But the Bible said it isn't true

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Tirdun's find...

tirdun said:
Here's the comparison. Left is chimp, right is Australopithecus africanus from 1947 (since I have no side shot of the one in the article).

Further, Nature does just such a comparison in their article:
Here

I wanted to thank Turdin for that find...I really believe that is worth considering.
The Nature article compared the shoulder structures..it was very interesting.
Problem: Selam is considered 100,000 years older than Lucy...what does Lucy's shoulder look like? Is it even closer to modern Homo Sapien?

Lets face it...certain "less advanced" elements appear in later hominids-is that de-evolution? mutation?
 
S

slaphappynmd

Guest
"You're an azzhole, just coming in to stir up $h!t. If this makes your day, you're more of an azzhole than I originally thought!" I don't come in just to stir things up, but the majority of people on this board, are so close minded they don't even want to hear anything that didn't come out of their mouth. If I say something, not to stir things up, but to just point out another side to the story, they tear you apart. So yes, its fun to mess around with such a bunch of neocon, republican, evangelical freaks. Move to Waco, go have some fun there.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
slaphappynmd said:
"You're an azzhole, just coming in to stir up $h!t. If this makes your day, you're more of an azzhole than I originally thought!" I don't come in just to stir things up, but the majority of people on this board, are so close minded they don't even want to hear anything that didn't come out of their mouth. If I say something, not to stir things up, but to just point out another side to the story, they tear you apart. So yes, its fun to mess around with such a bunch of neocon, republican, evangelical freaks. Move to Waco, go have some fun there.


The krama was really mean. I'm sorry you got hurt for trying to post a thread :huggy: Although I differ with you on here. I'm sorry you were exposed to such meanness :huggy: And no, I'm no neocon, I'm not a republican and I'm not an evangelical freak. I'm just sorry someone was that mean and rude to you. :huggy:
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Pandora said:
You really shouldn’t believe everything you read and most importantly, do you have a clue in life how they estimate the age of a fossil? It is considered a science, based on assumptions and a great deal of uncertainty.
Actually it deals a lot with half lives.. Just like uranium and plutonium have half lives, it's actually pretty simple math to calculate the relative age of something

HALF-LIFE [half-life] measure of the average lifetime of a radioactive substance (see radioactivity ) or an unstable subatomic particle. One half-life is the time required for one half of any given quantity of the substance to decay. For example, the half-life of a particular radioactive isotope of thorium is 8 minutes. If 100 grams of the isotope are originally present, then only 50 grams will remain after 8 minutes, 25 grams after 16 minutes (2 half-lives), 12.5 grams after 24 minutes (3 half-lives), and so on. Of course the 87.5 grams that are no longer present as the original substance after 24 minutes have not disappeared but remain in the form of one or more other substances in the isotope's radioactive decay series. Individual decays are random and cannot be predicted, but this statistical measure of the great number of atoms in the sample is very accurate. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is a characteristic of that isotope and is not affected by any change in physical or chemical conditions.

How Carbon-14 is Made
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:


t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:


t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years

t = 18,940 years old

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

Sounds pretty damn accurate to me..
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Pandora said:
You really shouldn’t believe everything you read and most importantly, do you have a clue in life how they estimate the age of a fossil? It is considered a science, based on assumptions and a great deal of uncertainty.

And you shouldn't believe everything someone tells you..

And being considered a science is a bad thing?? And what is a great deal of uncertaintity.. a possible error of <>3% 1.5% 12%.. either one you chose still puts the fossil at MILLIONS of years older then the planets age of 6,000 years.
 

Pandora

New Member
itsbob said:
And you shouldn't believe everything someone tells you..

And being considered a science is a bad thing?? And what is a great deal of uncertaintity.. a possible error of <>3% 1.5% 12%.. either one you chose still puts the fossil at MILLIONS of years older then the planets age of 6,000 years.


There is great controversy in your posting of “half life" and "carbon formulation.”


Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.


The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah’s day. Additionally, there are hundreds of flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth’s sedimentary layers. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood. The answer can be found in the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins. This would have provided several of the key factors need for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.

