How old is the Earth?

[theVOID]

Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth,

That's the dumbest thing you have said yet. The circumference of the earth WAS measured without seeing a massive portion of it. The circumference/radius of the earth was discovered by Eratosthenes in 170BC, he used the distance between two locations and the difference in sundown between the two locations.

"Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth without leaving Egypt. Eratosthenes knew that on the summer solstice at local noon in the Ancient Egyptian city of Swenet (known in Greek as Syene, and in the modern day as Aswan) on the Tropic of Cancer, the sun would appear at the zenith, directly overhead. He also knew, from measurement, that in his hometown of Alexandria, the angle of elevation of the sun would be 1/50 of a full circle (7°12') south of the zenith at the same time. Assuming that Alexandria was due north of Syene he concluded that the meridian arc distance from Alexandria to Syene must be 1/50 of the total circumference of the earth. His estimated distance between the cities was 5000 stadia (about 500 geographical miles or 800 km) by estimating the time that he had taken to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. He rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is frequently argued. The common Attic stadion was about 185 m,[9] which would imply a circumference of 46,620 km, i.e. 16.3% too large. However, if we assume that Eratosthenes used the "Egyptian stadion"[10] of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, an error of less than 1%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthene...cumference

[Statler Waldorf]

Haha, if my argument is foolish then I am sure you will be glad to enlighten us as to how you can deterimine the circumfrence of the Earth by only using a yard stick. Remember, only a yard stick.

Do you want me to post the same link? Ok, no problem. Read it this time:

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...p018.shtml

I don't require 100 percent, just when someone mis-uses the word "proof" to mean something that is not 100 percent I will call them on it every time.

Surely you understand that measurements in science can only be approximate, whereas there is no precision whatsoever to the statement "god did it".

Nobody thinks the Flintstones is a documentary,

Haven't been keeping up with goings on in your own "creation" science, have you?

Already refuted the yardstick thing, read it. The picture does not prove anyone thiks the Flinstones was a documentary. Strawman, strawman. I am well aware of the limitations of Science, it's people who throw around the word "proof" that do not. Talk to them, not me.

---

No more on anisotropic light speed?

Shame that, you have yet to show how it supports a young universe.

I did both, it was just in a different thread. It's under my introduction. Instead of just giving me a warm welcome everyone got excited and tried debating over there. Feel free to check it out.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth, (remember observing the sun is violating my initial premise since it is outside of your observable area). Then you go off on some crazy tangent about how you can actually measure the Earth's circumfrence using a yardstick. However, this was completely dishonest because the experiment actually uses the sun, not just a yardstick. It also uses loads of previous tested knowledge about the Earth's shape and it's relationship to the sun. This knowledge could not have been gathered by observing your tiny allowed area, so it can then in turn not be used in the experiment. So this experiment has nothing to do with my original point. You are given a linear image of 3.5 inches of the Earth's surface. Can you use this image, and only this image to tell me how big the Earth is? No of course you can't. To think, you get on me for deviating from the discussion at hand, pullease.

As I recall, the 'moving the goalpost' fallacy involves just what you are doing here because this is the first mention that the Sun is off-limits to measuring the circumferance of the earth given that the Sun is visible everywhere on the planet - including the observable area restriction you have given me.
Further, even if the sun is out of the observable area, the light it generates and the angle of that light is not.
As such, the experiment is still valid, but even without it, I can still easily calculate the circumferance of the planet by getting a bigger pole, measuring the distance to the horizon (best done on the ocean, and using that math to calculate the curvature of the planet and thus its circumferance using geometry... again.
Granted that's a larger area than the arbitrary limitation you've given me... but again... moving the goalposts. Plus, the original statement you made regarding why it was impossible didn't involve a mere 3.5 inches anyway - you merely stated that it was impossible without a large view of the planet, which I have proven with two easy experiments.

[theVOID]

Different isochrons yielding different ages for the same rock is a common occurance. The final age is determined by which layer of Strata the sample was found in. This is basic basic stuff here. Decay rates have changed, everyone knows that.

You just made the same assertion that I pointed out you offered no evidence for the first time. Repeating yourself doesn't help make you right.

Do you have any evidence that decay rates have changed over time?

What do you say of the overwhelming majority dates gathered from isochron dating confirming radiometric parallel examples?

By what mechanism has the decay rate of Uranium changed from 1 every 6,000 years to 1 every 4.5 billion years?

[Statler Waldorf]

I know what I am doing.

We know what you are doing as well, and it is dishonest, to say the least. You claim to be a scientist, and yet fail to recognize one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method - the burden of proof. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary biologists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts, whereas all creationists have to offer in rebuttal is one poorly provenienced bronze age book. Sorry, but the Bible is not a science book, and so anyone trying to use it as such should consider therapy to cure them of their delusions. Finally, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Whew! Well it's a good thing this is not the Scientfic Community (obviously) huh? lol. If I were writing a research paper on the topic you are right, however I am not. I am asking for your guys' reasons for believing in an Old-Earth. I was very clear in this thread. If you cannot handle that, then I suggest you not post in this thread, since that is the topic at hand. One major problem with your post though, Science does not deal with majority, it is not a majority rules community and anyone who tells you otherwise is perverting the discipline. I think your post is more relevant in a formal debate than it is in Science or this Discussion Board. Good read though.

[Zen Badger]

No more on anisotropic light speed?

Shame that, you have yet to show how it supports a young universe.

I did both, it was just in a different thread. It's under my introduction. Instead of just giving me a warm welcome everyone got excited and tried debating over there. Feel free to check it out.

I did, it doesn't.

