How Old Is The Earth?

[Boss]

Wow... this gets even MORE bizarre!

Okay... so let me try and wrap my mind around what is happening... Life is out there reproducing through natural selection and sometimes species can't evolve fast enough and become extinct, but other times, they evolve into completely different animals and live on?

Should see plenty of fossils of one thing trying to become another and failing. We should be finding all kinds of things... here's a lizard trying to turn into a mammal... here's a shellfish turning into a reptile... here's a half sheep- half dog thing... We see nothing like that in the fossil record. Species appear suddenly and then disappear.

I do like how you analyzed evolution as a proposition.... Like Mother Nature is making us a deal. "If we won't believe in that stinky old god stuff... I'll magically make things become whatever they need to be in order to make your theories work without a creator! Mind you, the magic won't work all the time, I'll decide when to use it but if you're not important I may let you go extinct....and don't bug me with stupid stuff... if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Again, your rant shows you don't really understand what you are talking about. What you seem to ignore is the very gradual change that occurs under evolution. Sure, there are periods when organisms can't adapt quickly and die off, as with the mass extinctions. And you are never going to see a between genus change in a fossil because that just doesn't happen - the process is gradual.

If I went back 2000 years to Roman times, I could produce a child with a woman. If she went back another 2000 years, she could produce a child with an Egyptian. And we could go back 2000 years at a time and continue reproducing. But if I went back three million years, I could not reproduce with an australopithesine, because that is a different genus.

Natural selection is slow, gradual change occurring over millions of years as very small genetic changes result in small improvements in survivability.

You couldn't mate with another genus because nature doesn't work that way. That's what is so fucked up about your theory... you don't seem to get it... you can't evolve into a new genus. It doesn't matter how gradual changes are... the DNA information is not there and your digital software is incompatible.

This "common ancestry" nonsense is a myth without ANY scientific support. DNA is the nail in the coffin. Scientists wondered for a century why they failed to see evidence of evolution in fruit flies and other species they've tested and now they know, the DNA construction is incompatible with the theory. Nature cannot reprogram or re-code DNA to create a new genus. The species is confined to whatever the DNA will allow it to become.

 

[Boss]

Genes can be damage, changed, effected, whatever term you want, by radiation. That is not a closed system.

Are you saying radiation is not a part of the system of life?

But genetic change also occurs randomly with copying errors. Every time a cell divides. the chromosomes are copied. Despite very good error checking, sometimes errors occur. That is a closed system error.

Exactly, and this is entropy happening... the opposite of what is proposed in Darwinian theory.

It is not the opposite of Darwinian theory. It is slow, gradual change. And I assume by your entropy comment, you see this as increasing order (or decreasing disorder, if you prefer) which you say is entropy happening. But there is nothing wrong with this. There is an external source of energy available to drive the system to a higher ordered state - either a metabolic source of energy in an animal, or the addition of solar energy (external to the earth system) in the case of a plant.

Well copy errors don't produce a more superior creature. So the gradual degradation of the genes and chromosomes are not conducive to Darwinian theory. Now I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "external source of energy to drive the system to a higher ordered state" because it's nonsense. All life requires an external source of energy. 95% of the species are extinct, so entropy certainly seems to be alive and kicking when it comes to life.

 

[Mudda]

Life evolves.

At a micro level, many species adapt changes over time, sometimes producing new species. This natural ability for life to be versatile and adapt to environment is not Darwinian Evolution.

You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago.

This is a theory, not a fact.

The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution.

No, it is the opposite. One of the strongest sets of evidence to refute Darwinian Evolution, or "macro-evolution" as it should correctly be called. DNA is a remarkable molecule found in every living cell of life. It contains line-for-line digital code in 4-bit... (our computers use binary 2-bit). It contains the information about everything that organism is or ever can be, or that it can ever reproduce.

IF we follow the Darwinian theory, at some point, worms need to grow legs. But the information for legs are not in it's DNA molecules. Nor is the information for wings or mammary glands... all those things are in the DNA of other life.

So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know.

He didn't get any of it right except natural selection.

