A
AlbertBall
Guest
Now we’re talking!!! haha and this is like secondary stuff, explain diffusion?
Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?
- Status
S
spn82756
Guest
Wow…I guess since my degree is in atmospheric physics I am disqualified. Perhaps I can get someone else who meets your qualifications.
And your qualifications? Aside from snottery 101.
T
twinc
Guest
I wish you would stop relying on your own individual grasp and rely instead on the grasp and constant and consistent and updated study and conclusions of experts and specialists as I do.CRS stated that since the discovery of radiocarbon dating by Libby over 91 Universities and laboratories in 25 different countries have dated over 15,000 independent specimens of once living matter.Almost every imaginable form of life both recent and ancient was represented,gathered from every corner of the globe,including "prehistoric man,a wide range of fossil fauna and flora,and even coal,petroleum and natural gas.The results it seems was astounding and yet it seems neither you nor we know of these results[The Great Brain Robbery] - more later - twincWill you go away and learn some science please. While you are about it you should also learn that you need to provide references in the scientific literature to support what you are saying. You are badly out of your depth here.
Start by reading Penzias, A.A.; Wilson, R.W. (1965). “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s”. Astrophysical Journal 142: 419–421.
Currently your arguments are about as effective as saying “Christians are cannibals who kill children and abort babies” without providing any support for those statements. In other words your arguments are completely ineffective.
rossum
P.S. John 6:53, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Hosea 13:16
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Haha
. Post of the month!!!
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You HAVE to be kidding???
G
geometer
Guest
Helium diffusion
He is some BS about diffusion. The king has no clothes…
Where is the nearest source of uranium in relation to this solar system?
Anyone would tell you that it is pretty darn far away. How did it get into the earth undecayed?
It must have taken quite some time for radioactive isotopes to travel here from where they were created. Why are they still radioactive after all this time?
He is some BS about diffusion. The king has no clothes…
Where is the nearest source of uranium in relation to this solar system?
Anyone would tell you that it is pretty darn far away. How did it get into the earth undecayed?
It must have taken quite some time for radioactive isotopes to travel here from where they were created. Why are they still radioactive after all this time?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You have just got a big fat FAIL at something i would expect a 12 year old to pass.
G
geometer
Guest
Don’t be such a jerk. Answer my question.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Albert: this is a bit late, but…
The human race did not begin until God created the first human soul. If THEISTIC evolution
is true (and I
to him biologically (and I can live with that as well). THE VITAL DIFFERENCE IS HIS
IMMORTAL SOUL, THE SEAT OF THE INTELLECT AND THE WILL. That`s what separ-
ates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
We don`t know when the first ensoulment happened.
Where
to Salvation History, though, it
I`m NOT a fundamentalist!!! Sorry for shouting.
The human race did not begin until God created the first human soul. If THEISTIC evolution
is true (and I
m not bothered if it is), Mans immediate ancestor could very well be identicalto him biologically (and I can live with that as well). THE VITAL DIFFERENCE IS HIS
IMMORTAL SOUL, THE SEAT OF THE INTELLECT AND THE WILL. That`s what separ-
ates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
We don`t know when the first ensoulment happened.
Where
s the contradiction in Post #33? Do you mean caveman evidence...or what? My belief in the young human race is not some dogma set in granite, but I still have a problem with the idea that our FIRST PARENTS, the first members of our race, turned up tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years ago. If they did turn up millions of years ago, then so be it. I wont be losing any sleep over that one, either. With regardto Salvation History, though, it
s just a wee bit troubling. Denying the Fall and Original Sin is not on either (just a general statement; Im not referring to you).I`m NOT a fundamentalist!!! Sorry for shouting.
T
twinc
Guest
These astonishing results appeared in 1970 in the CRS Quarterly of June 1970 - twinc
L
LindaSK
Guest
The question of the age of the universe is irrelevant to the task of religion
The technical scientific arm of this debate is beyond my reach! Yes, it’s an old line, but my arms are too short to box with God. I won’t box with you science dudes, either! In my humble opinion, based on the evidence I have come to accept as most reasonable, the world is billions rather than thousands of years old. And the debate will go on.
But, I digress. The Bible is first and foremost a book of salvation, not a science or history text. We were created to love and serve God so that we can spend eternity with Him. This is the ‘task’ of religion as I see it. What anyone believes to be the age of the Earth will not be a factor in his salvation. I greatly respect the knowledge we have been given to carry on this and other debates. People are set aside from other creatures by our capacity to reason. I find this topic fascinating. As my priest cautions me, though, when I ask certain theological questions, “Is this essential for your salvation?” Just because we exercise our natural curiosity to search for Truth and to find definitive answers doesn’t mean that either the question or its answer is a factor in our salvation or an eventual eternity spent with God.
