quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: my point being.....hatrackers fervently believe this place is special. However, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it's anything other than one more message board. The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
So this thread is just "You think you're so special! You're not that special!" ??
Wake me when recess is over so the grownups can play again.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I say, probably no, but ask me again after I'm dead. Till then, I won't know for sure.
How will you know for sure after you are dead?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The earth to me is obviously in the millions of years old category, macro-evolution requires it and considering he amount of evidence so far in support of evolution it implies that the earth HAS to be millions of years old.
Also geology will have it no other way, its impossbile for the earths formations to have formed in <15,000 years, also the dinosaurs are another point based on theyre location in the layers of the earths crust the dinosaurs ent extint 65,000,000 years ago, minimum life span of earth, next we have evidence that it goes as way back as over 250,000,000 years.
Also we have continental drift, based on their rate of movement it would have taken 250,000,000 years for the contenents to hae separated the way they did, then they'res the millions of years for the planets in the solar system to have formed, the russians have alot of research on this.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: It may oscillate more times in a second, but that's because you've changed the temperature from the one defined as part of the definition of a second.
-Bok
There are probably other, less-understood factors that could affect the rate of oscillation of a cesium atom. There could be an unmeasurable and therefore unknowable factor that has equal bearing on cesium atom oscillation rates and second hand revolution rates and neuron firing speeds.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you seem to have a bit of a false dichotomy there. Either nobody believes in creationism, or else we are just as uninformed as every other web board in existence! Well, that's just ridiculous. If the percentage of YEC-ers is significantly lower than the average, then obviously you are justified in saying that Hatrack is better informed than the rest of the Internet. It doesn't have to be zero. In fact, it would be quite unfortunate if it were zero, because then the EACST would get bored with having nothing to do, and they'd have to start investigating trolls and goblins instead.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, 5767 is AROUND 6,000. And where to you get that 5767 figure? Archbishop James Ussher calculated that earth was created on 4004 B.C. Adding 2006 and subtracting 1 because there was no year zero, totals 6,009.
As I said earlier, there are problems with the Biblical genealogies Archbishop Ussher went by in calculating his well-publicized date, namely that some generations of long-lived patriarchs were left out. Thus the only possibility is that Ussher underestimated the age of the earth, anywhere from 200-2,000 years.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally believe the elements and minerals that now compose this earth are millions, maybe billions, perhaps in some instances trillions of years old.
When it comes to ape like beings and human beings I am still undecided as to when MEN really came to be on the earth.
I do THINK (still unsure) that from the epoch of the first real man (complete with written and oral language), we have 6,000 years or so of history until now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, 5767 is AROUND 6,000.
Yep. But it is also less than 6000, neh?
It is the current Jewish year. Calculations related to it are probably available on various websites (some of which are in English ). If you remind me when I'm back in my home state and on my own computer (instead of squeezing in a few minutes here and there on training breaks), I can try to find some -- assuming you're interested.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If no animals on this earth died before Eve or Lilith ate the proverbial fruit, then how did fossil animals find their way into the rock strata, buried in layers, with the least advanced animals on the bottom? Wouldn't there be an even distribution of all types of animals through all layers of rock?
If these fossils came from space, how did they arrange themselves into layers according to their level of sophistication, with their respective environments (streams, ponds, seas, tar pits) intact?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I could go over all the things you regard as incontrovertible evidence and show the fallacies in them, and all the solid evidence that contradicts them. In fact, I have done this for a fair amount of the main arguments here and in the Ornery forum in the past.
But let me just ask you this. If the last of the dinosaurs, T-Rex in particular, died out 65 million years ago, then why is it that T-Rex fossils have been found that still contain soft tissues? See for example this report in MSNBC - Reuters Report on soft tissue found in T-Rex fossils. Despite the desperate hand-waving of evolutionists as they try to rationalize how this could be, do you honestly, really believe it is reasonable to think that soft tissue could be preserved for 65 million years? Wouldn't Occam's Razor lead you to conclude it is more likely that those fossils are not really that old? Then I could bring up the more than half a dozen fossils, some of which were taken as index fossils used to "prove" the ages of various rock strata, which were from creatures that since have been found to have representatives of their species still living?
If you want to open the "can of worms" of evidence that contradicts the evolutionist faith, be forewarned that it is not just a can, it is a 50-gallon drum.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
YE--The earth is exacty x years old. EVOL--Um, well Science says.... YE--Science can be wrong. It uses the brains of men to determine its outcomes, and men are imperfect, so their math and science are imperfect. We only take the Perfect word of God as given in the Bible. EVOL--The bible doesn't state definatevely how old the world is. How could you figure it out? YE--We used math, so it must be Science.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. One argument I've heard which is one of those impossible to debunk is that God created the earth _____ (say 6000) years ago and made it with the appearance of age. To dissuade someone of this theory, you have to dissuade them of their belief in an omnipotent God. Good luck.
