Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[buffalo]

The flood story does not say all life was killed.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Well if we’re going by the flood story in the Bible I can simply point out that no humans were around 65 million years ago. You also need a plausible mechanism as to why massive amounts of water were appearing everywhere.

great, no problem.
about the age thing, i also might point out that humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that we use analogies. as the Lord was also a man speaking to men he could easily, if he wished, have used an analogy to explain things which would later in human history become relevant. so he might use a real character called noah in his analogy of a global flood. the ‘global flood’ being a more or less generalized account of one particular significant event in earths history.
equally some might argue that radioactive decay rates of an atom are impossible to predict. a radioactive atom might decay in 1 second or it might take 100 years or mor, or anything. and this is the basis used for calculating the age of rocks.

You also need a plausible mechanism as to why massive amounts of water were appearing everywhere.

well thats easy too. water was not appearing everywhere. the water was always there in the oceans. to flood a continent you don’t just create new water you just sink or move the continent. and don’t tell me thats impossible.
to flood a globe you just move the continents around in whatever sequence they want and their movement over the oceans thin crust will cause the continent to ride up on the ocean crust on one end of the continent and conversely to sink beneath the sea on the other end of the continent. when the continent grinds to a halt the opposite happens. the sunken end floats back up from the dense crust and causes the opposite higher end of the continent to sink. this see-sawing action can continue for as long as it wants to causing repeated and recurrent inundations of the sea across the continent.
and it does not have to be a high flood.
to destruct test this theory you can find the habitats of the dinosaurs. if it is lowland then they died in a sudden incursion of the sea. if the dinosaurs lived in the mountain tops then you cause problems for the theory. see, its a simple system. you find the facts and the facts either support or destroy or are inconclusive.

you can fit the scenario above to the previous post about the extinction event. the continent started to sink. so here are our plausible mechanisms. can we test them. what would we find if they were true.

-the large dinosaurs living in the lowland swamps could not move faster than the water was rising (A)

-the large dinosaurs living in the lowland swamps could move faster than the water was rising but were trapped in valleys by the rising water and their size and weight [over 50kg] made it impossible for them to climb the slopes to safety.(B)

-the large dinosaurs living in the lowland swamps could move faster than the water was rising but because the continent was sinking as a result of the continent moving there was a massive shaking of the continent, like an earthquake, which liquified the soil and trapped all animals over 50kg. the lighter animals could run without sinking.(C)

 

[buffalo]

If the earth were made level the world would be covered by over 7000 feet of water. There is definitely enough water.

 

[Gricken]

equally some might argue that radioactive decay rates of an atom are impossible to predict. a radioactive atom might decay in 1 second or it might take 100 years or mor, or anything. and this is the basis used for calculating the age of rocks.
(C)

Quick search on google shows that we do in fact have ways to calcuate the rare of radioactive decay. I believe it’s called the Isochron method.

 

[edwest2]

Quick search on google shows that we do in fact have ways to calcuate the rare of radioactive decay. I believe it’s called the Isochron method.

When did the first radioactive materials form on earth?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gricken]

When did the first radioactive materials form on earth?

Peace,
Ed

No idea. Not something I study. Does it matter? I would assume around the same time the universe formed.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Quick search on google shows that we do in fact have ways to calcuate the rare of radioactive decay. I believe it’s called the Isochron method.

it looks to me like it has the same problem. an atom decays but when the atom decays cannot be predicted.

"Can you predict when a specific atom will decay?
Answer:
No. The time it will take for an individual unstable atom to decay is completely random and impossible to predict. "

 

[buffalo]

Quick search on google shows that we do in fact have ways to calcuate the rare of radioactive decay. I believe it’s called the Isochron method.

and recently we have learned that radioactive decay rates vary.

 

[bsroufek]

Every time the Church canonizes a saint, she chooses to do so when Science cannot explain
a (therefore miraculous) healing. That you cannot believe that the Flood happened because
“there wasn’t enough water” is very sad.

From Genesis Ch 7. “The flood continued upon the earth for forty days. … Higher and higher on the earth the waters swelled, until all the highest mountains under the heavens were submerged. The waters swelled fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains. All creatures that moved on the earth perished.”

