It’s not that she says the Earth is 6,000 years old — twice, just to make sure — that floors me. It’s the casual way she said it, as if she said "I had a cup of coffee today." From her manner, it’s clear that not only does she believe this complete and utter nonsense, but this is a simple fact woven into her mind just like the Sun is bright or chocolate is tasty.
To her, the Earth being 6,000 years old just is.
Now, to be fair, this video is without context, and so we can’t be absolutely sure she’s a creationist. But it sure as heck sounds that way, and given her voting record it fits right in.
The irony, of course — and there’s always irony when creationism is involved — is that she’s talking about uranium mining, and it’s through the radioactive decay of uranium that we know the Earth is billions of years old. And she also praises technological achievements!
How do these people get elected? Better yet, How can she praise science after the first statement she made?
In fairness to her ..... she seems like an incredibly poor speaker ..... and it did seem like she was talking about man being here for 6000 years ....
It was a rather Quaylesque type statement though .....
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
The other says, what the heck, I can't prove her wrong.
I can.
It could easily be a misstatement, so I won't judge her unless she comes out and says she actually believes that. I've heard dumber come out of politicians mouths: "58 states", "can't get fooled again", "for it before I was against it", about half the things that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth.... etc.
In a similar vain:
Best Line is Barbara Walters - "You....you can do both"
Also, Paco, I think that you should be attributing that post to Phil Plait. That's almost word for word. link
And yes, she's misinformed. And yes, her statement is ironic due to the fact that uranium is a great way to measure the age of rocks. I find it more funny that she says, "We have to bring uranium to Arizona!" It's just funny all over.
Quote: Also, Paco, I think that you should be attributing that post to Phil Plait. That's almost word for word. .
I would think so since I copied and pasted it. Never claimed it was mine.
And she does say the earth is 6000 years old twice. Even if she was referring to man, which she's not... it's still and ignorant statement.
Ytown, Lyuodea... I know you guys are die hards but even you two cant defend this.
What really gets me is that due to her science the safety and consequences of mining uranium are nil cuz the earth has been here this long. So everything will be ok. People like this kill me. A friend of mines mother, who is a bible thumper, once told me that there is no such thing as climate warming since its not in the bible. Whether there is or not isnt the point. It's that ignorant people choose to have a leap of faith when it comes to these sorta things instead of using rational, science, and sound judgement.
Who cares what the exact age of the earth is? What is funny about this is the fact that she thought it was only 6,000 years old which is ridiculous (and that she stated it like it was a known established fact).
If you see an 89 yr old man and then somebody states that he is only 6 years old we would find that funny even if we didn't know the man's exact age. (Those of you who saw Bejamin Button that was fiction and not real).
I find a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old as equally ludicrous as a belief that an infallible human who once walked on water was killed and rose from the dead.
Quote: I find a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old as equally ludicrous as a belief that an infallible human who once walked on water was killed and rose from the dead.
Which I believe to be as ludicrous as a belief that a ball of dust and gas exploded and the result was human beings and cars and computers and space travel.... so to each his own.
Well, the Big Bang Theory starts with the primevil atom....not dust and gas. But I understand what you mean.
If you ask me what I think, which I know most of you don't care, I think God created everything via the Big Bang. The bible has it wrong when saying it was 7 days and how the earth and universe was "created with age" to confuse us.
Not a lot of people know this, but the "father of the big bang theory" was a Roman Catholic priest.
Quote: I find a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old as equally ludicrous as a belief that an infallible human who once walked on water was killed and rose from the dead.
Which I believe to be as ludicrous as a belief that a ball of dust and gas exploded and the result was human beings and cars and computers and space travel.... so to each his own.
Quote: I would think so since I copied and pasted it. Never claimed it was mine.
Regardless, you should give credit where credit is due, especially if you're lifting whole paragraphs. By not doing so you may unintentionally deceive people into thinking it's your own work which is unethical.
Also, I think you may have Lyoukdea confused with someone else.
Quote: At one time, that "rational science" thought the world was flat,
Actually that's a common misconception. Common thought, that harbored by the powers that be at the time, believed it to be flat so therefore it was as they said. Many scientists or thinkers at the time sought out to test the that hypothesis (that the earth was flat) and proved that it was in fact round using early trigonometry as well as observations of incoming ships from lighthouses.
