It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

6,000 years: can someone explain this to me?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Tell me where I can find the seapeople posts like this.

Many of his posts include links to validate his arguments.

The ones I read are about his opinion and the ones where he calls people names. That is really something you need to outgrow. If you act like this with strangers I'd hate to see how you treat people close to you.


If I act like what? Who are you talking to?




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Honestly riley. I thought Dbrandt had some sort of reason and logic. He is hopeless as well.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
It's amazing to me how worked up people get about this subject.

I'm a Christian. and a scientist. Does everything in the Bible make scientific sense? Absolutley not. Not even close. Supernatural events abound - and by supernatural, I mean outside the realm of all science & reason.

Can scientists explain everything we see? Certainly not. If the posts on ATS aren't evidence of this, then I don't know what is.

Some people read the Bible and interpret it to say that the Earth is 6k years old (though most of the time I've seen 10 - 12k). A fairly reasonable interpretation, imo, given the contexts. Plus, Jesus makes statements in at least one place in the Gospels that suggest a literal interpretation of Genesis. [I'm too lazy to look it up right now] As a Christian, if you can't trust the words of Jesus, then there's not much point to being a Christian.

There's been lots of debate over the years about the validity and margins of error associated with radiometric dating. As a scientist, I've seen some really, really bad science on both sides of the issue. Bottom line: I think there is pretty overwhelming evidence that the earth is significantly older than a literal interpretation of the OT would lead one to believe.

But you know what? I don't care. I don't think there is going to be a quiz when I die that grades me on my beliefs as it comes to the origins of the earth, whether I am an pre-millenialist, a-millenialist, or whatever, or any number of other non-critical issues that Christians try to make others accept.

Finally, I think too many Christians get drawn into debates with non-Christians on subjects (such as this one) that they are ill-prepared to defend. I think Christians and non-Christians alike would be better served focusing on the subject that is really important - Christ's sacrifice for us.

But that's just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Many of his posts include links to validate his arguments.
If I act like what? Who are you talking to?


How does providing a link to the flat earth society validate his argument?

I'm referring to seapeople and his calling other people names.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Seapeople, you said.

5+5=10, you know thats true.


100%

Scientists don't even know if radiometric dating is 100% true.


Heres some qoutes from scientists. Not creationists. This is insane because ive seen miracles which disproves the whole thing, once I gather all of them up im writing in a booklet, im posting a huge list of miracles ive seen God work, thats later though. I don't know if I should though because it would probably
be mocked.


Scientists.

" Radiometric and nonradiometric dating are not 100% accurate "


" Oldest star cluster seems to be older than the universe "


which caused alot of criticism of the dating methods.



" Atsronomers usually cannot tell the age of an individual star "


" It is impossible to determine the age of a single star all by itself "


These qoutes are from a scientific expert on a science website.



If 5+5=10, thats 100% sure, this is not 100% accurate. If it is which its not 100% then I still believe they were placed as they are as a miracle of God, just like how we have the perfect amount of gravity, we are
the perfect distance from the sun, how the hone bee is smarter than the sartest computer by billions of calculation, how beatiful it is in nature. Evolution, (i sound like a record player), has done a fantastic job, so fantastic that it seems
evolution has a strongly creative design and if desires for its design.


Its just to good of a job for nothing to do.



These scientific battles back and forth are insane. I grew with an 8th grade education, and I don't need to know any knowledge to prove to me what ive seen, and im glad God has shown me is amazing power and it can be seen by the dumbest of people, because knowledge has not seeped their brain with pride.




God says in scripture.


" I do not reveal this to the learned but to the childlike "



peace.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truth

Seapeople, you said.

5+5=10, you know thats true.


100%

Scientists don't even know if radiometric dating is 100% true.


Heres some qoutes from scientists. Not creationists. This is insane because ive seen miracles which disproves the whole thing, once I gather all of them up im writing in a booklet, im posting a huge list of miracles ive seen God work, thats later though. I don't know if I should though because it would probably
be mocked.


Scientists.

" Radiometric and nonradiometric dating are not 100% accurate "


" Oldest star cluster seems to be older than the universe "


which caused alot of criticism of the dating methods.



" Atsronomers usually cannot tell the age of an individual star "


" It is impossible to determine the age of a single star all by itself "


These qoutes are from a scientific expert on a science website.



