Register to reply

Is the earth only 6,000 years old?

by Moneer81
Tags: earth
Share this thread:
Kt_Atis
#19
Feb9-07, 02:45 PM
P: 18
Quote Quote by Marghk View Post
Haha, like an atheist on a Christian. Well, judging that he's not extremely bias to the situation (he may though... williing to risk $250G on the topic), wouldn't it just be almost as simple to not prove him wrong, but get him to prove himself wrong?

Is there any significant evidence that the world has only exsisted for 6,000 years? Any proof by and object that could only be in existance after less than 6000 years?

I'm aware this doesn't prove him entirely wrong, there is alot of proof, but nothing that can 100% shut the books on the argument.
The only way to shut the book for sure is to explain what carbon dating is. The only thing other than people that can actually tell us how old something is. And he can't counter that argument!
billiards
#20
Feb9-07, 03:10 PM
P: 749
There are loads of people like "Dr" Hovind on the streets of London, with megaphones prophesising about sins and various other dubious aspects of their religious beliefs. They somehow manage to survive on the fringe, no one takes them seriously, ultimately they can believe what they want to believe; the only thing that kind of pisses me off is when they start campaigning to get evolution out of science texts in schools. They're fundamentalists, proposing that evolution is the Devil's work and then linking it to terrorism. How to people get to be so deluded? Grief!!!!
heusdens
#21
Feb10-07, 11:31 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
That is also the resolution to the problem: turn the problem around, and ask our famous Dr. to prove that the earth is older than 10 seconds! And that he proves that a devious creator didn't put memories in our minds of things more than 10 seconds ago. He won't be able to prove that either.
A good point. The theory of Mr. Hovind is internal consistent.
Whatever you confront him with, he will claim that is just another belief system, which is no better then his.

If you state the world is like 13,7 billions years old, then that is also a belief system.

I for instance, don't belief it.

[ That is, I do think the CMBR is light that can be dated back 13,7 billions of years ago and also the Big Bang theory itself is quite acurate, but that this is only some "relative" begin (the oldest relic of the early universe), and that in fact the universe itself is infinite/without a begin. ]
scott_alexsk
#22
Feb11-07, 03:06 PM
P: 353
There is nothing in the bible that states that the universe has to be as young as 6,000 years. That is one discrepancy in several of your posts. In Genesis 1:2 the bible simply states, "The earth was without form and void." [New King James Vers.] It does not mention the time frame in the origin of the universe or of any other bodies, so using the argument that light has been coming in this direction for over 6,000 years in no way shape or form disproves Christian creationism.

-scott
heusdens
#23
Feb11-07, 03:35 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Quote Quote by scott_alexsk View Post
There is nothing in the bible that states that the universe has to be as young as 6,000 years. That is one discrepancy in several of your posts. In Genesis 1:2 the bible simply states, "The earth was without form and void." [New King James Vers.] It does not mention the time frame in the origin of the universe or of any other bodies, so using the argument that light has been coming in this direction for over 6,000 years in no way shape or form disproves Christian creationism.

-scott
Literal Bible interpretation "calculates" this from the ages of the people described in the Bible. And "scientific" creationism uses that timeframe.
scott_alexsk
#24
Feb11-07, 05:18 PM
P: 353
Yes I know, I was simply addressing earlier posts on attempting to disprove this on the basis that light was traveling to this location for more than 6,000 years.

-scott
arunma
#25
Feb13-07, 05:05 PM
P: 906
As long as this thread has been resurrected, here's some interesting info on "Dr." Kent Hovind:

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/...701190332/1006

Mr. Hovind was recently sent to jail for failing to pay his taxes. He is a so-called tax protestor, who believes that because he does the work of God, he shouldn't have to pay taxes. I guess he spent so much time reading Genesis that he forgot to read the rest of the Bible (ironically for Mr. Hovind, Romans 13:7 says that you should pay your taxes). So I wouldn't expect to cash in on his prize anytime soon, since he obviously has other debts to pay.