But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

Again, adaptation in species due to natural selection is simply the versatile ability of life. The pressures of nature cannot rewrite or reconstruct DNA code. This is why 95% of the species of life are now extinct. Natural selection is no friend to Darwinian evolution.

Not everything will evolve to have legs you fucking moron, LOL!!!! A tree isn't going to sprout legs in the future and start walking around. Man, are you this dumb on purpose?

I don't know... maybe you are not grasping your own concept here, but if all life supposedly emerged from a single cell organism out of the primordial soup, or whatever... then all kinds of shit like that HAD to happen. At some point, a living thing had to change into another kind of living thing.... not just adapted within it's genus to form new species. How the hell else do you get from a single cell life form to billions of life forms?

I don't expect trees sprouting legs, but I do expect some kind of an explanation for why there are plants, fish, mammals, birds and reptiles. And I need more than someone's opinion. I need to see some scientific evidence.

Then don't waste your time here in the dark, and don't take my word for it, I'm admittedly no real expert, go here and start to learn about evolution today!

Google

 

[Boss]

You couldn't mate with another genus because nature doesn't work that way. That's what is so fucked up about your theory... you don't seem to get it... you can't evolve into a new genus. It doesn't matter how gradual changes are... the DNA information is not there and your digital software is incompatible.

Never mind. You appear hopelessly confused. You actually agree with me as an argument against me. I'm done. You are beyond help.

No... you are the one who is hopelessly confused. You seem to believe that someone has found some evidence that australopithecines became homo sapiens. Nadda...

Call me weird.... but I want to see the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner before and after on something... here is this creature as Genus X, and here is the creature as it's changing, and here it is as Genus Y. That should be a piece-o-piss... Nadda.

So we can't make this magic happen in a lab... we don't find it happening in nature... it contradicts natural selection... it defies the laws of entropy which we do see happening with life... we find no evidence it ever happened in the past... It's impossible because of the reprogramming DNA problem... BUT... Everyone still believes it because some old man in 1859 dreamed it up while on an island looking at some finches who grew longer beaks because there had been a drought for 10 years.

 

[BreezeWood]

. And you are never going to see a between genus change in a fossil because that just doesn't happen - the process is gradual.

.

in fact metamorphosis is an example of immediate replication from one form to another - the genus change and speciation may result from stored information being processes at a single moment from centuries of preparation as metamorphosis proves is possible. and another reason a fossil evidence may never be located.

"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?"

it is a property of atheism that distinguishes their credibility, blind countenance. this thread is not a closure for science but a discussion within a religion / ethics forum - of which the atheist contributors prove to be senselessly deceased.

Spiritualism by the command of the Almighty created EARTH as displayed by its many facets, rock drillers are imbeciles.

.

 

[rdean]

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?"

Man's more trustworthy since Man can admit when he's wrong. God can't.

God did. When he tried to drown everyone.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

.

in fact metamorphosis is an example of immediate replication from one form to another - the genus change and speciation may result from stored information being processes at a single moment from centuries of preparation as metamorphosis proves is possible. and another reason a fossil evidence may never be located.

It may be a change of form. It is not a change of species. The caterpillar and butterfly have the same genes. The two forms are just different expressions of the same DNA.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

in fact metamorphosis is an example of immediate replication from one form to another - the genus change and speciation may result from stored information being processes at a single moment from centuries of preparation as metamorphosis proves is possible. and another reason a fossil evidence may never be located.

It may be a change of form. It is not a change of species. The caterpillar and butterfly have the same genes. The two forms are just different expressions of the same DNA.

.

It may be a change of form. It is not a change of species.

I referenced the caterpillar / butterfly as an example of from one form to another not that their DNA was different -

as the same process by which a species / individual over time that has stored enough information can produce an offspring of an entirely new composition ... as altered DNA of a new species.

.

 

[Programmer]

You see, Bonzi... back in 1956, a scientist proclaimed the Earth was 4.1 billion years old, so that is an irrefutable FACT now... .we can't question it or doubt it. Only another scientist can do that at some later date. This is how some people assume "science" works.

