[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for an old earth

[lordkalvan]

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

Again, you are not the Topic Police. The intent of the OP and topic has been explained to you. If you don’t want to discuss the evidence that indicates Earth is older than 6,000 years old, just say so.

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

It is also EVIDENT from the clarifications that have been posted.

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

No, we’ve agreed that ‘the general scientific consensus’ about Earth’s age is 4.54 billion years. There is a ‘general scientific consensus’ that multiple independent lines of evidence support minimum ages for Earth that, in relation to YE creationist claims’ can be regarded as ‘old’.

Evidence that shows ice to be young by counting layers does not constitute evidence for an old earth.

It constitutes evidence for the conclusion that Earth is at least 25 times older than YE creationists claim. You have still not addressed how much older than 25 times something would have to be before it would be regarded as ‘old’ in relation to the age of the thing being compared to.

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.

You keep using terms like ‘so called’ when referring to evidence such as this. This clearly suggests you have issues with the evidence. Perhaps you could share those issues with us?

For the third time, you are not the Topic Police and do not get to arbitrate exclusively on what is on- and off-topic.

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

Well, I’ve been using it for a long time now, so I’m surprised you are only just taking exception to it.

[quote:260yqn09]claiming that Earth has an absolute age of 4.54 billion years

That's a new one (at least to me, that is).[/quote:260yqn09]
Absolute as in the sense of ultimate, i.e. incapable of further division or separation.

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

And I’ve answered before. In the context of the example discussed, ‘greatest number’ refers to the greatest number of layers analysed in an ice layer at the time the research was published.

I really must insist that we get back on topic. The topic is "Evidence for an old earth"…

You do not have the authority to insist on anything in a public forum, least of all what may and may not be considered on-topic. If anyone has this privilege, it is the person who started the thread.

…and not "Evidence that Creationists are wrong,"…

It has been explained that the intention of the thread is to present evidence that indicates Earth is ‘old’ in relation to YE creationist claims that Earth is ‘young’. Why not address that evidence as it is relevant to the topic as explained?

…neither is it "Evidence that some ice is 10,000 years old or older".

Well, I would agree with you here as, in the context of the example and the intent of the OP, the evidence in respect of ice layers is that Earth must be at least 25 times older than YE creationists claim it is.

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.

I know what you’re saying; it’s just that what you’re saying is a narrow, literalist interpretation of a thread title within a pedantic, limited frame of reference than bears no relation to either the obvious or stated intent of the person who started the thread.

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.

This is entirely reasonable if all we are concerned with is discussing the age of Earth in terms of its original formation (I have eschewed use of the word absolute in deference to your objections); however, that is not what this thread appears to be intended to be about.

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.

If all you wanted to do was discuss one particular measure for determining that Earth is older than YE creationists claim, then all you have to do is present and critique (or argue in support of) that measurement. However, you have seemed more interested in insisting on your own understanding of what the thread should be about and complaining that the example of ice layers does not support that understanding.

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

I am willing to discuss anything that interests me. One of the things that interests me is your opinion on the evidence concerning Earth’s age, even if you don’t actually ‘know’ what that age might be.

[quote:260yqn09][quote:260yqn09]lordkalvan wrote:
Sparrowhawke wrote:
...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.[/quote:260yqn09]

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.[/quote:260yqn09]
Observations and statements are arguments, whether truthful or not may be a matter of opinion. Evidence from analysis of ice layers is indicative that Earth is older than YE creationists assert it is. If 25 times older is not, relatively speaking, ‘old’ in relation to this claim, I ask yet again what your definition of ‘old’ in respect of YE creationist claims would be? For someone who has handed out accusations of squirming and avoidance, I notice that you seem singularly unwilling to address this question.

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

You are not the Topic Police. The points raised directly address the intent of the topic, the OP, the linked to article and your comments on these. That you are unwilling to address these points is surely significant.

 

[Orion]

lordkalvan, I think it is imperative that your question be addressed where you asked if God planted false evidence to eventually show people [scientists] to be fools. It is MORE than obvious that the earth and universe are ancient, WELL beyond the typical 6,000 - 10,000 years given by YEC. Evidence that is completely contrary to this is shown and CAN be shown. Any "tinkering" by God (as in "God created the universe and earth with the appearance of age") is an untruth. A deception of reality.

