[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for an old earth

[lordkalvan]

Re: Evidence about WHAT???

You are the only "scientist" (so called) who says that Ice Layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did Ken (or anyone else) sat that Ice layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old'?

That's the general consensus of scientific opinion of the "old" earth, isn't it?

Er, no it isn't. Apart from the pointless irrelevance of your argument, your statement is glaringly erroneous.

Maybe you don't know what the general scientific community asserts as the age of the earth?

Well, neither do you apparently, so pot, kettle, black yet again.

That being the case and with your innocence well established in the trolling arena, It should be easy enough to disprove my second assertion then. I've said and maintain that the only thing that the article tries to do is prove others (Creationists) to be wrong.

It does more than try. Why not address the evidence therein rather than this semantic obsession with what 'old' means, other than older than YE creationists assert.

PS If you believe Ken is trolling, the general rule of thumb is 'Don't feed the troll.'

 

[Sparkey]

Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence. We got ICE.

You are the only "scientist" (so called) who says that Ice Layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did Ken (or anyone else) sat that Ice layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old'?

• [list:1eq9aoo1]He didn't. There is no discussion within this thread entitled, "Evidence for an old earth' about the age of the earth. That's my whole point. kenmaynard selected a portion of a Wiki article about the method used to determine the age of ice and what does that have to do with the topic? Nobody here is talking about Evidence of an OLD earth.

[/list:u:1eq9aoo1]

That's the general consensus of scientific opinion of the "old" earth, isn't it?

Er, no it isn't. Apart from the pointless irrelevance of your argument, your statement is glaringly erroneous. <---- Was my 'statement' a statement or was it a question? --Check again. Hint: If it has a question mark at the end, can it be considered a statement?

• [list:1eq9aoo1]I take you to mean that I was wrong when I mentioned 12 billion years relating to the "AGE" of the earth. So what? I was off by a factor of 3 or so? The general consensus of the age of the earth (per radiometric dating methods) is only 4.54 Billion years? Okay, back to the OP and back to topic then: The Ice Layering article only (at best & at the very furthest stretch) tries to establish an age range that is less than 1 million years old. This proves my allegation that there is no attempt to follow the topic here. There is no attempt to establish or give any evidence of the age of a theoretically "old" earth. 160 thousand years with a +/- factor of 15k years? That's the "evidence" we are talking about and you want to call ME the pot calling the kettle black. Even if we grant an error rate of 1000% the range would still only be in the millions. Citing that portion of the Wiki article is an example of being "off" by a factor of 1,000 or more, isn't it? At the top end of the scale (160k + 15k = 175k (175,000 years)) --- that doesn't even begin to compare to 4,500,000,000 or 4,540,000,000 years does it? Without my generous 1000% error allowance that's a factor of millions not merely thousands that the OP is off by. I'm only off by a factor of 3 or so. That's not black, it's not even "off white". The error you point to within my question (not statement) although perhaps grievous (or how did you say it? GLARINGLY ERRONEOUS?) in your sight ---is merely off by a factor of 3 or so, not the thousands or millions that the ICE Layering method represents.

[/list:u:1eq9aoo1]

Maybe you don't know what the general scientific community asserts as the age of the earth?

Well, neither do you apparently, so pot, kettle, black yet again.

That being the case and with your innocence well established in the trolling arena, It should be easy enough to disprove my second assertion then. I've said and maintain that the only thing that the article tries to do is prove others (Creationists) to be wrong.

It does more than try. Why not address the evidence therein rather than this semantic obsession with what 'old' means, other than older than YE creationists assert.

The Title of this thread is "Evidence of an old earth." That's why. I'm just here saying,
totopic

Why not make a new thread entitled, "YE Creationist are WRONG According to Those Who Spend Their Efforts Counting Layers Found in Ice." You'll pardon me if I don't participate in that thread, but that would be the right thing to do instead of telling me to join you in your off topic discussion.

PS If you believe Ken is trolling, the general rule of thumb is 'Don't feed the troll.'

You're now admonishing me to follow your general rules of thumb? Ok, thanks. Wanna send the rest of your general rules to me in PM? Fine, but let's agree to try to stick to the topic under discussion here first. Where is the evidence in an old earth? There certainly isn't any to be found in the selected quote about Ice Layering, at least none that I can see.

 

[kenmaynard]

Re: Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence. We got ICE.

You are the only "scientist" (so called) who says that Ice Layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did Ken (or anyone else) sat that Ice layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old'?

• [list:3p58fnx0]He didn't. There is no discussion within this thread entitled, "Evidence for an old earth' about the age of the earth. That's my whole point. kenmaynard selected a portion of a Wiki article about the method used to determine the age of ice and what does that have to do with the topic? Nobody here is talking about Evidence of an OLD earth.

[/list:u:3p58fnx0]

That's the general consensus of scientific opinion of the "old" earth, isn't it?

Er, no it isn't. Apart from the pointless irrelevance of your argument, your statement is glaringly erroneous. <---- Was my 'statement' a statement or was it a question? --Check again. Hint: If it has a question mark at the end, can it be considered a statement?

