The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But C-14 dating of the fossils from dinosaurs to diamonds suggest …
Click to expand...
Suggests that they don’t have a clue about C-14 dating, which is only reliable to about 60,000 years, not millions or billions of years.
 
hugh_miller said:
dent committee to determine why such a study has not been forthcoming. The results of such a study could help give a rough estimate of what might constitute “real ages” thus eliminating the confusion on origins caused by PAS ignoring the vast number of anomalies that deviate from the so-called Main Stream scientific paradigm of origins – descent from a common ancestor.
Click to expand...
Hugh, it couldn’t hurt to do this. The pope and the scientists might turn down the proposed project, but electrons are cheap.

StAnastasia
 
gentle_atheist said:
This is way too harsh. What you call “mindless biblical literalism” is, in fact, an honest, straightforward reading of the Bible. You refuse to admit the dichotomy between science and the Bible. YECs have the courage to say that the science is wrong. Do you have the courage to say that the Bible is wrong?
Click to expand...
What is “an honest, straightforward reading of the bible”? Whose reading? According to what hermeneutical principles?
 
itinerant1 said:
Why that is just what Darwin did – denigrate human reason when he claimed the mind of man differs “in degree only” from the mind of anthropoid apes.
Click to expand...
How does it denigrate human reason? Does it denigrate an ape’s mind to say it differs from that of a snail “in degree only”?

(Itinerant1, I may not be able to reply tp you for two days, as I’m leaving town to deliver a sermon tomorrow in a rural area that enjoys no Internet access.)

StAnastasia
 
itinerant1 said:
Which design argument? Paley’s, Aristotle’s, Behe’s, Alfred E. Neuman’s, Aquinas’, St. Paul’s?

What does “design” have to do with the dubious claim that the earth is mere 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...
If one chooses to discuss dubious claims, my humble suggestion is to check the wording of various statements made on the behalf of various positions.

It seems to me, that the key claim should not be which design. Neither should the key claim be age. The key claim should stand on the word is, Is meaning is.🙂
**
The earth is designed.
**
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
The estimated margin of error for the age of the earth is aprox 1%…less than 50,000 years. Not billions of years. Good grief. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Speaking of time, I learned just yesterday that a rogue “orange dwarf star” is on collision course with our solar system. It would be fascinating to see, but I’m sort of glad I won’t be around…
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
Suggests that they don’t have a clue about C-14 dating, which is only reliable to about 60,000 years, not millions or billions of years.
Click to expand...
And that would only happen if the rate of decay of carbon-14 would have remained constant over the years. They assume that it remained constant but they don’t know. So one more reason why C-14 isn’t accurate in determining the correct age.
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
Suggests that they don’t have a clue about C-14 dating, which is only reliable to about 60,000 years, not millions or billions of years.
Click to expand...
Come on now. Please try hard and get the message. Finding ANY C-14 content in dinosaur bone collagen and calcium carbonate to C-14 content in diamonds that are 99% carbon means that those millions and billions of year simply do NOT exist.

It also means that there is something radically wrong with the long ages for Lyellian 19th century assumptions regarding the ages of the sedimentary rock strata and radioactive decay methods NOT those who tested dinosaurs and diamond for C-14 content and obtailned dates in the 1000’s of years. Somehow, some folks on the thread have a mental blockage to accepting simple scientific facts.

The prodigious National Research Council of Italy reviewed the research paper on C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and published it. Are you suggesting that their scientists are nerds? Myabe it is the PAS who are nerdy for ignoring such data. Why is it so difficult to grasp the significance of this research? 🤷
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
And, you’re getting that from where? Your Sunday School teacher? Your Pastor? Your Priest? Whoever is filling your head with this nonsense is lying to you. At best, they’re extremely ignorant on the subject. Either way, its not very good.

The estimated margin of error for the age of the earth is aprox 1%…less than 50,000 years. Not billions of years. Good grief. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Moro, see my post just above this one for the relative margins of error for the various radiometric dating methods.
 
Cristian_B said:
And that would only happen if the rate of decay of carbon-14 would have remained constant over the years. They assume that it remained constant but they don’t know. So one more reason why C-14 isn’t accurate in determining the correct age.
Click to expand...
Scientists do not assume unless they absolutely have to. Decay rates have been checked using astronomical data from distant stars. We know that decay rates have been constant for at least 160,000 years from measurements of SN1987A. There is further indication, from measurements of the Fine Structure Constant, that decay rates have been the same for the last 12 billion years.

There are no assumptions, there are only measurements. Decay rates have been measured as constant to well beyond the 6,000 year horizon allowed by a young earth.

Your creationist sources are misinforming you about the relevant scientific results.

rossum
 
hugh_miller said:
Come on now. Please try hard and get the message. Finding ANY C-14 content in dinosaur bone collagen and calcium carbonate to C-14 content in diamonds that are 99% carbon means that those millions and billions of year simply do NOT exist.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. If the carbon is near to a radioactive mineral, say one containing Uranium, then neutrons emitted by the decaying Uranium can change Carbon atoms from normal to radioactive. This can result in the production of new radioactive Carbon many millions of years after all the original Carbon has decayed.

