{Myschae's post from Kinger's thread}


ForeverHers



I understand that you feel this way but please understand that I consider it to be of significant importance to the question because, if the Earth is only 10,000 years old, then there simply hasn't been enough TIME for the observed evolutionary changes to have occurred (ie, there must be some alternate explanation). Evolution requires enormous amounts of time - 10,000 years isn't nearly sufficient.





Really? There's lots of scientific evidence that supports a discrepancy on conventional dating types that accounts for <quick calculation> a discrepancy that is 5 orders of magnitude 10^5?

I don't know how you feel about it, but when you're dealing with numbers ranging from 10^4 - 10^9 then +/- 10^5 isn't exactly a discrepancy! It's outright proving that the method is utterly useless as any type of measure for anything at all. I'm surprised that type of evidence hasn't revolutionized the fields. My assumption is that many of the experts in the field must not agree or give any credence to this evidence -- which makes me question "why?" I really don't think it's some anti-religious conspiracy because that's just not the way I understand science to work.




I don't think it's that we don't want to cast doubt on the Evolutionary Model -- heck, I'm not even at considering Evolution at the moment. I'm still back on the age of the Earth, the Sun, and the stars. Honestly, FH, if there were evidence that everything (?) is only 10,000 years old then it would be much more believeable that things had to be created rather than evolved into being. But, we HAVE things that are older than 10,000 years (fossils, rocks, trees, oil, diamonds.. etc) and, while that doesn't prove evolution or creation, it certainly seems to imply that a 10,000 year old Earth is impossible. Light from the Andromeda Galaxy is 33 million light years old, for gosh sakes.


Mys

I agree. THAT is the point. "Enormous" amounts amounts of time ARE required by evolutionists to have a "prayer" of any "evolution" to account for origins of the universe, the solar system, Earth, or life.

IF one even allows "enormous amounts of time," time alone is insufficient for evolution, let alone for the requirements for information and operation against the "Laws" established by science as being "inviolate."

More on that later should you care to discuss it further.




I'm not sure just what "evidence" you are referring to or who the "experts in this field" are you referred to. Perhaps you could clarify your argument a little for better understanding.

It sounds as though are getting into the "probabilities of random chance" and mathematics. I would agree that it is an important consideration when addressing the contentions of evolutionism.




"Honestly, FH, if there were evidence that everything (?) is only 10,000 years old then it would be much more believeable that things had to be created rather than evolved into being."

All right Myschae, IF I could show you that a "solid" piece of science would preclude the Earth from being much more than "10,000 years old," would that be "enough" to convince you of a "young earth" rather than an "old earth" and that evolution as a Model cannot be true despite all arguments that attempt to "shore up" that Model?


"But, we HAVE things that are older than 10,000 years (fossils, rocks, trees, oil, diamonds.. etc) and, while that doesn't prove evolution or creation, it certainly seems to imply that a 10,000 year old Earth is impossible. Light from the Andromeda Galaxy is 33 million light years old, for gosh sakes."

Do we? This "argument" is a favorite of proponents of evolution, but they really need to be examined before simply accepting them on "faith." Just one example, if I may. It is impossible to tell the age of a rock outside of some reference. WHAT is the reference used to "date" a rock?

What if I told you that science has long proven that we can make oil today? What if I told you that you could set up an "oil making" system at your own home, if zoning laws, etc., would permit you do so?

Can you show me ONE living tree that is "older than 10,000 years," or are you referring to petrified trees? If it's petrified trees, you might be very surprised to learn some things about them.

Diamonds? Well we already make a lot of them. You are referring, of course, to "natural" diamonds, but lab created diamonds "prove" that "thousands or millions of years" are NOT required, just the "right conditions."

Light from stars and galaxies is another matter, but so are other "waves" that are propagated in a vaccuum. "Vibrations" of those wave is an interesting and perplexing thing to examine. However, suffice it to say for now that ONLY if one rejects a Creator AND assumes that all "natural processes and laws" in existence today have ALWAYS been the same can one think that that vast distances of space "prove" an "old earth" and an "old universe."


"To be or not to be?" Will there be a discussion of Models or not? I will wait and see who, if anyone, might want to participate.

Foreverhers

A new thread is a great idea. Thanks.

