If water were to leech Uranium from rocks it would leech all isotopes equally, so it would not affect radiometric dating from that source. In fact the only thing  can think of that would affect radiometric dating is atronomical changes. for example there is a strong indication that there was as some point in the distant past a supernova in our immediate neighborhood whose stellar material crated an 'envelope' of relatively empty space which we find ourself in. Now at it's roots most radiometric dating is a measurment of fusion forces versus fision- fusion takes place in stars and builds larger atoms which are then ejected into the interstellar medium and fall into gravity wells. Now if there were at some point in teh distant past a change in the incoming flow of materials that we use for radiometric dating then that could well affect our measurments. of course at that point we are still talking about changes that take place over billions of years as opposed to thosands, so while it might challenge the 4.5 billion figure that assumption would still find 10-12 thousand years a laughable figure.

There are really two issues here:

Issue 1: Does the Bible REALLY say that the earth is young?  I don't believe it can even be interpreted that way realistically.

If Issue 1 has an answer of "no," there's no need for further discussion because there's nothing to debate against.

Issue 2: If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes," then what scientific studies prove or disprove that theory?

So I never even get to Issue 2 because I think it is a complete non-issue.  You simply can't get past the overwhelming evidence that #1 has a "no" answer, and then you can stack all the scientific evidence you want onto that to say that, not only can it not be interpreted to mean a literal young earth, science also points to the fact that such an interpretation makes no sense.

At least, that's how I look at it.  The science stuff is just frosting on the cake, but it has no substance because those arguing the literal young earth theory are simply reading the bible wrong, and that's a very demonstrable proof.

In reply to Heath (msg #230):

I would have to agree with you Heath but the fact remains that there are a great many people who believe the Earth is younger or older than what scientific inquiry says it is.

As Tycho points out, there are Creation museums and theme parks that portray humans riding dinosaurs and stating the Biblical flood as fact.

You can say that those people are not reading the Bible right but that is yet another argument that will go on forever.

Well it depends on which version of the bible you are arguing from. I do believe that the KJV can be understood to indicate that the age of the earth is under 7000 years, if taken literally.

I would have to agree with you Heath but the fact remains that there are a great many people who believe the Earth is younger or older than what scientific inquiry says it is.

Well yes, and there's a lot of people in the flat earth society too. Just because many people believe a scientific point is inaccurate does not necessarily imply that they are right or accurate in their belief.

In reply to Falkus (msg #233):

Ummm, the point was that the debate does not end when you say it ends.  No where do I say anything about it being accurate or right.  Ignorance is persistent.  Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

No, but it does cut down on hypertension and other stress related medical expenses.

Ummm, the point was that the debate does not end when you say it ends.

And my point was that scientific claims should be backed up by solid, scientific research.

In reply to silveroak (msg #225):

Congradulations!  You have honestly successfully succeeded at changing my recently made up mind.  If they've found humans lived so long ago then believeing the earth was so young would just be silly.



I don't have a degree and I understand that divine forces can upset any rules/laws/principles of science.



I'm more talking along the lines of all the money spent on worthless experiments or the money put into experiments which results would have change nothing.  Not to mention the money used to fund those very rare but highly evil projects.



I need to see the parks and the message they preach before I make a judgement on the park itself.  There is nothing wrong with using money.  Money becomes the problem when admission to high for profit.  A park would need money to pay for itself.




Yes



No, the earth could be 299 billion years olf for all that matters.  God created the would already matured.  I believe RubySlippers pointed that out.  Now with this belief in mind (and if I really cared) am I looking for the age the earth appears or the age it really is?

what is the practical difference?
If I start reading a book does the world it is set in begin at teh begining of the book? What happens if the author later writes a prequel? Or is the age of the world what it 'appears' to be when the book starts? If a divine being created the uninverse with a backplot how is that different from that 'backplot' having actually happened?

In reply to silveroak (msg #238):



I'd say it makes a big difference.  If I were to have a child born tonight, and he came out appearing to be twenty years old, he would still be a new-born.  If I were to make a scroll, write in it using a dead language and make it look torn and appear old, the truth is it's new.

I guess what I need to ask is, Because my beliefs don't match up with your beliefs you are just going to label my beliefs as impossible?

*But* if there were a child born tonight who came out 20 years old, with 20 years worth of memories, and everyone else remembered him having been arround for 20 years and doing things for 20 years, and remembers him having been born 20 years ago, then in what way are they not 20 years old?
I'm not saying it's impossible but there is also a question of framework- for example in my backstory example teh book itself is as old as it is, nobody is claiming otherwise, but within teh fictional framework set in the book the world can be millions, billions, even infinitely old (see Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series). The same applies on the uber-macro scale, if God 'authored' teh universe into existance 6000 years ago but included a 4.5 billion year backstory, then is the earth 6000 years old (book age) or 4.5 billion years old (story age)? Of course anything you find in the 'story' (physical world) will support the backstory, and it's age.

In reply to silveroak (msg #240):

Where does it say that the earth was created.. then re-created?  Where is it that Adam's neighbors knew him from birth?  Who the hell was "everyone else" during creation and how would you know what they knew?  I didn't even know the earth had a mind.

Life created from nothing had no backstory.  Where are you getting that Adam had memories of childhood?  Is what you are doing part of your making up ridiculous statements?

When Bob Ross painted a tree, did he make it start out as a sappling and paint it's growth.  No, as the creator he can do what he wants.  If God wants to create a tree from nothing with twenty ring, that tree is new, not twenty years old.

