Any Yec's Care To Explain

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually the point of this thread is to show that every aspect of life points to an Earth that is older than 6000 years. All too often these discussions end in an Creationism vs Evolution debate that has been done to death.I thought it would be interesting to see if any YEC's could show reasons why other observed evidence was faulty and not just focus on Darwin.That said as no-one has countered the evidence for ice-cores other than to say 'its not true nah-nah-nah', I'll take it as read that you can't and move onto the next. (Feel free to go back to the ice-cores at any stage if you come up with something)Do we have any (rational) explainations for light from supernovae taking 400 million years to reach us.Oh, and don't bother with Humphreys. He has already been shown to be wrong by countless others.Linky

Okay if God made a star, and placed it 400 million light years, he can also create the rays from the star to radiate as far as he wants too. This was a straw man, you try to make me answer your question after you frame the reference that God can create stars, but can't create light waves. You are framing the original point by saying 1st there was 600 million years, and 2nd that during this time we have never had enough random occurances in that region to totally screw up the layers in an adequate manner. If, and its a big If, the ice in that region melted 200 million years ago, or layers of ice were pushed on top of others, or a windy century pushed ice from another area onto this site and in the process, added new materials that were actually repeats of the same material, these would all render these findings problematic.The straw man is the argument that all things have been consistant for 600 million years. I realize that this does in no way discounts the ice cores much, but to make a dogmatic nah nah nah to Christians, doesn't make me want to really look into your point.Also whenever I see people ( the article writer ) give ammuntion to the "USA is bad for having SUVs" crowd, I give them little to no credit. That is a personal bias which I admit. Rush Limbaugh already told me there is NO GLOBAL WARMING.

[Canada 0]

Interesting article:Science FrustratingBasically, we're still getting things right/clarified. Like with Pluto. Science is great because it always questions itself...doesn't ever get conservative and say "this is the way it happens and it's unquestionable."Doesn't really help one side or the other in this argument, j/s. I would hope that people who believe humanity has figured it all out would be much more willing to say "Well, maybe." when somebody makes what they think is an off-the-wall claim, and those who are deeply religious would cut science some slack when it's been misguided but willing to correct itself.

Good article.It shows that when erros exist they are highly likely to be questioned and challenged. It is the nature of the beast.I don't think anyone here would suggest that science 'has all the answers'. It never will. There are just some things we are incapable of understanding. The point of this thread though is to show that there are many independant ways of aging the Earth/Universe and none of them show and age of 6000 years IMO. On that point I am willing and waiting to be corrected.FWIW: The Pluto situation is semantics not science

[Balloon guy 158]

Interesting article:Science FrustratingBasically, we're still getting things right/clarified. Like with Pluto. Science is great because it always questions itself...doesn't ever get conservative and say "this is the way it happens and it's unquestionable."Doesn't really help one side or the other in this argument, j/s. I would hope that people who believe humanity has figured it all out would be much more willing to say "Well, maybe." when somebody makes what they think is an off-the-wall claim, and those who are deeply religious would cut science some slack when it's been misguided but willing to correct itself.

Well said, good article. And I hate the LA Times.

[Canada 0]

Okay if God made a star, and placed it 400 million light years, he can also create the rays from the star to radiate as far as he wants too. This was a straw man, you try to make me answer your question after you frame the reference that God can create stars, but can't create light waves.

This is a common answer, but it fails logically. What we are looking at here is a supernovae. The death of a star. If as you suggest, God created the light in situ, he created light showing the death of a star that never existed. He creates the light, but not the star, lets us watch it and decipher that we are watching an event that occurred 400 million years ago, yet is never actually happened. Why is he deceiving us?

You are framing the original point by saying 1st there was 600 million years, and 2nd that during this time we have never had enough random occurances in that region to totally screw up the layers in an adequate manner. If, and its a big If, the ice in that region melted 200 million years ago, or layers of ice were pushed on top of others, or a windy century pushed ice from another area onto this site and in the process, added new materials that were actually repeats of the same material, these would all render these findings problematic.

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from. The original post used 800,000 years. Yes your point have some validity. It is the reason why they use 5 different dating methods. Things like last years snow blowing around don't happen though, snow doesn't remain as snow for any significant period of time, it converts to a structure closer to ice under it's own weigh that doesn't blow around.If the ice melted or was pushed on top of older ice it would show a large inconsistent section that would be chemically and structurally diffferent to the ice surrounding them.Also 150 such events would have to happen, each and every year to get from 6000 ---> 800,000. More when you consider that there is more ice still to come

I realize that this does in no way discounts the ice cores much, but to make a dogmatic nah nah nah to Christians, doesn't make me want to really look into your point.

I'm not making it a dogmatic to Christians. I'm sorry, but it was Foose and yourself that came in with nonconstructive statements.As I pointed out above, I wanted to make this thread look at other aspects of the observable world instead of just the old Evolution thing. There will be more coming so please feel free to stick around.

[Loismustdie 0]

This is a common answer, but it fails logically. What we are looking at here is a supernovae. The death of a star. If as you suggest, God created the light in situ, he created light showing the death of a star that never existed. He creates the light, but not the star, lets us watch it and decipher that we are watching an event that occurred 400 million years ago, yet is never actually happened. Why is he deceiving us?I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from. The original post used 800,000 years. Yes your point have some validity. It is the reason why they use 5 different dating methods. Things like last years snow blowing around don't happen though, snow doesn't remain as snow for any significant period of time, it converts to a structure closer to ice under it's own weigh that doesn't blow around.If the ice melted or was pushed on top of older ice it would show a large inconsistent section that would be chemically and structurally diffferent to the ice surrounding them.Also 150 such events would have to happen, each and every year to get from 6000 ---> 800,000. More when you consider that there is more ice still to comeI'm not making it a dogmatic to Christians. I'm sorry, but it was Foose and yourself that came in with nonconstructive statements.As I pointed out above, I wanted to make this thread look at other aspects of the observable world instead of just the old Evolution thing. There will be more coming so please feel free to stick around.

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?

[Sluggo 0]

The numbers given by science don't vary greatly. 100 million years is many orders of magnitude away from 14 billion.

[crowTrobot 2]

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.

if you're going to take the step to disagree with biblical literalists why bother disagreeing with scientists?

[Loismustdie 0]

if you're going to take the step to disagree with biblical literalists why bother disagreeing with scientists?

Because for reasons I already stated- science can't come up with a number either. Why trust that which will inevitably change?

[Flack_attack 0]

theres no point in trying to reason with christians. as you can see they will say that the earth is flat and 6 thousand years old and that evolution never happened. even ppl with down syndrome dont say anything that stupid.

I resent your assertion; you are making a massive generalization here. Just because there Christians (and certain groups/denominatons of Christians) that believe that, yes, the earth 6000 years old and evolution is wrong, does NOT mean they all think this.I am a faithful and praticing Christian. I believe that the earth is over 4 billion years old. I believe in the "Descent of Man" (humans sharing a common ancestor with other primates).These statements do not have to be contradictory. All three apply to me. Sluggo, Yorke, Canada, et al: all christians are not brain-washed evangelicals who think the earth is 6000 years old. Pope John Paul II belived in evolution!

[crowTrobot 2]

Because for reasons I already stated- science can't come up with a number either. Why trust that which will inevitably change?

the age of the earth is not a theory that is subject to change. it is known with certainty (from multiple corroborating dating methods) accurately to within a few %.the approximate age of the earth is known with the same certainty that the earth revolves around the sun is known. to an informed person it's not even a debatable issue. anyone who debates it is simply ignorant (or lying to themselves).

[Balloon guy 158]

This is a common answer, but it fails logically. What we are looking at here is a supernovae. The death of a star. If as you suggest, God created the light in situ, he created light showing the death of a star that never existed. He creates the light, but not the star, lets us watch it and decipher that we are watching an event that occurred 400 million years ago, yet is never actually happened. Why is he deceiving us?If a star 400 million light years away explodes, when do we know about it?I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from. The original post used 800,000 years. Yes your point have some validity. It is the reason why they use 5 different dating methods. Things like last years snow blowing around don't happen though, snow doesn't remain as snow for any significant period of time, it converts to a structure closer to ice under it's own weigh that doesn't blow around.If the ice melted or was pushed on top of older ice it would show a large inconsistent section that would be chemically and structurally diffferent to the ice surrounding them.Remembe this core was like 10" around and like a mile long? If this section was 2,000 feet down, and the core hit a semi smooth point, then this could easily get overlooked. I've had more experience with dirt and this was what I was basing this point on. I assumed Ice would be similar.Also 150 such events would have to happen, each and every year to get from 6000 ---> 800,000. More when you consider that there is more ice still to comeI'm not making it a dogmatic to Christians. I'm sorry, but it was Foose and yourself that came in with nonconstructive statements.As I pointed out above, I wanted to make this thread look at other aspects of the observable world instead of just the old Evolution thing. There will be more coming so please feel free to stick around.