From Genesis Ch 8. “The fountains of the abyss and the floodgates of the sky were closed.” So, there was water besides that which is in the ocean, as I can see it.

So, all creatures on the earth died and “all the highest mountains” were submerged.

I don’t believe there is any room here to say that the flood was only a local flood, but a world
wide flood.

 

[Gricken]

Every time the Church canonizes a saint, she chooses to do so when Science cannot explain
a (therefore miraculous) healing. That you cannot believe that the Flood happened because
“there wasn’t enough water” is very sad.

From Genesis Ch 7. “The flood continued upon the earth for forty days. … Higher and higher on the earth the waters swelled, until all the highest mountains under the heavens were submerged. The waters swelled fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains. All creatures that moved on the earth perished.”

From Genesis Ch 8. “The fountains of the abyss and the floodgates of the sky were closed.” So, there was water besides that which is in the ocean, as I can see it.

So, all creatures on the earth died and “all the highest mountains” were submerged.

I don’t believe there is any room here to say that the flood was only a local flood, but a world
wide flood.

When the church canonizes a saint a very thorough examination is done. When someone has a legitmate question, one can not just answer by saying “God did it” correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t that lead to the God of Gaps fallacy?

 

[bsroufek]

When the church canonizes a saint a very thorough examination is done. When someone has a legitmate question, one can not just answer by saying “God did it” correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t that lead to the God of Gaps fallacy?

Yes, a very thorough examination is done and, therefore, the argument from ignorance does not apply. But, the Church calls it a miracle (as I understand it) when medical science
can’t explain it. This may be a theological argument but it is not done in ignorance and it is
truth as best we know it, which is as much truth as God can require of us, which is the best
we can do, which is enough, I believe.

 

[bsroufek]

Yes, a very thorough examination is done and, therefore, the argument from ignorance does not apply. But, the Church calls it a miracle (as I understand it) when medical science
can’t explain it. This may be a theological argument but it is not done in ignorance and it is
truth as best we know it, which is as much truth as God can require of us, which is the best
we can do, which is enough, I believe.

I don’t believe in the God of Gaps theory because it basically says that, if it can’t be explained by science, then it didn’t happen. I believe in God’s omnipotent intervention (miracles) in the word/universe.

 

[bsroufek]

I don’t believe in the God of Gaps theory because it basically says that, if it can’t be explained by science, then it didn’t happen. I believe in God’s omnipotent intervention (miracles) in the word/universe.

What the God of the gaps theory actually says is that, if we can’t explain it by science, then we shouldn’t say it’s God. This is very wrong and deifies science.

 

[Harry1941]

Hi everyone, there has been a question that has been on my mind for awhile now and I was hoping if anyone could help me. For the past few months I have been reading the scripture more but one day this question popped into my mind and that is, “Just how old is the universe?” I still haven’t been able to completely understand that question or its answers. So if anyone could shed some light it would be much appreciated.
\
Thanks you all in advance!

A new earth, signifies a New Church, The earth means church because there is where the Holy Word of God is. The old earth will be gone, and a new one will take its place. Meaning a New Church.

Harry:wave:.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe in the God of Gaps theory because it basically says that, if it can’t be explained by science, then it didn’t happen. I believe in God’s omnipotent intervention (miracles) in the word/universe.

One must consider that there will always be at least one gap or by definition we would be God. Taking that as a starting point humans must realize we cannot know everything, there will always be gaps.

I submit that as we explore both biology and the universe the gaps are actually getting larger.

 

[Monkey1976]

Carbon dating. Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with the mistakes and spurious assumptions this paper, but I’ll try:

 First, the assumption that a single result from a single measurement overturns all others. If I measure a given volume of water five different ways, and get measurements of 1.0l, .99l, 1.02l, .89l, and 40ml, the author's assumption would have me throw out the measurements that agree - those near 1l - and treat only the 40ml measurement as accurate. To me, this shows a reversal of normal investigative and experimental procedure: The author is looking for a date of less than ~65Myr for the samples in question, so he discards all measurements that don't agree with his preconception. A proper scientist would look at the measurements and discard the outlier as an error, just like in my water measurements above.