Incidentally, if you read up on him, you'll find that Kent Hovind had only two years of legitimate post-secondary education. His alleged graduate degrees come from diploma mills, and they aren't even related to science. He has a doctoral "degree" in Christian education. Rather strange, isn't it? If I wanted to pose as a scientist, I'd at least get a fake degree in biology, or something of that nature.
Quote Quote by scott_alexsk View Post
There is nothing in the bible that states that the universe has to be as young as 6,000 years. That is one discrepancy in several of your posts. In Genesis 1:2 the bible simply states, "The earth was without form and void." [New King James Vers.] It does not mention the time frame in the origin of the universe or of any other bodies, so using the argument that light has been coming in this direction for over 6,000 years in no way shape or form disproves Christian creationism.

-scott
Young earth creationists use the geneologies found in the book of Genesis to arrive at the 6,000 years figure (it's actually closer to 5,700 years). But like most forms of fundamentalism, there's not much thinking that goes into their method of reading the literature. Many of the early characters have unusually long lives, sometimes on the order of 1,000 years. In both the Bible and other near eastern literatures of the time such as the Sumerian King List, long ages are used to specify the length of kings' dynasties, and there are obvious exaggerations. There's also the issue that such geneologies are usually incomplete. This doesn't mean that the literature is "faulty," but it would be incorrect to read any ancient literature in the same way that we read modern Western journalism (i.e. with the assumption that statements are meant to be taken with word-for-word literalism). For example, young earth creationists fail to explain the fact that two New Testament evangelists deliberately omit certain individuals in their geneologies of Jesus. This goes to show that the authors of such geneologies omit certain characters, and assume that their readers know this.

Anyway, I know it's a bit late, but to answer the question, no the earth is not 6,000 years old. Two fields in physics (cosmology and geology) and one field in biology (evolution) demonstrate an old earth and an old universe. Aside from theological inconsistencies, creationism doesn't hold water scientifically either.
scott_alexsk
#26
Feb13-07, 06:48 PM
P: 353
[to your last points] No, I just showed that the cosmological argument is irrelevant since the age of the earth relative to that of the universe is not specified in the bible, so the fact that light has been traveling to the earth more than 6,000 years does not disprove the young earth theory.

Also as mentioned in another thread, the radioactive dating methods used to find the age of the earth have been shown to be many orders of magnitude off of the actual age.

If these methods are so accurate can some PFers please provide radioactive dating of new lava flows which matched the actual age, unlike two examples I have seen where the age of new lava flows predicted by dating was way off.

Also assuming a god did create life, evolution and its proposed mechanisms would be irrelevant since no great spans of time would be needed for higher complexity organisms to form. You may add that there has been a definite change in organisms over time, shown at least relatively by radioactive dating. I accept this as truth, but biologists are just beginning to unravel the complexities of DNA (and that all of it, is not junk as evolution theory has predicted). Perhaps some complexity in DNA could account for the extreme variety we see in life and change over time, without invoking such weak arguments that the extremely rare, 'good' mutations in DNA produce change and complexity.

-scott
arunma
#27
Feb14-07, 08:12 AM
P: 906
Quote Quote by scott_alexsk View Post
[to your last points] No, I just showed that the cosmological argument is irrelevant since the age of the earth relative to that of the universe is not specified in the bible, so the fact that light has been traveling to the earth more than 6,000 years does not disprove the young earth theory.

Also as mentioned in another thread, the radioactive dating methods used to find the age of the earth have been shown to be many orders of magnitude off of the actual age.
I'm not aware of any such flaw in radioactive dating methods. Can you point to a specific paper on the subject?
scott_alexsk
#28
Feb14-07, 11:23 AM
P: 353
Here is a specific list of radioactive dating methods and various flaws from http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat2.htm. I know it is a creationist website, but it is extremely difficult to find any source which in an unbias way, looks at the facts.

Major dating methods. There are three primary radioactive dating methods: (1) uranium-thorium-lead dating, (2) rubidium-strontium dating, and (3) potassium-argon dating.

In each system, the "parent" element decays to a "daughter" element, and a certain amount of time is supposed to elapse throughout the decay process.用p. 13-14.

