6000 years?

[caravelair]

if the world was made quickly the decay rate would seem old because that is how they would have to be.

why? why wouldn't it just have decayed less?

 

[Beastt]

Carbon dating is done by how long thet take to decay. if the world was made quickly the decay rate would seem old because that is how they would have to be. And yes the YEC model does account for them The Flood but you wont agree with that so. So what.

It's fairly clear that you've heard something about how radiocarbon dating works but equally as clear that you didn't understand what you heard. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope. It's created in the atmosphere when cosmic rays strike atoms in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray called an energetic neutron. When one of these energetic neutrons strikes a nitrogen-14 atom, it is converted into a carbon-14 atom and a hydrogen atom. Carbon-14 is radioactive with a half-life of about 5,700 years. Carbon-14 binds with oxygen to form carbon dioxide which plants absorb and incorporate into plant fibers. The plants are then eaten by animals so that all living things contain a level of carbon-14.

While an organism is alive, the ratio of normal carbon, (carbon-12) to carbon-14 is nearly constant. Carbon-14 is always decaying and is continually being replaced for as long as the plant or animal is alive. When the organism dies, no additional carbon-14 is introduced while the existing carbon-14 within the organism continues to decay. By measuring the remaining ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14, the approximate age of the organism can be calculated.

It has nothing to do with the amount of time required for the Earth to form.

 

[Forever42]

I read this analogy else where. When Jesus made water turn to wine would it seem aged or just made. It was given out and they said it was the best they had drunk. Now we know wine aged tastes better then unaged wine. so it is apparnt it was aged. So if a evolutionist tested it would he not say no it was not a miricle this wine is old. Did Jesus diseive them by making it seem aged. If God created the world in 6 days would it not seem aged for the same reasons.

Actually, to be nitpicky, wine wasn't aged until the late 1800s, because there was no way to age wine without it oxidizing. They wouldn't have drank aged wine that long ago because it effectively went bad long before it could be enjoyed.

 

[wagsbags]

Greetings, W Jay,

If a chemist tested it, then I'd expect he'd want before and after samples. If the chemical properties of the first didn't agree with the second, and it was reasonable to assume that no hanky-panky was involved, I suppose he'd have to call it a miracle. Water doesn't spontaneously change to wine by any naturalistic process. Wine requires grape juice, bacteria and time.

I mentioned in an earlier post the issue with conflating evolution with any science that tends to disprove the literal accuracy of the bible, and I believe you may have just given us all an example. Evolution is the theoretical framework which underlies biology, not chemistry, though it has applications in many other fields. It draws in turn on a timeline established by geologists -- and christian geologists at that ... back in the 19th century.

Scientists are specialists today. We tend to give respectful credence to any other scientist in her specialized field of study, reserving comment only for her experimental methodologies. If the experimental methods are sound, the results are assumed sound by scientists in other fields.

So when the conclusions of a biologists's investigations are published in a peer-reviewed journal, I can feel relatively confident the results are valid. Given time for other biologists to weigh in, if no fundamental errors are found, my confidence level naturally increases. If the work has broad applicability, my respect for the individual researcher and her theory is enhanced. Such is the case with biological evolution.

Consider the hundreds of billions contributed to our economy by re-combinant DNA pharmaceuticals, for example. Without the theory of evolution, there would have been no reason to suspect that heredity had a structural component within our cells.

Contraversions to a young earth begin with geology, with emphasis added by astronomy, biology, anthropology, archeology ... even physics. It is by no means necessary to be an evolutionist in order to disbelieve a young earth. The evidences from fields other than biology are by themselves overwhelming, without the need to cite evolutionary theory even implicitly.

In peace, Jesse

I agree. In fact I dare say that almost every branch of science disproves YEC in some way or another.

 

[wagsbags]

I think it's important to mention that carbon 14 has far too short of a half life to be useful in dating the earth but Beastt's explanation of it was nonetheless accurate. Oh and C-14 can't date the earth because it's half-life is too short but it can definitely date back longer than 6000 years.
2 things I want an explanation on.

1. Schroeder's explanation for why the half lives needed to be different needs to be explained. I'm not even sure what you're saying and yet it sounds wrong.
2. light from stars more than 6000 light years away. anyone? anyone?

 

[Beastt]

I think it's important to mention that carbon 14 has far too short of a half life to be useful in dating the earth but Beastt's explanation of it was nonetheless accurate. Oh and C-14 can't date the earth because it's half-life is too short but it can definitely date back longer than 6000 years.
2 things I want an explanation on.

1. Schroeder's explanation for why the half lives needed to be different needs to be explained. I'm not even sure what you're saying and yet it sounds wrong.
2. light from stars more than 6000 light years away. anyone? anyone?