The point is that science changes, and the minds of scientists change with it. Controversy, debate, and the experiments that stem from these grudges builds better theories and increases our knowledge. So the fact that we used to think the earth revolved around the sun (because how could it not in a human centric world) was proven wrong by further observation. Then scientists changed their minds about tells you something about science as a whole. It may have it's primadonnas and whatnot, but its about the thrill of the hunt or fitting that next piece into the puzzle while also eating crow when you're wrong. Science, and the early exploration of the natural world, was a lot like starting a huge jigsaw puzzle in that respect. We started off with nothing, and slowly but surely the picture is coming together piece by piece. Sure we get things wrong sometimes, but through the peer-review process the piece in the wrong place is usually identified and tossed out or set aside. Coming out of the dark ages, science was in it's infancy, but it's been steadily maturing ever since.
Quote: Oh by the way...we have no idea how old the earth really is. One billion? Two billion? How about 1,666,765,889?
Sorry but that's untrue. We know through the observation of radioactive decay of certain elements, IE timing their half-lives and how much of certain elements are left in layers of rock containing other elements, such as uranium. From this geological study, we know that earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. This is scientific theory is proven by geology and backed up by hard physics, there are no assumptions involved or necessary in this science.
Quote: just saying that "rational science" has just as many holes as does the bible/creationism
Disregarding the "holes in the Bible" comment, but the idea that evolution and creationism should stand on equal footing because "they both have holes" is wrong. If you wouldn't mind pointing out the solid evidence for creationism? I'll go one for one with you from the evolution side. The point being that there is no test for creationism that proves anything, and they only try to tear down evolution because they perceive it as an afront to religion (which it's not). Evolution has been tested, observed, and verified by many avenues of science using well understood methods. Where's the holes you speak of? I'm sure i or other people on the board here can explain them and the misconception behind it.
what i want to know is why some people can't put two and two together and see that what the bible says and what science says can coexist. Most of the book of Genesis is allegorical prose, which is accepted by many even long ago. God made the world and life. How? Big bang and evolution. Ta da. I actually read a very good book on that subject once.
I have actually seen a time line, like the ones in history books, at a college, which showed all the prehistoric eras, the dinosaurs et al then it had Adam and Eve and proceeded through modern history. It was actually an interesting and polite document. Kind of neat how they worked it all together. After all, God said he created the Earth, he didn't clearly state it was from whole cloth. Maybe he just found a nice rock, recently devoid of life and chose it for his creations.
How long is a day to God? If you believe in the big bang theory, whose to say that's not God's work and the beginning of creation? Where did those first particles come from? Having a heavy math and science background there are ways to combine science with the belief in God. But in this case, 6000 years ... LMAO.
The age of the Earth and Man in general is a intresting topic.
I am not agreeing with the 6000 year old claim, But I also don't believe in the billions of years old theories either. A day is 1,000 years and 1,000 years is a day to God...that is a "rough estimate" it could be more, it could be less.
The thing most can't wrap their head around is this:
God created time....Time did not exist prior to God creating it.....How big was the Universe when God created the Earth? it may have only been as big to fit our solar system in and thats it.....what if it was?
The Bible says God "stretched out" the Universe "at a later time" with his own hands....when Did God "exactly" stretch out the universe? ...and how far did he actually stretch it before he allowed it to expand on its own slowly?
No one knows......
When did time actually begin? Again you must remember, God exists "outside" the bounds of time....he is everywhere and nowhere at the same time....he is and is not at the same time....
Since the Bible talks about humans living for over 5 to 600 years of age, and some even almost 1000 years...here is a hypothesis
what if "Time" didn't really begin to countdown until "after" the flood?
That's intresting and curious indeed........
That would mean the Earth IS and IS NOT billions of years old.
Its billions of years old in the sense it existed for a time before God started the countdown of time
Yet it is not billions of years old because Time didn't begin until after the flood
This is not to start an argument of any sort, its just to expand thinking in a different direction.
There are many questions about these things, and few answers.....I think everyone comes to their own answers about this thing, but don't take another human's word for it, find your own answers in your own heart
Just because a man is a scientist doesn't make him any more right them a priest...its just looking at things from different perspective
Not one single person has all the answers, were not supposed to
A priest can be just as equally wrong a scientist because were merely human beings with limited understanding and are flawed....both are flawed equally....just in different perspectives.
Who knows, our entire existence including our own universe may only be the size of the tip of a blade of grass, but it seems huge to us, but to God's perspective, we may indeed be very small....again it just depends on what perspective your looking from
Many questions, few answers........Who knows
We all may be just inside the Matrix and what we perceive as reality may not be reality at all...i don't know how you would prove that though anything is possible I suppose
What would you think if ll your life, your actually laying on a chair, with a helmut stapped to your head hooked up to a computer, and it controls and encourages your brain to fire.....if your brain is being manipulated by intelligence into a constant dream state...how would you tell? after all, your brain has been accustomed to this "dream" being reality....how would you tell?
these are just possible scenarios that could or could not be fact....
Quote: ...IE timing their half-lives and how much of certain elements are left in layers of rock containing other elements, such as uranium. From this geological study, we know that earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old
Roughly? We don't "know" squat. We have scientific estimates that suggest an age...estimates with assumptions.
You do not get the leeway to be plus or minus a million years or so and pretend that "science" is even remotely accurate. A MILLION years plus or minus...you have got to be kidding me.
Look...I can believe that the dating algorithims we use are fairly accurate...Then again, I also find it absolutely hilarious when a "scientist" or supporter of same uses a term like "roughly" when throwing out an age like roughly 4.5 billion years.
When a seemingly-knowledgable scientist says "roughly" 4.5 billion years I can say...ok...if you say so and have done your homework. I can go with that...as long as the absolute fact does not really matter in my life...which it does not.
However, at the end of the day, we have no idea how old the earth really is...we do have a lot of rational science that leads us to some estimate of age...however...that estimate might be off...which could equate to a loooooooong time.
God may have created the Earth 5,999 years ago and put out the uranium algorithm to make us think the Earth is much, much older...or maybe we are just plain WRONG. (Again, I am not supporting the 6,000 years old argument nor am I saying that God was/is trying to get cute with us.)
Since no one was here back then...and we have nothing but estimates and "models" to pinpoint how things age...we are left with rational science to contend with...as opposed to FACT. And rational science is not always 100% accurate.
No one alive today can attest to the existence of something "roughly" 4.5 billion years old...and that is the only FACT that exists with the whole "dating" scenario....leaving us with estimates and rational science that may or may not be correct.
Evolution may or may not be what truly occured...creationism may or may not be what truly occured...a combination of the two may or may not be what truly occured. We can only study and debate.
When either side tries to "prove" why the other side is wrong I start to chuckle.
Here in Texas, the state board of education just approved new legislation this year which makes it more difficult to say that evolution is just as likely as literal creation. My girlfriend (who is from Cleveland) told me that most of the people in her COLLEGE-LEVEL BIOLOGY CLASS FOR SCIENCE MAJORS believe the Earth is 6000 years old. They were arguing with the poor, flabbergasted professor about where fossils come from and cell history. Have an idea why? Because that's what they teach them in the public schools.
Prove to me "half-life" was the same 30,000 years ago as it is today
You have ZERO proof that the rate of decay has always been constant or the same.
For example, take our Ozone Layer...in just the last 60 years alone it has changed greatly...prove an outside force as not "altered" decay rates in any time period prior to scientists disocovering this
you can't...why?
because there was no one to measure the elements 30,000 years ago that is alive today
shale it, spin it, salt it, make excuses all you want...there is no proof.
As i said before, there are many questions, and few answers...my previous message was just merely "free thinking ideas"
what is reality paco? seriously? define it?
Reality = "What THE HUMAN MIND believes to be reality
just because you can grab a cup of water and touch it doesn't mean its reality
People everyday claim that dreams are real, the fear of a nightmare is real, to the human mind, it is real not only physically, but mentally...the human mind can be easily fooled....in terms of a computer, there are "exploitable" "Unpatched" vulnerabilities in the human brain algorithm....in essense, we are flawed beings.
To say an assumption, based on human calculated creations is in fact impractical and falliable
There is yet to be a computer program, Operating System, or anything that is unhackable
your trying to tell me the algorithms are not flawed? please
Microsoft is still patching holes in the NT Kernal(the core of the OS of all Windows Since Windows NT 4) and new ones are discovered on a daily basis
The best programmers in the world and they cna't even get it right, same with Linux, the most brillant human minds in computers in history can't get it right?
and you want me to believe such a algorithm for half-lifes is without flaws?
your dreaming man.....your living in flatland, and once your realize your in flatland, the world is not a very fun place...
there is no way those calculations are perfect.....besides those calculations are performed on a computer that is flawed as i stated above...there is not a single operating system or computer program that runs on a platform without flaws, just because they haven't been found yet don't mean they don't exist...see secunia.com sometime to further prove my point..
Quote: I find a belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old as equally ludicrous as a belief that an infallible human who once walked on water was killed and rose from the dead.
Quote: Evolution may or may not be what truly occured...creationism may or may not be what truly occured...a combination of the two may or may not be what truly occured. We can only study and debate.
When either side tries to "prove" why the other side is wrong I start to chuckle.
The difference is that one side has actual proof, while the other side has nothing but faith.
I got into this debate with my best buddy while on vacation this week. We spent four days playing golf. He made the mistake of asking me about my former studies in Anthropology. I commented on how fascinating it was that we could have something as simple as an allele which would dicated evolution. Then I made the mistake of stating how dumb it was that various learned theological minds have said that the Earth was only a few thousand years old.
The short version is that he doesn't believe in evolution or mutation AT ALL, and that he only has the teachings that his parents and his church have shown him. When I asked how much he's actually studied in terms of mutation leading to evolution, he said "Absolutely none, and I don't need to learn any. My faith is all I need."
A closed mind is a wasted soul. I believe something beyond our understanding put everything in motion at some point, but for anyone to say that they just know the Earth is only 6000 years old is beyond dumb. It's ignorant, stubborn, stupid, and what's most damning, closed-minded.
I've seen enough proof to know that mutation has directly led to evolution, but I've seen nothing which can even begin to prove that there aren't other possibilities regarding how the Universe came into being.
What I do know is that over the past two-thousand years, the Creationism side has been losing more and more ground to scientific proof. That's because the church which controlled the lives of everyone and everything around it has been proven to be much more of a fraud that would have been believed one-thousand years ago.
To be fair, I equally ridicule men of science who say that there's absolutely no way something of "intelligent design" couldn't have had a hand in the Universe.
It all comes back to a closed mind, but at some point, common sense should kick in when there's a mountain of evidence proving the Earth is more than 6000 years old
Just goes to show that despite all our great accomplishments and self-belief, we're still just a bunch of dumb animals afterall.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
You guys do realize that the 4th demension is "Time" right? God created Time? If there is a god he exists outside of the constraints of time. That would explain how he is all knowing and omniscient like many religions claim.
Think about this for a second. If you were to view yourself (your entire life) from the 5th demension [ looking at you and your life in the 4th dimension]... It would appear as a shape that starts from the time you were born and end at the point in which you die.
I reallize this isn't the sort of outlet I should be talking about this stuff but well I am anyways... Just try to wrap your mind around the thought that TIME itself is NOT linear.
Prove to me "half-life" was the same 30,000 years ago as it is today
You have ZERO proof that the rate of decay has always been constant or the same.
If the half lives of various materials changed as a function of time, then we would see a very different radioactive decay rate in observed cosmic rays, as opposed to those in rocks that we see on Earth. The reason for this is that cosmic rays have been traveling near the speed of light for very long periods of time (in our reference frame), thus, to them, the universe is much younger than it is in our reference frame, and according to your argument, they should undergo decays at different rates than we see in radioactive materials that have been sitting on the Earth the whole time.
In fact the decay rates for both Earth based and cosmic materials are the same (when we simply take into account the time dilation effects due to special relativity), disputing the notion that there is any time dependence in the radioactive decay rate.
Furthermore, note that radioactive decay is much better understood in terms of quantum field theory. There, the radioactive decay rate can be easily understood in terms of the activation energy necessary to move between the bound atomic state and the ground state (the final decayed products). The energy in the activation state can nowadays be measured fairly precisely by semi-empirical methods (see Molecular Orbital theory and Valence bond theory for two self consistent explanations). Any change in the rate of radioactive decay would imply a change in both the activation state energy as well as the excited and ground state energies of the initial atom and it's products.