If 5+5=10, thats 100% sure, this is not 100% accurate. If it is which its not 100% then I still believe they were placed as they are as a miracle of God, just like how we have the perfect amount of gravity, we are
the perfect distance from the sun, how the hone bee is smarter than the sartest computer by billions of calculation, how beatiful it is in nature. Evolution, (i sound like a record player), has done a fantastic job, so fantastic that it seems
evolution has a strongly creative design and if desires for its design.


Its just to good of a job for nothing to do.



These scientific battles back and forth are insane. I grew with an 8th grade education, and I don't need to know any knowledge to prove to me what ive seen, and im glad God has shown me is amazing power and it can be seen by the dumbest of people, because knowledge has not seeped their brain with pride.




God says in scripture.


" I do not reveal this to the learned but to the childlike "



peace.


if there was a infinite number of universe just say... or if there is just one universe that has a *big bang* then expands, and then it falls in on itself and has a *big crunch* then from that another *big big* occurs and then another *big crunch* etc...(never ending cycle) a infinite number of times.
i tell you... it wouldnt just be possible, or wouldnt just be probable but it would definately... definately, sooner or later (since we are talking a infinite number of times) a universe will arise with the right conditions for life... the right strong/weak nuclear force, the right gravity etc... you get what i mean. just say you had a '1 trillion to the power of trillion' chances of a universe occuring that has the right *conditions* for life arising, it will arise definately.

my point is
eventhough people say... its a miracle that our universe is right condition for life and the probability is so slight for the right conditions...
well, it doesnt really matter how probable or how unprobable.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Truth,

I know about radiometric dating. They know it works, but to fully understand the answer you gave me, you need to know where you have gotten your information.

Radiometric dating could best be described as being based in the quantum world. It deals with radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is the amount of time it takes for an unstable particle to break down by half. The problem you are citing is that the particle doesn't always break down. There is a paradox called "Schroedingers Cat". It goes like this:

You have a box, thats completely closed off to the outside. Inside, there is a cat. There is also a mechanism that has a hammer, and it works off of the decay of an unstable particle. When the particle decays by haly, the hammer will swing down and kill the cat. The box is closed off to the world, so we cant see inside. When the time has passed for the half-life of the particle, is the cat dead?

This is based on the fact that the decay of a particle is based in probability. The individual particle may or may not have decayed at this point allowing the paradox. Is the cat dead or alive? It may be necessary to regard the cat as being both dead and alive. But this is in regards to an individual particle. Half life is based on particles, not just an individual particle. If you have a large group of particles, the half life averages out. We can have a very precise half life of unstable part5icles as a result if you take the group as a whole. Its kinda why relativity and quantum physics don't match up...at least one of the reasons.

What I am trying to say is that if you scrutinize this type of dating, then you must be looking very closely at one or a very small group of particles. The smaller the group, the more likely to be error. However, this is a reliable way of dating when taken on the whole. Your criticism of it, shows your lack of knowledge in the subject. If you were educated in it at all, and trust me, I am not a quantum physicist myself, you would understand at least the basic principals of it AND WHY PEOPLE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY COULD MEASURE TIME WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Now, you are right, radiometric dating does have a margin of error. I personally thought, just from my own brain, that max error would be 50% due to the way we use it. However I was wrong. Max error is 25%. The most that number could possibly be wrong is 25%. 12.5 billion years for instance is the estimated age of the universe at this time. That is plus or minus 3 billion years. That doesn't even get you close to a 6000 year old world. Furthermore, it would deny all reason to say that radiometric dating does not rule out a 6000 year old universe and earth.

If you were in math class scenerio: You knew the math, and worked out a problem for homework. Still, you werent 100% sure the answer you came to was correct. When you got to class, 18 out of the 20 people you went to class with came to the same conclusion as you. (The two were obviously christians). There are many other methods of dating. The thing is, they all end up telling us the universe and world is aged in the billions of years. Maybe, if only one of them did, christians would be justified in their mindless attack on science. Unfortuneatly, there isn't just one method. And all of them aside from the "adding up the days in the bible" give us the same answer.

Truth, you ought to take the time honestly, to learn about how this science was achieved, and why. Find out why we discovered radioactive decay in the first place. Why is it that particles decay. How is it that we use this decay to date things. Why don't you go and give yourself a crash course in the math, and science this is based on. Christians typically don't do this. Rather they go to answersingenesis.com for all of there answers. Do it on your own. Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, just a little, you would have a better idea of how to put forth your ideas on the subject.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I hope you read my first one, now on to the second.