• [list:3p58fnx0]I take you to mean that I was wrong when I mentioned 12 billion years relating to the "AGE" of the earth. So what? I was off by a factor of 3 or so? The general consensus of the age of the earth (per radiometric dating methods) is only 4.54 Billion years? Okay, back to the OP and back to topic then: The Ice Layering article only (at best & at the very furthest stretch) tries to establish an age range that is less than 1 million years old. This proves my allegation that there is no attempt to follow the topic here. There is no attempt to establish or give any evidence of the age of a theoretically "old" earth. 160 thousand years with a +/- factor of 15k years? That's the "evidence" we are talking about and you want to call ME the pot calling the kettle black. Even if we grant an error rate of 1000% the range would still only be in the millions. Citing that portion of the Wiki article is an example of being "off" by a factor of 1,000 or more, isn't it? At the top end of the scale (160k + 15k = 175k (175,000 years)) --- that doesn't even begin to compare to 4,500,000,000 or 4,540,000,000 years does it? Without my generous 1000% error allowance that's a factor of millions not merely thousands that the OP is off by. I'm only off by a factor of 3 or so. That's not black, it's not even "off white". The error you point to within my question (not statement) although perhaps grievous (or how did you say it? GLARINGLY ERRONEOUS?) in your sight ---is merely off by a factor of 3 or so, not the thousands or millions that the ICE Layering method represents.

[/list:u:3p58fnx0]

Maybe you don't know what the general scientific community asserts as the age of the earth?

Well, neither do you apparently, so pot, kettle, black yet again.

That being the case and with your innocence well established in the trolling arena, It should be easy enough to disprove my second assertion then. I've said and maintain that the only thing that the article tries to do is prove others (Creationists) to be wrong.

It does more than try. Why not address the evidence therein rather than this semantic obsession with what 'old' means, other than older than YE creationists assert.

The Title of this thread is "Evidence of an old earth." That's why. I'm just here saying,
totopic

Why not make a new thread entitled, "YE Creationist are WRONG According to Those Who Spend Their Efforts Counting Layers Found in Ice." You'll pardon me if I don't participate in that thread, but that would be the right thing to do instead of telling me to join you in your off topic discussion.

PS If you believe Ken is trolling, the general rule of thumb is 'Don't feed the troll.'

You're now admonishing me to follow your general rules of thumb? Ok, thanks. Wanna send the rest of your general rules to me in PM? Fine, but let's agree to try to stick to the topic under discussion here first. Where is the evidence in an old earth? There certainly isn't any to be found in the selected quote about Ice Layering, at least none that I can see.

You are too funny.

Are you saying you haven't heard the expression Young Earth before? That's the idea of taking the literal bible story of creation as scientific truth. These young earthers say the earth is 6,000 years old.

I am sorry If my titling the thread evidence for and old earth was confusing too you, and you that confusion has made it impossible to read or refute the article I posted. Don't worry your not alone neither has anyone else.

I understand its hard when people use big words and start throwing things like facts and evidence around. Hang in there buddy. Your not alone in your belief that God doesn't use natural forces make the universe work.

One day when you are in heaven you can prove all those silly scientists wrong. Sure they find and extract oil, then refine it. Sure they cure disease. Sure they put super cool telescopes in orbit. None of that matters because God obviously spoke literal truth to some guys a couple thousand years ago, and everything those scientists see and work with are illusions.

We should encourage children to rebel against this fake knowledge. Children should only learn to read and write in school enough to understand the bible. Things like Math and chemistry and physics and geology are just the work of Satan. I bed the kids would love it, and the world would be much better for it. :halo

Science is for Satan worshipers. You are right sir.

 

[Sparkey]

I have told you how old I understand Earth to be - around 4.54 billion years. So, yes, I assume you haven't been reading my answers.

The OP defined "old" for us. I disagree with that definition and have stated the the general consensus of the scientific community does NOT define "old" in terms of the age of the earth to be == 10,001+ years. I'm still waiting for any proof from the OP -- even a couple of links to actual articles found in the scientific community that suggests we use methods other than radiometric --anything other than what appears to be his distorted and erroneous opinion. In the meantime you're trying to squabble with me when I'm off by a simple factor of 3 or so? I exaggerated the guesstimate but just wait... the scientific community thinks nothing of a slight error like a factor of three. They'll swell their numbers again soon enough.

In the meantime - you seem to have no problem with kenmaynard's statement - he says "old" in terms of the age of the earth doesn't mean 4,540,000,000 years or so - He isn't even referring to radiometric dating at all - no! The definition given by the OP for the age of our "old" earth is 10,001+ years. He chose the portion of the article that mentions ice layer counting! You have no problem with that whatsoever? Maybe I'm wrong again, it's possible that you've been sending dozens of PM's to him about it. I'm curious if that is the case then why not even one politely worded reply to others in the thread? Is it possible that you align yourself against Creationists as well?

Sparrow states the age of the earth is: _______________ ??? "I dunno"
kenmaynard states the "old" in terms of the age of the earth is: 10,001+ years:
|------------->...|
Science states teh age of the earth is: 4.5 BILLION years:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------| times 1,000!

If we took the length of the line and copy and pasted it another 1,000 times it would represent the difference.

Are you sure that your effort is better spent trying to harangue me for saying, "I don't know" than it would be spent on correcting the OP who wants to imply that radiometric methods should be given less preference than drilling into Antarctica? Coming up with Ice Layering as "Evidence" for an OLD earth limits the definition that was given to 10,001+ years as kenmaynard has rightly said. But to me and according to what I understand is the general consensus of the scientific community that "age" is nowhere near close to what is theorized to be the actual age of the earth, now is it?

