How Old is the Earth ?

Hi Cobra - since you didn't see fit to answer my last post on your theory, I guess I'll jump in here (btw, you're rapidly losing credibility with me).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
First of all, there is good reason for believing that there is something of greater power than humans know of.

---

Before I would be willing to entertain this statement as true, you would need to show what those "good reasons" are. IOW, you would need to give at least one concrete example from nature that can NOT be explained* by natural processes (see bottom).

quote:

---

Existence itself does not make much sense, since nothing can ever turn into something, and nothing could have always existed.

---

This is again an argument from personal incredulity. It also doesn't have much to do with evolution since that is not what biologists are arguing.

quote:

---

But wait- don't these rules also apply to a hypothetical Creator? Afterall, God did indeed make something out of nothing and God always has been. The answer is, God is above natural laws. God always has been and always will be, and because of this, he does not need a cause.

---

This is begging the question. It is also somewhat circular - you need to postulate the existence of a creator in order to prove that a creator created... In the absence of positive evidence for its existence, it cannot be used to explain natural phenomena. IOW, the supernatural cannot be used to explain the natural.

quote:

---

Since there are no natural laws that show that something can arise from nothing, it is very reasonable to infer a designer. I wouldn't hold my breath for a forthcoming theory that explains why something can come from nothing due to natural laws. The very idea seems to be absolutely ridiculous.

---

We are now entering the Twighlight Zone of metaphysics. NO ONE, I mean absolutely NO ONE (except theists) claims something came from nothing - at least until you get to the primal monoblock and the Big Bang, which is waaaay beyond evolution or even abiogenesis. Basically, there is no such thing as "nothing". Everything we observe came from something. Hypothesizing an initial "nothing" is metaphysics. And no, I don't want to discuss Big Bang - I'm not a physicist or a cosmologist, and would simply have to refer you to those who are. Let's stick to one planet and an explanation for the diversity of life on it.

quote:

---

Another problem with your argument is that there is no reason that we would be expected to observe supernatural phenomenon. Humans are in an intellectual box, we can only observe WHAT God created.

---

You're absolutely correct - one cannot observe the supernatural. That's why the whole question is something of a tautology. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural because it observes no natural laws, is not amenable to analysis, and serves no useful function. Again, you argue the conclusion (we can only explain creation by saying God created) as a first premise (God created).*I am quite willing to discuss the three current primary theories concerning abiogenesis. I normally don't like getting in to those discussions on an evo-cre forum - besides the fact that it has nothing to do with evolution - for the simple reason that there is a huge volume of organic chemistry and biology that most posters simply don't have. I can discuss both the pros and cons of each hypothesis, but it requires a great deal of background to even understand why a given hypothesis is more or less likely. Background that is almost impossible to either simplify or digest on a necessarily short post in a debate forum. Still, if you insist, we can start a new thread on the topic. Feel free - but please research the topic in advance so we have some basis for discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I am quite willing to discuss the three current primary theories concerning abiogenesis. I normally don't like getting in to those discussions on an evo-cre forum - besides the fact that it has nothing to do with evolution - for the simple reason that there is a huge volume of organic chemistry and biology that most posters simply don't have. I can discuss both the pros and cons of each hypothesis, but it requires a great deal of background to even understand why a given hypothesis is more or less likely. Background that is almost impossible to either simplify or digest on a necessarily short post in a debate forum. Still, if you insist, we can start a new thread on the topic. Feel free - but please research the topic in advance so we have some basis for discussion.

---

I for one think this would be interesting reading if you want to post this info Quetzal.......

"I for one think this would be interesting reading if you want to post this info Quetzal......."
--I could second that emotion, its always interesting within these theories, I havent read theoretical abiogenesis for a bit of time, since then I've read hundreds of pages in Biology, so it would be much easier understandable. ------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I could second that emotion...

---

Um TC you second motions not emotions....(though given the electronic nature of this debate a good case could be made for e-motion)

"Um TC you second motions not emotions....(though given the electronic nature of this debate a good case could be made for e-motion)"
--Oops, my mistake (e-motion )------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well not sure that any go all the way back to 4.5 billion years,
but there ARE other methods that date the Earth to MUCH more
than 10,000 years."
--This wasn't my question, my question was are there any 'not associated with radioisotopic dating methods'. You gave me what I already knew. Basically what I am asking is are there any so I know what to be researching. I also find the Argument of Radioisotopical methods quite unballanced as I must have expertise and you only have to know the argument in-turn. Thus I have alot of research on my part to dismantle it at all. I also found that when you dismantle Radioisotopical methods then you have basically gone to the crux of the old earth.

---

Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they cite
evidences for the age of the Earth that have nothing to
do with radiometric dating.Few of them can go all the way back to 4.5billion years, but
most of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and
some in the order of 100's of millions of years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
For Peter and Mark24,
Tools are complex and are originated by previous intelligence. the very definition of a tool means to an instrument of use. If intelligence does not precede it it is not a tool! This tool analogy is not applicable however and is an example of question begging and circular reasoning.