[Statler Waldorf]

Nah, I just messed the syntax up. Simple mistake. Pointing this out does not change the argument any. It's like pointing out someone's bad grammar- if you have to do it to feel smart go ahead, but if proves nothing.

False analogy, You used the false conclusion you reached to argue that we cannot measure decay rates because we are only around for a small portion of the average time of decay, bad grammar cannot be used to satisfy this end.

You can't have it both ways, either you accept your mistake and concede that we can know with a high degree of accuracy the average decay rates of various isotopes or you ignore all of the actual data and stick to your initial line of reasoning.

Too bad for you the former (and accurate) understanding shoots down your unsubstantiated belief in a young earth.

Haha you act as if my mistake changes the argument, it does not. 100/4,500,000,000 total time is still far too small of a observation to make any kind of stastical conclusion. My argument still stands un-refuted.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Haha you act as if my mistake changes the argument, it does not. 100/4,500,000,000 total time is still far too small of a observation to make any kind of stastical conclusion. My argument still stands un-refuted.

Utter lack of evidence or empirical support nonwithstanding.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth,

That's the dumbest thing you have said yet. The circumference of the earth WAS measured without seeing a massive portion of it. The circumference/radius of the earth was discovered by Eratosthenes in 170BC, he used the distance between two locations and the difference in sundown between the two locations.

"Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth without leaving Egypt. Eratosthenes knew that on the summer solstice at local noon in the Ancient Egyptian city of Swenet (known in Greek as Syene, and in the modern day as Aswan) on the Tropic of Cancer, the sun would appear at the zenith, directly overhead. He also knew, from measurement, that in his hometown of Alexandria, the angle of elevation of the sun would be 1/50 of a full circle (7°12') south of the zenith at the same time. Assuming that Alexandria was due north of Syene he concluded that the meridian arc distance from Alexandria to Syene must be 1/50 of the total circumference of the earth. His estimated distance between the cities was 5000 stadia (about 500 geographical miles or 800 km) by estimating the time that he had taken to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. He rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is frequently argued. The common Attic stadion was about 185 m,[9] which would imply a circumference of 46,620 km, i.e. 16.3% too large. However, if we assume that Eratosthenes used the "Egyptian stadion"[10] of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, an error of less than 1%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthene...cumference

---

Somoone needs to brush up on basic reading comprehension. He used the ponit between two cities (much farther apart than 3.5 inches), he also used the sun, which is not part of his allowed observable area. If you were only allowed to observe a portion of ground 3.5 inches long, and that was it- you could not conclude the circumfrence of the Earth. Nor would you be able to conclude what the rest of the Earth's surface looks like. I am sorry, can't do it. Impossible. It is just as impossible it observe the decay rate of radio-metric elements for less than 100 years and conlude they have always been the same. Insignificant figures! It's basic stastics.

[Existentialist]

I think a literal view of Scripture should be taken for many reasons but here are four. . .

1. If you don't take the book of Genesis literally then why take any of the rest of the Bible literally? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead. Maybe he was not actually born of a Virgin? If you start compromising on all of these cornerstones of the Faith then you start believing in something that is not Christianity at all.

2. Why compromise on it to begin with? It will not help anyone come to the Faith. "Well I just can't except a Young Earth because Science does not back it, but I will accept Virgins giving birth." You see my point?

3. Jesus seemed to take the Genesis account literally, so if the Son of God did, then so too must His followers.

4. People will believe when God wants them to believe. So it is my job to present and support what scripture says, not water it down to make it more appealing. One Creationist said it very well, "It's God's job to open their hearts, it's our job to shut their mouths." :-)

Science requires interpretation, it can all be interpreted to support the Biblical view of creation. So I really do not see any reason to abandon that view.

Thanks for being civil in your response!

I haven't quite followed what the explanations are for fossils appearing in the right rock layers according to multi-million year timescales, how plate tectonics is explainable in a 6,000 year timeframe, how ice cores seem to show a record of nearly a million years rather than 6,000 years, why there was a 2-second delay in radio communications with the moon explorers if electromagnetic radiation is supposed to be instantaneous, and how evolution itself was supposed to happen in 6,000 years (maybe it isn't, maybe that's the point).

I fully accept that no evidence speaks for itself. At some point, atheists like me need to make a leap of faith as part of the interpretation process. But there are a couple of questions I still need answering. Forgive me if you have already done so, this is a hot thread and I may have missed a lot.

First, I don't see why god would bother, when he made all the stars appear an Day 4, to make it look to us as if they had all been created as part of a multi-billion year timeframe. The timelines for stellar development over billions of years seem consistent with observation, they don't need to be the same star. If you were presented with examples of 80 human males each in a different year of life, you could easily model the typical development of one human male. Same with stars, surely.

But why would god bother with fooling us into believing there is a 10 billion year plus process going on. There appears to be no reason for it. It would be like taking something that we know is instantaneous, like turning a tap to obtain water, and suddenly introducing a 2-hour delay. Other than wasting a lot of time, it would be absolutely pointless.

But more importantly if, as we both agree, interpreting any evidence involves an act of faith, because however many spreadsheets we create, we still have to interpret what is there and make our own minds up and trust our judgement; if that is the case then why does the Bible need to be read literally at all - you could conclude that everything in it is intended to be metaphorical, still beautiful stories but not literally true, even the virgin birth, because you can still interpret the metaphor and everything else you see in front of you as being evidence of God's existence. Why the need to have much concrete evidence to support the young earth theory? A tiny amount of evidence could be interpreted correctly, a large amount of evidence could be interpreted incorrectly - so why the need to keep pointing to a mass of evidence and attacking the evidence of rationalistic atheists?