Grandpa on a half shell

[Insp. Clue!So?]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nclam128.xml

Eh, "Oldest animal ever"--well discovered anyway, until they killed it that is.

Question for believers: if Superdude so values existance, why do we grubby primates only get a few creaky decades when stuff like turtles and clams and trees get plenty more in many cases? Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource? Or is this just more evidence that the whole business is the result of random processes? Be honest, now.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

the concept of an eternal afterlife, would be one reason as well as religions that believe in reincarnation.

[madnak]

Clam power!

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nclam128.xml

Eh, "Oldest animal ever"--well discovered anyway, until they killed it that is.

Question for believers: if Superdude so values existance, why do we grubby primates only get a few creaky decades when stuff like turtles and clams and trees get plenty more in many cases? Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource? Or is this just more evidence that the whole business is the result of random processes? Be honest, now.



[/ QUOTE ]

Other animals that show no sign of aging are: female flounders, lobsters, sturgeons, sharks, and alligators.

Anti oxidants have been shown to increase the lifespan of mice by 30%. By selective breeding, we can increase the life span of fruit flys by 70%. Severe Caloric restrictions of mice have increased their lifespans from 50% to 100% and the interesting thing about this, is we've isolated the gene that turns off and on with coloric restriction. The compound resveratrol, found in the skins of grapes has been shown in some experiments, in large doses, to turn off the same gene that caloric restriction turns off ( in mice ). In humans things might be a bit different. See the actual study. I'll find it myself and reference it, if anyone actually reads my post and is interested.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

the concept of an eternal afterlife, would be one reason as well as religions that believe in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But 70 is so pedestrian a number (more like 40 for the vast majority of our species' existence). It could easily be much more, in keeping with our being "in his image", at little cost. Life apparently has little true value to this creature.

Of course there will be lots of blathering about "in his image" means this or that or the other but not the subject at hand. All this Holy Dissonance...only among believers would such a thing be considered an asset.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

the concept of an eternal afterlife, would be one reason as well as religions that believe in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But 70 is so pedestrian a number (more like 40 for the vast majority of our species' existence). It could easily be much more, in keeping with our being "in his image", at little cost. Life apparently has little true value to this creature.

Of course there will be lots of blathering about "in his image" means this or that or the other but not the subject at hand. All this Holy Dissonance...only among believers would such a thing be considered an asset.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it was 200, then you'd be saying "Meh, 200 is such a small number it could easily be more at little cost." I don't really think its a persuasive argument.

And I don't think you will get much argument from theists that life on Earth is fairly trivial and unimportant. Thats usually part of the package.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

the concept of an eternal afterlife, would be one reason as well as religions that believe in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But 70 is so pedestrian a number (more like 40 for the vast majority of our species' existence). It could easily be much more, in keeping with our being "in his image", at little cost. Life apparently has little true value to this creature.

Of course there will be lots of blathering about "in his image" means this or that or the other but not the subject at hand. All this Holy Dissonance...only among believers would such a thing be considered an asset.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it was 200, then you'd be saying "Meh, 200 is such a small number it could easily be more at little cost." I don't really think its a persuasive argument.

And I don't think you will get much argument from theists that life on Earth is fairly trivial and unimportant. Thats usually part of the package.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. any amount of finite time will pale in comparison to an eternal after life, be it 20 ears or 2 million.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

the concept of an eternal afterlife, would be one reason as well as religions that believe in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But 70 is so pedestrian a number (more like 40 for the vast majority of our species' existence). It could easily be much more, in keeping with our being "in his image", at little cost. Life apparently has little true value to this creature.

Of course there will be lots of blathering about "in his image" means this or that or the other but not the subject at hand. All this Holy Dissonance...only among believers would such a thing be considered an asset.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it was 200, then you'd be saying "Meh, 200 is such a small number it could easily be more at little cost." I don't really think its a persuasive argument.

And I don't think you will get much argument from theists that life on Earth is fairly trivial and unimportant. Thats usually part of the package.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're ignoring that list at then end of the article, which is sort of the point. If 200 years were the max it would seem likely (not demanded, just likely) that we would be the ones experiencing it. Instead we're just in the middle of a happenstance pack.

And I thought life on earth was the deciding time for an outcome with countless trllions of years of fruition; you'd think we'd at least get an equal shot with the turtles.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is a multi-billion year-old being so selfish with such a cheap resource?

[/ QUOTE ]

the concept of an eternal afterlife, would be one reason as well as religions that believe in reincarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But 70 is so pedestrian a number (more like 40 for the vast majority of our species' existence). It could easily be much more, in keeping with our being "in his image", at little cost. Life apparently has little true value to this creature.

Of course there will be lots of blathering about "in his image" means this or that or the other but not the subject at hand. All this Holy Dissonance...only among believers would such a thing be considered an asset.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it was 200, then you'd be saying "Meh, 200 is such a small number it could easily be more at little cost." I don't really think its a persuasive argument.

And I don't think you will get much argument from theists that life on Earth is fairly trivial and unimportant. Thats usually part of the package.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're ignoring that list at then end of the article, which is sort of the point. If 200 years were the max it would seem likely (not demanded, just likely) that we would be the ones experiencing it. Instead we're just in the middle of a happenstance pack.

And I thought life on earth was the deciding time for an outcome with countless trllions of years of fruition; you'd think we'd at least get an equal shot with the turtles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if the argument you are trying to make is "Well, the Bible makes it seem like we are special but the evidence sure isnt compelling in nature" I think you'd be better off pointing to the billions of years that the universe was ticking along before humans sprouted up. Its not that I think you are wrong, per se, its just that it isnt that compelling of an argument. Death is important for human beings, less so for trees, maybe. Or a thousand other trivial explanations for why we dont live the longest. Actually, a better question would be, why do animals and plants die at all? That makes no sense. They dont go to heaven. No purpose is served by it. Why do animals reproduce? Its stupid and wasteful. Why not just have X number and give us the ability to make more as needed? Old age for animals is dumb.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're ignoring that list at then end of the article, which is sort of the point. If 200 years were the max it would seem likely (not demanded, just likely) that we would be the ones experiencing it. Instead we're just in the middle of a happenstance pack.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't compelling. We don't have to be the greatest at everything, even if we are the chosen of God. "Hey, how come elephants are so big? We aren't that big. If we were created in God's image, then obviously we'd be bigger than elephants! But instead, we're just mediocre. Even gorillas are bigger than us. What kind of God would do that?"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're ignoring that list at then end of the article, which is sort of the point. If 200 years were the max it would seem likely (not demanded, just likely) that we would be the ones experiencing it. Instead we're just in the middle of a happenstance pack.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't compelling. We don't have to be the greatest at everything, even if we are the chosen of God. "Hey, how come elephants are so big? We aren't that big. If we were created in God's image, then obviously we'd be bigger than elephants! But instead, we're just mediocre. Even gorillas are bigger than us. What kind of God would do that?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me? Why arent we smaller? If we were built in God's image, surely we'd be the smallest living things on Earth, but bacteria are smaller than us. Heck, even mice are smaller! WTF?

[surftheiop]

Why do nonbelievers keep making threads like this, you all already have all the logical arguements you need. These kind of threads just make you look silly

[Inso0]

Humans lived longer before the flood.

My question to you is if the planet has been around for a few billion years, why is the oldest living organism we can find less than 5000 years old?

Why is the oldest (insert naturally occurring land formation here) less than 5000 years old? (I.E. deserts, deltas)

Those 2 statements alone prove nothing, but is certainly something to consider.

Seems to me, a 10,000 year old tree somewhere would shut a lot of young earth creationists up.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the oldest (insert naturally occurring land formation here) less than 5000 years old? (I.E. deserts, deltas)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[Borodog]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/walcotttitle.jpg

The Burgess Shale, ~ 500 million years old.

[Inso0]

based on what?

Fossil records?

And how do you know the fossils are 500 million years old? Because of where they're found in the rock?

But... wait...

[Borodog]

lol

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Seems to me, a 10,000 year old tree somewhere would shut a lot of young earth creationists up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since they are more interested in proving themselves right, instead of seeing if falsification of their 'theory' is plausible, you can't shut them up. So what we can state safely is that creationism is scientifically irrelevant, but probably makes some people sleep better at night.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
lol

[/ QUOTE ]

lol indeed

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
based on what?

Fossil records?

And how do you know the fossils are 500 million years old? Because of where they're found in the rock?

But... wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

So it was a completely dishonest inquiry. Go figure.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
based on what?

Fossil records?

And how do you know the fossils are 500 million years old? Because of where they're found in the rock?

But... wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

So it was a completely dishonest inquiry. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expected of course.
Coral reefs are an interesting organism when it comes to age.

luckyme

[Inso0]

Dishonest? Absolutely not.

I merely point out the whole "date the fossils by the rock layer they're in by this valley" and "date the layers of strata by the fossils they contain in this canyon" thing is what we call circular reasoning.

Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification... these are things that actually rely on some sort of testable science.

Or dating a delta based on the rate of expansion...

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[Inso0]

wow, first time I've ever double posted... delete this.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily that isn't how they do it.

Whew.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Dishonest? Absolutely not.

I merely point out the whole "date the fossils by the rock layer they're in by this valley" and "date the layers of strata by the fossils they contain in this canyon" thing is what we call circular reasoning.

Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification... these are things that actually rely on some sort of testable science.

Or dating a delta based on the rate of expansion...

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, see Boro's post. Second, how do you even come to hold this position? At some point, isnt there some filter in your brain that goes: "Whoa...hold on a sec...they really do this? And no one has spotted this obvious flaw? I'm really the smartest guy in the world? No way, that can't be. SOMEONE must have noticed that this is circular. So, hmmm...what else could it be? Maybe they have so much at stake that the entire scientific community is perpetuating this huge conspiracy! Not just that, but BLATANT conspiracy, since even someone with as little knowledge as me can see the obvious holes in it. Holy [censored], the arrogance on these bastards! Oh wait, that all sounds crazy. Maybe I have it wrong."

[Inso0]

You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Googletard (http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html)

[Mr_Moore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Googletard (http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that he has convinced you i suggest you switch to this.

"A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me.

Link on how they determined this shale formation is 500 million years old that doesnt involve fossils?

[/ QUOTE ]

Googletard (http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that he has convinced you i suggest you switch to this.

"A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago."

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me. There arent really any practical problems with that position.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is because trees create layer after layer of bark in a predictable way. Kind of how layer after layer of rock is deposited...

[ QUOTE ]
Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification...

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Stratification of rock is a more reliable standard than desertification. Hell, the basic process is just the same - measure the rate of sedimentation and extrapolate - but with rock strata there's more information that can be used to verify the conclusions. You can compare patterns locally and globally, find patterns in chemical composition and in orientation of magnetic minerals, and look at specific layers of sediment. When data from all of these sources not only form a coherent whole (that stands up to a sophisticated level of mathematical scrutiny), but also each indicate a similar age, that represents very strong evidence.

But scientists always demand more evidence, because science is based on falsification. So independent methods have been used to back it up ranging from relatively "weak" methods (which probably does include the fossil sequence) to stronger methods like radiometrics. Here's a quick list (http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/g/dendrochro.htm) of some methods - remember that all of these methods, where compatible, deliver the same date ranges for given objects and areas.

The fossil sequence itself is largely considered reliable because it is supported by all the other (independent) methods of dating. There's definitely nothing circular going on - think about it: Natural scientists have higher IQs on average than any other group in the world (excepting high-IQ societies like Prometheus), these people are "kinda smart" and they often record pages and pages of evaluation, including mathematical modeling and exhaustive descriptions of data, that is reviewed by a large number of peers and is often available to the general public. The scientific community isn't engaging in the kind of stupid fallacy you're talking about. Thousands of people and billions of dollars haven't gone into the field so that someone can point out, "Hey guys, you made a little mistake here!"

Sometimes science is a bit rotten (particularly where the money's concerned), but the body of accepted theory accumulated over the course of decades (and this stuff was basically universal fact by the middle of the twentieth century, and certainly by the time plate tectonics was validated) is damned strong and has seen and successfully responded to heavier criticisms than you would likely be able to level against it if you spent your whole life trying.

[Inso0]

How does "stratification" over millions of years explain the pictures I see of fossilized trees going through dozens of layers of strata that are supposedly millions/billions of years old?

I'm genuinely curious.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dishonest? Absolutely not.

I merely point out the whole "date the fossils by the rock layer they're in by this valley" and "date the layers of strata by the fossils they contain in this canyon" thing is what we call circular reasoning.

Tree rings for instance are quite reliable. NOT perfect, but very reliable nonetheless.

Things such as dating the oldest desert in the world by measuring the rate of desertification... these are things that actually rely on some sort of testable science.

Or dating a delta based on the rate of expansion...

Dating the fossils by using the rocks as a guide and then dating the rocks based on what fossils they contain fossils strikes me as somewhat non-scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, see Boro's post. Second, how do you even come to hold this position? At some point, isnt there some filter in your brain that goes: "Whoa...hold on a sec...they really do this? And no one has spotted this obvious flaw? I'm really the smartest guy in the world? No way, that can't be. SOMEONE must have noticed that this is circular. So, hmmm...what else could it be? Maybe they have so much at stake that the entire scientific community is perpetuating this huge conspiracy! Not just that, but BLATANT conspiracy, since even someone with as little knowledge as me can see the obvious holes in it. Holy [censored], the arrogance on these bastards! Oh wait, that all sounds crazy. Maybe I have it wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha, well put.

One can elegantly refute a LOT of stupid assertions by simply pointing out that impossibly large conspiracies are...well, impossible.

[hitch1978]

WOW!

From 'Humans lived longer before the flood' onwards, this thread really picked up! Thanks all /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
How does "stratification" over millions of years explain the pictures I see of fossilized trees going through dozens of layers of strata that are supposedly millions/billions of years old?

I'm genuinely curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Polystrate tree fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
How does "stratification" over millions of years explain the pictures I see of fossilized trees going through dozens of layers of strata that are supposedly millions/billions of years old?

I'm genuinely curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't supposedly millions/billions of years old. They're supposedly thousands of years old (at most). The wiki on the subject. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil)

Compared to the thousands of PhDs in the field of earth science supporting the hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old, there are only a handful of people (perhaps 300 at most) making creationist claims. The vast majority of these don't even have advanced degrees, and those that do typically have Masters degrees or doctoral degrees in unrelated fields. Now, having a degree and making intelligent points are two different things, and I don't mean to suggest that a person is necessarily unqualified just because they lack a PhD, but the relative education levels of the two populations are striking.

Sadly, the handful of "creation scientists" frequently go to great lengths in attempting to justify their view. Because they're unfamiliar with the actual science, they tend to invent new terminology that's obscurely defined, make many erroneous arguments that appeal to their version of "common sense," create large lists of claims, and focus on situations that are least intuitive scientifically and most likely to make their positions seem plausible (they never tend to write about the evidence that is really damning to their position).

Due to the tangled mess of claims and the range of groups and personalities working from different perspectives, and the relatively small number of people worldwide (including virtually nobody within the scientific community) who accept these arguments, most geologists simply ignore the creation position.

When one erroneous claim is refuted, another claim is simply brought up in its place, creating a chain of claims that is almost impossible to exhaustively refute. The creationists tend to view it as a "success" when an educated person gets tired of this chain and gives up. It's even worse when an uneducated person attempts to refute the creationist points, because the poor logic of the uneducated person appears to validate the creationist position. This is why I'm reluctant to take the defensive in such debates, and why so many people choose to disregard creationists or post simple "lol" responses or incomplete links rather than getting into such debates.

There have been some attempts to comperehensively refute creation science. A good place to start is here (http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm). These people have actually gone to the trouble of reading much of the creationist literature and systematically attempting to refute the massive number of claims made throughout. It's long and convoluted because it follows the path of the source material, but relatively detailed refutations can be found for most of the creationist points raised by the ministries.

Of course, the better alternative is just to pick up a good geology textbook and read through it. Gaining some actual knowledge of the subject will allow you to see many of the errors made in the creationist position, and will introduce you to some of the information that most creationists tend to ignore. Even if you are determined to be a young-earth creationist, it's good to know your enemy, right? Many people will accuse you of ignorance because of your view, and just 50-100 hours of study will let you prove them wrong and know for yourself what it is you're arguing against. This is especially true if you're willing to learn the math, but I don't expect any such commitment.

Most online sources are incomplete and unpolished, sadly. But there are some relatively quick and relevant links. I'm just going to link to talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html), an admittedly biased site but one with lots of information. Check "the Age of the Earth" (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) for a good introduction.

[hitch1978]

POTD