How old is the Earth?

[laptoppop]

Ummm yes... http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earthorigin.htm

You answer a detailed 600+ page detailed scientific report with a basic link? Oh well.

 

[heavensangelwv]

I say that the physical evidence fits the Biblical record. I think the interpretation of that evidence can be done in a manner which supports the TOE. I think that interpretational model is flawed and incorrect.

Or perhaps you have little understanding of the physical evidence. Why is it so hard to imagine that our time cannot be compared to God's time because He is infinate and we are not?

 

[heavensangelwv]

Well, I do believe that the words by which you can be saved are contained in a few verses. Doesn't this suggest you don't always have to have a "600 page" document to present the facts?

 

[SNPete]

Bristle cone pines: http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_95-103.pdf

Double tree rings? For every year no less. Unique only to "10,000 year old" Bristle Cone pines??

Umm.....

Why is it that the "science" you are citing seems to bring creationism into question.

 

[KerrMetric]

You answer a detailed 600+ page detailed scientific report with a basic link? Oh well.

Could you link me to the finished journal article in a Geology or Geophysical Journal please - I'm sure they condensed it for that.

Which respected journal was it accepted in by the way?

 

[laptoppop]

No, but in terms of scientific discussions, data, analysis, references, experiments, etc. are much preferred.

In terms of God's time -- I have no problem at all. He *created* time, so He is not subject to it. He is outside and beyond time. However, in Jesus as the supreme act of love, He entered our time and became a man. wow.

In terms of creation - Genesis makes it clear that the days are human days, not "God's days" -- use of numbers, and use of morning and evening are the defining constructs. Since the physical evidence agrees with a young earth and global flood, and that agrees with the Bible, I see no reason to doubt it.

 

[laptoppop]

Sheesh. No, not unique only to these pines. You asked about these, I answered. There are other investigations by lots of folks that show multiple rings per year can happen (no, doesn't always happen) in many different species.

 

[heavensangelwv]

Since the physical evidence agrees with a young earth and global flood, and that agrees with the Bible, I see no reason to doubt it.

Honestly, you can find a "study" to "prove" just about anything you want. That doesn't make it true. The physical evidence does not agree with a young earth. If the Earth had been created only 6,000 years ago it would still be extremely hot on the surface and would thus be quite inhabitable for humans.

 

[SNPete]

You answer a detailed 600+ page detailed scientific report with a basic link? Oh well.

Perhaps her link was a bit basic, but...IMO if it takes 600 pages to explain something that could covered in 600 words, someone is trying really hard to demonstrate that a particular POV is correct.

I have always found Truth to be a simple and straight forward issue. Take your literal view of Gen 1. How many pages is that? And why do you believe it true? In 25 words or less: Because it is God's word and He has given me His Spirit, the Spirit of truth. I accept it on Faith.

 

[laptoppop]

Honestly, you can find a "study" to "prove" just about anything you want. That doesn't make it true.

With this non-argument, I can dismiss any information I want. It is much more rational to discuss the actual evidence and data than to dismiss it because it doesn't agree with what you want to hear.

The physical evidence does not agree with a young earth. If the Earth had been created only 6,000 years ago it would still be extremely hot on the surface and would thus be quite inhabitable for humans.

No, that does not follow. If the earth was only 6,000 years old and some of the theories of planetary formation were correct, then yes, the surface would be hot. If God made it as His revelation describes, there are no temperature problems. The key is created, as opposed to formed using postulated natural processes.

 

[R3quiem]

I vote 4.5 billion years.

That's probably a pretty close number, if it's not exact, it's probably pretty close.

Scientists/Experts are not always right, but there are a lot of factors that show that the Earth is really old, so I have no problem believing in a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Same thing goes for the 13+ billion year old universe, although I doubt that is as accurate of a number as is the age for the earth.

 

[laptoppop]

Perhaps her link was a bit basic, but...IMO if it takes 600 pages to explain something that could covered in 600 words, someone is trying really hard to demonstrate that a particular POV is correct.

