Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 1:15 PM:
I believe the local, so called "atheist" is trying to stir the pot. Not going to work on this believer!
Replies (36)
Civilizations have grown and flourished, built by and ruled over by men who thought the world to be 6,000, 10,000, or perhaps 250,000 years old, if they gave it a thought at all. Methinks it of little consequence, in the grand scheme of things, which view one holds in that regards. To the best of my knowledge, neither brain surgery, rocket science, nor governance requires a knowledge of the Earth's age.
Methinks, also, there is a not a man alive today who can tell you with certainty what the Earth's age may be.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 2:21 PM
"Nor which God is the true God , a matter of personal belief ."
If one God is the True God, then it is more than a matter of personal belief. But I accept that no man will know that with certainty while he walks this Earth.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 2:30 PM
I have to wonder how one defines "stupidity" as being based on one's knowledge of the age of the Earth.
Wikipedia puts the age of Earth at 4.54 billion years. They put the age of the Moon as 4.5 billion years, just slightly less than that of the Earth. The put the age of the Sun at 4.57 billion years, or slightly more than the age of the Earth.
Of course, we don't know how the Earth came to be associate with the Earth. There are theories in that regard, some say the Moon is a capture, some say they were formed together, some say they were the result of an impact, and (yes) some say they were created 6,000 years ago. Each scientific theory has its merits and each suffers from being unable to satisfy other conditions, so there remains no real consensus on how the Moon came to orbit the Earth as it does.
They have no way of knowing these presumed ages, or course, but they have Scientific theories which support their hypotheses, and which can back up their claims, if the base assumptions are accepted face value.
For Instance, the age of the Earth and of the Moon are determined form Radiometric age dating, a method devised in 1905. Of course, we have no rock samples from the Sun, so other methods of determining its age must be used.
Radiometric age dating requires that we measure the isotopes with known decay rates. The problem is, we don't really know the decay rates for long-lived Isotopoes, they are estimated using a variety of methods, each with its own probability of error and its own base assumptions. Let's face it, we do not have an adequate sampling of, say Uranium 238 to know with certainty that its half-life of 4.468 billion years. We have to take Science at its word that its method of determining that is accurate.
If you have a sample of Uranium 238 and don't mind waiting, of course, you can seal it up and check it again in 4.468 billion years and see if the estimate holds up.
Carbon-14, on the other hand, has a relatively short (5,730 year) half-life, so since its discovery in 1940, we've had 1 1/2% of a half-life by which to gauge the accuracy of that computation. Carbon-14 dating is useful for age-dating of formerly-living things, but it assumes a known level of Carbon-14 in the surrounding atmosphere (it does vary, but we make assumptions about how much it has varied over the centuries, and adjust for those assumptions). Such things as volcanic eruptions, nuclear tests, and other factors vary the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and thus absorbed by the things being samples, but we think we know by how much that has varied.
(By "we", of course, I mean the scientific community and, by extension, the community at large which accepts those findings.)
But Carbon-14 dating is only good for a certain time span. In radiation control, we generally accept five half-lives to equal depletion. After five half-lives, we have about 3% of an isotope remaining. By ten half-lives, we have less than 1% of our sample left. That would seem to be an insufficient amount to make a sound measurement. For a half-life of 5,730 years, that would indicate that by 57,3000 years, the sample would be insufficient to determine the age of a fossil with any certainty.
Of course, this also assumes that, over the course of all those centuries or millennia, nothing occurs which would interfere with the normal decay rates of our sample, which might lead to a loss or gain of sample size.
It also requires us to accept that our assumptions of the origin of the sample are accurate. You may remember the case of the Mars meteorites, in which were said to be found evidence of microscopic life.
Those meteorites, it seems, which had been in the Vatican's collection, one of the largest collections of meteorites on Earth. For years, it was assumed they were not from Mars, and they had mathematical computations to prove they could not be from Mars. But, the atmosphere of Mars is thought to be unique. So, when one of the meteorites was cut open and was discovered to have Martian atmosphere trapped inside, the scientists returned to their slide rules and provide, with new mathematical computations, that the meteorites did, indeed, come from Mars. Such is the way Science is conducted.
Anyway, the point is, when one set of base assumptions are shown to be wrong, or at least unsatisfactory in light of newfound evidence, a new set of base assumptions must take their place. So it is with all Science - nothing is certain except uncertainty.
