Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 02-15-2002, 06:40 AM

Hi all.

I'm starting a new topic here because the
converation has gotten out of scope over on the
bib crit forum.

I'd like to introduce you all to Ron (Login: Bait)
who is a creationist that we have been having a
good debate with over there. For those that want
to get caught up, the thread is titled "Here Kitty kitty".

Ron has been asking some questions about why he
should believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years
old when the bible would indicate otherwise. Note
that I don't believe he's a YEC, but he's still
trying to shoehorn scientific observations into
the Genesis account. It's a little difficult to
nail him down on things sometimes, his approach
is very much that of Tercel's - selectively
throwing out or interpreting allegorically parts
that don't make sense.

Please go easy on him, he's been rather well
behaved for a creationist.

Ron - I introduce you to Patrick (ps148), scigirl, et al.

Begin Ron's last comments about the age of the earth
=======================================

Quote:

I still, after looking at some of the sites you people gave for me to look at...and
still have questions myself. (BTW Amazon...I plan to get to your post...so don't
think I'm off yet).

Here they are:
1. The URL I was sent to, had this gentleman start out as saying that it is
"generally accepted" that the earth is ABOUT 4.5 Billion, accurate to about 1%
(error). Sounds good on the surface, except 1% of 4.5 BILLION years is a
couple of MILLION years...real accurate? And "generally accepted"?...does not
sound like real scientific FACT to me...rather, more like an educated GUESS. And
what about the fact that when the "scientist" tested a living molusk with carbon
dating (the most used test of how old something is), the test showed it had
died about 6,000 years ago. My point is that their testing only gives them an
educated guess..nothing more.

2. He went on to explain how the various "proof" us Christians give to the
descrepancies were incorrect, including the gap "theory". Ok...except he leaves
out the entire 10th chapter of Genesis...where the gap occurs, and the gap is
NOT picked up elsewhere in the Bible as he states.

3. He states that even if there was a gap, it could only be up to 13
generations. I put to you that 13 generations would be plenty enough time to
place the flood over 4,000 years BCE...well before written history in either China
OR Egypt...and also placing it near the time period that geologists have found
layers of mud all around the world. But then this is a debate all in itself.

4. Genesis account says that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days
(resting on the 7th). This gentleman suggests that the Hebrew word indicates
"day" being a 24 hour period, not eons...which I won't dispute. However, the
book of Job says that to God,"A day is liken to a thousand years, and a
thousand years like a day". IF you ASSUME (which I know you do not), for the
sake of argument, that Adam and Eve is a correct account, God told them that
if they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that they would die
THAT DAY. Adam lived just under 1,000 years...one of God's days? In fact, up
to Noah, most mentioned lived to just under 1,000 years...again, one of Gods
days?

5. IF then one of God's days is a thousand years, and the 24 hour days did not
begin to occur (be counted as such)until after Adam fell from grace (a
supposition), then the heavens and earth were created in 6,000 years, plus
another 1,000 years for God to rest, plus the 6,000 years that is a common
argument as to how old the earth is. That is not counting that if you "suppose"
Adams age did not start to be counted in 24 hour cycles until after his fall, how
many of Gods days did he live BEFORE he fell? But not counting that last
tidbit,that still equals 13,000 years, NOT 6,000. And that is NOT counting the
possible "gaps" in the timeline of generations. It would be about 7,000+ years
that man has been on the earth. How many years does scientists "generally
accept" that man has been around?...10,000 years?

6.And that is not counting (something I had not thought of until I read the
piece I was sent to)the fact of "how old was Adam two minutes after he was
created?...answer:Two minutes...but he physically appeared older (as did EVE)
because they were told to go out and populate the world (they then logically
had to be at least of child bearing age, physically). God created them already
appearing older, so would he not have done the same thing with the animals,
the earth itself, the universe, etc.? If so, then that would make all of our
scientific tests bogus right off the bat, would it not? So God COULD have
created everything in six (24 hour)days, and everything would be as it appears
now.

What I cannot reconcile is that even Einstein himself ended up having to admit
that since the universe is finite (which he tried to dispute, but couldn't)....has a
mathematically calculated end, then it logically has to have had a beginning
(which could also be calculated). What was before the beginning? What caused
the beginning? What did it look like before the beginning? (void?, empty? without
form?)The only answer I can come up with is God...and if he (his life, being) can
be thought of as like a circle in time (for lack of better analogy)...no beginning,
no end, timeless...well, you can come to your own conclusions, use your own
imaginations.

Bait · 02-15-2002, 06:52 AM

Hi all,
Thanks Kosh for the compliment (I think?).
Something Kosh forgot to add here (from my post) is I'm throwing these out for arguments sake...not necessarily that I believe ALL of them. And I like to be good natured about it too...to me, no need to be crude, get angry, etc.

As far as debating, etc. is concerned my philosophy is: Be a Fundamentalist--make sure the Fun always comes before mental. Realize that life is a situation comedy that will never be canceled.

Ok...now on to the show (I've been promised to be buried like I've never been before...we'll see)
:-)
Bests,
Ron v.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:
<strong>Hi all.

I'm starting a new topic here because the
converation has gotten out of scope over on the
bib crit forum.

I'd like to introduce you all to Ron (Login: Bait)
who is a creationist that we have been having a
good debate with over there. For those that want
to get caught up, the thread is titled "Here Kitty kitty".

Ron has been asking some questions about why he
should believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years
old when the bible would indicate otherwise. Note
that I don't believe he's a YEC, but he's still
trying to shoehorn scientific observations into
the Genesis account. It's a little difficult to
nail him down on things sometimes, his approach
is very much that of Tercel's - selectively
throwing out or interpreting allegorically parts
that don't make sense.

Please go easy on him, he's been rather well
behaved for a creationist.

Ron - I introduce you to Patrick (ps148), scigirl, et al.

Begin Ron's last comments about the age of the earth
=======================================
</strong>

excreationist · 02-15-2002, 06:59 AM

Bait:
Here's some an assignment for you:

Read my first post in this thread:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000600&p=" target="_blank">Why I gave up creationism... the Green River Formation</a>

And also read all of the links that I list there. (Especially the "Rock of Ages" one)

Note that Dr Dino seems to have changed his site - but I've found some more comments from him about it <a href="http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=6" target="_blank">here</a>.

When you've read all that you can try and explain why it appears that the Green River formation is more than 6000 years old.

According to <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">AiG</a>, the earth is only about 6000 years old (not 7000+ years old).

Oolon Colluphid · 02-15-2002, 07:01 AM

(Can't... resist...) Watch out Bait, here come the sharks!

Welcome, Ron.

hezekiah jones · 02-15-2002, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bait:
1. The URL I was sent to, had this gentleman start out as saying that it is "generally accepted" that the earth is ABOUT 4.5 Billion, accurate to about 1% (error). Sounds good on the surface, except 1% of 4.5 BILLION years is a couple of MILLION years...real accurate? And "generally accepted"?...does not sound like real scientific FACT to me...rather, more like an educated GUESS. <Irrelevant carbon-14 reference snipped.> My point is that their testing only gives them an educated guess..nothing more.

So, if several thousand independent estimates of the earth's age, based on numerous methods and indicators, from both within and without the earth itself, come within 1% of one another, and one lonely estimate, deduced from the outrageous ages of mythical characters and supported by absolutely no empirical validation, reveals an age completely off the scale, where does that leave us? (Hint: outlier.)

Oolon Colluphid · 02-15-2002, 07:38 AM

Quote:

1. The URL I was sent to, had this gentleman start out as saying that it is
"generally accepted" that the earth is ABOUT 4.5 Billion, accurate to about 1% (error). Sounds good on the surface, except 1% of 4.5 BILLION years is a
couple of MILLION years...real accurate?

Nope, not accurate at all: it’s 45 million. Don’t let the big numbers baffle you though. It is exactly like saying someone is fifty years old, plus or minus six months. What’s the URL in question?

Quote:

And "generally accepted"?...does not
sound like real scientific FACT to me...rather, more like an educated GUESS.

What it sounds like to you is irrelevant. That is normal science-speak for, ‘just about everyone who has studied the detailed evidence agrees’. It is something that has been established with greater and greater accuracy over a long period of time. Some perhaps think it’s 4.1 billion; others maybe 4.8 billion. But nobody at all in the scientific community thinks it’s circa 6,000. I’m not sure what sort of margin of error that would need, but it’s a bit more than 1%.

Quote:

And what about the fact that when the "scientist" tested a living molusk with carbon dating (the most used test of how old something is)

Apart from dendrochronology and a dozen other radioactive decay series...

Quote:

the test showed it had died about 6,000 years ago.

Others know more about this in detail, but I think it’s to do with the fact that molluscs use calcium carbonate to make their shells, which being derived from rock is bound to be old. You can bet they didn’t carbon date a tissue sample.

Quote:

My point is that their testing only gives them an educated guess..nothing more.

Have a browse round this <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html" target="_blank">Radiometric dating resource list</a> and see if it’s all educated guesswork.

I don’t know what you mean by point 3. Please explain

Quote:

How many years does scientists "generally
accept" that man has been around?...10,000 years?

First, define ‘man’. And second, modern Homo sapiens has been around for at least 30,000, probably nearer 50,000 years. So despite your mathematical wriggling, not even close.

Gotta go, back soon with the remainder.

Oolon

theyeti · 02-15-2002, 08:07 AM

Quote:

1. The URL I was sent to, had this gentleman start out as saying that it is"generally accepted" that the earth is ABOUT 4.5 Billion, accurate to about 1% (error). Sounds good on the surface, except 1% of 4.5 BILLION years is a couple of MILLION years...real accurate?

This is a gripe about precision, not accuracy. The two concepts are completely different. One can be very precise without being accurate, and vice versa. The YEC age of the Earth is generally very precise (down to the minute in 4004 BC), but it is extremely inaccurate. The level of precision will depend on your measuring tool, and is not always a bad thing to be imprecise. When you measure the length of a room with a laser, you will have excellent precision. But when you measure with a tape measure, your precision will drop off sharply, probably to around 0.1 - 1% error. For your purposes of knowing where to put your bed, it doesn't matter. Likewise, for the purpose of determining the age of the Earth, 1% is perfectly acceptable.

Quote:

And "generally accepted"?...does not sound like real scientific FACT to me...rather, more like an educated GUESS.

This is just a semantic argument. Technically speaking, all of science is an "educated guess". Scientists don't make claims to absolute truth like creationists do. To paraphrase Gould, a fact in science is something that's been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional consent. This is pretty much the way it is with the age of the Earth. There is such a massive ammount of evidence of its age that we would be silly not to agree that this is really its true age. There is always the possibility that some evidence will come along to make us think that it's another age, but we will not only have account for that evidence, but for all the other evidence that suggests that it's old. In other words, no one seriously suggests that this is likely to happen.

Quote:

And what about the fact that when the "scientist" tested a living molusk with carbon dating (the most used test of how old something is), the test showed it had died about 6,000 years ago.

Carbon dating is not at all used to date the age of the Earth. It's only good for things that are <50,000 years old. Other isotopes are used for dating the Earth, and a wide variety of them all agree on the same age. Carbon dating also works only on organisms that got their carbon from atmospheric sources. Those that got their carbon from marine sources, like those mollusks, are not expected to be ammenable to carbon dating.

Quote:

My point is that their testing only gives them an educated guess..nothing more.

