Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even accounting for the odd days in-between 'creation and the day of analysis'
Earth is much older than 2,000 - 3,000 years

In other words, from the day of creation, until it was cool-enough for other processes to develop
could be some mighty long-lasting days

I think you may have misinterpreted what I'm asking for. I'm asking what the evidence is that Young Earth Creationists claim scientists world wide have misinterpreted and how it has been misinterpreted with regards to the age of the Earth.

 

[davedajobauk]

Begin your learning here ¬


http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...hall-of-planet-earth/how-do-we-read-the-rocks

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Begin your learning here ¬


http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/per...hall-of-planet-earth/how-do-we-read-the-rocks

davedajobauk, I started this thread as a way to ask Young Earth Creationists what evidence scientists are misinterpreting and how they are misinterpreting it, leading other scientists to date the Earth as being 4.5 billion years old when it should say, as YECs claim, that the Earth is 6000 years old.
I'm not asking for evidence of an old Earth. I know the evidence.

 

[davedajobauk]

I think you may have misinterpreted what I'm asking for. I'm asking what the evidence is that Young Earth Creationists claim scientists world wide have misinterpreted and how it has been misinterpreted with regards to the age of the Earth.

I hope I have equitably demonstrated WHY yec are WRONG in their beliefs

Your reply was 'too quick off the mark' to allow for you to have examined the 'evidence' that I posted
and to have perused the true assessment of Earth's real age


As we all know, the surface of our planet, is being continuously 'turned-over' (reworked)
Indeed, there is TIME sufficient ~since it's beginning, to allow for God to have made several STARTS
and wipeouts of our human culture
However the reworking, doesn't entirely wipe out the billions of years of crustal layers
nor the components from which they are established
Nuclear clocks are ticking and are reliable reference material for age of the material
as you would have read ~had you examined those pages via my links

I am not here to 'argue' with anyone.... my beliefs and knowledge is / are
as valid as anyone else's (just saying)

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe.... whether you have evidence
with which to deny the facts I have posted, remains to be seen (or not)
4.2 billion years, is antithesis of the YEC 'point of view'

How short-sighted can people be..... (rhetorical enquiry)

 

[Rygaku]

The evidence against YCE is this the night sky. The light in the night sky takes millions of light years to reach us
given if the earth is six thousand years old the night sky would be pitch black. Day 11 stars we know stars aren't little specks of light they are massive balls of burning gas, so in order of creation we shouldn't be able to see starlight.

So if you accept YCE you have to answer the question of why is star light is reaching us.

 

[davedajobauk]

Warden Of The Storm¬

Quite why people argue, over the SAME FACTS is of itself, debateable


It follows, that YEC deny that the evidence provided (in fantastic amounts)
by "mainstream scientists" is derived, using testable-means of investigation in laboratories

Why is it important, for some to feel 'the need' to contest another's beliefs
as-opposed to leading them to discover for-themselves, just how-wrong, they indeed are

 

[Rygaku]

Warden Of The Storm¬

Quite why people argue, over the SAME FACTS is of itself, debateable


It follows, that YEC deny that the evidence provided (in fantastic amounts)
by "mainstream scientists" is derived, using testable-means of investigation in laboratories

Why is it important, for some to feel 'the need' to contest another's beliefs
as-opposed to leading them to discover for-themselves, just how-wrong, they indeed are

I'm not denying evidence until i can see said evidence. What is your evidence for creation?
I would kindly like to review it and get back to you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you have evidence for this claim?

Some of the canyon is 18 miles apart. The canyon wass created by plate Technics that began 200 million years ago. Still there was catastrophic flooding when the ice dams broke after the melting of the glaciers around 12,000 years ago.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Some of the canyon is 18 miles apart. The canyon wass created by plate Technics that began 200 million years ago. Still there was catastrophic flooding when the ice dams broke after the melting of the glaciers around 12,000 years ago.

Again: can you show any evidence for this?
You just saying it doesn't make it true.

 

[davedajobauk]

I'm not denying evidence until i can see said evidence. What is your evidence for creation?
I would kindly like to review it and get back to you.

see here ¬

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-regards-to-yec.7922385/page-11#post-68977299

and then read this¬


http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-regards-to-yec.7922385/page-12#post-68977322


I do so hope this brings some light into the darkness

 

[AionPhanes]

First, eyewitness testimony from the creator.

Second, the impossibility of naturalism to explain:
the beginning.
star formation.
planet formation.
moon, planets and even galaxies spinning the wrong direction.
origin of life.
origin of information.
origin of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness.
language.
proof that ancient man, far from being ape-like, was
far more intelligent than people today.

Dating methods. All depend on the speed of light as a constant
or they become unreliable. Guess what? The speed of light can
be changed, and has been slowing down since the beginning.

"Naturalism is false thus the earth has to be only 6000 years old." <- Doesn't follow. The earth could have been supernaturally created at a different date.

The Creator of the Universe didn't claim the earth was that age. A specific interpretation, rejected by the majority of Jews and Christians, of a book written by a human leads to that date.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Again: can you show any evidence for this?
You just saying it doesn't make it true.