The possibility exists that, tomorrow or next week or next century, some evidence may come to light that throws the evidence of radiometric dating into question, and the age of the Earth and Moon will have to be re-calculated. One wonders, then, will we the youth of that generation consider it a "profile in stupidity" when some aging Millennial proclaims the Earth to be 4.54 billion years old?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 3:50 PM
I see my fingers and my brain were, again, not in agreement when typing. Sorry for the typographical errors. I'm afraid I can't afford to hire an editor to edit these things.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 3:55 PM
...in my humble little world, it doesn't matter much how old this old world is. time, according to einstein, is basically 'relative'...;-)
-- Posted by tennisnut on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 5:20 PM
Who said: "Religion was created when the first con man met the first fool"?
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 5:55 PM
IMO, Closeted Atheist is a born again sock puppet of one of the Godless Liberals on these forums.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:13 PM
-- Posted by Closeted Atheist on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:38 PM
Evolution has been debunked by many, including Darwin himself...
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:43 PM
-- Posted by Closeted Atheist on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:48 PM
Wow all you want, it still doesn't change anything. Evolution has been debunked by many, including Darwin himself.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:52 PM
-- Posted by Closeted Atheist on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:25 PM
Atheist: You are truly mixed up in your beliefs or lack of beliefs and may you find God before you go to that big closet in the sky.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 10:24 PM
"...there is a not a man alive today who can tell you with certainty what the Earth's age may be."
What "youthinks" may well be true. But I'd venture that there is an over 99.99% probability that the true age of the earth is 4.54 billion years plus or minus a few billion, and a less than 00.01% chance that the earth is 6000 years plus or minus a thousand.
Furthermore, I'd suggest that Dr. Carson really doesn't believe that the earth was made 6000 years ago, and he's implying that purely for politics. As he is said to be an expert in medical science, it's then likely he had exposure to enough other science to understand natural history, chemistry and geology.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 5:51 AM
Sadly, I've found that there is a thin line between stupid and atheist...
-- Posted by BonScott on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 11:38 AM
-- Posted by Closeted Atheist on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 11:10 AM
Atheist: Then you better enjoy this one because the next one probably won't be to your liken. Have a great life and may God be merciful to you....enough said on this matter.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 12:10 PM
-- Posted by Closeted Atheist on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 12:30 PM
Atheist: Keep saying that to yourself.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 12:44 PM
Evolution has been debunked by many, including Darwin himself.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 6:52 PM
Then let's see your evidence!
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 4:56 PM
Credible Source. And please do not bring up the Human Eye. That Darwin quote has be taken out of context by so many morons. If It see again, I will burn a Bible.
-- Posted by Closeted Atheist on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 7:12 PM
You won't see a credible source from him on this subject.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jun 20, 2015, at 4:57 PM
Nor do the republican christians.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Jun 21, 2015, at 9:28 AM
You take the same stand as evidenced by your worship of politicians and it's government.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Jun 21, 2015, at 9:43 AM
Tell us something we didn't already know little boy.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Jun 21, 2015, at 10:14 AM
"...plus or minus a few billion,..."
Apparently, you do not comprehend the concept of "certainty".
And I think your percentage is a bit high.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jun 21, 2015, at 7:41 PM
You appear to accept only two possibilities: the Earth is either 6,000 years old or it is 4.54 billion years old, give or take a few billion. and you base your percentages on that. That is a very limiting mindset.
The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old. That figure was derived from computations based on interpretations of events recorded therein. The assumption that anyone who believes in the God of the Bible or in creation automatically accepts the 6,000 year old Earth theory is flawed from the outset.
we have only scratched the surface, literally, regarding study of the of the Earth. Our deepest excavations have not succeeded in breaking through the crust. We theorize as to what lies beneath, but to limit our thinking on the Earth's age to the sampling of a handful of rocks is also narrow thinking. Science doesn't do that. while the current consensus puts the age as that reported in Wikipedia, scientists continue to dig and sample and theorize to find new evidence which may change that number by millions, billions, or trillions of years.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 6:29 AM
...trillions???
Granted my own personal concept of universe is that it has always been there, that the "big bang" is physically impossible, and that planets, suns/stars, solar systems, galaxies and universes have always been in a state of being formed or decaying to death, and then being reborn.