Let me ask you: How old would are you when you take your millionth breath after being born? How old are you when you are one million seconds old? Get a grip on the perspective and huge difference in our definition of "old" here. There is a vast difference but it doesn't lie with me, bud. I'm much closer when I say "12 billion" than when somebody (who I'll not mention names but his initials are kenmaynard) oh, hmmmmm.... 10 thousand or more. You've said something close to 4 billion years and were even more precise and defined exactly what "old" means. 4.54 x 2.64333 = 12 right (or pretty close)?
So yours truly was off by 2.643333 or so from your statement.
What is something less than a factor of 3 compared to a factor of 454,000,000? You're straining the gnat and swallowing the camel here. THAT's my point.

~Sparrow

PS - ahhhhh, Ken? You're incorrect about my belief and understanding. You haven't asked and I have not said except to say, "I am not sure and I wasn't there." Try arguing with that and proving me wrong if you wanna. Or continue to prove that you're assumptions are in total error, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence. We got ICE.

Science is for Satan worshipers. You are right sir.

Of course I am correct when I say, "I don't know" and "I wasn't there." I am right about my opinion (It is mine and mine alone - who has better right to be correct about it than me? <other than God, that is>) and right about the fact that I was not present at the time of creation. By the way, I've never mentioned Satan or any 'worshiper of Satan' in this thread and, to the best of my knowledge, not even in this forum. Why do you make the statement, "Science is for Satan whoreships," before you mention my being right (finally)? It must be scarcasm, right? Oh, thanks for the compliment about me being funny - I do try and would agree with you there. On a more serious note:

Was Dostoevsky right when he said that "Sarcasm is the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people? When the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded"?

What about an atheist who claims no soul at all?

~Sparhawke


PS - thanks for omitting the "D" word from your reply. It's appreciated.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence. We got ICE.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but where did Ken (or anyone else) sat that Ice layering is evidence of the earth being 12 BILLION years old'?

He didn't. There is no discussion within this thread entitled, "Evidence for an old earth' about the age of the earth. That's my whole point. kenmaynard selected a portion of a Wiki article about the method used to determine the age of ice and what does that have to do with the topic? Nobody here is talking about Evidence of an OLD earth.

Bold green font? I'm beginning to think you may be pulling all our legs...

Anyway, that suspicion aside, why this insistence that 'old' can only be understood in the context of establishing the ABSOLUTE age of Earth rather than how much demonstrably older it is than the assertions of YE creationism? Is your position that any thread that addresses an 'old' Earth be restricted to addressing only its absolute age and that all other evidence that attests to its antiquity in respect of YE creationist claims (which is the obvious intention of the thread, as I have pointed out to no avail) should therefore be ignored?

I take you to mean that I was wrong when I mentioned 12 billion years relating to the "AGE" of the earth.

Yes.

So what?

I thought your point was that the thread should be strictly limited to discussing the ABSOLUTE age of Earth. Stating an incorrect age and failing to support it at all is scarcely a good start.

I was off by a factor of 3 or so?

How much you were 'off' is not particularly important. You are the one who is so keen on narrowly focusing the discussion on a dogmatically literalist understanding of 'old' as meaning 'absolute age.' If you're going to be unswervingly pedantic, expect others to reply in kind. So at least get your facts right.

The general consensus of the age of the earth (per radiometric dating methods) is only 4.54 Billion years?

That's about 4.54 billion years and there’s not much ‘only’ to it, I would have thought. The consensus relates to this absolute age but does not deny that other phenomena associated with Earth and the Solar System are younger than this age and that evidence can be produced to support these ages.

Okay, back to the OP and back to topic then: The Ice Layering article only (at best & at the very furthest stretch) tries to establish an age range that is less than 1 million years old. This proves my allegation that there is no attempt to follow the topic here.

Who made you supreme arbiter of topic interpretation? It is clear from Ken’s OP and from the stated intention and content of the article linked to that evidence is being deployed to counter YE creationist claims about the age of Earth being around 6,000 years. Returning to a point I have raised several times and that you have avoided several times, if ice layers show Earth is at least 145,000 years old, this is 25 times YE creationist claims: how is this not ‘old’ in relation to those claims? Why will you not answer this question? I have done my best to answer yours and reply to your points.

There is no attempt to establish or give any evidence of the age of a theoretically "old" earth.

So I ask again, at what point to you regard the age of earth as becoming ‘old’? Until you clarify this, all I can hear is a persistent and unsupported whine whose only significant content seems to be that 145,000 years isn’t ‘old’ enough.

160 thousand years with a +/- factor of 15k years? That's the "evidence" we are talking about and you want to call ME the pot calling the kettle black.

It’s evidence that Earth is at least 25 times older than YE creationists assert. And I suggested your comment directed at Ken about not knowing what ‘the general scientific community asserts as the age of the [E]arth’ was somewhat misplaced when you had yourself posted an age that was contra to this assertion.

Even if we grant an error rate of 1000% the range would still only be in the millions…

I have snipped the bulk of this post as it seems to be no more than a general whine that some farctions of multiples of Earth’s ABSOLUTE age are less significant or ‘glaringly erroneous’ than others. To which I reply, so what? And see above.

