Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[Dirkadirkastan]

How is that aquarium experiment relevant to anything? Since when did rain pour from UNDER the earth and violently shake the planet?? It sounds much more likely that someone read a storybook and is now desperately trying to validate it with a false analogy.

As for the radioactive dating... the "average life" refers to taking the average over the whole system. It does NOT imply that the actual life of every particle lasted at or even near that duration. If half of the atoms have decayed in 5000 years, then that's really going to skew the overall average lifespan toward a small number. By comparison, very few atoms survive 100 half-lives, and thus their long lifespan ultimately doesn't affect the average lifespan value that much. But some do last that long... after all, that's the whole idea behind the half-life. Half of the atoms decay and half remain after each half-life, so there will always be a few hanging around.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

How is that aquarium experiment relevant to anything? Since when did rain pour from UNDER the earth and violently shake the planet?? It sounds much more likely that someone read a storybook and is now desperately trying to validate it with a false analogy.

As for the radioactive dating... the "average life" refers to taking the average over the whole system. It does NOT imply that the actual life of every particle lasted at or even near that duration. If half of the atoms have decayed in 5000 years, then that's really going to skew the overall average lifespan toward a small number. By comparison, very few atoms survive 100 half-lives, and thus their long lifespan ultimately doesn't affect the average lifespan value that much. But some do last that long... after all, that's the whole idea behind the half-life. Half of the atoms decay and half remain after each half-life, so there will always be a few hanging around.

Since when didn't rain pour from UNDER the earth? Can you definitively tell me it didn't? You can't.....ah but you can assume without proof.

Now I admit that I made an assumption as well to get to this scientific experiment I chose. I assumed the Biblical version to be correct.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

So even if you don't believe it -- by scientific testing -- it COULD have happened and would throw a huge wrench into the dating of most things.

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

Are not all lifeforms on the earth Carbon based lifeforms? Isn't that why we use carbon dating on anything that was living? Best I can tell we use Carbon dating to date all things living.

But, I put the carbon half-life and formula up and it only goes back thousands of years and has several assumptions in it even there.

So what is the "other" dating we can use on carbon based lifeforms?

I know various other elements we from a scientific standpoint -- IF -- we assume constant decay, etc have longer half-lives. As it was explained to me though -- all living creatures on the earth are carbon based -- hence the reason we do carbon dating.

So I am back to the question above? How does science date carbon based lifeforms other than radiocarbon dating?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Since when didn't rain pour from UNDER the earth? Can you definitively tell me it didn't? You can't.....ah but you can assume without proof.

Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.

Now I admit that I made an assumption as well to get to this scientific experiment I chose. I assumed the Biblical version to be correct.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?

So even if you don't believe it -- by scientific testing -- it COULD have happened and would throw a huge wrench into the dating of most things.

We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.

Are not all lifeforms on the earth Carbon based lifeforms? Isn't that why we use carbon dating on anything that was living? Best I can tell we use Carbon dating to date all things living.

But, I put the carbon half-life and formula up and it only goes back thousands of years and has several assumptions in it even there.

Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.

So what is the "other" dating we can use on carbon based lifeforms?

I know various other elements we from a scientific standpoint -- IF -- we assume constant decay, etc have longer half-lives. As it was explained to me though -- all living creatures on the earth are carbon based -- hence the reason we do carbon dating.

So I am back to the question above? How does science date carbon based lifeforms other than radiocarbon dating?

I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.

But what is the proof of evolution?

Quick article I just found....

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations. To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!
Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference. However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

*****WELCOME to the FACTS of science that most don't want to talk about.

We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?

Depends, on what are you basing that Zeus cast Thunderbolts. I love Greek Mythology -- but what specific writing are you basing this information on?

We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.

We have some evidence of our origin as it was written in some of the oldest writings we have.
Maybe we are just so much smarter now than the humans back then.
Maybe aliens did deposit us on this planet -- doesn't change the real concept though. Who made the aliens?
We have nothing but problems stemming from the idea that we came from apes. Of course if the other alternative is intelligent design -- then man isn't really in control -- we might have to answer for our actions -- and oh my--- there might be a God.
So lets teach it the way of coming from apes -- at least we don't have to answer for our actions that way and we are large and in charge.

Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.

yes I read what you said before. It just didn't hold water.
Science claims to be able to date based up radioactive decay -- I understand.
They can date rock via other elements than carbon -- I understand.
ALL life on earth is Carbon Based -- I understand.
They can only date anything that was living via carbon dating because it is a carbon based being -- YES I understand.
They can date the rocks, etc they think -- even though they can't prove it -- if they make enough assumptions with atmosphere, and standard rate of decay -- yes I understand.

What I don't understand is if I don't make these assumptions -- how it would ever work, because it doesn't and can't. I don't assume the decay rate stays the same when we can make the decay rate on everything change based upon outside conditions. We can only date rocks etc with the "other" dating methods. Yes some fossils they try to date, after the carbon has been changed to rock, but they still make many assumptions on decay rates and time to convert to the fossil, etc. -- before they make more assumptions on radioactive decay rates being constant based upon the atmosphere it was in at that time. The best scientific method they have at this time for the dating of anything living is radioactive carbon dating, and that only leads back to what I wrote before -- it maxes to thousands of years which is the life of carbon. Science has NO proof of anything longer than this, and this is if I agree to the assumptions that the decay is constant and the atmosphere it was in is the same today as it was then.

I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.