 

[lordkalvan]

lordkalvan, I think it is imperative that your question be addressed where you asked if God planted false evidence to eventually show people [scientists] to be fools. It is MORE than obvious that the earth and universe are ancient, WELL beyond the typical 6,000 - 10,000 years given by YEC. Evidence that is completely contrary to this is shown and CAN be shown. Any "tinkering" by God (as in "God created the universe and earth with the appearance of age") is an untruth. A deception of reality.

I agree with you entirely. Interestingly, when an attempt was made to give serious credence to this idea in the 19th Century in Philip Henry Gosse's Omphalos, it was quickly recognized for the intellectual dead-end it represented: if the the world (and Universe) look exactly the same regardless of whether or not age is created or inherent in the object being measured, then the idea of created age is demonstrably untestable, cannot be falsified and has no scientific relevance at all - we are better supposing that what we measure as great age is great age and that this tells us something meaningful about the natural world about us.

 

[Sparkey]

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?
[quote:j9lgu11r]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. [/quote:j9lgu11r]

Point to where I complained about our conversation. You do try to twist things around though. You're missing the mark when you say I'm complaining about it.

As far as your question, "Why do you find yourself unable to reach an opinion about the age of the Earth based on the published evidence and research?" ---> the published evidence under discussion is about ice and the research about ice does nothing to even come close to the age of the earth that you and others here try to establish.

First establish what it is you wish to say about the age of the earth and then I will reply. So far we've cited one article that I, myself just edited. It wasn't about the age of the earth. Can you really draw conclusions from such sources?

~Sparrowhawke

Although I am neither a YE Creationist nor an OE Creationist, it can be truly said that I am now a "contributing editor" to the Ice Layering Article section of the RationalWiki article partially quoted in this thread (and have proof). One of the main problems that so called scientists and even the "defenders of the faith", oops, I mean "defenders of science" here in thread have is with their assumptions.

 

[Sparkey]

lordkalvan, I think it is imperative that your question be addressed where you asked if God planted false evidence to eventually show people [scientists] to be fools. It is MORE than obvious that the earth and universe are ancient, WELL beyond the typical 6,000 - 10,000 years given by YEC. Evidence that is completely contrary to this is shown and CAN be shown. Any "tinkering" by God (as in "God created the universe and earth with the appearance of age") is an untruth. A deception of reality.

The universe was created mature, in the sense that it was complete and functional by the end of the sixth day; but this is not the same as age. Adam also was created mature and not as a baby. The old "Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?" argument is moot and reasonably answered by "I don't know."

I'm not here trying to stretch the plain words of the Word of Truth (the Bible) neither am I here trying to defend God. You're not alone in your assertion that God is a deceiver if that is what you intended to suggest. The Father of Lies would also like to suggest that very same thing. I'd suggest care and will continue to pray for you, Orion. It can get worse. I was in a place where I wondered if I were to always be a backslider. I searched for repentance and thought that I could never find it. There are scriptures in the Bible that speak directly to this condition - you know the ones, and don't need me to lecture you but please do take care. You may PM me if you'd like to speak of this.

~Sparrowhawke

 

[Orion]

Until my many biblical concerns are addressed, I will gladly be "a backslider". I've got no problem with that. As for "word of truth", you are free to assume that the bible is "truth", but that is opinion only. It can't be demonstrated to be factual.

As for "created mature", . . . you would still have a problem with that, . . . unless every tree, at that time, had no tree rings, . . . . which would still be rather deceptive.

 

[Sparkey]

Until my many biblical concerns are addressed, I will gladly be "a backslider". I've got no problem with that. As for "word of truth", you are free to assume that the bible is "truth", but that is opinion only. It can't be demonstrated to be factual.

As for "created mature", . . . you would still have a problem with that, . . . unless every tree, at that time, had no tree rings, . . . . which would still be rather deceptive.

That's quite a conundrum you have then. I am expected to prove to a determined unbeliever that every tree in the garden of Eden was created without tree rings? There have been several changes made (by God) to His creation since the beginning. I've not delineated them because I believe that such a study would be beyond my capacity and ability.

