Himalayas a billion years old?

[bob b]

Study: Himalayas Far Older than Thought
By Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News

March 28, 2006 — A new study of a fossil-rich region in the Himalayas confirms that mountain building started there far, far earlier than thought, along a long-lost storm-tossed coastline, perhaps a billion years ago.

Rocks of the Parahio Valley in the Spiti region of India contain the remains of a half-billion-year-old river delta filled with shallow coastal marine fossils and debris washed out of a very early mountain range.

The findings are another blow to the general impression that the first mountain building involving the rocks of today's Himalayas began just 50 million years ago.

----------

Either that or dating of rocks is not as reliable as previously thought. :nono:

 

[keypurr]

We still have not determined how long the first three days of creation were. Our time standard did not start til the fourth day.

 

[BillyBob]

Is it possible that every time an estimate of ancient geological time gets re-adjusted, it is closer to the actual chronological duration than previously thought?

 

[bowhunter]

Is it possible that every time an estimate of ancient geological time gets re-adjusted, it is closer to the actual chronological duration than previously thought?

Or not!

 

[bowhunter]

Hey bob, at least they are almost to the point of saying the earth is older than the universe.

 

[BillyBob]

Who is saying that?

Earth- 4.5 billion.
Universe- 15 billion [last I heard]

 

[eisenreich]

We still have not determined how long the first three days of creation were. Our time standard did not start til the fourth day.

Keypurr, are you saying that you are a Day-Age creationist or only one when it suits your purposes (first three days). I feel this page makes a strong case against any period longer than the literal 6-day creation account.

Either that or dating of rocks is not as reliable as previously thought. :nono:

Bob, just wondering if you've come across this in your research:

The only indicator of a young-earth is a particular reading of the Bible. How many Japanese geologists - or ones from any non-Christian country - do you know of who have come to a science-based conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old? If we are going on evidence alone, it would make sense that non-Christian scientists, unlike the agenda-driven, secular American ones, would come to the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[bob b]

Bob, just wondering if you've come across this in your research:

The only indicator of a young-earth is a particular reading of the Bible. How many Japanese geologists - or ones from any non-Christian country - do you know of who have come to a science-based conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old? If we are going on evidence alone, it would make sense that non-Christian scientists, unlike the agenda-driven, secular American ones, would come to the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

There are many indicators of a "young" earth, but only one that I am aware of that is so specific as scripture. But even in scriptural sources there is some disagreement, which is why I usually specify 6000-7000.

The recent findings of "fresh" material in dinosaur bones is only one of many indicators of a young earth.

I was an old earther for many years, even long after I realized by reading about DNA that macroevolution was untrue, and thus my "conversion" to considering a young earth position has been relatively recent.

IMHO there is some fundamental error or misunderstanding regarding radiometric dating, and if that "pillar" falls the entire old earth edifice may fall with it.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Bob, just wondering if you've come across this in your research:

The only indicator of a young-earth is a particular reading of the Bible. How many Japanese geologists - or ones from any non-Christian country - do you know of who have come to a science-based conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old? If we are going on evidence alone, it would make sense that non-Christian scientists, unlike the agenda-driven, secular American ones, would come to the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

*cough*none*cough*

 

[eisenreich]

I'm going to take your side-stepping of my question to mean that you are not aware of anyone advocating the theory of a young-earth except for Christians in the fields of science/geology.

Since there are highly educated people all over the world investigating this same issue, it's interesting that the only group offering explanations for a young earth of 6,000-7,000 years is coming from the U.S. I find it interesting, anyway..

There are many indicators of a "young" earth, but only one that I am aware of that is so specific as scripture. But even in scriptural sources there is some disagreement, which is why I usually specify 6000-7000.

There are many; though the majority have been shown to be without merit (also, AiG). It almost looks like the, "lets throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks," approach to science. Bob, what's your opinion of Kent Hovind, seeing that he's one of the leading advocates of a young earth?

The recent findings of "fresh" material in dinosaur bones is only one of many indicators of a young earth.

Although this is an interesting development, you have to admit that it was blown out of proportion, much due to media coverage linking the story with video clips from Jurassic Park. The paleontologists in charge of the find will continue to publish reports after more testing is done on the samples; it's certainly something that people in both camps are following. What seems to have been lost is that both Schweitzer and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth.

I was an old earther for many years, even long after I realized by reading about DNA that macroevolution was untrue, and thus my "conversion" to considering a young earth position has been relatively recent.

I'm in no position to argue your personal choice on the matter, but the group of people who learn more about DNA and science converting to the young earth position seems to be the minority.

IMHO there is some fundamental error or misunderstanding regarding radiometric dating, and if that "pillar" falls the entire old earth edifice may fall with it.

Nothing like rooting against science in order to prop up ones beliefs about the supernatural..

 

[bob b]

I'm going to take your side-stepping of my question to mean that you are not aware of anyone advocating the theory of a young-earth except for Christians in the fields of science/geology.

Since there are highly educated people all over the world investigating this same issue, it's interesting that the only group offering explanations for a young earth of 6,000-7,000 years is coming from the U.S. I find it interesting, anyway..

AiG originated in Australia. I find it interesting that a person with your intelligence and knowledge would resort to the "argument from authority".

There are many; though the majority have been shown to be without merit (also, AiG). It almost looks like the, "lets throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks," approach to science. Bob, what's your opinion of Kent Hovind, seeing that he's one of the leading advocates of a young earth?

His presentations are quite amusing. He has come to the right conclusion, as have many ordinary people, without worrying about the nitty gritty details. Apparently God has delivered on His promise to "confound the wisdom of the wise".

Although this is an interesting development, you have to admit that it was blown out of proportion, much due to media coverage linking the story with video clips from Jurassic Park. The paleontologists in charge of the find will continue to publish reports after more testing is done on the samples; it's certainly something that people in both camps are following. What seems to have been lost is that both Schweitzer and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth.

Saying otherwise would be "the kiss of death" to careers now wouldn't it? :kookoo:

I'm in no position to argue your personal choice on the matter, but the group of people who learn more about DNA and science converting to the young earth position seems to be the minority.

I have never thought much of the "authority" argument, since it indicates some degree of intellectual laziness and "bandwagon" mentality.

Nothing like rooting against science in order to prop up ones beliefs about the supernatural..

As I have said many times before on this forum, I am a life long lover and booster of correct science, but current theories in the Origins field resemble psuedo-science more than real science, and hence receive a full measure of my scorn.

 

[eisenreich]

AiG originated in Australia. I find it interesting that a person with your intelligence and knowledge would resort to the "argument from authority".

"Argument from authority" is the undoubtedly the weakest form of argument. However, I wasn't quoting 'one authority' and saying, he must be correct because he's a scientist. I was inquiring as to the authorty of every scientist that has ever lived.

In case my question was unclear: do you know of any non-Christian scientists, alive or dead, that have come to the conclusion that the Earth is young? I'm asking for a third time, because although AiG (a propaganda machine for Christians) began in Australia, its founders were Christian.

You understand the logic I'm using and you also know the answer. The reason Christian scientists are the only ones holding the belief that the Earth is 6-7k years old is because their sole source of evidence comes from the bible. If there are as many indicators of a "young" earth as you claim, you should have no problem finding a few non-Christian scientists arguing your case.

His presentations are quite amusing. He has come to the right conclusion, as have many ordinary people, without worrying about the nitty gritty details. Apparently God has delivered on His promise to "confound the wisdom of the wise".

Yeah, those pesky little details. They can be the best part, though. Sometimes, if you squint your eyes real tight, those details seem to just disappear! Like when reading the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, you can almost dismiss the fact that they don't come close to corresponding with each other if you're willing to squint those eyes tight enough..

Saying otherwise would be "the kiss of death" to careers now wouldn't it? :kookoo:

I don't agree with your herd mentality argument. Ever since Darwin, scientists learned that going against the grain could pay off, either through fame or book sales. Dembski quickly figured this out and his brand of psedo-science has made him a wealthy man.

As I have said many times before on this forum, I am a life long lover and booster of correct science, but current theories in the Origins field resemble psuedo-science more than real science, and hence receive a full measure of my scorn.

Throwing rocks at the windows of science until the remaining shards vaguely resemble the accounts in the bible does not constitue a love for science in my mind.

 

[bob b]

"Argument from authority" is the undoubtedly the weakest form of argument. However, I wasn't quoting 'one authority' and saying, he must be correct because he's a scientist. I was inquiring as to the authorty of every scientist that has ever lived.

Most scientists up until the last several hundred years believed in a young earth. Darwin was successful even though his arguments have been shattered by the findings in microbiology, as the author of Evo Devo has illustrated.

In case my question was unclear: do you know of any non-Christian scientists, alive or dead, that have come to the conclusion that the Earth is young? I'm asking for a third time, because although AiG (a propaganda machine for Christians) began in Australia, its founders were Christian.

I would say that there are many Moslem and Jewish scientists who do, although I do not have any specific names. There are websites however.

You understand the logic I'm using and you also know the answer. The reason Christian scientists are the only ones holding the belief that the Earth is 6-7k years old is because their sole source of evidence comes from the bible.

Don't forget the Moslems and Jews.
Seriously, except for radiometric dating, star distances and "feelings that it must be" there is little to support a billions of years old earth.

If there are as many indicators of a "young" earth as you claim, you should have no problem finding a few non-Christian scientists arguing your case.

Age indicators are not conclusive, one way or the other. Most scientists would feel that radiometric dating and star distances are conclusive. I don't. I will admit that I decided to check this out a few years ago just for fun and was surprised to discover that the old age idea was not as solid as I had previously thought. That led to my beginning to take the young age idea seriously.

Yeah, those pesky little details. They can be the best part, though. Sometimes, if you squint your eyes real tight, those details seem to just disappear! Like when reading the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, you can almost dismiss the fact that they don't come close to corresponding with each other if you're willing to squint those eyes tight enough..

On the contrary, the deeper that I have looked into it the more I have concluded that there is no real discrepancy. This is because it is easy to see that the accounts were from two different points of view and because the second account is clearly not intended to be chronological like the six day account is.

I don't agree with your herd mentality argument. Ever since Darwin, scientists learned that going against the grain could pay off, either through fame or book sales.

Only true if the "main theme" is preserved.

Dembski quickly figured this out and his brand of psedo-science has made him a wealthy man.

Are you a sage? Besides, Dembski's arguments affect abiogenesis more than they do evolution. The two are different, remember? :rotfl:

Throwing rocks at the windows of science until the remaining shards vaguely resemble the accounts in the bible does not constitue a love for science in my mind.

My "rocks" are selectively aimed at evolution and "naturalistic origins". I love science. My wife says I am boring because that is all I have ever wanted to talk about.

 

[bowhunter]

I just read a young earth muslim website the other night, I will try to find it and post it.

 

[Johnny]

Eh, the point is flying over both of your heads. How about finding a few professional scientists who believe in a young earth AND who have no religious stake in the idea.

 

[eisenreich]

I just read a young earth muslim website the other night, I will try to find it and post it.

Maybe I should be more clear with my definition: scientists not being influenced by a holy book which gives an approximate date for creation.. I think Bob understood what I meant, hence his chuckling earlier. The bias these religious-scientists display is palpable..

This is a perfect example:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/images/sci.gif

The Scientific Method:
"Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"

The Creationist Method:
Here's the conclusion (bible). What facts can we find to support it?"

 

[bowhunter]

Eh, the point is flying over both of your heads. How about finding a few professional scientists who believe in a young earth AND who have no religious stake in the idea.

You have GOT to be kidding, of course ALL the scientists have their particular worldview which will determine their take on the evidence which is NOT evidence at all.

 

[Johnny]

You have GOT to be kidding, of course ALL the scientists have their particular worldview which will determine their take on the evidence which is NOT evidence at all.

How many professional scientists can you name that believe in a young earth and have no religious stake in the idea?

 

[bowhunter]

all of them have a $take in it

 

[Johnny]

History, fortunes, and fame are made in science by overthrowing old ideas. I don't want to hear any of this conspiracy "fear of supression" crap you're implying and are probably about to spew. The evidence isn't there, plain and simple. That's all there is to it. If the evidence was there, the scientific community never would have gone from being young-earthers to old-earthers. I want to remind you that, at one time, the idea of an old earth was extremely unfavorable. As bob said, "Most scientists up until the last several hundred years believed in a young earth."