6K years or 13.7B years?
First Prev
of 9
Next Last
crocoduck

Plano, TX

#1 Apr 11, 2012
There seems to be two ages for the universe that get debated most often. I don't want to debate about exact time frames but in general let's just put the two camps in the 10K or less category (YEC Young Earth Creationists) or the 5B or more category (BB Big bangers) to make it simple. I pick 5B or more because it's more than the suspected age of the Earth...that's all. There may very well be other time frames of discussion. However, we will start with the less than 10K (10,000 years) crowd and the more than 5B (5,000,000,000 years) crowd. Typically we are dealing with somewhere around 6K and 13.7B but for the purposes of this discussion it may not matter. What are the evidences for or against either age of the universe?

I, being in the 13.7B club (or around there)...will start it off.

If the Earth and life is 10K or less years old...how do we reconcile finding archeological "proof" of civilization before that time in many corners of the Earth? Given the different techniques of dating that we have...can we successfully eliminate all of them somehow?

Also, why do we not have any evidence to support a WORLDWIDE flood within that time frame? As I have mentioned we have civilization apparently living THROUGH that time let alone geological and other problems for this model.

I think the popular young Earth philosophy mostly comes from a much much later derived ancestry based on "begats" in the Bible. Some say the "begats" cover all ancestry and some say it's just a "limited edition" so to speak. Some also say the "begats" are inconsistent. So how do we reconcile the YEC position since I am on the BB position side? Is the ancestry given in the OT an exact account of relationships between the names given or does it just give SOME of the names but not all?

I will leave most of this debate to the experts...since I did not major in any of this:) Please begin.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#2 Apr 12, 2012
Here's a timeline according to creationists.

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/upload...

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#3 Apr 12, 2012
Ice core samples are evidence for a young earth because dog's trying to trick us with his voodoo.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4 Apr 12, 2012
Elohim wrote:
Here's a timeline according to creationists.
http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/upload...
That is absolutely hilarious!

"The last dinosaur died in March 1927"

Too freakin funny!
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#5 Apr 13, 2012
crocoduck wrote:
There seems to be two ages for the universe that get debated most often. I don't want to debate about exact time frames but in general let's just put the two camps in the 10K or less category (YEC Young Earth Creationists) or the 5B or more category (BB Big bangers) to make it simple. I pick 5B or more because it's more than the suspected age of the Earth...that's all. There may very well be other time frames of discussion. However, we will start with the less than 10K (10,000 years) crowd and the more than 5B (5,000,000,000 years) crowd. Typically we are dealing with somewhere around 6K and 13.7B but for the purposes of this discussion it may not matter. What are the evidences for or against either age of the universe?
I, being in the 13.7B club (or around there)...will start it off.
If the Earth and life is 10K or less years old...how do we reconcile finding archeological "proof" of civilization before that time in many corners of the Earth? Given the different techniques of dating that we have...can we successfully eliminate all of them somehow?
Also, why do we not have any evidence to support a WORLDWIDE flood within that time frame? As I have mentioned we have civilization apparently living THROUGH that time let alone geological and other problems for this model.
I think the popular young Earth philosophy mostly comes from a much much later derived ancestry based on "begats" in the Bible. Some say the "begats" cover all ancestry and some say it's just a "limited edition" so to speak. Some also say the "begats" are inconsistent. So how do we reconcile the YEC position since I am on the BB position side? Is the ancestry given in the OT an exact account of relationships between the names given or does it just give SOME of the names but not all?
I will leave most of this debate to the experts...since I did not major in any of this:) Please begin.
Instead of leaving it to experts, Iíd leave it to civil people. I get a sick kick whenever a person I know to be uncivil posts stuff & I donít read it! Sorry folks. Outwith that.

You donít need to be an expert to understand the principles behind dating methods. There are basics points anyone can grasp. First, we do not and cannot measure the past let alone so-called pre-historic past. We can only make inferences based on assumptions. If the assumptions are true thatís well & good. But if they are false & only one needs be, woe to the inferences.

Radio-metric dating (Fossils do NOT date rock layers) assumes that the sample tested has not been contaminated over billions of years. But is that true? How your answer this determines whether you accept or reject billions of years from radio-isotopes. The rest is smoke & mirrors.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#6 Apr 13, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of leaving it to experts, Iíd leave it to civil people. I get a sick kick whenever a person I know to be uncivil posts stuff & I donít read it! Sorry folks. Outwith that.
Which is a good way to avoid having to back yourself up.
LGK wrote:
You donít need to be an expert to understand the principles behind dating methods. There are basics points anyone can grasp. First, we do not and cannot measure the past let alone so-called pre-historic past. We can only make inferences based on assumptions. If the assumptions are true thatís well & good. But if they are false & only one needs be, woe to the inferences.
Radio-metric dating (Fossils do NOT date rock layers) assumes that the sample tested has not been contaminated over billions of years. But is that true? How your answer this determines whether you accept or reject billions of years from radio-isotopes. The rest is smoke & mirrors.
Well one way kills us all, one doesn't. I think I'll go with the one that doesn't since we are all here.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7 Apr 13, 2012
LGK wrote:
Radio-metric dating (Fossils do NOT date rock layers) assumes that the sample tested has not been contaminated over billions of years. But is that true? How your answer this determines whether you accept or reject billions of years from radio-isotopes. The rest is smoke & mirrors.
Actually, it is *not* an assumption because the techniques used can often test exactly this question. If contamination is found, the sample can be rejected.
LGK

Sheffield, UK

#8 Apr 14, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is *not* an assumption because the techniques used can often test exactly this question. If contamination is found, the sample can be rejected.
At the heart of this is what we each believe constitutes an empirical test (related to other thread).

