How Old is the Earth?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 24 2005, 12:57 AM']Do you have an article or anything you can direct me to regard the moist meat thing? That seems incredible. Just curious.

Thanks
[right][snapback]656364[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html&OQ=exQ3D1112331600Q26enQ3D5a88279207414f4bQ26eiQ3D5065Q26partnerQ3DMYWAY&OP=129f42e7Q2Fln5vlMhOpchhP_l_Q25Q25Q3ClQ25Q5Cl_blpO!5BO5l_bOBM)M!BhJ2PQ2Fg"]NY Times[/url]

[quote][b]Tissue Find Offers New Look Into Dinosaurs' Lives[/b]
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: March 24, 2005
A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex has apparently yielded soft tissues, including blood vessels and possibly cells.[/quote]


I do not believe the 70 million years thing... it's a theory and nothing more. There is no way to know. The most accurate dating I believe is only good to about 5000 years... the carbon 14/12 system of dating... but things like smoke can screw up the results.


God Bless!
ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:03 PM'][url="http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html&OQ=exQ3D1112331600Q26enQ3D5a88279207414f4bQ26eiQ3D5065Q26partnerQ3DMYWAY&OP=129f42e7Q2Fln5vlMhOpchhP_l_Q25Q25Q3ClQ25Q5Cl_blpO!5BO5l_bOBM)M!BhJ2PQ2Fg"]NY Times[/url]
I do not believe the 70 million years thing... it's a theory and nothing more. There is no way to know. The most accurate dating I believe is only good to about 5000 years... the carbon 14/12 system of dating... but things like smoke can screw up the results.
God Bless!
ironmonk
[right][snapback]656378[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks Ironmonk!

I think it's funny how bad water can screw up carbon dating. I heard that they dated some brand new volcanic rock in Hawaii and that a batch of the cooled lava on land dated to just a few years old, whereas samples that were submerged underwater dated to millions of years old. haha

Considering that most of the earth was under water at some point, it makes you wonder if carbon dating can be trusted at all. But there are other dating methods.

[Aloysius]

which each have their own individual flaws... like where they miscalculated the half-life of fossil fuels

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:10 PM']which each have their own individual flaws... like where they miscalculated the half-life of fossil fuels
[right][snapback]656398[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Tee-hee-hee..

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:08 AM']Thanks Ironmonk!

I think it's funny how bad water can screw up carbon dating. I heard that they dated some brand new volcanic rock in Hawaii and that a batch of the cooled lava on land dated to just a few years old, whereas samples that were submerged underwater dated to millions of years old. haha

Considering that most of the earth was under water at some point, it makes you wonder if carbon dating can be trusted at all. But there are other dating methods.
[right][snapback]656388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

www.HowStuffWorks.com has some good articles on the dating systems. Basically with carbon 14/12 everything living has carbon 14 and carbon 12 in it, carbon 14 has a much shorter half life than carbon 12. As long as we're alive the carbon 14 is kept at the same level as the carbon 12... when we die the carbon 12 remains and the carbon 14 goes into rapid decay compared to the carbon 14, so with a calculation you can determine how long since something has been alive, but eventually you'll run out of carbon 14 to compare to the carbon 12.. roughly 5000 years.

God Bless
ironmonk

[Thy Geekdom Come]

How on earth do you people know so much?

[Guest Angelak]

What does it matter? We're never going to know for sure. I honestly don't care.

[Aloysius]

I think the earth was made last week, and everything was made to look as if it was really old and all the structures were made to look like they had been built some time ago, and we were all created yesterday with a bunch of random memories in our brains dating back to a supposed date of birth.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:24 PM']How on earth do you people know so much?
[right][snapback]656441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We're geniuses Micah.. Mad Geniuses!!! Bwoohoooahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!

You should know that I'm a Guinness by now.. I've posted enough to make that evident. :

hehe

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:33 AM']We're geniuses Micah.. Mad Geniuses!!! Bwoohoooahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!

You should know that I'm a Guinness by now.. I've posted enough to make that evident. :

hehe
[right][snapback]656531[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nice spelling for a "Guinness" :

Edited July 24, 2005 by goldenchild17

[Laudate_Dominum]

I wonder if this thread was meant to be a joke...

"How old is it??"

"The Earth is so old, let me tell ya...."

[argent_paladin]

I just wanted to point out that there is no discrepancy between Paul Simon's numbers and the ones originally offered. Paul offered two numbers: age of the universe and age of human species. The question asked was the age of the earth. So, they are all consistent with one another.

And, for those who ask why it is important, it is important theologically if it seems to contradict dogma like original sin, human nature, the fall, etc. If hundreds if not thousands of generations of human beings lived and died before the fall, that would seem to contradict scripture and dogma. If death is not the result of sin, then that causes serious problems of interpreting salvation history. I suppose one could say that Adam and Eve lived 2 million years ago but that certainly stretches salvation history.

The fact is, we don't really know how old the earth is, but it is probably billions rather than thousands of years old. But of course, if the universe were created 6000 years ago, it would look billions of years old, just as I assume the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil would have had hundreds of growth rings and Adam and Eve would have looked like adults.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:34 AM']I just wanted to point out that there is no discrepancy between Paul Simon's numbers and the ones originally offered. Paul offered two numbers: age of the universe and age of human species. The question asked was the age of the earth. So, they are all consistent with one another.

And, for those who ask why it is important, it is important theologically if it seems to contradict dogma like original sin, human nature, the fall, etc. If hundreds if not thousands of generations of human beings lived and died before the fall, that would seem to contradict scripture and dogma. If death is not the result of sin, then that causes serious problems of interpreting salvation history. I suppose one could say that Adam and Eve lived 2 million years ago but that certainly stretches salvation history.

The fact is, we don't really know how old the earth is, but it is probably billions rather than thousands of years old. But of course, if the universe were created 6000 years ago, it would look billions of years old, just as I assume the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil would have had hundreds of growth rings and Adam and Eve would have looked like adults.
[right][snapback]656642[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I actually tend to believe that Adam and Eve lived a very long time ago.
I am certainly no expert, but I have fun entertaining theories on the general knowledge I have of the subject.
In school I was taught to believe that Neandertal Man, Cro-Magnon Man and certainly Homo Erectus were sub-human. I think there is reason to believe that they were men (had immortal souls). From stuff I've looked at there seems to be a gap between apes and men (or what some would call human-like apes).

One angle (of many) is brain size. I don't think this is the only factor, or even the most important, but it is interesting at least.

The average brain size of modern humans is around 1400 cc. But certainly you can have a person with a below average brain size who is actually more intelligent than a person with an above average brain size. An extreme example would be a child prodigy with a brain size well below the species average who is in fact much more intellectually capable than the average joe. Or even an extraordinary joe with a brain size exceeding 1600 cc.

But anyway. I've gone ahead and looked up the data on several of the early Homo Erectus finds and these are the numbers on brain size that I found:
1140 cc
1030 cc
1030 cc
1065 cc

I've also heard that Homo Erectus skulls have been found that indicate brain sizes above 1200 cc (1300 is conceivable). I've even heard of homo erectus specimens that are said to have stood over six feet tall.

As far as the other groups I mentioned are concerned, I know of a Cro-magnon skull that indicates a brain size of 1600cc. And a Neandertal specimen that comes in at 1620 cc. These exceed the average for modern humans by quite a bit.

I then consider the differences in bone structure among existing races of men in the world today. I think it is interesting to suggest that these creatures be considered more like races of men, then seperate types of creatures.

I have these little quotes from scientists regarding Turkana Boy (the skeleton of a Homo Erectus adolescent):

"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. ... this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton, 1988)

"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Leakey and Walker, 1985)

"In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]." (Wolpoff, 1984)

We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. ... From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984)

"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris 1974).

[img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.jpg[/img][img]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/images/Figure03.GIF[/img]
Skeleton of the Turkana 'Boy' - WT 15000, a Homo erectus specimen dating from 1.6 million years ago. This skeleton is fully human with only very minor differences from some modern humans.

[img]http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/images/Figure01.GIF[/img]
Skull profile of Peking man. Note the brow ridges, sloping forehead, and prognathus face. These features are also in evidence in Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and in some modern skulls such as Kow Swamp.

[img]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/images/Figure05.GIF[/img]
Outline of a Kow Swamp skull dating from very recent time - less than 15,000 years ago. The affinities with very early erectus specimens are obvious - only in brain capacity is there any significant distinction.

There is obviously a ton more to be said on this topic, but I don't want to post too much.

[Apotheoun]

Laudate_Dominum,

Those are really nice drawings, did you do those free hand, or did you simply trace them.

:

[Laudate_Dominum]

Oh, and I don't think that if Adam and Eve lived more like 1.x million years ago, that this would pose any real problems for Theology. And it certainly wouldn't contradict dogma. I basically speculate that there have been various types of apes (which account for many of the bones that have been found), and there have been various races of men. I have issues with the idea of monkey-men. I think that if you took Turkana boy from the craddle and raised him in Manhattan, he would be a normal guy. And I don't think we can judge whether a race was our equal based on technology or things of this sort (many primitive cultures in todays world would have to be dubbed inferior for one), for there are issues of population/demographics and economics (means of production etc) and their interrelations that factor in. Basically the world was sparsely populated for most of human history (even if that history beging 1.x million years ago), and the conditions for the development of many distinctly modern things did not exists. This does not mean that these people were beasts or anything like that. They had a different consciousness of the world and a radically different social situation. And yet, there is evidence of surprising things. There was that scientific article posted on pm several months back where some scientists were speculating that homo erectus must have "constructed ships" and sailed the south Pacific. This is the work of men, not beasts.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:07 AM']Laudate_Dominum,

Those are really nice drawings, did you do those free hand, or did you simply trace them.

:
[right][snapback]656707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
teehee.. dork!

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/r2d2b.gif[/img]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:15 AM']teehee.. dork! 

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/desertsands/r2d2b.gif[/img]
[right][snapback]656719[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
How come there are no Star Trek smileys.

[Apotheoun]

I suppose this smiley could be thought of as a Star Trek smiley.



It looks kinda like a Borg.

[Laudate_Dominum]

bump. I spent some time on a previous post and was hoping someone would be kind enough to engage it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

bump