*What's life about*

**--->>405<<---** · 04-12-2013, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hazard

Really lol

Originally Posted by Hazard

Omg lol

hmmm.. are u poking fun at my posts?

seems kinda funny coming from a dude who endorses the entire freaking universe came from spontaneous combustion of nothing..

i will give you my personal contention now as it seems like a good place and probably the end of this conversation:

personally i believe God the Father is capable of creating a universe in a fraction of an instant that looks as young or as old as it pleases him to look. furthermore he owes none of us any explanation, but yet provided us with a detailed layout not only of creation of the universe, but also the means for our salvation, which if we werent told would never even have known was in jeopardy.

all this bull crap we have been going over could very possibly have been done in 6 days and NOT 6,000yrs let alone billions. we are NOT bacteria and this place we exist on is not a mathematical certainty. it was a deliberate creation by a God who simply felt like doing it for whatever reason he has..

the fact that humans refuse to believe in the word of God simply because they cant scientifically explain it baffles me. i have given u the verse and i will give it one last time:

1 corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

this is what this verse means to me: God was smart enuff to know we (humans) would try to figure out His existence and prove it scientifically so He made sure it would NOT be done! period.. and He used christianity and the bible as the means to which we would receive our salvation, knowing full well these skeptical scientists wouldnt buy it.

believe it or not.. as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Amen..

**--->>405<<---** · 04-12-2013, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Dpyle

I can see this theory as plausible, but I'm surprised that you went with it 405. In a previous thread debating this same topic. I offered the argument of "who is to say that a day in the life of God is the same as the day we see" to which you countered with a passage from Genesis about the 7 day creation "there was morning and there was evening. the first day"

Have you now changed a bit from that original literal interpretation?

no. some of these scenarios i am not saying i even endorse. i am simply providing scenarios that are capable of casting doubt on secular scientific scenarios. u want to know what i believe: read post # 401

**marcus300** · 04-13-2013, 12:39 AM

Lets move on from the age of the earth because for me that's a done deal with the mounting evidence and I know 405 will never say the earth is older than what the bible states and this thread isn't to try and make him do that anyway. We are debating some interesting questions but the age of the earth is done especially from the last few pages of this thread. Thanks Flagg, HAZ and 405 for supplying the articles and such been really interesting reading..

What about the other things ive mentioned early like how did man kind come about on earth or these questions I asked

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life: It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels. Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body. Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter. Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

If we can explain so much what puts doubt in our minds what the bible preachers than why cant we explain the above??

**marcus300** · 04-16-2013, 02:21 PM

The Age of the Earth

Overview
•How old is the Earth, and how do we know?
•Common creationist "dating methods"
•Common creationist criticisms of mainstream dating methods
•Suggested further reading
•References

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

T he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:

Pb-Pb isochron of terrestrial and meteorite samples.
After Murthy and Patterson (1962) and York and Farquhar (1972) .
Scanned from Dalrymple (1986) with permission.

Pb/Pb Isochron

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:

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

Type

Number
Dated

Method

Age (billions
of years)

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

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21

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

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.

As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:

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

Meteorite

Dated

Method

Age (billions
of years)

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

Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05

Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06

13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06

Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06

Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33

10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04

Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04

Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07

Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05

Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05

7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33

Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04

3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04

Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06

silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06

olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04

plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04

Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07

silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03

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

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.

Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.

Common Young-Earth "Dating Methods"

Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below:
1.Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere
2.Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
3.Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
4.Accumulation of metals into the oceans

Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are historically the ones posted to talk.origins more than any others.

1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere

The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

Dalrymple's references:
•(12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
•(112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201.

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, pp. 25-26)
Brown (1989, pp. 16 and 52)
Jansma (1985, p. 61)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 384-385)
Wysong (1976, pp. 161-163)

2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:
1.While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2.There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

3.Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

4.Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-38)
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-158)
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)

3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon

The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1."
Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.

Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.

Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 108-111) or Strahler (1987, pp. 143-144) .

Addendum: "loose dust" vs. "meteoritic material"

Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of loose powder present on the surface of the Moon.

However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.

In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.

Addendum: Creationists disown the "Moon dust" argument

There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system. In the Abstract, Snelling and Rush (1993) conclude with:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers) series. The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.

Further, even prior to the unmanned landings mentioned above, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect. So those making the argument do not even have the excuse that such an consensus existed prior to the unmanned landings.

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 40-41)
Jansma (1985, pp. 62-63)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 379-380)
Wysong (1976, pp. 166-168)
See the talkorigins.org archived feedback for February and April 1997, for additional examples.

4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans

In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.

Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.

First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:

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

Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years
Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years
Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years
Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years
Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years
Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years
W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years
Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years
Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years

**marcus300** · 04-16-2013, 02:22 PM

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

Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.
•The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:

◦Many of the listed metals are in fact known to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.

◦Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a true upper limit, we must calculate the maximum upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.

◦In addition, even if we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and even if these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation must "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."

•The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.

•These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19 million year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42,000 year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.

•These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.

•There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creationist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like.

One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, p. 16)
Morris (1974, pp. 153-156)
Morris & Parker (1987, pp. 284-284 and 290-291)
Wysong (1976, pp. 162, 163)

Conclusion

Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.

A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)

Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods

Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:
1.Reference to a case where the given method did not work .
2.Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated : 1.Constancy of radioactive decay rates .
2.Contamination is likely to occur .

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work

This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
•First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

•Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated

Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article <[email protected]> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <[email protected]> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:
•searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
•searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
•ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
•data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
•observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
•the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
•experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
•absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
•laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.

This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

(Note: R.H. Brown believes life on Earth and the geological column to be young, but argues that a proper reading of Genesis allows the Earth itself to be much older.)

For those who wish to develop more than a layman's understanding of radiometric dating, Faure (1986) is the prime textbook/handbook on the topic.

There are several shorter works which describe creationist "dating" methods and/or creationist challenges to mainstream dating methods. The best in my opinion is Dalrymple (1986) . Brush (1982) and Dalrymple (1984) are also very good.

Writings by old-Earth creationists demonstrate that argument for an old Earth is quite possible without "assumption of evolution." The best few are Stoner (1992) , Wonderly (1987) , and Young (1982) . In addition, Wonderly (1981) , Newman & Eckelmann (1977) , and Wonderly (1977) are also good.

And, of course Strahler (1987) covers the entire creation/evolution controversy (including all of the topics discussed here) in a reasonable level of detail and with lots of references.

References

Baker, Sylvia, 1976. Evolution: Bone of Contention, New Jersey, Evangelical Press. 35 pp. ISBN 0-85234-226-8
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

Brown, Robert H., 1992. "An Age-Old Question -- Review of The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple" in Origins Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 87-90. ( Brown, R. H. --- An Age-Old Question - Editor)
Back to reference to this book review .

Brown, Walter T., Jr., 1989. In The Beginning..., Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation. 122 pp.
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

Brush, Steven G., 1982, "Finding the age of the Earth by physics or by faith?" in Journal of Geological Education 30, pp. 34-58.
Back to reference to this work .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6
Back to meteorites (oldest or multiple dating methods ) or further reading .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.
Back to model lead age , multiple dating methods , or further reading .

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to ``Scientific Creationism''", in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131. [Editor's note (January 12, 2006): This article is now online at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalr...d_earth.html.]
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or further reading .

Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
Back to reference to this work .

Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology 2nd edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons. 589 pp. ISBN 0-471-86412-9
Back to isochron dating , or further reading .

Humphreys, D. Russell, 1988. "Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly 25, No. 3, pp. 130-137.
Back to reference to this work .

Jackson, Wayne, 1989. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, California, Courier Publications. 57 pp.
Back to Magnetic decay or Moon dust .

Jansma, Sidney J., Jr., 1985. Six Days, Michigan, Jansma.
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , or Moon dust .

Morris, Henry, and Gary Parker, 1987. What is Creation Science?, California, Master Books. 336 pp. ISBN 0-89051-081-4
Back to reference to this work .

Morris, Henry, 1974. Scientific Creationism, California, Creation- Life Publishers. 217 pp. ISBN 0-89051-001-6
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

Murthy, V. R., and C. C. Patterson, 1962. "Primary isochron of zero age for meteorites and the Earth" in Journal of Geophysical Research 67, p. 1161.
Back to reference to this work .

Newman, Robert C., and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., 1977. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth , Pennsylvania, IBRI. 154 pp. ISBN 0-944788-97-1
Back to reference to this work .

Sisterna, P., and H. Vucetich, 1990. "Time variation of fundamental constants: Bounds from geophysical and astronomical data" in Physical Review D (Particles and Fields) 41, no. 4, pp. 1034-1046.
Back to reference to this work .

Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42. Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System - Answers in Genesis
Back to reference to this work .

Stoner, Don, 1992. A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You about Genesis, California, Schroeder Publishing. 192 pp. ISBN 1-881446-00-X.
Back to reference to this work .

Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The Creation/Evolution Controversy , New York, Prometheus. 552 pp. ISBN 0-87975-414-1
Back to Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or further reading .

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 518 pp. ISBN 0-87552-338-2
Back to Helium or Moon dust .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1987. Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 130 pp. ISBN 0-944788-00-9
Back to reference to this work .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1981. Coral Reefs and Related Carbonate Structures as Indicators of Great Age, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 19 pp.
Back to reference to this work .

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1977. God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, Michigan, Crystal Press. 258 pp. ISBN 0-930402-01-4
Back to reference to this work .

Wysong, R. L., 1976. The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Michigan, Inquiry Press. 455 pp. ISBN 0-918112-01-X
Back to Helium , Magnetic decay , Moon dust , or Metals in oceans .

York, D., and R. M. Farquhar, 1972. The Earth's Age and Geochronology, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 178 pp.
Back to reference to this work .

Young, Davis A., 1982. Christianity and the Age of the Earth, California, Artisan. 188 pp. ISBN 0-934666-27-X
Back to reference to this work

**marcus300** · 04-16-2013, 02:23 PM

How Did Man Arrive on Earth?

How did humankind come to inhabit a blue marble spinning in black space?
Were we put here by a Creator? Did we evolve from simpler forms of life? Could we have migrated here from another planet or arrived on a comet? In this month's four-page center section we explore the varied chronicles of those earliest days as recorded in the major cultures and faiths. While there is little agreement about our origins, there is much to muse over and meditate about.

INTRODUCTION

Every culture on Earth has pondered the question, "How did we get here?" Profound, divine answers have been formulated through the ages. Several, drawn from the world's oldest and newest cultures and religions, are summarized or retold on this and the next two pages. Today we seem to be on the verge of completely losing our sense of divine origin and purpose as more and more people accept the verdict of Darwinian science--that we are the chance result of billions of years of evolution from single-celled creatures, to sea-born creatures, to reptiles, birds, mammals, to apes and finally to man.

We need not accept at face value this Godless judgment on our origins. Hinduism and other religions hold that there is more to existence than this mere physical reality, and that a transcendent intelligence inheres and instructs the development of this universe, including the observed processes of evolution. This page introduces their poignant quotations from legends and ancient texts.

On the fourth page, we briefly present the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy, and explore the intriguing possibility that man did not originate on Earth at all, but came here from another planet.

WHAT THE RELIGIONS TEACH

The Australian Aborigines are likely the oldest tribe on our planet, with a known continuity of cultural history going back over 50,000 years. They speak of the "Dreamtime" of the distant past when the Gods walked on the Earth and created people, sacred places, animals and the ways of human society. They believe a jivaor guruwari,a "seed power," is deposited in the Earth, "a symbolic footprint of the metaphysical beings whose actions created our world," states Australian author Robert Lawlor. "We have been here since the time before time began," explains an Aboriginal elder. "We have come directly out of the Dreamtime of the great Creative Ancestors. We have lived and kept the Earth as it was on the First Day. All other peoples of the world came from us." "

Hinduismhas several creation accounts, of which the central is found in the Rig Veda[see next page] of the Cosmic Man, Purusha, who was sacrificed by the Gods to create man. The Purusha is a divine emanation of God, and can be understood in at least one sense as the individuation of consciousness, the personal aspect of God. It is this individuated consciousness that is offered and divided by the Gods to create all of the physical universe, men, animals and plants. Three-fourths of the Purusha remains "ascended high" and only "one fourth took birth again down here," as the hymn explains, meaning what we see is only one-fourth of reality, the remaining being in divine form. Further elaborations of the creation are told in the Puranas, Dharma Shastrasand other Hindu scriptures. Manu Dharma ShastraI.11-119, for example, describes the creation of heaven and earth, of the soul, and of individual creatures. Manu, son of the first being, performed tapas,very difficult austerities, to create ten great sages who then created seven other Manus, who are progenitors of the human race in each age.

Sikhismfollows Hindu traditions of origins. The Chinese[see next page] have, in the story of the first man, Pangu, a close parallel to the Hindu Purusha.

Buddhataught that this world will come to an end, but that in time a new world will evolve again. Certain karmaswill cause souls to again seek life in the body, others will follow and become more and more attached to the body, developing passion, selfishness and other evils. The Buddhist scripture Saddharma Pundarikamentions that there are so many worlds beyond this one that no one "should be able to imagine, weigh, count or determine their number."

The Jainshold that the world, souls and time are uncreated, unbeginning and unending. The world exists through its own being and is divided into heaven, earth and hell.

Christiansand Jewsbelieve in the making of man by God on the sixth day of creation (some 4,000 years ago) out of clay and in His own image, as told in the Book of Genesis[see next page]. The Muslimsbelieve, similarly, that Allah created Adam, the first man in Paradise, then the first woman, Hawa (Eve). There they lived a perfect life in a perfect universe, far vaster than ours. They were cast to Earth when they committed the first disobedience of God, after a jealous Satan tricked them. Their children are the ancestors of mankind. The Zoroastrianreligion of Persia also holds to the creation story of Adam and Eve.

There are mystical traditions within Christianity, Islam and Judaism whose teachings go beyond Genesis.For example, the Sufimaster Shaykh Muhammad Nazim al-Haqqani taught, "Do you think there was only one Adam? No. There was not one Adam. In fact, there have been 124,000 Adams. Allah is not stingy; He is generous. His creation is endless." Sufi mystics also hold that there are many inhabited worlds in the universe. The JewishKabbalahtradition teaches of man's descent from the highest spiritual world through a series of planes ending with his reincarnation in a physical body.

The Shintoteaching is that the Japanese people are descendants of the Gods Izanagi and Izanami, who were ordered to "Make, consolidate and give birth to this drifting land [of Japan]." This they did and then produced the many Gods, fire, water and men. Among the Gods, the most important was Amaterasu, the Sun God, whose descendent was Jimmu, the first emperor of Japan.

