How Old Is The Earth?

[edthecynic]

The article said the GENE MAP "proves" the platypus was part mammal, bird and reptile, which it does.

No, it does not "prove" anything. Because it has similarities with other things doesn't prove there is a connection.

You then took out of context the words "could" and "believe" when the article went on to relate this info to the theory of evolution, that as you well know was your Straw Man.

I took nothing out of context. I simply highlighted words which define the statements as speculations and not proven facts.

I was of course attacking your lie that there was no evidence that a platypus was ever a reptile, when there is obviously the undeniable evidence contained in the platypus genome that you deny exists.

It wasn't a lie. The similarity of genes is not evidence of anything other than similar genetics. I suspect the platypus also is comprised of similar material elements found in the periodic table as other forms of matter, that doesn't prove a relationship.

Now we can certainly get into a semantics argument about what is or isn't "evidence" ...there is no evidence we've ever been visited by extraterrestrials but SOME people certainly believe there IS evidence. So what is the "correct" answer... is there evidence because some people THINK there is evidence?

It has nothing to do with semantics, although that is all you are doing by equating similarity of genes to similarity of elements on the periodic table, it has to do with mapping the genome which you well know is more revealing than fossil evidence. And that is because genes are not just made of similar elements of the periodic table, they are in a certain specific arrangement that links the platypus' connections to other classes of animals.

Again you are simply showing your religious doctrinal belief that no matter what the evidence there can be no transition species therefore all evidence must be dismissed.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, "whatever method they use to date rocks" has nothing to do with rocks at all let alone their being under water, as you made up out of thin air and then pontificated! I was just pointing out your scientific stupidity with the easiest example in your post. So lets look at the rest of your fabricated stupidity in your post.

No, I actually saw this on a documentary a while back and I can't recall the specific details. I may be using the incorrect terminology but the oldest rock we've ever discovered on Earth is 4.25 billion years old and was formed under water.
Oldest dated rocks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2008 microprobe research[edit]
The zircons from the Western Australian Jack Hills returned an age of 4.404 billion years, interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons also show another interesting feature; their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth. The importance and accuracy of these interpretations is currently the subject of scientific debate. It may be that the oxygen isotopes, and other compositional features (the rare earth elements), record more recent hydrothermal alteration of the zircons rather than the composition of the magma at the time of their original crystallization.[citation needed] In a paper published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, a team of scientists suggest that rocky continents and liquid water existed at least 4.3 billion years ago and were subjected to heavy weathering by an acrid climate. Using an ion microprobe to analyze isotope ratios of the element lithium in zircons from the Jack Hills in Western Australia, and comparing these chemical fingerprints to lithium compositions in zircons from continental crust and primitive rocks similar to the Earth's mantle, they found evidence that the young planet already had the beginnings of continents, relatively cool temperatures and liquid water by the time the Australian zircons formed.[12]

Still trying to weasel out of your ignorant lies!
Zircon not a rock, is a mineral crystal remanent of granite. And since they are deposited in stream beds, their significance is not in dating the Earth, but in dating the appearance of water on the Earth. They show the Earth cooled very quickly enabling water to stabilize very early in Earth's existence.

 

[presonorek]

Weren't you reading the comments left by others? The Bible is very specific about the ages of the men when they begat their son. Adam was created on the sixth day. The lineage from Adam to Christ is given in great detail. It would take a really long time to get the answer but if you had 10 people work on this calculation all 10 of them would come up with the exact date that the earth was created. The only errors would occur because of human error and the massive number of calculations required.

The Bible does offer an age for the earth. This isn't a debate about whether that date is truthful. The inquiry was about where the belief originated. The Bible is very specific on this matter. A day means a year. A day means a thousand years. A day means an unspecified period of time. If you use that logic there would be no motivation to tackle this calculation. We are blessed that people exist that do take the Bible literally. This makes for fascinating conversation.

There is a book titled, "Manager A Female Flying Spaghetti Monster" that supports a theory that the earth was created on August 9, 1613. Nobody really knows when the earth began and our belief about the matter doesn't impact any part of our life or the life of those around us. I love Fundamental Christians. If all Christians were moderate the Christian heritage and their traditions would disappear.

