How Old is the Earth?

[Montalban]

Omni-science? Perhaps you mean Deistic Design?

Your offering here is pretzel-logic. To state that human science is no match for *Omni-science* implies that you yourself understand omniscence and are able to evaluate and judge each status (human science vs. Omni-science).

Human science and theology are separate realms and comparisons are disingenuous and counterproductive.

I read it to mean that God's 'science' was no match for 'human science', and therefore one can compare what both achieve.

Science can realise that some things are 'unknowable'. Science also can't propose to know everything (a belief that science can is often called 'scientism')

God is in a large part 'unknowable', and yet knows everything.

 

[Montalban]

we can't ever be sure of that. Many other religions says the same thing. Qu'ran was written under inspiration of god. Vedas was written under insipiration of God. And they all have their own list of miracles to prove it. Which is why all theological material, I believe, cannot be compared to human science, as it is solely based on faith. It gives us a way to live our life, but not a method of learning about our surroundings and our universe.

What are the Koranic miracles?

Leaving that aside I will address the jist of your argument. Here's an analogy to your 'logic'.

I survey 10 people. 8 say that the object I'm sitting on is a 'chair'. 1 says a 'couch', one an 'pudding'. By virtue of the fact that there is disagreement, we can now say "How can we be sure who is right?". That is what you are doing here, by virtue of disagreement, truth can't be known.

 

[nkgupta80]

Exactly you can't be sure. Now finish the analogy:

How would you say these 10 people would solve the disagreement?

Logic and reasoning. THey start off by describing the object infront of them, and then take the descriptions of each claim (chair, pudding, and couch) and see which one fits the object in front of them the closest.

Tell me now how can you apply your analogy's simple answer, to the disagreements among theological doctrines.

If I were to survey the human race, each would give its own claim on his/her understanding of the universe meaning of life, each would give his/her own doctrine. There would be disagreement, and we'd come to a point where we have to find which one is true (if there even is one truth in this matter). Can you go through the same logic and reasoning to come to the truth. I'd think no.

 

[Quertol]

I always thought that it was 'energy' that can not be destroyed. Not 'water'.

You're right, you are speaking of the Law of conservation of energy... At one time it was believed that matter also could not be created or destroyed, but Einstein's theory of relativity changed that belief...
........ 2
E=MC

Where E=energy, M=matter, and C=universal constant

This is demonstrates that matter and energy can be changed into one another...

This was needed to explain nuclear fission... They were losing mass and didn't understand why... Einstein really was a genius...

 

[Tashah]

I read it to mean that God's 'science' was no match for 'human science', and therefore one can compare what both achieve. Science can realise that some things are 'unknowable'. Science also can't propose to know everything (a belief that science can is often called 'scientism')

What exactly is God's *science*? If God is omniscent, why does s/he even require a science? And if God's science is unknowable, how can valid comparisons with human science be made?

Science *does not* propose to know everything and if it did know everything, I would be quickly unemployed. Once again the debate here revolves around science/physics vs. faith/metaphysics. As a metaphor, you are trying to compare the sweetness of apples and oranges to determine the original fruit.

I for one do not dismiss theology. I embrace it. Yet I also give just due to the compendium of knowledge acquired by humanity. It was a wise prophet who once counseled: "Seek and ye shall find". This is precisely the endeavor of both religion and science... seeking out our true nature and place in the heavens and the firmament.

 

[Quertol]

What exactly is God's *science*? If God is omniscent, why does s/he even require a science? And if God's science is unknowable, how can valid comparisons with human science be made?

Science *does not* propose to know everything and if it did know everything, I would be quickly unemployed. Once again the debate here revolves around science/physics vs. faith/metaphysics. As a metaphor, you are trying to compare the sweetness of apples and oranges to determine the original fruit.

I for one do not dismiss theology. I embrace it. Yet I also give just due to the compendium of knowledge acquired by humanity. It was a wise prophet who once counseled: "Seek and ye shall find". This is precisely the endeavor of both religion and science... seeking out our true nature and place in the heavens and the firmament.

God is omniscient... And therefore has all knowledge...

Science is knowledge and/or the search for it...

 

[nkgupta80]

So anyways now that's established, whats your stance on how old the earth is.

 

[Montalban]

Older than the mountains

 

[Quertol]

So anyways now that's established, whats your stance on how old the earth is.