2. c.t.t.n ... I've tried and tried to write a post addressing you, but failed every time to keep it within the ToS. You're a rude bashibazouk (look at the etymology).
(Sorry Pops. I won't be at my computer for another day or so so if you need to edit that, feel free)
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, thanks. You got the figure from the Jewish calender. May I ask which Jewish calendar is that? I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning. Archbishop Ussher, as you know, went by the Biblical genealogies to calculate his date for Creation. As I have said, I can see where these genealogies skip a few generations, and therefore the date of Creation should be set further back than Ussher did. How is it that any Jewish group can maintain a creation date later than Ussher's calculation?
But I see your point, that a Jewish YE creationist would regard the earth (or at least, earth's biosphere) as being less than 6,000 years old. I hadn't realized that.
All the creationist organizations that I know of are Christian. Are there any Jewish creationist organizations?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets be clear, by soft tissue surviving we mean the bare remnants of some of the strongest kinds of cell walls, surrounded and partially filled up with minerals such that there's nowhere for them to go.
There are trees that have lived over five thousand years. Its extremely common to find tissue remnants in remains hundreds of thousands of years old. That some small amount is still around after another order of magnitude or two is completely within the realm of possibility.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try, fugu13, but I do not buy it at all, not even a little bit. Just step back, and consider soberly how silly a position you are taking, trying to explain away soft tissue found in fossils supposed to be 65 million years old. Why can't you even admit this raises a serious question about all the age dating methods used to claim vast ages for the earth and for organic specimens? You would rather deny and belittle such a glaring, blatant fact, rather than admit that so many scientists and their fond traditions are and always have been dead wrong? I wonder what means God is about to use to humble the human pride that so many exalt so highly. I get the feeling that God is about to lower the boom on those who indulge this hubris. Sooner or later even you, fugu13, are going to be forced to admit that evolution and vast ages for the earth and universe, simply could not be.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rivka, thanks. You got the figure from the Jewish calender. May I ask which Jewish calendar is that?
*twinkle* THE Jewish calendar.
quote: I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning.
At the risk of offending any Karaites who might be present, what they practice is not Judaism.
quote:Archbishop Ussher, as you know, went by the Biblical genealogies to calculate his date for Creation. As I have said, I can see where these genealogies skip a few generations, and therefore the date of Creation should be set further back than Ussher did. How is it that any Jewish group can maintain a creation date later than Ussher's calculation?
I have no knowledge whatsoever of Usher or his calculations. I do know that Jewish calculations of dates and genealogies differ from Christian, but I really don't know any details.
quote:But I see your point, that a Jewish YE creationist would regard the earth (or at least, earth's biosphere) as being less than 6,000 years old.
Exactly.
quote:All the creationist organizations that I know of are Christian. Are there any Jewish creationist organizations?
To my knowledge, there are not. Keep in mind that the majority of Jewish creationists (and that is not how they would self-identify) have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone outside of their own communities. So why have a formal organization to do so?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:trying to explain away soft tissue found in fossils supposed to be 65 million years old.
Apparently you did not read what was posted. It was not "Soft tissue can survive X number of years" but rather "What was found was not soft tissue."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, if science is represented on every hand as being opposed to your faith, don't you think there should be someone who would rise up against this in defense of the faith? Is it OK with you if 90% of the world's scientists call the God you believe in a liar? Have you nothing to say in response? I mean, why don't you care?
The fourth commandment says you are to keep the Sabbath because "...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) God apparently thought this was important enough to write it with His own finger in stone. But if someone says the creation account in the Bible is untrue and should be ignored, then what does this do to the basis for your sabbath-keeping?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:At one time Karaites were a significant portion of the Jewish population. However today there are left an estimated 2,000 Karaites in the USA, about 100 families in Istanbul, and about 12,000 in Israel, most of them living near the town of Ramleh.
