I'm one of those nuts that say "6000 yrs more or less" (but not for the
usual fundamentalist reasons - the fundies dont like me).

Where do you stand?

Oh, Pleeeze - Do you not believe in the study of archeology?

I wasn't there, so I don't know.

But it does seem to me that whenever I read/hear about someone attacking
the validity of isotope dating (which is not very 'precise', but does
not need to be 'precise'), the person attacking isotope dating always
demonstrates themselves to be either ignorant or illogical (or both).
While the many geologists, archaeologists, biologists, cosmologists, etc
who say the earth is *way* older than 6k yr - they mostly talk/write
sensibly.

But sensible people can still be wrong.

I think the conversation is *really* going to start after Mike shares
his non-fundamentalist reasons for believing the 6k year est.

Love it Mass, OK Mike what's up at your
end. What will you dazzle us with. Come on now, give us a challenge!

I hope that didn't come across as being sarcastic! I really mean it.
Our entire history is full of examples of sincere, smart, well-informed
people doing their best to understand something and getting it
completely wrong.

Ok:

The interesting thing is that the study of modern man, through 'writing'
has arguably around 10k to 5k of 'archeological evidence' to work from.
Of course there are the "arrow heads" and other such items, but, they
cant be 'dated'.

In the study of the permutations of DNA strands particular to the human
species, and the paternal gene markers, runs only about 6,000 to 10,000
years worth of back tracking.

The study of fossils is terribly flawed. Fossils are chemically stone.
Stone, but its very definition, contains no Carbon-14, so it cant be
radio-carbon dated. Fossils are 'dated' by the depth of the rock-strata
they are found at. Of course, thats flawed because the fossils are found
on ...the surface. Its your guess what the 'strata' is.

The guy who invented Carbon-14 dating thought it would be useful to try
the same idea on other isotopes. In particular he chose trans-uranium
isotopes because they would be found in volcanic rocks. He soon dumped
the idea because it was inconsistent. Then he turned his attention to
isotope dating of Nitrogen - in the air. He came to the conclusion that
the atmosphere of the earth was ... you guessed it... less than 10k
years old. Contrasted with the inconsistency of trans-uranic dating, he
dropped the whole idea entirely.

Then there is the 'little' problem of an incomplete fossil record of the
evolution of man. To date there isnt an established chain of fossil
remains to fit the theory. There are many interesting data points, but,
the "curve" is far from complete. Again, these fossils cant be dated.
Worse, over 80% of the 'early man' skeletons were later retracted as
'primate species'. That doesnt leave any sufficient evidence.

Also, take a look at the worlds population level. What is it now
6billion or so? If you look at world-census figures over the last 300
years, and use the logarithmic scales associated with population growth
to "project backwards" the population, you come to the conclusion that
the current population is based on growth numbers going back...5 to
10,000 years ago.

Me either Mass. Mike, I was not being sarcastic. I've been brain dead
for so long, these forums and discussions are the first great
discussions I've had in a long time. I actually feel like I'm learning
some new things, at the very least, I'm finding new things to research
and look into. You both, several of the folks here have beautiful minds
and I so love exploring them with you.


THANKS!

Mike,

I'm not sure if you present this as (A) "reason to question the
prevailing scientific dogmas" or (B) "irrefutable evidence to
inescapably conclude that the earth is 6,000 yrs old", or (more likely)
something in between.

If you mean (A), I simply agree. I don't even need specific reasons, i
just think that its a good idea to question prevailing dogmas,
especially 'scientific' ones.

If you mean (B), i think this is terribly weak evidence. Its not even
evidence. Its the kind of thing that people seize upon as evidence when
they want to reach a forgone conclusion."

I'm pretty sure you intend this as something in between A and B, and a
full conversation on this might put more attention on establishing
exactly where you stand than it would on the validity of this argument.

Since I'm not a scientist, i'm going to have to do some research to
justify my statements that this is 'weak evidence', and answer this in
sections, but first I'd like to divide your argument into managable
pieces: 1. Archeological Evidence 2. DNA strands 3. Fossils in
general/C14 4. Fossils of humans and 5. population growth curves

Each of these 5 pieces could be an entire debate onto itself - i wonder
how messy this thread is going to get.

