Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You are dodging the question. The evidence is absolutely clear that the strata of the earth are not of the same age. It is also absolutely clear that some of them were in no way formed under water.




No such material has ever been found. What has been found is mineralised soft tissue which is a very different thing. Also you need to supply a reason as to why such material cannot survive as we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times.

The C14 in coal and diamonds is present due to well-known processes and is due to the radiation that exists underground.
Radiation which did not decay at the same rate as it does today.

We know as a fact that clocks slow due to acceleration. The universe began acceleration faster than c and has only continued to increase according to modern astronomical belief.

Since acceleration causes the atomic rate of atomic clocks to slow, then those clocks (atomic decay rate) was faster in the past.

Since they are using the rate clocks tick today to calculate into the past, they of course get the wrong answers. Clocks must be speed up exponentially as one calculates backwards.

So that billions of years worth of decay would have occurred in what to us is thousands of years of today's slower clocks.

Until they accept science and speed up clocks they know must have slowed to get to their present rate, the answers will always be wrong.

If the entire universe accelerated from the start, and acceleration causes the decay rate to slow, then by extension as one goes backwards in time towards that beginning then the decay rate became faster.

Just as the twin aged faster before he began his acceleration. I find it surprising that those that are supposed to be following science refuse to follow the science they claim to follow.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Radiation which did not decay at the same rate as it does today.

We know as a fact that clocks slow due to acceleration. The universe began acceleration faster than c and has only continued to increase according to modern astronomical belief.

Decay occurs at the same rate within all frames of reference.

If you were on spaceship with a lump of radioactive uranium and accelerated to nearly the speed of light, at no time during that trip would you observe a change in the decay rate of that uranium.

Radiometric dating is an accurate clock for measuring the passage of time in Earth's frame of reference. At no time were rocks taken out of Earth's frame of reference, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to the Earth.

Just as the twin aged faster before he began his acceleration. I find it surprising that those that are supposed to be following science refuse to follow the science they claim to follow.

The twin experiment doesn't work because the rocks we use to measure the age of the Earth were never taken out of the Earth's frame of reference. What you have is both twins on the spaceship, and they will age at the same rate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Then it should be easy for you to tell us How and When prehistoric people became like modern Humans, in intelligence. It's easy and should be told in less than a single sentence. Anything more will be Occam's Razor'd as too complicated. I predict you will flee. Fool me.

That is a strange request. And there was no one point. Intelligence evolved. There is no hard line between "like modern Humans" and not like modern humans. Your question tells us that you do not even understand what you are arguing against. Your question is almost as bad as asking at exactly what age is a person no longer a baby.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Aman777 said:
Then it should be easy for you to tell us How and When prehistoric people became like modern Humans, in intelligence. It's easy and should be told in less than a single sentence. Anything more will be Occam's Razor'd as too complicated. I predict you will flee. Fool me.

That is a strange request. And there was no one point. Intelligence evolved. There is no hard line between "like modern Humans" and not like modern humans. Your question tells us that you do not even understand what you are arguing against. Your question is almost as bad as asking at exactly what age is a person no longer a baby.

God shows us that the 7 billion Humans on this planet, began to change from prehistoric to modern Human (descendant of Adam) 11, 000 years ago in the mountains of Ararat. This is the 2nd time this event has happened since it was also demonstrated on Adam's Earth when Cain married a prehistoric woman and produced offspring, Gen 4 who INHERITED Adam's superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22

The incomplete untrue ToE is a made up view of men who wanted to eliminate God from His Own Creation. These misguided men also forgot about the flood which totally destroyed the first world. ll Peter 3:3-6 Their false theory is in bad need correction since they CANNOT explain HOW God's superior intelligence got into Apes. Just believe us by faith, these people cry as they force their unsupportable views upon innocent children in the Public Schools.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Where and how does God show this?

The entire history of God's Creation of the perfect Heaven is shown in the FIRST chapter of Genesis, including events which will NOT happen until Jesus returns at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Gen 1:28-31 Genesis 2:1-3 tells us of a FUTURE Day/Age which has NO end, the 7th Day/Eternity.

Every other verse in the Bible refers BACK to one of these 7 Days/Ages of Creation. When you understand Genesis chapter one, you understand God's creation.
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,406
60
✟92,791.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Aman777 said:
Then it should be easy for you to tell us How and When prehistoric people became like modern Humans, in intelligence. It's easy and should be told in less than a single sentence. Anything more will be Occam's Razor'd as too complicated. I predict you will flee. Fool me.



