Hello,


I am new to this forum. I am a Reformed Christian who loves to mix it up with Atheists. I would like for you all to please tell me...

How old you think the Earth is.

Why you think this.

What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

Thanks!

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How old you think the Earth is.

about 4.54 Billion Years old

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why you think this.

Radiometric Dating, the age of the sun, the age of the moon, the oldest life forms and genetic structures on the planet, etc.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

My presupposition was that the Earth was much older than I was, but until I became interested in science I didn't give it much thought.

Quote:I am a Reformed Christian

And what is a 'Reformed' xtian? Not that most of them don't need reforming.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hello,


I am new to this forum. I am a Reformed Christian who loves to mix it up with Atheists. I would like for you all to please tell me...

How old you think the Earth is.

Why you think this.

What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

Thanks!

If you are reformed and still a Christian, you need to reform more.

The earth is approximately 450000 to 756500 times older than young earth yokels think, the exact figure depends on the yokel. I think this because vastly array of evidence, each more convincing than the infantile creation myth of one late bronze age desert Beduin tribe, ranging from the radioactive dating of minerals on earth, the moon, the meterors, to well tested theory of the evolution of the sun, come from different directions and yet mutually agree on this value as when the earth formed with the rest of the solar system. Furthermore, this value does not conflict with any other evidence, many of which does not pin the formation of earth to a specific date but put rigid lower limits on the age of the earth, such as how long life has been on earth, and how long it must have taken for lunar orbit to evolve to its present dimension and tidal de-spinning of the earth would have lengthened one day to its present 24 hour length.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:40 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How old you think the Earth is.

about 4.54 Billion Years old

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why you think this.

Radiometric Dating, the age of the sun, the age of the moon, the oldest life forms and genetic structures on the planet, etc.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

My presupposition was that the Earth was much older than I was, but until I became interested in science I didn't give it much thought.

I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometric decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

---

(October 13, 2010 at 3:09 am)Chuck Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hello,


I am new to this forum. I am a Reformed Christian who loves to mix it up with Atheists. I would like for you all to please tell me...

How old you think the Earth is.

Why you think this.

What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions.

Thanks!

If you are reformed and still a Christian, you need to reform more.

The earth is approximately 450000 to 756500 times older than young earth yokels think, the exact figure depends on the yokel. I think this because vastly array of evidence, each more convincing than the infantile creation myth of one late bronze age desert Beduin tribe, ranging from the radioactive dating of minerals on earth, the moon, the meterors, to well tested theory of the evolution of the sun, come from different directions and yet mutually agree on this value as when the earth formed with the rest of the solar system. Furthermore, this value does not conflict with any other evidence, many of which does not pin the formation of earth to a specific date but put rigid lower limits on the age of the earth, such as how long life has been on earth, and how long it must have taken for lunar orbit to evolve to its present dimension and tidal de-spinning of the earth would have lengthened one day to its present 24 hour length.

If you are not a Christian then it is you who must 'reform' your belief system kind sir. You did not include any of your assumptions. You really think that your dating methods do not conflict with any other evidence? That ALL evidence points to the Earth being 4.54 billion years old? Calling the opposing side "yokels" does not exactly strengthen your argument, Ad Hominem attacks are always a sign of a weak argument actually. Just FYI.

In the 21st century an adult presumably having access to a real education could not get much more yokelish than believing the earth the earth to be less 12,000 years old, unless he was to also believe a ship once preserved all the animals liable to drown in a world wide flood, or that world was made by a bronze age beduin sky god in 7 of some sort of days. There is nothing ad hominem about calling such a yokel a yokel, nor calling him a troll when he trolls.

Present your presuppositions and conclusions about the age of the earth first to suggest your good "faith", or shut up.
.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:37 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometric decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

What other assumptions are you looking for me to provide?
I do assume radiometric dating is relatively constant.
I do assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth.

(October 13, 2010 at 3:37 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometric decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

How big do you want his post to be?

If you want to discuss radiometric dating in detail then there can be a separate thread created for it same goes for anything else you want to discuss in detail. In this thread you asked for the reasons. Otherwise this could end up a very long and messy thread if you want to start digging into everything.

Things like radiometric dating have been discussed many times before so if this is a sticking point for you then perhaps you can start with some research.

Talk origins has a lot of information which debunks a lot of the YEC bullshit. Of course you are free to evaluate the information provided and choose to reject or accept it, but I suggest you read it first before discussing.

Anyway, you can find the site here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ and the specific stuff about creationists and radiometric dating here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrympl...ng.html#h8

There are more pages going into it as well.

When done, why not start a separate thread for this topic?

EDIT:

Forgot to give my answer.

1) Believe around 4.5 billion years (i think you will find this rough figure a pretty common answer here because its the scientifically agreed one... at least for the moment).

2) Scientific evidence coming from many many different disciplines. However, i love to talk about Dinosaurs with YECs because that always makes me smile when they start talking about dinosaurs living around the time of the supposed flood. Also how ancient civilizations would actually have already existed when God was supposed to have created the universe wonderfully parodied by The Onion here: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumeria...worl,2879/

3) Well, i guessed it was older than my Grandparents who were the oldest people i knew, and they talked about their parents etc. Then i started to learn about things like history, and got interested in Dinosaurs and Space at a young age (what young boy isn't interested in these things?) then became quite interested in lots of scientific subjects. Slowly over time the picture filled out.... i think they call it education. ;-)

(October 13, 2010 at 5:02 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 3:37 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I don't think you got all of your assumptions down. If you ascribe to Radiometric dating you must first assume that the radiometricsumption decay has been constant. You must then also assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth correct?

What other assumptions are you looking for me to provide?
I do assume radiometric dating is relatively constant.
I do assume that there were no daughter elements present at the formation of the Earth.

Both of these assumptions are sound.

1. Radioactive decay is fundamentally governed by the strong nuclear force, which also govern nuclear fusion. If there is difference in radioactive decay rate over time, that would reflect a change In strong nuclear interaction over time. This would be also reflected in the behavior of nuclear fusion in stars over time. We can directly observe that behavior of nuclear fusion in stars over time by observing stars and galaxies at different number of light years from earth, thus viewing them directly at different points in the past. We can see nuclear fusion has not changed over time, so neither has the behavior of strong nuclear interaction, and neither has radioactive decay.

2. The presence of daughter elements at the beginning is impossible because the mineral useful for such dating mostly can be demonstrated to have been melted in the past. The daughter elements of reactions most useful to radiometric dating are those which would have floated to the top, sunk to the bottom, or bubbled out of the melt, thus the melting process would have purged the material of any primordial inventory of daughter element. So the radiometric dating accurately measures how long it has been since the material last melted.

No one knows, I dont really care anyway.
Radio decay is not constant see here:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-4597.html

Of course, that would not 'prove' YEC at all.