The African Dogontribe teaches that the primal Cosmic Egg was shaken by seven huge stirrings of the universe. It divided into two birth sacs, each containing a set of androgenous twins who were fathered by the Supreme Being, Amma. From one set of twins was born the Earth, from the other, mankind.

Theosophyholds that there are countless universes, each the home of numerous solar systems with planets where beings are evolving. Human history is recounted in terms of seven succeeding "root races." The first, descended from residents of the moon, dwelt on a continent named the imperishable Sacred Land. The second, known as the Hyerborean, inhabited a vast territory in the vicinity of the North Pole. Since neither of those races had physical bodies, they reproduced by spiritual means. The third root race lived and died in Lemuria; the fourth in Atlantis--both now at the ocean bottom. The fifth and present root race is the Aryan; the sixth and seventh have yet to appear. When they do, humanity will have run its course on Earth and will move to another planet to begin the cycle again.

Both the Mayans[see next page] and the ancient Babylonianstaught that the Gods created man to honor them. "I will create a savage, 'man' shall be his name," declared the victorious God Marduk in Enuma Elish."Verily a savage man I will create. He shall be charged with the service of the Gods that they might be at ease! Let one of the [lesser] Gods be handed over. He alone shall perish that mankind may be fashioned."

Sidebar: Could We Have Come From Another Planet?
The scientists who developed the Greenbank Equation at left make a convincing case for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our universe. Sentient life throughout the cosmos provokes the question, "Could man have originated elsewhere and migrated here, either physically or spiritually?" Most religious traditions that address this question speak of the migration as purely spiritual, but at least one claims the journey was physical. Below are some of mankind's reflections about how we came to be here.

Signs of a Common Heritage
In examining the creation stories of the world's faiths, one thing strikes a Hindu: nearly every account of creation has some parallel within Hindu mythology. Anthropologists explain all these parallels in a psychological fashion--water symbolizes the womb, etc. But perhaps all cultures are harkening back to the experiences of a common ancestry.

The American Indians of California, for example, tell of how God sent an animal down through the waters to bring up the Earth, in the same way that the Boar incarnation of Lord Vishnu rescued the Earth from beneath the waters.

The Chinese Pangu is amazingly akin to the sacrificed original man in the Purusha Sukta. In many cultures, man was originally immortal, and only at a certain time did he start to die--just as Yama in Hinduism was the first man to die, and then became the Lord of death. Another common element is the breath of God being infused into man, bringing him to life.

Did We Come from the Sky?
The authoritative Larousse World Mythologybook states, "There is an almost universal belief in a visit by the first men to the sky, and consequently in the existence of a path between the Earth and the world above that was ultimately destroyed by human wrongdoing." There are common elements in the creation stories which indicate we had a different kind of existence before living in these physical bodies. One example is androgyny; the original people in the creation stories are often both male and female. Another is the absolute harmony of existence in an earlier time when people lived in peace and freely communicated with the animals and plants. A third is the initial absence of death, a fact of life which comes later, as previously described.

Hindu scriptures often speak of the many lokasor planes of existence and dvipaor islands. They talk of beings coming from other lokasto this loka,possibly even of spaceships in which they could travel. These lokas,however, are more commonly interpreted as other dimensions of existence rather than physical planets.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON, addressed this question in his commentary of Srimad Bhagavatam:"According to Vedic understanding, the entire universe is regarded as an ocean of space. In that ocean there are innumerable planets, and each planet is called a dvipa,or island. The various planets are divided into fourteen lokas.As Priyavrata drove his chariot behind the sun, he created seven different types of oceans and planetary systems, known as Bhuloka." Srila Prabhupada also stated that according to the Vedic tradition there are 400,000 species in the universe with humanlike form, many of them advanced beyond us.

Other parts of Hindu scripture refer to travel to other worlds. The Rig Vedahymns on death speak of man's soul traveling to the sun and the moon, then returning to Earth.

Certainly the most dramatic example of a people who believe they came from another planet is the Tana Toraja tribe in the Celebes Highlands of Java, Indonesia. They declare their ancestors came from the Pleiades on space ships. In fact, they continue to build their homes to look like those ships today. This tribe had no contact with the outside world until this century, and had no way of knowing that space travel was even possible.

On a purely materialistic basis, scientists have made the case for at least the very first elementary life coming to Earth from outer space, probably arriving frozen solid inside a meteor. This hypothesis is called panspermia,meaning the migration of living spores from planet to planet throughout space. There is a class of meteors called carbonaceous chondrites with organic compounds in them and microscopic particles resembling, but not identical to, fossil algae of the kind that live in water.

There is another school among the scientists which includes Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, co-discover of the DNA molecule. Crick advocated a theory of "directed panspermia"--the possibility that an older civilization sent a mission to start life on our newly evolving planet. A single capsule of several elementary organisms would, he claimed, suffice to bring life to Earth. "This might suggest," Crick said, "that we have cousins on planets which are not too distant."

In modern times the concept of coming from other planets is advocated by the Theosophists. The first two of their postulated seven root races had nonphysical bodies. They teach that when the last root race has appeared, humanity will have run its course of evolution on earth and will move to another planet to begin the cycle again.

We can now see that there is hope for a more secure future when we put together in our inner mind all the information that we have gathered on these four pages. A future that maybe, yes, maybe there is telepathic communication going on, more than we know. A future that yes, maybe, just maybe there are beings from outer space, physically, astrally and in refined bodies of the soul eager and willing to populate--or if we are not careful in our nuclear age, repopulate--the little spinning planet we have come to know as home. The wise look to the past to know the future. We do hope that by looking at our beginnings we have helped in some way the peoples of the world to forge a fulfilling future. Maybe, just maybe, all the answers are not to be found in our intellects. Some may exist in the old creation stories, or be projected to us from inner and outerspace.

Sidebar: SETI - The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence --
The Green Bank Formula: How Scientists Conclude There is Intelligent Life Elsewhere in Our Galaxy.
N = n fp ne fl fi fc L
The Green Bank Formula shown above is a way to statistically guess the possible number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, the Milky Way. It is not the result of a UFO conference, but rather sober calculations made when US scientists first set out to detect life elsewhere in the galaxy by listening for coded radio signals from them. The explanation of the equation given below is from the book Cosmosby astrophysicist Carl Sagan.

Who could we talk to "out there" with our present level of technology? The answer, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is that with our present most powerful radio telescope we could send and receive intelligible signals "a rather astonishing 1,000 light years. Within that range are over ten million stars."

nis the number of stars in our Milky Way galaxy, estimated at 400 billion stars.

fpis the number of planets. One in three stars may have a solar system, averaging perhaps ten planets each, for a total of 1,300 billion planets.Since 1995 more than six

neis the number of planets that can support life. Since life exists on Earth in a wide range of temperature and environment, this is guessed at two per system. That gives a total of 300 billion planets on which life might evolve.

flis the number of such planets which might actually develop some form of life. It is estimated by Sagan (based on the range of scientific opinion) at one in three. That means there could be a 100 billion inhabited worlds.

fiis the likelihood of intelligent life developing. Such a development might be rare, or it might be inevitable. Sagan uses the conservative figure of one in ten. We could have in our galaxy an estimated ten billion worlds with intelligent life.

fcis the number of those planets with intelligent life which develop a technological civilization capable of interstellar communication. This is estimated at one in ten, for a total of one billion technically advancedcivilizationsin the galaxy.

