Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week.

The earth created the natural man along with the rest of the wild animals.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi skywriting,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:
I agree. No one in scripture ever used the genealogies to create a specific creation date for the beginning of the world.

You do realize that in the days the Scriptures were written there was no such concept as 'dates'. However, the Scriptures do tell us the at what point in time, as history began to unfold in a realm that didn't even exist previously, that the existence of the heavens and the earth came to be. It was in the beginning. Then from that proclamation of a beginning, the Scriptures unfold for us a timeline making it easy for us to track back to approximately when this time of beginning was.

Then you wrote:
Not to mention, every official estimation of the Creation date has reached a different conclusion.

OK, so it's likely that one of them is correct. That's one of the reasons that I'm not dogmatic in saying that it happened on a Monday in July in the year 2,500 BC. I just merely agree that the Scriptures seem to clearly express to the believer that this realm of existence was created by a God of purpose. That His purpose was to 'build', if you will, a place for a creature that He calls man, to live. That the creation did not exist some trillions or billions of years before man came to exist because it was for man that the creation was created. The Scriptures do clearly, to me, define that time as being fairly shortly before Adam was made by God stooping down and breathing His breath of life into a clump of dirt. Then the Scriptures do, to me, seem to clearly describe a fairly thorough genealogy that allows us to know, within a reasonable frame of time, when that first day was.

Now, whether it was 5,900 years ago or 6,200 years ago or 5.432 years ago, I don't know and that's not the specificity that I'm expecting to find since mankind didn't, for centuries, even concern themselves with 'dates'. All through the Scriptures we read of things happening and yet nothing in Scripture is defined as 'on September 22, 566 BC this happened'. No, dates were merely times and seasons that those living at the time, would have recognized. Such and such happened in the second year of King Uzziah's reign. Well today, we can't even be completely sure of exactly what 'date' was the second year of King Uzziah's reign. We have historical evidence that we think supports him being anointed king 'around' such and such a date as we understand dates.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
70
✟62,306.00
Faith
Non-Denom
1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week. God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

2) Using the various Biblical genealogies and documented lifetimes, it appears the earth is about 6000 - 7000 years old.

3) There is no error-free way to date the age of ancient items such as rocks, etc.. Various radiometric dating methods ALWAYS include multiple NON-provable steady-state assumptions in the calculations. This is why volcanic debris has been dated as millions of years old when it actually formed on a known date of an eruption - and submitted to the lab by the witness of the eruption to PROVE the erroneous nature of the calculations.

Secularists tend to look at radiometric dating ASSUMING there was no decayed material (Lead/Pb) at the beginning. However, the Bible seems to imply there was decayed material to begin with in that the world was made fully mature and functional. This is a huge difference in viewpoint!

This would mean the earth immediately after the initial creation would have some radioactive material and some decayed lead already existing in the ground.

Part of radiometric dating comes from accurately measuring the ratio of parent to daughter material to determine how much parent material has decayed. But this ratio is unknowable since we weren't there at initial creation to know the initial parent/daughter ratio.

Furthermore, due to underground water erosion, etc. we don't know if the initial ratio has been modified due to those erosion forces on that sample. Did a piece of parent or daughter material break off some time ago or was there absolutely no erosion whatsoever?

4) The same erroneous steady-state type assumptions to date stalactites have us believe they can be over 100,000 years old when we see them hanging from cave ceilings. However, stalactites over 7 feet long have grown under the Lincoln Memorial which was built in 1922.

5) Comets have a life span of up to 30 thousand years (max) by getting smaller as they lose mass in their 'tail' as they travel thru space. This contradicts the idea that comets started life along with the rest of the universe 14 billion years ago. So noticing the error, atheist scientists now claim new comets fly out of the Oort cloud. However, nobody has ever observed a comet originate in the Oort cloud, nor from any other area of the universe for that matter. No scientist has ever seen a new comet form anywhere.

6) The 12th Century Prohm Temple in Cambodia has a Stegosaurus carved into the pillar. Did they do this because they saw one? The other animals carved into the pillar are modern animals so there is no reason to believe they didn't see the Stegosaurus. Skeptics say the head in the carving is too big to be a Stegosaurus. You be the judge:


7) There are various dino / human mud-footprint overlaps - are they genuine or hoaxes? Here are a few:
See Creationist site: genesispark.com

Delk Print:

Feminine Print:

8) There are numerous modern man made objects which have been found encased in rock, thus proving rocks cannot be millions of years old: hammer with wooden handle, screw, spark plug, electrical plug, vase, etc.

9) The Nampa Figurine: In 1889 a clay doll was brought up by a well drill from a depth of 320 feet. The figurine was found under several different strata including fifteen feet of lava basalt. According to standard evolutionary thinking, the stratum at this depth is about 2 million years old.


10) Preserved T-Rex soft tissue bone marrow was discovered when a T-Rex bone was accidentally dropped and broken open. The dark soft tissue material was scooped out and re-hydrated using a mild acid solution to plump it up. When put under a microscope, much to the surprise of evolutionist researchers, they saw FLEXIBLE blood vessels and Red Blood Cells! Here are some article and quotes:

"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience." (2005, 307:1952).

“There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?” Mary H. Schweitzer, “Blood from Stone,” Scientific American, Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied, “Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.” Schweitzer replied, “Jack, its your dinosaur.” [See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’” Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.

“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels...” Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

“‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls [Mary] Schweitzer. ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

11) In addition, there have been numerous similar findings since then:

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old. Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning. The researchers presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

12) Debunking Skeptics: Skeptics have tried to debunk the preserved dino tissue by saying that iron acted as a preservative. However, iron is always found in blood and bone marrow and has never been shown to preserve blood. Just try to bury a cow, dig it up 10 years later and see how flexible the blood vessels are, right? There will be NO MORE COW after 10 years.

Wishing evidence will go away is not debunking it. Google it - tons of articles today on preserved dino soft tissue. Preserved flexible blood vessels and blood cells out of a T-rex bone will not simply go away just because ATHEISTS wish it would go away.

They have pictures of microscope shots SHOWING the vessels and red blood cells. It is definitely PRESERVED SOFT TISSUE AND BLOOD CELLS from a T-Rex. Thoroughly genuine find, not to mention other similar finds from a Hadrosaur. Too many secular sources on the net to deny its reality at this point. Pathetic to even try. Nothing is 'debunked' from an unwillingness to see the evidence. You cannot wish it to go away - the proof is staring at you.

Thank You Lord for showing us Your Word is true, and may You work in the hearts and minds of those in rebellion, that some may be saved, in Jesus Name!
If you want some fabulous material to add strong support for your point of view, you can find it on the following website: Videos - Creation Astronomy I have all three videos and I am in fact just watching them all again because they are so inspiring.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi skywriting,

Again, thanks for your response. You wrote:
We all know how the scribes of the past enjoyed counting things. Both male and female scribes. But everyone overlooked the dating of Creation?

That may well be. I honestly don't have any historical data that would indicate that the scribes of the past enjoyed counting things. However, that's likely a pretty major difference between you and I regarding the authorship of the Scriptures. You apparently believe that the scribes 'authored' the Scriptures. I believe they only 'copied' the Scriptures. According to Paul, the Scriptures were written by holy men as they were led by the Spirit of God to write. Then what they wrote was latter given to the scribes to record and make copies.

It would seem that, according to your understanding and the scribes penchant for counting things, that the Scriptures would also be full of temple attendance numbers. Now, there were of course, some things that we find in the Scriptures that are counted. Numbers is choc-a-bloc full of counting totals of the tribes of Israel, but keep in mind that God told them to count and so they counted. So, that counting is included in the Scriptures not because the scribes apparently liked to count things, but because God told Moses to take a count of all the men of Israel 20 years and older.

You also wrote:
But everyone overlooked the dating of Creation?

I don't believe that anyone overlooked the dating of the Creation. Find for me, in the Scriptures, the date that David was made king; the date that Samson tore down the pillars of the temple; or pretty much any date for anything. As I say, in the days of the old covenant, events were accounted to have happened based on some important fact of local knowledge as the reign of the kings. People in old covenant times didn't have any concept of counting the years. We only say 500 BC because we have now established the time of Jesus' birth as a starting point and count backwards to 500 BC. People in the year that we today call 500 BC didn't write down on their important government papers by signing their name or placing their signatory on it and writing down 'in the year 500 BC'. It wasn't like what we do today when we sign an important document and sign our name and then there's the little space beside the signature line that says 'date'.

