Age of Earth - Thousands Not Billions

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is very well indeed you only have a very limited access to little ones whose minds you would pollute with your nonsense.

So far, nobody here agrees with you, everyone posting here has called your claims ridiculous.

You are in a band of one here. Good luck with that. Hide your head in the sand and all you will see are little grains of sand. Maybe it would entertain you to count them and try to figure out how old they might be.

Counting little grains of sand in an attempt to figure out how old they might be is radiometric dating, right? 😏

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -- John 20:29

Faith is the belief in those things unseen. You have just decided to shackle yourself to an idea created by man to make up for his lack of faith. You hitch your wagon to the scientific method because i ...[text shortened]... need to believe in scary things you cannot prove.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

I like your posts. You represent a Christian outlook that is considered, and one that i can respect; even if it is one i am at odds with.

I do not think though that believing in 'the scientific method' is the easy way out. I think it is far scarier to believe in a world 'without' God, 'without' salvation, 'without' an eternal soul.

I would love to have belief in the things unseen; but can not get past the things i can see; suffering and cruelty, that to me make believe in God problematic, if not impossible.

P.S I don't sleep.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I like your posts. You represent a Christian outlook that is considered, and one that i can respect; even if it is one i am at odds with.

I do not think though that believing in 'the scientific method' is the easy way out. I think it is far scarier to believe in a world 'without' God, 'without' salvation, 'without' an eternal soul.

I would love ...[text shortened]... d cruelty, that to me make believe in God problematic, if not impossible.

P.S I don't sleep.

Isn't my Christian outlook considered? 😲

Originally posted by RJHinds
Isn't my Christian outlook considered? 😲

I certainly consider it something...

😲

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.

____ Clock ____ .......... ____ Age Estimate

1. Receding Moon ... 750 m.y.a. max

2. Oil Pressure ... 5,000 - 10,000 years

3. The Sun ... 1,000,000 years max

4. The Oldest Living Thing ... 4,900 years max

5. Helium in the Atmosphere ... 1,750,000 years max

6. Short Period Comets ... 5,000 - 10,000 years

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field ... 10,000 years max

8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones ... 10,000 - 50,000 years

9A. Dino Blood and Old DNA ... 5,000 - 50,000 years

9B. Unfossilized Dino Bones ... 5,000 - 50,000 years

9C. 165 M.Y.O. Ammonites ... 5,000 - 50,000 years

10. Axel Heiberg Island ... 5,000 - 10,000 years

11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere ... 10,000 years max

12. The Dead Sea ... 13,000 years max

13. Niagara Falls ... 5,000 - 8,800 years max

14. Historical Records ... 5,000 years max

15. The San Andreas Fault ... 5,000 - 10,000 years

16. Mitochondrial Eve ... 6,500 years

17. Population Growth ... 10,000 years max

18. Minerals in the Oceans ... Various (mostly young) Ages

19. Rapid Mountain Uplift ... Less than 10 million years

20. Carbon 14 Dating ... 10,000 to 50,000 years

21. Dark Matter & Spiral Galaxies ... 1 million years (max)

22. Helium and lead in Zircons ... 6,000 years

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.

____ Clock ____ .......... ____ Age Estimate

1. Receding Moon ... 750 m.y.a. max

2. Oil Pressure ... 5,000 - 10,000 years

3. The Sun ... 1,000,000 years max

4. T ...[text shortened]... . 6,000 years

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

What a pointless list of poppycock. Pick one of them and explain how you think it supports a young earth.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
What a pointless list of poppycock. Pick one of them and explain how you think it supports a young earth.

Go to the reference. There is an explanation for each of them there. I believe the best one may be number 22.

http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

Originally posted by RJHinds
Go to the reference. There is an explanation for each of them there. I believe the best one may be number 22.

http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

Well let's have a quick look at 22 then. This is based on the completely baseless hypothesis that rates of nuclear decay have changed dramatically over time. The only reason this hypothesis was even considered was that the YEC 'scientists' involved were finally forced by weight of data to abandon their previously held contention that very little nuclear decay had taken place since the 'creation' of the earth. Rather than reconsider the YEC position however, they simply invented a mechanism for which no evidence has ever been discovered, and then constructed a new edifice of dreams based thereon.

