The Age of the Earth.

71


Discussion by: JayPii1994
I came across this website by the name of “Creation.com”, which appears to present strong-worded and fairly supported articles. One of them is titled, “The Flood, the Ice Age and the age of the Earth”.Throughout it are several statements justifying the ‘young age of the earth’. These are just the tip of the iceberg

They even went as far as to conclude, that “Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos“.
Now I’m a Jamaican teenager. No longer a Christian, but an Agnostic of the fourth milestone of Agnosticism. Can any of you brilliantly-equipped minds enlighten me on these contradictions?

71 COMMENTS

  1. To me,it comes down to understanding science & logic. I would start off by reading Prof Dawkins public letter to his daughter, http://goo.gl/PD87c

    Spend a while reflecting on what it means to ask questions & find valid answers. And on why not to accept things on authority, revelations & tradition. You could either start off by reading The Greatest Show on Earth or The Selfish Gene. Even though I prefer the later, The Greatest Show on Earth is probably more aligned to the sort of questions you have. Both of these are available as audiobooks.

    But if you don’t have access to these books either via your school or university library, I would suggest YouTube channels like Atheist Experience, who often debate these issues with the callers.

    Some of these books are available as EEE (Eastern Economy Edition) for students from developing world. At-least in my case spending even few pounds on good books were prohibitively expensive. I pretty much finished my undergrad on EEE books.

  2. Yep. I can enlighten you. No contradictions. It’s nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense.

    Science is based on observation, so let’s do some science and observe the nonsense:

    The only witness to the creation of the earth six thousand years ago was the one we made up. Brilliant!

    No matter how much they try and dress it in the language of science it always comes down, in the end, to a magic man magicked everything into existence with a magic spell so we should worship the magic man.

    Magic, eh.

    Anvil.

  3. Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events.

    This is just wrong. There are lots of ways of checking the age of things without being there. For example you can count tree rings. The way science works is to think of all the ways you might be able to measure the age of something and compare them. If they disagree then you have some explaining to do. If they agree then there is a chance you are onto something.

    It’s funny how people who say things like this don’t seem to be bothered by the justice system and how it works everyday. They are quite happy for people to be locked up or even executed, without a reliable witness who observed the events but just using a collection of consistent evidence.

    Michael

  4. Here’s a good question for these creationists: if they don’t admit we can know anything unobserved and therefore can’t know an upper or lower bound on the lifetime of DNA unless experience confirms it, how can they then say DNA only lasts a few thousand years, and how can they trust that “this is how old it is” argument any more than the arguments they thereby reject (e.g. radiometric ones)?

    The “DNA” they’ve found won’t include any particularly long strings, of course. I bet you anything this particular case boils down either to “the actual As, Ts, Cs and Gs last ages (but don’t stay joined up), and it’s those that are in the fossils”, or to modern contamination (which is already known to occur). Certainly the genomes haven’t survived well enough for us to clone dinosaurs, and contamination from the genome of pretty much any other species would involve said genome containing many genes we’d also expect in dinosaurs anyway. Hell, humans and yeast have 50 % of the same DNA!

  5. In reply to #4 by Jos Gibbons:

    Here’s a good question for these creationists: if they don’t admit we can know anything unobserved and therefore can’t know an upper or lower bound on the lifetime of DNA unless experience confirms it, how can they then say DNA only lasts a few thousand years, and how can they trust that “this is how old it is” argument any more than the arguments they thereby reject (e.g. radiometric ones)?

    Exactly! I always love it when creationists use the argument that DNA or soft tissue cannot survive for more than a few thousand years, because they are forgetting that in their world NOTHING is more than a few thousand years old, so they have nothing that is more than a few thousand years old as a guide to compare it to! If something can survive for 6000 years (i.e. as old as they think the world is), they have no way of knowing (by their methods of direct observation) whether it would be capable of surviving for another million years, or billion years.

  6. We do not submit to “eyewitness accounts” of anything. Herein lies the straw man. When scientists talk about observation, we mean verifiable reproducible experimentation. When these people talk about observation, they clearly miss the point: it is not about what you think you saw. it is about what you can prove and then verify with multiple lines of reason and evidence.

    Ask them to verify anything at all about their story with any line of reason or evidence that lies OUTSIDE their story.

  7. Heigh japi. The bible is nothing more than a glorified scrap book the same is to be said for the Qur’an the problem that the creationists have, is trying to convince us post-Darwinian ppl that the world is only 6000 years old and that god created every living creature individually and that we are not all related to chimpanzees for example, I pity them they have been given a hopeless yarn to pedal and they can’t burn us to the stake these days.

  8. An excellent, detailed exposition of the means by which the Earth’s age is known, as well as the history of attempts to estimate that value, is given in Dalrymple (1991) . This book is a must-read for anyone who wishes to critique mainstream methods for dating the Earth. A review of this book in the young-Earth creationist journal Origins ( Brown 1992 ) includes the following text:

    “Dalrymple makes a good case for an age of about 4.5 billion years for the material of which the Earth, Moon, and meteorites are composed. [...] His treatment in The Age of the Earth has made it much more difficult to plausibly explain radiometric data on the basis of a creation of the entire Solar System, or the physical matter in planet Earth, within the last few thousand years. In my opinion, the defense of such a position is a losing battle.”

  9. "DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years." 
    

    This is pure cretinist strawman drivel. No scientists suggest DNA lasts millions of years, It degrades in a few thousand at most. – . . .. .

    . . . . . . . Unless a series of copies of it are preserved in present-day living organisms as relics of their ancestry.

    “Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their proposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).”

    They have obviously studied “Jurassic Park”, rather than any real science. (I suppose being fiction – it is more “Biblical”!)
    None of these things are preserved – only fossil impressions of them in the rocks.

    Scientific illiteracy is a prerequisite of belief in Young Earth Creationism.