I think it would be a learning event for you to clear your mind for 15 minutes and sit down and put yourself living in the days of Samuel and consider how did people keep track of times and years and seasons in those days? Go ahead. Imagine yourself in your cloak living in Israel, or even living in one of the other nations of that day, and consider, how did people measure time. About the only time they measured were the hours of the day and they were measured imprecisely as hours after sunset and watches of the night. They may also have measured a week or two or a few months ahead or back. But the concept of counting years for hundreds and hundreds of years doesn't seem to have occurred to any civilization in that day.

What was the date that the scribes wrote down for Israel leaving Egypt? What date did they write down for that time they all built the golden calf and had to drink it all ground up in water? Surely both of those would have been memorable events that a group of people who liked to count dates would have written down for us,...right?

Listen, you just don't want to agree that the genealogies are a valid record of timekeeping as time was kept in those days and that's perfectly ok with me, but I don't agree. I think that a lot of historical events were dated by saying, 'back when my father's father was alive'. There wasn't anyway for them to say, 'back in 672 BC'. They would have had absolutely no concept of what that meant. In order to even have a BC dating, we can only do it because we now live after Jesus was born and we now have that as a starting point. What they used as starting points was similar, but it was kings of the day. We then fine tuned it and created calendars to count off the years and number them and so we began to keep track of time by the count of the years. But mind you that didn't even begin until well after the accounts of the old covenant.

Finally, you wrote:
Additionally, every important aspect of Christianity is covered by multiple authors in different ways so that God's clear message is ensured.

I would agree that by the time we get into the new covenant, men had begun to use calendars to keep track of years. I'm not really sure what you mean that 'every important aspect of Christianity is covered by multiple authors' as it relates to dating. Did Paul use dates in his writing? How about Peter or James or any of the other new covenant writers?

The rest of what you've responded to me is pretty messy and so I'm not going to try to sway you by addressing every one of your specific words that you find somehow steer you away from a young creation. If you can't understand this issue concerning dating, you're not likely to understand any of my other explanations. But hear me! God dated the creation in the same way that God dated pretty much everything else found in the Scriptures. By counting up the years of someone's life or the years of a particular ruler's reign and that was just how things were dated in those days.

In the book of Daniel we read: In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

What year was that exactly? Did you find that in the Scriptures?

In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep.

What year was that exactly? Did you find that in the Scriptures?

In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me.

What year was that exactly? Did you find that in the Scriptures?

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi skywriting,

Again, thanks for your response. You wrote:


That may well be. I honestly don't have any historical data that would indicate that the scribes of the past enjoyed counting things. However, that's likely a pretty major difference between you and I regarding the authorship of the Scriptures. You apparently believe that the scribes 'authored' the Scriptures. I believe they only 'copied' the Scriptures. According to Paul, the Scriptures were written by holy men as they were led by the Spirit of God to write. Then what they wrote was latter given to the scribes to record and make copies.

It would seem that, according to your understanding and the scribes penchant for counting things, that the Scriptures would also be full of temple attendance numbers. Now, there were of course, some things that we find in the Scriptures that are counted. Numbers is choc-a-bloc full of counting totals of the tribes of Israel, but keep in mind that God told them to count and so they counted. So, that counting is included in the Scriptures not because the scribes apparently liked to count things, but because God told Moses to take a count of all the men of Israel 20 years and older.

You also wrote:


I don't believe that anyone overlooked the dating of the Creation. Find for me, in the Scriptures, the date that David was made king; the date that Samson tore down the pillars of the temple; or pretty much any date for anything. As I say, in the days of the old covenant, events were accounted to have happened based on some important fact of local knowledge as the reign of the kings. People in old covenant times didn't have any concept of counting the years. We only say 500 BC because we have now established the time of Jesus' birth as a starting point and count backwards to 500 BC. People in the year that we today call 500 BC didn't write down on their important government papers by signing their name or placing their signatory on it and writing down 'in the year 500 BC'. It wasn't like what we do today when we sign an important document and sign our name and then there's the little space beside the signature line that says 'date'.

I think it would be a learning event for you to clear your mind for 15 minutes and sit down and put yourself living in the days of Samuel and consider how did people keep track of times and years and seasons in those days? Go ahead. Imagine yourself in your cloak living in Israel, or even living in one of the other nations of that day, and consider, how did people measure time. About the only time they measured were the hours of the day and they were measured imprecisely as hours after sunset and watches of the night. They may also have measured a week or two or a few months ahead or back. But the concept of counting years for hundreds and hundreds of years doesn't seem to have occurred to any civilization in that day.