There are many former atheist and anthropologist that have recanted their beliefs and grasped Christianity. What I’ve posted above is data compiled by Dr. Carl Baugh, but the thing is Bob, one could sit and argue the “old Earth Theory” or the “New Earth Theory” FOREVER. You are obviously set in your beliefs and I in mine.
 

tirdun

staring into the abyss
Pandora said:
There is great controversy in your posting of “half life" and "carbon formulation.”
Only for creationists. Radiometric dating... not carbon dating, as this fossil is too old for carbon dating, is an established science. If anyone doubted the science behind radioactive decay the employees at every nuclear plant and hospital would be in trouble.

Dr. Barnes' "definitive work" has long since been proven wrong, it relies on a steady change in the magnetic field over a short time for a rate. Akin to measuring the incomming morning tide and assuming the east coast will be eradicated before lunch.

There are many former atheist and anthropologist that have recanted their beliefs and grasped Christianity.
Please name a few scientists who have embraced young earth creationism.

What I’ve posted above is data compiled by Dr. Carl Baugh
Who is neither an accredited doctor of anything, nor a scientist of any merit. I've have never seen a single piece of evidence that has undermined my understanding that the age of the universe is not 9000 or 90,000 or 90 million years.
 
Last edited:

Pandora

New Member
Dr. Carl Baugh compiles what other scientist have had to say. I didn’t pass him off as any expert by any means. :nono:

I have videotape and I want to say it is titled “The Evidence of Creation” that gave a documentary on a scientist/anthropologist that changed his atheistic views and converted to Christianity. He goes on to describe his work over a great number of years that lead him to change his opinion. He also named others on that tape, but right now, I believe that tape is missing from this house. :tap: I believe my Christian friend that has it went bar hopping tonight. :jet: <---- I will however get back to this as soon as I can.

Anyway, was it his (this scientist/anthropologist, former atheist) intent to gain notoriety? Sell videos? Maybe so, because you just don’t know what people’s intentions are anymore. Just like the intensions of scientist who go into the world looking to validate what they believe.

There is no shed of evidences that proves or disproves that the Earth is old or new, at least nothing solid, and for every logical explanation there is yet another logical explanation swaying it the other way. But either way, that doesn’t change the fact that, there are many Christians that do believe in the old Earth concept versus the new one because the bible doesn’t say in any exact term that the Earth is of a certain age.

But we can look at what we do know. Tropic type fossils have been eradicated from places that we have never known to be anything but freezing cold. Fossils have been found to prove that in the past, plants grew to an astronomical size, which could be conclusive to a tropical environment. Many scientists do agree that there was at one point a great catastrophe, or shall I say most.

Atheism is based on some ability to reason. Everything has to make sense to us arrogant human beings, bottom line. We believe in what we see, touch and hear and since we don’t see God, cannot touch him, he must not be real. Atheist will even say that they are design flaws in the Earth, but of course we don’t have an entire set of any parameters to understand, disprove or discredit the existence of God. And once the design is known and figured out, then and only then will we truly understand of the big picture and only then can we really critique the design. Atheism makes a case against God yet it isn’t good enough to convince those who believe otherwise because there just isn’t solid scientific evidence. Therefore, God cannot be excluded from the big picture, which is what this thread starter is trying to convey.

When I posted earlier to not believer everything you read, I’d like to add that when they use generic terms like “scientist found” without any recognition to who it is I have doubt, which is why I don’t always believe everything I read or hear. I know that many in the world have hidden agendas, and I cannot grasp a thought beyond thinking that life is just too complex to not have some masterminded plan.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
tirdun said:
Only for creationists. Radiometric dating... not carbon dating, as this fossil is too old for carbon dating, is an established science. If anyone doubted the science behind radioactive decay the employees at every nuclear plant and hospital would be in trouble.

Dr. Barnes' "definitive work" has long since been proven wrong, it relies on a steady change in the magnetic field over a short time for a rate. Akin to measuring the incomming morning tide and assuming the east coast will be eradicated before lunch.