    They even went as far as to conclude, that

    “Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events.

    … .. . . . But only for those too scientifically and historically illiterate to understand radiometric dating, ice-core analysis, basic geology, archaeology, dendrochronology, astronomy or historical documents/inscriptions.

  10. Obviously, God can do whatever he wants. It ought to be clear to you by now that God created the universe from nothing a little over 6000 years ago and made it look as if the universe is billions of years old because, out of his divine love for mankind, he wanted to set traps for those weak-willed unbelievers who only want to find excuses to indulge their physical desires and rebel against Him, so He could then punish them in everlasting torment. If you had a strong faith in the God who loves you, you would not be at this Godless website asking stupid, agnostic questions and tempting others to stray from God. You’ll get what you deserve, my friend !!!!

  11. In reply to #15 by Jay G:

    It’s that I know you, but I’m not sure if our new agnostic friend will get the satire. I’ve seen more obviously sarcastic people be stomped in the ground for being mistaken for the real thing. The fact that you’ve been flagged already doesn’t bode well either ;)

  12. If ever you are stumped by something that creationists say, just remember that their apparently ‘scientifically valid holy-book’ says that god has the strength of a unicorn, and that rabbits chew the cud and have a type of hoof…

    It always cheers me up, then I read something scientific that destroys whatever they are saying. There is always something that does.

  13. From the way you ask the question, it seems that you’ve already made up your mind.
    But if you are interested, the following article describes the breakdown of DNA:
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32799/title/Half-Life-of-DNA-Revealed/

    DNA has a half life of 521 years.
    It would take a maximum of 6.8 million years for every nucleotide bond to be destroyed.
    After around 1.5 million years the remaining strands of DNA would be too short to be readable.

    None of this has anything to do with gods.

    The world is more than 4 billion years old.

  14. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

    Well, this one is a classic of creationists. “Which scientists are these?” is the very first question you should ever ask, because none that I have ever come across mention anything even remotely close to extracting DNA from 425 MYO bacteria, and there is plenty of literature that goes into how DNA breaks down and in what conditions. In brief, it’s variable, and while short pieces can last for a while, a complete sequence (much less a genome) does not last more than a few thousand years on average.

    Now, this is a lesson on staying on your toes. Where does the information they quote about DNA lasting only thousands of years come from, if their direct message is, “scientists have it wrong”? You’ll notice that the only thing they claim as trustworthy is eyewitness testimony, so which eyewitness to DNA disintegration are they quoting?

    Or are they using science only as it suits their goals?

    Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their proposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).

    Once again, I have yet to see any of this. The best I’ve seen has been the protein remnants from bone marrow that popped up unexpectedly in a T. Rex bone, and that’s still disputed to some degree. Cells, blood vessels, hemoglobin? Nope. But feel free to actually read the literature, rather than accepting what someone else says.

    Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos.

    It’s really unfortunate that it doesn’t even get off the first page before getting the details entirely wrong, then. The earth is not flat, the sky is not a ceiling, and on and on and on.

    This is the significant difference between science and mindless assertion. Science must actually lead someplace, and provide something that is useful. If anyone asserts that gravity is based only on some deity’s will, what use is that, if it never changes and seems tied very distinctly (and measurably) to mass?

    We have a specific age of the earth based on multiple intersecting lines of evidence, from tree rings to ice cores to sedimentary deposition and erosion to radiometric decay. The same may be said for just about every other scientific principle we use – these things aren’t simply guesses or assertions, but tested (and falsifiable) collections of evidence and properties. For them to be wrong, every bit of supporting evidence must also be wrong, to the exact same degree. Or, the ‘good book’ could simply be utter bullshit, and since it remains chock-full of contradictions and indemonstrable events or details, seriously, what other conclusion can you come to?

    The overall message of the creationist approach is that the entire universe is composed of misleading evidence, an elaborate hoax by god, and every last one of our senses cannot be trusted. The problem is, we have to use those same senses to read the book, don’t we? ;-)

  15. Such claims/websites really have their work cut out for them when facing off against a person willing to engage in rational exploration of the world. Always remember that individual facts always form part of a wider factual fabric and that one must be vigilant to ensure that assertions are supported by both. When in doubt just withhold judgement and keep working at it.

  16. Jaypil,
    I am a Christian and struggle with the viewpoint of the website you quoted. John Polkinghorne is a UK Theologian and Scientist and in one of his books he lists about 9 different ways Christians interpret the Bible (in terms of Creation) ranging from YEC (which is the view that the earth is about 6000 years old through to “Theistic Evolution”. Each viewpoint would happily argue theirs from the Bible. The issue that is killing the debate within the church (IMO) is that the YEC are highjacking the debate and saying that if you don’t believe their view point – then you don’t take the Bible seriously. The arguement also implies that before anyone can be a Christian, they have to accept that viewpoint…which I don’t accept.

  17. I came across this website by the name of “Creation.com”, which appears to present strong-worded and fairly supported articles. One of them is titled, “The Flood, the Ice Age and the age of the Earth”.Throughout it are several statements justifying the ‘young age of the earth’.

    As soon as scientifically or historically competent critics look at these claims, they are rapidly shown to be comically incompetent. They are normally written to present nonsense, which is plausible only to people who have minimal or no scientific skills, or who have not studied the subjects under discussion.

    They deliberately seek out obscure specialist areas of palaeontology, geology, biology, etc where they expect the general public to uninformed, and then (comically) pose as “experts”!

    Apart from a lack of education and listening to ignorant parents or ranting preachers, the explanation of their confidence as “experts” on all aspects of science, is the – Dunning-Kruger effect!

    rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger

    The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. Basically, they’re too stupid to know that they’re stupid.

    This is just another web centre of disinformation and ignorance.

    “Creation.com”, . . . . . .