I too have some research to do. I have a reply, unfortunately I I do
not have the evidence link in my head. It has to do with some fairly
recent information that has "WE" were not the only humanoid creatures to
inhabit this earth. In fact, the data, had brought some question to
bear on the links in the chain of man's evolution. It has been
discovered and proven through dna testing that what was once considere
to be our anscestor was actually a different species. But lest the
creationists see this as a ray of sunshine, please allow me to do my
homework. It's been a couple years and there may be some updates to
this information. Keep the thoughts fellas. I will be away this
weekend, I may not get back to it till next week. But depending on how
old the world really is, we may still have that much time.

I'm a fundamentalist Christan. I know God created the heavens and the
earth exactly as it says in genesis. I know as a fact that the word
"day" doesn't mean a 24 hour period *see work-day, a period of work* and
that morning and evening mean "beaning and end" of a day... particularly
during that first biblical day... before the SUN! I know salvation is by
grace through faith in Christ and not by our own works, so that we can't
say "hey look at what I did", so that we can do the good-work of loving
God and each other that God put there for us to do at the formation of
the earth.

http://shrimprg.stanford.edu/page2frame.html

this is proof that the earth is at least 300million years old. These
crystals form out of uranium then deplete. Given the amount of depletion
sense the formation of this crystal and the rate at which it
half-life(s) it's a simple fact that this crystal is over 300million
years old.

Science is on a continuious questionallity. It has to be so that it can
evolve. But according the the biggest student of the time line of the
christian faith, the earth is not as old as it is. But its older. And
yes we can date back alot longer than that. Our star itself is over 250
billion years old, and is only a mid life star. But time is a
'man/woman' thing. Because God does not exist in our space time reality.

Rsaylers, I'm so glad you are responding. As I started to draft a
response to MikeMontana's comments, I realized I did not want to be in
the position of 'attacking the beliefs of fundamentalists'. I am not a
Christian, but I feel very deeply that there are far more important
things in life then whether someone believes the earth is 6k years old.
If believing something like that actually helps a person to be closer to
God, then my respect for their relationship with God is far greater then
my desire to debunk that belief.

But rsayler's can do it without offending (hopefully) the
fundamentalists, and with greater authority.

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

Mike, *nothing* in your comments places a limit on the age of the earth.
Not even the part about isotope dating of nitrogen. The best that any
of it comes down to is "lack of information beyond a certain time
frame". If you agree with those statements, theres no real need to read
further.

Regarding population curves:
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookpopecol.html
It would be completely ignorant to extrapolate from the human population
curve. The accepted estimates for the population history of the world
have different *curves* during different periods of technology, going
back over 10,000yrs. Before 8,000BC, we had a *different* technology
than we had after 8,000BC. (Which is to say, hardly any technology at
all - stones?) Go far enough back, and we have no technology whatsover.
Of course the population dynamics were different back then, and we don't
know much about it. We do know that its *unjustified* to extrapolate
from the estimates we have for the past 10k yrs. This is the one area i
have some knowledge (the relationship between curves of data, models,
and reality) so we can really get into that if you like.

Fossils:
Yes, the study of fossils is terribly flawed. And yes, there are
'scientists' out there who are blind to the huge amount of guesswork
involved, who take as fact (and on blind faith) the entrenched opinions
of the previous generation of scientist. But to say its "anybody's
guess" does a huge disservice to what they *can* do to make their best
estimates. But more importantly to the matter at hand, pointing out
flaws in the study of fossils does -nothing- to suggest a limit on the
age of the earth. Its just suggest that -some of the reasons- that
-some people- might believe the earth is much older might be
insufficient reasons. Other people may have better reasons.

Carbon-14

"The guy who invented" C14 dating has no special status in my mind, but
i often see people who set their beliefs before the evidence will pull
this trick: Present a person who 'should' be an authority, and discuss
that person's beliefs, conclusions, etc. That person is usually
conveniently chosen. If he invented it his conclusions don't gain
credibility, they lose credibility, because he by definition lacked even
a full generation of experience using and refining the technique.

I would like to hear a more specific formulation/statment of the whole
"atmosphere is less than 10k old" thing. What is really being said?
That it is known that there couldn't have been gas surrounding the earth
10k+ yrs ago? (Which is absurd, and in contradiction with great evidence
in other fields). That the composition of the atmosphere changed
dramatically around 10k yr ago? (Something which has occurred, even if
not at that time). That a certain element in the atmosphere must have
an average 'time spent in circulation' of 10k yrs or less? To my mind,
these are all possible meanings of this statement, and each has
radically different implications to the discussion on the age of the
earth. I need a more specific understanding before i can explain why
this fails to place a limit on the age of the earth.