God shows us that the 7 billion Humans on this planet, began to change from prehistoric to modern Human (descendant of Adam) 11, 000 years ago in the mountains of Ararat. This is the 2nd time this event has happened since it was also demonstrated on Adam's Earth when Cain married a prehistoric woman and produced offspring, Gen 4 who INHERITED Adam's superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22

The incomplete untrue ToE is a made up view of men who wanted to eliminate God from His Own Creation. These misguided men also forgot about the flood which totally destroyed the first world. ll Peter 3:3-6 Their false theory is in bad need correction since they CANNOT explain HOW God's superior intelligence got into Apes. Just believe us by faith, these people cry as they force their unsupportable views upon innocent children in the Public Schools.
1,000,000 years ago, that's when will concious man suddenly appeared. It was in he highlands of what is now Afganistan.
 
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

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Well, it seems as if all the major exploration an mining companies in the world use old earth models. Those are the guys who actually spend money (billions) on doing exploration and mining. You know, put the money where the mouth is and all that.

Some video or two from someone who preaches won't change facts.
Let's look at that argument. So according to geology the deeper one goes, the denser, or less porous the rock should be because more weight is compressing downwards correct?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No such material has ever been found. What has been found is mineralised soft tissue which is a very different thing. Also you need to supply a reason as to why such material cannot survive as we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times.

The C14 in coal and diamonds is present due to well-known processes and is due to the radiation that exists underground.
And yet the mineralized soft tissue was found by accident. No one had ever bothered to even look for it before, because they knew soft tissue could not survive hundreds of millions of years. Why look for something you already know by your belief in age you would never find.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Scientific observations are constantly being reinterpreted.

Off course. The explanations of the facts change as we gather more facts and learn more about the world. The facts themselves however, don't change.

The underlying idea here is that when a certain model of explanation does NOT match the (newly gathered) facts of reality, we don't assume that reality is "wrong"...

Reality is correct - our explanatory models are what is wrong if they don't match reality.

After all, what does "true" mean, if not "in accordance with reality"?

Contrast that with religious beliefs........
There's a reason why it is called "dogma".

If the facts of reality don't match the religious stories, then it is assumed (by fundamentalists at least) that reality must be wrong. And that's how you get silly statements like "satan put all those fossils in the ground to make it LOOK as if god didn't do it".

Not saying that you made such claims, but I actually had a discussion once with a really radical creationists who indeed said that... that if reality doesn't agree with the bible, that it is just the devil playing tricks on you.

Those are the extreme cases. There are degrees there off course. The most "moderate" degree being that "if the bible doesn't match reality, then we must be misunderstanding the bible"


However, there is 1 thing that both the most rational "moderates" as well as the most extreme fundamentalists have in common... and that is the idea that the bible IS correct, no matter what. There's no chance whatsoever that the bible is wrong and that christianity is just as false as all other religions.

That's the key difference between science and religious "explanations".

If something in science doesn't match reality, it's thrown out like yesterday's paper.


EDIT: just realised that I replied to a post of a year ago. Sorry bout that.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Decay occurs at the same rate within all frames of reference.

If you were on spaceship with a lump of radioactive uranium and accelerated to nearly the speed of light, at no time during that trip would you observe a change in the decay rate of that uranium.

Radiometric dating is an accurate clock for measuring the passage of time in Earth's frame of reference. At no time were rocks taken out of Earth's frame of reference, accelerated to near the speed of light, and then returned to the Earth.



The twin experiment doesn't work because the rocks we use to measure the age of the Earth were never taken out of the Earth's frame of reference. What you have is both twins on the spaceship, and they will age at the same rate.
Your reasoning is flawed. For when the twin returns to earth he finds out his clocks did indeed slow, that he indeed aged less, and that the uranium decayed slower as well.

Now we both certainly agree that while the twin is in motion he believes his clocks are not changing and everything remains constant. But even the twin has no choice but to admit to his error when he returns to the stationary frame.

Your problem is you have the same mindset of the twin when he was in motion and incorrectly believed his clocks and decay rates were not changing. He was quite sincere in his belief, however wrong that belief was.

No one is denying the twin sincerely believes his clocks do not change. The problem is you know they do..........

Not to mention the Hafel-Keating test shows decay rates aren't the same in the same frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Your reasoning is flawed. For when the twin returns to earth he finds out his clocks did indeed slow, that he indeed aged less, and that the uranium decayed slower as well.

Now we both certainly agree that while the twin is in motion he believes his clocks are not changing and everything remains constant. But even the twin has no choice but to admit to his error when he returns to the stationary frame.

Your problem is you have the same mindset of the twin when he was in motion and incorrectly believed his clocks and decay rates were not changing. He was quite sincere in his belief, however wrong that belief was.