You claim that we are the perfect distance from the sun. Thats lovely. When I was in grade school, my teacher used to tell me that. (Catholic school).

Now, on to your lovely claim. Did you know that the earth does not orbit the sun in a circle to start this off? Nope, its a great big giant ellipse. Did you also know that we are not in the center of this ellipse? Thats right, during the year, there are times when we are MUCH CLOSER to the sun then others.

Oh, heres a good one. Did you know that the earth is spiraling down to the sun, and one day, will collide? In your life time the earth has significantly gotten closer as a whole to the sun. Also, the sun is expanding. This is occuring along with the spiraling. Eventually here, this heaven on earth thing will be a no no. The fact is, your claim that we are the perfect distance away from the sun is precisely the reason why I am not a christian. Yes, it is the mathematical problem that brought me to this state. We have gotten closer to the sun. We are still alive. Just the way it is. We will get closer tomorrow, and the next day.

Hey, luckily for us, the sun is too small to supernova, but eventually it will engulf us...even if the earth was not moving toward it. Your image of a perfect placement of earth DID NOT take those bits of information into account. You never even bothered to find that stuff out. This is where you go wrong. Learn abit, about the universe. It might do you some good.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
my point is
eventhough people say... its a miracle that our universe is right condition for life and the probability is so slight for the right conditions...
well, it doesnt really matter how probable or how unprobable.


Of course not.
That argument drives me nuts too. It's like billions of mold spores on a rancid bread crumb saying...

Isn't the Provider a genius? That the foundation should be so perfectly rancid, just for us? Life (their definition) simply couldn't survive anywhere else in the vastness of the trash dump but on this piece of bread, thrown out at the perfect time, landing in the perfect spot, getting just enough sun, but not too much sun, not one degree too cold for moldkind, not one degree too hot. Only a fool couldn't see the miracle of intelligent design behind our existence. I think back to watching my first cell divide. *tears* The miracle of life. The stink of us. The ominpresent mold behind all things. The hanger of the sun. The baker of bread. The four pillars upon which the trash dump rests.
The Supreme MoldSpore doesn't play dice with the trash dump. It's perfect just for us for a reason. It's all just for us. How do I know? Moses Mold wrote it down 20 minutes ago. (relative comparable timeframe). Think of it. 20 whole minutes ago. MINUTES! It's amazing to think about how far we've come in all those eons. Some say we've been here days and just happened to spring into existence in less than a supernatural effort. But they have no faith. Days? Are they insane? Moses Mold said 21 minutes! And there's only a gazillion of us. Surely there would be more if the bread crumb was any older than 21 minutes. I just don't buy it. These "scientist molds" have obviously never seen the miracle of a mold spore push another mold spore out it's side. Or the way the dump smells on an especially hot night. No, they have no faith. The Supreme MoldSpore will return though. Then they'll see how really stupid they are.





posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
The Supreme MoldSpore doesn't play dice with the trash dump. It's perfect just for us for a reason.

Awesome analogy RANT. Moses Mold! Too funny.
Someone earlier qouted Einstein's "G-D doesnt play dice with the universe" statement to justify whatever they were trying to. I'm too lazy to go back and find that. Well Eistein didnt like the idea of probabilities and was against QM theory. Thats probably the most nonsensical thing he ever said. Just a personal opinion. No need to attack me.
I know PETA would have a field day with Schroedinger!

I completely agree with cheeser on the theory of a cyclical universe. Why is it so hard to fathom?

P.S. Seapeople is my official QM prof.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Incredible rant, I have no clue what that was.


seapeople we are the perfect distance to sustain life, or we would freeze to death or burn to death. if you change these by even alittle the average temperature would probably destroy the earth.



" the sun is getting closer to the earth "


Why have we sustained life for 5 billion years according to your age? If the earth has moved closer what was it doing for 5 billion years?


If its moved such a little time in 5 billion years, and here we sit today at the perfect year round temperature to sustain life, than when will it cange drastically?


Matter of fact, we are not going to last much longer due to our stupid knowledge of nuclear warheads. which was created by geniuses who are much smrter than stupid religious men like me, yet they destroy our planet God gave us. You guys truly don't understand that knowledge means anything, but it
only leads to destruction of life (cloning) and of the world literally.


and if you souls honestly think we will not be in a nuclear war created by our prideful knowledge, then your kidding yurselves. This was predcited 100s of years ago by the sme religious fanatics as me.