For instance, some speculate that there was no rain until the flood. I'm not convinced that the Bible demands this. To me, and in my view, it's possible that there was a "water vapor canopy" and rain didn't fall before the time of Noah but, and again, the Bible isn't a treatise, isn't a composition, isn't a text book about science. It is the Word of God. Fact is, I've never really looked at Scripture with that question about "rain" in mind. Shall I speak about the conclusions that other men have come to? Shall I speak from my ignorance? Many do.

If you care to PM me I'll be willing to speak to you more, or in public is also okay. You've stated, "Until my many biblical concerns are addressed..." You seem to misunderstand the dilemma. That may be on purpose or it could actually be because you lack faith but God is able (and more than willing) to prove His worthiness of your trust. The real problem isn't with the truth, of course. We are all sinners. Departing from sin is the right action and demonstrates understanding. God refreshes our mind WHEN we act and continue to act on the truth. Standing aside and saying, "I will wait until all my many "concerns" are resolved," doesn't help. It is pointless. Nobody can "out-stubborn" God. The choice is to depart sin - salvation never comes without repentance and the same is true for the Prodigal. I am thanking God for you even now, Orion. Calling on your Redeemer, your Advocate, your Savior. HE is Strong! When you appear before Him, do me the favor of telling the Most High that I do love Him.

 

[Orion]

Hey, can I politely ask you to not type the small fonts. Hard to read them. Thanks!

The problem with Genesis 1 is that when it is taken literally, then many assumptions and rationalizations have to be made to make the story mesh with what we have found to be factual. The "no rain before the flood", "things created in maturity", and the like, are problems for even Christians who must create responses such as Hovind's "water canopy" theory. It must move outside of biblical reference, since [as you said] the bible doesn't speak of it.

However, when the story is placed in a metaphorical sense, or even a myth, then these problems fall away.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay as far as the "small fonts" goes - but let's try then to stick to topic, you'll notice that my use of "small fonts" cover areas that are more properly addressed in PM.

About what you're saying where Genesis is a metaphor or allegory? It is my thought that God deliberately wrote it that way. There is room for His children to think differently about many things. Had the Bible been written (or had creation been created) without wisdom, the "evidence" that I need for a wise God would be lacking.

I'm no died-in-the-wool thumper kind and although it may amuse others to think this of me (why should I try to teach them different?) there is lots of room for various understandings. We already know my opinion, that God doesn't lie. That's about it. Not all that entertaining, I guess, right?

Okay, let's explore this a bit more, yes? My thought (and it's mine - I've not read it anywhere else, but that's not to say that nobody else has ever thought it) has something to do with how the Hebrews understand the calendar day and this can be seen even today. Mostly we are taught that there are 24 hours in each "day". This is a very convenient thing - and goes along with dividing the surface of the earth into "time zones". It's critical for all the various merchant fleets of the earth to even be able to sail so that they can track position, I'm no sailor but you get the idea.

Now, that hasn't always been the case. Mankind hasn't been able to measure time in any absolute sense for very long. The modern clock with a face and moving hands was developed sometime back in the 13th to 14th centuries. A quick Google search shows that one such a clock was affixed to Westminster Abbey in the Year of our Lord 1208. The main method of measuring time (prior) was by observation. Some would watch as a shadow would move and draw their conclusions that way. Jews observe (even today) the moon to know when their feast days have come.

The concept of 24 hours in a day is relatively recent. So is the concept of 60 minutes in an hour. We know that the actual day-length - the actual amount of time that the sun shines on any one part of the earth changes --and is dependent on the orbit of the earth around the sun. In the winter, the length of the day is shorter, in the summer, longer.

To understand my way of thinking we need to stop thinking (for a moment) that there are 12 hours of sunlight and 60 minutes in an hour. That might be difficult but it was and is a concept that is common to the Jews both of yesteryear and of today. If there were ten (10) 60-minute-hours of sunlight and fourteen (14) 60-minute-hours of nigh-time today, at least somewhere on the earth, that shouldn't surprise us. But the Jewish day has no fixed length. Sunset marks the start of the 12 night hours, whereas sunrise marks the start of the 12 day hours. This means that night hours may be longer or shorter than day hours, depending on the season.