This would have profound effects not only on radioactive decay, but also on the types of atoms that are stable. If you play with radioactive decay rates too much, you would end up making many of the known stable atoms suddenly unstable in the not so distant past, as they would either immediately decay, or be skipped over entirely by the new decay channels necessitated by your changing ground state energies.
What people outside of the field never realize is how connected all these ideas are. You can't just go off and argue that the rate constant might change over time without considering the vast number of changes this would entail in various regions of physics (i've highlighted notable differences in both quantum chemistry and astrophysics here, I'm sure there are others I can't think of at 12:01 AM)
The difference is that one side has actual proof, while the other side has nothing but faith.
Quote:
A closed mind is a wasted soul. I believe something beyond our understanding put everything in motion at some point, but for anyone to say that they just know the Earth is only 6000 years old is beyond dumb. It's ignorant, stubborn, stupid, and what's most damning, closed-minded.
Very well said. Those who believe in creationism have nothing but blind faith. I'm not saying that some higher power DIDNT put everything in motion. I actually believe something greater then all of us did. But there is a tons of evidence that HUMANS let alone the Earth has been here longer then 6000 years. Early civilizations began over 8k years ago alone in Mesopotamia.
I'm not sure who said it above but time IS considered a dimension. But would you believe me if I told you that it is theorized to be as many as 11 dimensions??? This can be argued. Not by faith, but by math, quantum physics, and our own built in need to understand the world around us. And when it is argued we are talking about the difference between 9-11 dimensions. Not whether there is only 4 or 5. We have come up with theories and laws that throughout our history that technological advancements within our society have been able to disprove. Making room for new theories with new equations coming from a better understanding of science and ways to measure things due to technology. Not faith.
Quote: told me that most of the people in her COLLEGE-LEVEL BIOLOGY CLASS FOR SCIENCE MAJORS believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
Unless they're totally close-minded about it, that will change in the next four years as they go through all the science classes. Also, an professor that's flabbergasted in response to students questions should not be teaching. Especially when it comes to something as basic as debunking creationism's problems with evolution.
Quote: Here in Texas, the state board of education just approved new legislation this year which makes it more difficult to say that evolution is just as likely as literal creation. My girlfriend (who is from Cleveland) told me that most of the people in her COLLEGE-LEVEL BIOLOGY CLASS FOR SCIENCE MAJORS believe the Earth is 6000 years old. They were arguing with the poor, flabbergasted professor about where fossils come from and cell history. Have an idea why? Because that's what they teach them in the public schools.
I'm all for policy that makes students think for themselves and view a topic from all angles. Now if we can just get teachers to set aside their own preconceived notions
Over the past thousand years, the iron-fisted grasp that the various churches have had on humanity has mercifully been slipping. They used to rule the world with their flawed doctrine and fear-mongering, but times do change, and people are able to make up their own minds. As science continues to make strides in answering eternal questions, faith has nothing but faith to fall back on, which means they are losing ground.
The ultimate answer is going to be found when we get to the point where modern science meets the points of intelligent design. When we get there, that'll be the answer to how we got here.
Regarding KOB's talk about proving the half-life of uranium, that's the kind of thing that undermines those positions. Prove it's half-life was identical 30k years ago.
Again, it's faith versus science. With science, you can PROVE many things, things that didn't have an answer fifty years ago. With faith, that's all you've got. So what's the ultimate fall-back position? "You can't absolutely 100% prove it, so it's no better than faith."
Rubbish.
I believe in a higher power, but I also believe in science. The idiot that stated the Earth is only 6013 years old is just that, an idiot.
I used my buddy as an example of what's wrong with the world in terms of evaluating the problem. All he goes by is what his parents taught him, and refuses to examine anything else. I'm glad various people throughout history weren't so dumb, otherwise we'd still believe the world is 6000 years old, the Earth is flat, and that our planet is the center of the Universe
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy. Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/iVP5Po2.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif)
![[Linked Image from i232.photobucket.com]](http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee202/keylime_5/keylimesig.jpg)