Six initial assumptions. Each of these dating methods can only be accurate if each of the following assumptions always apply:

1 - Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products during the process. When something is in the ground for a long period of time, how can anyone be certain that this is true?

2 - Each system must initially contain none of the daughter products. But, of course, no one was back there then to know that.

3 - The decay rate must never change. Who was standing there all those years with a time clock in his hand?

4 - There can be no variation in decay rates. But one researcher has already demonstrated that it actually happens. 5 - If any change occurred earlier in certain atmospheric conditions, this could profoundly affect radioactivity. There are reasons to believe this has happened.

6 - Any change in the Van Allen radiation belt would greatly affect the rates, and that could also have occurred.用p. 14-15.

Five radiometric dating inaccuracies. Here are several reasons why uranium and thorium dating methods cannot be relied on. Each of these five problems is very, very likely to have occurred over past time, thus devastating the value of the computed dates:

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the parent substance. (2) Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leaked out. (3) Inaccurate lead ratio computations may have been worked out in the lab. (4) During the decay process, neutron capture (from a radiogenic lead) may have contaminated the results. (5) Clock settings would initially be greatly varied, if the substances originally were (as evolutionists claim) derived from molten materials.用p. 17-19.

Thorium-lead dating. The same flaws with uranium are applicable to thorium. In addition, contamination factors, common to both, may trigger different results in thorium than in uranium. A powerful evidence that these dates are useless is the fact that uranium and thorium dates always widely disagree with one another.用. 19.

Lead 210 and helium dating. These are two other dating methods. Lead 210 can leak or be contaminated by entry of other leads. Helium, being a gas, leaks so radically that it is also useless for dating purposes.用. 19.

Rubidium-strontium dating. This is a widely used dating method at the present time. But, in addition to all the other problems mentioned earlier,葉he experts have been unable to decide on the half-life of rubidium! This is like saying we will use a certain wall clock to figure time with, while having no idea what each "hour" that passes on that clock equals: five minutes or two days. To add to the problem, strontium 87 is easily leached away, thus ruining the computation.用. 19.

Potassium-argon dating. Since potassium is found in fossil-bearing strata, this is a favorite method. But the experts cannot agree on the half-life of potassium, and argon is a rare gas that quickly escapes from the rock into the atmosphere. In addition, potassium can easily be leaked. Finally, the notoriously defective methods used for uranium dating must be used to figure potassium-argon dates.

Yet, in spite of these mammoth defects, potassium is the most common method of dating fossil-bearing rocks. As with the other dating methods, its results are reported only in those instances in which they seem close enough to the nineteenth-century strata dating theory.用p. 19, 21.

Problems with all radiodating methods. Here is a remarkable example of what we are talking about: All the dating methods were applied to the moon rocks. The result: dates varying from 2 million to 28 billion years! Yet, as we found in Age of the Earth, non-radiogenic dating methods show the moon to be only a few thousand years old.用. 22.
Here is another link which deals with the rationalizing away of a 0.5 - 220 million year discrepancy.

http://creationwiki.org/KBS_Tuff_sho...ometric_dating

Of course these flaws are not present depending on who you here it from. The source below states that the ages of several lava flows have been correctly predicted, and that issues arise in other samples such as from mount st. helens, in which access argon is present or something like that, which greatly skews the data.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rnc...12_30_1899.asp

The source below shows a few comments by a christian scientist on the reliablity of fission tracking. The individual upholds the accuracy of this method.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/response1.html

Here is a list of variations in radioactive dating for several objects of known and unknown dating. From this, the methods would seem highly inaccurate.

http://www.earthage.addr.com/EarthOl...he%20Earth.htm

So all I have seen from this search I have done, that it really depends on who wrote the source. I have seen one or two unbiased sources, but generally most parties have preconcieved notions before doing research. In order to judge these I would have to become an expert in the field myself. There seems to be legitimate issues with radioactive dating, but there also seems to be rationale for such issues by scientists.

