distort what is so far known about science, without presenting any real evidence, in order to make reality fit into their worldview. This is...just wrong on so many levels.

Evolutionary theory, which so far excludes how life came into being because there isn't an established theory of abiogenesis yet. Just about how organisms evolve and change over time once life got started. Creationist propagandists distort the theory to their heart's content and so expect people to disagree with it, which they do.  
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Tank

#12
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 03:32:03 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 01:05:35 AM
There is no reason to disqualify a YEC view within a theistic paradigm.

Science disqualifies YEC.

I don't mean to be rude, but YEC is incompatible with scientific observations and measurements, going from biology to geology to astronomy.  A paradigm with YEC in it is one that is removed from measured reality.
In order to determine how old something is we must know the decay rate of the sample AND the initial conditions said sample has experienced. We don't have the initial conditions. We must assume that current decay rates have ALWAYS been consistant. We don't know if decay rates have always remained consistant. We also must know whether or not the parent and daughter elements in said sample have been altered during the lifetime of the sample in question, in order to determine its age. We don't have that either. Science can only offer current measurements. Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.

Forget radioactive decay. It works but because it's quite complicated to understand it's an easy target for disingenuous theists to rubbish.

There is of course absolutely no reasonable answer to the evidence provided by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP).

The GRIP Ice Coring Effort

QuoteIn the first drilling season in 1990, the drill reached a depth of 770m where the ice is 3840 years old. In 1991, the drilling continued into 40,000 year old ice at a depth of 2521m, and on 12 August 1992, the drill hit bedrock at 3029m below the surface, where the ice is 200,000 years old or more. The core is now stored in a cold house at the University of Copenhagen. The GRIP deep drill is an updated version of ISTUK (IS means ice in Danish, TUK means drill in Greenlander). ISTUK was constructed in 1978 and used successfully under the American-Danish-Swiss GISP 1 program at Dye 3 in South Greenland where it hit bedrock at a depth of 2037m in 1981.

The core is dated by counting annual layers.
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.

Stevil

If the earth is 5,000 years old then how old is our universe with regards to the big bang event?

Gawen

Quote from: Black36Scientists offer possible explanations or assumptions, which are influenced by the scientist's personal bias.
And yours isn't?
The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor