[_ Old Earth _] The Age of the Earth – The Helium Clock

[Free]

Do anyone's views on anything develop 100 percent independently, or are they built upon by the research of others? Are you immune to this? Do you have completely original views on evolution, or are you just borrowing from someone else's definitions?

I have researched this subject by looking at the arguments presented from both sides. I have examined the flaws and developed my own independent view which is based on research and my own observations.

That is at least a part of what I am getting at--hardly anyone's views on things are really their own. How is what you have done any different than Grazer posting links? He posted two links which refute your op, so that people can read and decide. If he agrees with what is stated in the links, is there any reason he need post anything else?

You are continually addressing me personally instead of the OP. You have not as yet once addressed the subject of the OP; you have only addressed me personally, as you have done in other threads. If you do not like me, in which you appear to hate me, you are best avoiding my posts.

Again, Tri Unity, I am not addressing you personally. I have simply been trying to point out some problems with some of the things you have said, nothing more. That is what debating is about. Please don't make such a big deal of it. If Grazer says anything that I disagree with, I will address those points.

So, to get back on topic, is there anything in the two links Grazer provided that you disagree with?

 

[Tri Unity]

He posted two links which refute your op, so that people can read and decide. If he agrees with what is stated in the links, is there any reason he need post anything else?

I have presented the views in my own words based on my own research. I have quoted appropriate experts in the field where required. Grazer did nothing of the sort. He simply posted links to "rebuttals" that I was not even reliant on. Both links, Michael Ward's and Talk Origin's, address the flaws of the RATE research, which I did not even read RATE's research until Grazer's post, and the RATE flaws were not consistent to the model I suggested in my OP. You (and Grazer) obviously read neither, for if you did, you would not have been so quick to find the flaws in everything I stated. This was shoddy research from both of you; and as far as being a rebuttal or a correction - it was neither. You both need to get your facts right and do your research more effectively before you can assume to be correcting anyone.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is indeed a faith.

Properly, it's an observed phenomenon. There is a theory of evolution that explains what we see. No faith involved. Science works on evidence.

It is a worldview.

You might as well says plumbing is a worldview. What an odd misconception.

Science can be used to support both premises;

Show us that.

It is no different to Buddhism or philosophy; it is a worldview that explains where we came from and where we are going.

If you think so, you don't know anything at all about evolution.

Acknowledging Christianity as well simply states that you are trying to combine christian philosophy with evolution.

"Acknowledging Christianity as well simply states that you are trying to combine Christian philosophy with plumbing." Equally weird.

You inadvertently call Christ a false teacher since He taught us about Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve are consistent with evolution.

Evolution is NOT consistent with Christianity.

Most of the world's Christians disagree with you. Only a minority has added man's doctrine of creationism to our faith.

 

[Tri Unity]

Properly, it's an observed phenomenon. There is a theory of evolution that explains what we see. No faith involved. Science works on evidence.

Evolution is a method of interpreting data to align to an evolution worldview. The "observed phenomenon" is an interpretation, nothing more. The "worldview" is a combination of the method and the interpretation. This is the point evolutionists refuse to acknowledge because it requires that no science is involved at all; it is a faith construct. It is built on a premise which is an interpretation based on observed phenomenon - not a fact - and the method used requires faith that the interpretation is correct. It is a deception on both accounts.

I have already demonstrated by the OP that science is used to disprove evolution in that it denies the possibility of a long age of the earth. Evolution is impossible based on the helium clock which dates the earth in thousands of years, not billions. As shown, if evolution was correct there would need to be 10,000 billion tons of helium in the atmosphere. There is not even 1 percent of that amount; which scientifically establishes, on this one clock alone, that evolution is impossible. To believe in evolution is to defy science, which is basing your beliefs on faith, not on science. The other clocks I am going to post about will continue to defy the "belief" in evolution based on science.

Adam and Eve are consistent with evolution.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. This is your faith belief - that evolution and Adam and Eve are consistent. As I have maintained; evolution is a faith.

 

[Free]

I have presented the views in my own words based on my own research. I have quoted appropriate experts in the field where required.

It seems as though you took what several sites said, put it all together and reworded it:

http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/The-Age-of-the-Earth

There really isn't much wrong with that, as that is about all the "research" (not what I meant by 'actual research') us non-scientists can do, but rehashing what others say is no different than linking directly to what they say. Just saying.

Grazer did nothing of the sort. He simply posted links to "rebuttals" that I was not even reliant on. Both links, Michael Ward's and Talk Origin's, address the flaws of the RATE research, which I did not even read RATE's research until Grazer's post, and the RATE flaws were not consistent to the model I suggested in my OP. You (and Grazer) obviously read neither, for if you did, you would not have been so quick to find the flaws in everything I stated. This was shoddy research from both of you; and as far as being a rebuttal or a correction - it was neither. You both need to get your facts right and do your research more effectively before you can assume to be correcting anyone.

I didn't read much of either but from what I read, it still seems to me that the links give your argument problems. As for the corrections, none of them had to do with your op but rather your incorrect views of evolution and what it is.

