Can science prove the age of the earth?

Can science prove the age of the earth?

Science

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
16 Oct 14

Originally posted by sonhouse
BTW, here is what I would consider direct evidence of an ancient Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment

Sediment that accumulates at a rate of less than half a Cm per 1000 years! And the deposits are miles deep in some places.
Of course you are right, and when you trying so hard to convince the YECers here in Science Forum, you just invite them to take their propaganda into the Science Forum.

By playing the game with them, they force us to play it by their rules, and that we don't want. So just let us all please avoid to feed the YEC trolls here in the Science Forum.

Z

Joined
04 Feb 05
Moves
29132
22 Oct 14

Originally posted by RBHILL
http://www.raptureforums.com/CreationVsEvolution/ageoftheearth.cfm

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
By Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)

Some examples:

Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth

96. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce ...[text shortened]... ked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.
heh such idiocy is amusing.

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
22 Oct 14

Originally posted by sonhouse
BTW, here is what I would consider direct evidence of an ancient Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment

Sediment that accumulates at a rate of less than half a Cm per 1000 years! And the deposits are miles deep in some places.
The difficulty is that the fundamentalists are philosophical idealists, meaning that for them mind comes first, the material world is secondary to it. "In the beginning was the Word." does not just mean that God started the universe by speaking, it is also a statement of their philosophical viewpoint that their idea of God has primacy. So no amount of evidence is going to convince them. The only reason to intervene is when a claim is made that science supports what they are saying, which of course it doesn't. Science is empirical and starts from what we can see or detect. They come to it with the question already answered and simply discount any evidence that contradicts their preconceived position.

Mainstream Christians have a wider conception of God, they have God independent of this universe and although they still put their God first they regard this universe as something they can be empirical about.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
23 Oct 14

Originally posted by DeepThought
Science is empirical and starts from what we can see or detect. They come to it with the question already answered and simply discount any evidence that contradicts their preconceived position.
Everyone has a preconceived position. Only nut jobs so caught up in their beliefs actually believe that their preconceived position is absolute truth that every sane person must believe.

Science starts with what we can see or detect, people decide what that means.

If God actually created Adam from dust, how old would Adam appear to science 10 minutes after creation?

Oh, but wait, God would only create something which would be perceived as newly created so that man would not be deceived.

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
23 Oct 14

Originally posted by Eladar
Everyone has a preconceived position. Only nut jobs so caught up in their beliefs actually believe that their preconceived position is absolute truth that every sane person must believe.

Science starts with what we can see or detect, people decide what that means.

If God actually created Adam from dust, how old would Adam appear to science 10 minutes a ...[text shortened]... ly create something which would be perceived as newly created so that man would not be deceived.
And your point is?

Can't win a game of

38N Lat X 121W Lon

Joined
03 Apr 03
Moves
154898
23 Oct 14

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Am I to believe mankind has been around for thousands of years but has only just learned how to make iPhones?
Good point


Manny

Can't win a game of

38N Lat X 121W Lon

Joined
03 Apr 03
Moves
154898
23 Oct 14

I try to to stick to pure science ......but it matters questions like how did it all begin no matter your bent on things religious or otherwise


Manny

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
28 Oct 14

Originally posted by DeepThought
And your point is?
Science can neither prove nor disprove an act of God. If the Universe was the result of a miraculous creation by God, then Science would not be able to prove the age of the Universe because Science doesn't not know what the initial Universe looked like, nor how old any part of it was when it was created.

D
Losing the Thread

Quarantined World

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
87415
28 Oct 14
1 edit

Originally posted by Eladar
Science can neither prove nor disprove an act of God. If the Universe was the result of a miraculous creation by God, then Science would not be able to prove the age of the Universe because Science doesn't not know what the initial Universe looked like, nor how old any part of it was when it was created.
The universe looks quite convincingly like it is 13.8 billion years old. This means either it is or it has been made to look that old. If it's been made to look that old then its been created with a history so convincing that we can't distinguish between the created history and a "real" one. So it doesn't particularly matter from a scientific point of view. The normal argument from fundamentalists is that one can tell the difference, partly because there are theological problems with a God that deceives us into thinking the universe is older than it is, and partly because the "false" history appears to contradict the Bible.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
28 Oct 14

Originally posted by Lundos
Have you ever heard of the Lascaux paintings? Now there's some history for you.
No.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
28 Oct 14
2 edits

Originally posted by sonhouse
BTW, here is what I would consider direct evidence of an ancient Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment

Sediment that accumulates at a rate of less than half a Cm per 1000 years! And the deposits are miles deep in some places.
That is not evidence for an ancient earth. I bet nobody measured that for a thousand years. It has already been proven that sediment does not have to accumulate at a constant rate. Volcanic eruptions, mud flow, tornadoes, floods, etc. can cause sediment to accumulate rapidly, like 1000 cm in an hour.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
28 Oct 14

Originally posted by DeepThought
The universe looks quite convincingly like it is 13.8 billion years old. This means either it is or it has been made to look that old. If it's been made to look that old then its been created with a history so convincing that we can't distinguish between the created history and a "real" one. So it doesn't particularly matter from a scientific point of ...[text shortened]... rse is older than it is, and partly because the "false" history appears to contradict the Bible.
The universe does not look older than 6,000 years to me. You must be looking at an illusion.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
28 Oct 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
The universe does not look older than 6,000 years to me. You must be looking at an illusion.
I thought you made a deal to stay away from the science forum.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
28 Oct 14

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought you made a deal to stay away from the science forum.
Did I? Don't remember.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
29 Oct 14

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did I? Don't remember.
You really need to check your meds, your brain is slipping.