Damn this is exciting. 2 honest to goodness whole-hog YE creationists to play with.
Earth's age at 6000 yrs
114,527 Views |
1071 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by AstroAg17
quote:It's not millions of years... it's hundreds of thousands.quote:Assuming that you believe that God created Adam, was Adam created as an infant or an adult? If an adult, was that a "fake appearance of age."
Honestly, I don't know how anyone looks at ice layer data and concludes young earth. It makes no sense to worship a God that creates the fake appearance of age.
When God created the plants, there had to be soil. Soil is the result of a process. Is the creation of soil a "fake appearance of age"?
If God creates things with the appearance of age, but tells us explicitly when and how long it took him to do it, in what possible way could the be called "fake"?
And how sure are you about the reliability of ice core data? How do we confirm conclusions that ice core data shows millions of years of age? Do you know what presumptions and assumptions the ice core data aging makes?
quote:Why are the fossils ordered in terms of complexity in exactly the way evolution demands. Why is there not one single human fossil in the Cambrian, why no bunnies in the Precambrian, why no grasses with single celled organisms?
When God created the plants, there had to be soil. Soil is the result of a process. Is the creation of soil a "fake appearance of age"?
quote:
How do you explain strata that were laid down in a marine environment as sediment, but cover the entire globe or entire continents?
How do you explain dinosaur fossil beds in Wyoming that contain millions of individuals in sediment that came from Indiana?
How do you explain the exploding number of fossils with organic tissue remaining?
How do you explain the existence of DNA in insects trapped in amber for supposedly hundreds of millions of years?
How do you explain the existence of measurable C14 in all carbon based substances, including diamonds? Don't say "contamination"; that argument has been debunked.
And fossils don't take millions of years to form. It's been shown that they can be created in hours.
If radioisotope dating is so reliable, then why do different dating methods result in dates than can be an order of magnitude different from each other?
How does one verify radioisotope dates that result in billions of years of age?
Millions of individual Dinosaurs in one bone bed? Please link this.
And fossils can be created in hours? Good lord. That's not fossilization you're talking about, that's calcification or something similar. You can, in unique conditions, fossilize very small organisms in a few weeks or months. But the vast majority of fossils take tens of thousands to millions of years.
And it's funny that you bring up amber, since it's physically impossible for amber to form in 6000 years.
As for this:
We have a small handful of fossils with minute amounts of collagen and organic matter preserved in very unique circumstances and cases. The fact that you consider a tiny number of such examples of degraded and preserved organic matter as proof of a young earth is hilarious. Why don't we have much better preserved Dinos? Why do we have mammoth bones (not fossils, bones), and zero Dinosaur bones.
quote:
How do you explain the exploding number of fossils with organic tissue remaining?
We have a small handful of fossils with minute amounts of collagen and organic matter preserved in very unique circumstances and cases. The fact that you consider a tiny number of such examples of degraded and preserved organic matter as proof of a young earth is hilarious. Why don't we have much better preserved Dinos? Why do we have mammoth bones (not fossils, bones), and zero Dinosaur bones.
quote:Adam was a man, not an infant. Animals were created mature. Plants were created mature. Soil had nutrition for plants to grow. Starlight was visible from earth. But somehow ice should have been "just one big block"? I'm not even sure what rocks "should" appear as...perfect cubes of granite?quote:There would be no need to hundreds of thousands of years worth of seasons be built into ice if that were true. It could have been just one big block. It makes no sense to age to something you just poofed into existence.
I disagree it's fake. Had someone been there for day 6 to look at Adam, how old would they conclude he was? 30 years? 1 day? I guess it depends on your perspective. That's why I don't like the term "young earth." Adam wasn't "young" as in an infant even though he had been alive for only minutes.
quote:quote:Dendrochronology is more art and subjectivity than science. You do know that trees can grow more than one set of rings in a year, given the right conditions?
there are trees that are still alive today that are older than the Flood. How did they survive?
you guys are too precious.
fossils, how do they work?
quote:I wouldn't expect sedimentary rocks to exist that suggest an extremely old earth either.quote:Adam was a man, not an infant. Animals were created mature. Plants were created mature. Soil had nutrition for plants to grow. Starlight was visible from earth. But somehow ice should have been "just one big block"? I'm not even sure what rocks "should" appear as...perfect cubes of granite?quote:There would be no need to hundreds of thousands of years worth of seasons be built into ice if that were true. It could have been just one big block. It makes no sense to age to something you just poofed into existence.