Yes it does, and there is tons more education in that "guess" than anything that the YECs propose. Science simply opperates with the assumption that if you want to know the age of the Earth, then you look at the Earth. Sounds like a no-brainer, but this is exactly the YEC's problem; they claim that empirical reality is trumped by the Bible. You wonder why they even bother trying to dispute the evidence if they know that everything just "looks" old.

theyeti

isaac42 · 02-15-2002, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bait6.And that is not counting (something I had not thought of until I read the
piece I was sent to)the fact of "how old was Adam two minutes after he was
created?...answer:Two minutes...but he physically appeared older (as did EVE)
because they were told to go out and populate the world (they then logically
had to be at least of child bearing age, physically). God created them already
appearing older, so would he not have done the same thing with the animals,
the earth itself, the universe, etc.? If so, then that would make all of our
scientific tests bogus right off the bat, would it not? So God COULD have
created everything in six (24 hour)days, and everything would be as it appears
now.

True, an omnipotent god could have done that. It would be deceptive, though. Besides, was Adam created with memories that would lead him to believe he was as old as he appeared? Nothing says so. If he was, that would make your analogy better.

So, Ron, is your god a liar?

Isaac

02-15-2002, 10:32 AM

Degrees of accuracy

An important step in the mathematical education of children

When my son was five years old, and obsessed with numbers, he came rushing up to my husband and me and asked us:

"How old is the world?"

Simultaneous answers:

Husband: "About 5 billion years."
Me: "About four-and-a-half billion years."

Smug look appears on face of child
"You're both wrong! This book says it's 4.6 billion years."

I (former teacher of mathematics) then use this for a useful little lesson on how all the answers may be correct, depending on how accurate you want to be and how accurate it is possible to be, given the nature of the methodology.

Kosh · 02-15-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
<strong>Degrees of accuracy

An important step in the mathematical education of children

When my son was five years old, and obsessed with numbers, he came rushing up to my husband and me and asked us:

"How old is the world?"

Simultaneous answers:

Husband: "About 5 billion years."
Me: "About four-and-a-half billion years."

Smug look appears on face of child
"You're both wrong! This book says it's 4.6 billion years."

I (former teacher of mathematics) then use this for a useful little lesson on how all the answers may be correct, depending on how accurate you want to be and how accurate it is possible to be, given the nature of the methodology.

</strong>

It continually amazes me just how exact they
insist on being. Especially when it comes to
rules. Teach a kid a rule, they WILL tell you
the first time you break it....

Are you sure it was 5 though? You're kid was
reading that well at 5? My 9 year old, a bright
kid in a charter school, is just getting to
"billions" in the number concepts....and he's
reading at a 6th grade level.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-15-2002, 06:59 AM	#3
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Bait: Here's some an assignment for you: Read my first post in this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000600&p=" target="_blank">Why I gave up creationism... the Green River Formation</a> And also read all of the links that I list there. (Especially the "Rock of Ages" one) Note that Dr Dino seems to have changed his site - but I've found some more comments from him about it <a href="http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=6" target="_blank">here</a>. When you've read all that you can try and explain why it appears that the Green River formation is more than 6000 years old. According to <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">AiG</a>, the earth is only about 6000 years old (not 7000+ years old).

02-15-2002, 07:01 AM	#4
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	(Can't... resist...) Watch out Bait, here come the sharks! Welcome, Ron.

02-15-2002, 10:32 AM	#9
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Degrees of accuracy An important step in the mathematical education of children When my son was five years old, and obsessed with numbers, he came rushing up to my husband and me and asked us: "How old is the world?" Simultaneous answers: Husband: "About 5 billion years." Me: "About four-and-a-half billion years." Smug look appears on face of child "You're both wrong! This book says it's 4.6 billion years." I (former teacher of mathematics) then use this for a useful little lesson on how all the answers may be correct, depending on how accurate you want to be and how accurate it is possible to be, given the nature of the methodology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.