I believe that we are currently "In the 6th day". Now, that may frustrate some here in thread who want to insist that I must know "what time it is" on some cosmic event calendar (that they imagine) but the fact is, my belief is that this "day" closes at sunset. In other words, God determines the length of the day and has set the sun and moon and stars in specific order so that they are "signs". No, I don't pretend to be a Rabbi, but that doesn't prevent me from being humble and saying in reply to some questions, "Frankly, I don't know." -or- "I'm unsure or not certain exactly when..." To me, the night ends upon the return of Christ Jesus. I pray He come quickly and believe that we can 'hasten' the day.

~Sparrowhawke

 

[lordkalvan]

Point to where I complained about our conversation. You do try to twist things around though. You're missing the mark when you say I'm complaining about it.

Well, you raised the subject about not making comments on posts other than your own, so I rather took it to be the case that you found something objectionable about it. My apologies if you found my comment 'twisted'.

As far as your question, "Why do you find yourself unable to reach an opinion about the age of the Earth based on the published evidence and research?" ---> the published evidence under discussion is about ice and the research about ice does nothing to even come close to the age of the earth that you and others here try to establish.

Avoidance noted. I have not 'tried to establish' any age for Earth; that age is established by the best scientific research and resulting evidence - the same professional research and robust evidence that make ice layers an effective counter-argument against YE creationist claims about the age of Earth.

How much more than 25 times older than a claimed date does evidence have to be before you consider it to be 'old' in relation to the claimed date? Why do you continue to avoid this question as well.

First establish what it is you wish to say about the age of the earth and then I will reply. So far we've cited one article that I, myself just edited. It wasn't about the age of the earth. Can you really draw conclusions from such sources?

Indeed I can and I have. You continue to avoid addressing these arguments and points almost as if you're afraid of them.

Although I am neither a YE Creationist nor an OE Creationist, it can be truly said that I am now a "contributing editor" to the Ice Layering Article section of the RationalWiki article partially quoted in this thread (and have proof). One of the main problems that so called scientists and even the "defenders of the faith", oops, I mean "defenders of science" here in thread have is with their assumptions.

So you do have an opinion about what ice layers have to say in respect of YE creationist claims about the age of Earth? why not share them here?

You're fond of that 'so called', aren't you?

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Let's not speak of: Evidence for an old earth

lk:

If the title of the thread was, "Evidence against creation" I probably would speak to at least some of the points you raise. May I suggest that if you really wish to insist that all participants within the thread speak to your imagined point that some YE creationists (who are not here to defend themselves) are wrong -- that you make another thread?

As for me, I'll probably try to stay within topic as I have often admonished others. If I were not to do so the epithet, "HyberbolicHippocrit" would invectively be hurled once again, I'm sure.

You ask, "How much more than 25 times older than a claimed date does evidence have to be...?"
Again, whose claimed date are you in reference to? What claimed date? Bishop Ussher's? Newsflash: he's dead. Why do you single me out to demand this response? You're relentless, I'll give you that. Kinda like a little doggie that has tried to sink it's teeth into the first blue-coated stranger it sees. HEY! I'm not the mailman. Is that question even on topic? If no, you'll pardon me but well...

totopic (please)

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

To understand my way of thinking we need to stop thinking (for a moment) that there are 12 hours of sunlight and 60 minutes in an hour. That might be difficult but it was and is a concept that is common to the Jews both of yesteryear and of today. If there were ten (10) 60-minute-hours of sunlight and fourteen (14) 60-minute-hours of nigh-time today, at least somewhere on the earth, that shouldn't surprise us. But the Jewish day has no fixed length. Sunset marks the start of the 12 night hours, whereas sunrise marks the start of the 12 day hours. This means that night hours may be longer or shorter than day hours, depending on the season.

This was common in the classical world and the Jews may well have picked the practice up from the Egyptians who effectively changed the length of the hour according to the time of year: summer daylight hours were 'longer' than winter ones, winter nighttime hours were 'longer' than summer ones. It's a fascinating subject.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Let's not speak of: Evidence for an old earth

If the title of the thread was, "Evidence against creation" I probably would speak to at least some of the points you raise.

The thread is directed at presenting and examining evidence that undermines YE creationist assertions about the age of Earth. I notice you readily introduce a discussion about how the hours of the day might have been measured in the classical world without seeming to regard it as off-topic, and yet refuse to address arguments and questions that you have decided in your self-appointed role as Topic Police are.

