age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism] Commentary Thread

[Nyxos]

Could you ask him how old does he think the earth is ? and if he says 10 000 or less, ask him to explain why his own evidence says the earth is at least millions of years old ?

[medievaldude]

other
All of the theories for the moon, like it breaking off from the earth, have been discounted by evolutionists. The only one left alive is the small planet colliding with the earth and the resulting dust and chunks making the moon. But, evolution requires it happened very early in earth history, not as recently as less than 2B years ago, as even your critic acknowledges.

And yet in record timing 3-4 B years from now the sun would vaporize the earth

[Icewolf]

Ugh, these "debates" hurt my mind.... Well done to Aliens thus far picking apart his posts in such detail

[Ancient Aliens]

Ugh, these "debates" hurt my mind.... Well done to Aliens thus far picking apart his posts in such detail

Thanks, and thank you to everyone who is putting up with this quote-a-thon. I wish I was able to better organize these arguments and make them more easily readable, but responding to 6 pages worth of text is really eating up my time.

[Marechal Ney]

Here's my offensive argument against TR. Feel free to use it:

Light from areas of the universe that are billions of light years away. TR will be forced to argue Created Antiquity, or the notion that a Deity created many aspects of the world to appear like it was billions of years old in order to test human faith. You can then...

-Inform him that this is a complete and utter violation of Sir Karl Popper's rules of Scientific Falsifiability.

-Remind him that by arguing Created Antiquity, he will be conceding that the most of the evidence we can scientifically observe points towards a very old Earth. If the Earth were 6000 years old, and a Deity were to try to test human faith, he would make all the non-faith evidence point towards the untrue opinion so that the faithful would have to rely purely on faith. Therefore, the argument of Created Antiquity must also acknowledge that the majority of scientific data points towards a very old Earth.

I can't see how TR can recover from this argument, as his quote mines will almost certainly not address Philosophical/Logical arguments like this. There may be some small exceptions, which I have yet to find, in this logic, but I doubt TR could find any.

I bet TR doesn't read the commentary.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Here's my offensive argument against TR. Feel free to use it:

Light from areas of the universe that are billions of light years away. TR will be forced to argue Created Antiquity, or the notion that a Deity created many aspects of the world to appear like it was billions of years old in order to test human faith. You can then...

-Inform him that this is a complete and utter violation of Sir Karl Popper's rules of Scientific Falsifiability.

The most likely rebuttal, however, is that god distributed light like that as a test of faith. Although that rebuttal is interfered with by Occam's razor.

[Marechal Ney]

The most likely rebuttal, however, is that god distributed light like that as a test of faith. Although that rebuttal is interfered with by Occam's razor.

That's what I said, he would be forced to argue that it's a test of faith. Am I missing something, or did you just not see the words "test human faith".

Indeed, it violates Occam's Razor, Popper's principles, and my logical principle.

[Ancient Aliens]

Here's my offensive argument against TR. Feel free to use it:

Light from areas of the universe that are billions of light years away. TR will be forced to argue Created Antiquity, or the notion that a Deity created many aspects of the world to appear like it was billions of years old in order to test human faith. You can then...

-Inform him that this is a complete and utter violation of Sir Karl Popper's rules of Scientific Falsifiability.

-Remind him that by arguing Created Antiquity, he will be conceding that the most of the evidence we can scientifically observe points towards a very old Earth. If the Earth were 6000 years old, and a Deity were to try to test human faith, he would make all the non-faith evidence point towards the untrue opinion so that the faithful would have to rely purely on faith. Therefore, the argument of Created Antiquity must also acknowledge that the majority of scientific data points towards a very old Earth.

I can't see how TR can recover from this argument, as his quote mines will almost certainly not address Philosophical/Logical arguments like this. There may be some small exceptions, which I have yet to find, in this logic, but I doubt TR could find any.

I bet TR doesn't read the commentary.

I was actually going to use the light from distant stars as evidence that our universe is older than 8,000 years, but since you stole my thunder () I'm going to have to go a different route. It will still be quite good.

And no, I don't think he reads these comments. If he did, he probably would have left this site in shame several years ago.

[Mortality]

He claims he doesn't because he doesn't want "Claims going unnoticed" but the real reason is because he knows that his belief will be rocked.

I do believe its been established that he only debates to reassure his beliefs.

[Gordon Freynman]

And no, I don't think he reads these comments. If he did, he probably would have left this site in shame several years ago.

He has plenty of experience debating (if you can call it that) multiple people at once, I really doubt even having every member on the forum being against him would even slightly phase his resolve.

