Young Earth v. Old Earth

[brierpatch1974]

Yes:

http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/mcfaddenhorsephylo2005.jpg
Image from laelaps.wordpress.com/category/evolution/

Basically horses did most of their evolving in North America.

There is a more detailed look at the evolution of the horses at Horse Evolution.

rossum

Great chart but here is a question. We are taught in school and biology as well that horses are not native to north america. The chart would show them being here 3 to 5 million years ago. We are taught that horses come to america with Columbas and migrated from south america and up into north america.

 

[mapleoak]

For one thing, God would be showing us supernovae that never existed.

If one were to falsly interpret the light observed to mean that it had to originate from a supernovae when it didn’t, and say “since I can’t be wrong in my conclusion, God is therefore deceptive”.

So far, all the matter we find indicates an antecedent cause in nature.

So if all matter proceeds from an antecedent cause, this would have to go back infinitely from antecedent proceeding from antecedent cause. If the process started at some point (through creation) would it not ‘appear’ to have an antecedent cause, therefore someone may come to the wrong conclusion by observing it. God is not deceiving us any more than when He becomes Body and Blood under the ‘appearance’ of bread and wine. A scientist could observe the bread and wine would say “If this is Body and Blood, God has deceived us”.

 

[Orogeny]

Great chart but here is a question. We are taught in school and biology as well that horses are not native to north america. The chart would show them being here 3 to 5 million years ago. We are taught that horses come to america with Columbas and migrated from south america and up into north america.

Horses became extinct in the Americas and were re-introduced by europeans.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

THE AGE OF THE EARTH
United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Branch of Isotope Geology Menlo Park, California

The Earth is a constantly changing planet. Its crust is continually being created, modified, and destroyed. As a result, rocks that record its earliest history have not been found and probably no longer exist. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that the Earth and the other bodies of the Solar System are 4.5-4.6 billion years old, and that the Milky Way Galaxy and the Universe are older still. The principal evidence for the antiquity of Earth and its cosmic surroundings is:

1. The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia.
2. The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age.
3. The majority of the 70 well-dated meteorites have ages of 4.4-4.6 billion years. These meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids and represent some of the most primitive material in the solar system, have been dated by 5 independent radiometric dating methods.
4. The “best” age for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. this “model lead age” is 4.54 billion years.
5. The evidence for the antiquity of the Earth and Solar System is consistent with evidence for an even greater age for the Universe and Milky Way Galaxy. A) The age of the Universe can be estimated from the velocity and distance of galaxies as the universe expands. The estimates range from 7 to 20 billion years, depending on whether the expansion is constant or is slowing due to gravitational attraction. B) The age of the Galaxy is estimated to be 14-18 billion years from the rate of evolution of stars in globular clusters, which are thought to be the oldest stars in the Galaxy. The age of the elements in the Galaxy, based on the production ratios of osmium isotopes in supernovae and the change in that ratio over time due to radioactive decay, is 8.6-15.7billion years. Theoretical considerations indicate that the Galaxy formed within a billion years of the beginning of the Universe. C) Combining the data from A) and B), the “best, i.e., most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be 14-17 billion years. . . .”

wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnp…ageofearth.pdf
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.pdf

 

[rossum]

However, there is only one truth.

There may well be only one truth, but how do we decide between all of the differing versions of that one truth offered to us from various sources?

In order to decide between my local Rabbi, my local Pastor and my local Priest I need to be able to know which one is telling me the one truth, and which two are mistaken. All three are using the same (or similar) Revelation from the same God, so that does not help me a great deal. How do I decide?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

There may well be only one truth, but how do we decide between all of the differing versions of that one truth offered to us from various sources?

In order to decide between my local Rabbi, my local Pastor and my local Priest I need to be able to know which one is telling me the one truth, and which two are mistaken. All three are using the same (or similar) Revelation from the same God, so that does not help me a great deal. How do I decide?

rossum

It’s tough to do this alone. To do so you must study completely each tradition and be able to live the history. Since we cannot do this, we must trust the Magisterium.

