irrefutable evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Anyone else here have the sneaking (ok, glaring) suspicion that kenthovindisawsome and kenthovindisgreat are the same troll?

 

[TheOutsider]

Anyone else here have the sneaking (ok, glaring) suspicion that kenthovindisawsome and kenthovindisgreat are the same troll?

gamespotter10 admitted to being both of them in the other thread. He still needs practice.

 

[christtoevo]

thats all the evidence i need... guess im going to church on sunday.

 

[plindboe]

This is a good point I've brought up before. Frumious said that they knew the moon dust was only inches thick when they went there in 1969; but that still doesn't cut it with me - as I'm sure the blueprints for the LEM were drawn up years earlier. (Note: according to Wikipedia, it was built in 1965.)



I don't need the Paluxy Riverbed to prove dinosaurs and man coexisted. I just need to read it in the book of Job.



Very good point.



If you pin them down, as I have, they'll tell you that rocks "reset their date" (or some such rhetoric). At best, they'll admit that zircon went around the sun 3.57 billion times, but supposedly everything else "reset their dates" - (if I remember the story right).

I believe myself though, that portions of the earth have massive amounts of age embedded in them by God.



Been there --- done that --- click here.

The OP was by an evolutionist who were making fun of creationists by reusing terrible creationist lines. Embarrassed?

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP was by an evolutionist who were making fun of creationists by reusing terrible creationist lines. Embarrassed?

Absolutely not --- the only thing I disagree on is the age of the earth (which does happen to be the name of this thread).

 

[MrGoodBytes]

This is a good point I've brought up before. Frumious said that they knew the moon dust was only inches thick when they went there in 1969; but that still doesn't cut it with me - as I'm sure the blueprints for the LEM were drawn up years earlier. (Note: according to Wikipedia, it was built in 1965.)

Oh dear. I guess this nonsense will still be considered a valid argument by creationists a hundred years from now.

In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)
​

(Shore, 1984, p.34)
​

In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.
(Shore, 1984, p.34)
​

Thus, several years before men landed on the moon there was a general feeling that our astronauts would not be greeted by vast layers of cosmic dust. Although direct confirmation was not yet at hand, thus allowing a few dissenting opinions, few scientists expected even as much as three feet of cosmic dust on the moon. In May 1966 Surveyor I had landed on the moon, thus putting an end to any lingering doubts about a manned landing sinking in dust.

The cosmic dust argument was already obsolete by the time Henry Morris included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. It was already obsolete when Harold Slusher wrote his article three years earlier.

Since the late 1960s, much better and more direct measurements of the meteoritic influx to the Earth have been available from satellite penetration data. In a comprehensive review article, Dohnanyi [1972, Icarus 17: 1-48] showed that the mass of meteoritic material impinging on the Earth is only about 22,000 tons per year [60 tons/day]... Other recent estimates of the mass of interplanetary matter reaching the Earth from space, based on satellite-borne detectors, range from about 11,000 to 18,000 tons per year (67) [30-49 tons/day]; estimates based on the cosmic-dust content of deep-sea sediment are comparable (e.g., 11, 103).
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.109)
​

(source)

Emphasis mine. If you don't believe talk.origins, you perhaps prefer to hear it directly from your creationist brothers.

I don't need the Paluxy Riverbed to prove dinosaurs and man coexisted.

That's good to hear, because even the Institute for Creation Research says that the prints are fake.

I just need to read it in the book of Job.

...where you see mentioned a large, powerful animal that moves its tail like a cedar. Pray tell, what makes you think that this describes a dinosaur?

Very good point.

AV1611VET, meet tectonic uplift. Tectonic uplift, say hello to AV1611VET.

If you pin them down, as I have, they'll tell you that rocks "reset their date" (or some such rhetoric). At best, they'll admit that zircon went around the sun 3.57 billion times, but supposedly everything else "reset their dates" - (if I remember the story right).

If we find a single mineral that dates to 3.57 billion years and is not of interstellar origin, then this planet is obviously at least 3.57 billion years old.

I believe myself though, that portions of the earth have massive amounts of age embedded in them by God.

...which is not only physically and logically impossible, but also entirely unbiblical.

Been there --- done that --- click here.

I guess axiom 1 means that you are a YEC after all, huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

MrGoodBytes, are you a specialist in plate tectonics?