 

[Boss]

A day means an unspecified period of time. If you use that logic there would be no motivation to tackle this calculation. We are blessed that people exist that do take the Bible literally. This makes for fascinating conversation.

Except, the Bible was not written in English. The English language did not yet exist. It was originally written in Hebrew and underwent several translations before eventually being translated into English.

The Hebrew word used in the Bible for "day" was "yom". In Hebrew, yom is an unspecific amount of time. It can be a day, it can be a week, a month, a year or an era. In fact, in different parts of the Bible it is used to describe 47 different time periods. So we simply don't know that a day was a literal day in the creation story. Furthermore, what is important to remember from a theological perspective is, the story is not being told as a historical account from a human's perspective, it can't be. There wasn't someone there reporting on when God did what... the story is presented from GOD's perspective not man's. The significance of the story is not to document accurate historical accounting but to explain the order in which God performed the events. "Days" are simply a way to separate the various aspects, they aren't provided as a literal guide.

One of the biggest supporting arguments for this is the very construction of the story itself. It wasn't until "Day Three" that God created the sun and moon. Clearly, if there is no sun, there is no day... or at least, not a conventional 24 hr. day as we know it. So what are "Day One" and "Day Two" in the story if there is no sun to mark a conventional 24 hr. period?

 

[Boss]

Still trying to weasel out of your ignorant lies!
Zircon not a rock, is a mineral crystal remanent of granite. And since they are deposited in stream beds, their significance is not in dating the Earth, but in dating the appearance of water on the Earth. They show the Earth cooled very quickly enabling water to stabilize very early in Earth's existence.

I presented a link and I stand by my comments. If you wish to argue some inane point, I don't have the patience to converse further with you on the matter. You are free to believe whatever you like. I have seen NO satisfactory scientific explanation for why we have water on Earth or why the earliest rocks on Earth were formed under water. Furthermore, I see no scientific explanation for what baked our planet so that we ended up with a nickel and iron core... this would require an intense heat that completely melted the entire planet, while other surrounding planets endured no such super-heating event, apparently, because they lack the same type of core. It's this phenomenal molten core that is the secret to our planet's ability to maintain an atmosphere, to have an electromagnetic surrounding field, essential criteria needed for the formation and support of carbon-based life as we know it. We certainly know HOW all of this works, we don't know WHY.

 

[yiostheoy]

6,000 years or 4.1 billion?

Here is one argument .....

How Old Is the Earth?

"The age of the earth debate ultimately comes down to this foundational question: Are we trusting man’s imperfect and changing ideas and assumptions about the past? Or are we trusting God’s perfectly accurate eyewitness account of the past, including the creation of the world, Noah’s global flood, and the age of the earth?"

This old thread is about a year old now.

I'll go with the science not with the religion -- 4+ billion years.

 

[yiostheoy]

Never mix science, religion, and/or philosophy.

In all matters where science is convincing it must superseded religion and philosophy.

Science however is merely a process, and the findings of data from the scientific process together with the inferences and inductive logic about those data are what we also refer to colloquially as "science".

But Science should never be made into a religion either.

Science is science.

Religion is religion.

And Philosophy is philosophy.

 

[yiostheoy]

A day means an unspecified period of time. If you use that logic there would be no motivation to tackle this calculation. We are blessed that people exist that do take the Bible literally. This makes for fascinating conversation.

Except, the Bible was not written in English. The English language did not yet exist. It was originally written in Hebrew and underwent several translations before eventually being translated into English.

The Hebrew word used in the Bible for "day" was "yom". In Hebrew, yom is an unspecific amount of time. It can be a day, it can be a week, a month, a year or an era. In fact, in different parts of the Bible it is used to describe 47 different time periods. So we simply don't know that a day was a literal day in the creation story. Furthermore, what is important to remember from a theological perspective is, the story is not being told as a historical account from a human's perspective, it can't be. There wasn't someone there reporting on when God did what... the story is presented from GOD's perspective not man's. The significance of the story is not to document accurate historical accounting but to explain the order in which God performed the events. "Days" are simply a way to separate the various aspects, they aren't provided as a literal guide.