What was the date that the scribes wrote down for Israel leaving Egypt? What date did they write down for that time they all built the golden calf and had to drink it all ground up in water? Surely both of those would have been memorable events that a group of people who liked to count dates would have written down for us,...right?

Listen, you just don't want to agree that the genealogies are a valid record of timekeeping as time was kept in those days and that's perfectly ok with me, but I don't agree. I think that a lot of historical events were dated by saying, 'back when my father's father was alive'. There wasn't anyway for them to say, 'back in 672 BC'. They would have had absolutely no concept of what that meant. In order to even have a BC dating, we can only do it because we now live after Jesus was born and we now have that as a starting point. What they used as starting points was similar, but it was kings of the day. We then fine tuned it and created calendars to count off the years and number them and so we began to keep track of time by the count of the years. But mind you that didn't even begin until well after the accounts of the old covenant.

Finally, you wrote:


I would agree that by the time we get into the new covenant, men had begun to use calendars to keep track of years. I'm not really sure what you mean that 'every important aspect of Christianity is covered by multiple authors' as it relates to dating. Did Paul use dates in his writing? How about Peter or James or any of the other new covenant writers?

The rest of what you've responded to me is pretty messy and so I'm not going to try to sway you by addressing every one of your specific words that you find somehow steer you away from a young creation. If you can't understand this issue concerning dating, you're not likely to understand any of my other explanations. But hear me! God dated the creation in the same way that God dated pretty much everything else found in the Scriptures. By counting up the years of someone's life or the years of a particular ruler's reign and that was just how things were dated in those days.

In the book of Daniel we read: In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

What year was that exactly? Did you find that in the Scriptures?

In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep.

What year was that exactly? Did you find that in the Scriptures?

In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me.

What year was that exactly? Did you find that in the Scriptures?

God bless,
In Christ, ted


What I was saying is that no person thought dating Creation was important in the scriptures, so that is what God thinks as well. And the few mentions to the age of the earth confirm an earth of antiquity, ignoring the literal use of "permanent".

As for creating man....also a slow drawn-out process. I even see support for "cutting down" the natural/animal man and RE-making man from the animals.

12It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. It was My hands that stretched out the heavens, and I ordained all their host.

Created =
choose, create creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make fat

A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) -- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi skywriting,

Thanks for your reply. You responded:
so that is what God thinks as well.

Well, I believe rather that God did date it in pretty much the same way that He dated everything else in the Scriptures.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Tayla

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 30, 2017
1,694
801
USA
✟147,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week
What did saber-toothed tigers eat before the fall turned them into savage carnivores? And how did they eat grass with those teeth?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What did saber-toothed tigers eat before the fall turned them into savage carnivores? And how did they eat grass with those teeth?

Hi 316,

According to the Scriptures, every living creature was given the herb and plant of the earth for food. I'm not going to question how sabretooth tigers ate in those days, but I am going to stand by God's word. If they were created on the day all the animals and cattle and beasts of the earth were created, then they ate plants. God said so.

Just a possibility to consider and I'm not in anyway saying that it is so, but...

As far as how they could eat plants with those teeth, maybe they ate baseball sized fruits and not grass and the sharp pointed front teeth would work perfectly to pull a fruit off of a tree's stem. You are limiting your understanding by thinking that 'grass' is the only plant of the field that could be eaten.

Now, the days of Noah was the first time God speaks of man being allowed to eat all meat, but there had long been sacrifices of animals and so they were killed long before the flood. Abel gave sacrifices of his flock to God and that was pretty much immediately (within at most a few years) after the fall. Whether any of the descendants ate of meat can only be guessed until we read after the flood that Nimrod was a mighty hunter. However, it seems clear that animals were killed by man long before the flood. Of course, animals could have killed other animals for food at the same time that Abel was offering his sacrifices if we agree that animals didn't die until after the fall.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,091
11,397
76
✟366,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week.

No. As early Christians noted, the description of mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, makes it clear that this is not a literal history.

God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

Anyone making this conclusion is asserting that God is dishonest. We have, from time to time, supernovae appear, when a star blows itself out of existence. If we are seeing starlight created on the way to Earth, then God is showing us stars that never existed. We can either accept your belief or accept that God is honest. But not both.

2) Using the various Biblical genealogies and documented lifetimes, it appears the earth is about 6000 - 7000 years old.

There are two, contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the Bible. We can conclude that the Bible is wrong, or we can conclude that these are not literal genealogies.