Oh, probably around 6,000 years... I don't have the exact age.... I know that its not 4.5 billion years old though...

 

[nkgupta80]

Science says 4.5 Billion years, and since you did say that science is the search and knowledge of God's science, why not give it more authority. I think science has, by far, given us a lot more understanding of how the universe works than the Bible. Bible, like all other theological doctrines, gives a different type of understanding, a more metaphysical, abstract understanding of the universe and life. But when it comes to physical realities of the the Universe, I'd give human science far more authority.

 

[Quertol]

Science says 4.5 Billion years, and since you did say that science is the search and knowledge of God's science, why not give it more authority. I think science has, by far, given us a lot more understanding of how the universe works than the Bible. Bible, like all other theological doctrines, gives a different type of understanding, a more metaphysical, abstract understanding of the universe and life. But when it comes to physical realities of the the Universe, I'd give human science far more authority.

So now you are saying that humans know more than God?

Science has yet to prove that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old...

THey have theories... Just like evolution... That haven't been proven...

 

[Quertol]

6,000 years, are you dead serious? What about the dinosaurs, ancient greece, ancient rome, the fertile cresent, ancient egypt, ancient china, ancient Japan, the ice ages, do you think that all of this ***** was happening at the same time?

Ancient?

You honestly think that we've been around longer?

ok 6000-8000 years... somewhere in there...

see, I'm generous, I gave you 2000 more years...(even though its close to 6000)

 

[Quertol]

You do know that the bible was written by people, right?

Under the inspiration of God...

 

[nkgupta80]

So now you are saying that humans know more than God?

Science has yet to prove that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old...

THey have theories... Just like evolution... That haven't been proven...

i never say we know more than god, all i said is science has discovered a lot more about the physical realities of the world than the Bible, or in that case any other religious doctrine. Im sure, that if we found enough evidence that the earth's age is billions of years old (which i personally think we have), religious scholars will be scrambling to somehow interpret the idea of 6000 years to fit science's discoveries. Actualy many scholars are trying that. Other's have said the day in "creation in 7 days" is in terms of "God's day" which could easily be a billion years.

Science has yet to prove that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old...

The kind of techniques that have been used to prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years, and the science that goes behind it is the same knowledge that is used in countless other sciences taht have produced things you take for granted. Radio-carbon dating, of rocks, fossils, and meteorites, has been used by scientists for over 50 years now, and so far their results have come out similar and substantiating.

Any claims that radio carbon dating has extreme errors have been proven false.

 

[Quertol]

i never say we know more than god, all i said is science has discovered a lot more about the physical realities of the world than the Bible, or in that case any other religious doctrine. Im sure, that if we found enough evidence that the earth's age is billions of years old (which i personally think we have), religious scholars will be scrambling to somehow interpret the idea of 6000 years to fit science's discoveries. Actualy many scholars are trying that. Other's have said the day in "creation in 7 days" is in terms of "God's day" which could easily be a billion years.




The kind of techniques that have been used to prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years, and the science that goes behind it is the same knowledge that is used in countless other sciences taht have produced things you take for granted. Radio-carbon dating, of rocks, fossils, and meteorites, has been used by scientists for over 50 years now, and so far their results have come out similar and substantiating.

Any claims that radio carbon dating has extreme errors have been proven false.

carbon dating? There was a man who brought a leaf to a scientist to be dated, he told the scientist that he thought the leaf might be really old, and that he had never seen a leaf like this before... The scientist performed a carbon-dating test on the leaf and came back to the man and told him it was 140,000 years old... It turned out that the man had lied to the scientist and that the leaf had fallen off the tree the previous fall...

 

[Shye]

the world is as old as you want it to be

 

[nkgupta80]

they have many stories of these experimental quirks where infact any technique or scientific method can be "disproven." Errors that are extreme like these have happened in ares like DNA Analysis. An adopted man gets DNA analysis to prove whether he had found his biological father. Tests came in positive. A year later another man comes in and claims that he is that guy's father. Confused, the three get DNA analysis done three times. The adopted man found out that his first DNA analysis from a year ago was wrong. Now based on this story, and your logic, DNA fingerprinting, or DNA analysis has no credibility.