That being the case and with your innocence well established in the trolling arena, It should be easy enough to disprove my second assertion then.

What is this cryptic reference to trolling?

I've said and maintain that the only thing that the article tries to do is prove others (Creationists) to be wrong.

Have I disagreed? Except that I would be more qualified and say that it provides evidence that overwhelmingly tends to show that YE creationists are wrong in their assertion about the age of Earth.

[quote:38n19ht5]It does more than try. Why not address the evidence therein rather than this semantic obsession with what 'old' means, other than older than YE creationists assert.

The Title of this thread is "Evidence of an old earth." That's why. I'm just here saying,
totopic [/quote:38n19ht5]
This seems to be like evasiveness hiding under the coat of pedantry.

Why not make a new thread entitled, "YE Creationist are WRONG According to Those Who Spend Their Efforts Counting Layers Found in Ice."

More pedantic nonsense.

You'll pardon me if I don't participate in that thread, but that would be the right thing to do instead of telling me to join you in your off topic discussion.

Again, you are not the ultimate arbiter of either what is on- or off-topic, nor of how the title of a thread should be understood or its OP interpreted. Get off your pedantic high-horse and try responding to some of the direct points and questions that have attempted to address your arguments.

[quote:38n19ht5]PS If you believe Ken is trolling, the general rule of thumb is 'Don't feed the troll.'

You're now admonishing me to follow your general rules of thumb? Ok, thanks.[/quote:38n19ht5]
I don’t care what you do, and they’re not ‘my’ general rules of thumb. Savvy posters don’t encourage others who they believe to be trolls by replying to their posts.

Wanna send the rest of your general rules to me in PM?

I don’t have any, sorry.

Fine, but let's agree to try to stick to the topic under discussion here first. Where is the evidence in an old earth? There certainly isn't any to be found in the selected quote about Ice Layering, at least none that I can see.

In the context of the intention of the OP and the article it links to, there most definitely is. Is 25 times older than 6,000 years relatively ‘old’ or not?

 

[VenomFangX]

While the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that in no way goes against the old testament or the Torah. Most people readily accept the world today as being spheroid, which it is. The evidence of photos from space should convince most people of this, though evidently not those of the flat earth society; however, those well meaning people are another issue.
We must remember that it is only recently that the Earth was known to be "round". This was known earlier of course: Eratosthenes used measurements at Aswan (Elephantine) to contest the Flat Earth theory and tried to determine the circumference of Earth, using Syene as the originating point and Alexandria as the terminal point of a measured arc (based on shadow length at the solstice). In doing this he came close to the correct circumference of the planet. This is cool considering he was born 300 BC. As everyone knows religious dogma stopped knowledge which went against the Catholic Church at the time and resulted in what we now know as the "Dark Ages". Everyone also knows that Copernicus and Galileo got into a bit of strife with the Pope due to their thoughts on the reality of the Cosmos. It is most likely that the Jewish priests also held the centrist earth view: it appears to be common sense from a person standing on the ground. The Earth does appear to be flat and still while the stars move across the heavens.
With that view and lack of transport, knowledge of the real condition of the Earth was not known. It seems most likely that many people could only travel relatively small distances; sea travel was not possible then due to lack of technology. The world to those people was a very very small place by our standards, located in the middle East and a few parts of Mesopotamia and Africa. It is most likely the Jews inhabited Canaan or nearby districts 6000 years ago as this was their Earth, their soil, their home and their God, my God.
I sincerely think this this does not have anything to do with the current reality of the existence of the Universe, the Sun or the Earth as evidenced by astrophysical and geological means.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[kenmaynard]

Did the Holocaust happen? I don't know I wasn't there.

Did Oswald really shoot JFK? It is impossible to say for sure as I wasn't there.

Did the civil war really happen? Gosh since I wasn't there it really is impossible to say.

Did we really get bombed at Pearl harbor? That's a tough one. I really can't say since I wasn't there.

 

[lordkalvan]

The OP defined "old" for us.

All it defined ‘old’ as was older than YE creationism claims, i.e. older than 6,000 years.

I disagree with that definition and have stated the the general consensus of the scientific community does NOT define "old" in terms of the age of the earth to be == 10,001+ years.

But the consensus of ‘the general scientific community; most certainly is that the age of earth is greater than 10,000 years. One piece of evidence that supports this idea is the existence of ice layers formed and found on Earth that date to at least 145,000 years old.

I'm still waiting for any proof from the OP -- even a couple of links to actual articles found in the scientific community that suggests we use methods other than radiometric…

Are you asking for evidence other than RM data that Earth is around 4.5 billion years old? Can I assume, therefore, that you find the RM data persuasive? If not, why not?

…anything other than what appears to be his distorted and erroneous opinion.

If you believe that it is a ‘distorted and erroneous opinion’ that Earth is at least 145,000 years old, you need to show how and why you believe this opinion to be ‘distorted and erroneous’. From the evidence presented, it is clear that the opinion that Earth is not at least 145,000 years old is neither distorted nor erroneous.

In the meantime you're trying to squabble with me when I'm off by a simple factor of 3 or so?

