• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Old is the Earth?

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Tashah do you have any ideas about Abiogenesis? I know it's not your field of expertise.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,231
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Montalban said:
Tashah do you have any ideas about Abiogenesis? I know it's not your field of expertise.
It's not my field at all. It actually encompasses many diverse fields such as biology, chemistry, philosophy, and creationism. As far as I know, the concept currently resides in a stasis of uncertainty and debate.

In the realm of the space-sciences, abiogenesis may be considered part and parcel of the interstellar panspermia hypothesis. However, this stance is not embraced too dearly. All it really accomplishes in essence is a shifting of the question of an Earthly abiogenesis to a different locale. The question remains basically the same... thus making this nothing more than a circuitous path of inquiry.

Even if life forms were discovered on another planet, all it would do is confirm that the universe is essentially biophillic (predisposed towards life). It would not necessarily confer any validity on the panspermia hypothesis, nor settle the questions of abiogenesis.



 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Tashah said:
It's not my field at all. It actually encompasses many diverse fields such as biology, chemistry, philosophy, and creationism. As far as I know, the concept currently resides in a stasis of uncertainty and debate.

In the realm of the space-sciences, abiogenesis may be considered part and parcel of the interstellar panspermia hypothesis. However, this stance is not embraced too dearly. All it really accomplishes in essence is a shifting of the question of an Earthly abiogenesis to a different locale. The question remains basically the same... thus making this nothing more than a circuitous path of inquiry.

Even if life forms were discovered on another planet, all it would do is confirm that the universe is essentially biophillic (predisposed towards life). It would not necessarily confer any validity on the panspermia hypothesis, nor settle the questions of abiogenesis.




One of my own views on panspermia (which is but one theory within the field of abiogenesis) is that it simply takes the question "How did life begin?" and moves it from here (the earth), to some other place, because even if life began here by panspermia, we'd still need to know about that space-borne life; where did it begin?
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Tashah said:
Even if life forms were discovered on another planet, all it would do is confirm that the universe is essentially biophillic (predisposed towards life). It would not necessarily confer any validity on the panspermia hypothesis, nor settle the questions of abiogenesis.
But surely genetic fingerprinting techniques would help here.
If the life had some common genes to earth life then both probably came from a common source (panspermia) if not then the respective life forms evolved/appeared independantly.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
PS I think analysis of respective mitochondria might also help.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,231
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
robin said:
But surely genetic fingerprinting techniques would help here.
If the life had some common genes to earth life then both probably came from a common source (panspermia) if not then the respective life forms evolved/appeared independantly.
This is perhaps true. If the alien life-form is carbon-based and DNA encoded, it may be possible to crossmatch encoded snippets of alien DNA with a representative Earth exemplar. One major problem here is that all living entities on Earth possess an extensive number of extra DNA snippets that seem to serve no succinct encoding function. If a match were to be discovered exclusively within these extra DNA snippets, it would be difficult to quantify the result... as this could easily be attributed to a random mathematical event.

A DNA match also would not necessarily confer authenticity on the panspermia hypothesis unless the data was totally devoid of all ambiguity and any alternative possibility. It would also be extremely difficult to resolve the tangential question of panspermia directionality.


 

thecelt

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Éire! The Home country! Proud to be Irish!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
well, if you all want my considered opinion, i recon the 'creationist' theory is a load of cac. lets face it, the earth was not made in 6 days. what the creationists have done is that they've taken the bible LITERALLY.
i - being a somewhat intellegent catholic - belive that the days 'represent' ages. i.e = billions of years. Hows that for an interpretation?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, it makes Genesis 1 LESS wrong, leaving still som problems evidencing how the Bible/Torah definitely is NOT a science textbook.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
so where exactly does the bible say that earth is 10,000 years old?

i didnt have time to read the whole thread....so sry if i missed that part?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
thecelt said:
well, if you all want my considered opinion, i recon the 'creationist' theory is a load of cac. lets face it, the earth was not made in 6 days. what the creationists have done is that they've taken the bible LITERALLY.
i - being a somewhat intellegent catholic - belive that the days 'represent' ages. i.e = billions of years. Hows that for an interpretation?

That might work if the order of creation in Genesis were right. It's not.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't believe it says that.


thank you.


If it doesnt say that, then this thread should not talk about Genesis and earths "age", in the manner that this thread does.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
i believe in tranquility said:
thank you.


If it doesnt say that, then this thread should not talk about Genesis and earths "age", in the manner that this thread does.

No. A literal reading of the Bible suggests an Earth that is ~6,000 years old, not 10,000 - something that is nonsensical and conflicts entirely with all scientific evidence.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
4.6 billion years
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
umm..those wernt passages from the bible. Andways ive seen all the mathematical calculations, and here is what I think:

genesis is not meant to be taken literally: especailly the creation myths.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i believe in tranquility said:
genesis is not meant to be taken literally: especailly the creation myths.

Well if Genesis is not to be taken literally, why take any of the bible literally then? You cannot pick and choose which books to take literally, and which ones to take as fantasy. It's all or nothing.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
^actually I dont know about you but I dont take myths literally...thats just me...
 

Apostle13

Wisdom Warrior
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
24
Location
Outer Darkness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
kal-el said:
Well if Genesis is not to be taken literally, why take any of the bible literally then? You cannot pick and choose which books to take literally, and which ones to take as fantasy. It's all or nothing.

I agree... Even as one in opposition.
Romans 3:3-4
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
 

Apostle13

Wisdom Warrior
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
24
Location
Outer Darkness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
i believe in tranquility said:
^actually I dont know about you but I dont take myths literally...thats just me...

Me neither...
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Apostle13 said:
I agree... Even as one in opposition.
Romans 3:3-4
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Yep.

Ezekiel 22:30-31
I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it; but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all that they have done, declares the soverign lord.

It seems this all knowing diety, couldn't find anyone to stand up to him, so he just kills everyone.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i believe in tranquility said:
^actually I dont know about you but I dont take myths literally...thats just me...

Actaully, a myth usually starts with "once upon a time". And usually ends with "happily ever after" or that's the moral of the story. Nowhere in the bible does it indicate any of it is not to be taken literally.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i believe in tranquility said:
again my friend an agreement.

Yea, I think it is only when the bible is shown to be erroneous, that Christians cry, "That's not to be taken literally!" Even the very name Gospel means truth. I came to the conclusion that the bible goes to great lenghts to convey the message that it is the infallible word of god. An all knowing diety wouldn't be so incongrous as to leave his word up to interpretation.
 
Top Bottom