    . . . . . Will rapidly be identified by the scientifically educated as “Creation Con”!

  18. Well I don’t link admitting that I’m about to turn 50, but that doesn’t change that fact it’s going to happen, no matter how much I would like to deny it.

    There are creationist that believe the planet is 4.5 billion years old, that we evolved, (the pope admits it) and still think that their “God” is behind it all. There are creationist that believe the planet to be 6 thousand years old, and the “God’s” days are different from man’s days. An easy way to twist things into place to make them fit your own story.

    No matter how much evidence you bring, a creationist won’t believe it. So if the creation.com want to believe their own lies, then there is almost nothing we can do about it. It’s like talking to a wall, you don’t get much in the way of intelligent conversation, based on logic and facts.

    The real tragedy is that you as a teacher are confronted with questions that you have to answer in school. And you’re not getting the support needed to deal with these questions.

  19. @ JayPii1994

    One of them is titled, “The Flood, the Ice Age and the age of the Earth”.Throughout it are several statements justifying the ‘young age of the earth’.

    Anyone pontificating on,”THE flood”, or “THE ice-age”, is a geological and climatological ignoramus. There have been numerous well researched extensive changes in sea-levels and (local) floods, often associated with numerous ice ages / interglacial periods, over millions of years. None of these were “global floods” covering all the land, during the last few thousand years. There is not enough water on the Earth to cause such a global flood.

    There are almost as many contradictory creation myths as there are creationists. – (As linked here) http://www.richarddawkins.net/discussions/2012/11/6/help-my-childs-school-is-teaching-creationism

  20. @ JayPii1994 – One of them is titled, “The Flood, the Ice Age and the age of the Earth”

    As I said in the previous post – anyone pontificating on “THE ICE-AGE” is an ignoramus! Correct information is readily available.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

    There have been five known ice ages in the Earth’s history, with the Earth experiencing the Quaternary Ice Age during the present time. Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate referred to as glacial periods and interglacial periods, respectively. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 10,000 years ago with the start of the Holocene epoch.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

  21. This viewpoint is very easy to counter, as this statement:- “Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events.” is obviously not true. Any half intelligent person can think of a large number of examples where this can be proved.

    Also, define ‘reliable’. Does a religious fanatic in the desert count as reliable?

    I would also say that I enjoyed RD’s letter to his daughter. I have a few nieces who have been indoctrinated into their local methodist church (I was coerced into attending one of their christenings a few years ago – it was torturous.), and I’d very much like to give the eldest access to a piece like that, not to try and deconvert her, just to make her think about it. She’s an intelligent girl so I’d be surprised if she didn’t come to the logical conclusion sooner or later.

  22. In reply to #18 by Byrneo:

    But if you are interested, the following article describes the breakdown of DNA:
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32799/title/Half-Life-of-DNA-Revealed/

    DNA has a half life of 521 years.
    It would take a maximum of 6.8 million years for every nucleotide bond to be destroyed.
    After around 1.5 million years the remaining strands of DNA would be too short to be readable.

    This explanation is rather simplistic – which is what YECs like.
    Most DNA is broken down within months or a few years of the death of an organism. Quicker if it is eaten!
    These studies are the limits of its durability under optimum conditions for preservation.

  23. I agree that it is not very scientific when creationists say that the Earth is young because the Bible tells so. Our biology teacher who was an evolutionist said: A few decades ago scientist thought that the Earth was just 3 billion years old, but now we know that that time is not enough for life to envolve. That is why we know that the Earth must be at least 4.5 billion years old.
    I think that approach of my teacher is not very scientific either. It seems that evolutionists try to prove that the Earth is as old as possible and creationists want to prove that it is as young as possible. Both sides use some scientific methods of measuring. But which methods are reliable?
    And the claiming that science is based on observation of a witness is just wrong and creationist do not believe it when questioning their faith. As Jhjeffery wrote: Nobody saw Jesus rising form death, but they believe it happened. Because a lot of eye witnesses saw him alive after his death. But it is not the topic of this article.
    My point was as follows: Which method of measuring the age of the Earth is reliable? How is it possible that using one method you prove the age of Earth very old, using another method you prove it very young?

  24. Alan4,

    Is the DNA of ancient organisms fragmented or is it chemically dissolved? I visualize the degrading process resulting is lots of fragments of DNA, with some intact sequences but when the DNA is extracted, there is no way to know how the sequences are ordered. Obviously, the older the specimen, the more entropy. However, the idea that the DNA disappears is not sitting right in my brain. Any thoughts?

  25. In reply to #29 by Robert Kubik:

    I agree that it is not very scientific when creationists say that the Earth is young because the Bible tells so. Our biology teacher who was an evolutionist said: A few decades ago scientist thought that the Earth was just 3 billion years old, but now we know that that time is not enough for life to envolve. That is why we know that the Earth must be at least 4.5 billion years old.

    If that is what he said, he is misleading you. Science improves its estimates of measurements as measuring techniques improve. Y.E.Creationists just sit in denial and ignorance of science.

    Science has only recently developed accurate measuring techniques. Modern radio-isotope dating confirms that the age of the Earth is about four and a half billion years, along with some dates for other parts of the Solar System.

    I think that approach of my teacher is not very scientific either.

    Giving evolution as reason for dating the age of the Earth would be unscientific, – if that is what was done. Scientists guessing 200 years ago, thought the Earth and the Sun were much younger than this because nuclear physics was not understood at that time.

    3 billion years is certainly enough time for evolution to take place – and evolution of single cells began early in the Earth’s history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth – The history of the Earth encompasses the development of the planet Earth from its formation to the present day.[1][2] Nearly all branches of natural science have contributed to the understanding of the main events of the Earth’s past. The age of Earth is approximately one-third of the age of the universe. An immense amount of biological and geological change has occurred in that time span.