What a video. Basically they say 93% of all scientist don't believe in God and we have taught evolution since the 1950's --- so it all must be true. I mean opinion, opinion, no proof, none. Isn't this exactly what scientists claim that religion says? ( Believe me and I don't need proof and if you don't believe me you are just not as smart (evolved) as I AM )

Just remember the stuff that was taught up till the 1950s is all wrong, we are right -- get on board or your just stupid and wrong.

Science is just another form of religion. Only in Science - man is in charge and knows it all, or can figure it all out.

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

now back to Evolution and God.

Most don't realize that this is THE question. Logic does though.

Evolution has a logical end. The laws of nature have a logical end, but not a logical design.

Have science explain why water -- the building block of life..... is less dense when in both solid and gaseous forms.

Explain why -- if there was a Big Bang -- with all life starting at a single point and goes outward -- that some objects in outer space rotate in opposite directions (You cannot do that here on Earth - I've seen the experiment) Spin something and cause it to explode outward and the inertia causes all things to spin in the same direction. (Same reason that toilets flushed in the northern hemisphere circle one direction when they go down and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere -- the Earth still spins only one direction)

Science has all kinds of problems it can't solve and its hypothesis just don't work in most instances. The answer for science is just throw out ideas, call them fact, make assumptions, teach it and try as much as possible to get public opinion on their side.

--------------------------------------------------
Now Let's say I am extremely irrational and you are correct. There is no God. Logically there is no afterlife. Hence we live and we die and that is it. Why do we have a conscience? Why is there a right and a wrong? Why shouldn't I just rape, steal, murder? The end is the end no matter what, and we do not have to answer to anyone. Might is always right because if you don't like it, then I'll just kill you. Why would there be Love? and why would anyone offer their own life for someone else? Why would what Hitler did be wrong? Why would the killing of millions be wrong? Who decides right and wrong? Who decides what is fair? Since the planet according to scientist is only able to truly support 500 million or so, and we have 6+ billion on the planet now -- why don't we just commit mass genocide and kill off the rest that are hurting the planet. I am man and can justify this with mans thinking. If man is in control then what makes it wrong for this to happen?

If you don't believe in a God, then why don't you just kill yourself because there isn't anyone to answer to and really you are just hurting the planet anyway.


Can you follow the logic of a world without a creator?


I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
If I don't, and there isn't, then the alternative is screw you and your courts, your government, and your life -- I'll take it when I want to and I will rape your women, and steal your food and everything else, and if you don't like it then kill me - because logically that is where we are going to end up either way and none of this matters anyway. Why wait to die, and why try to live at an older age since basically it physically sucks when you start to get old (just trust me on this one). Why try to help others -- if there is nothing for you?

Thinking gets a little deep when you get into it.


Science is a way to try and find the truth -- It just gets itself way off with assumptions, etc that doesn't meet its agenda.
True science is great in my opinion -- just not what is put out there as science today.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

S
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.

If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.

* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.

If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.

* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.

yes there are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, and 73 in the Catholic. There are gnostic texts and some "other" manuscripts that were not put in Alexandrian canon and even more left out when the Protestant Reformation left seven more out.

There are also some books we have no idea about, but are "missing" maybe and maybe just named something else or in Rome.

are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?
are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
as it is written in the book of the law of Moses
Is not this written in the book of Jasher

The Chronicles may be first and second Chronicles. Book of the law may be Det.

Jasher though -- there are four different books out there, and they have no actual "older" text on these to verify the correct version -- if any of these are.

------------------------
I have no idea why the Protestant Reformation removed the Macabees, etc from the cannon.
-----------------------

There is also the book of Enoch -- which may or may not talk about the time before the flood -- which is also thought to possibly be when/where the book of Job actually came from as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I know a little history on the Book of Morman, and the Koran as well if you are interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------

With this said. I have not heard about the conflicts from Joshua and Judges, so please send me the passages, etc. so I can do some study. Also please send me the links where

the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too,

I researched this one and if we make one assumption that Et-tell is the Biblical city of Ai -- then you are correct, and the bible is false. Because if it is incorrect anywhere then the whole thing can be found to be false.

Problem is -- what if Et-tell isn't Ai. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell.

You see they still don't really have any proof, but someone thought this, and others jumped in an believed, and then it just became fact --- much like most religion.

There are three main hyptotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence.

*Note -- all of them are hypotheses - and none of them are actually provable. Saying something enough times may make many people support the idea -- it doesn't make it true or right.

Which leads me back to the point of "wait and see". So far I haven't seen anything that disproves the Protestant Reformation bible. Not finding Noahs ark doesn't mean it didn't exist. Finding a old city doesn't mean it was the one you were looking for.

I am also a skeptic enough to say that all things are not proven correct in the bible either. Too much of -- man's involvement. They may yet to all be proven correct, but much has not. Also, it is written in parable, which allows for much interpretation. Also much of it was passed down via story, and then written which allows for much problem. Also MAN tends to skew things to where it fits for himself - how else do you explain the "business" of church.

This still doesn't really change anything.

Everything starts with "is there a God"
-- if there isn't then logical actions are one way -- each man for himself as long as he is alive
-- if there is a God then
* We belong to him -- we are his creation
* He makes the rules and we should live by them
* There "could" be an afterlife
* There could be repercussions for not obeying him

Bottom line starts with this question.

Followed by what are his rules and why -- who is he -- and how do I avoid the repercussions.

*** Everyone will make this decision in life in one way or form.