 

[Tri Unity]

It seems as though you took what several sites said, put it all together and reworded it...

It seems to me that you are desperately trying to throw mud at me for any reason whatsoever.

I didn't read much of either...

That is apparent.

As for the corrections, none of them had to do with your op but rather your incorrect views of evolution and what it is.

It is your own views that are incorrect. I don't want to argue it with you - I am happy for you to keep your incorrect views on this and other subjects. I brush the dust from my feet and move on. I would suggest you do the same.

 

[Grazer]

Whilst the articles look at the RATE experiment, they also look at using helium to date the age of the earth as a whole. The data they provide has led them to conclude that helium dating does not support a young earth. By that nature, they are a rebuttal to the OP (where ever the data in it has been taken from)

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a method of interpreting data to align to an evolution worldview.

If you believe that, you know almost nothing of science.

The "observed phenomenon" is an interpretation, nothing more.

Hall's bacteria were observed to evolve a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. No point in denying it.

The "worldview" is a combination of the method and the interpretation. This is the point evolutionists refuse to acknowledge because it requires that no science is involved at all; it is a faith construct.

There's an easy way to test this. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's faith. If he starts talking about the evidence, it's science.

I have already demonstrated by the OP that science is used to disprove evolution in that it denies the possibility of a long age of the earth. Evolution is impossible based on the helium clock which dates the earth in thousands of years, not billions. As shown, if evolution was correct there would need to be 10,000 billion tons of helium in the atmosphere.

If there was no offgassing of helium. But there is. So that's out. And since the total amount of helium entering the atmosphere from the Earth depends on geologic processes (much of it comes from mid-oceanic ridges), the amount will fluctuate over time. If the planet happens to be relatively calm, then the amount will decrease as offgassing into space will be greater than production, and other time, production will exceed offgassing, and the amount will grow. What your numbers tell you is the current equilibrium time for helium in the atmosphere.

There is not even 1 percent of that amount; which scientifically establishes, on this one clock alone, that evolution is impossible.

Turns out, it's more interesting than that. Learn about it here:
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/2005/20050227.PDF

Barbarian observes:
Adam and Eve are consistent with evolution.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want.

You, too. But the fact remains. Nothing in evolutionary theory rules out Adam and Eve as our last common ancestors.

This is your faith belief

As a Christian, I do accept Adam and Eve on faith. However, science does not in any way rule them out, nor does any theory in science, such as evolution.

As I have maintained; evolution is a faith.

Doesn't matter. Reality is not obliged to meet our beliefs.

 

[Tri Unity]

Whilst the articles look at the RATE experiment, they also look at using helium to date the age of the earth as a whole. The data they provide has led them to conclude that helium dating does not support a young earth. By that nature, they are a rebuttal to the OP (where ever the data in it has been taken from)

You have put your faith in these men who manipulate data and facts to contend for evolution... that is fine! Be very clear though; it is not science that supports evolution; it is belief. Evolution requires faith. Evolution is a worldview - it is an explanation of how we got here. Evolution is a religion. I do not belong to your religion, simple as that.

 

[Tri Unity]

If you believe that, you know almost nothing of science.

You are very presumptous.

Hall's bacteria were observed to evolve a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. No point in denying it.

Have you ever observed a butterfly develop from a caterpillar, changing its DNA in the cocoon to become an entirely different critter? How long does this mutation take? Millions of years? No. You confuse mutations for evolution. It appears you do not know very much about science. "No point in denying it."

You are entitled to "believe" in evolution. It is a religion that many have tried to infuse with Christianity. The three of you, Grazer, Free and yourself, have identified yourselves as believing in this false religion. I don't want to discuss this with any of you. There are other people who can benifit from this thread. God Bless.

 

[lordkalvan]

You have put your faith in these men who manipulate data and facts to contend for evolution... that is fine!

This is an accusation of fraudulent behaviour by a large number of professional scientists, none of whom you can name. Do you have evidence to support your libellous assertions?

Be very clear though; it is not science that supports evolution; it is belief. Evolution requires faith. Evolution is a worldview - it is an explanation of how we got here. Evolution is a religion. I do not belong to your religion, simple as that.

Evolution is not 'a worldview'. It is a process that we observe in action on a quotidian basis. Creationists who understand that, in order to avoid rendering the Ark legend utterly devoid of credibility, it cannot possibly have contained two of every living and extinct animal that we know of are forced to introduce evolution into their model of a post-diluvian world. Where else, for example, could the 250+ different species of monkeys, 1000+ species of bats and 350,000+ species of beetles have come from? Evolutionary theory is our best explanation of how evolution occurs and what its consequences are.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are very presumptous.

In which case it seems to be a presumption supported by your posts.

Have you ever observed a butterfly develop from a caterpillar, changing its DNA in the cocoon to become an entirely different critter? How long does this mutation take? Millions of years? No. You confuse mutations for evolution. It appears you do not know very much about science. "No point in denying it."