Well written. I admit I kind of threw out a silly arguement without wanting to get really serious. This was childish if you wanted a sincere answer.If you didn't want a sincere answer then I should still have at least put some effort into it.Sorry dude. Nex time I'll try to grow up some.

[Sluggo 0]

If a star 400 million light years away explodes, when do we know about it?

About 400 million years later.

[Loismustdie 0]

the age of the earth is not a theory that is subject to change. it is known with certainty (from multiple corroborating dating methods) accurately to within a few %.the approximate age of the earth is known with the same certainty that the earth revolves around the sun is known. to an informed person it's not even a debatable issue. anyone who debates it is simply ignorant (or lying to themselves).

Sure. We will see in 20 years. You know as well as I do that there are few certanties in science.

[crowTrobot 2]

You know as well as I do that there are few certanties in science.

so you have reason to doubt the earth revolves around the sun then?

[Loismustdie 0]

so you have reason to doubt the earth revolves around the sun then?

I said few. I didn't say there were none.

[BuffDan 0]

Sure. We will see in 20 years. You know as well as I do that there are few certanties in science.

This is true, but often times we find that the original theory was mostly right, and needed to be refined, as opposed to being completely wrong and worthless. A good example is the case of Newtonian gravity, which fundamentaly was wrong, and was replaced by Einstein's general relativity, but Newtonian gravity still was a very good approximation in most cases and the predictions it made were often good enough for practical purposes. Often times when science is wrong, it is still approximately right, and the new results build on the old, rather than throwing the old completely out the door. So saying there are few certanties in science is correct (I just want to throw in again that math is really the only place we can prove things and be certain, but even there we have our troubles) but we can be pretty darn sure and be pretty close to correct, close enough that when we find something to be 800,000 years old, well maybe it is only 750,000 years old, but it probably isnt 6000 years old.

[mcsoupman 0]

Also 150 such events would have to happen, each and every year to get from 6000 ---> 800,000.

Yes, based on those assumptions posed earlier. Rememer that the way you look at these odds, is the same way many YECs looks at the odds of evolution happening.Canada, here are some things to think about. Yes a larger volume of people believe in the Old earth theory. That means, more money and more projects. It does not necesarily mean more "right." (Not discounting, just not absoluting it either) This also tends to put the YEC side on the defensive and responding to other studies as opposed to championing their own. I appreciate you bringing something to the table with an apparent desire to dialog.However, Ballon pointed out some flaws in your OP. You set the table and asked for a response to the question. I am not an IC expert, but I did scratch the surface a little. The rings you so strongly supported are assumed. From what I found the starting point for examining the depth of the cores for dating is a guess based on other "assumed" and not proven data. The rings themselves have been "redated" to accomodate other timelines according I think to the GISP2 core. Also the rings account for only annual occurances and not subannual. Storms and other weather makers can account for accumulation of dust and other items that can be counted as annual rings. Since we do not know exactly the precipiation levels it is hard to accuratly define these levels.Here is a link regarding Ice core dating from the previously flaunted Talkorigins website.ice coreEach of the dating methods has "major drawbacks" as even admited there. Of particular interest was one section on Volcanic Eruption dating methods. Funny how anything validating YEC is thrown out.Volcanic Eruptions "After the eruption of volcanoes, the volcanic ash and chemicals are washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation. These eruptions leave a distinct marker within the snow which washed the atmosphere. We can then use recorded volcanic eruptions to calibrate the age of the ice-core. Since volcanic ash is a common atmospheric constituent after an eruption, this is a nice signature to use in comparing calibrated time data and an ice-core of undetermined age. Another signature of volcanism is acidity. The major diasadvantage of this method is that one must previously know the date of the eruption which is usually not the case. Furthermore the alkaline precipitants of the ice ages limits this measure to approximately 8000 BC. "I am not against science. Just as stated in other posts, trying to address that science is not always 100% accurate or even in the same area. Sometimes completely off. Sometimes the science is right, but the interpretations are subjective. That LA times article linked to earlier is a great example.

[Sluggo 0]

It's true that wide acceptance of a theory does not prove it.That sections on volcanic eruptions don't validate YEC at all. The author is saying that using markers in the ice (like ash from an eruption) only works if the date of the eruption is known.The point of using markers and assuming the age of the ice is to speed up what would otherwise be a very long process.It's true that ice dating is not 100% accurate. For instance, that articled referenced a dated glacier. Its age was 160,000 +- 15,000. Ice dating is inaccurate, but those inaccuracies are accounted for.

