quote:
Your statement on how science works is awfully naive. I don't think that anyone, in any field of science, would claim that with a straight face.
What Really??? said is precisely how it works.
Earth's age at 6000 yrs
114,614 Views |
1071 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by AstroAg17
What Really??? said is precisely how it works.
quote:quote:That's because we aren't desperate to cling to anything. Did science suddenly stop working? Did technological advancements cease? Is there any evidence that the scientific method is ineffective for learning? Or that instances of human beings lying or cheating have fundamentally undermined the process?
You guys are true believers in the integrity of sciencequote:Literally no one said this. No one. All you have is a straw man. And an unwillingness to truly address points. I don't blame you, you can't argue evidence so what else do you have?
No, there are never any scandals in science.quote:Again, it's a pitiful strawman. You are arguing that individual scientist acting immorally has somehow undermined ALL of science, and therefore you can believe the earth is young like a niave child by ignoring all scientific findings (which are everywhere) which discredit your claim. Scientific forgery doesn't work because someone else is always going to test it. Reality is the true test of scientific effectiveness.
Scientists aren't mere mortals. No, they'resaintsmen of integrity, dedicated to find the truth no matterwhere the money may liethe oppositionquote:So your argument is that a massive cover-up involving literally every single accredited university department of geology, physics, cosmology, biology, archaeology, chemistry, and every other field which disproves a young earth over the last several hundred years has taken place and won't be revealed for another few hundred? That's what your banking on when you ignore starlight disproving your worldview?
You guys have convinced me. Truth will always out in science. Of course, it may take a couple of hundred years, but who's counting?quote:I always have actual religious zealots like you to remind me how different I sound and how different I reason, and how much more evidence I have. Now how about you actually try and address some points. Let's start with that evidence scientists ignore and that starlight issue (just one of countless others, but it's an easy one to understand)
Do you ever step back and think how remarkably similar you sound to religious zealots?
I wish there were more evolution threads just so I could see Aggrad08 post more.
quote:
Correct.
Scientific approach:
1. Gather data
2. Examine data.
3. Reach conclusions based on data.
Creationist approach
1. Genesis was literal.
2. Examine data.
3. If data contradicts 1, data is wrong.
It's simply not science.
And if were going to accept the argument that the earth is 6000 years old but God planted millions odd pieces of evidence that it was not, there isn't a point in discussing ANY observation. A claim that the planet is 24 hours old but it just LOOKS like last week happened is equally as valid s saying Genesis was right but every piece of evidence shows it wasn't. It's a totally useless stance.
You call it "evidence" because it's appearance leads you to a conclusion. I told you you would gnash teeth over the fact that a creator might make a full grown man, tree, universe. If you had the ability to observe a 100 ft tall tree on day 6 of creation you would calculate it to be 100+ years old. Adam would be thought to be, lets say 20. Imagine your surprise when you're told that tree is 2 days old and Adam was born today! It's funny because nothing has changed in the argument. Da Vinci first theorized that the tree rings had an age value estimate. On and on we could go with scientific advancement. It's not my enemy. I love science. However it has zero bearing on whether the first trees were created fully grown with rings or not. It doesn't shake my understanding of science whatsoever. It's even natural that some would see that as "tricking" science. What an absolutely ludicrous stance that is to me.
Nothing is anti-science in that stance other than you guys acting like your some kind of cosmic sleuths piecing observable evidence together. That doesn't remotely impact the possibility it was instantly created with the qualities and processes fully functional.
Even postulating a fully functional universe doesn't come close to reconciling the problem.
Would you tell us what evidence you would need to see to accept that evolution did take place over billions of years, and the universe is very, very old?
Would you tell us what evidence you would need to see to accept that evolution did take place over billions of years, and the universe is very, very old?
So you do not believe God is trustworthy?
The devil did it.
quote:
So you do not believe God is trustworthy?
That is a mutually exclusive question. Job had a similar dysfunctional mental moment. Then the creator counseled with him by asking questions which quickly made Job understand.
I imagine God would tell today's generation that when they can speak a universe into existence they can make the rules.