You are the one who seems wedded to the idea of pedantic literalism and accuracy. If you post a distinctly wrong date for the age of Earth and claim that this is the figure agreed by the consensus of scientists, I am sorry, but you’re going to be called on it.

I exaggerated the guesstimate but just wait...

Why exaggerate a guesstimate when the correct age is not only easily researchable, but has even been posted here already? You’re not trying to suggest that this was a deliberate exaggeration, are you? If so, what purpose would it serve?

…the scientific community thinks nothing of a slight error like a factor of three. They'll swell their numbers again soon enough.

I would be interested in your evidence that supports a claim that scientists routinely regard an error of magnitude measured in the range of three times the correct figure as requiring no thought at all. I am also interested in the evidence that leads you to conclude that estimates for the age of Earth will shortly be significantly increased.

In the meantime - you seem to have no problem with kenmaynard's statement…

I don’t have any problem with the obvious intent of the OP and linked article, which is to argue that Earth is older than YE creationist claims,

…he says "old" in terms of the age of the earth doesn't mean 4,540,000,000 years or so…

Why should he? Do you believe that ‘old’ can only be understood as aan absolute point of reference?

He isn't even referring to radiometric dating at all - no!

Well, the article linked to refers to RM dating methodologies, so what’s your point?

The definition given by the OP for the age of our "old" earth is 10,001+ years.

Wrong! A minimum age of Earth is given, not an absolute age. I do not understand why you are having so much difficulty with such a simple concept.

He chose the portion of the article that mentions ice layer counting! You have no problem with that whatsoever?

In the context of the intent of the OP and the article it linked to, why should I? The thread is about discussing evidence that addresses tha fact that YE creationist claims about the age of Earth are in error by a minimum of several factors. So far you have failed to address that evidence except to worry about the fact that not every piece of evidence from a variety of dating methodologies observing different phenomena all converge on the same date for the absolute age of Earth.

Maybe I'm wrong again, it's possible that you've been sending dozens of PM's to him about it.

Yes, you’re wrong. Why should I be sending PMs to Ken?

I'm curious if that is the case then why not even one politely worded reply to others in the thread?

As I have said before, I reply to posts that spark my interest or that I have issues with. As far as Barbarian, Ken abd Venom are concerned, pretty much I have no disagreements with what they’ve posted, so if you want me to say I agree with them, well then I pretty much agree with them.

Is it possible that you align yourself against Creationists as well?

Yes! That’s it! You’re right! It’s all part of the great EAC! Sarcasm aside, I do align myself against YE creationists as I believe YE creationism to be entirely wrong-headed and wholly muddled. That anyone in the 21st Century holds to such ideas leaves me bewildered. The almost medieval mindset that YE creationism represents should be stood up against by anyone with an ounce of intellectual self-respect. I trust this clarifies my position.

Sparrow states the age of the earth is: _______________ ??? "I dunno"
kenmaynard states the "old" in terms of the age of the earth is: 10,001+ years:…

Science states teh age of the earth is: 4.5 BILLION years: … times 1,000!

If we took the length of the line and copy and pasted it another 1,000 times it would represent the difference.

I don’t know what point this graphic and your comment are meant to make. Even if you ‘dunno’ what the age of Earth is, you must surely have an opinion about it, even if it is that it is not as old as about 4.5 billion years or not as young as 6,000 years. If you discount an age of 4.54 billion years, I have to assume you have some evidence that leads you to your conclusion. Likewise if you think an age of 6,000 years is more persuasive.

Are you sure that your effort is better spent trying to harangue me for saying, "I don't know"…

I am not haranguing you for saying you don’t know. I couldn’t care less whether you know or not. I am taking issue with certain statements and points you have raised for the reasons given in my replies to them. I have asked several questions of you in the hopes of clarifying my understanding of your position and the reason for it, but you have mostly avoided giving me any answers at all.

…than it would be spent on correcting the OP who wants to imply that radiometric methods should be given less preference than drilling into Antarctica?

Less preference for what purpose? For the purpose you want or for the purpose that the OP intended? The two things are not the same.

Coming up with Ice Layering as "Evidence" for an OLD earth limits the definition that was given to 10,001+ years as kenmaynard has rightly said.

wrong! Ice layers werere provided as evidence that Earth is at least 145,000 years old, thus older than YE creationists claim. Again, if you think that an age 25 times greater than a lesser age is not, relatively speaking, ‘old’, then you need to provide us with a definition of what you consider to be ‘old’ and why.

But to me and according to what I understand is the general consensus of the scientific community that "age" is nowhere near close to what is theorized to be the actual age of the earth, now is it?

If the OP and the linked article were directed towards determining the absolute age of Earth, you would have a point, but as they’re not I suggest you stop gnawing on this rancid and rotting bone.

Let me ask you: How old would are you when you take your millionth breath after being born?

I guess it depends on my rate of respiration.

How old are you when you are one million seconds old?

Twice as old as I was when I was 500,000 seconds old?

Get a grip on the perspective and huge difference in our definition of "old" here.

‘Old’ does not have an absolute definition. Your continued assertion that ‘old’ can only be understood in the context of the absolute age of Earth and as the intention of the OP is, quite simply, wrong.

There is a vast difference but it doesn't lie with me, bud. I'm much closer when I say "12 billion" than when somebody (who I'll not mention names but his initials are kenmaynard) oh, hmmmmm.... 10 thousand or more.