Yes?
S
spn82756
Guest
Howdy geometer…I took your advice. Now here’s a chance for you to learn.
talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
M
Michael_Saint
Guest
The OP asks why fundamentalists believe the world is 6000 to 10,000 years old. My answer is that fundamentalists aren’t the only ones who believe this - I am a Catholic, and I believe this too.
The “science” of evolution is not so cut and dried as the scientists would have us believe. The problem is that many of them are atheists, and thus, by default, they must go with evolution, because that is their only option. There is no way for them to explain a 6,000 year old earth apart from the work of an intelligent “Higher Power”. There are a few “theistic” scientists who do make a case for a young earth based on the scientific evidence (remember, they both look at the same evidence - they just “interpret” it differently). However, they are criticized by the scientific establishment as being too unscientific. Then again, it often takes one to know one . . .
However, I think where the fundamentalists go wrong is that they are not even open to the possibility that the world is 5 billion years old, and that evolution is a correct theory. As for me, I believe the world is quite young, but I also realize the theory of evolution might be correct, and thus I might be wrong about the age of the earth. In the end, I don’t really care which it is: God created it, and if we are the result of evolution, I would actually find this more fascinating and awesome than a six-day creation.
The “science” of evolution is not so cut and dried as the scientists would have us believe. The problem is that many of them are atheists, and thus, by default, they must go with evolution, because that is their only option. There is no way for them to explain a 6,000 year old earth apart from the work of an intelligent “Higher Power”. There are a few “theistic” scientists who do make a case for a young earth based on the scientific evidence (remember, they both look at the same evidence - they just “interpret” it differently). However, they are criticized by the scientific establishment as being too unscientific. Then again, it often takes one to know one . . .
However, I think where the fundamentalists go wrong is that they are not even open to the possibility that the world is 5 billion years old, and that evolution is a correct theory. As for me, I believe the world is quite young, but I also realize the theory of evolution might be correct, and thus I might be wrong about the age of the earth. In the end, I don’t really care which it is: God created it, and if we are the result of evolution, I would actually find this more fascinating and awesome than a six-day creation.
R
rossum
Guest
Go and look up “alpha particle”. Now go and look up “alpha decay”. Now go and look up which radionuclides found in rocks exhibit alpha decay at some point in their decay sequences.
What do you get when an alpha particle meets a couple of electrons?
Did your creationist sources explain any of that to you?
If you can not understand something as simple as radiogenic helium, why bother discussing scientific matters?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
So, what were these results? Give us a few. What animals were dated? What were the carbon date? Where were these results published? Details, details, details. We need to see the details. You should have worked out by now that we will not just take your word for it - what results and what are the original sources? You will find the original sources in the scientific literature listed in the “References” section of the CRS article.
Sight unseen I will venture to predict that the majority of the animals involved are marine - seals, fish, molluscs etc.
rossum
C
cassini
Guest
spn, If the SSPX have one weakness it is their hypocracy in regard to their patron’s Pascendi which spells out EVOLUTION is the major cause of MODERNISM. They should be in the forefront of Catholic objection to evolutionism but they do not seem to see the core cause of their existence. I clicked on your recommended site but met a mountain of info. Can you please single out where you saw their position regarding ‘the possibility of theistic evolution’? I just want to see it for myself, thanks.
C
cassini
Guest
Hi Linda, i pick your post to make my point again. Take a look at the scientific exchanges on this thread. Both sides have their own ‘evidence’. In other words rocks, chemicals and gases can be interpreted to convince both sides that science can provide the TRUTH in this debate. Obviously it cannot.
Now who told you
**‘The Bible is first and foremost a book of salvation, not a science or history text.’ **
Is this a teaching of the Church or did you just make it up because it sounds good or what? But don’t bother to tell me because I know whose teaching it is, Cardinal Baronious, a Copernican, and it was invented by him as an argument in the hope the Church would concede to a scientific hypothesis in its hermeneutics. In other words, while it sounds like some Church teaching it is in fact now a heretical teaching because it suggests the Bible could deceive when it comes to matters of science and history…
Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture: Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, says:
‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase –and indeed every word of Scripture– yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration –namely, absolute truth and immunity from error- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest –things concerning “profane knowledge”, the garments in which the Divine truth is presented- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.’
A
AlbertBall
Guest
The contradiction is in saying “Any branch of TRUE science is the same, including geology. The knowledge has been hard won.” while going along with a 10000 year old earth. Science clearly shows the age of the earth is around 4.54 billion years old.
Also as a student of science i cannot accept claims of a soul without evidence.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
To be fair we are all waiting for you to present even one universally accepted scientific dating method that shows the earth to be anything other than billions of years old.
T
twinc
Guest
exactly where and when has science clearly shown the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years old - twinc
- Status