Lis the final factor. Does an advanced civilization destroy itself, as we on Earth seem inclined to do, or does it endure for millions of years? If even one percent survive, states Sagan, "The number of such advanced living civilizationsis in the millions."

**panntastic** · 04-16-2013, 02:43 PM

WOW MARCUS!!!!!!
My mind is truly blown mate
The dating post wayyyyy over my head but the origin of man post love it
Certainly opened my eyes.
Great to read others views on it even from African tribes.

Great read definitely copy and pasting that for future reading
Great work

**RaginCajun** · 04-16-2013, 03:02 PM

Aliens!

**panntastic** · 04-17-2013, 12:49 AM

Why we aren't finding fossilised human:

The fossil record is extremely incomplete, due to the rarity of fossilization occuring. If we had a complete record, many areas of evolutionary theory would be totally different.

Bill Bryson puts this point across brilliantly in "A Short History Of Nearly Everything":

"It isn't easy to become a fossil. The fate of nearly all living organisms - over 99.9 per cent of them - is to compost down to nothingness... even if you make it into the small pool of organisms, the less than 0.1 per cent, that don't get devoured, the chances of being fossilized are very small...

"...Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today - that's 270 million people with 206 bones each - will only be about 50 bones, one-quarter of a complete skeleton. That's not to say, of course, that any of these bones will ever actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slighly over 9.3 million square kilometres, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they ever were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousand has made it into the fossil record. That in itself is a stunningly infinitesimal proprtion.

"...Moreover the record we do have is hopelessly skewed. Most land animals, of course, don't die in sediments. They drop in the open and are eaten or left to rot or weather down to nothing. The fossil record, consequently, is almost absurdly biased in favour of marine creatures. About 95 per cent of all the fossils we possess are of animals that once lived under water, mostly in shallow seas."

**tigerspawn** · 04-17-2013, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by marcus300

What are your personal thoughts on what is life all about?

Be as broad minded or small minded as you like what does life mean to you and what do you think its all about?

Life is about growth. One must constantly strive to grow mentally, physically, and spiritually in order to get the most out of life. Once we stop growing we become stagnant and our fire slowly fades until it goes out.

**stackedbro** · 04-17-2013, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by tigerspawn

Life is about growth. One must constantly strive to grow mentally, physically, and spiritually in order to get the most out of life. Once we stop growing we become stagnant and our fire slowly fades until it goes out.

This is good. But what's most important is to enjoy our stay on earth. Like most said our time here is limited. As long as we are happy, by doing whatever makes us internally. It should be everyone's goal to make an impact as well. So generations to come will remember you for one thing or another

**marcus300** · 04-17-2013, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by panntastic

Why we aren't finding fossilised human:

The fossil record is extremely incomplete, due to the rarity of fossilization occuring. If we had a complete record, many areas of evolutionary theory would be totally different.

Bill Bryson puts this point across brilliantly in "A Short History Of Nearly Everything":

"It isn't easy to become a fossil. The fate of nearly all living organisms - over 99.9 per cent of them - is to compost down to nothingness... even if you make it into the small pool of organisms, the less than 0.1 per cent, that don't get devoured, the chances of being fossilized are very small...

"...Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today - that's 270 million people with 206 bones each - will only be about 50 bones, one-quarter of a complete skeleton. That's not to say, of course, that any of these bones will ever actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slighly over 9.3 million square kilometres, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they ever were. Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousand has made it into the fossil record. That in itself is a stunningly infinitesimal proprtion.

"...Moreover the record we do have is hopelessly skewed. Most land animals, of course, don't die in sediments. They drop in the open and are eaten or left to rot or weather down to nothing. The fossil record, consequently, is almost absurdly biased in favour of marine creatures. About 95 per cent of all the fossils we possess are of animals that once lived under water, mostly in shallow seas."

Very interesting Pann but when resesarching about man kind and humans I came across this site regarding DNA testing which is remarkable

Ancient DNA which ive posted below, it also shows that earth is a lot older than what the bible states which again cast doubts upon what is fact or fiction i9n the bible. I also did some research on Neandethal which I will post at the end and these suppose to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago

A compilation of DNA haplotypes extracted
from ancient remains

The Beothuks

An extinct Native American tribe indigenous to Newfoundland and Labrador, mtDNA has been extracted from the dentine of Chief Nonosabasut, and wife, Demasduit. In 1819, Chief Nonosabasut and his small tribe of Beothuks, encountered a party of ten armed English settlers at Red Indian Lake. A conflict ensued in which the chief was killed and Demasduit was taken prisoner, but died soon thereafter from tuberculosis. (More)

Also significant to note is that Nonosabasut's Y-chromosome DNA was SNP confirmed haplogroup Q.

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Nonosabasut X2a 093C,189C,213A,223T,278T
Demasduit C 223T,298C,325C,327T

Cheddar Man

In 1903, skeletal remains were found in a cave in Cheddar, England. The remains of a 23 year-old man, who was killed by a blow to the face, were discovered to be at least 9,000 years old. Ninety-four years after the discovery of "Cheddar Man", scientists were able to extract mitochondrial DNA from his tooth cavity.

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Cheddar Man U5a 16192T, 16270T

Bryan Sykes, and his team at Oxford University distributed DNA test kits to local Cheddar schools, and a match was found to a local schoolteacher, Adrian Targett. (More) on Cheddar Man.

Ice Man - Otzi of Italy

Widely known as "Otzi (Oetzi)" the Iceman found in 1991 in the Italian Alps, is also known as "Similaun Man". Of the Neolithic era, Otzi lived between 3350-3300 B.C. in the "Copper Age". He was believed to be 46-years old when he died at the top of a mountain pass from wounds received. (More)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Ice Man K 16224C, 16311C

Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi

In 1999, hikers came across human remains in a melting British Columbia glacier. Named Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi which means "long-ago person found", was a young man between the ages of 17-22, believed to have died around 550 years ago. (Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Kwäday Dän Ts’ìnchi A 16111T, 16189C, 16223T, 16290T, 16319A, 16362C

Ice Maiden - "Juanita" of Peru

Also known as "Juanita", the Inca Ice Maiden was discovered on Mount Ampato, near Arequipa, Peru by Johann Reinhard in 1995. She was sacrificed sometime around the ages of 12-14 and lived about 500 years ago. Her body lay frozen at the mountaintop until a nearby volcanic eruption melted Mount Ampato's ice cap.

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Ice Maiden A 16111T, 16223T, 16290T, 16319A

The Last Viking King

One of the world's oldest maternity cases has been solved utilizing mitochondrial DNA. Sven II Estridsen (c.1020-1074), the last Viking king of Denmark, and ancestor of all subsequent kings of Denmark is entombed in Roskilde Cathedral with other Danish royals. It was believed that Sven's mother, Estrid, was entombed in a pillar across the chancel. Lingering doubts about Estrid's identity have now been resolved through DNA testing proving that Estrid was not Sven's mother.
(Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Sven H 7028C

Lichtenstein Cave Bronze-Age Family

Through anthropological DNA testing, the first prehistoric family tree has been established. From a group of forty human remains found in the Lichtenstein cave, near Dorste, Lower Saxony, Germany, viable DNA was extracted from three related individuals.
(Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Do-3706 & Do-3709 T

Y-chromosome DYS#

DYS#

3
9
3

3
9
0

1
9

3
9
1

3
8
5
a

3
8
5
b

3
8
9
|
I
3
9
2 3
8
9
|
2 4
3
9 4
3
7 4
3
8
Do-1482 13 25 15 11 17 13 12 11 27 11 15 10

Luke the Evangelist - aka St. Luke

A doctor, but better known as the biblical author of the "Gospel According to Luke", Luke the Evangelist was believed to have been born in Antioch, in the Roman province of Syria. Historical sources cite that he died at the age of 84 in Thebes (Greece) around the year 150 A.D. His body was interred first in Constantinople, and then later transferred to Padua, Italy. Geneticists have tested the remains believed to be those of Luke, and sampled Syrian and Greek populations for comparison. They've determined that the body attributed as Luke's, is likely of Syrian origin.
(Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Luke H 16235G, 16291T

Medieval Mummy From Yangju

Medieval mummies have been found in Korea since 1968. Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA analysis was conducted on a 17th-century male child mummy discovered in 2001. (Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Yangju Mummy D4 16223T 16362C 73G 263G 309.1C 315.1C 489C

Y-chromosome DYS#

DYS#

3
9
3

3
9
0

1
9

3
9
1

3
8
9
|
I
3
9
2
Yangju Mummy 13 22 15 10 14 13

The Norwich Anglo-Saxon

Is the Anglo-Saxon skeleton found at Norwich Castle indeed of Romani origin as stated in the media? (Source) Or does the young Anglo-Saxon just share a partial haplotype similar to a Romani? (View sequences)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Anglo-Saxon X 16189A, 16223T, 16271C, 16278T

mtDNA Sequences From "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"

mtDNA extracted from human remains contained in two ossuaries recovered from the Talpiot tomb in Jerusalem; one ossuary labeled "Jesus" and the other labeled "Mariamene e Mara" provided conclusive evidence that the two individuals did not share a common maternal line ancestor. (Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Jesus ? 270G, 278T
Mariamene e Mara ? 290G

Paglicci Cave Cro-Magnons

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of two circa 24,000 year-old Cro-Magnons demonstrates a drastic difference between Neandertals and modern mtDNA sequences. The conclusion rules out random mating between Neandertals and humans. (Source)

*Paglicci-25 might be pre-HV

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Paglicci-25* HV 73A, 719G, 308A
Paglicci-12 N 223T

Shuká Kaa

Shuká Kaa (which means "Man Before Us") really was before the native Alaskans currently living in the region near On Your Knees Cave where he was found. Testing of 234 Alaska Indians and 163 Aleuts did not yield a mitochondrial DNA match to 10,300 year-old Shuká Kaa. (Source)

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Shuká Kaa D4h3

The "Starchild" Skulls

The "Starchild" skulls debuted on the National Geographic Channel show "Is It Real" Ancient Astronauts. Is the "Starchild" skull categorized as SCS-1 really a deformed human skull or that of an alien-human hybrid? (More) Mitochondrial DNA extracted from both skulls confirms (unrelated) Native American maternal ancestry. (Source) Interestingly, the SCS-1 mtDNA matches that of Demasduit.

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

SA-1 A 223T, 290T, 319A
SCS-1 C 223T,298C,325C,327T

Zana and Khwit

DNA extracted from skulls purported to be Zana, and her son, Khwit, were profiled on the National Geographic Channel show "Is It Real" Russian Bigfoot. (More) The question testing sought to answer was whether the supposed "Almas", were really Neanderthals who survived into modern times. Mitochondrial DNA analyzed from both skulls confirms a shared maternal line ancestor of human origins, with no Neanderthal mutations.

Name

Haplo

Haplotype

Zana ? T16189C
Khwit ? T16189C

The DNA Saga of King Tut

Will he or won't he be tested? That is the question! In December 2000, a team of Japanese scientists announced that they had received approval to DNA test the most famous of ancient Egypt's kings. (Source) By 2001, Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities reversed their decision to allow testing. (Source) Another announcement to do forensic testing on King Tut came in 2004, but was halted after a public outcry. (Source)

Western European DNA found in Central Asia

DNA analysis of the remains of nomadic peoples in Kazakhstan provides evidence of Western genetic influence in Asia between the 15th century BC and the 5th century AD. (Source)

mtDNA Lineages from the Basques of Aldaieta

HVR1 mitochondrial DNA sequences from a 6th-7th century Basque burial site reveals a diverse genetic population indicating that the Basques may not have been an "isolated" population. (Source)

2,000 Year-Old Cemetery in Egyin Gol Valley, Mongolia

mtDNA, Y-chromosome DNA and nuclear DNA was successfully extracted from a Mongolian cemetery containing 99 individuals. (Source)

Neanderthal DNA

Several ancient Neanderthal remains have been typed and found to differ significantly from human mitochondrial DNA. (Source) Amazingly, a team of scientists in Germany have recovered and sequenced Y-chromosome DNA from a 49,000 year-old Neanderthal

Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Neanderthals or Neandertals (English pronunciation /niˈændərˌθɔːlz/, /niˈændərˌtɔːlz/, /niˈændərˌtɑːlz/ or /neɪˈɑːndərˌtɑːlz/[1]) are an extinct species or subspecies of the genus Homo which is closely related to modern humans. They are known from fossils, dating from the Pleistocene period, which have been found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. The species is named after Neandertal ("Neander's Valley"), the location in Germany where it was first discovered.

Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis).[2] The first humans with proto-Neanderthal traits are believed to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.[3]

When the Neanderthals went extinct is disputed. Fossils found in the Vindija Cave in Croatia have been dated to between 33,000 and 32,000 years old, and Neanderthal artefacts from Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar are believed to be less than 30,000 years ago, but a recent study has re-dated fossils at two Spanish sites as 45,000 years old, 10,000 years older than previously thought, and may cast doubt on recent dates at other sites. Cro-Magnon (early-modern-human) skeletal remains showing certain "Neanderthal traits" have been found in Lagar Velho (Portugal) and dated to 24,500 years ago, suggesting that there may have been an extensive admixture of the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal populations in that region.[4]

Several cultural assemblages have been linked to the Neanderthals in Europe. The earliest, the Mousterian stone tool culture, dates to about 300,000 years ago.[5] Late Mousterian artifacts were found in Gorham's Cave on the south-facing coast of Gibraltar.[6][7] Other tool cultures associated with the Neanderthals include the Châtelperronian, the Aurignacian, and the Gravettian; their tool assemblages appear to have developed gradually within their populations, rather than being introduced by new population groups arriving in the region.[8]

Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of modern humans, perhaps larger, indicating that their brain size may have been comparable, or larger, as well. In 2008, a group of scientists created a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria. The study showed Neanderthal and modern human brains were the same size at birth, but by adulthood, the Neanderthal brain was larger than the modern human brain.[9] They were much stronger than modern humans, having particularly strong arms and hands.[10] Males stood 164–168 cm (65–66 in) and females about 152–156 cm (60–61 in) tall.[11]

Genetic evidence published in 2010 suggests that Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of anatomically modern humans, probably through interbreeding between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago with the population of anatomically modern humans who had recently migrated from Africa. According to the study, by the time that population began dispersing across Eurasia, Neanderthals genes constituted as much as 1–4% of its genome.[12][13][14]

**marcus300** · 04-17-2013, 01:47 AM

DNA Tests on Neanderthal Man

DNA tests are commonly used in modern forensic crime, but they are also used by historians trying to unlock the secrets lost over tens of thousands of years. And DNA tests unearthed clues last year on the secrets of Neanderthal man. It has been considered impossible to map the entire genetic make-up of extinct species - and it sounds like a storyline in Jurassic Park - but DNA tests on shreds of DNA found in a Neanderthal bone could help recreate the entire genetic make-up of that extinct human species.

DNA Tests Contribute to the Meaning of Life

But DNA tests have helped make major contributions to understanding the Neanderthals. And unlocking the mysteries of this human species takes scientists a step closer to understanding the evolution of the human race. DNA tests can help explain eye colour, body shape, the big noses Neanderthals featured and brain and speech capacity. Of course obtaining DNA from Neanderthals for DNA tests is incredibly difficult, and only tiny scraps have been studied. But DNA tests so far reveal that the Neanderthal and modern man have around 99.5 to 99.9 per cent identical genomes.

DNA Tests on 38,000-Year-Old Neanderthal Bones

Neanderthal man became extinct 30,000 years ago, but scientists say they could have somehow contributed to the human gene pool. The most recent DNA tests on Neanderthal bones were carried out on fragments of male bone said to be 38,000 years old. The bone was discovered in Croatia - there are just 70 known specimens in the world.

The Miracles of Modern Science

DNA tests on such ancient bones demonstrate how miraculous modern science can be - one of the professors in the team of scientists studying Neanderthal DNA dubbed the research as a “DNA time machine”. Although the team however put to rest any Jurassic Park inspired thoughts - “We are never going to bring Neanderthals back to life,” the Professor said. Such a thing would not be possible on a modern human being let alone on the deteriorated DNA of a 38,000 year-old Neanderthal man.

Bookmark and Share
Speak To International Bioscience About DNA Tests

International Biosciences offer a broad range of DNA Tests and services designed to provide indisputable answers to emotional questions. Whether you seek to establish paternity, prove siblingship or research genealogy, for legal definition or peace of mind, we are able to provide the appropriate DNA Tests at competitive rates, professionally and confidentially. Using state of the art technology we are able to provide conclusive evidence on time, every time.

**marcus300** · 04-17-2013, 01:51 AM

DNA recovered from 60,000-Year-Old Man - ScienceNOW

Scientists say they have successfully extracted DNA from an anatomically modern man who died on the shores of an Australian lake about 60,000 years ago. The sequence is so primitive that it raises questions about the leading model of human origins, the "Out of Africa" theory, which holds that our ancestors first arose in Africa, then spread throughout the world perhaps 100,000 years ago.
DNA studies from living populations have repeatedly pointed to a recent African origin for humans. By analyzing variations in modern DNA sequences and tracing their "roots" backwards in time, scientists have concluded that everybody now alive stems from African ancestors who replaced earlier types of humans without interbreeding. But another model, called multiregionalism, is favored by a determined minority of anthropologists. They suggest that people coming from Africa interbred with earlier humans already living in various parts of the Old World.

The underdog theory may gain some support. A team led by anthropologist Alan Thorne of Australia National University in Canberra says that they extracted mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 10 fossils, including a 60,000 year-old-man known as LM3 who was found near Lake Mungo. LM3 is "possibly the oldest human from which DNA has been recovered," Thorne says. Even more intriguing, the scientists identified a sequence that is now extinct in human mtDNA, they report in an online manuscript that will appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Thorne says the fact that an Australian--and not an African--has yielded the most primitive-looking DNA yet found in an anatomically modern human is strong evidence that not all our ancestors stem from Africa.

"For many years people have been saying Out of Africa is correct because the genetic evidence is consistent," says John Relethford of State University of New York College at Oneonta. But the Australian study "suggests that if we saw more ancient sequences we might get a very different picture than we get from looking only at the DNA of living populations."

**panntastic** · 04-17-2013, 02:22 AM

Great read Marcus
I remember learning about the cheddar man in school

Any idea if they ever recovered DNA from the frozen wooly mammoth they round out in the ice?

http://news.discovery.com/animals/en...und-121005.htm

**marcus300** · 04-17-2013, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by panntastic

Great read Marcus
I remember learning about the cheddar man in school

Any idea if they ever recovered DNA from the frozen wooly mammoth they round out in the ice?

Russian Boy Finds Wooly Mammoth : Discovery News

That's interesting because it states the mammoth had died aged 15-16 around 30,000 years ago, adding his tusk, skin, an eye and an ear were clearly visible. Just shows you the mounting evidence of the age of the earth with these finding and DNA sampling. Ive learnt a lot with this thread great reading

**panntastic** · 04-17-2013, 02:30 AM

It truly opens the mind of those which chose to allow it that's for sure

**panntastic** · 04-17-2013, 11:12 AM

Anybody else got anything to add to this?

There's a lot interesting info here and Marcus aswell as others have gone though a great deal of research to present that to the board.

**Flagg** · 04-17-2013, 11:26 AM

What's life about? Well life is about evolving, much like this thread has! Will be reading the last couple pages to see what i've missed in that time.

I do hope things didn't get too heated. I know 405 and BG are men of faith and it may have looked as if some of us, myself included, may have imposed some of the science a little too heavily!

**tigerspawn** · 04-17-2013, 11:31 AM

Damn Marcus, thanks for all the information you never fail to impress.

**fitizens_united** · 04-17-2013, 02:49 PM

This thread looks like it deviated a bit from the original post LOL.

I had a massive existential hangover for many years in high school and college. I've studied and traveled a lot to learn about different world philosophies and religions, and have spent a few years in Hinduism, Taoism, Catholicism, Christian Evangelism, Islam, and even Zoroastrianism, and even went through a phase of Atheism. I've settled on Christianity and Buddhism (I believe in salvation through Christ AND the teachings of Siddhartha).

I had a troubled childhood to begin with. I'm not blaming my choices on circumstance, but it does go to note that in between the adoption system, an overwhelming amount of child abuse, and an inner-city upbringing, I had a lot of reasons to be 'messed up'. For a long time I was depressed, overweight, unmotivated, antisocial, suicidal, substance abusive, and extremely cynical. I kept trying to wrap my head around the Universe and understand myself. I drove friends and family away and lost my home. (this was near the end of highschool). I spent two years out on the streets trying to put myself together. Somewhere in the middle of all that I tried my hand at asceticism. For anyone who doesn't know, that's the buddhist/hindi notion of setting aside worldly desires and trying to separate one's mind from the body.

Once I understood why I felt the way that I did, and began to see the world for what it was, I could finally take the first steps that I wanted to take. I had nothing that made or limited decisions for me, because I was able to truly start with nothing. Every decision I made directly impacted my life, and they were MY decisions. From then until now (about 4-5 years), I went back and...

-finished high school, received almost a full-ride to the University of Michigan
-lost the remaining 200 lbs
-became passionate about new hobbies (including lifting & overall fitness)
-connected with old friends and made new ones
-reached out to everyone that I hurt during my depression and made amends
-began speaking at public events and reaching out to people my age
-found a career I can appreciate and find fulfillment in
-met the love of my life (4 years and still going)

In the end, none of us are born with a purpose. We create a purpose for ourselves using the experiences, memories, and passions that we come by through just living. I've calmed down a lot since my teenager years, and I've come to learn that the purpose I've made for myself is to reach out to others and help them find theirs. In our darkest moments, when we have nothing, we are given the rare opportunity to start everything over. That's one lesson I live by everyday, and make no regrets in anything that I do.

