How Creationists date rocks and fossils

Originally posted by RJHinds
People that are not geologists have been finding oil for a long time by accidents even. There are no need to believe in evolution or billions of years to discover anything of importance in the world. Evolution and billions of years are just fairy tale lies meant to tickle the ears of atheists.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the light from distant stars, our sun, the earth, and the oil under the surface of our earth, are all roughly the same age, having been created within 6 days of each other?

Originally posted by moonbus
Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the light from distant stars, our sun, the earth, and the oil under the surface of our earth, are all roughly the same age, having been created within 6 days of each other?

Yes, except for the oil. The oil may have only started building up after the worldwide flood.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You need the speed of light to be infinite outside the solar system. We would notice lensing effects. Simply put your model breaks known laws of physics. It disagrees with basic observations.

I looked at your third reference. That paper proves nothing.

The speed of light does not have to be infinite, but just faster at the creation of the universe when there was little or no mass but just a hugh amount of energy. The speed of light would decrease with the increase in the mass.

I don't really understand how it works, but the physicist on the video claims it could. Maybe, if you look at the video again you can get a better understanding.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, except for the oil. The oil may have only started building up after the worldwide flood.

A world-wide flood that covered all land? Well Everest is 8,848m above mean sea level, which means that you need an 8.5km layer of water over the whole earth. The mean radius of earth is 6371km. So the volume of water needed to totally cover the earth is 4*pi*6371^2*8.5 = 4.34 billion cubic kilometres of water. Each cubic kilometer of water weighs in at one billion tonnes of water. So that is 4.34 quintillion tonnes of water. So, where did all the water go R.J.?

Originally posted by DeepThought
A world-wide flood that covered all land? Well Everest is 8,848m above mean sea level, which means that you need an 8.5km layer of water over the whole earth. The mean radius of earth is 6371km. So the volume of water needed to totally cover the earth is 4*pi*6371^2*8.5 = 4.34 [b]billion cubic kilometres of water. Each cubic kilometer of w ...[text shortened]... ater. So that is 4.34 quintillion tonnes of water. So, where did all the water go R.J.?[/b]

Mount Everest was formed by an uplift, which resulted when the Indian tectonic plate pushed into the Eurasian tectonic plate at the time of the flood. And Mount Everest is getting taller because it's still happening at a much slower rate. So the flood waters did not have to get as high as Mount Everest. I know that evolutionist claimed it happened millions of years ago, but they are wrong.

Valleys sank down partially due to earthquakes and volcanic activity during and after the flood. The flood waters went into those low places.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mount Everest was formed by an uplift, which resulted when the Indian tectonic plate pushed into the Eurasian tectonic plate at the time of the flood. And Mount Everest is getting taller because it's still happening at a much slower rate. So the flood waters did not have to get as high as Mount Everest. I know that evolutionist claimed it happened millions ...[text shortened]... and volcanic activity during and after the flood. The flood waters went into those low places.

Your delusions knows no bounds.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, except for the oil. The oil may have only started building up after the worldwide flood.

Except for the oil...

You start from the conclusion--namely that things are thus-and-so--and you accept as valid only putative evidence which supports this conclusion. Any putative evidence at variance with the conclusion you dismiss a priori as invalid, false, or a deliberate fabrication. I do not deny that you are entitled to believe this. What I deny is that this is properly called "science." Science properly so-called starts from data and attempts to figure out what the most plausible conclusion, consistent with the data, might be. Adding the suffix "-ism" to the cognate "creation" does not make it science; it is still religion.

The data indicate that the age of star light, the age of our sun, and the age of the earth are farther apart than 6 days. Science properly so-called accepts this as prima facie true and attempts to find a hypothesis consistent with these data (for example, an old earth, and even older sun, and even older universe). You assume that these putative data must be false or misinterpreted, and that is religion, not science. You cherry pick putative data supporting your preferred conclusion; that again is religion, not science. Science accepts evidence even when it appears to contradict accepted theory and tries to adjust the theory to take account of new evidence. You don't, and that is the crucial difference.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When did God say anything about speaking through the Pope? There is nothing about that in the Holy Bible. The Pope is voted into office by the Roman Church and that is how he got his authority. Many Christians, like myself, do not recognize his authority over all Christians, because Christ alone is the head of the church and God is the head of Christ.