Ah yes Job. What a horrible story. God and (what would later be changed into the devil) make a bet and torture a man for sport while killing his children (kids are just property right?).
quote:quote:
So you do not believe God is trustworthy?
That is a mutually exclusive question. Job had a similar dysfunctional mental moment. Then the creator counseled with him by asking questions which quickly made Job understand.
I imagine God would tell today's generation that when they can speak a universe into existence they can make the rules.
So you're basically admitting you worship a version of the Pacific Northwest's Raven and do so because he's powerful, not because he's fundamentally worth worshipping.
The problem you face (among others) is geological strata.
There is no possible way a worldwide flood could create the breadth and depth of fossilization that has been found. Further, a flood would create stratifications that consisted of multiple fossils from multiple geological eras.
This has not been found, which means it is unlikely that it occurred the way you are describing it.
So, if that is the case, that leaves you with the explanation that God created multiple geological layers that appear to be billions of years old (based on how they are arranged) but are only thousands of years old.
Since there is no need to have these types of strata to create a world, what reason is there for them?
There is no possible way a worldwide flood could create the breadth and depth of fossilization that has been found. Further, a flood would create stratifications that consisted of multiple fossils from multiple geological eras.
This has not been found, which means it is unlikely that it occurred the way you are describing it.
So, if that is the case, that leaves you with the explanation that God created multiple geological layers that appear to be billions of years old (based on how they are arranged) but are only thousands of years old.
Since there is no need to have these types of strata to create a world, what reason is there for them?
I agree with your post, but a minor clarification, there would be no fossils. There would be bones, but nothing fossilizes in 4,000 years.
Unless you change the definition of a fossil like the YEC often due and then show some moldy foot in a boot like has been done here before.
quote:I have a lot questions I'll definitely be asking from the author and ultimately only authority on the matter. Meanwhile I am glad there are scientist around who aren't regurgitating what was taught as fact in the classroom and are using their talents in exploring all possibilities with an open mind.
The problem you face (among others) is geological strata.
There is no possible way a worldwide flood could create the breadth and depth of fossilization that has been found. Further, a flood would create stratifications that consisted of multiple fossils from multiple geological eras.
This has not been found, which means it is unlikely that it occurred the way you are describing it.
So, if that is the case, that leaves you with the explanation that God created multiple geological layers that appear to be billions of years old (based on how they are arranged) but are only thousands of years old.
Since there is no need to have these types of strata to create a world, what reason is there for them?
Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
The ten strata systems that geologists use (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary) compose the "standard geologic column" and are claimed by many to contain the major proof of evolutionary theory. Several erroneous notions have been attached to the geologic column. The following are the ten most common misconceptions.
quote:It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.
Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.
quote:The geologic column was not composed by assembling a chronology of "periods," "eras" or other supposed measures of time, but by superposition of objectively defined sequences of sedimentary strata called "systems." The "periods" and "eras" were later appended to the system nomenclature of the "geologic Column" transforming it into a "geologic time scale."
Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.
quote:The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% hasat least one missing system.2 Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!
Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.
quote:Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong. Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are frequently maintained as disrupting the order. In some locations such structural changes can be supported by physical evidence while elsewhere physical evidence of the disruption may be lacking and special pleading may be required using fossils or radiometric dating.
Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.
quote:Sandstone, limestone, dolomite, shale, chert, salt, conglomerate, coal and other rock types are not diagnostic of specific strata systems. Therefore, a rock's physical appearance cannot, with certainty, distinguish the system or strata level to which a rock may belong. The sequence of rock types is more useful, but hardly an infallible guide to correlation. Thus, the Cambrian System on an intercontinental scale is typically composed of quartzose sandstone, overlain by glauconitic sandstone with dark-brown shale, overlain by impure, light-brown limestones.3 The correlation of "Cambrian" strata is further strengthened by the presence on an intercontinental scale of an unconformity (surface of erosion) at or near the base of the system. Each rock type is not distinctive of the Cambrian, and neither is the unconformity, but the sequence may be.
Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.
quote:Bed-to-bed correlation of strata to their "type system" area is the most reliable method of assigning strata to a system. The data from oil well drilling, seismic surveys, and surface geologic mapping is of such character that subsurface correlation of lithostratigraphic units of the thickness of systems is possible on a continental scale. Although some fossils appear to be distinctive of certain systems (most fossil taxa range through a few to several systems), care must be exercised in correlation by fossils. First, the stratigraphic range of a fossil type is always open to extension as new fossils are discovered. Second, when an extension of a fossil's range may be required, geologists may call upon erosion (reworking fossils into younger strata or leaking fossils into older strata) and structural events (overturning or faulting strata and fossils). An example of the first problem is the monoplacophoran mollusk Pilina, which might otherwise be considered diagnostic of the Silurian System, except for the startling discovery that Neopilina lives today, and, therefore, would be expected in any system overlying the Silurian. For these reasons correlation by fossils must always remain tentative awaiting further confirmatory evidence from lithostratigraphy. We should look very skeptically at strata correlations which rely solely on fossils.
Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.
quote:Before radiometric dating was devised, uniformitarian geologists postulated "periods" of millions of years duration to slowly deposit the strata systems. A single sedimentary lamina, or bed, was supposed by uniformitarian geologists to represent typically a year or many years duration. It was concluded, therefore, that multiplied thousands of laminae and beds superimposed required millions of years. Recently, however, geologists have discovered that laminae and beds form quickly on floodplains of rivers during floods, in shallow marine areas during storms, and in deep water by turbidity currents. The evidence of rapid sedimentation is now so easily recognized that geologists observing a strata system these days often ask where to insert the "missing time" of which the strata do not show sedimentary evidence. Catastrophism, quite naturally, is making a come-back. There is good reason to believe that entire strata systems, and even groups of systems, were accumulated in a hydraulic cataclysm matching the description of Noah's Flood in the Bible.
Misconception No. 7. Sedimentary evidence proves that periods of millions of years duration were required to deposit individual strata systems.
quote:Geologists and geochronologists assert that radiometric dating verifies that individual strata systems and their strata are millions of years old. When asked to document the most reliable radiometric age dates, geologists usually point to isochron and concordia plots which employ multiple isotopic analyses, which they claim will remove the effects of original "contaminants," and display the "age" of a rock in graphical form. However, we find geologists often reporting isochron plots which are discordant with the accepted "ages" of strata systems.4 Frequently, these discordant isochron plots "date" strata systems much older than even the accepted old ages customarily assigned to the systems of the geologic column. Geologists should be asking which, if any, of the isochron plots should be accepted as "absolute ages," and if the discordances do not falsify the assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based. Geologists need to consider radiometric methods which indicate ages of thousands of years for strata systems,5 as well as general indicators supporting young age.
Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column. 10
quote:Books, films and museum displays contain illustrations asking us to visualize what earlier "geologic ages" were like. These "pictures" show supposed primitive earth conditions, specific environments with sediments being slowly deposited, inferred "transitional organisms" evolving toward familiar forms, and whole communities of organisms "at home" with other organisms absent. Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved. Yet, geologists have yet to find sedimentary evidence for the reducing atmosphere and the soup.6 This reminds us that accepting an environmental "picture" requires much imagination from a meager supply of facts.
Misconception No. 9. The environmental "pictures" assigned to certain portions of the geologic column allow us to accurately visualize what its "geologic ages" were like.
quote:All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known as fossils in the Cambrian System. No ancestral forms can be found for the protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates. These phyla appear in the fossil record fully formed and distinct, in better agreement with the concept of "multiple, abrupt beginnings" (creation) than with the notion of "descent from a common ancestor" (evolution).
Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.
Why not just link us to http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/ where you copy / pasted that whole thing from?
Lol,
Now spend two minutes on google and see what real geologists have to say about ign. A bit of curiousity is all it takes. There is a reason your views and ign's views are dead in academia. If they had merit, they wouldn't be laughed at in a largely Christian nation, even in academia, Christianity is not uncommon, YECs are basically unicorns they are so rare.
That's a really long-winded way to not say much at all and it didn't answer my question.
let me re-phrase.
Why haven't dinosaur bones and bunny rabbit bones been found in the same strata?