If Earth is 4.54 billion years old, the statement that it is more than 10,000 years old is correct and the statement that it is less than 6,000 years old is incorrect. The statement that Earth is 12 billion years old is, given the evidence available, is also incorrect.

You've said something close to 4 billion years and were even more precise and defined exactly what "old" means. 4.54 x 2.64333 = 12 right (or pretty close)?

I didn’t define what ‘old’ means. I offered the best estimate for the age of Earth. Different things have different ages. ‘Old’ is a relative term, unless you can find me a dictionary definition that insists it has an absolute age. I may be 50 years old, and the Bayeux Tapestry may be a 1,000 years old and Khufu’s Pyramid may be 4,500 years old. So which one of the three is ‘old’ by your understanding, and why?

So yours truly was off by 2.643333 or so from your statement.

Wrong is wrong.

What is something less than a factor of 3 compared to a factor of 454,000,000?

Except that the latter factor of error exists only in your own imagination and idiosyncratic interpretation of what ‘old’ can only mean.

You're straining the gnat and swallowing the camel here. THAT's my point.

Not if you understand my argument and the simple fact that ‘old’ has no absolute value.

 

[Orion]

Well, . . . . it seems that this thread's conclusion is obvious. The earth really IS much older than YEC.

Now we can move onto more important things to progress society and leave the dark ages behind us.

 

[lordkalvan]

Did the Holocaust happen? I don't know I wasn't there.

Did Oswald really shoot JFK? It is impossible to say for sure as I wasn't there.

Did the civil war really happen? Gosh since I wasn't there it really is impossible to say.

Did we really get bombed at Pearl harbor? That's a tough one. I really can't say since I wasn't there.

These questions address a serious point: there are many things which we don't 'know' happened because we weren't there, but are persuaded that they did happen when they are said to have happened by the weight of evidence available. Using 'I don't know because I wasn't there' is little more than an intellectual cop-out, unless it can be shown that the evidence that supports a contrary opinion is insubstantial or erroneous.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, . . . . it seems that this thread's conclusion is obvious. The earth really IS much older than YEC.

Now we can move onto more important things to progress society and leave the dark ages behind us.

If only we could....

 

[Sparkey]

I've been asked about my "position".
Okay, let me state for the record that I was not present at the time of creation.
Let me go on to further state that I do not know the age of the earth.
When the bible tells me that it is one week or less old? I do understand that this is figurative and not literal. /duh

When I consider what science tells us about the age of the earth? I would never allege (without substantial proof) that "science" states the age of the earth is 10,001+ years old and then in the same breath imply that this is "evidence for an 'old' earth".

What allegations have I made in thread? Mostly the things that I state have been keep inline with the above. If I were to say, "Science states that the earth is less than 1 week old," I would expect objection. If I were to make a thread entitled, "Evidence that the earth is less than 6 days old" and then quote some article about something that had nothing to do with it - let's just make up an example - let's say somebody says 1 day is a billion years or something - but that "somebody" has zero status and zero authority, has no credentials but it's in a wiki article somewhere?

Wouldn't anybody try to keep me accountable to my own supposition? HEY! Sparrow, you're not saying that Christianity is trying to say that 1 DAY == 1 Billion Years, are you? Are you saying that we are in Day 4.5 of the "biblical" week? This is "Wednesday and 1/2" is it? Sparrow, you're wrong. You can make stuff up and say that all Christianity declares your made up stuff to be true.

I could argue, "Well, some Christians say that we don't know how long each day in the 'Genesis week of Creation' is," right? No, I'm not trying to speak for all Christendom. I'm not here saying that the general consensus of all Religion is that the earth was created in less than a week. What am I doing exactly? Speaking for myself, that's what. As far as I am concerned here's the recap:

• I don't know how old the earth is.[/*:m:rqy2x4kk]
• I wasn't there at the time of Creation.[/*:m:rqy2x4kk]

That's it.

As far as others in this thread go?

• The OP can't speak for all of Science any more than I can speak for all of Christendom.[/*:m:rqy2x4kk]
• The statement, "The earth is 10,001+ years old," has not be substantiated. No "proof" has been offered and my challenge to provide even as few as 2 links (to ANY credible science focused site) has been virtually ignored and not even commented on.[/*:m:rqy2x4kk]

• [list:rqy2x4kk]
• It has been agreed herein that the general consensus of the Scientific community states the term "old earth" does have meaning, that the words themselves are specifically in reference to an easily verifiable item, commonly held by the scientific community: 4.54 billion. ---> Verify for yourself <---
  Here then is the Google search results for a contrary search: ---> The earth is 10,001+ years old <---

[/*:m:rqy2x4kk][/list:u:rqy2x4kk]

Go ahead. Click it. You'll see a couple articles that attempt to prove that the earth is greater than a couple billion years old. You'll see a huge number of articles that reference NYCity because that's a Zip Code (10001) for that area. You will not see a single article that accepts the premise and tries to prove that the earth is 10,000 years and one day old. If there are any that you can find (I don't think there are, but I certainly didn't check every result) but if there are? I would wager (if I were a betting man) that those articles were NOT trying to present "Evidence for an OLD earth" but instead were merely trying to discredit others.

What's so difficult in understanding that?