C-14 dating is good for around 50,000 years so, yes, it's way too short to date the Earth. And, of course, since we have every scientific reason to believe that the Earth has been around longer than life on Earth, C-14 dating would be useless since it can only be applied to those things which have, at one time, been alive.

I'm assuming that once you pass around 50,000 years, there is too little C-14 left to get a proper ratio so accuracy would begin to drop off rather rapidly.

As for the light from stars more than 6000 light years away, I'm going to guess it's done with large, cosmic mirrors which bounce the light back and forth across long expanses of space before directing it to Earth. Most of those stars are probably only two or three blocks away.

 

[h2whoa]

2. light from stars more than 6000 light years away. anyone? anyone?

Hmmm, this will either be ignored or you'll get the "speed of light has changed" response.

h2

 

[wagsbags]

Well so far it's just been ignored. Although I like the mirrors idea

 

[mike_253]

Im sorry, Im a little late but....

Although there are some young earth creationists who believe that dinosaurs never existed and the bones were a deception created by satan (et al.) or believe that dinosaurs did exist and the evidence was manipulated by satan (et al.), I think you'll find that most YECists think dinosaurs and humans lived contemporaneously despite the fact that there is no evidence to support that assertion.

Job 40 15-24 talks about a dinosaur...

15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,

what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;

the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,

his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,

yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,

and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;

the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;

he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c] or trap him and pierce his nose?



That's not an elephant or a hippopotamus, that's a dinosaur, and God created him.


God also tells Job about a fire breathing DINOSAUR, crocodiles dont breath fire in 41st chapter...

"Can you pull in the leviathan [a] with a fishhook


or tie down his tongue with a rope?

2 Can you put a cord through his nose

or pierce his jaw with a hook?

3 Will he keep begging you for mercy?

Will he speak to you with gentle words?

4 Will he make an agreement with you

for you to take him as your slave for life?

5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird

or put him on a leash for your girls?

6 Will traders barter for him?

Will they divide him up among the merchants?

7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons

or his head with fishing spears?

8 If you lay a hand on him,

you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

9 Any hope of subduing him is false;

the mere sight of him is overpowering.

10 No one is fierce enough to rouse him.

Who then is able to stand against me?

11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?

Everything under heaven belongs to me.



12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs,

his strength and his graceful form.

13 Who can strip off his outer coat?

Who would approach him with a bridle?

14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth,

ringed about with his fearsome teeth?

15 His back has [b] rows of shields

tightly sealed together;

16 each is so close to the next

that no air can pass between.

17 They are joined fast to one another;

they cling together and cannot be parted.

18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;

his eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from his nostrils

as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.

21 His breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from his mouth.

22 Strength resides in his neck;

dismay goes before him.

23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined;

they are firm and immovable.

24 His chest is hard as rock,

hard as a lower millstone.

25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified;

they retreat before his thrashing.

26 The sword that reaches him has no effect,

nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.

27 Iron he treats like straw

and bronze like rotten wood.

28 Arrows do not make him flee;

slingstones are like chaff to him.

29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw;

he laughs at the rattling of the lance.

30 His undersides are jagged potsherds,

leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.

31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron

and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake;

one would think the deep had white hair.

33 Nothing on earth is his equal-

a creature without fear.

34 He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud."

there were many drawing found of people riding on dinosaurs, people killing dinosaurs, and dinosaurs killing people .Those drawings were drawn by people that dont do reaserch on fossils, and that arent though evolution, so they must have seen some LIVE dinosaurs.
There were also many sightings of dinosaur, I mean, do u think, that 11 thousand people would be lying???

 

[dad]

I find myself torn.

On the one hand, it seems to me that YECs show more faith in believing precisely what the Bible says and perhaps they are due some credit for their tenacity. It can't be terribly easy to maintain such beliefs in light of all that science has offered. On the other hand, how many really believe that early Christians didn't read Genesis literally before science showed us that the claims made in Genesis were wrong? Surely it can't have escaped even the most flexible Christians that there was a time when man had absolutely no reason not to believe Genesis, word for word.

Good honest observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

But how do you explain dinosaur bones?

Man and dinosaurs co-existed back then -- and evolutionists [should] tell you that man and dinosaurs co-exist today as well.

Or the fact that we can trace human roots back far enough that it would seem unlikely that all humanity was created only a few thousand years earlier?

If you can't trace it back to God, as Luke did in his gospel, then I'd say something is wrong with your tracer.

 

[USincognito]

What's up with dad doing the AV thing and bumping years old threads for no other purpose than a non-sequitur response to someone who hasn't posted her in years?

 

[dad]

What's up with dad doing the AV thing and bumping years old threads for no other purpose than a non-sequitur response to someone who hasn't posted her in years?

People actually used to think a bit, rather than spam post and whine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Greetings, CFers ...

