Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

[juvenissun]

Hundreds of millions years at the very least to allow for the size of sedimentary layers and Continental uplift.

If that is still what you classify as "young" then you are using language in a disingenuous way that will cause confusion and you should stop.

In context of the evolution creation discussion, "young Earth" is assumed to be on a similar order of magnitude to 6000 years.

Any other interpretation should be made explicitly clear, or misunderstanding (accidental or not) will occur.

My "young" is used in contrast to "old". If 4.5 b.y. is old according to radiometric dating, then not 4.5 b.y. would be not old. if the earth is not old, how would you call it?

Even with radiometric dating, a mountain range would at most take 100 million years to make. If do not use the dating data, then it probably would take much less than that.

 

[Shemjaza]

My "young" is used in contrast to "old". If 4.5 b.y. is old according to radiometric dating, then not 4.5 b.y. would be not old. if the earth is not old, how would you call it?

Even with radiometric dating, a mountain range would at most take 100 million years to make. If do not use the dating data, then it probably would take much less than that.

As I said, using that definition is misleading and confusing. You shouldn't do it.

It is bad for clarity and bad for discourse.

Incidentally, how old do you think the planet is, and why?

 

[juvenissun]

As I said, using that definition is misleading and confusing. You shouldn't do it.

It is bad for clarity and bad for discourse.

Incidentally, how old do you think the planet is, and why?

On the opposite, my definition of a young earth is much much better than the 6000-year one. That one, is not wrong, but is a misleading.

The earth is created, not evolved. The age does not matter. The 4.5 b.y. age is acceptable if it is not used to against God's creation.

 

[Shemjaza]

On the opposite, my definition of a young earth is much much better than the 6000-year one. That one, is not wrong, but is a misleading.

The earth is created, not evolved. The age does not matter. The 4.5 b.y. age is acceptable if it is not used to against God's creation.

I doesn't matter who is correct if you can't actually communicate what you think or mean due to ignoring context and conventions.

 

[juvenissun]

I doesn't matter who is correct if you can't actually communicate what you think or mean due to ignoring context and conventions.

I can not communicate either if my audience does not try to understand.

 

[Shemjaza]

I can not communicate either if my audience does not understand.

That's the point.
When communicating with people you need to be explicit or use the same conventions of language as who you are talking to.

When you use your own definitions that are not understood by others there can be no communication and that is your own fault.

 

[juvenissun]

That's the point.
When communicating with people you need to be explicit or use the same conventions of language as who you are talking to.

When you use your own definitions that are not understood by others there can be no communication and that is your own fault.

I am telling you my definition.

 

[juvenissun]

If you are going to use that definition, you should tell people UP FRONT what you mean, so that people don't make the wrong assumption....but then, you WANT them to make a wrong assumption, so that you can "correct" them later, right? As if it is some sort of win for you. It's not. It's just a silly game you play.

What is not clear on my message? I haven't heard anything yet. Did you say anything?

 

[Shemjaza]

What is not clear on my message? I haven't heard anything yet. Did you say anything?

You still have not clarified your position and definition.

And you definitely have not clarified why your definitions are and clearer then any of the conventual uses.

So, let's try to clarify, shall we?


What is your threshold for a young Earth, and why?


What is your threshold for an old Earth, and why?


How old do you think the Earth is, and why?


For your definitions to have merit they must be at least as specific as the existing usage. However, given that your usage isn't standard it world still be irresponsible for you to use them without clear definitions.

 

[juvenissun]

What is your threshold for a young Earth, and why?
What is your threshold for an old Earth, and why?
How old do you think the Earth is, and why?

For your definitions to have merit they must be

How old is young? Roughly, somewhere around one billion years. The earth is younger than that.
How old is old? Just on the other side of the above answer.
How old is the earth? The earth is young (see the first one).

I do not need you, or anybody to credit my thought. If you can argue, then do it. If you can not, then consider more on my idea.

 

[Shemjaza]

How old is young? Roughly, somewhere around one billion years. The earth is younger than that.
How old is old? Just on the other side of the above answer.
How old is the earth? The earth is young (see the first one).

As I suspected your definitions don't appear to have any coherent reasoning or justifications.

Do you honestly think that 800 million years of a reasonable age for a young Earth in context of the creation/evolution discussion?

The total lack of explanation is disappointing.

And the lack of specificity of "some number less then a billion", to me, goes all the way through vague and into suspiciously evasive.

I do not need you, or anybody to credit my thought. If you can argue, then do it. If you can not, then consider more on my idea.

No, but unless you learn to communicate effectively and appropriately you are keeping your thoughts and ideas secret.

Continuing to post about a topic while refusing to actually communicate about it, is spammng or trolling.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you honestly think that 800 million years of a reasonable age for a young Earth in context of the creation/evolution discussion?

The total lack of explanation is disappointing.

You did not ask for any explanation. How much you would understand DEPENDS ON how many good question you can ask. To you, ask question is the best thing you can do. All other rambling words are junks.