I was recently watching a documentary about black holes and dark matter, quantum physics and the multiverse theory.... What astonished me was how the various talking heads were framing their comments. They would constantly say, "we now know..." followed by something that is a theory with no evidence whatsoever in observation. Example: "We now know there are multiple universes..." We certainly do not know this. What they do is develop a theory that can't be dismissed and then proclaim the theory is fact that can't be disputed.

Evolution is my all-time favorite. Although it has no explanation for how the first living organism came to be it is supposed to be the rational counter to creationism. There is no evidence of any genus arising through process of evolution. The fossil record doesn't support the transitional species theories of evolution. And the whole of Evolution theory simply doesn't deal with origin.

We have to remember, science is only about 80 years removed from the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that quantum mechanics is not necessarily a description of an objective reality, but predicts the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, and causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse. Our understanding of the atom is still in it's infancy, relatively speaking... no pun intended.

So science discovers at every turn, the fingerprints of God. It's in everything from our DNA molecules or the simplest atom to the entirety of the cosmos itself. 95% of our universe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy which we have no understanding of because we can't observe it. It defies our interaction. Dark energy particles are passing through our bodies as we type and read these posts. The observer effect, double slit experiment, wavefunction collapse, quantum entanglement, Schrödinger's cat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... a finely tuned universe. If you are a Scientist trying to develop a plausible theory for God, what sort of evidence would you hope to see?

lmao... idiot young earthers are funny.

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.

Dismissal of the absurd happens so people don't have to take total bullshit seriously. Once totality of bullshit is identified, it's a civic duty to drop a road flare so everyone doesn't have to step in it.

 

[Boss]

as the same process by which a species / individual over time that has stored enough information can produce an offspring of an entirely new composition ... as altered DNA of a new species.

So you think we have the unknown ability to change our literal molecular structure through our experiences and hardships? Seems like black people would have "stored up enough information over time" to produce only white babies?

 

[Programmer]

.

in fact metamorphosis is an example of immediate replication from one form to another - the genus change and speciation may result from stored information being processes at a single moment from centuries of preparation as metamorphosis proves is possible. and another reason a fossil evidence may never be located.

It may be a change of form. It is not a change of species. The caterpillar and butterfly have the same genes. The two forms are just different expressions of the same DNA.

.

It may be a change of form. It is not a change of species.

I referenced the caterpillar / butterfly as an example of from one form to another not that their DNA was different -

as the same process by which a species / individual over time that has stored enough information can produce an offspring of an entirely new composition ... as altered DNA of a new species.

.

This will not happen in nature.

 

[Programmer]

Hmmmm no, I just believe anything is possible. Plus, I have seen and experienced things that maybe others have not - but might at one time in their lives.....

I think a truly intelligent person will research all arguments. I read the secular scientific data/information. I think its important to keep yourself informed on everything that is out there. I'm not expert, but I don't dig my heels in the sand and ignore other information.

I think secularists are more guilty of that than Christians

So how old do you think the earth is?

Honestly, I used to believe both, but now, not sure. There would be Christians that say if I were truly "born again" would "know" that the Earth is 6,000 years old (est.) but, I'm just being transparent here.....

Really? They talk trash like that?

 

[Boss]

Dismissal of the absurd happens so people don't have to take total bullshit seriously. Once totality of bullshit is identified, it's a civic duty to drop a road flare so everyone doesn't have to step in it.

What I find is, "dismissal of the absurd" usually means, "closed minded intolerance."

 

[Programmer]

Dismissal of the absurd happens so people don't have to take total bullshit seriously. Once totality of bullshit is identified, it's a civic duty to drop a road flare so everyone doesn't have to step in it.

What I find is, "dismissal of the absurd" usually means, "closed minded intolerance."

Open mindedness is not dismissal of fact, however. Dismissing the many facts that contradict young earth 'theory' is absurd and dismissable.

 

[Programmer]

as the same process by which a species / individual over time that has stored enough information can produce an offspring of an entirely new composition ... as altered DNA of a new species.

So you think we have the unknown ability to change our literal molecular structure through our experiences and hardships? Seems like black people would have "stored up enough information over time" to produce only white babies?

See? Laid down the flare. Good Man. Now, one can investigate molecular shapeshifting, but it's absurd, so why?