**RaginCajun** · 04-17-2013, 06:14 PM

Here is something I stumbled onto today. It is Stephen Hawkings discussing the origin of the universe.

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http:/...dvYHoAg&wsc=bf

**drake4243** · 04-17-2013, 06:24 PM

I really want to be strong, every day that passes by this feeling keeps growing I don’t want to be cut up or in comp shape anymore. I just want to be in the elite category with my strength. I have a long way to go but since I am only 27 I think I can get there I hope so . Also to always be a man of my word that comes before anything.

**marcus300** · 04-17-2013, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by 00ragincajun00

Here is something I stumbled onto today. It is Stephen Hawkings discussing the origin of the universe.

Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God - Science

Havent got time to reads this but will do later today thanks

**panntastic** · 04-18-2013, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by 00ragincajun00

Here is something I stumbled onto today. It is Stephen Hawkings discussing the origin of the universe.

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http:/...dvYHoAg&wsc=bf

Extract from the article discussing M theory

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

Great read
Professor Hawking is amazing
I agree with m theory
I believe there will be life out there and that we come from the singularity

**panntastic** · 04-18-2013, 03:35 PM

NASA's Kepler Discovers its Smallest 'Habitable Zone' Planets to Date

Interesting read also

**panntastic** · 04-18-2013, 03:44 PM

Just stepping back a few pages and some people choose not to agree in the singularity or the Big Bang that's fine
Some members believe a higher being or god created the known universe as it stands and everything in it this to is fine.

I have a question about creationism
Did it stop after gods 6 days of work?
Or is the the creating infinite?

The only reason I ask is if it is indeed infinite why does the bible state 6 days?
And I wonder if anybody can explain this picture?
Yet again this isn't an attack on religion I just need to get a broader understanding that is all.

**RaginCajun** · 04-18-2013, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by marcus300

Havent got time to reads this but will do later today thanks

Originally Posted by panntastic

Extract from the article discussing M theory

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

Great read
Professor Hawking is amazing
I agree with m theory
I believe there will be life out there and that we come from the singularity

Aliens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**panntastic** · 04-18-2013, 03:50 PM

Always about the aliens with you isn't it

Lol

**RaginCajun** · 04-18-2013, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by panntastic

Always about the aliens with you isn't it

Lol

aliens and women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**marcus300** · 04-18-2013, 11:31 PM

Very interesting stuff been posted, keep it up love reading it

**panntastic** · 04-20-2013, 02:12 AM

Dr. Kaku: In Stephen's new book, he says that the Theory of Everything that Einstein spent 30 years of his life chasing is string theory (or its latest incarnation, M-theory).

In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.

But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.

Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.

This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time. (But Hawking goes one step farther and says that therefore here is no need of God, since God is not necessary to create the universe. I wouldn't go that far. See a previous blog entry on my attitude towards that.)

An extract from

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-univers...out-of-nothing

**panntastic** · 04-20-2013, 02:56 AM

The Universe Could Not Have Been Created by God Logic Versus Supposition

The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe. If it is valid to say "everything has a cause except God", it is more likely that everything has a cause except the Universe. If God doesn't need a cause because it is infinite, it is more likely that the natural Universe has existed forever and therefore doesn't need a cause.

Everything Must Have a Cause (Except One Thing)

The Complexity of God and the Simplicity of the Natural Laws

The Existence of God is Not Enough to Explain the Universe

God Doesn't Need a Cause Because It Has Existed Forever

The Nature of God's Thoughts
Logic Must Predate the First Cause

Saying God is 'Outside' Logic
Conclusions

1. Everything Must Have a Cause (Except One Thing)

People who believe in god (theists) subscribe to the theistic idea that the Universe was the work of a creator-god. They say that 'god did it', and although many books have been written about the details, there are fundamental problems with the whole idea that a god created the Universe.

They say that all things must have a cause, and therefore, god exists as the 'first cause' of everything else. These people ask questions like "Who do you think created you?" and "Do you think the Universe came out of nothing... who do you think created it?". These types of questions both rely on the "everything must have a cause, therefore God exists" argument. But this argument doesn't work. Examine these points:

If god-believers say that 'everything must have a cause' and state that this means that god exists, then, they have missed a part of their declaration out. Their true belief is that "everything must have a cause, apart from God". The term for God as the cause of everything is the 'first cause', so, this is the same as saying "everything must have a cause, apart from the first cause".

God isn't a simple thing; it has thoughts, motivations (to create, to love, etc), it has powers, imagination and its thoughts are themselves ordered logically and coherently so that it can plan things and think about things in a sensible way. In short, God is quite a complicated being.

These two facts combined to produce the more accurate first-cause argument:

Theists believe that everything must have a cause, apart from the complicated self-created first-cause that has a coherent internal logic.

This means that the "everything must have a cause" part of the argument must be wrong. It is not true that everything must have a cause. In a causal world, there must always be something that has no cause. There is a different word for the belief that a complicated self-created first-cause that has a coherent internal logic requires no first cause: atheism.
This means that the "everything must have a cause" part of the argument must be wrong. It is not true that everything must have a cause. In a causal world, there must always be something that has no cause. There is a different word for the belief that a complicated self-created first-cause that has a coherent internal logic requires no first cause: atheism. Because if such a complicated thing can exist without a cause, then that first-cause could well be an atheistic Universe, complete with a few internal physical laws. If you argue that everything has a cause except for god, then, you might as well argue that everything has a cause except the universe, and admit that there is no need to theorize that God exists. So if you accept the first-cause argument then it does not prove that God exists, but instead it proves that the Universe could be without a creator at all.

2. The Complexity of God and the Simplicity of the Natural Laws

Some philosophers have even realized that God is more complicated than an uncaused Big Bang. When it comes to comparing arguments where there is no hope of actually getting any physical evidence, there is a long-standing heuristic to help distinguish between theories, called Occam's Razor: it turns out that when all evidence is accounted for, the simpler of any two theories is more likely to be the correct one. The theory with fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. God requires many properties and complexities such as consciousness, thought, personality, creative drive, love, an internal logic ordering its thoughts so that it can think coherently and rationally, etc: All of these properties must have been derived from somewhere. It turns out that God is a vastly more complicated thing that the Big Bang and the fundamental laws of the Universe.

"The scientist, however, may wish to challenge the assumption that an infinite mind (God) is simpler than the universe. In our experience, mind only exists in physical systems that are above a certain threshold of complexity [...] While it is possible to imagine a disembodied mind, there must be some means of expression of the pattern, and the pattern itself is complex. So it could be argued that an infinite mind is infinitely complex and hence far less likely than a universe. [...]

According to our best scientific understanding of the primeval universe it does indeed seem as though the universe began in the simplest state of all - thermodynamic equilibrium - and that the currently-observed complex structures and elaborate activity only appeared subsequently. It might then be argued that the primeval universe is, in fact, the simplest thing that we can imagine."

"God And The New Physics" by Paul Davies (1984)

There are fewer unanswered questions if we discard the complexities of a creator-god, and admit that atheism is more likely. If "everything must have a cause except for the first cause" then that first cause is much more likely to be an atheistic universe with its few basic laws, than a more-complicated creator-god.