I'm new here, as you'll undoubtedly note from a quick glance at my post count.

While I've no interest in interfering in this lively discussion, a few points of interest might serve to refocus this thread along the lines of the OP. This was the first thread in the latest listing, and so it seemed a good place to meet CFers who were actively posting and thus able to receive my hello.

As I've stumbled into a creation/evolution dispute, I won't allow the inevitable heated comments to influence my impressions of the usual demeanor of posters on this board. There's only one other topic that seems as guaranteed to raise blood pressures on theistic fora.

Some of the original posts, no doubt inadvertently, conflated creationism with young earth creationism, so many of the comments about various polls suffered from the misperception.

While I am, obviously, not christian, I've spent many a pleasant hour discussing christian apologetics with my brother, a lutheran pastor of the missouri synod persuasion, and quite conservative, though not fundamentalist.

In particular, modern apologetics tend to discount the unusual ages cited for biblical patriarchs due to a change in numbering systems during the course of the bible's original compilation. This explanation makes unnecessary any speculation as to how humans might have lived for centuries on end before marrying, raising families and dying.

I note a logical disconnect between the ideas of a world view without gods and a world view with man as god. I can assure you that the world view of man as god is as alien to an atheist as it is to any theist, more so perhaps as it would require the existence of a god, something theists readily aver.

Fear not, by the rules of this forum which I have very recently studied, and by my own preference, I do not proselytize my lack of faith. I am here to hear about yours, and how it affects your relationships with your fellow men.

I would urge anyone seriously interested in how the expansion of Bishop Ussher's timeline came to pass to study the history of geology. A fast google search will turn up articles such as "Diluvial Theory: A Synopsis from the Historical Geologic Account Relative to Biblical Teachings" which give a good view of the changing perspectives of the earth's age.

I regret not being able to post a link, but I haven't yet accumulated the necessary 15 posts.

But I note that most of the discussion has been in relationship with a universe age of millions or billions of years. This is rather stronger than necessary to address the OP. A telescope taking sightings using the baseline of our relative positions about the sun six months apart is capable of resolving stars tens of thousands of light-years away using simple trigonometry.

As we see the light now, in order to justify a universe age of less than ten thousand years, we'd have to assume the light was generated before the star was born. This strikes me as inherently unlikely.

In peace, Jesse

OK. I see now. I suppose you're still in the same philosophical position as you were twenty years ago.

Have we ever spoken before? I almost vaguely remember seeing your name come up, but I'm not certain of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

For believers in this. I'm curious as to how you justify this?

Just concatenate the genealogies in the Bible.

Use 1 Chronicles 9 with Luke 3.

Easy peasy.

I'm going to assume that you aren't aware of the radioactive dating of the earth because only geologists and nuclear engineers really learn about that.

Radioactivity has nothing to do with how long the earth has been in existence.

But how do you explain dinosaur bones?

Decomposition.

Or the fact that we can trace human roots back far enough that it would seem unlikely that all humanity was created only a few thousand years earlier?

No you can't.

Not unless you leap over more missing links than Carter has liver pills.

 

[Aaron112]

Decomposition.

Yes. Same with all flesh except Jesus'.

Mice bones,
fish bones,
pig bones,
cow bones,
crocadial ? bones ?
bird bones ,
dog bones,
cat bones,
... ... ...
de com pose

 

[Diamond72]

Hmmm, this will either be ignored or you'll get the "speed of light has changed" response.

There is no time at the speed of light. That is why we can still see the universe as it was in the beginning. The expansion of the universe does affect how we perceive light over vast cosmic distances. As the universe expands, it stretches the wavelength of light traveling through it, a phenomenon known as "cosmic redshift." This makes the light appear to move towards the red end of the spectrum and lose energy as it travels. So while the speed of light remains constant, the expansion of the universe stretches the space through which light travels, affecting how we observe it. This does not even get into a discussion on how we perceive light. Or how small of a part of the spectrum we are able to perceive with our eyes.

 

[Diamond72]

Not unless you leap over more missing links than Carter has liver pills.

The idea of "missing links" is a bit of a misnomer because the fossil record, while incomplete, does provide substantial evidence for the evolutionary process. Each new discovery helps piece together the complex puzzle of life's history.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea of "missing links" is a bit of a misnomer because the fossil record, while incomplete, does provide substantial evidence for the evolutionary process. Each new discovery helps piece together the complex puzzle of life's history.

Every missing link found creates two more missing links.

 

[Diamond72]

Every missing link found creates two more missing links.

Only two? Maybe 200 Evolution is a lot of nonsense. They have to call a frame shift a mutation and that is total nonsense. Without that their theory falls apart. The Bible clearly says that God declares the end from the beginning. Nothing could be more clear than that.