Age of the earth?

[Glee]

Yay new thread. Also, another one about the age of the earth
Looking over the results of other threads, it seems that the defining point of the argument for both sides is the age of the earth. Sort of a global flood verses millions of years sediment buildup.

If the Earth is proven to be millions of years old, and the sediment has built up over time, then the fossils found would seem to imply that evolution happened, as they seem to be structured in an order of complexity, development over time, etc.

If the Earth is only thousands of years old, then fossil evidence is irrelevant because the flood was the sole creator of most of the fossils, and they were deposited in their consecutive layers due to how long they would float for/how easily they mixed with the liquidfied layers of the ground during the flood.

Without fossil evidence, and without proof that the earth has had millions of years of existance, evolution cannot be proven. If the earth is in fact millions of years old, and the fossil record is indeed correct, then creationism as it currently stands would be invalidated as well.

SO: Is there a single piece of evidence that comprehensively proves that a global flood happened / did not happen? Is there a lay-man, easy to identify, unrefutable piece of evidence that can be used to show the age of the earth?


I always thought that underground salt deposits were a great proof of a old age earth. Salt was the leftover from an evaporated sea, which was then covered with subsequent layers of sediments, etc.

Case in point: the Michigan Basin Salt mines. See http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html for some fairly straightforward pictures about how the michigan salt mines were supposedly formed, and how many layers of sediments are layered on top of it. Note the size, shapes and locations. (And http://www.beg.utexas.edu/indassoc/agl/agl_if.html for some nifty animations of salt in general)

It is interesting to note that there are 6 different layers of salt in the area, meaning at 6 different times through history there inland seas at this location, each of which subsequently evaporated.

The creationist answer to salt deposits, at least by Walt Brown ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view7.html ) also involves evaporation, however, only part of the sea is evaporated and the salt is precipatated due to the water becoming superstaurated. This "thick pasty" precipetate is then buried under heavier sediments(!) during the flood.

I don't see how this could lead to multiple layers of salt forming, nor why the salt precipatate would even form a layer, much less 6 differernt ones in this particular area alone, whilst the majority of other areas have no salt deposits at all. A global flood I would have thought using this model would no doubt have had a fairly even distribution of salt deposits.

The locations of salt deposits are a telling factor that it was not laid down in a global flood - as (from the first link) clearly shows:


Actually, looking back at that, im not sure if its lay-man enough. Any other simple irrefutable examples for/against?

[McCulloch]

The UB is at best hearsay

No the claim here is that the UB is a information work of revealed truth, which contains facts as well. ... No I can't prove anything to you other than the fact of the existance of this book. Which is a real book that you can go to a library or bookstore and lay your hands on.

A so far, completely unsubstantiated claim. The book does exist. So do many other works of fantasy and fiction.

One perhaps should try and keep in mind the apparently overall consideration in play at this website which is "Debating Chritianity and RELIGION"
Constantly harping on prove this or prove that involving religion kind of seems something like an oxymoron doesn't it?

The title of this forum within the site is Science and Religion. Many religionists claim that their religion is objective truth that their revelations contain objective truth. This is a place where they can support such claims. If you are not able or willing to support the claim that the Urantia Book contains objective verifyable truth, then there is no point in you debating here.

Why would faith-less people even want to spend any time at all hanging out on a religious website anyway?

This is what we debaters call an Argumentum ad hominem. What difference does it make to the truth value of your claims, why those of us without faith are here?

[Rob]

If you look carefully at the opening post, the question is not so much about the age of the earth but the order of magnitude of the age of the earth.

Would you agree McCullock, that it is a relevant fact (datum) to the above issue what the scientifically accepted date of the earth actually is, and how and when it was scientifically determined, and that this information, if scientifically valid and acceptable, would be part of the base facts which both sides in this discussion should be able to agree upon? Is this not what constitutes "evidence"?

In other words, is not the scientific knowledge (data) of the Radioactive Clock and the means by which science actually discovered the age of the earth relevant to this debate question as one of the foundational facts?

Some creationists claim that the earth is only several thousand years old. Science disproves that claim and shows that the earth is orders of magnitude older than literalist creationists claim.

Yes, and science has given us a very solid date: 4.5 billion years +-5% error or something like that. Are these facts relevant then, and would not the history of how these facts were discovered be relevant as well?

[McCulloch]

If you look carefully at the opening post, the question is not so much about the age of the earth but the order of magnitude of the age of the earth.

Would you agree McCulloch, that it is a relevant fact to the above issue what the scientifically accepted date of the earth actuaully is, and how and when it was scientifically determined, and that this information, if scientifically valid and acceptable, would be part of the base facts which both sides in this discussion should be able to agree upon? Is this not what constitutes "evidence"? In other words, is not the scientific knowlege of the Radioactive Clock and the means by which science actually discovered the age of the earth relevant to this debate question as one of the founational facts?

Absolutely

Some creationists claim that the earth is only several thousand years old. Science disproves that claim and shows that the earth is orders of magnitude older than literalist creationists claim.

Yes, and science has given us a very solid date: 4.5 billion years +-5% error or something like that. Are these facts relevant then, and would not the history of how these facts were discovered be relevant as well?

Yes, to those who dispute the facts. Unless someone can show me otherwise, I am reasonably content to accept the expert opinion of the peer reviewed experts in geology and other sciences as to the validity of these methods. I am not qualified to fully assess the validity of the methods being used, not having a post-graduate degree in geology. However, I am willing to listen to whatever evidence literalist creationists who assert that the earth is only thousands of years old might have to offer and try to assess that evidence's validity in relation to the accepted position of peer-reviewed scientists.

[Rob]

As scientists we date the age of the Earth by the radioactive decay of certain isotopes, mainly of lead but there are others as well. These isotopes measure the length of time that has elapsed since the Earth cooled enough for those isotopes to solidify in situ. This is considered the "Birthday" of the Earth and was 4.5 billion years ago. All applicable isotope dating methods(more than 40) agree within +-5%. Just as counting the rings of a living tree indicates it's age the isotope ratios indicate the age of the Earth since it cooled. Like forensic evidence at a crime scene, dating by these methods is reliable, repeatable and is based on well understood principles of science.

Yes, to those who dispute the facts. Unless someone can show me otherwise, I am reasonably content to accept the expert opinion of the peer reviewed experts in geology and other sciences as to the validity of these methods. I am not qualified to fully assess the validity of the methods being used, not having a post-graduate degree in geology. However, I am willing to listen to whatever evidence literalist creationists who assert that the earth is only thousands of years old might have to offer and try to assess that evidence's validity in relation to the accepted position of peer-reviewed scientists.

Good, than we can both agree with Grumpy's statement above. To date, I cannot find a single shred of evidence presented by the "literalist creationists" which proves contrary to the above statements of Grumpy and the evidence I have shared regarding the same. And you can trust the scientists, as I have posted multiple reputable sources, and I have myself went through the trouble of taking the University of Berkeley in California Calculas courses to confirm the methodology for myself.

Now, I want ask you a question. Do you understand the fact that when the Urantia Book states the date for the origin of our solar system, it is agreeing with the facts we have both already agreed too?

Mind you, I am not claiming this proves the Urantia Book's claim to be revelation, ok, but only that it is a fact I do not know if you recognize yet or not. It is fair in my view to hold that the date of the earth was known information in 1953, and therefore, the 1955 publication date leads to a reasonable conclusion that the author(s) could have known the date, and it was not required (based upon the 1955 date) to be information that was not known by human scientists already.

Can we agree on this much?

[McCulloch]

Do you understand the fact that when the Urantia Book states the date for the origin of our solar system, it is agreeing with the facts we have both already agreed too?

Mind you, I am not claiming this proves the Urantia Book's claim to be revelation, ok, but only that it is a fact I do not know if you recognize yet or not. It is fair in my view to hold that the date of the earth was known information in 1953, and therefore, the 1955 publication date leads to a reasonable conclusion that the author(s) could have known the date, and it was not required (based upon the 1955 date) to be information that was not known by human scientists already.

Can we agree on this much?

Sure, but the relevance to this particular thread is lost to me.

[Rob]

Do you understand the fact that when the Urantia Book states the date for the origin of our solar system, it is agreeing with the facts we have both already agreed too?

Mind you, I am not claiming this proves the Urantia Book's claim to be revelation, ok, but only that it is a fact I do not know if you recognize yet or not. It is fair in my view to hold that the date of the earth was known information in 1953, and therefore, the 1955 publication date leads to a reasonable conclusion that the author(s) could have known the date, and it was not required (based upon the 1955 date) to be information that was not known by human scientists already.

Can we agree on this much?

Sure, but the relevance to this particular thread is lost to me.

Honestly, sometimes so many questions are raised in these threads "the relevance to this particular thread is lost to me" too, which is why I am a real fan of very, very strict enforcement of the debate rules. But anyway, back to my point, er, which was, as I stractch my head?

Ascertaining the age of our of planet should be referrenced by the the time in which the planet became a planet. Earlier periods of formation....going back to the first whiffs of coalescing space dust and gases does not a planet make. The question was the age of the earth and not how much more before that the earth started to form out of primordial matter.... These occurances can only be reported by witnessing persons or entities that were there to witness such events. I wasn't there. You wern't there.

Now I don't know about you (although it sure seems you agree with what I am about to say), but it seems unreasonable, even ludicrous, to insist that the citation of a purported celestial being from a book that claims to be a revelation that the "date" of the earth is 1 billion years old, when the fact is the citation being cited is about when the already cooled rock (the radioactive clock has already been set) was put on a purported "registry," and then to insist that this be taken as the actual scientific date for the age of the earth over the date obtained through the methods you and I agree upon.