In fact, use a number to separate old or young earth is not the right way and could be misleading. I did that because you ask for it. The estimation on the age of the earth should be process oriented. The key question is: how much time is need to make this fact happen? The age of all geological features starts from the estimation of this question. For example, how much time is needed to make this layer of rock? How much time is needed to make this river, this mountain? etc. According to what we know, to these questions, the answer should not exceed 100 million years in all cases. I used 1 billion years, which already included several times of flexibility into it.

 

[46AND2]

Because it only gives model age. It may or may not be the true age. I rather trust other simpler and better understood physical process.

Whether you can understand my explanation depends on how much you know. That is why I explain things fully but only briefly. You have all the right to make follow up question. If you don't understand and don't ask, my interpretation is that you are not interested.

So...you'd rather trust variable rates of change, such as erosion and uplift, rather than a measurable constant rate determined by radioactive decay accumulation? Why on earth would you prefer that?

And why would you assume that the current formations are the original ones?

 

[juvenissun]

So...you'd rather trust variable rates of change, such as erosion and uplift, rather than a measurable constant rate determined by radioactive decay accumulation? Why on earth would you prefer that?

And why would you assume that the current formations are the original ones?

Good questions.
I question the radiometric age because we do not understand the very nature of radioactive decay. It is only described by statistics.
The current rocks are certainly not the original rocks. But based on the geological history of any old place, for example, the Canadian Shield, the orogenic cycles has not been that many, may be three or four. Each of them lasted a few hundreds of million years (this is still estimated by radiometric dating). That does not mount up to 4 billion years of history.

 

[Ophiolite]

Good questions.
I question the radiometric age because we do not understand the very nature of radioactive decay. It is only described by statistics.
The current rocks are certainly not the original rocks. But based on the geological history of any old place, for example, the Canadian Shield, the orogenic cycles has not been that many, may be three or four. Each of them lasted a few hundreds of million years (this is still estimated by radiometric dating). That does not mount up to 4 billion years of history.

The UK isn't very large but contains evidence of the following orogenic events:
Scourian, Inverian, Laxfordian, Knoydartian, Caledonian (arguably two phases) Hercynian, Alpine.
That's seven, not three or four. How do you account for that?

Edit: correct "three of four" to "three or four".

 

[Shemjaza]

Good questions.
I question the radiometric age because we do not understand the very nature of radioactive decay. It is only described by statistics.
The current rocks are certainly not the original rocks. But based on the geological history of any old place, for example, the Canadian Shield, the orogenic cycles has not been that many, may be three or four. Each of them lasted a few hundreds of million years (this is still estimated by radiometric dating). That does not mount up to 4 billion years of history.

That seems inconsistent from a Creationist.

You don't accept well evidenced statistical understanding of nuclear decay that is consistent with other geology, history and astrophysics... but you accept completely mysterious religious and counter to evidence assertions about evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

That seems inconsistent from a Creationist.

You don't accept well evidenced statistical understanding of nuclear decay that is consistent with other geology, history and astrophysics... but you accept completely mysterious religious and counter to evidence assertions about evolution?

I am a creationist. Every bit of thought I have is, or is trying to, fit the idea of creationism. That is why I do not reject a very young earth age such as 10K. However the reason is entirely different in nature.

I do work with age obtained from radiometric dating, in fact, very closely. As I said, I think it is only a model age. In geology, model age works. In fact, one of my work in the coming summer is to find out something in limestone by radiometric dating.

I can not accept evolution in science, because the evidences are so bad. My battle front with evolution is not in religion, But is in science. In order to believe evolution, it first has to pass scientific scrutiny. And I honestly don't see any hope on that.

 

[Shemjaza]

I am a creationist. Every bit of thought I have is, or is trying to, fit the idea of creationism. That is why I do not reject a very young earth age such as 10K. However the reason is entirely different in nature.

So your beliefs are inconsistent.

I do work with age obtained from radiometric dating, in fact, very closely. As I said, I think it is only a model age. In geology, model age works. In fact, one of my work in the coming summer is to find out something in limestone by radiometric dating.

So you understand the model for decay... and everything in the universe is consistent with it, but you still doubt it.

I can not accept evolution in science, because the evidences are so bad. My battle front with evolution is not in religion, But is in science. In order to believe evolution, it first has to pass scientific scrutiny. And I honestly don't see any hope on that.

This is, of course, nonsense that you have never been able to support.

Genetics, paleontology, ecology all directly support evolution. Say you don't believe in evolution for whatever personal reason you like, but the claim that science is on your side is simply false.

 

[juvenissun]

Genetics, paleontology, ecology all directly support evolution. Say you don't believe in evolution for whatever personal reason you like, but the claim that science is on your side is simply false.

It is proper for you to say this. Not me.

I examed each individual scientific article about evolution when I had a chance. Every time, the support of evolution disappointed me. If you have a good one and do appreciate, I would like to see it together with you.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
MOD HAT OFF​