Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Happy Panther

4th Grade Quiz in SC

173 posts in this topic

do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Im not set on the age of the earth, however i dont believe it is billions of years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not set on the age of the earth, however i dont believe it is billions of years old.

"The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age."

For more, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not set on the age of the earth, however i dont believe it is billions of years old.

if you, a dispassionate observer, came upon two sets of evidence:

1) a historical text from the late paleolithic era that stated, as was common knowledge at the time, that humanity's known record extended as late as ~4-5k years ago

2) archaeological evidence through radiocarbon dating, potassium argon dating, electron spin resonance, optical stimulation luminescence, dendrochronology, etc. that human activity existed long before the historical record, with all those dates corroborating with one another, geological evidence based fundamentally on the principle of uniformitarianism, biological evidence of mutation in DNA codes and subsequent evolution of populations, mathematical evidence based on genotypic calculations, and astrophysical evidence based on astronomy, physics, and the theory of relativity

...and, knowing that the first one was limited by the scope of paleolithic cosmology and the fact that it could never be explored beyond the scope of theology, and that the latter collection could (and has, and always will) have countless lifetimes dedicated to the research and study of countless facets of any one of those fields,

which one would you chose, if you had no prior alliances or affiliations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is why the church is losing so many from the younger generation. they're forcing people to look at those two sets of evidence and ignore their brains and go with choice number one, and they've constructed the debate framework so that it's impossible to properly fit into option one unless you entirely reject number two as a postulation of arrogant god-rejecting men who have been tricked by the devil. thus most people don't even take a second glance and throw the first one out the window, baby, bathwater, and all.

christianity must change or it will die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all those dating methods come up with the same dating for individual samples? In fact depending on which methods used you will come up with different answers, so how can any be considered accurate if they dont match up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also isnt saying organism evolve but the rate of carbon decay remains constant a little hypocritical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all those dating methods come up with the same dating for individual samples? In fact depending on which methods used you will come up with different answers, so how can any be considered accurate if they dont match up?

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. They do not aim to pinpoint the exact year of any organism. They aim to get as close as absolutely possible, while taking into account error (you'll see this in any scientific study of the age of anything. It is falsifiable, as is all science. However, it hasn't been falsified.

They've dated dinosaurs to millions of years ago. They've dated human remains to specific eras in human history (Egyptians, for instance). It works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also isnt saying organism evolve but the rate of carbon decay remains constant a little hypocritical?

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is why the church is losing so many from the younger generation. they're forcing people to look at those two sets of evidence and ignore their brains and go with choice number one, and they've constructed the debate framework so that it's impossible to properly fit into option one unless you entirely reject number two as a postulation of arrogant god-rejecting men who have been tricked by the devil. thus most people don't even take a second glance and throw the first one out the window, baby, bathwater, and all.

christianity must change or it will die.

Oh, things are changing

http://www.nbcnews.c...y/#.UX2LlMqRfTw

Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, things are changing

http://www.nbcnews.c...y/#.UX2LlMqRfTw

A field of science that is starting to make breakthroughs is abiogenesis. Basically, the idea is:

-simple chemicals (present on earth from the earliest formations of earth)

-became polymers (a natural event), then polymers replicated (a natural event)

-then hypercycle (a new level of organization whereby self-replicative units are connected in a cyclic, autocatalytic manner. The self-replicative units are themselves (auto)catalytic cycles. The hypercycle is a specific model of the chemical origin of life, pioneered by Eigen and Schuster. From random distributions of chemicals, the hypercycle model seeks to find and grow sets of chemical transformations that include self-reinforcing loops.Hypercycles are very similar with autocatalytic systems in that both represent a cyclic arrangement of catalysts which themselves are cycles of reactions. The difference of hypercycles is that the catalysts that constitute them are themselves self-replicative)

-then protobiont (evolutionary precursors of prokaryotic cells, which are cells without a nucleus)

-finally, bacteria (prokaryotic cells)

Anyway, even if this doesn't pan out for us and we are still stuck wondering how life started, the answer is "we don't know yet".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0055_02.gif

0055_03.gif

0055_04.gif

0055_05.gif

0055_06.gif

0055_07.gif

0055_08.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0055_09.gif

0055_10.gif

0055_11.gif

0055_12.gif

0055_13.gif

0055_14.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites