Any Yec's Care To Explain

[Flack_attack 0]

Do you think that would influence other doubters of evolution to speak up?

There really aren't any doubters in the scientific community. Its pretty much a non-issue. You are making yourself look stupid by arguing it.

[crowTrobot 2]

since you know the answers in genesis website so well, did you read the article about Dr. Damadian?

"currently serving as technical adviser for the world’s largest Creationist organization, the Institute for Creation Research"you totally missed the point, which was that there are zero scientists who's beliefs are NOT associated specifically with biblical creationism that believe in a YE. note the word NOT in that sentence.of course the people running literal creationist organizations are educated. that's irrelevant. to restate the point - if there were any objective evidence that the earth was 6000 years old, you shouldn't have a problem finding at least a few SECULAR scientists who believed in it. there are zero.

Do you think that would influence other doubters of evolution to speak up?"

you switched to a different subject again. try to stay on track here

They sit and respect the service and go home, but if you pressed them, they would express doubt. I bet it is the same way with sciencists.

if that were the case you would have at least a few rebels shouting about their doubt - which was actually the case 30-40 years ago. the modern evidence is such that there are no doubters now.

[Sluggo 0]

Nice reply. I know you are but what am I?

You lied about the article. The dating of the glacier in the final section used markers to corroborate the dates, which they did. The dating itself did not rely on them.

[mcsoupman 0]

You lied about the article. The dating of the glacier in the final section used markers to corroborate the dates, which they did. The dating itself did not rely on them.

What? They even claim in the post that markers are dependent upon assumed ratios of knonw data from other sources and mentions that if the markers are wrong, then the dating would be wrong.Stop the playground arguments and read with comprehension.

[mcsoupman 0]

of course the people running literal creationist organizations are educated. that's irrelevant.

You are killing me smalls. Not just educated. You don't want to ever allow any form of possible intelligence do you? Pretty soon the nazi style book burnings will start and you wont allow any conflicting thought will you? These guys are brilliant. End of story.Here is the doubt. There are those in the secular scientific community that are pushing for better dating and other scientific evidence. Most do believe in evolution, but feel the "evidence" needs improvement and admit the lack definitive proof. That is about as loud a yell you will hear. It also points to the same closemindedness that you claim about YEC. I readily admit my presumptions. Yes, I am a person of faith. That influences my thought and actions. From my first ever response to you was to say, admit you have preconieved notions that impact your choices also. We share the same non objective slant.

[Sluggo 0]

What? They even claim in the post that markers are dependent upon assumed ratios of knonw data from other sources and mentions that if the markers are wrong, then the dating would be wrong.Stop the playground arguments and read with comprehension.

The markers' accuracy is irrelevant. Markers were not used to date the ice. Multiple methods including markers were used to confirm the dating. Guess what? All of the the methods agreed.

[crowTrobot 2]

These guys are brilliant. End of story.

brilliant at bilking christians out of hard earned $, yes. as i said arguing for their intelligence is irrelevent, among other reasons because creationists have a pre-set agenda and make no attempt to hide it from the secular community. they're only concerned with saying the right things to sell their propaganda to ignorant christians, who blind themselves to the fact that it's propaganda unsupported by any real evidence because it's what their insecurities and ego want to hear.

Here is the doubt. There are those in the secular scientific community that are pushing for better dating and other scientific evidence.

if you mean to prove the earth is older than thousands of years that's a lie.

Most do believe in evolution, but feel the "evidence" needs improvement and admit the lack definitive proof.

that's irrelevant to YE and also a lie. the mechanism behind evolution isn't understood as well as it could be and there is a lot of debate about it, but that evolution happened is considered fact.

I readily admit my presumptions. Yes, I am a person of faith. That influences my thought and actions.

then why even bother arguing about empirical evidence at all? seems like a waste of time for you - and certainly counterproductive to recruiting someone who IS objective to christianity.

From my first ever response to you was to say, admit you have preconieved notions that impact your choices also. We share the same non objective slant.

wrong. i currently have no preconceptions about the subject that aren't based on tons of corroborating scientific evidence (i was raised a YEC).

[DonkSlayer 1]

Could a scientist who came to the conclusion that the earth was 6K years old remain secular?

[crowTrobot 2]

Could a scientist who came to the conclusion that the earth was 6K years old remain secular?

i think so, or at least in other cultures they wouldn't automatically equate it specifically with christianity. however the question is irrelevant because no modern secular scientist who has investigated the evidence has come to that conclusion and none ever will.could a christian who came to the conclusion the earth is 4.5 billions years old, evolution is undeniable, and there is no clear cut empirical evidence for creation remain a christian? apparently since there are many christians that believe those things.

[mcsoupman 0]

could a christian who came to the conclusion the earth is 4.5 billions years old, evolution is undeniable, and there is no clear cut empirical evidence for creation remain a christian? apparently since there are many christians that believe those things.

Man this guy actually believes his own dilusions. Just call all disagreements propaganda and all is well.

[crowTrobot 2]

Man this guy actually believes his own dilusions.

so you're implying that there are no christians that believe in old earth/evolution etc? just how deep is that cave you're living in?

[brvheart 1,752]

so you're implying that there are no christians that believe in old earth/evolution etc? just how deep is that cave you're living in?

probably not quite as deep as the one you will be living in. Unless, of course, God in his mercy allows your heart to be softened.

[crowTrobot 2]

Unless, of course, God in his mercy allows your heart to be softened.

allows? hello free will, you there?

[Flack_attack 0]

Man this guy actually believes his own dilusions. Just call all disagreements propaganda and all is well.

Uhhh, I am a Christian and I believe in evolution, as I have stated many times in this forum. There are plenty of logic and science accepting Christians.

[mcsoupman 0]

so you're implying that there are no christians that believe in old earth/evolution etc? just how deep is that cave you're living in?

Thanks for misrepresenting what I said. You do that often. You claim all evidence proves evolution, but when anyone provides any studies or thoughts contrary, it is obviously some big lying conspiracy.

Uhhh, I am a Christian and I believe in evolution, as I have stated many times in this forum. There are plenty of logic and science accepting Christians.

I love science too. Helps me with sicknesses and better technology, just doesn't explain how we got here.

[crowTrobot 2]

Thanks for misrepresenting what I said. You do that often.

go back and read what you quoted and called delusional again

You claim all evidence proves evolution, but when anyone provides any studies or thoughts contrary, it is obviously some big lying conspiracy.

if you're talking about biblical literalist media, generally speaking the authors are rather obviously conspiring to tell christians what they want to hear for profit.

[Flack_attack 0]

I love science too. Helps me with sicknesses and better technology, just doesn't explain how we got here.

How we got here, maybe, maybe not. But when we got here and how we became what we are (evolution) can certainly be explained by science.99.99% of the scientific community agrees about the relative age of the earth and evolution, and most of them are much much smarter than you and I. Or maybe it's just a big lying conspiracy...Science (quite literally) is about finding truth. There really is no hidden agenda behind evolution or old earth. Please do some research and open your mind a little.

[mcsoupman 0]

How we got here, maybe, maybe not. But when we got here and how we became what we are (evolution) can certainly be explained by science.99.99% of the scientific community agrees about the relative age of the earth and evolution, and most of them are much much smarter than you and I. Or maybe it's just a big lying conspiracy...Science (quite literally) is about finding truth. There really is no hidden agenda behind evolution or old earth. Please do some research and open your mind a little.

I believe in evolution also. My thoughts on this post evolved. My choice for dinner evolved throughout the day.I have done research. Tried to use mathmatics to prove evolution? Try it. Come back when you get a computer that can compute the probability of just 5 random chance positive mutations. Then think about all the possible LOGICAL steps it would take to form the brain, or the eye, or sexual organs. Let alone having them all work together. Where are all of the itermediate stages of the eye?Crow will say, well they work together because that was the way Natural Selection brought it about. That is like saying my house looks this way because all the pieces fit together so it must be that this was the only option. Can you imagine going into a forest and just happen to find all the the lumber cut to the right lengths to put my house together. All other pieces of material didn't work so they weren't used. That sounds ridiculous right. No, a builder cut the pieces to fit together.

[crowTrobot 2]

Tried to use mathmatics to prove evolution? Try it. Come back when you get a computer that can compute the probability of just 5 random chance positive mutations. Then think about all the possible LOGICAL steps it would take to form the brain, or the eye, or sexual organs. Let alone having them all work together. Where are all of the itermediate stages of the eye?Crow will say, well they work together because that was the way Natural Selection brought it about. That is like saying my house looks this way because all the pieces fit together so it must be that this was the only option. Can you imagine going into a forest and just happen to find all the the lumber cut to the right lengths to put my house together. All other pieces of material didn't work so they weren't used. That sounds ridiculous right. No, a builder cut the pieces to fit together.

you're not refuting anything because you don't have a clue how evolution works. everything you say presumes natural selection is a random process when it's not.also note that every creature on earth higher than bacteria, in particular a human, has a lot of non-working "pieces of material" which ARE "used" - incorporated in their genetic makeup. these pieces are clearly the no-longer-used residue from their genetic legacy.if you are really interested in supporting your side you should study evolution/natural selection fully (meaning read something beyond creationist material). otherwise your ignorance and self-admitted lack of objectivity make your posts pointless.recommend 'the selfish gene' by richard dawkins.

[mcsoupman 0]

you're not refuting anything because you don't have a clue how evolution works. everything you say presumes natural selection is a random process when it's not.also note that every creature on earth higher than bacteria, in particular a human, has a lot of non-working "pieces of material" which ARE "used" - incorporated in their genetic makeup. these pieces are clearly the no-longer-used residue from their genetic legacy.if you are really interested in supporting your side you should study evolution/natural selection fully (meaning read something beyond creationist material). otherwise your ignorance and self-admitted lack of objectivity make your posts pointless.recommend 'the selfish gene' by richard dawkins.