I have always found Truth to be a simple and straight forward issue. Take your literal view of Gen 1. How many pages is that? And why do you believe it true? In 25 words or less: Because it is God's word and He has given me His Spirit, the Spirit of truth. I accept it on Faith.

There are various summaries of different parts of the research on the icr.org site, as well as other places. I was just trying to be accurate and complete because a number of the discussion points are quite technical and require a lot of data and understanding.

Yes, I can summarize my position: The explicit revelation of an omniscient God and the physical evidence both cause me to believe in His creation and a young earth.

 

[heavensangelwv]

With this non-argument, I can dismiss any information I want. It is much more rational to discuss the actual evidence and data than to dismiss it because it doesn't agree with what you want to hear.

In science there is no "absolute truth." What is accepted as truth today may be dismissed tomorrow. When you do not understand the evidence and data, it is rather difficult to discuss it. Have you by any chance ever had a geology class?

 

[KerrMetric]

Strange but the 3 authors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin have not a single paper in geology/geophysics in the entire 3.5 million abstracts of the ADS Physics/Geophysics database. All I can see are a few conference proceedings where they showed up with posters that are not peer reviewed.

I wonder why that is?

 

[laptoppop]

In science there is no "absolute truth." What is accepted as truth today may be dismissed tomorrow. When you do not understand the evidence and data, it is rather difficult to discuss it. Have you by any chance ever had a geology class?

Yes, I had a college geology class. It is also a bit of a hobby of mine, but I do not claim to be an expert. Again, however -- you are not addressing the issues or facts. Using your logic I can dismiss any pesky data that I don't agree with. Cool! That's much easier than dealing with the issues.

 

[laptoppop]

Strange but the 3 authors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin have not a single paper in geology/geophysics in the entire 3.5 million abstracts of the ADS Physics/Geophysics database. All I can see are a few conference proceedings where they showed up with posters that are not peer reviewed.

I wonder why that is?

And once again - a pretense of intellectual elitism does nothing to address the issues. Nice try - but it has no bearing on the truth of the data or the conclusions.

 

[KerrMetric]

And once again - a pretense of intellectual elitism does nothing to address the issues. Nice try - but it has no bearing on the truth of the data or the conclusions.

Well that was a predictable response.

However - the authors "expertise" is germane. Why has this work not been accepted into the arena of scientific thought? Why was it, as I understand is the case, never submitted for review by geophysicists who actually do have extensive published records in the subject? Why have these authors, between all 3 of them, not a single journal paper in geophysics between them?

I would be forced to conclude these are not professional geophysicists with backgrounds to match.

Any Tom, Dick or Harry (and here we have a Tom, Dick AND Harry to produce 600 pages faster) can put together a 600 page pdf of tripe.


ps

It's not intellectual elitism. A publication record in the subject at hand and the willingness to subject your work for peer review is not elitist in any way - in fact it is the working mans tool of contribution to the field.

 

[laptoppop]

Any Tom, Dick or Harry can put together a 600 page pdf of tripe.

At least read it before you start the name calling. It is very unflattering to you -- it makes you look like you want to ignore things that do not agree with you.

 

[KerrMetric]

At least read it before you start the name calling. It is very unflattering to you -- it makes you look like you want to ignore things that do not agree with you.

Unfortunately I have read it. Not every last word but a large fraction of it.

It's not name calling to call a florist out that he is not a NFL quarterback.

Similarly it is not name calling to call non-geophysicists (with no record that they have ever been such) out that they are not geophysicists.

 

[laptoppop]

Unfortunately I have read it. Not every last word but a large fraction of it.

It's not name calling to call a florist out that he is not a NFL quarterback.

Similarly it is not name calling to call non-geophysicists (with no record that they have ever been such) out that they are not geophysicists.

Just to be clear:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_vardiman/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_snelling/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/

Oh yes, these seem like real dummies.
Also I notice you don't even mention the other authors. RATE was a significant project with a lot of participants. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=430

For example: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci_baumgardner