You don't have to be learned to witness miracles, or be wise. I can learn about this stuff all day and it would not mean anything because what ive seen this internet did not show me. science cannot explain it. its personall
and very true to me.



seapeople, one more thing about the sun. how come this soul said we are getting farther?

curious.astro.cornell.edu...



peace.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Truth,

I know about radiometric dating.



Creation Archive > Volume 24 Issue 4 > The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating


First published:
Creation 24(4):20–23
September 2002
Browse this issue
Subscribe to Creation Magazine

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
by Tas Walker

Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.


Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth

Incredible rant, I have no clue what that was.


Just exactly what you just said here only from the perspective of mold spores.


we are the perfect distance to sustain life, or we would freeze to death or burn to death. if you change these by even alittle the average temperature would probably destroy the earth.


That's really not that big a deal frankly. Unless of course one adopts a very egocentric perspective of one's own existence, that simply being is evidence that everything is about you. Or in the creationist's argument, about man. Just as in the mold spores perspective, it was all about the mold, with further mold based testimony cited to "prove" the articles of faith in mold dogma, which "we" know to be ridiculous from a non-mold perspective.

Just an excercise in analogy to get outside our egocentric bias and think of something "not god" that could also account for our being here.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   


we are the perfect distance to sustain life, or we would freeze to death or burn to death. if you change these by even alittle the average temperature would probably destroy the earth.

i was under the impression that the earths average temperature has fluxuated +&- quite alot over history. we supposivdly had numerious 'ice ages' and world wide droughts...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth



ive only been educated up until the 9th grade, never went to school after that.



This isnt a real suprise you didnt have to tell us.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth



ive only been educated up until the 9th grade, never went to school after that.



This isnt a real suprise you didnt have to tell us.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
why do you need evidence after evidence and fact after fact to prove the earth is old. there is evidence enough in the stars alone. let me break it down for those of you who don't understand the concept of rational thought.

some stars are billions of light years away. lets say for example one star is one billion light years away. this means that the light from this star will take one billion years to reach us. this is because light is one speed, a constant and doesn't change. this small piece of evidence alone proves the earth is of a great age, otherwise it would be impossible to see the stars. in fact we wouldn't be able to see any stars if the bible's lineage from jesus is interpreted literaly.

if you disagree with the speed of light or the fact that the light from a star one billion light years away would take one billion years to reach us then you're an idiot. why bother even argueing about something when you're so wrong its laughable. which ever way you look at it, the earth is billions of years old. fact.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
shaunybaby,

I'm not taking either side here, but I think I see a flaw in your logic. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Going by your logic, we as humans shouldn't be able to see the stars either, because WE are not 1 billion years old. Just because there wasn't an earth in this spot 1 billion years ago doesn't mean that the stars weren't still shining in the same spot. For example, if a new planet suddenly formed pretty close to ours. Would they be able to see the stars, or would they have to wait a billion years? See what I'm getting at? The stars may have been shining long before the earth was created.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
well it isn't really a flaw in my arguement, because my arguement is that the earth is old and so is the universe. you're suggesting that the universe could be billions of years old and that our earth is still only 10,000 years old. what about our sun? what about the planets around us...are these also only 10,000 years old?

there's one very major flaw in your arguement though, and that is that when god created the stars adam could see them instantly. this was a mistake that the author did not yet understand how light travels.

so if there are any flaws it's in your arguement that the universe is billions of years old, yet the earth is a mere 10,000 years old. either way...the earth has been here for billions of years.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Sorry, I did not read this whole thread so forgive me if someone already brought up the point I want to make.
Even if you go by the people who interpret the Bible to a point where they say the earth is 6000 yrs. old, you can disput that also by the Bible.
If you actually read the Bible it says God created everything in 6 days. Now it also says elsewhere in the Bible that 1000 years to us is like 1 day to God. So it could then be said that God created everything in 6000 years by our time but 6 days to God's time. But then it also says he rested on the 7th day which could be said is 1000 years to us. So right there you could have 7000 years of the earths age and that is just the begining so you are not even counting the thousands of years after the begining.
So even those that somehow came up with the earth being 6000 years according to the Bible can also be said to be wrong by the Bible if you take the 1000 years to us is like 1 day to God (which the Bible also states)...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join