I hope so, because I have a very good question to ask.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

MrGoodBytes, are you a specialist in plate tectonics?

I hope so, because I have a very good question to ask.

Not at all, but Frumious Bandersnatch is lurking in the shadows. I bet he knows the answer.

 

[plindboe]

Absolutely not --- the only thing I disagree on is the age of the earth (which does happen to be the name of this thread).

Do you automatically agree with any argument whenever some proponent of creation tries to argue against evolution? For instance "Evolution is false because Coca Cola taste better than Pepsi". Are you able to see a flawed argument for what it is even when you agree with the conclusion?

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you automatically agree with any argument whenever some proponent of creation tries to argue against evolution?

Good question --- I'm gonna answer with a weak "no" to that --- but let me clarify something.

Whenever I see websites like AnswersInGenesis, or read books by Lee Strobel or Duane Gish or Henry Morris or whomever.

The science and reasonings they use to back up their claims put me to sleep.

To put it another way --- if I walk into a lecture hall, and some famous creationist is giving a Powerpoint presentation on Creation, and showing pictures of plate tectonics, punctuated equilibrium, etc.; I may just yawn and walk out.

OTOH, if I walk into a lecture hall, and some famous creationist is giving a lecture on creation and using a King James Bible --- I'll sit for hours and take notes.

I couldn't care less how any Christian organization backs up their claims. If they don't use the Bible to do it --- the talk is just talk --- and they get what they deserve if some "scientist" pwns them with their own medicine.

 

[plindboe]

Good question --- I'm gonna answer with a weak "no" to that --- but let me clarify something.

Whenever I see websites like AnswersInGenesis, or read books by Lee Strobel or Duane Gish or Henry Morris or whomever.

The science and reasonings they use to back up their claims put me to sleep.

To put it another way --- if I walk into a lecture hall, and some famous creationist is giving a Powerpoint presentation on Creation, and showing pictures of plate tectonics, punctuated equilibrium, etc.; I may just yawn and walk out.

OTOH, if I walk into a lecture hall, and some famous creationist is giving a lecture on creation and using a King James Bible --- I'll sit for hours and take notes.

I couldn't care less how any Christian organization backs up their claims. If they don't use the Bible to do it --- the talk is just talk --- and they get what they deserve if some "scientist" pwns them with their own medicine.

But the Bible doesn't talk about the amount of Moon dust, Paluxy Riverbed footprints or sea shells on mountains. It might say that the Universe is 6000 years old, that man and dinosaurs coexisted and that a worldwide flood once covered the Earth, but does that automatically mean that the Moon dust/Paluxy/sea shell arguments must be true and good science? Just because you have a certain bias doesn't mean that you have to agree with anything you like to hear, that's my point.

I wouldn't mind at all if you simply stated "The Bible says so, case closed" and stuck with that, but you seem to go beyond it when you buy into these flawed arguments.

Peter

 

[FishFace]

I don't need the Paluxy Riverbed to prove dinosaurs and man coexisted.

Good thing too - there are no human footprints in the Paluxy riverbed.

I just need to read it in the book of Job.

It gets hard to think of something new to say when you repeat your boring, unfounded assertion that everything in the Bible is true.
Back it up. And this time don't desert the thread when it gets tough.

Very good point.

Or... the mountaintops could have been lifted up there by tectonic action, the same action we see lifting them up today.

If you pin them down, as I have, they'll tell you that rocks "reset their date" (or some such rhetoric). At best, they'll admit that zircon went around the sun 3.57 billion times, but supposedly everything else "reset their dates" - (if I remember the story right).

It's not difficult to understand (if you actually bother to pay attention) All you're quibbling over is the definition of age. (Not surprising - you need to quibble over it in a vain attempt to justify your nonsensical self-contradictory claims) How old are you, AV? 53, right? But the cells that make you up are much younger, and the atoms that make them up much older. Yet you are still 53 years old.
How is that? Because the age of a thing is how long the thing has been around, not how long its parts have been around.
So, how is this relevant to rocks? The age of a rock isn't the age of the constituent atoms of the rock - because the atoms will have come from all over the galaxy, possibly. It doesn't make sense to speak of a rock being 6 billion years old if, 5 billion years ago, the "rock" was actually trillions of atoms scattered light years apart.
Radiometric dating measures the time between the present day and some event in the past which fixes the ratio of elements to some known (or work-out-able) value. From this point on, radioactive decay changes the ratio in a well-known manner so we can work back to find the time when the ratio was fixed.
It just so happens that in certain rocks, the date of fixing is quite similar to the date of formation. You're not "pinning" geologists here - that's just what radiometric dating is. If you think it's a problem, you've not understood it.

