Survey: Young Earth or Old Earth?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2006, 03:12 PM) [snapback]244400[/snapback]</div>

Why do you choose an arbitrary unit of measurement for time? It is impossible to guage the true age of Earth based on "our" measurement of time. I think more important would be how long do you think we have left before Universal forces cause the planet to become uninhabitable by human life.


Anyhow... If you want to use years as your time frame - answer is easy - Earth is greater than 10,000 human years old. And I am not going to venture on billions of human years - somewhere between several hundred million to a billion, give or take 100,000,000 solar rotations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Apr 26 2006, 07:32 AM) [snapback]245474[/snapback]</div>

Many sciesntist have studied this question. Yet the data still suggests that the speed of light is slowing down. Scientist studying radiocarbon dating or something like that have also found evidence of cDK. Also please supply some type of facts that support your statement that Setterfield's research was shoddy.

Wildkow

p.s. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39733

 

Human descendents can be tracked down 60,000 years ~ all the evidence is in the blood. Therefore, Young Earthers are simply wrong (no comment on Old Earth and scientists/evolutionists).

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

No contest. I am sorry, I normally don't go out my way to challenge someone else's belief systems - but if mine are going to be challenged then I will challenge them back.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 26 2006, 07:37 AM) [snapback]245476[/snapback]</div>

Ahhh daniel

First it's not a claim by creationists it was a compilation of light speed data by a student. Who then placed that data into a chart or table in chronological order and discovered that the trend showed a downward progression.

The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time.. . .

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.
Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review.
It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not.
Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=39733


Second: I did not claim that there were “no extremely small multicellular organisms†I should hope that you would at least offer some supporting evidence for your claim. What I said was that if what the Evo’s (I’m not using this term in a derogatory way it’s just easier to spell/type than is evolutionist) say about evolution is true i.e. that life evolved in a progression of steps then there should be some evidence of 2-3-4-5 celled organism in the fossil record and there is not.

Wildkow

p.s. At least try google before accusing someone of falsifying information this research is all over the internet and many prestigious journals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Apr 26 2006, 08:28 AM) [snapback]245505[/snapback]</div>

I went to your link and could not find the article. Could you please go to the specific article and then cut and paste the address?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2006, 05:29 PM) [snapback]244474[/snapback]</div>

Yes, that was me. And, even though I voted "The Earth was divinely created more than a billion years ago", I feel that ANYONE who tries to stretch the Genesis account to explain/describe the creation of the universe, or even the physical planet Earth itself, is going beyond what is written. Genesis 1:3-31 is obviously describing the preparation of an already existing earth for human habitation. Why be dogmatic about things that God obviously didn't reveal in the Bible?
Actually, the "old earth" theory makes me love God even more, because it shows us that he took millions of years to prepare this planet for human inhabitation. It was not just some whim, or a snap of his fingers. It was a HUGE project, undertaken with great forethought and wisdom. This isn't just some highschool biology project that will be quickly discarded once the results are known, and the test is given. God has continually shown that he has an ungoing, vested interest in mankind, and his Son, Christ Jesus was spoken of in Proverbs 8 as a "Master Worker" alongside him in creation, who took great delight in man's creation.

 

our current inability to control, predict or migitate the effects of natural disasters should tell us that the natural process is a very powerful force. does it have the power to create life?? i have not doubt that is does.

afaic, ALL of religious power was given to it by man, and we have relatively little control over any of the processes that created us or the Earth

 

I always found it interesting that creationists like to dismiss millions of scientists work, but they find one crackpot "scientist" that supports their side and throw it all over the place as proof. It is just like the ID stuff. 99% of scientists support evolution, but the 1% that don't are held up by the IDers as correct.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Deaden @ Apr 26 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]245679[/snapback]</div>

Is that a Fact? Try offering some supporting evidence that 99% of scientist support evolution. <_<

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 26 2006, 03:07 PM) [snapback]245686[/snapback]</div>

Ok, sorry. Let me be more accurate since there is no poll taken of all of the scientists in the world. The VAST majority of scientists support Evolution. That is just the truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 26 2006, 10:35 AM) [snapback]245511[/snapback]</div>

I won't go into the "tired light" hypothesis, there was already a link (by GeologyRox I think) that dealt with that fairly well. As I've been reading science journals and followed physics for a few decades and just now heard about this idea, it certainly doesn't have much support in the scientific community.