May I suggest that if you really wish to insist that all participants within the thread speak to your imagined point that some YE creationists (who are not here to defend themselves) are wrong -- that you make another thread?

We could always poll the participants in this thread and ask them how many believe the intention of the OP to be that only the absolute age of Earth be addressed and how many believe that the intention of the thread to be the evidence that exists that demonstrates YE creationist assertions about Earth's age are erroneous. No one is stopping YE creationists from turning up to speak for themselves, so your statement about their absence is irrelevant.

As for me, I'll probably try to stay within topic as I have often admonished others. If I were not to do so the epithet, "HyberbolicHippocrit" would invectively be hurled once again, I'm sure.

You are not the Topic Police. You don't even adhere to your own admonitions.

You ask, "How much more than 25 times older than a claimed date does evidence have to be...?" Again, whose claimed date are you in reference to? What claimed date? Bishop Ussher's?

Please don't try and pretend that you have no idea what date most YE creationists support as the date of Earth's creation. It's evident that you want to avoid answering this question (along with many other arguments and points I have put to you) and it only remains to ponder why.

Newsflash: he's dead.

No! You don't say? So what?

Why do you single me out to demand this response?

Because it's a question that goes to understanding what your argument is. You seem to be an intellectual vacant space on the subject with only one agenda: to avoid answering any questions at all and to stubbornly insist that only you can determine what should be discussed and how the thread should be defined.

You're relentless, I'll give you that. Kinda like a little doggie that has tried to sink it's teeth into the first blue-coated stranger it sees.

It takes one to know one. You can give points to anyone who wants to take you on in stubborn relentlessness. In my defence, I would like to say that at least I try to answer any questions that are asked of me, whereas you seem intent only on evading them.

HEY! I'm not the mailman. Is that question even on topic? If no, you'll pardon me but well...

totopic (please)

So would that be Jewish timekeeping practices, then?

 

[lordkalvan]

The universe was created mature, in the sense that it was complete and functional by the end of the sixth day; but this is not the same as age. Adam also was created mature and not as a baby.

And you know this how, exactly? There is no evidence that supports the idea that the Universe was created mature in a period of six days; however, I note that you have not defined what constitutes a day in this context. I am also interested in what you mean by 'complete'.

The old "Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?" argument is moot and reasonably answered by "I don't know."

Why is it moot? Why has so much theological effort been expended on the question if it can reasonably be ignored?

I'm not here trying to stretch the plain words of the Word of Truth (the Bible) neither am I here trying to defend God. You're not alone in your assertion that God is a deceiver if that is what you intended to suggest.

I may be wrong, but I am not sure that the assertion is that God is a deceiver, but rather asks why any rational creative being would want the evidence in its creation to so dramatically mislead us as to how that creation came about, how long it has endured, and how it has evolved.

 

[Sparkey]

Why do you insist that I defend a position that is not mine?
I've said that I'm neither a YE nor a OE. What are you? Doomed to failure if you continue to try to define me according to your narrow outlook. I'm just me and make no apology if that frustrates you.

 

[lordkalvan]

Why do you insist that I defend a position that is not mine?

I'm not asking you to defend a position that is not yours. I'm just asking you to define a few terms of reference, terms of reference which you do nothing but assiduously avoid addressing.

I've said that I'm neither a YE nor a OE.

Yes, I understand. What I don't understand is why you don't have an opinion on whether the evidence better supports an Earth 6,000 years old or significantly older than this. That, after all, is the stated purpose of the thread, so why you would wish to participate otherwise leaves me wondering. Nor do I understand why you are so unwilling to define at what point evidence countering YE creationist claims about a 'young' Earth can be considered to be reasonably supporting an 'old' Earth.

What are you?

I thought you'd already decided I was a relentless, squirming, question avoiding, double-teaming little doggie.

Doomed to failure if you continue to try to define me according to your narrow outlook.

For someone whose outlook in this thread is delineated by the stubborn insistence that 'old' can only be understood as referring to the absolute age of Earth and whose insistence on rigidly adhering to this understanding and decrying any question, statement or argument that doesn't relate to this as off-topic - except when it relates to something you post, of course - I suggest you look in a mirror when you start throwing around accusations of others holding a narrow outlook.