In the case described, you will notice that creationists always seem to forget the crucial detail that the lab actually stated that the results indicated no detectable traces of argon - i.e. that the rock was too young to date. This makes sense - K/Ar dating shouldn't work on 200 year old rocks. What was actually older were the inclusions of olivine - xenoliths - in the lava. They were older, and they were dated old.
Of course, creationists will never tell you this - they're not interested in the truth. And, so you know I'm not just talking out my rear, here's my source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Been there --- done that --- click here.

Your argument goes like this:

P1: The Bible is infallible
P2...Pn: (...)
C1: Evolution cannot happen.

I reject P1. You fail.

 

[FishFace]

To put it another way --- if I walk into a lecture hall, and some famous creationist is giving a Powerpoint presentation on Creation, and showing pictures of plate tectonics, punctuated equilibrium, etc.; I may just yawn and walk out.

OTOH, if I walk into a lecture hall, and some famous creationist is giving a lecture on creation and using a King James Bible --- I'll sit for hours and take notes.

That, AV, is because you have no desire to be intellectually honest.

I couldn't care less how any Christian organization backs up their claims. If they don't use the Bible to do it --- the talk is just talk --- and they get what they deserve if some "scientist" pwns them with their own medicine.

You got it the wrong way 'round. If they don't back up their claims with evidence, (and an a priori assumption about the KJV is not evidence, just to clarify) then - the talk is just talk.
They don't need a scientist to "pwn" them. They're "pwned" before they even started.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because you have a certain bias doesn't mean that you have to agree with anything you like to hear, that's my point.

You don't get it, do you, Plindboe?

Question: why was the depth of the moon dust ever in question in the first place?

Why is it that at one time, "scientists" even thought the dust might be deep?

At one point in time, "scientists" must have taught that the dust was several hundred feet deep, until satellite imagery confirmed it otherwise. Then they just adjusted their data accordingly.

I wouldn't mind at all if you simply stated "The Bible says so, case closed" and stuck with that, but you seem to go beyond it when you buy into these flawed arguments.

Today, they are "flawed arguments."

But back then, if you had it on a science test, and said it was only inches thick, you'd suffer the consequences.

Same for Pluto --- if I left Pluto off my science project --- I would have failed.

 

[AV1611VET]

That, AV, is because you have no desire to be intellectually honest.

Flattery is cheap.

You got it the wrong way 'round. If they don't back up their claims with evidence, (and an a priori assumption about the KJV is not evidence, just to clarify) then - the talk is just talk.
They don't need a scientist to "pwn" them. They're "pwned" before they even started.

You're thinking like an atheist.

 

[plindboe]

You don't get it, do you, Plindboe?

True, I don't get how you can cherrypick some obsolete calculation and use it to estimate the amount of Moon dust. I don't get why you're still bringing up Pluto either. It seems that you don't absorb any arguments at all if they disagree with your biases.

Why don't you just stick with the Bible?

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

True, I don't get how you can cherrypick some obsolete calculation and use it to estimate the amount of Moon dust.

Again, I'll ask you --- why was it calculated in the first place?

That "obsolete calculation" should stand as a testimony against assuming that the universe has been around much longer than the Bible says it has.

 

[AV1611VET]

And could someone please give me an atheist's view of why seashells are found on mountaintops?

 

[Atheuz]

And could someone please give me an atheist's view of why seashells are found on mountaintops?

Tectonics

Tectonic plate 1 is moving this way -> <- Tectonic plate 2 is moving that way, it moves upwards and takes anything on them with them.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And could someone please give me an atheist's view of why seashells are found on mountaintops?

It has nothing to do with atheism. There are both Old Earth Creationists and other Christian Geologists who used that "flood geology" is complete nonsense. It was Leonardo Da Vinci who first realized the fossils in mountains could not be the result of a global flood. Marine fossils are sometimes found within the rocks comprising mountain because the rocks were formed under ancient seas and then uplifted due to mountain building caused by plate tectonics.