Please name a few scientists who have embraced young earth creationism.


Who is neither an accredited doctor of anything, nor a scientist of any merit. I've have never seen a single piece of evidence that has undermined my understanding that the age of the universe is not 9000 or 90,000 or 90 million years.

Good thing there's no Christian Scientists or a faith called Christian Science. :razz: I agree with Pandora, there's too much overwhelming evidence the earth is by design and not pure happenstance and chance. I believe all designs would suggest a designer, especially something like the world and something this complex. :huggy:
 
W

wileyCoyote

Guest
I am a genius, I do believe I have figured it out.

The earth was created by God. Then God decided to mess with our heads and added lots of old funny looking bones (dinosaurs, apes, fossils, etc). Right now he is laughing his a** off at the funny stupid humans.

:jameo:
 

ylexot

Super Genius
wileyCoyote said:
I am a genius, I do believe I have figured it out.

The earth was created by God. Then God decided to mess with our heads and added lots of old funny looking bones (dinosaurs, apes, fossils, etc). Right now he is laughing his a** off at the funny stupid humans.

:jameo:
You're a moron.
 
wileyCoyote said:
I am a genius, I do believe I have figured it out.

The earth was created by God. Then God decided to mess with our heads and added lots of old funny looking bones (dinosaurs, apes, fossils, etc). Right now he is laughing his a** off at the funny stupid humans.

:jameo:
I actually had someone tell me that. I think it's interesting that the closer science comes to understand the creation of the universe the more it sounds like "let there be light". I do not, however, believe that a supreme being stood off to the side and caused it. I'd be more inclined to believe that it is intelligence passed to ours species by a superior race when we were new on the planet. We just interperated it as "the word of God".
 

Uncle Rico

New Member
desertrat said:
I actually had someone tell me that. I think it's interesting that the closer science comes to understand the creation of the universe the more it sounds like "let there be light". I do not, however, believe that a supreme being stood off to the side and caused it. I'd be more inclined to believe that it is intelligence passed to ours species by a superior race when we were new on the planet. We just interperated it as "the word of God".

Yeah, that sounds right. :lmao: Maybe it was little green men from another planet who crashed here a long time ago. They could be that superior race. Wow, I see a theme for a new book or movie here.
 

bdh802

Bob
Uncle Rico said:
Yeah, that sounds right. :lmao: Maybe it was little green men from another planet who crashed here a long time ago. They could be that superior race. Wow, I see a theme for a new book or movie here.

As if you were smart enough to write a book! HA! :lmao:
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Uncle Rico said:
Yeah, that sounds right. :lmao: Maybe it was little green men from another planet who crashed here a long time ago. They could be that superior race. Wow, I see a theme for a new book or movie or a new religion.

:fixed:
 

tirdun

staring into the abyss
Pandora said:
But we can look at what we do know.

Fine. Here's what we know.

The universe is, to a high degree of accuracy, over 12 billion years old. We know this thanks in large part to two men whose names you'll probably recognize: Einstein and Hubble and one you won't: Planck. The edge of the observable universe is 15 billion light years away. Given the expansion rate of the universe and our understanding that light is a constant and has been for all known time, this sets a clear limit on the age of the universe, and that limit is not 10,000 years. The size, shape, and forces at work in the universe all point to a very simple fact: the universe is very, very old.

Thanks to our understanding of light and redshift, we can look back and see the early age of the universe and measure the distances and times involved. Thanks to our understanding of entropy, we can measure the limited lingering energy of the early universe. Thanks to our understanding of radiometric decay, we can investigate meteors and rocks and discover facts about their age and birth. We can look into the hearts of distant stars and see what they're made of. We can study our own star and see that it is billions of years old. Each step forward we cast off the old, from Newton to Galileo to Einstein.

There is more, but each science is based on more science, which is based on more science. Theories and their laws and their conclusions and so forth, all based on what we know and what we'd like to know. The conclusion comes down to two things. Either the universe and the earth are vastly ancient, or God has created a counterfeit universe and dropped us into it.
 
Top