Well, time is what I'm focusing on right at the moment as it does seem a requirement.



I was talking about your statement to the effect that there is evidence discounting radiometric dating. You said:

What I meant is that I haven't heard of any evidence that suggests that all types of radiometric dating are off by 5 orders of magnitude. If there were, I'd expect the entire scientific community (the 'experts' I was referring to) to take notice.



One piece of evidence? Mmm... to be frankly honest with you, one piece of evidence weighted against the vast preponderance of the evidence for which entire fields of study have been devoted: archeology, cosmology, astronomy, palentology, geology, <etc> hardly seems sufficient. I think that there would have to be equal evidence or a preponderance of the evidence rather than one discrepancy.


I imagine it's evidence that is gathered by scientists and dated using radiometric or some other dating techniques. Scientists aren't depending on faith -- but rather carefully performed, repeatable experiments.


I'm not sure how that relates to determine how something happened naturally. We can also splice genes today but we're pretty sure we didn't do that from the beginning.


Well, they're dead but: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000223071542.htm


Yes, I'm referring to naturally occurring diamonds.

Well, I think it's safe to assume two things. 1.) I presuppose that there is no Creator. 2.) I assume that natural processes and laws in existence today have always been the same. Why would we believe they've been different?

It's probably also safe to assume that you don't believe that way. Primarily, I'm interested in what evidence you do have that radiometric dating has been proven to be invalid (for the sake of argument, let me state that if it's off by 5 orders of magnitude, it's pretty invalid) and why that evidence hasn't been broadly tested, reproduced, accepted, and published by people with actual credentials in their respected fields.

I mean it's fine for lay people to have opinions but I don't think they weigh quite as much as people who have devoted their lives to study in the field. I haven't seen any evidence that the scientific community has accepted the notion that the Earth is 10,000 years old -- and, yes, I think they'd probably know more than someone who hasn't done all the study and experimentation.

Mys

Okay, I'll be happy to begin here if that is what you want. For the record, I'll be giving you information from "people with actual credentials in their respective fields," such a Ph.D's.

Let me find some time to type that stuff up for you.




Okay, there is, but that is different from what you stated previously and what I responded to. What you said was "if there were evidence that everything (?) is only 10,000 years old then it would be much more believeable that things had to be created rather than evolved into being."

What you didn't say was that you wanted it from EVERY field, but that evidence indicating a "young age" would be sufficient to make it "believable" to you. Now you are saying that if ONE area of scientific inquiry negates the possibility of an "old earth," that should be discarded because other areas of scientific inquiry claim and "old age," or if not discarded, discounted and not given "weight."




Yes, that is what they'd like you to believe. There ARE carefully performed experiments, but they are first and foremost preceded by assumptions based in Uniformitarian theory that bias the results and discard results that don't "conform" to their presuppostion of "ages" based upon the need of evolution.

My nose is too stuffed up to debate, or even comprehend much at the moment, but I just wanted to throw out there that the existence of rocks older than a few thousand years, IF that could even be reliably proven, would not necessarily contradict the Genesis account.

Before "Let there be light," it says that the earth was without form, and void, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So while I do believe that God created everything in six literal days as it says in the Bible, it is possible that a rocky, watery planet had been created earlier, maybe even much earlier, and left dormant until He spoke the word.

The wording for the fourth day of creation also leaves open the distinct possibility (probability, IMO) that many celestial bodies were created at a different time. On the fourth day He made [the greater light and the lesser light]...He made the stars also. That seems to be deliberately separated, as in the sun and the moon were made the fourth day, and the stars were made at some other time.

As far as I am aware, the universe does not actually revolve around the earth. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Quite correct - it actually revolves around my WW.

Not surprising, what with the gravitational pull and all.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ouch!

Since gravity is a function of the mass of the objects in mutual attraction, and taking into consideration that my WW is not fat, the only other possibility is that she has an extremely high density.

Actually that makes sense now that I examine the logic.

Yes my WW is extremely dense.

Piojitos - it is my intention to respect your wishes. However, you are welcome to post on "my" thread so long as you 1)wish to, and 2) discuss, even if in opposition, items relevant to this topic in a courteous and civil manner.

For the record, since Science has no current way to determine the actual "boundaries" of the universe, it IS possible to "assign" the "center" to any given point, perhaps even the particular space occupied by your wife at any given moment.