3) There is no error-free way to date the age of ancient items such as rocks, etc.. Various radiometric dating methods ALWAYS include multiple NON-provable steady-state assumptions in the calculations.

Since we have accurately dated the flow that buried Pompeii, we know the method works. "Well, things might have been different in those days", is not a realistic escape for creationists.

This is why volcanic debris has been dated as millions of years old when it actually formed on a known date of an eruption - and submitted to the lab by the witness of the eruption to PROVE the erroneous nature of the calculations.

The creationist doing this was warned that his sample contained unmelted material which would give a false age for the rock. He insisted on having it done, and then feigned suprise when it gave him the faulty result they warned him about.

Secularists tend to look at radiometric dating ASSUMING there was no decayed material (Lead/Pb) at the beginning.

No. That's just a story creationists tell each other. The radiometric methods are those that are "reset" when rock melts, giving an age for the rocks, not the materials in them.

Part of radiometric dating comes from accurately measuring the ratio of parent to daughter material to determine how much parent material has decayed. But this ratio is unknowable since we weren't there at initial creation to know the initial parent/daughter ratio.

Isochrons make such assumptions unnecessary:
Isochron dating - Wikipedia

Furthermore, due to underground water erosion, etc. we don't know if the initial ratio has been modified due to those erosion forces on that sample. Did a piece of parent or daughter material break off some time ago or was there absolutely no erosion whatsoever?

You have no idea how the dating is done, do you? What difference do you think the size of the rock makes?

4) The same erroneous steady-state type assumptions to date stalactites have us believe they can be over 100,000 years old when we see them hanging from cave ceilings. However, stalactites over 7 feet long have grown under the Lincoln Memorial which was built in 1922.

Not all minerals dissolve at the same rate. However,
Stalagmites grow upwards from the drips that fall to the floor. They spread outwards more, so they have a wider, flatter shape than stalactites, but they gain mass at roughly the same rate. Limestone stalactites form extremely slowly – usually less than 10cm every thousand years – and radiometric dating has shown that some are over 190,000 years old.


Stalactites can also form by a different chemical process when water drips through concrete, and this is much faster. Stalactites under concrete bridges can grow as fast as a centimetre per year.
How long does it take stalagmites and stalactites to form?


5) Comets have a life span of up to 30 thousand years (max) by getting smaller as they lose mass in their 'tail' as they travel thru space. This contradicts the idea that comets started life along with the rest of the universe 14 billion years ago.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Comets formed about 4.5 billion years ago when the solar system formed.

So noticing the error, atheist scientists now claim new comets fly out of the Oort cloud.

Actually, only very long-period comets come from the Oort Cloud. Most come from the Kuiper Belt. We have now observed a huge number of Kuiper objects out past Pluto. Occasionally, one has its orbit disturbed and falls toward the Sun, forming a long orbit, becoming a comet. Every now and then we see a new one. Would you like to learn how we know it's new?

6) The 12th Century Prohm Temple in Cambodia has a Stegosaurus carved into the pillar.

Nope. The creature has a massive, rhinocerous-like head, an upright posture like a mammal with longer legs, and lacks a thagomizer. So not remotely like a stegosaurus.





7) There are various dino / human mud-footprint overlaps - are they genuine or hoaxes?

Mostly hoaxes. They were, ironically enough, debunked by YE creationists from Loma Linda University. They found no evidence of human footprints alongside dino footprints.

8) There are numerous modern man made objects which have been found encased in rock, thus proving rocks cannot be millions of years old: hammer with wooden handle, screw, spark plug, electrical plug, vase, etc.

But scientists have known for a long time, that some rock can form quickly. Again, you were misled because youi don't know the difference.

9) The Nampa Figurine: In 1889 a clay doll was brought up by a well drill from a depth of 320 feet. The figurine was found under several different strata including fifteen feet of lava basalt. According to standard evolutionary thinking, the stratum at this depth is about 2 million years old.

No one has been able to certify the figurine came from that depth. If it had been hit by the drill on the way down, it would have been pushed into the hole. It's merely an article of faith it just happened to be at the lowest level drilled.

10) Preserved T-Rex soft tissue bone marrow was discovered when a T-Rex bone was accidentally dropped and broken open.

It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't marrow. However, some heme was found. It was an interesting confirmation that birds evolved from dinsaurs; the heme turned out to be like that of birds, rather than like that of other reptiles, which is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

However, scientists have known for along time that organic molecules can persist for millions of years in the right conditions. Amber, for example, collagen, and now heme are known to do so.