But for the 2,3,4,5 celled organisms, there's really not much need for that. Once a cell can cooperate with another cell, it's a simple matter to cooperate with 20, 40, 100 or 200 cells (however many can work together before some common method of nutrient intake and waste disposal needs to be developed). We do have organisms in that range. Think of computers. They can exist separately, indeed that's how it started. Then somebody figured out how to connect them, and in short order we had LANs that connected all the computers on a campus. There's not much benefit of connecting just two computers, and that method of connection is not encouraged (survival of the fittest organism, or most economical computer, both have evolved although design was obviously a factor with computer's evolution).

Apparently Leonardo daVinci studied river erosion and realized before evolution was even discovered that the Earth had to be much older than 7,000 years. There are many many ways to show supporting evidence of an old Earth.

Before you write me off as a godless scientist, let me say that I see no contradiction between Genesis:1 and the early story of the universe. First everything was a formless void, then light and dark was created (matter & energy), then planets and stars giving day and night. I have some critique on the order of animal creation, but humans are created late in the game, definitely. But how can you say each stage took 24 hours when the sun and the Earth didn't exist until the 3rd day I think it was? Isn't it much more likely that the writer meant a more generic meaning for the word "day"? (Like the sentence "In King Arthur's day, chivalry was alive." doesn't mean that King Arthur ruled for 24 hours). The Bible is full of parables and common phrases - like when Jesus called a person to be a disciple, but he declined saying he first needed to bury his father. That was a common saying, meant he wasn't ready to do it just now, come back in a few years and ask again, it doesn't mean his father had just died and awaiting burial.

In any case, the debate of evolution or spontaneous creation is a difference of religious interpretation (some Christians go one way, and some another, and let's not even talk about indigineous beliefs, etc). Therefore, as a religious matter, it doesn't belong in secular schools (or anything state-sponsored, for that matter). For me, the Bible explains why, science explains how.

The National Geographic link worked for me, the quote was on the front page, but this article talks about human evolution over the past 14,000 years in particular: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._evolution.html

nerfer

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 26 2006, 01:57 PM) [snapback]245724[/snapback]</div>

Thank you nerfer your link did indeed work I must have done something wrong before. However, please reread mirza’s post.

Human descendents can be tracked down 60,000 years ~ all the evidence is in the blood. Therefore, Young Earthers are simply wrong (no comment on Old Earth and scientists/evolutionists).

The claim is that humans can be tracked down 60,000 years and that all the evidence is in the blood. A reading of the article does not reveal that humans can be traced back 60K years through the blood or through DNA. In fact a careful reading of this article does not reveal any evidence for evolution or the ability to date/set an age to humans at all. But for the misleading title “Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds†and the first sentence the article only mentions changes through selection that affects humans changing skin color, modes of digestion and bone structure. Hardly a ringing endorsement for evolution and one paragraph actually attributes the changes to mutations.

When I Google “tired light†I get over 30K hits. So I would venture to say that plenty of scientists are investigating this phenomenon. Also you state that GeologyRox had a post that dealt (refuted) this theory fairly well. Not to be demeaning but that is laughable at best. GeologyRox entire post is one paragraph long and contains absolutely no facts or supporting evidence. His dismissal of the research is based on the fact that his Google search only found the article I posted on one website (it’s actually on 2 creationist websites) and should therefore be dismissed. Meanwhile absolutely ignoring thousands of hits on Google of scientist and journalist writing about CDK and also in some very prestigious scientific journals. In addition he claims that Barry Setterfield’s research techniques were “shoddy†and yet does not offer one iota of supporting evidence. Shameful, disingenuous and unworthy of anyone taking seriously. I am some what disappointed in both of you for this type of counter-argument. What say you? I should like to read a post from you in response to this.