3. The Existence of God is Not Enough to Explain the Universe

It is not enough to say that "God exists" as the explanation as to why the Universe exists. If a God created the Universe, then, why did it do so? God must have had thoughts - a creative impulse - to create the space-time continuum. Therefore it is the properties and thoughts of God that explain the Universe, not the mere fact that God exists. God could easily exist for all of its eternity, existing in perfection in a perfect world, without creating the Universe. So saying that God explains the existence of the Universe is not the whole story.

"If God has a plan for the universe, which is implemented as part of his will, why does he not simply create a deterministic universe in which the goal of the plan is inevitable? Or better still create it with the plan achieved?"

"God And The New Physics" by Paul Davies (1984)

Unfortunately there have been no comprehensive or compelling arguments as to why God created the Universe. This is a problem that effects not only monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but also other religions such as Buddhism: Sages from all these religions have tried to explained why existence is the way it is, complete with suffering and death, but none have given a straight answer as to why any of it needed to exist at all.

4. God Doesn't Need a Cause Because It Has Existed Forever

Some theists argue that God is eternal and was therefore never created. But I find this is an argument that can be used in conjunction with Big Bang theory to prove, again, that god is not likely to exist as a first cause. According to some Big Bang theories there has been an infinite number of cycles of Big Bang / Big Crunch (where the Universe ends in a big black hole after contracting, before exploding again) and that the Universe has existed forever. If it is possible for something to exist forever and not need a cause then it is likely to be the Universe, not God, and once again we can theorize that this is likely to be true because there would be no reason for god if it was true that something could exist with no cause.

5. The Nature of God's Thoughts

5.1. Logic Must Predate the First Cause

In order to create, to think, God's thoughts must be more than random. To create the universe and time, God must be able to think logically. If it can't think logically, then, the laws of the universe were simply random, and the Universe might as well been self-created in an atheistic manner. In other words, for God to exist, God's thoughts must have always been ordered in a logical manner otherwise God could never have created order from chaos.

This means that logic is a precursor to God. Logic, with its simple relations and rules that lets thought itself be ordered, must have existed independently of God's creative power. God could not have created the logic because requires logical thoughts to do any meaningful creating.
This results in two conclusions:
In theology-speak, the first cause is the description given to the creator of the universe, time, the laws of physics, etc. But it seems that in order for the first cause to be a creator-god, then that god cannot have created logic, and cannot therefore be the first cause after all. In other words, the fact that God needs to think logically in order to create means that God itself cannot be the creator of everything, only of parts of reality. In other words, there cannot be any monotheistic creator god.

If God chose to create anything then it must have had reasons to do so. God's "will" is not random, meaningless, chaotic or thoughtless. This means that these "reasons" are dependent on pure logic and must have driven god to do its very first act of creation. These motivations, this initial logic, will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception. If there was no logic and no motivation, God did not create anything on purpose. In that case, you might as well admit that the Universe created itself randomly, and that no creator God was required.

If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, or, if God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, then, god's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, and, gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, then God cannot be the First Cause, and therefore, creator-god theism is false, and atheism is true.

5.2. Saying God is 'Outside' Logic

Some theists will make assertions that god is "outside of outside", "beyond logic", "transcends logic", "not subject to logical limitations" or that "human logic is limited" and other similar argument-stoppers. Although this at first appears to throw all intellectualizing out the window, kick all theology out the front door and firmly garrison the houses of religion from debate, it actually opens up the theist to some further criticisms.

If "Human logic" is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is pointless. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place.

If God behaves according to logic that we don't understand (i.e.: Human logic is limited) then God is still behaving according to logic, even if it is logic we don't understand.

To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilities that cannot logically exist, making God into fantasy.

"Beyond logic" is a synonym for "irrational", and admissions that beliefs are "beyond logic" is an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible.

If God is beyond logic, is it not true that atheists are at least somewhat more rational and logical in their beliefs? It seems to be!

6. Conclusions

If God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an arch-power that encompasses God and gives reason for god's existence which appears to refute the idea that God could be the creator of logic. The God as first-cause argument is partially undermined. If there is no logical reason why God exists then it is more likely that there no logical reason why the Universe exists, and that instead of assuming that the organisational force is a 'god', it's simpler and more rational to assume that it is the universe itself. It appears that whether God exists for logical reasons or not a fundamental contradiction occurs. The only answer is that creator-gods cannot possibly exist. Atheism is more logical. This is also true if God is placed "beyond logic". And if it is said that Human logic is incapable of realizing such metaphysical truths, then this also undermines any argument that can be made by one human to another, for the existence of god.

Theistic arguments that God is 'beyond logic' or at least, beyond human understanding, place God firmly into the territory of irrational fantasy. To retreat into the corner where logic itself is denied, god-believers have admitted that there is no logical basis for their belief. At this point, it is better to try to understand the idea of God in terms of human psychology.

**MR-FQ320** · 04-20-2013, 11:31 AM

^^^^^ best post ever.

**marcus300** · 04-20-2013, 12:05 PM

Woooow keep reading over and over great posts

**panntastic** · 04-20-2013, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by MR-FQ320

^^^^^ best post ever.

I found that this morning when doing some more research and was too good not to share on the thread

**MR-FQ320** · 04-20-2013, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by panntastic

I found that this morning when doing some more research and was too good not to share on the thread

Thanks for sharing, I would like to hear the theists arguments in reply to that, it seems like every argument for a god has been accounted for in that little collage.

**panntastic** · 04-20-2013, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by MR-FQ320

Thanks for sharing, I would like to hear the theists arguments in reply to that, it seems like every argument for a god has been accounted for in that little collage.

Marcus has really sent my mind into a bit of a spin with this thread
I'm not a smart man but I'm willing to learn and ask questions about what I see and this inquisitive nature is making me delve deeper into this subject

**Flagg** · 04-20-2013, 12:52 PM

Marcus mentioned earlier about water.

I find water an incredible element for many reasons. It can exist in all 3 states and all life requires it.

Read recently that water throughout the Universe is formed when stars are born. Another report also showed that Scientists located a mega gas cloud surrounding a quasar some 12 billion light years away as having literally, trillions and trillions more mass than all of earths oceans. It also shows that water has pretty much been present since the Universe came into existence:
NASA - Astronomers Find Largest, Most Distant Reservoir of Water

**panntastic** · 04-20-2013, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Flagg

Marcus mentioned earlier about water.

I find water an incredible element for many reasons. It can exist in all 3 states and all life requires it.

Read recently that water throughout the Universe is formed when stars are born. Report also showed that Scientist located a mega gas cloud surrounding a quasar some 12 billion light years away as having literally, trillions and trillions more mass than all of earths oceans. It also shows that water has pretty much been present since the Universe came into existence:
NASA - Astronomers Find Largest, Most Distant Reservoir of Water

By far the deadliest thing going yet most necessary
Can fill any gap it gets into
Like you say 3 different states
Only need 2" to drown in it
We need it to live so does flora/fauna
We're made mostly of it aswell

Such an amazing element

Thread: What's life about

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions

Zebol 50 - deca?

34 Years Old, Strong, and Always...

Need a clenbuterol source

Does Flowmax effect anything?

My First Cycle: Planning and...

Zebol 50 - deca?

Zebol 50 - deca?

Zebol 50 - deca?

Zebol 50 - deca?

Thread: *What's life about*

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions

Thread: What's life about