How Old Is The Earth?

[BreezeWood]

yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.

No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.

.
No. DNA directs composition of future offspring ...

you are not willing to believe you have the ability to understand and change that (or any) process is what you are saying, others believe such avenues exist.

by crossing the void Columbus made his discovery and so have many others ... bossy being the exception.

.

 

[presonorek]

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?"

403 years old.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.

 

[rightwinger]

To my knowledge, the earth began in August 1956 slightly before my birth

 

[the_human_being]

Write this down. I can prove what I claim. The earth is at least 73 years old. It was here when I was born.

 

[presonorek]

So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.

A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.

Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.

 

[Dajjal]

I have not read all of this thread, but I know some creationists actually think the fossil record was fabricated by God to fool people. My view is the fossil record is genuine and clearly shows the development of life on earth over millions of years. You only have to go to the seaside and find a cliff and start digging. The lower down you go through sedimentary rocks the less life there is.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.

A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.

Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.

Well we use the laws of physics to determine the age of rocks. But I guess the laws of physics lie? I'm thinking someone who says the world was created on August 9, 1613 is being, and let's try to be kind here, rather untruthful. Or funny, which is fine because it IS funny.

Did someone 'create' the Earth on August 9, 1613? By the way, August is a month named for Augustus Caesar, who ruled Rome from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. or for those of a religious bent from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D. Roughly 2,000 years ago. But I'm sure they lied about that?

 

[konradv]

So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.

A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.

Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.

Well we use the laws of physics to determine the age of rocks. But I guess the laws of physics lie? I'm thinking someone who says the world was created on August 9, 1613 is being, and let's try to be kind here, rather untruthful. Or funny, which is fine because it IS funny.

Did someone 'create' the Earth on August 9, 1613? By the way, August is a month named for Augustus Caesar, who ruled Rome from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. or for those of a religious bent from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D. Roughly 2,000 years ago. But I'm sure they lied about that?

IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So DaVinci never existed? Or Shakespeare? Bummer.

A lot of things were made up in order to make the world more colorful and interesting.

Us humans are a creative bunch. That's a positive thing. Lying has been done since the world was created on August 9, 1613. People tell lies all around you. Half of the time they are telling the truth. Half of the time they are lying. You just don't know which half is which. Oh well. I guess you have to use your brain.

Well we use the laws of physics to determine the age of rocks. But I guess the laws of physics lie? I'm thinking someone who says the world was created on August 9, 1613 is being, and let's try to be kind here, rather untruthful. Or funny, which is fine because it IS funny.

Did someone 'create' the Earth on August 9, 1613? By the way, August is a month named for Augustus Caesar, who ruled Rome from 27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E. or for those of a religious bent from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D. Roughly 2,000 years ago. But I'm sure they lied about that?

IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.

Oh I know, but sometimes when I am stopped in traffic and some street crazy starts screaming in the window how the government is ruining his life I engage them "oh tell me about it, I just paid $4 for a milkshake! WTH is that man! We can put a man on the moon but we can't make a real milkshake for $2?"

And then I laaaaaugh.

 

[HUGGY]

yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.

No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.

I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.

Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.

Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.

It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.

My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.

"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.

 

[westwall]

yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.

No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.

I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.

Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.

Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.

It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.

My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.

"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.

The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.

Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.

 

[presonorek]

My point is that many things are beyond our understanding. Pretending to understand things doesn't make them true.

IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.

 

[konradv]

My point is that many things are beyond our understanding. Pretending to understand things doesn't make them true.

IMO, he's a troll. Ignore him. That's what they hate. Of course they don't stop, they just move on looking for more victims.

Creating an alternate history doesn't make things true either.

 

[HUGGY]

yes, the mental process w/ environmental conditions direct the composition of future offspring's.

No. DNA directs composition of future offspring. You've been watching too many action cartoons. Our minds and environment cannot change our molecular structure.

I do not understand why you are stuck on this idea that the individual's "mind" is the key to the possibility or lack there of in the theory of evolution. We do not know exactly why the giraffe developed a long neck and legs. It seems to me that "thinking" it needs to be taller would be one of the least likely reasons.

Males and females do make choices in breeding. Sometimes there is cross breeding. There are plenty of ex amples of freaks of nature. It is possible that short neck giraffes were considered "runts" and less desirable mating selections. In THAT sense the individuals "minds" would come into play as a determining factor.

Physical traits not common to all members of a group can and are multiplied by selection of the individuals in breeding. Availability or lack there of in breeding choices probably play into the rise of abnormal physical traits also.

It is possible that the giraffe had a specific diet and was confined to a specific area and short giraffes starved.

My point is that there are many possible reasons how and why physical changes occurred.

"God" designing the modern giraffe and plopping it down on the modern African Savannah is a silly possibility. At some point we should reject some theories because they are less science and more catering to the wishes and fantasies of some confused people.