Also cells cooperating with each other is not the same thing and is not evidence supporting evolution. No self-respecting scientist supporting evolution would agree with you.

Wildkow

 

Hmmm... For starters, I'm a she - not offended, just figured I should let you know, since it's almost like we're friends =)

Second, I think you'll find that nerfer only said he believed I had posted a link that dealt with CDK fairly well. I think he was talking about this link (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showqu...aq=4&fldAuto=52) which daniel posted. Reading for content instead of to prove your point may serve you well - give it a try on that and these links:
www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=444
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/downloads/...kedQuestion.pdf

Third, I'll tell you why I think his work was shoddy - he started with data collected over hundreds of years, at varying levels of even attempted accuracy and technology, threw out half the data points, and said that the remaining points matched his curve. Seriously, look it up. If he had used ALL the data points collected, it indicates that the speed of light has been increasing. If I used techniques like that, I'd be laughed out of the sciences, just like Barry Setterfield. Have you seen the responses that his writings in those prestigious journals draw? They've picked him apart and shown that his process was "not sound." (sounds better than shoddy, right?) I can't speak about any recent research, but I know that you don't want to base anything on his original work.

and lastly, check out this link - perhaps you'll trust them (Institute for Creation Research) http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...ion=view&ID=283
a quote from the ICR: "Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at the data reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid."

 

re: Wildkow's quote: "When I Google “tired light†I get over 30K hits. So I would venture to say that plenty of scientists are investigating this phenomenon."

this occurred to me as I fell asleep last night:

I think your statement might be stretching logic a bit - the search terms "flat earth society" pull up 300,000 hits =)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Deaden @ Apr 26 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]245689[/snapback]</div>

OK once more please supply supporting evidence that the VAST majority of scientists support evoultion. I will also try and find some if you wish, but I should think that you would prefer to support your own assumptions.

Wildkow

p.s. I don't disbelieve you, it just drives me crazy when people make sweeping statements without factual evidence to support it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 28 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]246638[/snapback]</div>

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 28 2006, 10:08 AM) [snapback]246638[/snapback]</div>

Ok, here you go. 95% of scientists according to several Gallup polls. Also some other interesting facts from the poll:

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." 1

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view. It is barely statistically significant. The sample size is about 1,000 so the sampling error is within +/- 3.2%, 19 times out of 20. It will take a decade or two to determine if a significant shift has really happened.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

 

While I was hoping for a reply, I was happy to go digging up numbers on the percentage of scientists who support evolution - I found some great sites, not all about scientists:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002..._10_11_2002.asp
A small survey from Ohio, less than 500 respondants, of professors of science in 4 year universities - public and private - says "The vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of “any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_con..._12_30_1899.asp
References a 1997 study where 55% of scientists support atheistic evolution, 40% support evolution guided by God, and 5% believed that humans were created by God "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Indicates that the regular public is about evenly split - how scary. (sorry) Was somewhat surprised to see that women are quite a lot more likely to believe in a young earth. I was completely unsurprised to see the interesting comparison between college graduates and those without high school diplomas. A quote: "Creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men."

Also, I don't know if there are any other pastafarians on the board, but you should take note of the graph on page 27 of the Gospel, noting the obviously incorrect correlation that proponants of ID have statistically lower IQs than those of scientists =P (lest anyone think I'm bring rude, just read the book - the great Prophet Bobby is plenty ruder than I am)

EDIT: Whoops! Too slow - thanks larkin & deaden. I think that saying that scientists overwhelmingly support evolution (which is DIFFERENT from "the origins of life," contrary to popular opinion) is a fair statement, even before reading these polls.