 

[Sparkey]

Did the Holocaust happen? I don't know I wasn't there.

• [list:35dhp19j]Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did the Holocaust.)

[/list:u:35dhp19j]

Did Oswald really shoot JFK? It is impossible to say for sure as I wasn't there.

• [list:35dhp19j]Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did the JFK assassination.)

[/list:u:35dhp19j]

Did the civil war really happen? Gosh since I wasn't there it really is impossible to say.

• [list:35dhp19j]Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did the civil war.)

[/list:u:35dhp19j]

Did we really get bombed at Pearl harbor? That's a tough one. I really can't say since I wasn't there.

• [list:35dhp19j]Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did WW2.)

[/list:u:35dhp19j]

These questions address a serious point: there are many things which we don't 'know' happened because we weren't there, but are persuaded that they did happen when they are said to have happened by the weight of evidence available. Using 'I don't know because I wasn't there' is little more than an intellectual cop-out, unless it can be shown that the evidence that supports a contrary opinion is insubstantial or erroneous.

Do you guys try to "double team" others? It appears so, yet again.

Your point though, sounds reasonable to me. I would agree then that Creation indeed happened. But then, that's not the point of the thread, is it? That's not topic that the OP chose for this thread. No, we are discussion the Evidence for an old earth, aren't we?

I do believe for instance that Jesus lived and I didn't see that with my own eyes. I've been on other sites and have been challenged by those who would try to discredit every word that I've uttered. I also believe that Shakespeare lived and that there is EVIDENCE of that fact as well. When contested about the "Evidence" that supports the Resurrection of Jesus, my reply is that "Eye Witness accounts" are considered "evidence" even in our court systems.

I do also understand what I read in the bible and do pray for greater understanding. When God states that He delights in showing those who think that they are smart in their own selves to be fools ---> I consider that to mean that He may have a taken a hand in His creation to the effect of showing them fools, and used wisdom in the forming thereof.

Still and again, the subject of THIS thread is "Evidence for an old earth" and as such it has been, is, and will continue to be my observation that the "evidence" for an old (4.54 billion year) earth is not, I repeat not, well represented by counting the 'layers' found in young ice.

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

...What's so difficult in understanding that?

Your post effectively addresses none of the significant points raised against your arguments. Nor does it answer any of the many questions asked of you.

Allow me to recap:

You may not know how old Earth is in absolute years, but you must surely have an opinion based on the available evidence. Or are you so unsure of earth;s age that you are equally persuaded that it could as well be 6,000 years old as 4.54 billion years, or anything in between?

The claim that Earth is at least 10,000 years old has been established by the evidence in the linked article, which is referenced and can be checked by anyone interested. The claim that Earth is at least 10,000 years old is not the same - nor is it intended to be - the same thing as claiming that Earth has an absolute age of 4.54 billion years. The article referenced has a number of like within it that will take you to reputable sources that will provide evidence for claims that Earth is older than 6,000 years old. How much older is irrelevant to the point at hand, namely that claims that Earth is only 6,000 years old are erroneous.

You have still not told us at what point you believe 'old' becomes an appropriate word to use when delineating the age of Earth. If 25 times 6,000 is not enough to be considered 'old', what, in your opinion, is?

 

[Sparkey]

The general claim that the earth is 10,000+ years old is off topic when we look at the actual topic.

• There is no need to ask others what the topic is: It is EVIDENT by the topic title.

We've agreed that the general scientific consensus for an old earth is 4.5+ billion years old.

• Evidence that shows ice to be young by counting layers does not constitute evidence for an old earth.[/*:m:1rmkz0uw]
• Quoted evidence (so called) about ICE and the "greatest" number of layers found in a single sheet does NOTHING to establish the age of an "old earth" hence is off topic.[/*:m:1rmkz0uw]

Further, I would take exception to your term, "absolute". Where did you get that idea?

claiming that Earth has an absolute age of 4.54 billion years

That's a new one (at least to me, that is).

I've asked before, allow me to ask again:

Would you agree that when your quoted material states, "Currently, the greatest number of layers found..." the intent by the use of the phrase "greatest number" is to establish an upper boundary?

I really must insist that we get back on topic. The topic is "Evidence for an old earth" and not "Evidence that Creationists are wrong," neither is it "Evidence that some ice is 10,000 years old or older". Please pick a lane on the road we attempt to travel together here and stay in it. If we agree that the general consensus of the scientific community states that "old" is defined as 4.5+ billion years old when speaking about the age of the earth, then we need to stop looking at things that only try to prove the "age of young ice" to be greater than 10k years. That's all I'm saying. What about radiometric dating methods of asteroids? I've been waiting to hear ANY discussion about the "Evidence" of an old earth. Measuring the age of asteroids isn't the same as measuring the age of the earth precisely but at least we'd be in the same ball park then as the general consensus of the scientific community regarding the age of the earth. The implication and assumptions could at least be profitable, right? "If we found old rocks on the earth that hit the earth and if our calculations are correct about the age of the rocks and the time they hit the earth..." Right? Forget about the ICE thing for a second if you could, okay? I mean, enough already. Whew! At this point, I'm weary of discussion. That's probably your intent all along though. Be it known that I won't struggle here forever.

So far it's been fun but maybe we can agree to stay on topic before we get up for the next dance?

~Sparrow

...What's so difficult in understanding that?