---

I say it again ... complexity and design are not fundamentally related.Many verifiably designed objects are NOT complex at all.Inferring design from complexity is NOT logical.The logic is something like::Some DESIGNED objects are COMPLEX
LIVING things are COMPLEX
THEREFORE:: LIVING things are DESIGNED.Just replacing a few words (but not changing the logical
structure) gives ::Some MEN are TALL
BUILDINGS are TALL
THEREFORE:: BUILDINGS are MEN.It does NOT follow logically that complexity indicates design!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:

The real question is order and information. If one sees a 'tool' such as an arrow head on the ground one knows that intelligence preceded the order imposed on the arrowhead. No one just thinks look what random chance produced! Information is order's of magnitude more complex. One does not look at an encyclopedia set and say "look what random chance produced." We know that intelligence precedes order and ordered information. This scientific principal was established by science and used in the seti project. Aiming radio telescopes out into space looking for intelligent life based on what evidence--ordered radio waves!?

---

To illustrate the problem::There is a television factual series running in the UK at the moment
concerning archealogical evidence for pre-ice age civilisations.A part of the potential evidence for this is a large under-sea
complex which the author of the book on which the series is based
claims to be man-made (giving evidence and backed up by an emminent
Japanese Professor of Geology). Other geologists, however,
can provide geological concepts to account for the formation
and so claim it as natural and not designed.Both sides are pre-emminent in the field of geology and the
CANNOT acgree on whether the observed formations were designed
by man or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
Secular scientists criteria not mine. DNA is infinitely more complex than an encyclopedia set so logically a superior source of intelligence preceded DNA. Secular scientists have set the standard of impossibility at 10 to the 78th, the number of atoms in the universe. The odds and probability of DNA forming by chance has been calculated by secular scientists at 10 to the 20,000. Even if there are infinite universes operating side by side for the errant 24 billion year time assigned, DNA cannot form by chance. No DNA by chance no macro-evolution.

---

I think you'll find that that argument is based upon DNA forming
on Earth, and as stated before it's only probablities ... that
doesn't really mean anything.The national lottery in the UK has odds of 14million (or so) to 1,
and yet there are people who win it with only one or two lines
of numbers entered.Probabilities are only a mental aid to liklihood ... they are
often proved wrong.The probablity of surviving a fall of 20-30,000 feet from an
aircraft are pretty slim ... if you calculated them up it
would most likely be a statistical impossibility, and yet I
have read of TWO accounts of people who have survived such falls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:

Now then, it has been illogically stated that natural mechanisms exist therefore unknown natural mechanisms exist and that supernatural mechanisms don't exist. First one would have to have all knowledge of the universe to say that and we don't. Second the word super simply means beyond. To an unknown natural mechanism is by definition a 'super' natural mecchanism. This is simply a tautological attempt to define the supernatural out of existence. This is question begging and circular reasoning.

---

Generally speaking 'supernatural' is USED to mean something for
which there is no natural explanation ... it is BEYOND NATURE
not beyond understanding.Praeter(sp?)natural means as yet unexplained.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:

As well the question who designed the designer was refuted by the atheist Bertrand Russel who said it is making God a subset of himself. As well the law of biogenesis from Pasteur refutes this. Life has only been observed to come from life.

---

Who designed the designer is irrelevant if we were dealing with
an omnipotent supernatural entity, I agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:

Furthermore, Bishop Ussher's time table is binding on no christian. There is an unknown in the Jewish patriarchal timetable. When it says so and so begat so and so it means direct parentage. When it says so and so son of so and so it simply means descedant of. Ussher did not understand all of this. Christians usually believe the earth to be about 10,000 years old so quite building straw men based on Bishop Ussher and find out what creationists really believe and why.

---

But there is lot's of evidence (from before radiometric dating)
that Earth is MUCH older than 10,000 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:

Evidence of a young earth is abundant but this is too long already I will go through the young earth evidence later. It was more important to correct foundational and logical errors first

---

Please post this evidence.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 02-26-2002]

I still dont understand how one can look at complex and structured organisms and infer that natural processes caused their origin. Give me one proven and known example of anything where structured complexity has not been designed. Not one of you can explain how DNA came into existence. Just because its origin cannot be known doesnt give natural processes a foundation for relevance. It is these natural processes that cause me to wonder at its origin. DNA, blood clotting and bacterial flagellum are all examples of complexity, order and structure that perform with purpose and precision. It is this purpose and precision that cry out "design". Nothing can explain how these came into existence. Just because natural processes can be seen within molecular phenomenon gives you no right to jump to it being the reason it exists in the first place.