Quite honestly I would say that Genesis is so vague, with certain terms it uses, that it does not directly contradict the idea of an old earth. I believe that most creationists would not have issues with an old earth, if it was not necessary to prove evolution correct.

-scott

PS Please moderators, don't delete any of these links, I tried to find straight numbers and the least fluff as possible.
arunma
#29
Feb14-07, 01:22 PM
P: 906
Scott, I apologize if I was unclear. But I was referring to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Anyone can publish a paper on the Internet, but only a scientist can publish papers in scientific journals. Creationist websites are even worse, seeing as how creationism is make-believe. Since you want unbiased sources, peer-reviewed literature would be the best way to go. Creationists are about as biased as you can get.

Just to demonstrate how ridiculous CreationWiki is, it takes ideas like Geocentrism seriously. How would you feel about an encyclopedia that had an article on unicorns, in which the existence of the mythical beast was seriously examined? Well, CreationWiki does the same thing. In fact, this is probably more ridiculous, since I'd bet that more people believe in unicorns than in geocentrism. I'm sure that creationism is great fiction, but it isn't science.

I could easily list several papers demonstrating the accuracy of radioisotope dating. Can you list one that calls this method into question?

Quote Quote by scott_alexsk
Quite honestly I would say that Genesis is so vague, with certain terms it uses, that it does not directly contradict the idea of an old earth. I believe that most creationists would not have issues with an old earth, if it was not necessary to prove evolution correct.
I wanted to comment on this also. If the issue is the accuracy of radioisotope dating, then why are we discussing the book of Genesis? Genesis is a great theological text on Christian doctrine. As a matter of fact I read it quite often for that very purpose. But it isn't a science book, and so we ought not to be considering here anymore than we would use a screwdriver to write a computer program.
scott_alexsk
#30
Feb14-07, 07:07 PM
P: 353
Hmmm, okay. The KBS Tuff issue, listed also in the link in my last post, shows how prior assumptions on the ages of other strata and fossils are used to reckon with inconsistent data. Here is a very detailed article on the subject from AIG, which simply reviews the sequence of events in the unfolding of KBS Tuff. Quite logically the article is titled The Dating Game.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ating-game.asp

Interesting how inconsistent results are molded to fit preconceived notions, isn't it? Is that called science?

You will say the AIG is a creationist and heavily biased website, and I agree, however there is no such thing as an unbiased source in this field. Scientists claim to be unbiased, but history shows us with many incidents that this is not the case, and this particular field at this time is no exception. This is called scientific consensus and observations which support the current theory are more favored over those which do not. This is especially prevalent in discussing evolution and the age of the earth, since if evolution is not correct, science has no other answer for life, except that there is a god. Of course this will be avoided at all costs.

As I rummaged through articles, I found several interesting discussions on samples which were apparently millions of years old, undergoing carbon dating, which has a maximum theoretical range of 100,000 years or so after the death of the organism. Interestingly because scientists doing mainstream research assume that dinosaur bones are millions of years old, they do not bother to test for carbon 14. Again, we see assumption builds on assumption, until we have a house of cards that comes down every once in awhile as W.B. Provine admitted, "Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed."

Anyways back to the carbon dating of bones. According to the results listed in these articles, samples with strata of predetermined old age with non-carbon dating methods, containing fossils which are assumed to be the same age, were obtained and carbon dating was preformed on them at Geochron. Interestingly the carbon dating yielded ages of the order of 10^5 and not 10^9 as expected. Of course you will not find any study like this in mainstream journals, because it痴 already assumed that the samples being tested contain no measurable amount of carbon 14.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...silwood.asp#f1

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../i2/dating.asp

Here is another example.

http://www.worldbydesign.org/researc...dinosaurs.html

Of course these are creationist sites, but I have seen no counter study. Sure there are many outside variables effecting such studies, which have been harped on, but why don't mainstream scientists dispel creationist myths, by doing extremely well controlled studies on carbon 14 content of fossils allegedly older than 100,000 years, by other methods. They could win quite a few converts that way . Could you please provide links showing studies which contradicted this?