12) Debunking Skeptics: Skeptics have tried to debunk the preserved dino tissue by saying that iron acted as a preservative. However, iron is always found in blood and bone marrow and has never been shown to preserve blood. Just try to bury a cow, dig it up 10 years later and see how flexible the blood vessels are, right? There will be NO MORE COW after 10 years.

And yet you're telling us the dinosaur is thousands of years old. You just deflated your own argument. If you can't figure out what's wrong, let me know, and I'll explain.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
People are so comfortable just posting false information, as if they know what theyre talking about.

Lodi News-Sentinel - Google News Archive Search

"4) The same erroneous steady-state type assumptions to date stalactites have us believe they can be over 100,000 years old when we see them hanging from cave ceilings. However, stalactites over 7 feet long have grown under the Lincoln Memorial which was built in 1922."


Well, as stated above, the reason these stalactites are larger is because they aren't natural stalactites and they are chemically artificial because they are made from dissolved man-made concrete.


The original person who posted the idea that giant stalactites prove a young earth, clearly just doesn't know what hes talking about. As usual.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@EVERYONE,

Evidence for a young earth (and a young creation)... does in fact exist, but not all pieces of evidence are interpreted this way today.

I hesitate on the interpretations for an old earth - I do have a high-level (basic) understanding where they come from and how they are developed (they are not illogical), but feel there is something fundamentally flawed in an interpretive view of the distant past based upon observations made in the relatively near present. Here's the difficulty (at least for us as Christians with such a view):

If we believe God's word is correct concerning creation (let's set aside the days of creation, lets set aside the flood, lets set aside the genealogies for now), and in relation to creation, there is the present, and there is the future.

Let's say the future is the final state where all believers are with God in heaven. What does the Bible actually say about heaven (hang with me here, I will tie this in with the age of the earth)? In the book of Revelation, the apostle John wrote, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." (Revelation 21:1). Then there is also "But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13). Now if we look at 1 Corinthians 15 (entire chapter) Paul starts off with the resurrection of Christ, then it goes on to say that we will all be resurrected and talks about our resurrection bodies. This means, like Christ we will be made new, being restored, being made immortal. Christ didn't raise from the dead as a spirit-like mist, no, He had a physical body. Likewise, we will have a physical body and the new heavens and new earth... will in fact be a physical restoration... a "resurrection" where all sin is removed, all the effects of sin and the curse (for we know all of creation has been groaning... - Romans 8:22). But what is everything being restored to? It should be obvious if we have a correct understanding of creation... all of creation will be resurrected from death in it's current stated and restored to how God intended it at creation, before sin, before the curse, back when God dwelt with men, back when God said it was "very good".

So what do we know about now? Well we know for sure we're not in heaven, we know there is decay, disease, corruption, death, etc... What we know about now is not an accurate depiction of what heaven will be like. Likewise (and here's the tie-in), we cannot get an accurate depiction of creation based upon what we know about the present anymore than we can use the present to get an accurate depiction about heaven and our eternal future. If we study the earth in the present, we will never find the actual garden of Eden (it was destroyed, it is gone); if we study human beings today, we will never see how we could have once lived to be over 900 years old; if we study the variability of life today as it adapts to its environment in order to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful/multiply and fill the earth, we will conclude life arose through random accidents instead of having been miraculously created by God; if we study the ground (which even the ground is cursed because of sin) here in the present, we will of course conclude it is the result of billions of years of decay and slow geological processes. If we study the heavens and assume what we know about the present, of course we'll say that starlight couldn't span across the universe on day 4 of creation.

In short, the present is a poor model by which we make assumptions about the past. As beings created in the image/likeness of God, He made us physical and there was a time when God dwelt with us and we were without sin... and we will again return to that paradise along with the thief on the cross. In the meantime though, if we want to know what happened in the past, we all have to make the decision whether we're going to trust God and His word. I wonder who here doesn't trust God about their eternal future... my guess is that 100% of us here are in fact betting our lives (literally) that God will take care of us, that Jesus did in fact literally rise from the dead, that He in fact literally paid the full price of our past/present/future sins, that we will in fact literally live for eternity in a renewed and everlasting creation that is no longer corrupted by sin. My position is that God's word is much more than just a "fallback" because I don't have any better options, but rather that it is the truth and will be the only thing that stands when all else falls away. If God's word is that good, that true, that dependable about our future, then it should also be so about our past as well... so yes, if God says he made every life form on days 3, 5, and 6, created the moon and stars on day 4, created light and formed the earth on days 1 and 2, then I believe it. Likewise I believe the genealogies from Adam to Christ give a clear picture for a relatively young creation - it's too short to stretch out over tens of thousands of years let alone millions or billions.