 Second, the idea that C14 dating can even return valid results in samples older than 50Kyr. His "rebuttal" makes the assumption that the returned date is valid, but the entire point is that if one does get a result from a sample older than 50Kyr, that result cannot be trusted. Again, if multiple other methods give results that agree within their margins of error, then the outlier must be discarded as an error. If 10 people describe the perpetrator of a crime as a white male over 6 feet tall and one other person says it was a black female dwarf under 4 feet tall, the outlying "measurement" must - assuming everyone is telling the truth to the best of their ability - be discarded.

 Third, the fact that, except in exceptionally rare cases, dinosaur "bones" are not actual bone at all. When a fossil forms (and this is part of the reason why they are so rare), the organic material is slowly replaced by minerals, and it is these minerals which are the fossils. The bones themselves have (again, in the vast majority of cases) long since gone to dust or dissolved.

 God gave us a universe filled with wonder and the intellect to understand some portion of how He created and sustains it. God says, "Fiat lux", and we observe the echoes of the Big Bang. God says, "Let Us make man in Our image", and we see the progression of life on earth from single-cell algae to humankind across the span of billions of years. science and Scripture are not enemies, and they do not contradict each other - viewing each through the lens of the other gives us (in my humble opinion)  an even more complete picture of God's Glory and Might.

 For the ancient Greeks, lightning was simply the arrows of Zeus. Today, we know that it is the result of billions of subatomic particles simply seeking their base energy state. As Catholics, we can see God's divine power in the ordering of His creation through the fact that we can understand what the lightning is, and marvel at how His power can be shown so spectacularly by the action of some of the smallest particles in existence.

 We cannot read Genesis in a vacuum. Look at the first chapter of St. John's Gospel - it's another creation account. If we were to read it in the way that several people insist we must read Genesis, then absolutely nothing happens between the creation of man and the emergence of St. John the Baptist as a Prophet. Knowing what happens in between these events doesn't make it false, it simply completes the picture presented by that chapter - a picture necessarily limited because of the tight focus on the Word and His Incarnation.

 

[edwest2]

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with the mistakes and spurious assumptions this paper, but I’ll try:

 First, the assumption that a single result from a single measurement overturns all others. If I measure a given volume of water five different ways, and get measurements of 1.0l, .99l, 1.02l, .89l, and 40ml, the author's assumption would have me throw out the measurements that agree - those near 1l - and treat only the 40ml measurement as accurate. To me, this shows a reversal of normal investigative and experimental procedure: The author is looking for a date of less than ~65Myr for the samples in question, so he discards all measurements that don't agree with his preconception. A proper scientist would look at the measurements and discard the outlier as an error, just like in my water measurements above.

 Second, the idea that C14 dating can even return valid results in samples older than 50Kyr. His "rebuttal" makes the assumption that the returned date is valid, but the entire point is that if one does get a result from a sample older than 50Kyr, that result cannot be trusted. Again, if multiple other methods give results that agree within their margins of error, then the outlier must be discarded as an error. If 10 people describe the perpetrator of a crime as a white male over 6 feet tall and one other person says it was a black female dwarf under 4 feet tall, the outlying "measurement" must - assuming everyone is telling the truth to the best of their ability - be discarded.

 Third, the fact that, except in exceptionally rare cases, dinosaur "bones" are not actual bone at all. When a fossil forms (and this is part of the reason why they are so rare), the organic material is slowly replaced by minerals, and it is these minerals which are the fossils. The bones themselves have (again, in the vast majority of cases) long since gone to dust or dissolved.

 God gave us a universe filled with wonder and the intellect to understand some portion of how He created and sustains it. God says, "Fiat lux", and we observe the echoes of the Big Bang. God says, "Let Us make man in Our image", and we see the progression of life on earth from single-cell algae to humankind across the span of billions of years. science and Scripture are not enemies, and they do not contradict each other - viewing each through the lens of the other gives us (in my humble opinion)  an even more complete picture of God's Glory and Might.

 For the ancient Greeks, lightning was simply the arrows of Zeus. Today, we know that it is the result of billions of subatomic particles simply seeking their base energy state. As Catholics, we can see God's divine power in the ordering of His creation through the fact that we can understand what the lightning is, and marvel at how His power can be shown so spectacularly by the action of some of the smallest particles in existence.