The process of metamorphosis is not 'mutation' in the sense you are trying to imply. In biology, mutation is defined as random change in genetic material. You, for example, contain around 60 or so genetic mutations, most of which will have no particular direct effect on you. Metamorphosis does not involve random change in genetic material.

You are entitled to "believe" in evolution. It is a religion that many have tried to infuse with Christianity. The three of you, Grazer, Free and yourself, have identified yourselves as believing in this false religion. I don't want to discuss this with any of you. There are other people who can benifit from this thread. God Bless.

Evolution isn't a religion in any accepted sense of the word, any more than is gravity, another observed consequence of natural processes. I can understand why you would not want to discuss the subject further when it has been so clearly demonstrated by the three posters you refer to that your grasp of it is so seriously flawed.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If you believe that, you know almost nothing of science.

You are very presumptous.

I'm a scientist with degrees in biological science and systems. I've spent a lifetime learning about living things. If you believe what you profess to believe you know almost nothing about science.

Barbarian observes:
Hall's bacteria were observed to evolve a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system by random mutation and natural selection. No point in denying it.

Have you ever observed a butterfly develop from a caterpillar

Long before I was a college student.

, changing its DNA in the cocoon to become an entirely different critter?

That doesn't happen. It has the same DNA from the time it's an egg to the time it flies.

How long does this mutation take?

It's not a mutation.

Millions of years? No. You confuse mutations for evolution.

Rather, you've confused growth and development with mutation. Mutations aren't evolution. They are the source of evolution. Random mutation and natural selection cause a change in allele frequency over time. Which is evolution.

It appears you do not know very much about science.

I've spent a life time in it. As you see above, much of what you "know" about science isn't true.

You are entitled to "believe" in evolution.

I'm always amazed that there are people who claim to be Christian, and yet have so little respect for belief that they try to make it part of science. Science is too weak a method for faith.

Do you mean "belief" as in "I believe in God", or "scientists believe the data shows granite forms as intrusive rock", or "I believe I'll have another Guinness", or something else? You seem to have these different meanings confused.

It is a religion that many have tried to infuse with Christianity. The three of you, Grazer, Free and yourself, have identified yourselves as believing in this false religion.

No. And it's another reason I'm sure you don't get science at all. Science depends on evidence, not belief. Darwin's book, for example, is a huge collection of evidence.

I don't want to discuss this with any of you. There are other people who can benifit from this thread. God Bless.

Often, people are so sure that they are right, that they react badly when they learn that things aren't quite what they thought. You can still contribute something positive to this forum, if you're willing to go and learn about the issues.

Why not do that?

 

[AlexBC]

When speaking of the science that supposedly supports a Young Earth, I brought up a point in another thread that bears repeating here.

How many Young Earthers are there who are also Atheist?

 

[Barbarian]

How many old earthers who are actually Christian?

 

[AlexBC]

How many old earthers who are actually Christian?

I'd say the number of Christian Old Earthers is rising. But last I checked, something like 40-50% of the US were YE.

As the level of education rises the tendency to believe in YE generally goes down.

 

[Tri Unity]

Evolution isn't a religion in any accepted sense of the word, any more than is gravity, another observed consequence of natural processes. I can understand why you would not want to discuss the subject further when it has been so clearly demonstrated by the three posters you refer to that your grasp of it is so seriously flawed.

There are no flaws in my arguments; I am just sensitive to futile bickering with non-believers. That is the beauty of a forum; some people can be engaged; some people can be ignored. If it is discerned that a person wishes to simply argue with nonsensical notions, one has the option of ignoring such persons. I do not need to answer every nonsensical assertion that is put forward that seeks to overthrow the majesty of God for a biological process.

Evolution is an "interpretation of data" which attempts to answer the questions of how we got here. It answers a philosophical question. Gravity or plumbing does not do this; evolution does. Hence, evolution presents a worldview based on an interpretation of data which is philosophical. It is, by that definition, a religious concept which is believed in by faith.

Faith is required because not all of the observed data supports the worldview of evolution. Huge amounts of data needs to be either ignored or re-interpreted to fit in with the worldview it supposes. This is not scientific, like gravity, it is faith, like religion.

 

[AlexBC]

But there IS no "why?" inherent to the theory of evolution, at least in the philosophical term you're using.

 

[AlexBC]

But there IS no "why?" inherent to the theory of evolution, at least in the philosophical term you're using.

And gravity actually DOES have a lot to do with why we're here. It goes back to the very origin of the universe.

 

[Tri Unity]

And gravity actually DOES have a lot to do with why we're here. It goes back to the very origin of the universe.

Hi Alex, I'm glad you made it here. You must find this thread highly ironic...

Gravity is non-specific to the origin of humans. Evolution specifically offers answers to the human philosophy. The 'why' is very much inherent in evolution. It is so powerful that it gets people arguing in its defense.

Imagine that, non-intelligent atoms which collided and bonded to each other are now arguing for their 'rights' and the meaningful explanations of their purpose, worldview and origin. Now that is crazy. Why do unintelligent accidents even care how we got here? The fact that you argue for meaning is the greatest assault on your beliefs.