Wanted to share this because if we mock God about what He tells us about the past (and justifying our reasons on the basis of a million flavors... from the idea that creation was borrowed from other sources, perhaps Babylonian myths... to it being an allegory, whatever the case may be), we are in fact also mocking Him by what He tells us about our future.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
No. As early Christians noted, the description of mornings and evenings without a sun to have them, makes it clear that this is not a literal history.

Anyone making this conclusion is asserting that God is dishonest. We have, from time to time, supernovae appear, when a star blows itself out of existence. If we are seeing starlight created on the way to Earth, then God is showing us stars that never existed. We can either accept your belief or accept that God is honest. But not both.

There are two, contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the Bible. We can conclude that the Bible is wrong, or we can conclude that these are not literal genealogies.

Since we have accurately dated the flow that buried Pompeii, we know the method works. "Well, things might have been different in those days", is not a realistic escape for creationists.

The creationist doing this was warned that his sample contained unmelted material which would give a false age for the rock. He insisted on having it done, and then feigned suprise when it gave him the faulty result they warned him about.

No. That's just a story creationists tell each other. The radiometric methods are those that are "reset" when rock melts, giving an age for the rocks, not the materials in them.

Isochrons make such assumptions unnecessary:
Isochron dating - Wikipedia

You have no idea how the dating is done, do you? What difference do you think the size of the rock makes?

Not all minerals dissolve at the same rate. However,
Stalagmites grow upwards from the drips that fall to the floor. They spread outwards more, so they have a wider, flatter shape than stalactites, but they gain mass at roughly the same rate. Limestone stalactites form extremely slowly – usually less than 10cm every thousand years – and radiometric dating has shown that some are over 190,000 years old.

Stalactites can also form by a different chemical process when water drips through concrete, and this is much faster. Stalactites under concrete bridges can grow as fast as a centimetre per year.
How long does it take stalagmites and stalactites to form?


Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Comets formed about 4.5 billion years ago when the solar system formed.

Actually, only very long-period comets come from the Oort Cloud. Most come from the Kuiper Belt. We have now observed a huge number of Kuiper objects out past Pluto. Occasionally, one has its orbit disturbed and falls toward the Sun, forming a long orbit, becoming a comet. Every now and then we see a new one. Would you like to learn how we know it's new?

Nope. The creature has a massive, rhinocerous-like head, an upright posture like a mammal with longer legs, and lacks a thagomizer. So not remotely like a stegosaurus.



Mostly hoaxes. They were, ironically enough, debunked by YE creationists from Loma Linda University. They found no evidence of human footprints alongside dino footprints.

But scientists have known for a long time, that some rock can form quickly. Again, you were misled because youi don't know the difference.

No one has been able to certify the figurine came from that depth. If it had been hit by the drill on the way down, it would have been pushed into the hole. It's merely an article of faith it just happened to be at the lowest level drilled.

It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't marrow. However, some heme was found. It was an interesting confirmation that birds evolved from dinsaurs; the heme turned out to be like that of birds, rather than like that of other reptiles, which is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

However, scientists have known for along time that organic molecules can persist for millions of years in the right conditions. Amber, for example, collagen, and now heme are known to do so.

And yet you're telling us the dinosaur is thousands of years old. You just deflated your own argument. If you can't figure out what's wrong, let me know, and I'll explain.
"thagomizer" :oldthumbsup: LOL

Great post!
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,091
11,397
76
✟366,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The original person who posted the idea that giant stalactites prove a young earth, clearly just doesn't know what hes talking about. As usual.

We're dealing with the "Gish Gallop." The technique is to toss out so many fake arguments against science in the hope that at least one of them doesn't get addressed. Then, a victory dance because one of the many fakes wasn't debunked.

(But Barbarian is a very patient guy)

In short, the present is a poor model by which we make assumptions about the past. As beings created in the image/likeness of God, He made us physical and there was a time when God dwelt with us and we were without sin... and we will again return to that paradise along with the thief on the cross.