If NS is not random, then it has a goal or a purpose?Dawkins said that religious thought could be compared to a virus that should be removed. Does that make you objective? Maybe your posts are pointless.I will, thank you.

[crowTrobot 2]

If NS is not random, then it has a goal or a purpose?

no. think of it as a mechanical response to *current* environmental conditions. there is no future goal or purpose.

Dawkins said that religious thought could be compared to a virus that should be removed. Does that make you objective? Maybe your posts are pointless.

i can name several published evolutionary scientists who are theists if you like. unfortunately i don't know any that present the evidence quite as thoroughly as dawkins does.in case you do want to think some more about this YE stuff - this morning i was hiking at the top of a 1000 ft tall slide-created sea cliff on the oregon coast. the exposed face of the cliff reveals 15+ distinct layers ALTERNATING between thick sandstone/mudstone deposits and volcanic pillow basalt (erupted under water). please explain how that would form in any young earth/short-lived flood scenerio (other than god intentionally made it to appear like 50 million years worth of alternating volcanic and sedimentary seafloor deposits were slowly raised above sea level by a subduction trench, because he wants us to believe in creation through faith and not evidence).if you are paying attention the geologic evidence for a (very) old earth is right in front of your face. you don't need anyone to tell you what to think about it.

[Canada 0]

in case you do want to think some more about this YE stuff - this morning i was hiking at the top of a 1000 ft tall slide-created sea cliff on the oregon coast. the exposed face of the cliff reveals 15+ distinct layers ALTERNATING between thick sandstone/mudstone deposits and volcanic pillow basalt (erupted under water). please explain how that would form in any young earth/short-lived flood scenerio (other than god intentionally made it to appear like 50 million years worth of alternating volcanic and sedimentary seafloor deposits were slowly raised above sea level by a subduction trench, because he wants us to believe in creation through faith and not evidence).if you are paying attention the geologic evidence for a (very) old earth is right in front of your face. you don't need anyone to tell you what to think about it.

Crow, thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.mcsoupman, this thread was specifically created to discuss evidence regarding the age of the Earth/Universe and to get away from the evolution discussion. If you want to 'discuss' evolution, there are countless other threads to do so. Try and stick with the discussion in this one, lest I accuse you of the age-old creationist tactic of 'ignore and distract' There are 2 compelling cases for an old earth that I have put forward and Crow has added another. Have a go at showing the shortcomings of all 3, which should be very easy if the Earth is in fact 6-10k years old. Perhaps you could also table some evidence that supports your case of a young earth, again this should be extremely easy if YE is a fact.As to your only on-topic point regarding the drawbacks of the dating methods, it does warrant some discussion.Yes, each method does have problems, it why they use 4-5 dating methods with different drawbacks and validate with external sources like climate records.Also there is the economy of scale. Given the draw backs of any or all of the methods it would be possible to put a degree of accuracy on aging. eg A given point in the ice could be dated to be 50,000 years old +/- x%. x in this case is likely to be in the magnitude of 5 or lower.To get from 800,000 to 6000 you need a margin of error greater than +/- 99% which is just daft to suggest.Also you mention the GISP2 core. Here is an excellent paper regarding the core mentioning, amongst a lot of other evidence, that the layers have been visually counted to a date of 110,000 years. It goes on to discuss a lot of YEC arguments on the subject and neatly refutes them all.Feel free to discuss and don't forget there are 2 other observations to look into as well

[spm 1]

I don't have all the answers- I will say that I don't think that the earth is as old as science says but it's not as young as some biblical literalists think. Genesis leaves alot open with the way it is worded, not for interpetation but it allows for some unknown, like this statement:Gen.11] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. It never states when the beginning was, and how long things just sat. How long was the matter here before he went to work in this statement:[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. It doesn't say. We don't know. What is a day to god? I don't know- time, or measurements of time to him are meaningless. As far as light and stars, he created light before he created stars- that didn't happen until the 4th day, whenever that was. My point is this- Genesis is very generic, it just says what God did with no real timeframes given, and the numbers given by science itself vary greatly, so what to believe when it comes to this issue is unanswerable, unless you make it to heaven,and can ask the source the unanswerable questions and really at that point who would even care anymore?

Light is generated by Stars. The sun is a star, thats where we get our light from. So how was light created before the thing that actually creates them?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Light is generated by Stars. The sun is a star, thats where we get our light from. So how was light created before the thing that actually creates them?

Which answer do you want....I'll give the obvious one:He's God. If he wants to create EM waves in space before he creates the scource of those waves, he can. If you believe in God and believe that he's all powerful (or even somewhat powerful) then there's nothing wrong with this.

[crowTrobot 2]

Light is generated by Stars. The sun is a star, thats where we get our light from. So how was light created before the thing that actually creates them?

obviously whatever primitive mind wrote the verse was referring to the creation of the earth day/night cycle. technically, though, there was plenty of "light" (photons from the big bang) before there were stars, which is an interpretation "out" genesis literalists sometimes use when writing propaganda.