    Earth formed around 4.54 billion (4.54×109) years ago by accretion from the solar nebula. Volcanic outgassing likely created the primordial atmosphere, but it contained almost no oxygen and would have been toxic to humans and most modern life. Much of the Earth was molten because of extreme volcanism and frequent collisions with other bodies. One very large collision is thought to have been responsible for tilting the Earth at an angle and forming the Moon.

    ..

    It seems that evolutionists try to prove that the Earth is as old as possible and creationists want to prove that it is as young as possible.

    It is actually physicists, astronomers, and geologists who provide the evidence that the Earth is Over 4.5 billion years old. Evolutionary biologists simply use the data and measuring techniques in their work. YECs are simply too ignorant or dishonest to understand this, so pretend it is only “evolutionist” biologists are making this claim.

    Both sides use some scientific methods of measuring.

    Young Earth Creationists do NOT use scientific methods of measuring. – They lie, PRETENDING they use scientific methods of measuring. Most of them do not even understand what the scientific methods are! – This is well illustrated in their alleged “refutations” of scientific evidence, and their alleged “scientific” claims.

    But which methods are reliable?

    Scientific methodology is the best system humans have with repeat testing and falsification of wrong ideas.

    And the claiming that science is based on observation of a witness is just wrong and creationist do not believe it when questioning their faith.

    Science relies on repeat testing by competent multiple witnesses. Faith believes what it wants to, without evidence. The – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution is well researched and well documented for those who wish to be educated.

    As Jhjeffery wrote: Nobody saw Jesus rising form death, but they believe it happened. Because a lot of eye witnesses saw him alive after his death. But it is not the topic of this article.

    There are NO records of historical eyewitness accounts of anyone by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. There are only (conflicting) STORIES written decades or centuries later, CLAIMING there were eye witnesses. The NT Bible is a book of mythology.

    My point was as follows: Which method of measuring the age of the Earth is reliable?

    The scientific method.

    How is it possible that using one method you prove the age of Earth very old, using another method you prove it very young?

    It isn’t! There is solid scientific evidence from multiple sources and methods confirming the Earth is billions of years old. There is NO EVIDENCE that it is young – only CLAIMS from science duffers that they have scientific evidence – usually illustrating that they do not know what scientific evidence is – and do not even understand basic school-level science.

  26. In reply to #30 by crookedshoes:

    Alan4,

    Is the DNA of ancient organisms fragmented or is it chemically dissolved? I visualize the degrading process resulting is lots of fragments of DNA, with some intact sequences but when the DNA is extracted, there is no way to know how the sequences are ordered.

    It is probably both depending on age.

    You are probably better informed on DNA than I am, but while DNA has been extracted from frozen Mammoths a few thousand years old where degradation has been slowed by freezing, fossils millions of years old, often do not contain even basic organic material – they are simply impressions in mud or sand, which (like iron or ceramic castings) can preserve shapes and textures – down to fine detail, long after the organic material has decomposed (fungi – bacteria) or been geologically chemically altered.

    I think for example, that (some) coal, is pretty well pure carbon (with a bit of sulphur & and ash maybe).

    Obviously, the older the specimen, the more entropy. However, the idea that the DNA disappears is not sitting right in my brain. Any thoughts?

    I think it is as you say, entropy over great time ranges + exposure to oxidation and other features of ground / soil chemistry.

  27. Alan4,

    I visualize the DNA degradation process as fragmentation followed by degradation (oxidation). A fossil (being a closed system) will tend toward increasing entropy over time, so, I’d expect most (if not all) of it’s organic molecules to be gone.

    I also read a while back about a scientist who treated fossilized bone to a hydrochloric acid bath (I think) and managed to salvage some soft tissue from the ancient fossil. A quick google search leads me to believe that this procedure has proven reliable and been verified.

  28. In reply to #34 by crookedshoes:

    I visualize the DNA degradation process as fragmentation followed by degradation (oxidation). A fossil (being a closed system) will tend toward increasing entropy over time, so, I’d expect most (if not all) of it’s organic molecules to be gone.

    I am not sure about fossils being closed systems. It would help preservation of softer materials if they were.

    I also read a while back about a scientist who treated fossilized bone to a hydrochloric acid bath (I think) and managed to salvage some soft tissue from the ancient fossil. A quick google search leads me to believe that this procedure has proven reliable and been verified.

    I had not heard of this, but it could be interesting. Did they state the age of the fossil?

  29. It was a fossilized hunk of T.rex hind limb. The researcher was Mary Schweitzer and her work appeared in Science in 2005. I remember reading about it and thinking that it must have taken some guts on her part to destroy a T.rex fossil in the hopes that she would have a breakthrough. Her work subsequently touched off a series of other research…. I can copy/paste the list of references if you’d like…. Or google her name and poke around!

    Oh, and I guess you are correct about the fossil not being a closed system, i wrote that and immediately didn’t like it…but I let it stand for some reason… sometimes I am smart and other times….. not so smart!!!

    In reply to #35 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #34 by crookedshoes:

    I visualize the DNA degradation process as fragmentation followed by degradation (oxidation). A fossil (being a closed system) will tend toward increasing entropy over time, so, I’d expect most (if not all) of it’s organic molecules to be gone.

    I am not sure about fossils being closed systems. It would help preservation of softer materials if they were.

    I also read a while back about a scientist who treated fossilized bone to a hydrochloric acid bath (I think) and managed to salvage some soft tissue from the ancient fossil. A quick google search leads me to believe that this procedure has proven reliable and been verified.

    I had not heard of this, but it could be interesting. Did they state the age of the fossil?

  30. In reply to #29 by Robert Kubik:

    I think that approach of my teacher is not very scientific either. It seems that evolutionists try to prove that the Earth is as old as possible and creationists want to prove that it is as young as possible. Both sides use some scientific methods of measuring. But which methods are reliable?