Unfortunately for that argument, we can see how things were in the past by looking at the stars. Because they are so very far away, we can see processes that happened billions of years ago. And they work just the way they do today.

So that's not going to work for you. Of course you could make the argument that the light was created on the way to the earth so it just looks very ancient. But aside from the intrinsic dishonesty that would be required to do such a thing, it also brings up the question of why God would fake physical processes that weren't actually in operation at that time.

Rock and a hard place for you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
6) The 12th Century Prohm Temple in Cambodia has a Stegosaurus carved into the pillar. Did they do this because they saw one? The other animals carved into the pillar are modern animals so there is no reason to believe they didn't see the Stegosaurus. Skeptics say the head in the carving is too big to be a Stegosaurus. You be the judge:
Looks more like a Jackson's chameleon to me

jacksons-chameleon-820x437.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,438
2,794
Hartford, Connecticut
✟295,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Gish Gallop" interesting.

unfortunately, in the court of law, even throwing just one blatantly bad argument on the table, diminishes all credibility. Especially when the original person who posted the ideas, doesn't admit or even acknowledge their own failures.

If anything, i think they're making themselves look like fools, posting random gibberish.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,091
11,397
76
✟366,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"thagomizer" :oldthumbsup: LOL

Great post!

It's now officially in use:
The spiked thagomizer on the other hand, has usually been regarded as a defensive weapon since their initial discovery. New discoveries and research have focused on the placement and location of the spikes, their use, as well as the flexibility of the tail.


Modeling of the range of motion in the neck and tail of Kentrosaurus, a Late Jurassic stegosaur from Tanzania, showed them to be very flexible. The tail of Kentrosaurus was so flexible its spiked tip could reach the sides of its own body. Not only could the spikes actually reach an attacker, stegosaur tail spikes often have trauma-related injuries showing that the tails were, at the very least, swung with some force.
What are stegosaurs? | Earth Archives

Apparently, it also has a meaning in math, derived from paleontology:


Mathematics > Combinatorics
Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials of thagomizer matroids

Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, Volume 24, Issue 3 (2017)
Katie R. Gedeon
(Submitted on 17 Oct 2016 (v1), last revised 3 Oct 2017 (this version, v2))
We introduce thagomizer matroids and compute the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial of a rank n+1 thagomizer matroid by showing that the coefficient of tk is equal to the number of Dyck paths of semilength n with k long ascents. We also give a conjecture for the Sn-equivariant Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial of a thagomizer matroid.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
It's now officially in use:
The spiked thagomizer on the other hand, has usually been regarded as a defensive weapon since their initial discovery. New discoveries and research have focused on the placement and location of the spikes, their use, as well as the flexibility of the tail.


Modeling of the range of motion in the neck and tail of Kentrosaurus, a Late Jurassic stegosaur from Tanzania, showed them to be very flexible. The tail of Kentrosaurus was so flexible its spiked tip could reach the sides of its own body. Not only could the spikes actually reach an attacker, stegosaur tail spikes often have trauma-related injuries showing that the tails were, at the very least, swung with some force.
What are stegosaurs? | Earth Archives

Apparently, it also has a meaning in math, derived from paleontology:


Mathematics > Combinatorics
Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials of thagomizer matroids

Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, Volume 24, Issue 3 (2017)
Katie R. Gedeon
(Submitted on 17 Oct 2016 (v1), last revised 3 Oct 2017 (this version, v2))
We introduce thagomizer matroids and compute the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial of a rank n+1 thagomizer matroid by showing that the coefficient of tk is equal to the number of Dyck paths of semilength n with k long ascents. We also give a conjecture for the Sn-equivariant Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial of a thagomizer matroid.
Holy cow, it even has its own wikipedia page:

Thagomizer - Wikipedia


Thag lives!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,091
11,397
76
✟366,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"Gish Gallop" interesting.

It's named in honor of YE creationist Duane Gish, who used it almost excluisively in debates.

In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities of human proteins to chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and in others they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."

I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn't, either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.


Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was (he suggested) an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.


This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.
...
I next saw Gish at noon on February 18, 1985, when he debated philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota. Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming (and his mythical proteins) in a guest editorial in the student newspaper. Kitcher alluded to the proteins early in the debate, and in his final remarks, he demanded that Gish either produce references or admit that they do not exist. Gish, of course, did neither. His closing remarks were punctuated with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the audience.
Scientific Creationism and Error
 
Upvote 0