 

[rossum]

It’s tough to do this alone. To do so you must study completely each tradition and be able to live the history. Since we cannot do this, we must trust the Magisterium.

Why “must”. I am Buddhist, not Catholic so I would be more likely to trust the Dalai Lama than the Pope.

The one truth is not of much use to me if there is no way to distinguish it from all the “almost truth” counterfeits of it that are floating around.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Why “must”. I am Buddhist, not Catholic so I would be more likely to trust the Dalai Lama than the Pope.

The one truth is not of much use to me if there is no way to distinguish it from all the “almost truth” counterfeits of it that are floating around.

rossum

Then it begs the question - why exactly do you trust the Dalai Lama more?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Last I heard, the speed of light has been test in a vacuum to be at least 300% faster than in Einstein’s time!

Barbarian asks:
That would be a universe-shaking finding. Do you have a source for that one?

Light has been both accelerated and decelerated.

But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

When it’s moving through matter. That is the basis for refraction, and the reason lenses work.

However, the speed of light in a vacuum (such as space) remains the same.

Scientists have known for a very long time that the speed of light in a medium is variable.

In everyday circumstances, an object cannot travel faster than light. The Princeton experiment and others change these circumstances by using devices such as the cesium chamber rather than a vacuum.

The relativistic effects for this particular phenomenon is not understood,but it doesn’t change c as a constant. If anyone can change the speed of light in a vacuum, then we’ve got something interesting.

 

[D_M]

Why “must”. I am Buddhist, not Catholic so I would be more likely to trust the Dalai Lama than the Pope.

The one truth is not of much use to me if there is no way to distinguish it from all the “almost truth” counterfeits of it that are floating around.

rossum

If you have faith in God, He will show you His Truth and help you distinguish between what He wants you to follow and what not.

He is the only One Truth. And all of us have a greater or lesser understanding of what His will is, or a greater or lesser degree of error in understanding His will as well.

Our faith and trust in God is the way in which we come to distinguish between true and false understanding of what He wills, for we know that if we seek Him, we will find Him and He will not let us be lost in ignorance,

So basically the answer to your point I think, is that this (faith in Him) is the manner by which a person comes to distinguish between the One Truth and all the other ‘truths’, that while sometimes coming close, are not the ‘One Truth’.

God’s will is that you should know and believe in His Son.

 

[onetimeposter]

Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Anyone who claims that the earth is 6000 year old…well that’s hysterical!

 

[onetimeposter]

Why “must”. I am Buddhist, not Catholic so I would be more likely to trust the Dalai Lama than the Pope.

Hey, I met the Dalai Lama…shook his hand and everything!!

 

[hecd2]

But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.

The relativistic effects for this particular phenomenon is not understood,but it doesn’t change c as a constant. If anyone can change the speed of light in a vacuum, then we’ve got something interesting.

There is nothing relativistic about this effect - it is all classical physics and the effect is based on the difference between the phase and group velocities of a polychromatic light wave train in a medium with anomalous dispersion. See my article here:

evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Humphreys%20article.htm

However, you are right about the constancy of the speed of light in vacuo.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

Since we cannot do this, we must trust the Magisterium

Then it begs the question - why exactly do you trust the Dalai Lama more?

And how is trusting the Magisterium NOT begging the question?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

And how is trusting the Magisterium NOT begging the question?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

A+++++++++++++

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Attention:

**Please remain on topic and avoid diverging into other peripheral ideas.

This thread will be closed if it digresses again from the factual discussion of “Young Earth v. Old Earth”.
MF*

 

[Mannyfit75]

Man might be only 6K yrs on the earth … history only goes back to 3-4 K BC.

Clearly the fossil record ‘suggests’ the earth itself is ancient. But, that is only what scientist perceive with dating techniques.

Could the earth of been created to only appear ancient ? Yes, but I doubt God would desire to deceive man.

So, we have an ancient earth … and a young mankind by comparision. Evolution alone cannot explain this enigma.

God expects scientist to see the limitations of their investigatory tools … and to see God’s hand in creation of ancient Universe.

Science seeks the truth and eventually, they will be lead to the truth. For we all know that God is the Truth for Jesus had said that he is the Truth. Fossil records revealed that man is not 6,000 yrs old. There have been fossil of homo-sapien that are between the ages of 100,000 to 500,000 yrs old. I don’t think God deceived mankind or scientist much.

God is not the deceiver, and there is only one deceiver, the Evil One; Satan. Though, I would not die for evolution but I find the scientific method ultimately leads to the truth.

For example, in modern astonomy in the 1950-60s, it was a common belief by the scientist that the universe did not have a beginning. It turns out that when certain astronomers discovered that the universe was expanding, and that radio signals from outer-space prove that afterglow of the Big-Bang that the universe in fact had a beginning, just as the Book of Genesis stated.

It will take science to find out what God had know since the dawn of time is true. I don’t take the literal creation account, but I understand that in Sacred Scripture numbers have a symbolic meaning. Just ast St. Peter said, “A thousand years for God is like a day.”

 

[mich2]

But in an experiment in Princeton, New Jersey, physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering.
There is nothing relativistic about this effect - it is all classical physics and the effect is based on the difference between the phase and group velocities of a polychromatic light wave train in a medium with anomalous dispersion. See my article here:

evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Humphreys%20article.htm

However, you are right about the constancy of the speed of light in vacuo.

Alec

Unless I’m misunderstanding something, Alec, this doesn’t seem to be talking about the effect of group velocity, but “possibly” the velocity of the photon itself.

islamonline.net/english/Science/2000/3/article1.shtml

**Previous experiments elsewhere raised doubts as to whether the exiting particle of light (photon) was the same light that entered but to some distortion.

However, with the NEC experiment, the exiting laser pulse maintained the same shape as when it entered the chamber.

The photon can leave the chamber before it has finished entering because the cesium atoms charge the properties of the photon, allowing it to exit more quickly than if it took place in a vacuum. **

The researcher stated:

**“Our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is wrong,” said Lijun Wang. **

Why would he have said this if the result is due to simply the result of group velocity, since group velocity is mearly an apparence and is not truly the result of photons travelling above the speed of light?

Andre

 

[BRB]

Fossil records revealed that man is not 6,000 yrs old. There have been fossil of homo-sapien that are between the ages of 100,000 to 500,000 yrs old. I don’t think God deceived mankind or scientist much.

It will take science to find out what God had know since the dawn of time is true. ."

Fossil bones don’t tell the whole answer. Remember Piltdown Man hoax ? Fooled the scientists for 40 years.

And … Lucy is not all she is cracked up to be.

Was Adam a caveman ? A Neanderthal ? Did original sin just ‘evolve’ in a cunning monkey who oneday learned to walk on 2 legs.

Animals are not humans … and will never evolve into them.

It may be an old earth … but, mankind is very young, and created in image of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Fossil bones don’t tell the whole answer. Remember Piltdown Man hoax ? Fooled the scientists for 40 years.

And … Lucy is not all she is cracked up to be.

Lucy from my own belief is not my ancestor. She is another species and not homo-sapien.

Was Adam a caveman ?

A Neanderthal ? Did original sin just ‘evolve’ in a cunning monkey who oneday learned to walk on 2 legs.

Adam is the first homo-sapien. From what I believe, I do not know believe we evolved. I do think what we found in the fossil record are other species of animals, which are link to related but a separate species all their own.

Animals are not humans … and will never evolve into them.

Who said anything that I believe in Evolution? I just don’t believe that the Earth is 6,000 yrs old. I believe the Earth to be billions years old.

It may be an old earth … but, mankind is very young, and created in image of God.

The Earth is old and mankind compared to other species are young. We are created in God’s image.