22 Jul 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood question - I was really adding that caveat because if I remember correctly in prior conversations he had suggested that since people hadn't observed it then we can't know.
Even if it is directly observed, can it be proven scientifically?
I claim to have directly observed a 100,000 year old star.
I also claim to have directly observed a magician sawing a lady in half.
Can I prove either?
Of course you are right that even if people have observed something or claim to have, then there are questions as to what they saw or what kind of proof or evidence that truly is.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe the earth is older than 6,000 years old. I can not say how much
Just wondered if you would announce yourselves. I am curious what percentage of the population of the US that represents.
older. But I don't believe the earth is millions of years old like some people.
I would however, limit man's existence on the earth to about 10,000 years.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by jaywillThis is my position also.
[b]================================
Likewise with the age of the earth, we have a lot of information that gives us a pretty good idea - it may not be exact to the minute or day, but it's much more correct than 6000 years or 15 minutes.
=====================================
I think it is older than 6,000 typical years or 15 minutes.
But th ...[text shortened]... to hear the entire lecture. Check him out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sicqKbFhcq8[/b]
Time is relative to mass and space and movement.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThe age of the earth? Who knows?
Just wondered if you would announce yourselves. I am curious what percentage of the population of the US that represents.
The age of the world? The world being man's length of time here. About 6000 years.
There is no evidence for any other conclusion. History, both secular and Biblical, tells us that mankind had a sudden emergence. Any other interpretation is pure speculation.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by josephwWhere do you come up with a 6000 year history of mankind, forgetting the creationist young earth thing? I know for a fact, I visited the site, where Kathleen Kenyan found the original Watchtower near Jerusalem, dated 10,000 years old.
The age of the earth? Who knows?
The age of the world? The world being man's length of time here. About 6000 years.
There is no evidence for any other conclusion. History, both secular and Biblical, tells us that mankind had a sudden emergence. Any other interpretation is pure speculation.
What about the artifacts in the America's dated near 20,000 years old? And dating in the Iberian peninsula showed modern humans way over 100,000 years old, artifacts clearly dating from that time, showing burned rocks used to fashion arrowheads and such, the thermal processing being a new technology of the time enabling the use of extremely hard rocks like obsidian and others that would have been very time consuming to produce with normal flaking.
They found the flakes used and showed them to have been processed by flame, that technique softens the stone while it is hot so it is easy to flake off, then gets hard again when it cools down. Brilliant technology for that time period some say going back 180,000 years.
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouse"...artifacts clearly dating from that time,.."
Where do you come up with a 6000 year history of mankind, forgetting the creationist young earth thing? I know for a fact, I visited the site, where Kathleen Kenyan found the original Watchtower near Jerusalem, dated 10,000 years old.
What about the artifacts in the America's dated near 20,000 years old? And dating in the Iberian peninsula showed modern ...[text shortened]... hen it cools down. Brilliant technology for that time period some say going back 180,000 years.
Clearly dating from that time? Not so. It is not clear. It's a guess. Speculation.
Scientific dating methods are over rated, and over relied upon.
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI don't get how you can uncritically accept a single data source such as the bible and wave away the entire field of scientific dating as 'speculation'. It is not speculation. In fact there exists a fully anchored dendrochronological record going back more than 11,000 years. This dendro record has provided calibration for stratigraphic and radiometric dating techniques proving their validity beyond reasonable doubt.
[b]"...artifacts clearly dating from that time,.."
Clearly dating from that time? Not so. It is not clear. It's a guess. Speculation.
Scientific dating methods are over rated, and over relied upon.[/b]
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwSo when you think about it, that is, IF you think about it, how long do you think it takes coal to form? Do you ever think about just what coal is?
[b]"...artifacts clearly dating from that time,.."
Clearly dating from that time? Not so. It is not clear. It's a guess. Speculation.
Scientific dating methods are over rated, and over relied upon.[/b]
Carbon dating is not just speculation, it has been around a long time now. Do you think there is no such thing as isotopes? Do you believe there is no such thing as carbon 13 or carbon 14, that we can tell the difference?
I can tell you for a fact we can tell the difference between the two and there is a proven difference in the way the two are taken up by life forms.
I know we can see the difference between carbon 13 and 14 because I was an ion implant field service engineer for 20 years and one of the parts of that machine is an isotope separation device, a huge magnetic field that causes a moving ion beam to bend around the field lines. since one is heavier than the other, the two isotopes in carbon end up in two physically separated places at a given magnetic field strength.
It happens we vary the magnetic field strength for the express purpose of aiming a specific isotope of whatever ion beam we are generating to go through a small hole that then directs the beam to scanners and such that wiggles the beam back and forth to end up slamming into a silicon or germanium or other kinds of wafers to make electronic or photonic circuitry.
For instance, one of the biggies in the semiconductor industry is boron. That beam is one of the ions that imparts conductivity to pure silicon which is an insulator.
It is pretty close to carbon in weight, 10 AMU and 11 AMU are the two main isotopes found in nature. It turns out that boron 10 for whatever reason, is about 3 times more abundant than boron 11, so for that reason we use boron 10 as the ion beam of choice, both work as a dopant of silicon to make conductivity but boron 10 makes a beam 3 times more powerful because there is more of it in a given sample.