As for there only being "two possibilities," those were the extremes being presented in the thread. And in response to your statement that "...there is a not a man alive today who can tell you with certainty what the Earth's age may be," I just proposed that the "billions" is highly likely and close to the true age, and the 6000 is highly unlikely. Now in this way, anyone can add whatever percentages they feel comfortable with.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 7:47 AM
"I just proposed that the "billions" is highly likely and close to the true age, and the 6000 is highly unlikely."
No, you didn't. What you said was:
"But I'd venture that there is an over 99.99% probability that the true age of the earth is 4.54 billion years plus or minus a few billion,..."
That is not the same thing. That clearly shows your faith in the idea that the Earth is 4.54 trillion year, plus or minus, and eliminates other possibilities.
"...trillions???"
Yes. Keep in mind that the idea of it being "billions" was completely foreign not so long ago. Of course, much depends on what you consider the "age of the Earth". That is, there was likely a solid something upon which the crust upon which we walk was formed long ago. There is a high likelihood that the crust is a recent development compared to that core - the crust formed through the collection of dust and solid particles as that core passed through this or that on its journey through space.
It has been theorized that dinosaurs, those huge, useless creatures that we love to fictionalize as walking about in a modernish world, could not have developed to such size with the Earth's current physical composition - gravity being what it is and all. The possibility exists that the Earth of 65,000,000 years ago, give or take a few million, was much lesser in mass than the Earth of today - giving credence to the Moon-impact theory, among others. If this is so, then it is entirely possible that the dinosaur-laden Earth could have been of an entirely different age than the post-Moon-impact Earth.
Of course, the possibility also exists that something completely different happened, that had nothing to do with the Moon. Nonetheless, there must be some explanation as to why no land creature today approaches the dinosaurs in size.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:01 AM
Nonetheless, there must be some explanation as to why no land creature today approaches the dinosaurs in size.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:01 AM
There is.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:15 PM
One plausible explanation is that the largest of the dinosaurs lived in or near swampy wetlands so that for much of the time their weight was supported through buoyancy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:45 PM
Ok, Ike. What's the reason the dinosaurs don't exist today? Pay attention, everybody. This should be good.
-- Posted by G. H. on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:33 PM
I didn't say I had the definitive answer you illiterate. I said there are explanations. Read.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:49 PM
I said there are explanations. Read. -- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:49 PM
Link? Where's your link?
Hypocrisy at it's best.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:25 PM
Some on SO continue to have problems thinking for themselves or doing their own research.
The generally accepted reason that there was no resurgence of dinosaurs, is that after the extinction even of 65 million years ago the earth's climate and vegetation had changed sufficiently to prevent surviving reptiles from evolving again to dinosaur-sized creatures.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:07 AM
A study of dinosaur bones suggests their bone structure is inadequate to support their massive weight, suggesting (as I said) a change in gravity. The bouyancy theory has been proposed as one explanation,but is inadequate to explain the large land animals.
Funny that you chide others for not thinking for themselves while posting the "generally accepted" reason.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:19 AM
It would seem to me that asking questions would be indicative of free thought, whereas responding with "generally accepted" theories is less so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 2:50 PM
"....posting the "generally accepted" reason."
On the contrary, looking at numerous alternatives and theories, and favoring the one you think most plausible, certainly is "thinking for onesslf."
Large land animals are not restricted to land. Today's hippos are not. The largest of the brontosaurous class was also likely to live in or near water for self preservation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 3:59 PM
Rick, I have known some people that were akin to reptiles. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 6:53 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 6:12 PM
Rick: All of these threads sooner or later lose it's meaning by folks trying to impress themselves and others of their intellectual powers.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 9:03 AM
Then don't call anybody wrong if you don't know the answer yourself, you dips***t.
-- Posted by G. H. on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 2:29 PM
I didn't say anyone was wrong. Show me where I did. Or just admit that your a liar or you can't read very well.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 5:15 PM
" Daniel Valenzuela, a Democratic councilman and the city's vice mayor, said on Thursday. "However, we should draw the line at allowing him to use the Phoenix Convention Center -- a public building funded by all of our taxpayers' dollars."
Menu
I believe the local, so called "atheist" is trying to stir the pot. Not going to work on this believer!
Replies (36)