I disagree it's fake. Had someone been there for day 6 to look at Adam, how old would they conclude he was? 30 years? 1 day? I guess it depends on your perspective. That's why I don't like the term "young earth." Adam wasn't "young" as in an infant even though he had been alive for only minutes.
I certainly wouldn't expect trees to exist that are older than the Earth itself.
quote:quote:Do your homework better, Sapper. You're obviously out of touch.
We have a small handful of fossils with minute amounts of collagen and organic matter preserved in very unique circumstances and cases. The fact that you consider a tiny number of such examples of degraded and preserved organic matter as proof of a young earth is hilarious.
Here's an example of yet another article, from a secular journal, pushing back even further the date of organic matter:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/44/5/379.abstract
You might want to do your own homework. What exactly do you think those organic molecules are and what exactly are they supposed to symbolize to you?
quote:Rocks don't "suggest" anything. People do that.
I wouldn't expect sedimentary rocks to exist that suggest an extremely old earth either.
quote:
I'm pretty sure that's not correct. At 60,000 feet, it may appear that way, but not when examining the details. For example, in the Cambrian Explosion, extraordinarily complex critters appear out of nothing.
You need to do some reading. YEC's always have no understanding of the cambrian explosion. They don't appear out of nothing, and it's not instant. It's an incredibly long period of time.
quote:No it doesn't. Not even a little bit and this is confirmed by DNA. I'm not even sure why you think this is true, much like your assertion about scholarship of the NT, you are operating inside an fundamentalist information bubble. Searching outside of that will reveal to you a great deal more information.
Additionally, the fossil record, rather than reflecting a "tree of life", with everything emerging from a common ancestor, appears to look more like a "lawn of life", with multiple origins of life. Further, rather than increasing numbers of life forms, there are decreasing numbers. In other words, something has been radically pruning that alleged tree.
quote:
Who knows?
I do. So does everyone else looking objectively at it. The answer is because you are wrong.
quote:Same for EVERY SINGLE creature that contradicts the theory? We aren't talking just humans and bunnies, we are talking every single creature period which is irreconcilable with evolution. The list is endless. "not that many" is not a credible solution.
Perhaps because there weren't that many people alive when the Cambrian strata got laid, same with bunnies?
quote:It doesn't show this at all. In fact this is readily debunked with countless examples. The strata are not organized by ecosystem, and just an ounce of curiosity would have shown you this isn't true. The other creationist argument is that it's organized by mobility, this can also readily be shown to be false. When you make a creationist argument spend 30s on google and find out the evidence against it. As for these assertions its trivially easy to show they are false.
Perhaps because the strata evidence a sequence of destruction and death of various eco-systems? Why do you assume that such evidence should exist?
quote:
If evolution is inevitable, why don't we have even a single shred of evidence of life outside of earth?
Who made this claim? And we have explored somewhere around 0% of the universe. I don't think we can make any intelligent claims to the existence or non-existence of extra-terrestrial life.
quote:It's pretty easy. Making copies doesn't just destroy information, it also creates it. We've watched this happen.
If evolution has occurred over billions of years, why do we have even a single meaningful bit of biological information available? Everything we have observed shows that making copies destroys information. Evolution over billions of year requires literally trillions of copies to have been made. Rather than information being destroyed or damaged, billion-year evolution shows that information has been magically created. Explain that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Now you explain starlight, boiling the oceans, lake varves, and all the other examples I gave. Why is it only the scientist need to explain evidence and you can just ignore it.
quote:Because God willed all of that. Isn't important.
Now you explain starlight, boiling the oceans, lake varves, and all the other examples I gave. Why is it only the scientist need to explain evidence and you can just ignore it.
08~Explain where we came from monkey breath
quote:Are you always this abrasive? Do you honestly believe that the way you communicate on here is Christ-like?
08~Explain where we came from monkey breath
Sometimes I wish I hadn't spent all that time reading everything Stephen Jay Gould ever wrote so these threads wouldn't make me feel so sad.
quote:quote:Are you always this abrasive? Do you honestly believe that the way you communicate on here is Christ-like?