Now with radiometric dating (sorry when i said radio-carbon i forgot to include the tens of other radiometric techniques), scientists, for 50 years, have been collecting data on various rocks, fossils, meteorite dusts and so on. Radiometric dates from individual scientists from across the world have matched with tiny percentages of error. And not just with carbon isotopes, but also with various argon and krypton isotopes and other minerals. A lot of these dates have been substantiated by non-radiometric methods and speculation.

 

[Alex]

carbon dating? There was a man who brought a leaf to a scientist to be dated, he told the scientist that he thought the leaf might be really old, and that he had never seen a leaf like this before... The scientist performed a carbon-dating test on the leaf and came back to the man and told him it was 140,000 years old... It turned out that the man had lied to the scientist and that the leaf had fallen off the tree the previous fall...

Did you actually see this happen? Or is it another myth created by Christians? They seem to believe just about any out-of-this-world story they are told. I am not putting down anyone's beliefs, please do not take it that way. I am really upset by people who pass on stories that they do not know are actually true. It is false information and it misleads people. I watched a religious program a while ago and the preacher was trying to convince the audience that evolution was wrong. He stated that evolution was inaccurate because Chordate species never existed. The next picture he showed was an ancient Chordate. Even more alarming is the fact that we as humans are Chordates. He was misleading his audience and providing them with false information to prove his point. That is seriously wrong.

God is also a theory. The difference is that scientific theory is based on educated thought processes that are testable. There are no educated thought processes with religion. Faith is not provable.

If science believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then that is based on actual and provable tests.

 

[nkgupta80]

even if the story is true, the problem with it is, that these occurences are hardly common. Sure there's been bad radiometric dates/bad implementation of radiometric technique that produces false data.

With Quertol's logic, any minor mistakes in medical practices would debunk all medical analysis. The existence of a mechanic who practices bad techniques means all mechanics are bad. This logic jstu doesnt work.

 

[Tashah]

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin... is credited with using the mathematical process of generational redaction to arrive at the precise day of Biblical creation. His research established the first day of Biblical creation as Sunday 23, October 4004 BC.

If you are an advocate of Biblical creation, then this is the redacted time-frame you must work with. Needless to say, this proposal grossly violates the basic tenets of cosmology, astrophysics, comparative planetology, and geology to name but a few disciplines.

 

[Montalban]

6,000 years, are you dead serious? What about the dinosaurs, ancient greece, ancient rome, the fertile cresent, ancient egypt, ancient china, ancient Japan, the ice ages, do you think that all of this ***** was happening at the same time?

Without defending any age of the earth, just how long ago do you think Rome was?

c.500 BC. That's 2,500 years ago.

I thought though that the claim was it was created in 7000 BC or there abouts, which makes it c.9000 years old

 

[Montalban]

James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin... is credited with using the mathematical process of generational redaction to arrive at the precise day of Biblical creation. His research established the first day of Biblical creation as Sunday 23, October 4004 BC.

What time?

If you are an advocate of Biblical creation, then this is the redacted time-frame you must work with. Needless to say, this proposal grossly violates the basic tenets of cosmology, astrophysics, comparative planetology, and geology to name but a few disciplines.

I have heard that the light from distant stars was created in situ, that is, at the source, and in between it and us, and therefore it's not taken x million years to get here, because it was here already.


Other things such as geology rest upon the assumption of uniformitarianism.

 

[Tashah]

I have heard that the light from distant stars was created in situ, that is, at the source, and in between it and us, and therefore it's not taken x million years to get here, because it was here already.

I would humbly suggest that you brush up on the electromagnetic spectrum, the speed of light constant (c), astrophysics, and optical physics.

 

[Montalban]

I would humbly suggest that you brush up on the electromagnetic spectrum, the speed of light constant (c), astrophysics, and optical physics.

I am not saying I support the idea, so I don't feel a need to brush up on any such thing. However there point about the light between poinst "A" (point of 'origin' to you) and the Earth is one you can't disprove.

For you the light works like this

A (star) Earth
over millions of years
A (star) ......light travels........Earth


For them
A (star) ......light created........Earth

The light between the star and the Earth is created 'in being'.

 

[Montalban]

the world is as old as you want it to be

In part I agree.

Not so long ago someone tested the age of some stars and found them to be older than the universe. As it was already agreed what age the universe was, the data from the stars was deemed incorrect... which seems to me a case of ignoring the evidence that disagrees with the a priori.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2001/may01/stars.html