So, welcome to the discussion.

As Einstein pointed out, everything is relative to the observer. That being the case and looking at in terms of geocentric retrograde motion, each of us can truly say that the universe revolves around each one of us.

No doubt. For "evidence" see Hollywood and the "stars" at the center of their universe.

Dense WW....bwaaaaaa!

ForeverHers


Thanks.


Is it? When I say 'evidence,' what I mean is a significant body of scientific evidence sufficent to outweigh the overwhelming amount of work that has gone into building the current scientific models. The current body of scientific knowledge SHOULD be challenged -- it MUST be challenged. But, that challenge simply cannot amount to "I think you're wrong because I believe differently."

Scientific thinking has been changed - it can STILL be changed as new discoveries are found. I understand that 'revolutions' of thought sometimes take time. If this evidence is credible, testable, and holds up to scientific scrutiny then maybe, over time, it will become adopted or incorporated into future scientific thinking as a discovery. I would have no problem with that.

I think that scientific progress should be a scientific process. It's inconvienent, I suppose because it gives a tremendous advantage to the existing body of work and the 'status quo' but that's ALWAYS been a problem. It's really not a 'consipiracy' against any one particular trend of thinking -- it's just that people want a darn good reason to adopt new models that invalidate or significantly change vast bodies of study (rightfully so). Things have to happen in their own time and in ways that lead people to the truth (whatever that might end up being) because the evidence is simply so compelling that they can no longer believe otherwise.

I'm skeptical about Intelligent Design because it seems to be, if not a new science, a science that has so very little compared to the current body of work. I did a search on scientific jounrals at my college and the only references I could find on Intelligent design were pretty sparse (a few people.. Behe and a couple of others) compared to the enourmous VOLUMES of material on evolution. Having an open mind doesn't mean being gullible. I'm willing to consider any possibilities (including Creation) but that doesn't mean that I don't set the bar of 'evidence' and proof pretty high.

So, when I say evidence, I mean information that is tested, testable, being examined and evaluated by members of the relevent field (as opposed to some lay person's potentially uninformed opinion ) and generally accepted by many of the experts in that field (though controversy is likely and is not necessarily an indication of falsehood).

Hopefully that clarifies some.


These fields of science are highly correlative about the age of the Earth. The reason I bring them up is because the implications of a 'young earth' would necessarily affect many, many fields of science. If the Earth really IS only 10,000 years old, then that means that much of what we think we 'know' about how things happen in the real world is simply wrong because much of what is described implies time on an enormous scale relative to 10,000 years. It doesn't just affect how we got here... it affects how we understand physics (the speed of light), geology (rock formations), archeology (fossils), biology (evolution), etc.

I suppose it would matter what field of science that new (?) path of inquiry follows. How well does it correlate with what we observe and experience? How well do the experiments match up? Do they use the same experiments only with an alternate interpretation (such as assuming God vs No God)? Does that new field of science build on our exisitng knowledge? Does it explain it better? Does it offer new paths and predictability?

If it does all that, then what is it doing -- what are the members of it's community doing to integrate into our scientific community? One issue I have with teaching Intelligent Design in schools isn't that it's suggesting a deity -- it's that it's not credited to be 'widely accepted' by the scientific community. I want science to come from the top down, not from the bottom up! I don't think that elementary school, middle school, or high school students are qualified to JUDGE the validity of science compared to someone who's invested the time and trouble to get a Ph.D. in the field (or a group of them).

Intelligent Design does NOT currently have widespread support in the scientific community (according to everything I've read on it). I think that to start teaching it in schools (as if it were) is putting the cart before the horse.

Meanwhile, I think that Intelligent Design scientists SHOULD continue to study the world and should continue to experiment. PUBLISH those findings in peer reviewed journals. FIND evidence. QUESTION the status quo and continue to put forth their theories. But, they should work from the top down -- from within the community to gain widespread acceptance and change things (if they're right) -- not from the bottom up.

The hallmark of scientific discovery and experimentation is the idea I could be wrong and that's how it should be with Intelligent Design. Their experiments should presuppose they could be wrong -- just as experiments on the other side (regarding evolution) should do the same thing. Presupposing there's a Creator is just as bad as presupposing there can't be one. The truth should just be the truth -- not manipulated for political, religious, or <whatever> reasons.