Hi Quetzal:"Hi Cobra - since you didn't see fit to answer my last post on your theory, I guess I'll jump in here (btw, you're rapidly losing credibility with me)."Once again, I must apologize for not answering your post on my theory. I am very busy with Basketball, School (gotta keep up that 3.95!), youth group, and even Poms (one of the poms convinced me to participate in the guy/girls pom routine ) It may seem to you that I am making excuses, after all, I am still posting in these boards, but the reason I can't reply to that particular post is that I wish to take a long time and do a high-quality job on my next post on the matter. Most of the other posts I've managed to fit in around here have not required me to spend a great deal of time on. Still, I understand that you want to continue discussion as soon as possible, so I will try my best to get a reply up in two days. For now I have to go to bed. Goodnight.

No problem Cobra - I understand about press of "real life". Between out-of-country conferences (4 in the last 1.5 months) and in-country travel + family, it's often difficult to find a spare moment. Glad to hear you're planning on continuing our discussion. Looking forward to your response.BTW: joz & TC: I am working on a coherent post on abiogenesis. When I started to reply, turns out my info was all in bits and pieces (looks like I spent most of my time answering others). I am working on getting it arranged into something that makes at least marginal sense. I'll hopefully get it on the board today at some point. Watch for a new thread. [So many refutations, so little time...]

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:
I still dont understand how one can look at complex and structured organisms and infer that natural processes caused their origin. Give me one proven and known example of anything where structured complexity has not been designed. Not one of you can explain how DNA came into existence. Just because its origin cannot be known doesnt give natural processes a foundation for relevance. It is these natural processes that cause me to wonder at its origin. DNA, blood clotting and bacterial flagellum are all examples of complexity, order and structure that perform with purpose and precision. It is this purpose and precision that cry out "design". Nothing can explain how these came into existence. Just because natural processes can be seen within molecular phenomenon gives you no right to jump to it being the reason it exists in the first place.

​

---

And i still cant understand how people in this day and age can still believe that some invisible creator made the entire universe in 6 24 h period some 6000 years ago when there isen't even the slightest begining of a shred of proof to back this up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:
I still dont understand how one can look at complex and structured organisms and infer that natural processes caused their origin.

---

I don't infer that natural processes caused their origin. I am
seeking a natural process (or set of processes) which can credibly
explain the origin of that complexity and structure.Starting from the assumption that God created it all, ends the
enquiry there and then.Starting from the assumption that some natural process was the
originating force, leads to enquiry. This may conclude
that NO natural process can be responsible, and thereby proove the
existence of God. Even if it finds that there ARE natural processes
that could have been responsible, that does NOT deny the existence
of your God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:

Give me one proven and known example of anything where structured complexity has not been designed.

---

A frog.A frog comes from a tadpole, which comes from an egg laid
by a pre-existing frog.Therefore no living frog was designed, they emerge from a
natural process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:

Not one of you can explain how DNA came into existence.

---

Yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:

Just because its origin cannot be known doesnt give natural processes a foundation for relevance.

---

Nor does it give any foundation for the existence of a creator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:
It is these natural processes that cause me to wonder at its origin. DNA, blood clotting and bacterial flagellum are all examples of complexity, order and structure that perform with purpose and precision. It is this purpose and precision that cry out "design".

---

It is your intelligence that applies purpose to these things. Purpose
is NOT inherent in the features you mention. DNA and blood clotting
are chemical in nature, they have no intelligence, and thus no
purpose. They simply do as the rules by which chemistry is
observed to operate dictate.Living cells ARE complex, but all of the processes are explainable
through natural means. Why then should we assume anything other
than natural means to explain their origins ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimzam:

Nothing can explain how these came into existence. Just because natural processes can be seen within molecular phenomenon gives you no right to jump to it being the reason it exists in the first place.

---

Again ... yet. But there are some testable hypotheses coming out (see
the Quetzal's abiogenesis post).I don't believe that 'right' has anything to do with it. What 'right'
do you have to tell me that I cannot investigate based upon the
assupmtion that natural processes can explain the origins of life
on earth.More than a little presupmtuous on your part don't
you think ?

A new topic (Coffee House: How Old Is The Earth?!) is duplicating this topic, therefore:YES INDEED, IT'S ANOTHER BUMP IT TO THE TOP!Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they cite
evidences for the age of the Earth that have nothing to
do with radiometric dating.Few of them can go all the way back to 4.5billion years, but
most of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and
some in the order of 100's of millions of years."
--Wheres this at Peter? Thanx.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Check some of the links in my earlier posts ... they cite
evidences for the age of the Earth that have nothing to
do with radiometric dating.

​

Few of them can go all the way back to 4.5billion years, but
most of them indicate much greater than 10,000 years, and
some in the order of 100's of millions of years."
--Wheres this at Peter? Thanx.

---

Message 83 ... posted as Pete ... but it was me