The Young Earth theory and pleistocine and ice age eras. (Moved from Creation & Evolution)

[Subduction Zone]

i knew what you meant AND i know what God states

This is a common error of some Christians The Bible does not say that it is what "God states" at all. Perhaps you don't like it when atheists point out that error to you.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Using the terms of Stone, Bronze and Iron age as a chronological measure is problematic as it is sometimes a level of technology but in others it is a question of age or environment. Iron rusts away more quickly than bronze or stone and it also rusts quicker in certain environments to others. Thus a civilization we call Bronze or Stone may have had iron or bronze but all traces of it has disappeared. Or we have those who live in a higher level of technology alongside those living in a more simple or primitive levels as we often see today.

This also affects evidence based on the dna of ancient bodies. For example if one dates the Utenice culture to the 2nd millenium BC instead of 500-800 AD and finds a certain haplogroup such as I1a1 mt-dna among its dead, one then gets the false impression of the age of this subclade. Alot of these datings of cultures are based on the end of the Ice Age in Europe. The end of the Ice Age is believed by many evolutionists to have occurred 15,000 years ago rather than the 4500 years ago proposed by Velikovsky (my own dating is around 1350 BC). We don't even know if the Ice Age in Western Europe was the same one that wiped out the mammoths in Siberia or that it was some later ones we called the Little and Mini Ice Ages closer to our own times. We should always remember, that in many regards, in the areas of history and science we are in a realm of hypothesises, theories, speculations and story telling. In the end we must hold to that which most convinces us as the truth while remaining open to being wrong and that with further research we may all have to revise our understandings.

from Alternative GenHist: There is a Mammoth in the Room: Dna, Genetic Distances and Dating Methodologies

 

[Gene2memE]

The end of the Ice Age is believed by many evolutionists to have occurred 15,000 years ago rather than the 4500 years ago proposed by Velikovsky (my own dating is around 1350 BC).

From isotope dating of the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok and Antarctic Plateau sites) ice cores, it is pretty well evidentially established that the last ice age started to end about 13,000 years ago and finished 11,700 years ago - which marks the start of the Holocene.

We don't even know if the Ice Age in Western Europe was the same one that wiped out the mammoths in Siberia or that it was some later ones we called the Little and Mini Ice Ages closer to our own times.

There's evidence that mammoths were still around in Siberia just under 10,000 years ago, and isolated populations survived on islands north of the Aleutians as few as 5700 years ago.

There's no evidence of mammoths surviving on the European or North American mainlands out to the Little Ice Age, which was just 500-150 years ago.

There may be evidence of residual mammoth populations on other isolated islands, but at the moment there is no positive evidence for your hypothesis.

We should always remember, that in many regards, in the areas of history and science we are in a realm of hypothesises, theories, speculations and story telling.

Scientific theories are always provisional, and open to being overturned by new evidence. Nothing new there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lake varves are also used to date the end of the ice age. With three independent dating mechanisms (I am sure that there are a few more) we can be very sure of that date.

Quick Factsheet: Varve Chronology | datingthepast.org

 

[Aronbengilad]

From isotope dating of the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok and Antarctic Plateau sites) ice cores, it is pretty well evidentially established that the last ice age started to end about 13,000 years ago and finished 11,700 years ago - which marks the start of the Holocene.



There's evidence that mammoths were still around in Siberia just under 10,000 years ago, and isolated populations survived on islands north of the Aleutians as few as 5700 years ago.

There's no evidence of mammoths surviving on the European or North American mainlands out to the Little Ice Age, which was just 500-150 years ago.

There may be evidence of residual mammoth populations on other isolated islands, but at the moment there is no positive evidence for your hypothesis.



Scientific theories are always provisional, and open to being overturned by new evidence. Nothing new there.

Dating using an evolutionary framework using isotope dating is again a form of story telling but not scientific evidence. You are making assumptions that cannot be proved. In regards to isotopic dating of ice cores is very problematic which is admitted by many even evolutionary scientists. Of course there is no positive evidence for my hypothesis using the evolutionary based dating assumptions and frameworks but there is when one uses a young earth framework. Scientists have just found a city under 2.3 kilometres of ice in Antarctica. Even most evolutionary archeologists believe cities have only occurred in the last 8,000 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dating using an evolutionary framework using isotope dating is again a form of story telling but not scientific evidence. You are making assumptions that cannot be proved. In regards to isotopic dating of ice cores is very problematic which is admitted by many even evolutionary scientists. Of course there is no positive evidence for my hypothesis using the evolutionary based dating assumptions and frameworks but there is when one uses a young earth framework. Scientists have just found a city under 2.3 kilometres of ice in Antarctica. Even most evolutionary archeologists believe cities have only occurred in the last 8,000 years.

What are these supposed assumptions? I see creationists claim this quite often, but they cannot support those claims. Also you need to remember that sometimes a scientist will use the word when he means "this has already been shown to be the case and there is no need to reinvent the wheel".

So what are these supposed assumptions that make radiometric dating to be not based upon scientific evidence? I am more than sure that you are wrong. And please, no quote mining. Quote mining is a form of lying and I am sure that you as a Christian would not want to do that.

 

[USincognito]

Ah yes. Assumptions. A magic word Creationists use to try and poof away evidence in a cloud of smoke. The problem for them is that when the smoke clears, the evidence remains... and remains unaddressed.

 

[USincognito]

Dating using an evolutionary framework using isotope dating is again a form of story telling but not scientific evidence.

1. You're spreading the Creationist lie that there is "evolution science" when that isn't true. Radioisotope dating is physics, not biology and evolution only has to do with biology.
2. Using well poisoning phrases like "story telling" isn't going to impress the scientifically literate folks here as much as it does the rubes who populate the audience when Ken Ham or Kent Hovind come to town. You're going to need to actually address, in detail, the problems with radioisotopic dating of ice core layers.

You are making assumptions that cannot be proved.

Nothing is ever proven in science. If you wish to be taken seriously in a scientific conversation, you'll exorcise worlds like prove, proven, proof, etc. from your contributions.

In regards to isotopic dating of ice cores is very problematic which is admitted by many even evolutionary scientists.

1. Again, there are scientists who focus on evolution, but there are no "evolutionary scientists". Radioisotopic dating of ice cores involves geologists, paleoclimatologists and physicists, not biologists.
2. Name some.

Scientists have just found a city under 2.3 kilometres of ice in Antarctica.

That never happened.

 

[Jimmy D]

Dating using an evolutionary framework using isotope dating is again a form of story telling but not scientific evidence. You are making assumptions that cannot be proved. In regards to isotopic dating of ice cores is very problematic which is admitted by many even evolutionary scientists. Of course there is no positive evidence for my hypothesis using the evolutionary based dating assumptions and frameworks but there is when one uses a young earth framework. Scientists have just found a city under 2.3 kilometres of ice in Antarctica. Even most evolutionary archeologists believe cities have only occurred in the last 8,000 years.

Hoax Alert: NASA Images Did NOT Reveal Ancient Human Settlement Under 2.3 KM Of Ice | Lead Stories

Again, the creationist demonstrates he'll believe any old garbage he think adds credence to his ridiculous ideas, no need to check up if it's factual. I suppose it's quite fortunate that they don't or the creationist propaganda sites would go out of business pretty quick!

 

[USincognito]

Hoax Alert: NASA Images Did NOT Reveal Ancient Human Settlement Under 2.3 KM Of Ice | Lead Stories

Again, the creationist demonstrates he'll believe any old garbage he think adds credence to his ridiculous ideas, no need to check up if it's factual. I suppose it's quite fortunate that they don't or the creationist propaganda sites would go out of business pretty quick!

Worse than that. I just checked and it comes from satire site World News Daily Report.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Come on do you really believe yourself. All these different scientists you mention use evolutionary time frames and dating methodologies which are only speculations and assumptions and they interpret the evidence through that perspective. One may see the same evidence but if one person believes in an old earth time-scale then they will try and fit the evidence to that just as young earthers will do. As the scientific academia is controlled by scientists who are mainly atheistic and evolutionists any scientists no matter how qualified who questions evolutionary based interpretations is excluded from the academe. I have seen this ridiculous manipulation in the area of genetics where genetic evidence is distorted in order to fit the "Out Of Africa" theory which is based on a dating of fossils in paleontology and the age of man according to evolutionary assumptions about geology and the so-called 4.5 billion year old earth.

 

[Jimmy D]

Come on do you really believe yourself. All these different scientists you mention use evolutionary time frames and dating methodologies which are only speculations and assumptions and they interpret the evidence through that perspective. One may see the same evidence but if one person believes in an old earth time-scale then they will try and fit the evidence to that just as young earthers will do. As the scientific academia is controlled by scientists who are mainly atheistic and evolutionists any scientists no matter how qualified who questions evolutionary based interpretations is excluded from the academe. I have seen this ridiculous manipulation in the area of genetics where genetic evidence is distorted in order to fit the "Out Of Africa" theory which is based on a dating of fossils in paleontology and the age of man according to evolutionary assumptions about geology and the so-called 4.5 billion year old earth.

It's a conspiracy!

 

[USincognito]

Argumentum ad tin foil hateum

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my! A wall of text. Time to break out the sledge hammer and break it up a bit.