Rivka, I think the odds of one being at hatrack are relatively slim... Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, she may believe that they are wrong, but Judaism does not have an evangelical component. It is not her mission or her job to save others (no Jewish peoples) from the errors of their thoughts. God did not command them to keep the Sabbath, just her and her people. What is important to her is that she maintains her faith. Why should she be distracted from maintaining her faith by the lack of faith of others who are not part of the covenant.
posted
What Dan said. The Jewish people are perfectly happy to practice their own religion and don't feel the need to "save" others from their evil ways.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Ron, the finding of soft tissue remnants inside fossils is definitely leading to a bit of a shakeup in archaeology. Just not in the dating methods. Instead, it is causing people to question the assumption that soft tissue can't be preserved for millions of years. This assumption is on far shakier ground than dating methods, which often independently verify each other; therefore, it makes more sense to question the impossibility of preservation first. In fact, the discovery will probably result in new research on how such preservation might take place. From the original paper on this discovery:
quote:The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation, including feathers (4–6), hair (7), color or color patterns (7, 8), embryonic soft tissues (9), muscle tissue and/or internal organs (10–13), and cellular structure (7, 14–16). These soft tissues are preserved as carbon films (4, 5, 10) or as permineralized three-dimensional replications (9, 11, 13), but in none of these cases are they described as still-soft, pliable tissues.
quote:The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation (20, 21). These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels.
Full text of the article is here. I'm not sure if it's open access or if I can get it because of my university access. I'll be happy to send the PDF to anyone who wants to see it.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Rivka, I think the odds of one being at hatrack are relatively slim...
You'd be surprised. At least two or three have shown up (not recently) on one of the Jewish fora I frequent.
Ron, whether the creation story is literally true or metaphorical or something in between matters very little to my religious practices. And as Dan and Strider noted, Jews are non-evangelical.
The world thinks I'm wrong about all kinds of things. So?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do not think there is anyone who believes the earth is LESS than 6,000 years old. If you said AROUND 6,000 years, you might get a lot of takers.
You'd be wrong. The year is 5767 right now. Questions?
In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, 5767 is AROUND 6,000. And where to you get that 5767 figure? Archbishop James Ussher calculated that earth was created on 4004 B.C. Adding 2006 and subtracting 1 because there was no year zero, totals 6,009.
Ussher was wrong. That was easy.
Ron, Ussher based his calculations on a set of books that we (Jews) have preserved for millenia. Our count is different than his. Who do you think is more to be trusted; the actual caretakers of the literature, or some guy named Ussher who came along centuries down the line?
(Hint: It isn't Ussher.)
Biblical chronology gives us the date of 5767. If you want details, I'd be happy to oblige.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: hatrackers fervently believe this place is special.
Actually, this has been the subject of significant debate here in the past.
In any event, though, assuming for the sake of argument that I believe Hatrack is "special," and that it's a place "where scientific ignorance is minimal," your argument is still a non sequitur.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning.
Not substantially. From an Orthodox Jewish standpoint, there's a margin of error of no more than a year or two in the year reckoning; I don't think the Karaite reckoning differs in that regard. There are some minor differences regarding establishing the start of the month and interpolating leap years, but those wouldn't affect the overall count, just exact dates within a given year.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, thanks. You got the figure from the Jewish calender. May I ask which Jewish calendar is that? I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning. Archbishop Ussher, as you know, went by the Biblical genealogies to calculate his date for Creation.
Not well, he didn't.
Counting the begats in Genesis 5, the Flood of Noah took place in 1656 AM (Anno Mundi). Continuing on through the begats in Genesis 11, you get Abraham's birth in 1948 AM, which puts Isaac's birth in 2048 AM.
Next, we have God telling Abraham in Genesis 15 that the Exodus will take place 400 years from the birth of Abraham's seed, and a specific note from God saying that Isaac is the seed in question. That puts the Exodus in 2448 AM.
Okay. Next we have I Kings 6:1, which tells us that Solomon's 4th year is the 480th year from the Exodus, or 2928 AM. And the chronology of the kings shows that the Temple was destroyed 410 years after Solomon began building it. For details, see here. That puts the destruction of the First Temple in 3338 AM.
Are you having fun yet?
Jewish historiography says that the Second Temple was destroyed 490 years after the destruction of the First Temple, or 3828 AM. The conventional chronology of the Achaemenid Empire (Persia of Darius and Xerxes et al) increases that period by 166 years.
The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans, according to all accounts, in 70 CE. That makes this year 5765 (prior to September 2006) according to us, and 5931 according to the conventional Persian chronology.
Why 5765, rather than 5767? That's not actually a discrepancy. It's two different labels for the same thing. The 5765 date comes from setting Adam's creation, effectively, in 0 AM. So that he was 130 years old in 130 AM. But the system that we currently use calls the year in which Adam was created 2 AM. The year the earth was created was 1 AM (there's no Year 0 according to this labeling), and 6 days later, Adam was created on the first day of the year.
By the way, the Karaites reject most of the Torah, so whatever calendar they use is of little interest.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As I have said, I can see where these genealogies skip a few generations,
If you knew Hebrew, you wouldn't say that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and therefore the date of Creation should be set further back than Ussher did. How is it that any Jewish group can maintain a creation date later than Ussher's calculation?