    My point was as follows: Which method of measuring the age of the Earth is reliable? How is it possible that using one method you prove the age of Earth very old, using another method you prove it very young?

    I think you need to understand that the pretence of science supporting a “Young Earth” is purely a pretence!
    The Young Earth calculations have NOTHING to do with science, and everything to do with Bishop Ussher adding up the ages of kings and dates, mentioned in the Bible – going back (allegedly) to Adam!

    The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland).

    The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as described in the first two chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis. –
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher

    Ussher’s methods

    The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same methodology to calculate key events recorded in the Bible.

    Their task was complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled from different sources over several centuries with differing versions and lengthy chronological gaps, making it impossible to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates.

    In his article on Ussher’s calendar, James Barr has identified three distinct periods that Ussher and others had to tackle:[3]

    Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead.

    Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings’ reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.

    Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27).

    Using these methods, Ussher was able to establish an unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC. He moved it back to 4004 BC to take account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system.

    Ussher chose 4 BC as Christ’s birth year[4] because Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC.[5] Jesus could not have been born after that date.

  31. In reply to #36 by crookedshoes:

    It was a fossilized hunk of T.rex hind limb. The researcher was Mary Schweitzer and her work appeared in Science in 2005. I remember reading about it and thinking that it must have taken some guts on her part to destroy a T.rex fossil in the hopes that she would have a breakthrough. Her work subsequently touched off a series of other research…. I can copy/paste the list of references if you’d like…. Or google her name and poke around!

    This is amazing if it is correct. I’ll have to look later when I have more time.

    The problem with these sorts of claims, is there are lots of spurious cretinist strawman claims, before we even look at sloppy lab mistakes. ( Any one had a chicken sandwich?)

    I am trying to remember the example of some people who spent 2 years researching properties of “human DNA”, only to find that their sample was rat DNA from a badly washed Petri-dish!

  32. Robert Kubik

    “As Jhjeffery wrote: Nobody saw Jesus rising form death, but they believe it happened. Because a lot of eye witnesses saw him alive after his death.”

    Alan4discussion 31

    “There are NO records of historical eyewitness accounts of anyone by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. There are only (conflicting) STORIES written decades or centuries later, CLAIMING there were eye witnesses. The NT Bible is a book of mythology.”

    Robert, Alan is quite right here and you are quite wrong. No biblical scholar, including the resident whackaloon from Liberty “University.” Gary Habermas, contends that any portion of the NT was written during the life of Jesus or that any of its anonymous authors had actually seen Jesus. One of the funnier Christian claims is that Jesus was seen post-mortem by 5,000 people. That story does not mean there were 5,000 witnesses, but one liar: Paul. A moment’s reflection will tell you that, had 5,000 people seen a dead man walking, the story would be recorded numerous times.

  33. In reply to #31 by Alan4discussion:

    There are NO records of historical eyewitness accounts of anyone by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

    From what I understand there are no records of Nazareth existing during that time period either.

  34. Hi JayPii1994!

    I’m familiar with CMI and I would say this. They aren’t stupid which leads me to believe they are disengenious.

    Anyway, in the off chance you are in the same boat as I and you don’t always understand their (CMI’s) arguments just remember one thing. Their inability to explain their arguments to you does not mean that their arguments are correct. IE, the fact that they can confuse you with words doesn’t prove any of their claims.

    Another thing, from CMI’s website:

    http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

    <

    blockquote> The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

    Then later:

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    I think anyone should be able to see through this thin argument. It amounts to, “Scripture is correct because it is scripture. If you don’t believe us just read scripture because scripture says just that. The mountain of evidence that implies scripture is wrong is invalid because scripture says that scripture is correct.”

  35. In reply to #15 by Jay G:

    Obviously, God can do whatever he wants. It ought to be clear to you by now that God created the universe from nothing a little over 6000 years ago and made it look as if the universe is billions of years old because, out of his divine love for mankind, he wanted to set traps for those weak-willed unbelievers who only want to find excuses to indulge their physical desires and rebel against Him, so He could then punish them in everlasting torment. If you had a strong faith in the God who loves you, you would not be at this Godless website asking stupid, agnostic questions and tempting others to stray from God. You’ll get what you deserve, my friend !!!!

    Right on mark. Are you Jewish, by any chance, or do other religions preach that kind of nonsense too?

    But of course, don’t you see that there is a reason why god does that? God created the world in order to do kindness to people, so he had to give them something to do to earn a reward. He couldn’t just shower them with goodness because that would make them feel indebted. And human nature, which he invented, is such that we don’t like to feel so.

  36. lan4discussion 31, thank you for your comment. You suggest radio-isotope dating, but I have read that scientists get different results using this method, depending on which chemical element they are focused on. But I can accept this radio-isotope dating as reliable. But how do they find out how old Himalayas are? How do they find out when the Earth was divided into continents etc. I am asking this because I was doing a geography project about Himalayas. I read that 70 millions years ago there was a collision between Indo-Australian Plate and EuroAsian Plate. I also read that Himalayas are still rising about 5 mm/year. I multiplied 5mm by 70 millions and the Himalayas should be much higher. They were even rising much faster in the past. I am not a scientist, English is not my first language, so I might be completely wrong. Talking about written accounts of resurection of Jesus you are probably wrong. JHJEFFERY wrote that one liar Paul wrote that 5,000 people saw Jesus alive. He mentioned five hundred people not five thousand actually .But Paul wrote his letter just a few years after the death of Jesus. In God of delusion Dawkins wrote that Christianity was a cult that came into existence suddenly in a very short time. He also wrote that the founder of Christianity was Paul. Paul died in about 64 AD, so he wrote his letters much earlier. All the scholars agree that the author of Pauls letters was Paul and he wrote his letters when eyewitnesses of Jesus life were still alive and Paul emphasized that all the apostles preached the same message about resurected Jesus. I watched the document on National Geografhic last month and they said that disciples of Jesus said they saw him alive. So therefore I would like to know where you read the information that there are only stories written decades or centuries later claiming there were eyewitnesses. According to my information vast majority of scholars agree that it were disiciples of Jesus who kept saying they saw Jesus alive a couple of days after his death. I am not arguing whether they were liars or not, I do not know. I am only arguing that you are wrong that this story appeared decades or hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Because we know who claimed that Jesus rose from death – it were his disciples. But I might be wrong and perhaps you have a better source of information which I want to know. Anyway, wasnt the discussion about the age of the Earth? And JHJEFFERY started trolling about the resurection