-Scott
vanesch
#31
Feb14-07, 11:23 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236
Quote Quote by scott_alexsk View Post
Also assuming a god did create life, evolution and its proposed mechanisms would be irrelevant since no great spans of time would be needed for higher complexity organisms to form.
Yes, exactly, that was my point. Assuming a god did create life, he could have done it 10 seconds ago, and there's no need for any greater time span either.
primojmpr
#32
Apr3-09, 05:18 AM
P: 1
Ok first off this guy claims that man (human beings) have been here since the beginning of time. And he says all the things that are said in the bible are true.
One : the flood ok, if there was a global flood I would really like to know where all the water went. Water is practically indestructible. And if the ice caps melted and combined with all the water on the planet it still is not enough to flood the entirety of the planet. And even if there was some global flood how did all the fresh water fish survive without evolving to live in salt. O yea and try this for yourself take a gallon of salt water (ocean) and a cup of fresh water (all drinkable water) and pour them both into a bucket, ya got it. Now separate them….
Second: man survival if man was here all along and they thought it so important to write about these so call medicals I wonder why nothing in the bible mentions the cataclysmic impact of the asteroid that hit the Yucat疣 peninsula in Mexico. The crater was 112 miles across and 3000 ft deep. That kind of impact would be felt around the world and it would most defiantly block out the sun for a long time but there is no mention of it ever happening.
Third :genetics other the closeness of man to ape there is also the fact that mammals share most basic characteristics such as 2 legs 2 arms or 4 limbs to be technical, also genitals are in-between the hind limbs, one head on top of the body and a tail yes man has a tail. Tail bone what is it for? Remnants of a prehistoric ancestor, or maybe god messed up. Just take a look at embryos of various mammals and you can see we have a common ancestor.
Finally: evolution Christians and other denominations will constantly through it in your face that evolution has never been seen in action and that how come people don’t come waling out of the woods today. Simply ignorance on their part, what don’t they understand about thousands of years to evolve. How can anyone be around to record that. If you want some proof of evolution munch on this my Chihuahua would be able to mate with a wolf hmm think about it.
People always ask so what if I believe in the bible what is the harm in having faith. Ill tell the harm in thinking that some being up in the sky is going to come a save you, is self destructive. You are setting you and those around up for failure and instead of fixing the problems yourself you look to the sky for a god or jesus and when the world is in trouble then where is your god.
Kopachris
#33
Apr3-09, 08:16 AM
P: 13
My proof:
God is a rational creator who would not try to deceive us
Satan had no part in the creation of the earth (or universe)
Therefore, God must have used evolution to go from Big Bang to Homo Sapiens

Unfortunately, as many have said, religious zealots like Dr. Dino won't listen to reason, citing God, Satan, or the Bible as evidence of their point or counter-evidence of anyone else's point.
Count Iblis
#34
Apr3-09, 10:39 AM
P: 2,157
Also assuming a god did create life, evolution and its proposed mechanisms would be irrelevant since no great spans of time would be needed for higher complexity organisms to form.
Well, God could still have invented some mathematical model, simulate it on his computer by starting with some simple to specify initial conditions and then let the model run until intelligent life appears.

Then God could have created the universe in the state it was 6000 years ago, or as Vanesh suggested ten seconds ago. Or perhaps not at all, if the simulation is all that is needed to give us the subjective feeling for existing. Or, it could be that we are mathematical entities, so the model doesn't need to be simulated at all for us to exist.
russ_watters
#35
Apr5-09, 08:39 PM
Mentor
P: 22,313
Presumably, this thread was started before we firmed-up our rules on religious posts and crackpotery, both of which this thread violates.

Thread locked.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Gravitational Force Between; Sun and Earth, Moon and Earth Introductory Physics Homework 21
Rotation of earth and weight of an object on the earth Classical Physics 8
Was Mars the Earth of the past and Venus the Earth of the future? General Discussion 6
Did the core of the Earth collide with the Earth billions of years ago? Earth 10
Should I finish my dual degree in 4.5 years or in 5 years Academic Guidance 4