A quick scan of the various papers debunking and supporting the helium diffusion argument reveals that several assumptions are made in the YEC paper which pretty much completely invalidate it's findings. If you actually had any interest in finding out the truth of this matter, you could easily have discovered this yourself, but of course you are interested only in finding data to support your position.

It would be a simple but time-consuming matter to post extensive lists detailing papers which strongly support a vastly longer time-span for the earth's existence, but you would no doubt dismiss these with the same unthinking ease with which you have already dismissed the combined efforts of virtually all scientific endeavour of the last three hundred years.

Consider instead Dasa's assertions regarding the age of the earth. Basing his beliefs on a similarly small splinter of the scientific establishment to that which you embrace, he is able to convince himself that the earth is trillions of years old and that human beings have been around for millions of years. Have a look into Michael Cremo's work. The websites you will find are oddly reminiscent of those which you currently frequent, so you should feel right at home.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well let's have a quick look at 22 then. This is based on the completely baseless hypothesis that rates of nuclear decay have changed dramatically over time. The only reason this hypothesis was even considered was that the YEC 'scientists' involved were finally forced by weight of data to abandon their previously held contention that very little nucl ...[text shortened]... d are oddly reminiscent of those which you currently frequent, so you should feel right at home.

So it is okay with you that scientists that believe in evolution or an old earth make assumptions, but not okay if YEC scientists make their own assumptions. Why don't we just say that one can not really tell how old the sand is by counting the grains or particles?

There are still 21 other clocks listed in the article that indicate that man and the earth can not be as old as the evolutionists claim. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
So it is okay with you that scientists that believe in evolution or an old earth make assumptions, but not okay if YEC scientists make their own assumptions. Why don't we just say that one can not really tell how old the sand is by counting the grains or particles?

There are still 21 other clocks listed in the article that indicate that man and the earth can not be as old as the evolutionists claim. 😏

That rather depends on the nature and consequences of the assumptions made. The assumption that helium will diffuse through a regular crystal matrix at a uniform rate regardless of proximity to faulting within that matrix is obviously erroneous. The consequence of this assumption is that somebody calling themselves a scientist is able to mislead people who stubbornly resist recourse to their own critical faculties. The assumption that sedimentation observed to vary in a measurable way over the course of a year represents an opportunity to accurately date an undisturbed sedimentary deposit is clearly difficult to dismiss according to reason and logic. The consequences of this assumption emphatically and comprehensively contradict the YEC position regarding the age of the earth.

Can you grasp the difference in the nature of these assumptions?

Pick another one of your 'clocks'. I've got a bit of time on my hands at the moment and I'm quite happy to go through them with you.

Incidentally, evolutionists don't tend to date geological deposits themselves. They will almost invariably rely on data from scientists who specialise in that sort of thing. The fact that their data largely accords with that produced by geologists, physicists, astronomers, geneticists and so on is what gives most reasonable people confidence in the widely published and accepted age of the earth. I suppose there's an outside chance that they might all be wrong, but given the data available it seems rather more likely that it's the YEC which is incorrect.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That rather depends on the nature and consequences of the assumptions made. The assumption that helium will diffuse through a regular crystal matrix at a uniform rate regardless of proximity to faulting within that matrix is obviously erroneous. The consequence of this assumption is that somebody calling themselves a scientist is able to mislead peop ...[text shortened]... , but given the data available it seems rather more likely that it's the YEC which is incorrect.

The assumption is not in a uniform rate by YEC scientists on problem 22 as you claim. As I understand it, the assumption is that sudden events like the creation or perhaps catastrophes like a worldwide flood, volcanic eruptions, etc. may alter any uniformity that would be expected to occur. They claim to have discovered evidence that supports that conclusion.

The way you talk you must not be aware of all the false claims by evolutionists that have been proven wrong and even accepted by most evolutionists today as being frauds. You also do not seem to be aware of the many sedimentary deposits layed down and the little grand canyon carved during the 1980-1982 disasters at Mount St Helens. That certainly did not take millions of years to form.

😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The assumption is not in a uniform rate by YEC scientists on problem 22 as you claim. As I understand it, the assumption is that sudden events like the creation or perhaps catastrophes like a worldwide flood, volcanic eruptions, etc. may alter any uniformity that would be expected to occur. They claim to have discovered evidence that supports that conclusio ...[text shortened]... 982 disasters at Mount St Helens. That certainly did not take millions of years to form.