If me and you were in a 100 meter race but I take a 50 meter head start.. I can't correctly claim to have ran 100 meters.  If God wanted to create a world with a head start it's age begins at creation.

I think silveroak's comments stem from this line:



That line of yours implies that it's possible the Earth is one age, but appears to be another. All that evidence which suggests its another age (radiation dating, fossils, geological layers, cosmological measurements, etc.) would constitute the 'backstory' of the Earth. Even if the backstory is completely fictional and created by God for whatever purpose, from our perspective it's real in all appreciable ways. All of silveroak's comments following that seem to stem from that assumption.

Kudos on the Bob Ross reference.  The rest of your argument I don't agree with but you definitely get points for that.

Now lets look back on how Nicolas Steno got mentioned.



such a simple question.  Purhaps too simple for enlightened minds.

Type "superposition" into google.  It appears up on wiki.  Should you click on it you'll be given a list of choices.  "Law of superposition" happens to be one of them (with the exact same quote, just not quoted)  I quoted it AND put the person who said it up.  Is wiki from the 1600s?

A simple yes or no question.  I'm sorry for making my questions too easy to understand.

And I am sorry for assuming that you would actually understand that no one calls superposition a law anymore unless one is talking about Nicolas Steno or the history of geology.

As I explained, in detail, the "law" is more of a rule now considering that geology has found numerous natural mechanisms that can affect how strata is laid down.  Thus "law" is not a valid term but rather a good rule to go by since it is a good assumption.  Or you could just throw out the science and just believe that God mixes up strata just to play with our little mortal minds.

But you want yes or no with no explanation of superposition and its history.  By the way, have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or no.  We don't do nuance here buddy.

But scientific inquiry is irrelevant.  The beginning of the argument has to be looking at the proper interpretation of the Bible.

If taken "literally," it might mean something, but the objective evidence shows that the creation portion of the Bible is not literal.

If they persist in believing it is literal despite the evidence proving otherwise, do you really think any amount of scientific evidence will dissuade them?

There is no point in a debate where one side refuses to accept facts and pushes the argument into absurdium.  Like I said before, all you have to do is claim God is omnipotent and can do whatever He wants, and that will end the need for a thoughtful debate.

This sounds like assuming to me.  I'll take it as a yes.  I've read records where the fossils didn't match the strata.. or the other way around.

Wiki calls it a Law.. and if Wiki says it then it's gotta be true.  It say's the "Law" is still in use.



I never let anyone beat me at any game, and she has in fact never beat me at anything.  So no, I'll beat her at anything.  If you mean physically, No, she LOVES it rough, and that's what I love about her.

That might be why I said it was a good assumption.  By all means, give me specific examples since a great many of those fossils are from the time period where gentlemen practiced geology and not scientists.  Show me your examples.



Indeed.  Wikipedia is never wrong.  I can see your inquiring mind at work there as well as understanding the sources you trust to make these ill informed opinions.  Good show.



I like your humor although your inability to admit defeat leave a bit to be desired.  I am sure she leaves your ego quite intact.

Moderator Post

Okay guys, let's turn down the sarcasm and comments about the personal life. It has no place in reasoned debate.

Thank you.

here we come to the crux of the issue- We have teh record of the bible, and teh record of teh earth. We are reading both of them today. the bible says that God created teh earth in seven days, the earth's record states that it came about over billions of years. The bible then proceeds to describe how humans were created as a single breeding pair from clay. the genetic record suggests that all humans probbaly descended in a matrilineal fshion from one female- eventually- but teh idea that there was one unique couple that constituted humanity at any given point is pretty well excluded. there are, however also references in genesist to oher people being arround at teh same time as Adam and Eve and ther chidlren, with no exlanation as to how this is possible.
now I could easilly describe, were I simply defending teh bible, how many tribal groups tended to refer t otehr great apes as people- especially orangutangs who were known as the old men of the forest, but teh point here is the similarities and differences between teh earth and teh bible as records, given that they are written in entirely different contexts.
Which then comes down to 2 questions: did they have the same author, and were they meant to be taken in the same way? Certainly one could look at the entirety of the earth as V1 and teh Bible as V2 where teh author sits down to write volume 2 with a foreword which states "oh, by the way even though it is 100 billion pages I wrote V1 in 7 days". It doesn't explain hwoever teh discrepancies at teh begining of the bible, unles he evolved one set of humans for background then created a pair to start the second story, thus explaining where teh other people come from.
Or there may have been 1 author for the world and a second author trying to claim credit for having made it (whether the first authorship consitituted a work by a sentient being or not). The only solution I can see is to compare the two as works of art or literature and see if they seem to have the same author. To me they do not, but others might arrive at a different conclusion.

Okay, if you're saying the world is only 12k years old, but just looks 4.5 billion, I suppose I could accept that possibility.  But you seem to also be denying that the world looks 4.5 billion (doubting radiometric dating, etc.).

Also, wouldn't creating a world that looks like it has a certain age, when it really is much younger be an act of deception?

Or, perhaps that it is literal, just not correct.


Exactly!  Though we seem to disagree about whether or not that's a good thing...

In reply to Tycho (msg #252):

That is true, but what most people forget is that he is all knowing as well, people seem to think that logic and knowledge aren't part of the equation.  People seem to forget that when God created the universe, yes I know I am using this an introduced A for the sake of the argument, that he built rules into the system, gravity, newton's laws, etc, etc.  So any discussion of the power of God needs to include the reasoning of God.  A discussion of one without the other short changes God, just a little.

Oh, just for the score, I'm a Christian and I support an old world, God is outside of time after all.