 

[jillian]

You see, Bonzi... back in 1956, a scientist proclaimed the Earth was 4.1 billion years old, so that is an irrefutable FACT now... .we can't question it or doubt it. Only another scientist can do that at some later date. This is how some people assume "science" works.

I was recently watching a documentary about black holes and dark matter, quantum physics and the multiverse theory.... What astonished me was how the various talking heads were framing their comments. They would constantly say, "we now know..." followed by something that is a theory with no evidence whatsoever in observation. Example: "We now know there are multiple universes..." We certainly do not know this. What they do is develop a theory that can't be dismissed and then proclaim the theory is fact that can't be disputed.

Evolution is my all-time favorite. Although it has no explanation for how the first living organism came to be it is supposed to be the rational counter to creationism. There is no evidence of any genus arising through process of evolution. The fossil record doesn't support the transitional species theories of evolution. And the whole of Evolution theory simply doesn't deal with origin.

We have to remember, science is only about 80 years removed from the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that quantum mechanics is not necessarily a description of an objective reality, but predicts the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, and causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse. Our understanding of the atom is still in it's infancy, relatively speaking... no pun intended.

So science discovers at every turn, the fingerprints of God. It's in everything from our DNA molecules or the simplest atom to the entirety of the cosmos itself. 95% of our universe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy which we have no understanding of because we can't observe it. It defies our interaction. Dark energy particles are passing through our bodies as we type and read these posts. The observer effect, double slit experiment, wavefunction collapse, quantum entanglement, Schrödinger's cat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... a finely tuned universe. If you are a Scientist trying to develop a plausible theory for God, what sort of evidence would you hope to see?

lmao... idiot young earthers are funny.

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.

Dismissal of the absurd happens so people don't have to take total bullshit seriously. Once totality of bullshit is identified, it's a civic duty to drop a road flare so everyone doesn't have to step in it.

Exactly

 

[jillian]

as the same process by which a species / individual over time that has stored enough information can produce an offspring of an entirely new composition ... as altered DNA of a new species.

So you think we have the unknown ability to change our literal molecular structure through our experiences and hardships? Seems like black people would have "stored up enough information over time" to produce only white babies?

why would they do that?

 

[Boss]

Dismissal of the absurd happens so people don't have to take total bullshit seriously. Once totality of bullshit is identified, it's a civic duty to drop a road flare so everyone doesn't have to step in it.

What I find is, "dismissal of the absurd" usually means, "closed minded intolerance."

Open mindedness is not dismissal of fact, however. Dismissing the many facts that contradict young earth 'theory' is absurd and dismissable.

I don't see anything being dismissed with facts. I see people running around claiming things are facts that are not facts. Mostly while calling people names and foaming at the mouth because they have a different belief.

 

[jillian]

Dismissal of the absurd happens so people don't have to take total bullshit seriously. Once totality of bullshit is identified, it's a civic duty to drop a road flare so everyone doesn't have to step in it.

What I find is, "dismissal of the absurd" usually means, "closed minded intolerance."

Open mindedness is not dismissal of fact, however. Dismissing the many facts that contradict young earth 'theory' is absurd and dismissable.

I don't see anything being dismissed with facts. I see people running around claiming things are facts that are not facts. Mostly while calling people names and foaming at the mouth because they have a different belief.

no one has to defend reality.

and no one is going to pretend idiocy and fantasy are deserving of "debate".

your hallucinations are not up for debate. they are simply hallucinations.

 

[Boss]

as the same process by which a species / individual over time that has stored enough information can produce an offspring of an entirely new composition ... as altered DNA of a new species.

So you think we have the unknown ability to change our literal molecular structure through our experiences and hardships? Seems like black people would have "stored up enough information over time" to produce only white babies?

why would they do that?

Because they have been racially oppressed by people who's skin is white for thousands and thousands of years. If "information stored over time" causes us to change into completely new species, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think black skinned people would have morphed themselves into white people a long time ago. That's not even a change in species.

The point is, Breezy's idea is cockamamie. We can't change our DNA through "power of the mind" or whatever.