  37. In reply to #44 by Robert Kubik:

    lan4discussion 31, thank you for your comment. You suggest radio-isotope dating, but I have read that scientists get different results using this method, depending on which chemical element they are focused on. But I can accept this radio-isotope dating as reliable.

    Different radio isotopes decay at different rates but these rates are standard for any particular isotope.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric dating by different isotopes independently confirms the results of the tests. Some methods like radio-carbon dating are used for dates over a few thousand years. Others with longer half lives can be used for millions of years.

    But how do they find out how old Himalayas are?

    Rocks can be tested using radiometric dating, and also by looking at layers of rock linked to known events such as changes in atmospheric chemistry, major volcanic eruptions, ice-ages or meteor impacts.

    How do they find out when the Earth was divided into continents etc. I am asking this because I was doing a geography project about Himalayas.

    The Earth has a rocky crust floating on the hot fluid layers under it. – Just like the Arctic sea-ice floats on the ocean below it. Like the ice – there are cracks where the liquid comes through a freezes solid.
    These giant slabs of rock with the continents sitting on them are called tectonic plates. – simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate tectonics. The boundaries between the plates are the volcanic mid-ocean trenches, where the the plates are moving apart and liquid rock is setting to form new rock in magnetically striped sections or ocean floor. These have been mapped by sonar and magnetic scanning. GPS type satellites can measure the rates of movement of crustal plates and the changing heights of mountains.

    I read that 70 millions years ago there was a collision between Indo-Australian Plate and EuroAsian Plate. I also read that Himalayas are still rising about 5 mm/year. I multiplied 5mm by 70 millions and the Himalayas should be much higher. They were even rising much faster in the past.

    Like all mountains, their height is determined by them being built up (volcanoes) or pushed up by plate movements. – but they are also being worn down by rain, ice, and weathering, with the broken down rocks forming river gravels, sands, and soils. It is the weathering which makes mountains so ragged and exposes the layers of ancient rocks. In the case of the Himalayas limestone from deposits of shells from ancient sea-beds.

    Talking about written accounts of resurection of Jesus you are probably wrong. JHJEFFERY wrote that one liar Paul wrote that 5,000 people saw Jesus alive. He mentioned five hundred people not five thousand actually .But Paul wrote his letter just a few years after the death of Jesus.

    There are those who treat the Bible as a history book and look no further, and then there are historians, who study the history of that period, looking at Roman records, archaeology and ancient documents. While the area was over-run with wandering preachers at that time, there are NO records outside the Bible of a particular preacher named “Jesus”. (Although there were hundreds of Jesuses around as it was a common name).

    We could expect major events such as those claimed, to be recorded by the Romans, who kept detailed records. It is also likely that “Nazareth” was not built until a later date.

    It is often a shock to those who have been told bible stories in childhood that “THE Bible”, was put together hundreds of years after that period at the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ First Council of Nicaea in the year AD 325, by Christian Roman Emperor Constantine’s bishops, selecting the texts they liked, from the various contradictory ones written by different Christian cults.

    (The Gospel of Mary, http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm , The Gospel Of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Peter etc were not included.) There are also various errors arising from mistranslations of early documents into later languages.

    There were so many conflicting stories and cults, that they had to have meetings to agree a common version, acceptable to the Roman establishment!

  38. Alan, thank you.
    I think that the answer: “their height is determined by them being built up (volcanoes) or pushed up by plate movements.” satisfied me.
    But you did not answer where you got the information that the story of resurection was made decades or centuries after life of Jesus, not immediately after his death.
    Talking about NT. You are right, the books were put together in 4th century, but they were written in 1st century, weren`t they. When I wrote in christian forum that mighty men chose books they liked to be in the Biblie, I was given an answer that I was wrong. They did not choose books they liked, but there were some criteria and they chose the same books to be in NT that church fathers in 2nd century and vast majority of church accepted. The main stream of church in previous centuries did not accept gospel of Thomas, so it was not put in the Bible. Moreover archaeology in 20th century proved that four gospels in the Bible were written in the first century but gospel of Thomas at the end of 2nd century.
    Do you know anything about criteria when putting NT together?
    And you are wrong that apart from NT we have no historical records about Jesus. We have Talmud, Josephus Falvius, Tacitus etc.
    To conclude.1. Can you give me a source of information that the story of resurection appeared decades or centuries after life of Jesus? This information was really shocking for me so I would like to check it and shock Christians in their forum. 2. Which criteria did they consider when they were choosing which books belong to the NT and which do not belong there.

  39. In reply to #47 by Robert Kubik:

    Alan, thank you.
    I think that the answer: “their height is determined by them being built up (volcanoes) or pushed up by plate movements.” satisfied me.

    But you did not answer where you got the information that the story of resurection was made decades or centuries after life of Jesus, not immediately after his death.
    Talking about NT. You are right, the books were put together in 4th century, but they were written in 1st century, weren`t they. When I wrote in christian forum that mighty men chose books they liked to be in the Biblie, I was given an answer that I was wrong. They did not choose books they liked, but there were some criteria and they chose the same books to be in NT that church fathers in 2nd century and vast majority of church accepted.