😏

To my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure to yours and theirs too, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate that rates of nuclear decay of radionuclides has ever been any different from their current values. Should such evidence ever come to light, the whole basis of radiometric dating would be invalidated. To hypothesize such a variation without very strong grounds (and bronze age stories do not comprise these!) is ridiculous.

Your implication that there have been many 'false claims' by evolutionists that have been proven wrong is disingenuous. Firstly, you should resist the urge to imagine that there is some sort of cabal of 'evolutionists' out there working at an agenda to prove the bible wrong. I don't know what it's like at universities in your neck of the woods (assuming there are any), but for most of the world of academia the bible is considered to be an interesting collection of ancient texts, potentially valuable as historical data, nothing more. There is no need to falsify data to support the current scientific paradigm. And while there have certainly been a few hoaxes and errors over the years, these have always been exposed by scientists and researchers in the same field, eager to prove their worth by calling their colleague's work into question. The cut-throat nature of academic argument makes even the discussions on this board seem playful and friendly!

As for comparing rapidly deposited material from Mt St Helens to the sedimentary rock exposed at the Grand Canyon... you are joking right? Please take a quick look at an undergraduate geology text book before making facile comparisons like this.

Originally posted by RJHinds

RJHinds, If you purport that

1. Receding Moon ... 750 m.y.a. max, Or "is unspecified"
2. Oil Pressure ... 5,000 - 10,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
3. The Sun ... 1,000,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
4. The Oldest Living Thing ... 4,900 years max, Or "is unspecified"
5. Helium in the Atmosphere ... 1,750,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
6. Short Period Comets ... 5,000 - 10,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field ... 10,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones ... 10,000 - 50,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
9A. Dino Blood and Old DNA ... 5,000 - 50,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
9B. Unfossilized Dino Bones ... 5,000 - 50,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
9C. 165 M.Y.O. Ammonites ... 5,000 - 50,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
10. Axel Heiberg Island ... 5,000 - 10,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere ... 10,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
12. The Dead Sea ... 13,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
13. Niagara Falls ... 5,000 - 8,800 years max, Or "is unspecified"
14. Historical Records ... 5,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
15. The San Andreas Fault ... 5,000 - 10,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
17. Population Growth ... 10,000 years max, Or "is unspecified"
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift ... Less than 10 million years, Or "is unspecified"
20. Carbon 14 Dating ... 10,000 to 50,000 years, Or "is unspecified"
21. Dark Matter & Spiral Galaxies ... 1 million years (max), Or "is unspecified"

Then why do you object to many Christians believing that the exact time gap between -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (v1) and
"But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the face of the deep." (v.2) could also be UNSPECIFIED ?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
To my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure to yours and theirs too, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate that rates of nuclear decay of radionuclides has ever been any different from their current values. Should such evidence ever come to light, the whole basis of radiometric dating would be invalidated. To hypothesize such a variation wi ...[text shortened]... e a quick look at an undergraduate geology text book before making facile comparisons like this.

Good luck on getting this yahoo to look at ANY geological book, even 1st grade, much less undergrad. He would just look at the title and go 'another book by those atheist evolutionists running their grand conspiracy'.

You will NEVER get him to admit to ANYTHING that refutes his yahoo claim for a 6000 year old Earth.

Even the dates he posts, some of them say 50,000 years, almost ten times the alleged YEC date and some say 10 million years.

He just compacts all that data into 6000 years no matter what.

One argument I gave (from my own mind) is this: You see the craters on the moon, literally millions of them. So if they all happened, as would be required if the Earth and solar system and the universe was called into play only 6000 years ago, the moon would still be red hot. We know for a fact it is not since a dozen humans actually walked around on the moon.

It takes millions of years for such events to cool down ESPECIALLY if they all happened in just say, 1000 years which seems reasonable, yet humans have had the science of astronomy for at least 5000 years and NOBODY in all that time ever noticed the moon being red hot.

His reply: The moon got cooled off by water. ????

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
To my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure to yours and theirs too, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate that rates of nuclear decay of radionuclides has ever been any different from their current values. Should such evidence ever come to light, the whole basis of radiometric dating would be invalidated. To hypothesize such a variation wi ...[text shortened]... e a quick look at an undergraduate geology text book before making facile comparisons like this.

Yes, I agree that you lack knowledge.

Well, there have been many evolutionists that have felt the need to present false information to support the lie of evolution of man from a lower form of creature. 😏