Well, I'll tell you... when I took chemisty only one of my experiments turned out with results consistent with natural laws or equations. Now, either I actually did create matter -- and I proved that the 'law' that matter is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction" is false -- or I made a mistake (a very careful mistake).

ForeverHers, I don't expect to make up my mind on the basis of this dicussion and neither should you (IMHO). I am, however, really quite interested in this topic and I am watching the scientific community for information on this topic. I do believe that science should be questioned. I don't see anything wrong or threatening or politically incorrect about asking whether or not a Creator exists and, if so, how does one go about finding out who this Creator is and what He/She/It is all about. I think that's something that we as humans feel a visceral NEED to do. Goodness knows I dedicate time to worrying about that topic -- until it tires me out and overwhelms me and I take time off from it again.

I don't want to debate this with you in an adversarial "I'm right therefore you must be wrong" way -- but rather I'm interested in a discussion where we both exchange our informaiton and why we think the things we think and how we think we know the things we know. (Maybe that's not what you're interested in.) I do have opinions. I try to base my opinions on 'something,' I suppose even if that 'something' is simply that it's an easier explanation for me to grasp or that it 'feels right' in my gut (sometimes that's the best you can do). I'm well aware that two people can look at the same 'fact' and draw completely different conclusions based on preconceptions. It's something you've said a few times with regards to scientists interpreting results according to a 'no God' model.

I have no problem with Intelligent Design as a field of scientific inquiry. I just haven't seen any repositories of knowledge that deal very much with the actual science behind the inquiry as opposed to discussing the controversy between Evolution vs Intelligent Design. Most of what I've seen is aimed at discussing how Intelligent Design is a better theory -- but it seems to lack the body of knowledge which creates a model with which to predict and describe what we experience.

I DO have a problem with the political/social push to teach Intelligent Design in schools. Not because I have anything against Christianity (or religion) but because it's not going through the normal channels of proving itself to the scientific community FIRST. IF Intelligent Design is a better theory, then it should be able to stand on it's own. It should be convincing enough to CHANGE the scientific community. As I said before, I know thought revolutions are difficult but they can happen if the evidence is compelling enough.

If the evidence isn't compelling enough, then maybe the theory/assertion/assumption isn't right, after all. If we're all searching for true answers, then I think that's one that should always be on the table.

Mys

I promised myself I'd stay out of this discussion this time because it's so fruitless, but I wanted 2 say, as a professional geologist: Thank you.


The scientific community doesn't bother with this notion of a VERY young (brand new, really) Earth because it's such an unreasonable concept in the face of evidence 2 the contrary that it's utterly laughable. And it's pointless 2 argue with those who still insist it's the case and that all the scientific evidence and discoveries are wrong.

I'm leaving now and won't be back, just wanted 2 say thank you.

-ol' 2long

Mys - your concerns regarding the ID movement are justified.

Here's some interesting reading The Wedge Strategy .

They don't call it the Wedge for nuthin. Form yer own opinions. To me it's telling that the promoters of ID want it in our grade schools before our colleges and universities. What does that say about it - and the wedge? Botom line - it's not about science. It's about a social agenda.

Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agenda. Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this discussion tends to take place, we ought to call it what it really is - "political science." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Here's another must read: Kitzmiller et al vs Dover Area School District . Once you get thru the requisite legal stuff, the meat is very good reading. At least the IDers are comfortable with an old earth. They're just not honest enough to state their real goals.

BTW - Judge Jones was a Bush appointee. But predictably, he became an "activist judge" the day this decision was released.

WAT
----------------
Teach medical students the alternative theory that storks deliver babies.

Attaboy 2Long...you tell'um....

Professional Geologists, eh....?

Ummm..now that sounds like a fun profession. (Do you have to put PG after your name like the PE after a Professional Engineer?).

I know you're staying out of this, but I have one question I would like to ask.

On the various nightly newscasts, when we see the Palestinian crowds throwing rocks at the Israeli troops, the first question in my mind is where all those rocks came from and if there is ever any chance of a forced peace agreement due to them running out of rocks to throw?

And...it seems like since the throwing of the rocks pushes them closer and closer into Isreali territory..that the boundary lines may be redrawn due to the fact the next days starting point has to be moved to get to the new location of the rocks..

Unless..they have crews that come out at night (ala Westworld) and move the rocks back to where they belong in preparation for the next days events...

Oh well...just wondering??

I may not have much to add but a few things struck me.

Firtst, 2long, as a professional geologist, what does the current consensus say about the age of the earth and the universe. I believe last I heard, the earth was estimated at around 4.5 billion years old, while the universe is estimated at around 13.5 billion years old. Just curious, as to the age discrepency we are talking about.

It was my understanding that uniformitarianism has been modified to reflect catastrophic events. If so, why would having an acceptence of uniformitatianism introduce a bias into into current analysis. It seems to me that many geologist spend a great deal of time looking for these catastophic events, rather than discarding them.

Unless your complaint about uniformitarianism has to do with believing the way things appear to work now, quantum mechanics, special theorey of relativity, laws of thermodynamics, etc. are not how they worked in the past. I am unaware of passages in the bible that declare how the universe works today is not how it worked in the past.

Granted, there are many pitfalls to radiometric dating, specifically Radiocardon dating in organic materials due to "polution" of the sample from additional carbon, but Uranium-lead dating seems to be fairly accurate. At least accruate enough to distinguish between 10^4 and 10^9.

The statement from the bible "In the begining, God created..." I don't recall anywhere else in scripture that specifies the actual time length of "the begining" Couldn't the begining range from a nano second to 10^9 years?

Also, doesn't big bang theorey already accept that the universe was created in stages. i.e. the initial big bang did not create the heavier elements required for the universe as we now see it. In the first few moments only hydrogen and helium, and one other gas that I do not recall were available. The earth and stars did not appear (or at least of the building blocks to appear) until immense heat was created from supernova to form the heavier elements such as carbon, etc.

Finally, can someone explain to me why I can't believe in evolution and can't believe in God at the same time? Seems to me, evolution, along with many of the other wonders of the universe, fuel my faith as much as anything else.

Just random thoughts

You can believe in whatever you want, that is the beauty of a mind and free choice.

I keep reading these threads hoping some radical free thinker throws his thoughts out there for us to ponder, and I believe that 2long and WAT would/could/have at times...

...because quite frankly this subject is getting silly, and more than a little tiresome to me as well.

I'm like you rprynne, in that I thought I needed someone's permission to believe something, but you know what?... all I need is trust in myself, a healthy mind and a little imagination...these things coupled with some inner "knowing".

It is this inner "knowing" and the faith to believe in it, that gives me peace and keeps me in the state of awe which you are talking about.

2long always stresses that a person's faith is a very personal thing...

and I know right where you are, and yes we can believe both or neither...and still be as close to God as we want to be.

That's the beauty of God, and the beauty of faith.

I'm back!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> ...because you asked some exellent 2uestions:


Yep. 4.5 is about right, give or take a hundred million years. As for the age of the universe, I'll defer 2 my cosmology friends, but I did read recently that it's now known 2 be 13.7 Ga, with a precision of about 2 percent, which ain't 2 shabby.


Uniformitarianism - "the present is the key 2 the past" can be best defined these days by "...because the physical laws that govern what happens 2day governed what happened 4.5 billion years ago as well." I've worked on a couple of the
catastrophic events that appeared, initially, 2 suggest catastrophism, but they really do fit within the scope of uniformitarianism, because they could happen 2day. They just don't happen that often. The Missoula, Bonneville, and Porcupine River floods of the Pleistocene on Earth, and the outflow channels on Mars and Venus, specifically (though those on Venus are volcanic).


That wouldn't be me doing the complaining.


Me neither.


carbon dating still works very well over the past few tens of thousands of years, but not since the 40's, when new C14 was added 2 the atmosphere during nuke tests (and nuke uses). Potassium Argon dating is another, and then there are all the "new" techniques that are being discovered and refined over the past 20 years or so.


Along those lines, yes.


I agree. And you can believe in anything you like. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

And it is this very process that I think we're down here 2 learn - by whatever means it takes 2 learn it (in many of our sitches - through infidelity, initially, then healing and growth).

A very different process from figuring out how old the earth and universe are, and not in conflict. ...and no less rewarding, either.

Now I'm gone again! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long