EDIT: wow I just noticed this stunning example of irony:

Just challenge your friend to publish his revolutionary findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If he were right, the uniformitarian journals would be happy to lengthen the time by a few billion years. But that won't happen.

Really? A YEC propagandist schmuck challenging someone to publish their work in a peer-reviewed journal? Give me a god damn break. He needs to take his own advice and have him and his fellow cranks publish their work in reputable peer-reviewed journals instead their bible humping circle jerk journals they call "peer reviewed".

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

That's what I said, he would be forced to argue that it's a test of faith. Am I missing something, or did you just not see the words "test human faith".

Indeed, it violates Occam's Razor, Popper's principles, and my logical principle.

I guess I didn't notice. My apologies.

[Gordon Freynman]

I think I can safely say AA's sanity will be lost trying to read TR's latest post.

[Ancient Aliens]

I think I can safely say AA's sanity will be lost trying to read TR's latest post.

You're assuming that I'm not already insane, as we all know:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein"

[Nyxos]

Did he just post the same post twice in that huge post of his ? I think he did, but you better check.

Very easily I have answered this a few times on these forums and this would be a great question on a debate on a global flood.A fact to consider there is enogh water in the oceans to cover the earth entirely in water a few miles deep

ask him how isn't it the case right now then ?

The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been acuring for 3 billion years.

thus proving creation wrong, the earth not being 10 000 years old. Congrats AA, you just won.

[Marechal Ney]

I was actually going to use the light from distant stars as evidence that our universe is older than 8,000 years, but since you stole my thunder () I'm going to have to go a different route. It will still be quite good.

And no, I don't think he reads these comments. If he did, he probably would have left this site in shame several years ago.

Oops, sorry .

Luckily, I'm pretty sure there are some other similar constants you could use to judge the age of the universe.

[Gordon Freynman]

Lawrence Krauss gives a number of disproofs of a 10,000 year old Earth here:



Skip to 4:20 for the reasons

[generalveers]

Why is he talking about evolution and bashing atheism?
Why is he suddenly making an issue out of an astronomer talking about the age of the earth, when none of his quotes are by people with relevant (or reliable) degrees?WhAT

moon rock composition is much different from earths no iron no water a earth moving away or broken away would have to pass the break up limit were the rocks would be torn apart

What? There is water on the moon!

What mechanism do the evos

What is the point of this? 'the Evos'? That's, frankly, an insult.
Also: there are metals on the moon too, just not as many as there are on the earth.

You gave no answer as I can see above, flat gaps are common and you cannot avoid deposition or erosion for millions of years you cant leave no evidence for millions of years, thrust faulting leaves evidence for bent rocks and has nothing to do with flat gaps.

You realize the Earth's crust is dynamic and always shifting? That rocks are not in static vacuums and are typically open to the rain and wind?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It will invalidate the evolutionary theory to a skeptical thinker, a ovius [major] problem to the claim of millions of years.So your saying than that certain and there are many biological remain degraded slower in the past? any evidence for that? better than when kept frozen ever? evidence? no faith, see how your worldview rejects ovius evidence and conclusions and retreats to a faith based position? evidence against billions of years, but your worldview will not allow that conclusion interesting no? see what i mean by no no bias people our worldviews effect everything. This is like me saying well there must have been some unobserved process way out in space that caused the decay rates of isotopes to increase and to decay to were they are today, you would rightly ask for evidence of this and say it was just believed and not observed not part of science. So is evolutionary old ages believed not science.

We actually know were some of the figures of genesis are buried, but the "primitive" men you refer to in numbers dont need name tags they just need to be there. You by no means need all of them.

There are some of the worst and most hypocritical arguments I've ever read. Honestly.

Personal issues with TR's debating style:
Why must he use so many damn emoticons?
Why can't he use one font?
Why can't he spell anything right, or at least spell it wrong the same way each time?

Honestly, is this just some badly programmed bot we're all getting fooled by or what?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Why is he talking about evolution and bashing atheism?

People tend to attack strawmen when they have no idea what they're up against.

[Mortality]

@Generalveers

He diverts off the topic, writes in different fonts, overueses emoticons, and can't spell good because he knows it will confuse the person who he is arguing with.

He bashes atheism and evolution because its exactly what he is, a Fundamentalist Christian who believes strongly in Creation.

None of his quotes are either real (We had that with my debate with him) or don't have any relevance in the argument.

[Himster]

if you could prove that anything was around in 10,000 b.c I will coincide defet and you win debate. [Please wait for after this to present evidence] or it will get messy.

The speed of light is definitively limited. 99.9999999% of the universe is more than 10,000 light years away. End of "debate".