I'm just me and make no apology if that frustrates you.

It doesn't frustrate me at all. I'm just fascinated why you keep dodging arguments and questions that address your position on the subject at hand. As I've said before, I endeavour to answer questions asked and respond to points raised as best I can. This is a discussion board, after all, but you seem singularly reluctant to expose your ideas on the evidence that stands against YE creationist assertions about Earth's age (whatever they may be). I am puzzled why you are here and what your purpose is in posting.

 

[Sparkey]

I've tried to explain my "position". It is one of tolerance.
I don't know how old the earth is and consider that God created the earth in the manner that He did.
I also try to understand the biblical admonition to Christians that we refrain from pointless arguments.

Is it pointless when I point to the article that I've edited personally and say that the fact that such articles allow anonymous editors to "contribute" shows that almost anybody can "contribute" to such things? Is it pointless to say that such articles are less than credible in the eyes of the scientific community?

It must be. I'm wrong to think that anybody who is unwilling to listen to reason can ever hear sound reasoning. Can a leopard change its spots?

 

[Sparkey]

What I don't understand is why you don't have an opinion on whether the evidence better supports an Earth 6,000 years old or significantly older than this. That, after all, is the stated purpose of the thread, so why you would wish to participate otherwise leaves me wondering.

Remain curious as you will. The actual title of this thread is different than your statement of its purpose. I've asked and have never been given a satisfactory answer to the question, "If we're talking about how a group of people (who are not here to defend themselves) are supposedly wrong, why title the thread: "Evidence of an old earth"?

In a thread entitled "Evidence for an old earth" I doubt that you will find a moderator who is willing to admonish me to stop speaking about evidence for an old earth or how the OP's selected portion of said "evidence" (so called) fails to even attempt to establish any age for the earth whatsoever; all it speaks about is ICE. I can see why you wish to state that our topic is other than what it purports to be though. But your desire to have me pick up any counterpoint to your statements will continue to fall on deaf ears. Again, I got no dog in that fight.

But then, even when I concede your point, and speak about your "so called" evidence and demonstrably show that such evidence is not and can not be considered credible, you fail to acknowledge my point and choose instead to try to state that I am somehow avoiding you or your questions. Again, your statements do not, in and of themselves, constitute proof. My proof was that I was allowed to become a contributing editor to the section of the article in question about the Age of ICE and was not qualified (even in my opinion) to do so. What does that say about your "source"? The implications are unavoidable.

If you wish to again clarify my position (that I do not know the age of the earth and am not considered expert and have no credentials for that subject and am not qualified to speak about it) you may PM me. It seems fair to me that if you admit "evidence" that allows me to be a contributing editor you can also give credence to my opinion but really? I've already stated my position. Certainly even you can agree that my opinion about the apparent age of some ICE somewhere has nothing to do with evidence for the age of an old earth. Even the quote selected "struggles against itself" when one of its authors cites cases where several layers have formed per year.

What some YE creationists have said about the matter:

Quoting: Wonders of Creation - Ice Layers and Tree Rings
Written by Richard Gunther
Monday, 06 February 2006 19:13

It is usually assumed that the buildup of glacial ice is extremely slow, but real-time evidence has
shown that up to 250 feet of solid ice can form in only 75 years! This was proved by the discovery of WWII planes, downed in 1942 in Iceland and abandoned on the surface. In 1980 the planes were discovered 250 feet down. This proved that so-called "annual layers" were not evidence of one [wafer thin] layer per year, but of many.

Are Polar Ice Sheets Only 4500 Years Old? by Michael Oard, M.S. hosted at the Institute for Creation Research. Michael Oard has a Master's of Science Degree in Atmospheric Science.

I thought you'd already decided I was a relentless, squirming, question avoiding, double-teaming little doggie.

I'm sure it sounded that way but my opinion of you yourself, lordkalvan, is that you are a staunch opponent and do well in your endeavor to support the truth as you know it. :nod

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

I've tried to explain my "position". It is one of tolerance.
I don't know how old the earth is and consider that God created the earth in the manner that He did.