T ...[text shortened]... ng off topic, so why don't we get back to discussing the science that supports the two theories?

"upon this rock I shall build my church," referring to Peter who later evangelized Rome; that is the scritpural passage upon which the primacy of Rome is based.

Off-topic, but see my previous post.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mount Everest was formed by an uplift, which resulted when the Indian tectonic plate pushed into the Eurasian tectonic plate at the time of the flood. And Mount Everest is getting taller because it's still happening at a much slower rate. So the flood waters did not have to get as high as Mount Everest. I know that evolutionist claimed it happened millions ...[text shortened]... and volcanic activity during and after the flood. The flood waters went into those low places.

Then why is the Indian sub-continent not molten? You can't escape this. Either the world is considerably older than 6,000 years or it is a young earth created to be indistinguishable from an old earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your delusions knows no bounds.

I got how Mount Everest was built from the science theory that most evolutionists accept. However, since no one can prove when it happened, I interpret it from the creation point of view.

Originally posted by moonbus
Except for the oil...

You start from the conclusion--namely that things are thus-and-so--and you accept as valid only putative evidence which supports this conclusion. Any putative evidence at variance with the conclusion you dismiss a priori as invalid, false, or a deliberate fabrication. I do not deny that you are entitled to believe this. What I deny i ...[text shortened]... djust the theory to take account of new evidence. You don't, and that is the crucial difference.

Well, there is proof that it does not take long periods of time to make oil and we know how it is made artificially and naturally. So the process could have started with earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and a worldwide flood that might also have caused Grand Canyon as was demonstrated on a smaller scale with the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and the after effects.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism

I deny that evolution and declaring things to be millions of years old is proper science. That is science philosophy. Some of us just have a different science philosophy. Just because one philosophy has been generally accepted over another one, does not automatically make that one right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, there is proof that it does not take long periods of time to make oil and we know how it is made artificially and naturally. So the process could have started with earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and a worldwide flood that might also have caused Grand Canyon as was demonstrated on a smaller scale with the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and the ...[text shortened]... osophy has been generally accepted over another one, does not automatically make that one right.

You not only have a private philosophy of science, but also a private interpretation of scripture. The mental world you inhabit is perilously close to solipsistic.

One of the fundamental principles of science is that its conclusions are revisable in light of evidence to the contrary. You, however, will not budge from your conclusion (that the earth is 6'000 years old) regardless what evidence to the contrary may emerge. That is what makes your claims not scientific.

If you wish to redefine the word "science" just so you can claim that your position has 'scientific' evidence behind it, don't expect anyone else to lend you any credence.

Originally posted by moonbus
You not only have a private philosophy of science, but also a private interpretation of scripture. The mental world you inhabit is perilously close to solipsistic.

One of the fundamental principles of science is that its conclusions are revisable in light of evidence to the contrary. You, however, will not budge from your conclusion (that the earth is 6'0 ...[text shortened]... position has 'scientific' evidence behind it, don't expect anyone else to lend you any credence.

If you wish to redefine the word "science" just so you can claim that your position has 'scientific' evidence behind it, don't expect anyone else to lend you any credence.

Well put.
He doesn't only do that with the word “science” but also with the word “evolution”. What the moron doesn't get is that you cannot make a valid argument just by arbitrary changing the generally accepted definition of a word to one that just happens to conveniently justifies the argument! To do so proves nothing because that is simply not what all other people mean by the word! It is as stupid as arguing that all cars are red by first redefining the word "car" as meaning the same thing as "red car"😛 Any moron can do that but it proves nothing because "car" doesn't mean "red car".

Originally posted by humy

If you wish to redefine the word "science" just so you can claim that your position has 'scientific' evidence behind it, don't expect anyone else to lend you any credence.

Well put.
He doesn't only do that with the word “science” but also with the word “evolution”. What the moron doesn't get is that you cannot make a valid argument just ...[text shortened]... as "red car"😛 Any moron can do that but it proves nothing because "car" doesn't mean "red car".

The only difference between "car" and "red car" is the paint color. However, there is a big difference between "variations" in a species and "evolution" of the species.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only difference between "car" and "red car" is the paint color. However, there is a big difference between "variations" in a species and "evolution" of the species.

Sequential variation is evolution.