Because we don't care about Ussher. He means precisely nothing at all to us. We knew the year before Ussher was conceived, and we'll know the year when everyone has forgotten there ever was a man named James Ussher.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps a different take, Ron. We find lots of soft tissue remnants in remains that are tens or hundreds of thousands of years old. We find almost none in remains that are dated to much older than that.
You're suggesting the logical conclusion is that despite the incredible discrepancy in amount of soft tissue found, they're all about the same age (and in fact very young, the age of remains that are practically filled with soft tissue, despite these having much, much less).
The logical conclusion is that one set is far older than the other. We have several independent measures of age that all agree fairly precisely as to the ages being very different. This is in agreement with the general difference in soft tissue found. Only the absolute amount is mildly surprising. Coincidentally, a find of soft tissue could provide another dating test.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, if science is represented on every hand as being opposed to your faith, don't you think there should be someone who would rise up against this in defense of the faith? Is it OK with you if 90% of the world's scientists call the God you believe in a liar? Have you nothing to say in response? I mean, why don't you care?
I can't speak for Rivka, but I don't particularly care, and it's because if someone calls me a poo-poo head, it doesn't actually make me a poo-poo head. Maybe this is why we don't proselytize and you do. The truth is the truth whether it is defended or not.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fourth commandment says you are to keep the Sabbath because "...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) God apparently thought this was important enough to write it with His own finger in stone. But if someone says the creation account in the Bible is untrue and should be ignored, then what does this do to the basis for your sabbath-keeping?
Nothing. If someone says the creation account in the Bible is untrue, it doesn't change reality.
Abraham Lincoln was once being annoyed by a journalist. He asked the man: "Sir, how many legs has a dog?" The man replied, "Why, four." Lincoln continued, "And if we call the tail a leg?" "Then... five, I suppose," the man answered. "No," Lincoln told him. "Calling a tail a leg does not make it so."
I have X amount of time on this earth. How much of it do I want to spend trying to convince people who won't be convinced?
I know people who have no problem whatsoever conceiving of Adam having been created as an adult. With all the hallmarks of having gone through infancy, adolescence and maturity, even though he never actually went through those stages. Yet the same people balk at the earth having been created "in progress". There's no logic to it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Karaites claim to preserve the original Judaism of the Hebrew Scriptures. Here is a website: http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml
Back around 13 centuries ago, or so, there were two men who each wanted to be appointed to the office of Resh Galuta (Exilarch). This was effectively the ruler of all the Jews in Mesopotamia.
One of the men was a guy named Anan ben David. He thought he deserved the position. But the heads of the Torah academies backed a different man for the position, and Anan was passed over.
He was furious. And he reacted by starting a movement of people who rejected the bulk of the Torah, claiming that only the written part had been given by God. These were the Karaites.
They are nothing but a schismatic sect that was created for political purposes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: By the way, the Karaites reject most of the Torah, so whatever calendar they use is of little interest.
That particular statement depends on how you define the word "Torah."
That said, I think everybody on all sides would agree that Karaite Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism branched off from one another a long, long time before the more recent Orthodox / Reform / Conservative split. The two have mutually incompatible fundamental premises.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Perhaps you determine the earth's age based on the precise moment that God started calling it "Earth."
Before that it was called: "My Master's Thesis on Terraforming, Using Self-Replicating Organisms" and it was none of our business how long that project took.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: my point being.....hatrackers fervently believe this place is special. However, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it's anything other than one more message board. The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
We have no need to consider the scientific acumen of the posters on this board. If the actions and beliefs of an individual or two actually can render this place unspecial, your posts in this thread have done so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Not necessarily. Assume for a moment that Adam was created as an adult, and every test you could run would indicate that he was about 30 years old. Now, he was created 5 minutes ago. Is his age 5 minutes, or 30 years?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
It's the Omphalos variant again, that people have referred to a couple of times already. You can have an Earth created 6000 years ago with all the evidence of age in place - radioactivity, distant stars with light already on the way, and whatnot. Since 'evidence of age' really is age, for all practical purposes, such an Earth would be X billion years old, and nonetheless created 6000 years ago. Of course, the same argument applies to last Tuesday. Most Christians, as far as I know, reject this interpretation on the grounds that their god would not lie. Though I seem to recall Dag saying that it's not a lie when the creator also gives you a document saying that you should ignore all the other evidence; I don't remember if he seriously held such a position or was just arguing for its own sake.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have summed it up incompletely, KoM. I don't consider it a lie regardless of the presence of a document. Creating a system at a place other than what its "natural" starting point would be is not dishonest.
That said, I do not hold the position that this is what happened, although I don't necessarily think it false, either. As you said, this argument could apply to last Tuesday.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
was directed.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The world thinks I'm wrong about all kinds of things. So?