Gene markers: So the gene markers only run for 6k-10k years. Do we
have reason to believe that they should do any different? Is this in
shocking contrast to other things that are known about genes? Saying
they run for 10k yrs is totally different then saying they *should* run
longer, and fail to. I don't know anything about the way our genes
carry their development history, nothing at all, but this just 'smells'
like the kind of thing that a person would take out of context and
misinterpret because it fits their beliefs. Literally, this is only a
statement -about- the last 10k years, not in any way a statement of
-beyond- 10k years, so i'm going to guess that its like the whole
'population curve' idea: What we are really talking about here is 'lack
of information', not 'evidence for a young earth'

It should come as no surprise that there is less then 10k yrs of solid
archaeological evidence. First, we were using such simple tools before
that time that the objects left over might be nearly indistinguishable
from objects existing in nature. Second, we weren't gathering with huge
numbers of people in one place, nor leaving large collections of
artifacts, like we did after we went agricultural. 10k years is a lot of
time for objects to have their distinguishing characteristics worn away.
Again, like the other statements, this is a statement about how 'limited
our knowledge is', but is not in any way a support for the idea of a
6kyr old earth.

>>> Then there is the 'little' problem of an incomplete fossil record of the evolution of man.

This is absolutely consistent with my layman's understanding. I
personally do not believe it has been 'proven' that man evolved from
other primates. But you have also not 'proven' to me that you are an
actual human being, rather than an alien, or an AI. Its just far more
reasonable, with the evidence available, to believe you are a human.
Oops! We got into a conversation about evolution, which is a separate
topic. You are correct that a lot of errors have been made, and
continue to be made. But pointing out that people have made errors is
nothing at all like presenting an argument for a super-young earth.

And for those people who believe that the earth is 6k years old based on
Biblical evidence - cool! We have each made separate choices in how we
approach truth. You may consider my beliefs sacrilegious, but I really
do want you to be the best person you can, and have the best experience
in life that you can, and if your faith in the Bible (and certain
interpretations of the Bible) is -part- of all that for you, then good!

You can say, "I believe in the Bible, and this is what I read in the
Bible, so this is what I believe is true." Thats cool by me, and I have
nothing to add.

But if you say: "[blah blah blah] and therefore isotope dating proves
the earth is only 6,000 years old" - thats where we can have a
discussion.

Standard response to the fact that the earth is over 6k yo is that "God
created an old earth"... is this possible? sure! does it make one iota
of difference scientifically when searching for oil, looking at common
genomes for research or trying to follow the pre-historic migration of
animals? no, none at all.

If you want to see God working in the fossil record look at the
pre-Cambrian explosion, it's almost as if God said "let there be life"
and their was. Bible says birds came before land-animals... I recently
read a report in the journal of nature that said just that... it made me
chuckle.

proof? no... see the babblefish.

ohhhhh man i am so glad my grandma can't see this !!!!!!!!!!

Thanks everyone - seriously thanks for posting really thoughtful
replies. And thanks for nobody starting a flame-war over "my position is
better than your position!"

I liked the feedback, and I liked the poking at my ideas. You guys gave
me something to think about.

yeah, i was skimming along and noticed the whole "God created the
heavens and the earth" garbage. if that's the case, then why would your
god waste all this time making everything, yet have only one sign of
intelligent life among the many discovered universes in space?

As stated in the Bible,
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day

If the earth is 6K years old as Mike suggested then that is only 6 days
to God…not a long time…no time to waste

The bible does state that a day is like a thousand years to God. But,
That, I believe is like many other sayings in the bible. I believe that
that statement was just basicly a number to mean a very long time.(A
baptist preacher told me that years ago.) It was just to help our
understanding, because as I have said before, God does not exist in our
own space time reality. That is also how he knows our future. Also If I
was still a christen, then I believe that I would be very interested in
science, because science is based on fact, and what a better way to
prove that God does exit to the unbelievers.(The logic that I found in
meshing reglion with science in my initial quest). I have alot of
different logical interputations of the bible myself that makes alot of
more sense than interpretations that people were taught growing up. And
mine can be backed up with science. I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to
step on toes or anything, but when a person has studied so long and so
hard for so many years, one will eventually find truth.
The earth is alot older. And it is the same earth. The bible makes
references to the earth being destroyed, but not literally. Ex.
destroyed by water. Noah.

Torric wrote "if that's the case, then why would your god waste all this
time making everything, yet have only one sign of intelligent life among
the many discovered universes in space"

Who said there wasnt any other 'intelligent life'? Who said that the
earth was the only handiwork?