For you yourself say,

This is why we must use science. We look at the evidence and evaluate what that evidence tells us.... [O]pinions and viewpoints, by themselves, are entirely useless for debate without evidence, reason and logic.

To which I agree 100%, yet I am completely lost and cannot follow your logic and reason when you respond to Woody's argument as follows:

But back to actually recognized space rocks as opposed to what came before the recognized rock......when somebody asks you how old you are, what do you tell them? Do you give them your age based upon the day you were officially recognized as a human being...ie the day of your birth? Or do you referrence that back to the day, or thereabouts, that you were conceived?

Good point. However, literalist creationists narrow that range of options to a specific six day period.

"Good" point? You must have missed the fact that the only date that is relevant to this thread is the actual date established by legitimate scientific methods and the evidence gained therefrom.

Do you recognize the fact, that if we granted that the cooled rock Woody cites above was measured by means of the Radiometric Clock, it would date out at 3.5 billion years, not 1 billion years, and therefore Woody's entire argument is not only fallacious but irrelevant to the question at hand.

I am completely at a loss for what your reason and logic is to concede this is a good point? Can you enlighten me?

It seems to me Woody is trying to use this citation in place of actual scientific evidence, just like a biblical literalist would use adding up geneologies to conclude the earth is 4000 years old. In others words, like I said,

To insist that the scientific age of the Earth is 1 billion years old upon the basis of a statement of when the Earth was put on the “physical registry,” of Nebadon (a claim that is based upon your belief about the Urantia Book) is not only to misunderstand the scientific nature of the question what is the “Age of the Earth?”, and how what the Urantia Book says actually relates to scientific fact, but like insisting that the Earth is 4000 years old based upon adding up genealogies of the Old Testament.

I mean after all, don't you get a chuckle out of an argument that claims if we add up the geneologies of the anceint kings we can come up with an age of the earth? Well, Woody's argument is no different, wouldn't you agree? Just a different book, but the same essential argument in style and nature.

[McCulloch]

When somebody asks you how old you are, what do you tell them? Do you give them your age based upon the day you were officially recognized as a human being...ie the day of your birth? Or do you referrence that back to the day, or thereabouts, that you were conceived?

Good point. However, literalist creationists narrow that range of options to a specific six day period.

"Good" point? You must have missed the fact that the only date that is relevant to this thread is the actual date established by legitimate scientific methods and the evidence gained therefrom.
Do you recognize the fact, that if we granted that the cooled rock Woody cites above was measured by means of the Radiometric Clock, it would date out at 3.5 billion years, not 1 billion years, and therefore Woody's entire argument is not only fallacious but irrelevant to the question at hand.
I am completely at a loss for what your reason and logic is to concede this is a good point? Can you enlighten me?

I am still focussed on the apparent point of this debate thread which seems to be is the earth billions of years old or thousands of years old. Woody seemed to point out the problematic nature of determining the age of the planet. That is at what point do you say that it made the transition from being a swirling collection of matter to being a planet. This distinction would have been valuable and relevant if we were discussing if the earth was 1 v 4 billions of years old. However, (and I did include the term however) his point was made irrelevant to this discussion since we are apparently debating whether the earth is billions not thousands of years old.

[Rob]

Dear McCullock,

May I humbly submit that you may be misunderstanding the relevance of scientific fact in any debate with creationists/literalists. Perhaps Grumpy can help me out here. You say,

Woody seemed to point out the problematic nature of determining the age of the planet. That is at what point do you say that it made the transition from being a swirling collection of matter to being a planet.

From the scientific perspective, using the well founded facts of physics, and the Radioactive Clock based upon lead isotopes, just as Grumpy noted, the hypothetical "transition" point "from ... swirling [gaseous plasma to] matter" which we could recognize and call a rock, is irrelevant to the question of what the actual scientifically, already verified, age of the earth is: we now know with a very high degree of probability that the date is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

In any debate, establishing which facts are known, and how they are known, is always relevant. So, whether the point of the thread is as you say, does not change the fact that the actual age of the earth, and how it was determined scientifically, are relevant facts associated with this debate topic. I concur with whatever key topic you wish to call it, my only point is that a correct understanding of the relevant science, its methods and findingss, is always relevant in debates like this. They are part of the evidence which is presented to determine the magnitudes of difference that we are taking about between science and creationist arguments, and it is the evidence I and Grumpy are discussing that makes our case, and your case, science's case, so solid.

Please understand, we are agreeing, I am just feeling you are missing an important factual point in any discussion with creationists: scientific facts may be at times complex, but they are the meat of the debate, they establish the evidence, fact, and proof, for the conclusions being drawn, and without which your arguments would be merely opinion, which you yourself have acknowledged.

[Woody]

Hey McC,

Small correction:

you- Woody seemed to be pointing out the problematic nature of pointing out the age of the planet

I have no problems at all with the account of this information as appears in the UB.

[McCulloch]

I have no problems at all with the account of this information as appears in the UB.

Except for the fact that you have not been able to show that anything in the UB account is information.