I didn't ask you what you 'know' or don't 'know'; I asked you for your opinion on two different ideas about Earth's age, supposedly supported by evidence. This is not a matter of 'tolerance'. You seem to have an opinion on several other things that you don''t 'know'. Why do you not have an opinion on this? I don't 'know' that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, but the evidence that I have read that (a) invalidates claims that Earth is 6,000 years old and (b) supports minimum ages much greater than 6,000 years old persuades me that YE creationism is erroneous and 'the general scientific consensus' correct.

I also try to understand the biblical admonition to Christians that we refrain from pointless arguments.

Why is it pointless to determine whether or not Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Is it pointless when I point to the article that I've edited personally and say that the fact that such articles allow anonymous editors to "contribute" shows that almost anybody can "contribute" to such things? Is it pointless to say that such articles are less than credible in the eyes of the scientific community?

And as I've pointed out before - and as you have failed to acknowledge or respond to in any way - the fact that statements in the article are referenced and can be verified by anyone with any intellectual curiosity at all may be regarded as providing some confidence in the arguments made by the article. The fact that you claim to be an ignoramus about the subject you say you edited does not mean that whoever originally penned the article is also an ignoramus about it; as I pointed before, references allow you to verify claims made.

It must be. I'm wrong to think that anybody who is unwilling to listen to reason can ever hear sound reasoning. Can a leopard change its spots?

Dear me, you are very confident in deciding that because I disagree with you then I must be intransigently deaf to the calm voice of reason that you believe yourself to be.

 

[lordkalvan]

Remain curious as you will. The actual title of this thread is different than your statement of its purpose.

The intention of the thread is as elaborated by Ken. Your pedantic insistence on a narrowly literalist understanding of what the thread should be about carries no weight: you are not the Topic Police.

I've asked and have never been given a satisfactory answer to the question, "If we're talking about how a group of people (who are not here to defend themselves) are supposedly wrong, why title the thread: "Evidence of an old earth"?

Whether anyone is here 'to defend themselves' or not is wholly irrelevant; it is their choice to be absent or present. The intention of the thread is more important than the title: perhaps you would take issue with Shakespeare because Julius Caesar is much more about Brutus, Cassius and Mark Antony than it is about Caesar himself?

In a thread entitled "Evidence for an old earth" I doubt that you will find a moderator who is willing to admonish me to stop speaking about evidence for an old earth or how the OP's selected portion of said "evidence" (so called) fails to even attempt to establish any age for the earth whatsoever; all it speaks about is ICE. I can see why you wish to state that our topic is other than what it purports to be though.

Who cares what a moderator might or might not think? Who is admonishing you for wanting to speak 'about evidence for an old earth'? I note, however, that the one thing you have failed to do is present any evidence that speaks 'about evidence for an old earth' or not, despite having gone to the trouble of researching sites that actually present that evidence. Indeed, all you have done is demand that others present that evidence in compliance with your diktats as self-appointed Topic Police that this is all that the thread should concern itself with. Why not present the evidence if you are so keen to speak about it? No one has said you couldn't or shouldn't. Incidentally, the analysis of ice layers most certainly does establish a minimum age for Earth. If you are going to indict evidence as being 'so called', the least you can do is explain why you have grounds for doubting it.

But your desire to have me pick up any counterpoint to your statements will continue to fall on deaf ears. Again, I got no dog in that fight.

You can do what you like. I just think that your reluctance to address any of the questions, arguments and points I have raised is curious. What is your obsession with the title, the whole title and nothing but the title? And if you are so obsessed with sticking to the title, the whole title and nothing but the title, at least present some arguments that will kick the discussion off rather than demanding that others do and bleating about the inadequacy of ice layers for determining Earth's absolute age.

But then, even when I concede your point, and speak about your "so called" evidence and demonstrably show that such evidence is not and can not be considered credible, you fail to acknowledge my point and choose instead to try to state that I am somehow avoiding you or your questions.

what point am I failing to acknowledge, what evidence is not credible and why is it not credible? How have you shown that it is 'demonstrably' not credible? Asserting evidence is 'so called' is not the same as showing that that evidence is not credible. I state that you are avoiding my questions because you are, by action, quite clearly avoiding my questions.

Again, your statements do not, in and of themselves, constitute proof.

I prefer the term evidence as proof carries with it the implication of certainty. With this qualification in mind, what is it that you assert my statements are not evidence of? many of my statements in and of themselves may not be evidential, which is why I do my best to reply to requests for clarification or contesting arguments.