One of the biggest supporting arguments for this is the very construction of the story itself. It wasn't until "Day Three" that God created the sun and moon. Clearly, if there is no sun, there is no day... or at least, not a conventional 24 hr. day as we know it. So what are "Day One" and "Day Two" in the story if there is no sun to mark a conventional 24 hr. period?

Moses probably made up the whole story in Bereshet/Genesis just as in introductory to his own story about removing the Hebrew Babylonians from Egypt because YHVY the God from the Burning Bush told him to remove them.

I would not get too hung up about anything in Bereshet/Genesis.

Exodus is more important, as are Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy is still recorded in first person and as such is comprised of the exact words of Moses, whereas Ezra or Nehemiah re-told the rest in their own 3rd person words.

 

[Hollie]

Still trying to weasel out of your ignorant lies!
Zircon not a rock, is a mineral crystal remanent of granite. And since they are deposited in stream beds, their significance is not in dating the Earth, but in dating the appearance of water on the Earth. They show the Earth cooled very quickly enabling water to stabilize very early in Earth's existence.

I presented a link and I stand by my comments. If you wish to argue some inane point, I don't have the patience to converse further with you on the matter. You are free to believe whatever you like. I have seen NO satisfactory scientific explanation for why we have water on Earth or why the earliest rocks on Earth were formed under water. Furthermore, I see no scientific explanation for what baked our planet so that we ended up with a nickel and iron core... this would require an intense heat that completely melted the entire planet, while other surrounding planets endured no such super-heating event, apparently, because they lack the same type of core. It's this phenomenal molten core that is the secret to our planet's ability to maintain an atmosphere, to have an electromagnetic surrounding field, essential criteria needed for the formation and support of carbon-based life as we know it. We certainly know HOW all of this works, we don't know WHY.

"I have seen NO satisfactory scientific explanation for why we have water on Earth..."

That's a remarkable statement. I recall that in 8th grade Earth Science, we studied the processes that described how liquid water formed on the planet. I don't recall any references to "magic", "spirit realms" or gods in flowing robes raising their hand and proclaiming "let there be water".

 

[presonorek]

A day means an unspecified period of time. If you use that logic there would be no motivation to tackle this calculation. We are blessed that people exist that do take the Bible literally. This makes for fascinating conversation.

Except, the Bible was not written in English. The English language did not yet exist. It was originally written in Hebrew and underwent several translations before eventually being translated into English.

The Hebrew word used in the Bible for "day" was "yom". In Hebrew, yom is an unspecific amount of time. It can be a day, it can be a week, a month, a year or an era. In fact, in different parts of the Bible it is used to describe 47 different time periods. So we simply don't know that a day was a literal day in the creation story. Furthermore, what is important to remember from a theological perspective is, the story is not being told as a historical account from a human's perspective, it can't be. There wasn't someone there reporting on when God did what... the story is presented from GOD's perspective not man's. The significance of the story is not to document accurate historical accounting but to explain the order in which God performed the events. "Days" are simply a way to separate the various aspects, they aren't provided as a literal guide.

One of the biggest supporting arguments for this is the very construction of the story itself. It wasn't until "Day Three" that God created the sun and moon. Clearly, if there is no sun, there is no day... or at least, not a conventional 24 hr. day as we know it. So what are "Day One" and "Day Two" in the story if there is no sun to mark a conventional 24 hr. period?

Ah shucks!

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Earth is middle-aged. It is a lot more round around the middle and it is constantly having fissures and cracks appear in its skin. It's only child is dead to it as it never comes home, it just walks around outside the house constantly with it's pock-marked face. "Why don't you come by for a bagel, I haven't seen you in 4.5 billion years for god's sake".

...nothing.

Earth has lived in the same neighborhood for a long time but it just seems to be spinning it's wheels. Stuck in a rut year after year, going around in seemingly endless circles. Every now and then one of the neighbors kids will come skateboarding by but usually not closer than 20,000 miles, then it zooms off only to return 26 years later to fly-by again.
And don't ask it about it's Sun or as he is known in the family 'the galactic dictator'.