[crowTrobot 2]

Yes a larger volume of people believe in the Old earth theory. That means, more money and more projects. It does not necesarily mean more "right." (Not discounting, just not absoluting it either) This also tends to put the YEC side on the defensive and responding to other studies as opposed to championing their own.

in other words they are too busy making lame excuses to think up new propaganda.

The rings you so strongly supported are assumed.

no they're not, duh. their formation on an annual basis can be directly observed.

The rings themselves have been "redated" to accomodate other timelines according I think to the GISP2 core. Also the rings account for only annual occurances and not subannual. Storms and other weather makers can account for accumulation of dust and other items that can be counted as annual rings. Since we do not know exactly the precipiation levels it is hard to accuratly define these levels.

speaking of lame excuses. those things only affect short-scale accuracy of dating - they do not change the overall picture at all. this is a typical creationist propaganda ploy - claiming minor inaccuracies are of major significance.

The major diasadvantage of this method is that one must previously know the date of the eruption which is usually not the case.

no, often it IS the case. the elemental makeup of deposits from specific eruptions typically differ enough where the source can be pinpointed, and geologically recent eruptions are easily dated at the source by other methods.

I am not against science.

yes you are, since you're obviously either unwilling or not smart enough (or both) to take an objective approach in reviewing the evidence. you've already made up your mind before you look.also note again that there ARE NO scientists not associated with a pre-existing biblical creationist agenda that believe in a young earth. your ONLY sources for YE arguments are biblical creationist-agenda websites & literature. if there were any real evidence for a young earth there would be at least a small minority of secular scientists that accepted that a YE was a possibility. THERE ARE NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. to someone truly interested in being objective about the weight of the evidence that should be of extreme significance.

[mcsoupman 0]

It's true that wide acceptance of a theory does not prove it.That sections on volcanic eruptions don't validate YEC at all. The author is saying that using markers in the ice (like ash from an eruption) only works if the date of the eruption is known.The point of using markers and assuming the age of the ice is to speed up what would otherwise be a very long process.It's true that ice dating is not 100% accurate. For instance, that articled referenced a dated glacier. Its age was 160,000 +- 15,000. Ice dating is inaccurate, but those inaccuracies are accounted for.

I understand, but it becomes corroborating evidence that anything beyond that point is speculative.Sure but that doesn't make it accurate.Just in that article based on the assumptions from the previous assumed dates assumed by those proposed possible scenarios. Man I love this stuff.

[Sluggo 0]

Just in that article based on the assumptions from the previous assumed dates assumed by those proposed possible scenarios. Man I love this stuff.

You are a liar. Reread the article.

[mcsoupman 0]

also note again that there ARE NO scientists not associated with a pre-existing biblical creationist agenda that believe in a young earth.

Right back at you buddy. Propaganda is best served from the majority, not the minority.Maybe that is because, when someone bent on "science is the answer" finally realizes there is more out there, has to accept the inevitable. You again claim no one reasonable person maintains a creationist position. There are plenty of Phds that do promote this belief. Some even teach things like condensed matter physics and nuclear chemistry. Wow, some of these guys have taught at the naval nuclear power school. Each time you call one of these guys stupid or inept you just make yourself look like a fool.

You are a liar. Reread the article.

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

[crowTrobot 2]

You again claim no one reasonable person maintains a creationist position. There are plenty of Phds that do promote this belief. Some even teach things like condensed matter physics and nuclear chemistry.

it's a fact that there are zero objective scientists that believe the earth is 6000 years (or whatever) old. yes a minority of scientists who do objective work believe intelligent design is a possibility, but obviously that's a completely different subject than YE. nice try, but no lumping allowed

[Oneeydjaq 0]

Can I borrow some of said Ice, I need some for my drink.

[mcsoupman 0]

it's a fact that there are zero objective scientists that believe the earth is 6000 years (or whatever) old. yes a minority of scientists who do objective work believe intelligent design is a possibility, but obviously that's a completely different subject than YE. nice try, but no lumping allowed

They ones I referred to are dedicated YE. There are There are old earth doubters out there. Just like there are doubters that sit in church every Sunday. I don't deny it. They don't stand up in service and declare their doubt. 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.since you know the answers in genesis website so well, did you read the article about Dr. Damadian? He was the inventer of the MRI technology and was excluded from the nobel prize, presumably because he is a "genesis creationist." Myself and almost everyone around me has benefited from the invention of MRI. One of the key minds to make that work was a creationist and was looked down on. Do you think that would influence other doubters of evolution to speak up?