Using your world-wide flood postulation, specifically tons of water exerting pressure on bones, you would think that this type of event would be seen at a much-higher degree than what we see now (never). If the world was covered in water, it would have cuased massive disturbances in the strata, not to mention the fact that all of the dinosaurs and mammals alive at the time would be found next to each other.
Why hasn't that been the case if God created the world "as-is"?
let me re-phrase.
Why haven't dinosaur bones and bunny rabbit bones been found in the same strata?
Using your world-wide flood postulation, specifically tons of water exerting pressure on bones, you would think that this type of event would be seen at a much-higher degree than what we see now (never). If the world was covered in water, it would have cuased massive disturbances in the strata, not to mention the fact that all of the dinosaurs and mammals alive at the time would be found next to each other.
Why hasn't that been the case if God created the world "as-is"?
Because God snapped his fingers and made the evidence disappear. Just like he did with the exodus.
have we covered how freshwater fish survived the Noah flood?
I think it's safe to say the answer to all questions of this sort is "magic."
Nonbelievers Pounding your chest claiming there is no GOD, what bravery, yet you still come here because deep down you know the truth but unfortunately for you, the truth will not set you free.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
quote:I LOVE Winags.
Nonbelievers Pounding your chest claiming there is no GOD, what bravery, yet you still come here because deep down you know the truth but unfortunately for you, the truth will not set you free.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
Please never change, bro.
oi vey.
quote:
Nonbelievers Pounding your chest claiming there is no GOD, what bravery, yet you still come here because deep down you know the truth but unfortunately for you, the truth will not set you free.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
quote:This God fellow sounds like kind of a jerk.
Nonbelievers Pounding your chest claiming there is no GOD, what bravery, yet you still come here because deep down you know the truth but unfortunately for you, the truth will not set you free.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
If you go back to when the world was young but resembled an ancient creation, and saw all the one species of bird flying in the skies and all the lazy birds walking the land, and the light shown bright (unless you faced the wrong direction, in which case you had to wait awhile), you would have seen a young, uncynical God and understood that he isn't a jerk, he's just had to deal with some crap.
quote:
Nonbelievers Pounding your chest claiming there is no GOD, what bravery, yet you still come here because deep down you know the truth but unfortunately for you, the truth will not set you free.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
You should see the responses for what did the lions and tigers and other predators eat if there were only two of any prey animal.
quote:
Nonbelievers Pounding your chest claiming there is no GOD, what bravery, yet you still come here because deep down you know the truth but unfortunately for you, the truth will not set you free.
GOD has favorites, I suspect the loudest haters of the word of GOD are the ones that know they have no chance, they have committed to the other side and there is no turning back.
Gold like this is why we keep coming back.
and why you keep coming back really is a waste of time other than personal comical relieve I suppose. I don't think you or anyone will find salvation on this board or anywhere nearby.
We have folks TODAY getting their heads removed, their family being sold in slavery because they believe that Christ died on the cross for sin. You of course are smarter than they are.
Sleep tight dude
We have folks TODAY getting their heads removed, their family being sold in slavery because they believe that Christ died on the cross for sin. You of course are smarter than they are.
Sleep tight dude
quote:There are folks TODAY willing to blow themselves up for a completely different religion.
and why you keep coming back really is a waste of time other than personal comical relieve I suppose. I don't think you or anyone will find salvation on this board or anywhere nearby.
We have folks TODAY getting their heads removed, their family being sold in slavery because they believe that Christ died on the cross for sin. You of course are smarter than they are.
Sleep tight dude
Just shows that some people are willing to die for what they believe in. Speaks nothing to the truth of their beliefs.
How do you think atheists are treated by those folks?
Featured Stories
See All
15:03
1h ago
1.6k
Michael Earley recaps A&M's final non-conference series vs. NMSU
by Ryan Brauninger
8:10
17h ago
3.7k
No. 14 Texas A&M drops series finale to New Mexico State, 4-1
by Richard Zane
11:59
1h ago
386
aggietony2010
Outscored 27-5 and their official account posts this.
in Texas A&M Baseball & Softball
44