I believe a test is what we do directly to stuff e.g. heat ice & look at a thermometer to see at what temperature it melts. We directly apply heat & directly observe the melting & the movement of the temperature gauge. Thatís a test.

The past & the future are not available to us for any direct tests or observation, only the present is. So no matter how clever/educated/funded one might be, one cannot test or observe radio-isotope behaviour billions of years ago. We can test it TODAY then extrapolate to the past, on the *ASSUMPTION*the present is identical to past.

Where one stands on billions of years is a matter of faith or lack thereof in one or more of the assumptions. You have that faith, I donít & long may we respect each other.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#9 Apr 14, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
At the heart of this is what we each believe constitutes an empirical test (related to other thread).
I believe a test is what we do directly to stuff e.g. heat ice & look at a thermometer to see at what temperature it melts. We directly apply heat & directly observe the melting & the movement of the temperature gauge. Thatís a test.
The past & the future are not available to us for any direct tests or observation, only the present is. So no matter how clever/educated/funded one might be, one cannot test or observe radio-isotope behaviour billions of years ago. We can test it TODAY then extrapolate to the past, on the *ASSUMPTION*the present is identical to past.
Where one stands on billions of years is a matter of faith or lack thereof in one or more of the assumptions. You have that faith, I donít & long may we respect each other.
Uniformitarianism is not a controversial assumption compared to magic.
-- Huelsbeck

Error 404 - your universe does not exist
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/ph...
LowellGuy

United States

#10 Apr 15, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
At the heart of this is what we each believe constitutes an empirical test (related to other thread).
I believe a test is what we do directly to stuff e.g. heat ice & look at a thermometer to see at what temperature it melts. We directly apply heat & directly observe the melting & the movement of the temperature gauge. Thatís a test.
The past & the future are not available to us for any direct tests or observation, only the present is. So no matter how clever/educated/funded one might be, one cannot test or observe radio-isotope behaviour billions of years ago. We can test it TODAY then extrapolate to the past, on the *ASSUMPTION*the present is identical to past.
Where one stands on billions of years is a matter of faith or lack thereof in one or more of the assumptions. You have that faith, I donít & long may we respect each other.
Would you ever be able to vote "guilty" as a juror?
Joshua

Durham, NC

#11 Apr 24, 2012
The main problem to creationist seems to be the dating that shows objects older then the age of eart. If these datings are relable then earth is a whole lot older then 10k but many of these dating systems are not accurate over 5000 years.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#12 Apr 24, 2012
Joshua wrote:
The main problem to creationist seems to be the dating that shows objects older then the age of eart. If these datings are relable then earth is a whole lot older then 10k but many of these dating systems are not accurate over 5000 years.
5000 years? You do realize you're completely wrong, yes?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#13 Apr 24, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
5000 years? You do realize you're completely wrong, yes?
He's not very smart but he can lift heavy things.
Joshua

Durham, NC

#14 Apr 25, 2012
Look who's talking

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#15 Apr 25, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Look who's talking
Lame movies with lamer sequels. Wait, this isn't $100,000 pyramid?

“Shoot for the stars”

Level 5

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#16 Apr 25, 2012
I don't believe the Adam & Eve story and that population bloomed from them. The whole story is full of contradictions.
leMango

Naperville, IL

#17 Apr 25, 2012
For all of those people falling into the YEC camp, what evidence affirms the idea of a 6000 year old earth?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#18 Apr 25, 2012
leMango wrote:
For all of those people falling into the YEC camp, what evidence affirms the idea of a 6000 year old earth?
Total zip. Except the claims that all 60+ scientific dating techniques are all inaccurate according to creationists despite the fact they are actually pretty accurate and that the creation "model" would destroy ALL life with their alternative "explanation".

Unless one sez godmagic saved it all.

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#19 Jun 8, 2012
No debate here

Creationism is a fairytale

Evolution is a verifiable, falsiable FACT

End of story.
Thomas Robertson

Beijing, China

#20 Jun 8, 2012
MikeF wrote:
That is absolutely hilarious!
"The last dinosaur died in March 1927"
Too freakin funny!
Not only that, but you and I weren't born until November 5, 2008.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Regolith Based Li... 74,860
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min marksman11 161,991
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr replaytime 137
News In Turkey, no teaching of evolution, but bannin... 1 hr Rossum 2
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 32,037
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 2 hr Science 225
News 300,000 year-old "early Homo sapiens" sparks de... 2 hr Al Caplan 32
More from around the web