The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.

Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.

I agree that accident is most likely the most important factor. Weather patterns are accidental to a degree. Droughts or monsoons can force issues and conditions that previously did not exist. Long legs could help an animal survive a flood where animals of less stature might drown and so on. Elephants and other large animals could be explained the same way as tree climbing animals which could also more easily survive floods.

 

[presonorek]

[Creating an alternate history doesn't make things true either.

I have no fascination with uncovering the truth with my magic crystal ball. I am interested in encouraging other people to think. Fiction can always do that better than truth.

You are right. An alternate history does not make things true. Once we uncover the truth about when the earth was created it will have no value whatsoever. Some people won't even believe it. Then what? You'll have to rely on appealing fiction to make things happen. Humans love an amazing story and if you give them enough incentive they will actually believe the amazing story. In the course of human history fiction has done a superior job at building civilizations. The truth offends people. They stay as far away from it as possible.

Logic is a worthless substitute for thinking.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.

Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.

Unlikely.

Evolution is too specialized to be random chance. More likely the giraffe developed over successive generations craning their neck upwards toward higher branches, causing physiological changes that eventually altered their genetics.

 

[GaryDog]

The problem that most people have when dealing with evolution is they think that it is based on need. It is not. It is based on accident. A mutation occurs, we'll take your giraffe here, and the mutation resulted in the critters baby having a long neck. That neck allowed the critter to forage at heights unreachable by the shorter critters so the long necked dude got to eat better quality food, and more of it. Thus he got bigger (or she, let's not be sexist here) and was able to chase away all the other suitors. Then, when he bred that gene was continued into the next generation.

Those critters were better able to forage so over time they became the dominant critter in that area. Evolution is accident, combine with time, to equal a result.

Unlikely.

Evolution is too specialized to be random chance. More likely the giraffe developed over successive generations craning their neck upwards toward higher branches, causing physiological changes that eventually altered their genetics.

That's not how evolution by natural selection works /\/\

What happened is that the giraffes who were most ideally suited to reach food sources tended to survive while those who couldn't died off prior to reproducing. Over thousands and thousands of generations, this left only DNA in the gene pool that supported the phenotype of longer and longer necks.

Giraffes didn't "change" to suit their environment. Long-necked giraffes were "selected" by nature to survive and flourish.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not how evolution by natural selection works /\/\

True, which is why natural selection fails to explain the development of species.

What happened is that the giraffes who were most ideally suited to reach food sources tended to survive while those who couldn't died off prior to reproducing. Over thousands and thousands of generations, this left only DNA in the gene pool that supported the phenotype of longer and longer necks.

Giraffes didn't "change" to suit their environment. Long-necked giraffes were "selected" by nature to survive and flourish.

This assumes huge variation in populations, which is supported neither by observed animal traits nor by the fossil record.

The mechanism behind evolution is unlikely to be natural selection based on random mutation. The hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.

 

[presonorek]

Well you can label people however you want, I think it's sort of intellectually cheap to attach "-ers" as a suffix and dismiss what someone is saying. It shows lack of imagination if nothing else.

I am intrigued by the "young earth theory" because I wonder about these calculations they've made to come up with the 6,000 years. How are they measuring years before there was a Julian Calendar? The Hebrew translation for the creation story uses the word "yom" for days. Well, studying Hebrew texts, we find that "yom" is a word which simply means "period of time." It can mean a day, a moon cycle, a season or epoch/era. Now since the advent of the Julian Calendar, most 'modern' Hebrew uses "yom" to mean day. But even then, Yom Kippur is celebrated for 25 hours... that's not precisely a day. So there is at least some ambiguity with regard to the words we've come to know as the Scriptures and an actual number of years it proscribes. I don't understand how anyone could calculate an accurate time this way.

On the other side is Science. Carbon dating tells us things are as old as they are, but carbon dating is still a relatively new technology and we don't know everything. It could be that carbon dating is not as accurate as we believe? It's not like Science is never wrong.

If you take the Bible literally then the age of Adam when he begat Seth is listed along with every other descendant until the time of Christ. If you assume Jesus was born January 1st in the year 0000 then you can accurately calculate the year the earth was created. I have an alternate calculation that makes mankind much younger than 6,000 years old. It is based on the assumption that human population started with two people and doubled every 46 years. That places the creation of the first male and female between 540AD-590AD.

Naturally we can see that the human population doesn't double every 46 years. There is a huge margin of error. We will just say that it is possible that I am 20 times wrong and the world population doubled every 920 years instead. That puts the creation of the first male and female between 27424BC-26504BC. That would be in the extreme case. Dating the human species at 6,000 years old is pretty reasonable since it fits between both extremes.

The age of the earth is a different story. I don't know how you would calculate that if you didn't believe the Biblical account.