Your post effectively addresses none of the significant points raised against your arguments. Nor does it answer any of the many questions asked of you.

I've made observations and statements of truth, not arguments. Attempting to prove that ice is younger than 700k years by counting the layers isn't the same as presenting evidence for an old earth.


There are no significant points herein, there are no on topic arguments. There is a strawman presentation that is off topic. So what?

 

[VenomFangX]

Ice core samples are an important part of Geological work. However, the oxygen isotope 18/16 ratio show that there are long periods of glaciation and intatadials or warming, which more or less coincide with insolation and Milankovitch cycles. However, the ice layering is only accurate to a certain time due to tectonic activity and plate movement. About 100 million years might be as far as I might go back in time with ice layering. The last glaciation period according to the Vostok Ice Core samples was about 100 thousand years ago, though there may be cold snaps of course for very short periods of time due to weather fluctuations not so much long term climate change. If the intention of the topic was to provide proof that the Earth is older than the 6000 years some postulate due to whatever reason, the evidence is overwhelming and without doubt at all.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[Sparkey]

So then Venom - that's your thought about "Evidence for an old earth"?
I'm the only one here who thinks that the term "old earth" (according to the general consensus of the scientific community) is upwards from 4 billion years?

Everybody else believes that "Evidence for an old earth" means "6,000+" years or "10,000+" years?

Okay. Pardon my disruption of the tread. I honestly believe that real scientists (not the store bought kind you see on Wiki) have consistently stated that the age of the earth is greater than 4 billion years, and that when anybody wants to speak about the general consensus of scientific thought regarding the subject that would be what is meant.

Ohhhh! Now I get it! You're letting a niche group of creationists define things for you. When you guys say "old earth" what you really mean is "anything except what YE creationists" say is true. And here I was thinking that you were trying to align yourself to the scientific community. Silly me.

 

[VenomFangX]

I said about 4 billion years, but the true estimate is closer to 4.5 billion which is consistent with the age of the Sun and the existence of the solar system. The age of the Universe is closer to 14 billion.
I do not align myself with anyone nor any particular group except my Church. My motto is Nullus in Verba.
VFX

 

[lordkalvan]

Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did the Holocaust.)
Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did the JFK assassination.)
Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did the civil war.)
Did Creation happen? Yes. Praise God! (So did WW2.)

I presume some evidence has informed your opinion about the occurrence or otherwise of the Holocaust, the Kennedy assassination, the American Civil War and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Given this, why do you find yourself unable to reach an opinion about the age of Earth based on the published evidence and research?

These questions address a serious point: there are many things which we don't 'know' happened because we weren't there, but are persuaded that they did happen when they are said to have happened by the weight of evidence available.

And?

Do you guys try to "double team" others? It appears so, yet again.

Just responding to Ken’s post. You complained that I was only responding to your posts; now you are complaining that I am responding to someone else’s. If several people have opinions different from yours and those several people all express them, that does not mean they are intentionally picking on you.

Your point though, sounds reasonable to me. I would agree then that Creation indeed happened. But then, that's not the point of the thread, is it? That's not topic that the OP chose for this thread. No, we are discussion the Evidence for an old earth, aren't we?

No, we’re discussing evidence that suggests Earth is ‘old’ relative to YE creationist claims that it is ‘young’, i.e. about 6,000 years old. This is clear from the OP, from the article it links to and from Ken’s various clarifications. You are not the Topic Police and do not hold the power of the high, middle and low justice about what may be considered on- or off-topic.

I do believe for instance that Jesus lived and I didn't see that with my own eyes.

So what’s your opinion about the age of Earth? There seem to be only two alternatives in the ball-park as far as this discussion is concerned: 6,000 years or 4.54 biliion years. Do you regard one as more plausible than the other? Why? Or do you regard them both as equally plausible? Again, why?

I've been on other sites and have been challenged by those who would try to discredit every word that I've uttered. I also believe that Shakespeare lived and that there is EVIDENCE of that fact as well.

There’s evidence Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Why do you find that unpersuasive?

When contested about the "Evidence" that supports the Resurrection of Jesus, my reply is that "Eye Witness accounts" are considered "evidence" even in our court systems.

Eyewitness statements recounted at second- or third-hand are not generally regarded as anything other than hearsay and considered unreliable and inadmissible in most court systems.

I do also understand what I read in the bible and do pray for greater understanding. When God states that He delights in showing those who think that they are smart in their own selves to be fools ---> I consider that to mean that He may have a taken a hand in His creation to the effect of showing them fools, and used wisdom in the forming thereof.

So are you saying that God planted deceptive evidence about the age of Earth to show scientists up as fools?

Still and again, the subject of THIS thread is "Evidence for an old earth" and as such it has been, is, and will continue to be my observation that the "evidence" for an old (4.54 billion year) earth is not, I repeat not, well represented by counting the 'layers' found in young ice.

That’s because you keep insisting on defining the topic and OP according to your own pedantic understanding of what it should be about. It isn’t. It’s about evidence that shows Earth to be older than 6,000 years. You have still failed to address any of that evidence. Your own research, however, has led you to multiple sites with discussions about and presentations of the evidence that leads scientists to conclude the age of Earth is around 4.54 billion years, so you should at least be satisfied that this evidence exists and is well-researched.