So the ion separator, called a 'mass analysis' unit, which is a key part of the ion implanter, is used to separate the two, boron 10 is let through, boron 11 is allowed to slam into a solid carbon shield where eventually the boron 11 beam ends up drilling a hole in the shield and it has to be replaced. That takes a few months so the process works well.
We also use carbon as an ion beam sometimes and we can do the same thing, choose carbon 13 or carbon 14. We know for a fact there is a difference in the way the two are taken up by plants and animals, its a long story but here is one link to the way it works:
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/carbon-14-history.htm
Do you for instance, believe there are isotopes of elements? If you do, do you doubt the fact there is a difference in the way the two are carried in cells after the cell dies?
If not, why not? If you think it is pure speculation, show me a scientific paper peer reviewed in a reliable journal that disputes the fact there are different isotopes of carbon or other elements, and show me the paper saying that there is no difference between how the two are treated in dying cells, animal or plant.
Will you read the link I provided, maybe even see what is going on with carbon dating?
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by josephwThe age of the earth? Who knows?
The age of the earth? Who knows?
The age of the world? The world being man's length of time here. About 6000 years.
There is no evidence for any other conclusion. History, both secular and Biblical, tells us that mankind had a sudden emergence. Any other interpretation is pure speculation.
Hilarious as usual Joseph. Do you not think that with the technological advances we have made we somehow might have an inkling as to how old the earth is?! You are after all having simultaneous conversations with numerous people around the world from the comfort of your own house?!
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseRe-read his post. Did he say "just speculation" or "pure speculation"?
So when you think about it, that is, IF you think about it, how long do you think it takes coal to form? Do you ever think about just what coal is?
Carbon dating is not just speculation, it has been around a long time now. Do you think there is no such thing as isotopes? Do you believe there is no such thing as carbon 13 or carbon 14, that we can tell t ant.
Will you read the link I provided, maybe even see what is going on with carbon dating?
I think he said "speculation". I don't think he means there was no
science behind the "speculation". I am not a scientist, but I believe
that the scientific method for dating "all" things has not proven to be
accurate beyond a reasonable doubt; and that is were the speculation
comes in. Scientist "assume" many things that may or may not be true
under different circumstances. Since scientist have not been able to
prove all their "assumptions", they are in effect "speculating". And to
ASSUME is to make an "ASS" out of "U" and "ME".
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseEverything was laid out before the Big Bang. Google "fine tuning the univeres" to see what I mean. The bang had to be just right or the whole universe would not exist.
By that you mean the Earth is really 4+ billion years old and god just set up the rules when sheit started the universe some 14 billion years ago?
As for the age of the universe and the earth, I don't dispute the scientific findings nor the veracity of the Bible, rather, I dispute the interpretations of Genesis in regards to young earth creationists.
23 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIf you have time, pick up a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It is his speculation that in each day of creation time was "halved". That would mean that the first day was 8 billion years and the next day 4 billion years and so on. Amazingly, the time line matches such evolutionary dates as the Cambrian explosion matching day 5 when God made the creatures in the sea etc.
[b]================================
Likewise with the age of the earth, we have a lot of information that gives us a pretty good idea - it may not be exact to the minute or day, but it's much more correct than 6000 years or 15 minutes.
=====================================
I think it is older than 6,000 typical years or 15 minutes.
But th to hear the entire lecture. Check him out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sicqKbFhcq8[/b]
Of course, his anyone can try to force modern science to fit the Genesis. One of his most compelling arguments is showing ancient rabbis translated the Torah to mean that creation was much, much longer than 6 days as we know them today. They did so soley on their expertise in the Hebrew language as well as passed down teachings.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyOf course it is tautological that the big bang had to be just right (for the whole universe to exist) or the whole universe would not exist.
Everything was laid out before the Big Bang. Google "fine tuning the univeres" to see what I mean. The bang had to be just right or the whole universe would not exist.
As for the age of the universe and the earth, I don't dispute the scientific findings nor the veracity of the Bible, rather, I dispute the interpretations of Genesis in regards to young earth creationists.
But if you mean the BB had to be just right for life to exist or the whole universe would not exist, I think that proposition needs examination. For example a universe conceivably might exist between a BB and a big crunch, but not long enough for life to arise.
This depends also on whether a universe is said to cease to exist at the big crunch or other ultimate fate of that particular universe.
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357A "Big Bang" could not have created the universe. There was sound
Of course it is tautological that the big bang had to be just right (for the whole universe to exist) or the whole universe would not exist.
But if you mean the BB had to be just right for life to exist or the whole universe would not exist, I think that proposition needs examination. For example a universe conceivably might exist between a BB and a big cr ...[text shortened]... is said to cease to exist at the big crunch or other ultimate fate of that particular universe.
involved in the creation of the universe alright; but it was the sound from
the voice of God calling it into existence. It was controlled sound from
the voice of God that created an orderly universe that had a place in it
to support life. God spoke everything He created into existence.