No one is denying the twin sincerely believes his clocks do not change. The problem is you know they do..........

Sounds like are completely ignoring the relativistic reality of the frame of reference LM is talking about.
 
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

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Off course. The explanations of the facts change as we gather more facts and learn more about the world. The facts themselves however, don't change.

The underlying idea here is that when a certain model of explanation does NOT match the (newly gathered) facts of reality, we don't assume that reality is "wrong"...

Reality is correct - our explanatory models are what is wrong if they don't match reality.

After all, what does "true" mean, if not "in accordance with reality"?

Contrast that with religious beliefs........
There's a reason why it is called "dogma".

If the facts of reality don't match the religious stories, then it is assumed (by fundamentalists at least) that reality must be wrong. And that's how you get silly statements like "satan put all those fossils in the ground to make it LOOK as if god didn't do it".

Not saying that you made such claims, but I actually had a discussion once with a really radical creationists who indeed said that... that if reality doesn't agree with the bible, that it is just the devil playing tricks on you.

Those are the extreme cases. There are degrees there off course. The most "moderate" degree being that "if the bible doesn't match reality, then we must be misunderstanding the bible"


However, there is 1 thing that both the most rational "moderates" as well as the most extreme fundamentalists have in common... and that is the idea that the bible IS correct, no matter what. There's no chance whatsoever that the bible is wrong and that christianity is just as false as all other religions.

That's the key difference between science and religious "explanations".

If something in science doesn't match reality, it's thrown out like yesterday's paper.


EDIT: just realised that I replied to a post of a year ago. Sorry bout that.

No problem.

The important thing is what do with what we believe, whether scientific or biblical knowledge. Knowledge is useless unless it's put to good use.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No problem.

The important thing is what do with what we believe, whether scientific or biblical knowledge. Knowledge is useless unless it's put to good use.

First and foremost, knowledge is demonstrable.
Beliefs aren't "knowledge" by definition. They are not the same thing.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
First and foremost, knowledge is demonstrable.
Beliefs aren't "knowledge" by definition. They are not the same thing.

It can be argued that keeping the commandments has a demonstrably beneficial effect in society, especially when carried into the true intent of those laws. Also, beliefs become knowledge (albeit spiritual) when understood and successfully applied.

Doesn't science constantly publish their unproven beliefs far in advance of any proof that they are valid? Then when they fall flat they play the "scientific method" card and all is well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It can be argued that keeping the commandments has a demonstrably beneficial effect in society

It can also be argued that "the commandments" fall awefully short for organizing a society as well as the first 4 having no effect whatsoever and being rather arbitrary.

As for the rest... Just about all cultures didn't require any supernatural stone tablets to come up with such sensible rules.

Also, beliefs become knowledge (albeit spiritual) when understood and successfully applied.

No. Beliefs become knowledge when the subject of the beliefs are independetly demonstrated to being accurate (at which they are also no longer mere beliefs)

Doesn't science constantly publish their unproven beliefs far in advance of any proof that they are valid?

No. Science doesn't deal in "beliefs" - not even after models have shown to be accurate.
You seem to be talking about hypothesis, wich may be right or wrong.

Then when they fall flat they play the "scientific method" card and all is well.

There is no playing, nore is there any playing with words there.
At best, this is an attempt by you to misrepresent how that method works.
 
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

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It can also be argued that "the commandments" fall awefully short for organizing a society as well as the first 4 having no effect whatsoever and being rather arbitrary.

I was referring to the last six commandments, as they deal directly with the social structure. The difference being that God said, "No, really. You are going to keep these commandments." Breaking our similar laws has risen to an art form.

As for the rest... Just about all cultures didn't require any supernatural stone tablets to come up with such sensible rules.

The commandments were given so that Israel would change it's behavior from that of the nations around it. Just look at adultery today. While it may be justification for divorce it is hardly illegal.

No. Beliefs become knowledge when the subject of the beliefs are independetly demonstrated to being accurate (at which they are also no longer mere beliefs)

So I need a committee to study my beliefs before I can accept them as knowledge?

No. Science doesn't deal in "beliefs" - not even after models have shown to be accurate.
You seem to be talking about hypothesis, wich may be right or wrong.

My point was that science often publishes their beliefs/theories/hypothesis before proving them. They are parsed as if they are valid, and many actually believe them to be. God publishes his knowledge and leaves it up to us to prove it. I have proven to my satisfaction that God's knowledge is true and useful knowledge for man.

The long and short of it is that mankind will not solve his problems using the scientific method. It is only by applying God's laws that we can save ourselves. Sadly that option is quickly fading.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0