    Christian forums will tell you you are wrong, because “faith thinking ” is believing what they like to hear without material evidence, and making stuff up to support their pre-existing ideas. – Sometimes copying others who have previously done this. The different versions of “faith-thinking” often contradict each other.

    The main stream of church in previous centuries did not accept gospel of Thomas, so it was not put in the Bible. Moreover archaeology in 20th century proved that four gospels in the Bible were written in the first century but gospel of Thomas at the end of 2nd century.

    You are right about the Gospel of Thomas being challenged as a fake. – But then none of the 4 Gospels were written by the named authors, and none were written within decades of the periods they claim to report on.
    There was no “mainstream church” in the early days of Xtianity. There were scattered sects, each telling their own differing stories and trying to destroy those of rivals. The “mainstream church” was a Roman invention around AD 325, which served political purposes.

    I think the final compilation of the NT was more to do with unifying the Roman Empire under a Xtian emperor, than any attempt at historical truth.

    I think the point was, that Biblical literal interpretations show a lack of understanding of the history. – A general feature of the ignorance (even of their own holy books) of fundamentalists, is that they dispute the science and refuse to learn science, simply because it tells them things they don’t like to hear.

    I would suggest you wait for a reply from JHJEFFERY or if Amos turns up. They are much better informed on detailed biblical historical questions than I am.
    Biology, astronomy and space technologies, are my specialist areas. (My understanding of the history and structures of planets, does tend to rapidly shred “Young Earth” claims.)

  40. A lot of science works on inference because no human can observe the things being studied and to suggest that direct observation is required is simply wrong.

    Consider nobody has ever directly observed an atom and yet science was able to theorise about the nature of atoms to the point where it was possible to create an atomic bomb.
    Nobody has lived long enough to witness the orbit of Pluto but we are fairly confident it will match its plotted trajectory. Are we seriously saying that we cannot make assumptions about prehistoric events because we have no credible written evidence? We have artifacts, bones and in the case of DNA natural markers that can be accurately tracked back to a time before current viable samples to give a history of that DNA’s progression.

    In actual fact, given the unreliable nature of the human brain when processing information about it’s environment I would put direct observation pretty low down in a list of viable evidence sources.

  41. Moderators’ message

    Please remember that the subject of this thread is the age of the Earth.

    There are several other threads where discussions about the history of the New Testament, and discussions about the reliability or otherwise of the gospels, will be on topic. May we ask you to take further comments on that subject to one of those, please. Further off-topic comments on this thread will be removed.

    Thank you

    The mods

  42. Robert Kubik 44

    Talking about written accounts of resurection of Jesus you are probably wrong. JHJEFFERY wrote that one liar Paul wrote that 5,000 people saw Jesus alive. He mentioned five hundred people not five thousand actually .But Paul wrote his letter just a few years after the death of Jesus. In God of delusion Dawkins wrote that Christianity was a cult that came into existence suddenly in a very short time. He also wrote that the founder of Christianity was Paul. Paul died in about 64 AD, so he wrote his letters much earlier. All the scholars agree that the author of Pauls letters was Paul and he wrote his letters when eyewitnesses of Jesus life were still alive and Paul emphasized that all the apostles preached the same message about resurected Jesus.

    JHJEFFERY started trolling about the resurection

    No, not so much on the trolling. I just didn’t complete the thought because I felt it obvious. You were contending that since no one witnessed the aging of the earth, it could not be substantiated. We hear that stuff about evolution all the time. But we hear it from Christians who believe, despite the lack of eyewitness accounts, that a dead man was resurrected.

    I do not know where you get your biblical history, but it is a little mucked up. J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Bart Ehrman are the preeminent biblical scholars in the USA, and none of them believes that any eyewitness wrote about Jesus. Even, as I mentioned, the fundamentalist Habermas does not go that far. Paul had his gran mal seizure on the Damascene Road, according to him (and he lies a lot) only a few years after the death of Jesus and was the first to write about him, but the writing did not happen until at least 53 CE.I suspect much later. Don’t believe me, look it up. Even use Habermas, although nothing he has written is readable. Ehrman is much better.

    No one has any idea when the original disciples died. The myth of the execution of Paul and Peter in Rome is almost certainly a myth–unrecorded for generations. Both men would have had to be in their 60s when the average life span was 30s. Not impossible, but since there is no reliable evidence to prove their deaths (again, no contemporaneous account), it is extremely unlikely.

    I don’t remember Dawkins writing about the rapid spread of Christianity (and I’m too lazy to look it up), but if he said so he was wrong. The percentage of Christians within the Empire at the end of the first century was about 1%. It took until the beginning of the fourth century before it briefly hit 15%. The myth of rapid spread is just that–a myth–a lie promulgated by the early church after Nicaea for its own aggrandizement.

    Sorry about the extra 0 on the 500.

    Also don’t know where you are going with that last sentence about all preaching the same message. Peter and Paul argued famously about the inclusion of the gentiles, and none of the gospels are consistent about the facts of the resurrection itself.

  43. In reply to #52 by olwylee:

    Hmm….Which Ice Age do they speak of as most good science now excepts that there has been one every 100,000 years or so for the past million or so.

    The 6,000 year claim is comically ignorant, when you consider the accurate scientific astronomical calculations for past and future years! – linked to the geology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch cycles.

    Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.

    The Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the astronomical seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit (obliquity) oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing.
    Alt Text (right click and select “view image”)

  44. Robert Kubik 56

    “JHJEFFERY, where can we discuss the topic of historical reliability of NT? It is forbidden here. I also have read a lot about it and I would like to discuss it.”

    The one Alan mentioned would do. The Historical Jesus is still available. You will probably learn enough by reading the comments on that thread to forego any further discussion with me, but let me know if you have any other questions.