My proof was that I was allowed to become a contributing editor to the section of the article in question about the Age of ICE and was not qualified (even in my opinion) to do so. What does that say about your "source"? The implications are unavoidable.

It says that sources should be considered on their own merits. If the section on ice layers was unreferenced and unsupported, you would have some grounds for your complaint, but the entry on ice layers specifies its source - which you can verify - and that source in turn links to ten further sources which you can also verify. The claims made in respect of the significance of ice layers are not just empty hand-waving, but based on robust research.

If you wish to again clarify my position (that I do not know the age of the earth and am not considered expert and have no credentials for that subject and am not qualified to speak about it) you may PM me.

This is a discussion amongst interested lay-persons; it's not a scientific symposium. Don't be such a shrinking violet. You think I am a Ph.D geologist?

It seems fair to me that if you admit "evidence" that allows me to be a contributing editor you can also give credence to my opinion but really? I've already stated my position.

I value your opinion and your comments insofar as you can support them; they stand or fall on these merits, as should mine.

Certainly even you can agree that my opinion about the apparent age of some ICE somewhere has nothing to do with evidence for the age of an old earth.

No, I think your opinion and why you have formed it is worthwhile and deserves consideration and discussion. That is at least in part why I interested in finding out what it is. The measured age of an ice sheet clearly says something about the likely age of Earth; that it does not by itself attest to the absolute age of Earth does not deny that it contributes something to our understanding of the antiquity of Earth.

Even the quote selected "struggles against itself" when one of its authors cites cases where several layers have formed per year.

This point has some merit and deserves discussion. My understanding is that different methods are used to count ice layers, that these methods can be used to corroborate each other and that those scientists who study this phenomena have diagnostic techniques for distinguishing amongst multiple layers occurring in the same year and caused by, for example, recurring melting.

[quote:3pjzm4uc]What some YE creationists have said about the matter:

Quoting: Wonders of Creation - Ice Layers and Tree Rings
Written by Richard Gunther
Monday, 06 February 2006 19:13

It is usually assumed that the buildup of glacial ice is extremely slow, but real-time evidence has
shown that up to 250 feet of solid ice can form in only 75 years! This was proved by the discovery of WWII planes, downed in 1942 in Iceland and abandoned on the surface. In 1980 the planes were discovered 250 feet down. This proved that so-called "annual layers" were not evidence of one [wafer thin] layer per year, but of many.[/quote:3pjzm4uc]
This is a positive contribution to the discussion and may advance our understanding of what ice layers are, how they form and what they represent. However, drawing on this particular example to make the point misses the target dramatically. Gunther is looking at apples and oranges and saying that, because they are both fruit, they must grow on the same tree, grow in the same way, and taste the same. The incident referred to occurred when aircraft were abandoned near the Greenland coast in the south of the country: here snow falls heavily and rapidly (around 2m per annum) and the glacier on which the planes landed has shifted about two kilometres since. Being in the south of Greenland, low-lying and near the coast, the area is, generally speaking, warmer and subject to frequent melting and refreezing episodes, causing the formation of many melt layers each year. Typically, ice cores are taken from stable ice fields in the interior of Greenland, where snow occurs much less frequently. You should refer to the link I previously provided to the GRIP project.

Are Polar Ice Sheets Only 4500 Years Old? by Michael Oard, M.S. hosted at the Institute for Creation Research. Michael Oard has a Master's of Science Degree in Atmospheric Science.

Oard's article is interesting, but seems to depend on assumptions about 'flood' and 'post-flood' conditions that have little evidential support, while regarding refined methods of analysis and verification as nothing more than 'subjective "redating'' and assumed conclusions. Oard states that 'The creationist model would predict that annual layers thin a little with depth from the top but become much thicker during the glacial portion due to much greater snowfall', but, as far as I can see, provides no evidence to support this hypothesis other than a graph based on no obvious data at all.

Good finds, though, and probably deserving of more discussion and analysis than I have provided here.

I'm sure it sounded that way but my opinion of you yourself, lordkalvan, is that you are a staunch opponent and do well in your endeavor to support the truth as you know it.

Which is not to say, of course, that I am not a relentless, squirming, question avoiding, double-teaming little doggie. ;)