08~Explain where we came from monkey breath
Resist the urge to feed the troll unless you are going to really lay into him, in which case it better be ban-worthy.
Jesus Christ, I'm going back to the GB.
It's been said before: apes. Your breath is that of an ape. The fact of which is probably upsetting to gorillas and other higher order animals.
The thing that is so colossally stupid (and perversely fascinating) about YEC arguments is that even though there are mountains of evidence against them, they still pick out little bits and pieces in these feeble attempts at "gotcha" moments. The thing is, though, that so many entire realms of science have to be fraudulent for them to be right that they can never demonstrate their claims to be true. The old earth is not a house of cards. Say by some fluke we find out that ice core dating is a totally erroneous fabrication. The dating methods are all wrong. The theory still stands. Then say we find out that dating tree rings is also bunk, as our esteemed skeptic implied above. The theory still stands. Why? Because then you also have to contend with:
Fossils
Stratigraphy
Measurement of continental drift and sea-floor spreading (i.e., the entire theory of plate tectonics)
Magnetic reversals over time
What else...
let's say, the fact that oil exists
The fact that freshwater fish exist
The fundamental principles of entire scientific fields (at least geology, astrophysics, and the geologic parts of oceanography) are wrong.
You have to show, without a doubt, that every form of scientific dating doesn't work. There is no way to poke enough holes in the old earth model to make it fall apart. To prove a young earth you must destroy much of the basic principles of multiple entire fields of science. But you guys are clearly up to the task with your dizzying intellects and vast scientific knowledge. Please post back when you publish your landmark revolutionary findings in Nature or PNAS.
Fossils
Stratigraphy
Measurement of continental drift and sea-floor spreading (i.e., the entire theory of plate tectonics)
Magnetic reversals over time
What else...
let's say, the fact that oil exists
The fact that freshwater fish exist
The fundamental principles of entire scientific fields (at least geology, astrophysics, and the geologic parts of oceanography) are wrong.
You have to show, without a doubt, that every form of scientific dating doesn't work. There is no way to poke enough holes in the old earth model to make it fall apart. To prove a young earth you must destroy much of the basic principles of multiple entire fields of science. But you guys are clearly up to the task with your dizzying intellects and vast scientific knowledge. Please post back when you publish your landmark revolutionary findings in Nature or PNAS.
Many YEC seem to think science one day decided the earth was old to disprove their religion then went on a multi century crusade falsifying data and making up wild theories to attack religion
Even though many of the Giants of early science were Christians. And many of them had to wrestle with what they discovered and how it impacted their faith.
There is a very good amature history video on the topic I will try to find and post.
There is a very good amature history video on the topic I will try to find and post.
No missing link bones, just monkey bones but carry on with your folly cause it is all you got and all you will ever have.
Same scientist type claiming manmade global warming, using so many variables that assume.
No missing link walking around now..O'WAIT, must be BIGFOOT, LMAO!
Seriously, birds use to be dinosaurs??? Idiots
Same scientist type claiming manmade global warming, using so many variables that assume.
No missing link walking around now..O'WAIT, must be BIGFOOT, LMAO!
Seriously, birds use to be dinosaurs??? Idiots
Round two of this thread just may be more entertaining than round one was.
It's a troll account. Poe's mind would explode. I couldn't write a parody any better.
quote:
Round two of this thread just may be more entertaining than round one was.
I'm just lurking and enjoying the show. Carry on fellas...
I remember when I was seven years old and thought there was a "the missing link."
quote:I'm getting tons of laughs myself!
Damn this is exciting. 2 honest to goodness whole-hog YE creationists to play with.
quote:
As for this:quote:
How do you explain the exploding number of fossils with organic tissue remaining?
We have a small handful of fossils with minute amounts of collagen and organic matter preserved in very unique circumstances and cases. The fact that you consider a tiny number of such examples of degraded and preserved organic matter as proof of a young earth is hilarious. Why don't we have much better preserved Dinos? Why do we have mammoth bones (not fossils, bones), and zero Dinosaur bones.
Featured Stories
See All
5 Thoughts: No. 22 Texas A&M 66, Louisiana State 52
by Luke Evangelist
15:30
15h ago
3.5k
Lamkin works in and out of traffic as No. 14 A&M downs NMSU, 7-1
by Richard Zane