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/discussions/2012/10/3/the-historical-jesus#

    Best

    JHJ

  45. @OP – JayPii1994 – Now I’m a Jamaican teenager. No longer a Christian, but an Agnostic of the fourth milestone of Agnosticism. Can any of you brilliantly-equipped minds enlighten me on these contradictions?

    It is always worth remembering that the “Young Earth” faction, is representing the most ignorant of Christianity.

    Many mainstream Xtians (CofE and RCC) accept the scientific age of the Earth and a substantial part of evolution. (with a bit of god-did-it thrown in)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic Church and evolution

    . . .. . while he was the Vatican’s chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be.


    A five-day conference, Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories, held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars.[39]

    The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life.

    In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

    According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets.

    In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life.

    While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago.

    Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

    Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]

    Of course many Catholics are ignorant of their church’s current thinking, and are stuck in the ancient science denials and reason denials, of Vatican I and Pope Pius IX.

  46. JHJEFFERY, Alan4discussion, I was thinking about different website where you can express your beliefs freely without worrying that your comments will be deleted and your account will be deactivated, but OK I will move our debate to the discussion recomended by JHJEFFERY.

    [Edited by moderator to remove personal details. And please stop obsessing about being 'fired' from the site. Our Terms of Use are at the bottom of every page. Provided you comply with those, you are welcome to post here.]

  47. If you go into Youtube and look for Thunderf00t, then watch his series of videos “Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?” ( I think there are about 37 now! ). I am sure you will find them very interesting.

  48. Haymaker, do you think your attitude is right?
    When I wanted to know what Richard Dawkins claims, I read books written by Dawkins, not written by Christians who say that Dawkins said.
    If I want to know what creationist say, I will read books written by creationists, not evolutionist who twist their words.

  49. Robert,

    No serious individual believes the garbage spewed by the creationists. I have had on line conversations with them and they are, to put it tactfully, disingenuous. There are acres of space between honesty and the creationists. I have never, in my entire life, seen an evolutionary scholar twist any words of any creationist. The simple reason for this is because it is unnecessary. Take a look at the idiot Ray Comfort and his “banana man” video. I have personally seen Eric Hovind lie to a bunch of young church members (and this was not a twisting of words–it was a blatant lie). The only thing creationists are good for is amusement. So I must agree with Thunderfoot and Haymaker. This is not a matter open for serious debate.

    Sorry.

    In reply to #62 by Robert Kubik:

    Haymaker, do you think your attitude is right?
    When I wanted to know what Richard Dawkins claims, I read books written by Dawkins, not written by Christians who say that Dawkins said.
    If I want to know what creationist say, I will read books written by creationists, not evolutionist who twist their words.

  50. There’s some good advice here, but always keep in mind that, in science, there are no easy answers. Maybe that’s one of the major reasons people go for magic and fantasy, because they’re quick and easy. Science has a lot of work to offer, but the rewards are then, much more enjoyable.
    If you want to address the DNA problem, you could start by reading this article (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/rock-of-ages), in Scientific American.
    Good reading!

  51. Moses is supposed to have written the Old Testament, correct? How did he describe his own funeral? This to them is ‘reliable’.

    Did anyone on the site mention how long DNA is supposed to last? The reason I ask is because they are currently testing DNA from an ancient tomb in the Steppes in Europe to track migration of said DNA all the way across to Mongolia and into China. It predates creation.

  52. Science adjust it’s views according to what is observed, faith is a denial of observation so that belief can be preserved… Creationists are simply mixing science and biblical belief into PSEUDOSCIENCE.
    It is up to you to decide what you believe, but if you want actual scientific evidence of anything, don’t go seeking answers from creationist websites…
    Accumulated evidence from last 2000 years is enough for me, but for you… only you can tell…

  53. In reply to #62 by Robert Kubik:

    Haymaker, do you think your attitude is right?
    When I wanted to know what Richard Dawkins claims, I read books written by Dawkins, not written by Christians who say that Dawkins said.
    If I want to know what creationist say, I will read books written by creationists, not evolutionist who twist their words.

    That is actually the right way of getting comparable views, but you can’t say that those videos aren’t funny…?!

  54. In reply to #69 by TSM:

    According to tradition, Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). For that reason they are sometimes known also as the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Books of Moses. They constitute the most important part of the Hebrew Bible and are known most commonly among the Jews as the Torah (Law, i.e. the Mosaic Law). Although Moses may have written something that is still part of the text of one or more of these books, modern scripture scholars generally agree that the books as they have been handed down to us were written much later than the time of Moses. To connect this to the topic under discussion, one might ask how Moses or any of those ancient Hebrew scribes could have had any reason for thinking that the earth (which of course was flat) and the firmament that formed a dome over the earth, and the sun, moon and stars, which made their way over the firmament, were any older than was indicated by the cosmogonal stories they had inherited. What interested them was their covenantal obligations and rights with YHWH and how they as a people could ensure their wellbeing by faithful adherence to the covenant. The young-earth creationists might as well believe in Donald Duck comics being divine revelation for all the understanding they have of the Pentateuch.

  55. In reply to #69 by TSM:

    Did anyone on the site mention how long DNA is supposed to last? The reason I ask is because they are currently testing DNA from an ancient tomb in the Steppes in Europe to track migration of said DNA all the way across to Mongolia and into China. It predates creation.

    There is an example here:-
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4535190.stm

    In a separate piece of research, published in the journal Science, a team reports sequencing some of the nuclear DNA from 27,000-year-old Siberian mammoth remains.

  56. they know the age of the earth by testing rocks by nuclear decay like uranium turns into lead over long time scale the more lead the older the rock there is no question now that there are rocks on earth at least 3 billion years old testing rocks this way is very reliable

Leave a Reply