Sample contamination and the limits of accuracy of the measuring equipment can also be an issue.

rossum
 
itinerant1 said:
And theists. The method of the natural sciences is called methodological naturalism. When science stays within its proper domain, it should make no difference what one’s personal beliefs are. An atheist or Hindu looking through a VLT sees the same stars as do Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican Observatory. Or, do you think Church sponsored observatories see only Catholic stars and planets, while secular sponsored observatories see only godless celestial bodies?

Only science should decide on the age of the earth because that is a proper object of study for the natural sciences. Revelation has said nothing to say about the age of the earth. God left these things for the mind of man to discover.

Creationists’ attacks on science denigrate the human mind and the various God-given gifts of science.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The PAS certainly comprises people of various worldviews and religious beliefs. To claim that “PAS is biased with an a priori worldview” makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain yourself.

The anti-scientific stance of YECs precludes them from properly judging science or the Church’s attitude toward science. Of these facts, I have no doubt…

You have demonstrated in these threads that you are immune to scientific evidence.

Which design argument? Paley’s, Aristotle’s, Behe’s, Alfred E. Neuman’s, Aquinas’, St. Paul’s?

What does “design” have to do with the dubious claim that the earth is mere 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...
The issue is science does not stay in its empirical domain. It moves into philosophy all the time.

Well now - you bring up an interesting question. When one stands at the edge of a pond - what determines whether the photon reflects off the the surface or off the bottom?

Revelation can say nothing about the age of the earth? Bogus! Bogus! Bogus! Science is a subset of all truth. It can contribute to knowledge, but does not dictate it.

How do you know God left the age of the earth for us to discover. Did He tell you this?
You have made a huge leap here without foundation. I would like you to share with us here all the other presumptions about God’s plan. Are you a mystic?

Creationists (include all Catholics by definition) do not attack science. They attack the a priori reasoning of methodological naturalists. They demand that science be done in a pure matter and the observations properly reasoned.

Why is it only the science you present is valid? What about peer-reviewed papers that hold an opposite view. You seem to be immune to these.

Which ID? Catholics know the world to be intelligible. That is why science can even be pursued. Otherwise we would be trying to study chaos and randomness. From this we know there is an supreme intelligence. Your claim is that we have no way to discern the design we know exists?
 
StAnastasia said:
What is “an honest, straightforward reading of the bible”? Whose reading? According to what hermeneutical principles?
Click to expand...
The Bible did not just drop out of the sky in 2010. We do not study the Bible as it did. It is essential to understand the constant teaching and understanding of Scripture. That is what I argue consistently.
 
StAnastasia said:
What is “an honest, straightforward reading of the bible”? Whose reading? According to what hermeneutical principles?
Click to expand...
buffalo said:
The Bible did not just drop out of the sky in 2010. We do not study the Bible as it did. It is essential to understand the constant teaching and understanding of Scripture. That is what I argue consistently.
Click to expand...
sarcasm mode = on:

Yes, but did all those Church Fathers have PhD’s? From reputable universities (i.e. ones that taught in random mutations…etc,)? What other “credentials” did they have, hmm? Were they smart enough to believe that females should be ordained to the priesthood, and write using gender inclusive language? Were their writings peer reviewed by the right committees (see above) in the correct universities?

Surely you don’t expect us to believe the biblical analysis of folks who, although much closer in time and culture to the actual authors of the bible, were so ignorant of the Truths of Science that they thought the Sun circled the Earth? Surely you jest.

sarcasm mode = off:
 
ricmat said:
sarcasm mode = on:

Yes, but did all those Church Fathers have PhD’s? From reputable universities (i.e. ones that taught in random mutations…etc,)? What other “credentials” did they have, hmm? Were they smart enough to believe that females should be ordained to the priesthood, and write using gender inclusive language? Were their writings peer reviewed by the right committees (see above) in the correct universities?

Surely you don’t expect us to believe the biblical analysis of folks who, although much closer in time and culture to the actual authors of the bible, were so ignorant of the Truths of Science that they thought the Sun circled the Earth? Surely you jest.

sarcasm mode = off:
Click to expand...
You must be taking lessons from StA. 😃 You must have cobbled together her posts.😉

I know - I apologize…We are so much more evolved.

sarcasm=off

I believe our abilities to interface with the supernatural are deteriorating over time.
 
rossum said:
Scientists do not assume unless they absolutely have to. Decay rates have been checked using astronomical data from distant stars. We know that decay rates have been constant for at least 160,000 years from measurements of SN1987A. There is further indication, from measurements of the Fine Structure Constant, that decay rates have been the same for the last 12 billion years.

There are no assumptions, there are only measurements. Decay rates have been measured as constant to well beyond the 6,000 year horizon allowed by a young earth.

Your creationist sources are misinforming you about the relevant scientific results.

rossum
Click to expand...

The problem is in the condition of the atmosphere, not in the cosmic radiation that comes from stars. The question is: has the ratio of C-14 to C-12 ever changed from what it is today?

It is a faulty assumption to believe that the rate of C-14 formation has remained constant over the years, and I believe you know that.

​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top