Come on do you really believe yourself. All these different scientists you mention use evolutionary time frames and dating methodologies which are only speculations and assumptions and they interpret the evidence through that perspective.

Umm, no. They are the only time frames that have shown to be not self contradicting. And calling them "evolutionary" time frames only underscores your ignorance of all of he sciences. Geologists knew that the Earth was old long before Darwin wrote his paper. Why don't you call it "geological time"? Physicists, and especially astrophysicists can show that the universe is even older than the Earth. Why don't you call it "physical time"? Putting all of the sciences that you disagree with under the name of "evolution" only makes you look bad.

One may see the same evidence but if one person believes in an old earth time-scale then they will try and fit the evidence to that just as young earthers will do.

Wrong, once again the young Earther claims can all shown to be refuted by the evidence. They can't come up with a comprehensive theory that explains what can be observed in nature. Whenever you see a claim that states that it is scientific you need to ask yourself "What reasonable test would show this to be wrong?" If they do not have a test their idea can hardly be said to be "scientific".

As the scientific academia is controlled by scientists who are mainly atheistic and evolutionists any scientists no matter how qualified who questions evolutionary based interpretations is excluded from the academe.

Really? And when did this revolution occur? As we learn more and more about this world the need for a god becomes less and less. It is only reasonable that the number of those that believe in a god go down. And most of the original scientists that found your beliefs to be wrong were still Christians.

I have seen this ridiculous manipulation in the area of genetics where genetic evidence is distorted in order to fit the "Out Of Africa" theory which is based on a dating of fossils in paleontology and the age of man according to evolutionary assumptions about geology and the so-called 4.5 billion year old earth.

Really? Once again evidence please. Your empty claims are not evidence.


My specialty is more in the line of geology than in biology. I can show you with one picture that the flood of Noah never happened and that the world is at least millions of years old. You have to be able to interpret what is seen in the picture properly, but it is not too difficult to do so.

 

[Jimmy D]

Come on do you really believe yourself. All these different scientists you mention use evolutionary time frames and dating methodologies which are only speculations and assumptions and they interpret the evidence through that perspective. One may see the same evidence but if one person believes in an old earth time-scale then they will try and fit the evidence to that just as young earthers will do. As the scientific academia is controlled by scientists who are mainly atheistic and evolutionists any scientists no matter how qualified who questions evolutionary based interpretations is excluded from the academe. I have seen this ridiculous manipulation in the area of genetics where genetic evidence is distorted in order to fit the "Out Of Africa" theory which is based on a dating of fossils in paleontology and the age of man according to evolutionary assumptions about geology and the so-called 4.5 billion year old earth.

Just ignoring the post which called out your claim as nonsense?

. Scientists have just found a city under 2.3 kilometres of ice in Antarctica.

I'm afraid no one can take what you say seriously unless you can actually demonstrate that your assertions can be verified - Especially when they are so outlandish.

 

[Doveaman]

The Young Earth theory and pleistocine and ice age eras.

From a young earth perspective, approximately when did those time periods really occur?

The earth is young, but the planet is old.

Genesis 1 is describing the re-creation of the planet's atmosphere (heavens) and the planet's surface (earth) following a series of global catastrophes that wiped out all prehistoric lifeforms. God then spent six days re-inhabiting the earth with the new lifeforms we see today.

 

[Sammy-San]

The earth is young, but the planet is old.

Genesis 1 is describing the re-creation of the planet's atmosphere (heavens) and the planet's surface (earth) following a series of global catastrophes that wiped out all prehistoric lifeforms. God then re-inhabited the earth with the new lifeforms we see today.

Do you agree with people who say Adam and Eve were around 6000 years ago, or you think it was beyond that?

 

[Doveaman]

Do you agree with people who say Adam and Eve were around 6000 years ago, or you think it was beyond that?

Yes, I agree it was between 6 to 12 thousand years ago.

I also believe in prehistoric Man (Neanderthal, Erectus, Habilis, Etc.) who was not created in God's image, but who had a level of creative intelligence that was superior to animals.

That prehistoric Man became extinct and was later re-created in God's image through Adam about 6 to 12 thousand years ago.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes, I agree it was between 6 to 12 thousand years ago.

I also believe in prehistoric Man (Neanderthal, Erectus, Habilis, Etc.) who was not created in God's image, but who had a level of creative intelligence that was superior to animals.

That prehistoric Man became extinct and was later re-created in God's image through Adam about 6 to 12 thousand years ago.

do you think the ice age was during old testament times?

 

[AV1611VET]

do you think the ice age was during old testament times?

Job 38:29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
Job 38:30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.