Here is an article by Harvard graduate Dr Wise suggesting that the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood. http://www.grisda.org/origins/58007.pdf

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Here is an article by Harvard graduate Dr Wise suggesting that the Grand Canyon was created during Noah's flood. http://www.grisda.org/origins/58007.pdf

Kurt P. Wise, who stated pretty baldly that

...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

 

[Gene2memE]

The Genesis flood was in the Ancient World. Noah's flood came later If you study Genesis it is clear the writer(s) are talking about the creation of 2 worlds The first was destroyed by The Fall of satan. The second was caused by the fall of man who became so corrupt (in ways similar to ours now) the Lord's only choice was to to wipe the slate clean and begin again by including Jesus who is able to cleanse man from his sins.

That's not what I asked. I'm not really bothered about your interpretation of scripture.

You made the claim that the Bible "all lines up" with ancient archaeology. You need to support that claim, and I'm offering you the opportunity. The bible outlines a global flood, the flood that wiped the slate clean, to use your own terminology.

To be specific: when, measured in years from the present, was this flood event?

I'll take an answer rounded to the nearest century, if that makes it easier.

 

[davedajobauk]

Again: can you show any evidence for this?
You just saying it doesn't make it true.

Eyeball evidence that everyone can examine did you mean ?

How about, that the universe, is one big accident
that the galaxies within it and the material they were formed from
'evolved' solely from the energy released in that now notorious BIG BANG

That the Milky Way, formed (again, quite by accident)
and that the Earth formed at just the right distance from the sun
to permit generations of LIVING ORGANISMS which after much resampling and jollification again, quite by accident ?
and led to humans appearing upon the planet along with a myriad of species of known fauna and flora

This is, as far as we are aware, the only planet (heavenly body) in this solar system
that has humans as an endemic species (presently)

As to whether life / has existed elsewhere in this solar system, remains to be discovered

Of-course it would take a huge leap of the imagination (without proof, that it is / was so)
to concieve of all this being produced ~as a direct-result of, a mindless 'accident'


Let me ask you .... How do we conceive of a thought (make one)
and follow that thought through the idea stage to create a plan
that we can physically manipulate, and control our bodies
to produce a physical interpretation, (rendition) of that thought-out 'plan'
from materials around us ??

Can we do this by-design
OR, by accident

An 'accident' is unintentional & what is 'unintentional' is also uncontrolled

Stuff like INERTIA and GRAVITY controls MASS (?)
ergo, they are no accident
they have been THERE, since the beginning of TIME itself << explain this ?

There is DESIGN everywhere we look in this Universe
and as time passes, we can see further and further into it

Imagine a mind that could see all of that BEFORE it occurred ?
and everything that would transpire within-it
before TIME ran out for everything within it, 'cycle-completed'
Purpose and will-completed (?)

How big would that 'computer' need to be ?
~to create everything needed to compose and construct every individual atom
every individual element, that exists within every component
of every structure we CAN SEE
even down-to, those neurons and synapses that serve us as individuals
and give us individual thoughts and understandings

Bless, you may not even realize you were born to some purpose

 

[SepiaAndDust]

,,,

Ignored.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Kurt P. Wise, who stated pretty baldly that

It does not matter if he is biased or not. You asked for someone that was qualified and he is qualified. Catastrophism is alive and well and it is not going anywhere in the near future. Esp when Gould & Eldridge came out with punctuated equilibrium. When evolution had been based on gradualism.

 

[pat34lee]

Simple, direct astronomical observations establish that the speed of light has changed very little over millions and millions of years, going back as far as it is possible to observe the rotation of galaxies by looking at the alternate doppler shifting of advancing and receding sides.

Because if light slowed after leaving those distant galaxies, it would systematically make the rotations rates appear to be slower. They don't appear systematically slower, therefore light has been approximately the same speed all this time, more likely exactly the same speed.

That is not science. We have no idea what is in space between us and any
star we can see, so we don't know what is affecting the speed of light
between us and those stars.

Science is the direct measurement of the speed of light taken by many
scientists over the last 300-400 years, showing a sharp decline up until
about 1940.

 

[pat34lee]

The Genesis flood was in the Ancient World. Noah's flood came later If you study Genesis it is clear the writer(s) are talking about the creation of 2 worlds The first was destroyed by The Fall of satan. The second was caused by the fall of man who became so corrupt (in ways similar to ours now) the Lord's only choice was to to wipe the slate clean and begin again by including Jesus who is able to cleanse man from his sins.

This needs to be another thread, but the gap theory is a fallacy.

You can't have a destroyed earth that saves fossils, some of which
are very delicate. Also, God would not call everything good if sin
was found in his creation.

Satan did not fall until long after Adam. He still has not been kicked
out of the heavens as he is the accuser of the brethren before God's throne.

 

[pat34lee]

'Ideal conditions' basically means for the animal to be perfectly preserved. We don't see that in fossilization because the soft-tissue is calcified. But we do see that in animals like the mammoths in Siberia which were frozen.

Mammoths are in the thousands of years range, not hundreds of millions, as dinosaurs.