 We cannot read Genesis in a vacuum. Look at the first chapter of St. John's Gospel - it's another creation account. If we were to read it in the way that several people insist we must read Genesis, then absolutely nothing happens between the creation of man and the emergence of St. John the Baptist as a Prophet. Knowing what happens in between these events doesn't make it false, it simply completes the picture presented by that chapter - a picture necessarily limited because of the tight focus on the Word and His Incarnation.

I see nothing scientific about any of this as it regards Genesis. All I see are people posting endlessly about what science “we must” believe. And so it will continue here. The goal? Full compliance regarding a subject science cannot study, namely, God and what God can do. But that will continue to be ignored as well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with the mistakes and spurious assumptions this paper, but I’ll try:

 First, the assumption that a single result from a single measurement overturns all others. If I measure a given volume of water five different ways, and get measurements of 1.0l, .99l, 1.02l, .89l, and 40ml, the author's assumption would have me throw out the measurements that agree - those near 1l - and treat only the 40ml measurement as accurate. To me, this shows a reversal of normal investigative and experimental procedure: The author is looking for a date of less than ~65Myr for the samples in question, so he discards all measurements that don't agree with his preconception. A proper scientist would look at the measurements and discard the outlier as an error, just like in my water measurements above.

 Second, the idea that C14 dating can even return valid results in samples older than 50Kyr. His "rebuttal" makes the assumption that the returned date is valid, but the entire point is that if one does get a result from a sample older than 50Kyr, that result cannot be trusted. Again, if multiple other methods give results that agree within their margins of error, then the outlier must be discarded as an error. If 10 people describe the perpetrator of a crime as a white male over 6 feet tall and one other person says it was a black female dwarf under 4 feet tall, the outlying "measurement" must - assuming everyone is telling the truth to the best of their ability - be discarded.

 Third, the fact that, except in exceptionally rare cases, dinosaur "bones" are not actual bone at all. When a fossil forms (and this is part of the reason why they are so rare), the organic material is slowly replaced by minerals, and it is these minerals which are the fossils. The bones themselves have (again, in the vast majority of cases) long since gone to dust or dissolved.

 God gave us a universe filled with wonder and the intellect to understand some portion of how He created and sustains it. God says, "Fiat lux", and we observe the echoes of the Big Bang. God says, "Let Us make man in Our image", and we see the progression of life on earth from single-cell algae to humankind across the span of billions of years. science and Scripture are not enemies, and they do not contradict each other - viewing each through the lens of the other gives us (in my humble opinion)  an even more complete picture of God's Glory and Might.

 For the ancient Greeks, lightning was simply the arrows of Zeus. Today, we know that it is the result of billions of subatomic particles simply seeking their base energy state. As Catholics, we can see God's divine power in the ordering of His creation through the fact that we can understand what the lightning is, and marvel at how His power can be shown so spectacularly by the action of some of the smallest particles in existence.

 We cannot read Genesis in a vacuum. Look at the first chapter of St. John's Gospel - it's another creation account. If we were to read it in the way that several people insist we must read Genesis, then absolutely nothing happens between the creation of man and the emergence of St. John the Baptist as a Prophet. Knowing what happens in between these events doesn't make it false, it simply completes the picture presented by that chapter - a picture necessarily limited because of the tight focus on the Word and His Incarnation.

I f a person weighs 50 lbs and the scale capacity is 200lbs then the 50 lb reading would be accurate within the scale. Now if your base assumption is that very same person has to weigh 500lbs then you cannot believe the scale and you would call it ridiculous.

Have you been keeping up to date with the increasing number of soft tissue finds for dino’s and others?

It is now incumbent on the scientists who assume that the dino’s went extinct 70 millions years ago to show how soft tissue can last that long. My own opinion is it is a losing battle as there are several papers out that claim they cannot last anywhere near that long.

So yes, science is provisional and when these carbon date ages keep repeating then the prior science must be reconsidered.

And you are correct. Faith and science cannot be opposed. The weakness is our limited human capacity to reason and our limited reasoning skills.

If you see only left footprints on the beach for as far as you can see, what should you conclude?

Recently Mt St Helens rocks known to be 10 years old were dated at 360000 years by Pot Ar.

 

[buffalo]

The findings: Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=15382

 

[buffalo]

Carbon-14 Dating Dinosaur Bones