Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Job 33:6]

they found higher levels than just background reading was the point. Further creationist have done multiple tests [they did not even see the samples they used a coal company and university to test] and found the same results. Thus supports a young earth.

This is just dishonest at best. No, they did not find readings higher than background, nor does the paper suggest such.

You just seem unable to admit that you're wrong.

The reality is that you suggested that C14 had been found in diamonds and fossils of millions of years in age.

But this is just not true and the paper does not suggest such.

Can you admit to this?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Responded to it the sources you should have read.

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A lie that I did not read his ignorant and lying source (that is how I know the source is ignorant and lying!)
I already knew that the sources were ignorant and lying in general because I have seen these YEC claims before and they have been debunked for decades. My post lists specific lies in a creation.com article.
6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Replies to working science with articles containing delusions and lies from creation.com

 

[Job 33:6]

@Tolkien R.R.J
You cant explain how the angular unconformity I described could be created by a global flood or in any brief amount of time beyond millions of years.

You claimed that naturally occuring C14 was found in fossils and diamonds that are suggested to be millions of years old, this is not true.

Now you're suggesting that C14 was found above background levels in diamonds and fossils, which again, is not true.

And you are mislabeling zircon inclusions as contamination, which just demonstrates that you are unfamiliar with science.

You also made some broken argument about polystrate fossils, even though these fossils are isolated to individual sections of strata, ie they dont actually span long periods of geologic time.

You suggested that strata of the grand canyon has been folded and must have been wet, but I gave you a map showing faults running through the same grand canyon strata, thereby demonstrating that they were indeed solidified at the time of their deformation. The faulting is perpendicular to the direction of continental motion

 

[RealityCheck01]

they found higher levels than just background reading was the point. Further creationist have done multiple tests [they did not even see the samples they used a coal company and university to test] and found the same results. Thus supports a young earth.

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A blatant "supports a young earth" lie.
That is a blatant lie because the paper he cites measured apparent C14 ages of ten times that of a young Earth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

RC is all false assumptions. Uniformity being the top of the list. As my post above clearly shows with simple snowfall rates....

Missed this .
9 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: "all false assumptions", etc lies when my post states I do not assume "Uniformity" and I have facts.

More fact less and irrelevant insults and ignorance. A lie that I deny science, observation or am arguing for or against uniformitarianism. The facts are:

1. All of recorded history shows that summer happens once a year.
2. Summer causes dust to be deposited in snow.
3. Those dust layers show up as dark layers in ice cores.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.
That means that summer happened on average 66 times a year. But then we have recorded history - 400 summers a year?

8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A set of "hack" insults and lies rather than addressing the linked science.
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "Fold rocks in the laboratory without fracturing them" lie by citing a high school demonstration.
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance about the actual point being made about Grand Canyon geology.
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance of English - the archive articles have to provide responses to FAQS from mainstream science.
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "hack journalists" lie, the articles were written by TalkOrigins members with unspecified occupations.
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorant fantasy about the "very last part of the papers linked to"
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: An irrelevant "want you to believe the area has only received 1 foot of snow forever" lie.

 

[RealityCheck01]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.

 

[RealityCheck01]

many false assumptions here my freind.

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Lies with a deluded, lying "Are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets old?" creation.com article.
A lie that the age of ice sheets is measures by counting annual layers.
Some "assumption" lies (seeing layers getting thinner and the physics of increasing pressure = layers get thinner with depth!!).
A deluded lie that the rate of precipitation changes the annual deposition of the dark layers used in ice core dating. That changes the thickness of layers, not the annual deposition.
A complete delusion of mentioning the flood which should have destroyed the ice sheets (ice floats in water) as if they did not know ice bergs existed !

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Lies with a lying "The lost squadron" creation.com article.
The high school level science is that coastal regions have high precipitation (e.g. snowfall) then interior, higher in altitude regions. Anyone who thinks will know that the planes would be covered to a deeper extent than the GISP2 area in the Greenland interior. The author lies with "In that case, the 3000-m-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation".
Some actual insanity ends the article:

• "180 m (600 ft) of layered sedimentary rock built up in months after the Mount St Helens eruption on 18 May 1980"
• "real precious opal formed in months"
• "coal from simple heating of wood in mere months"
• "flag, tent and sledge left at the South Pole by Antarctic explorer Amundsen in 1911 now being more than 12 m (40 ft) under the ice"

9 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Lies with a lying "Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?" answersingenesis.org article.
It is a lie that counting layers in ice cores assumes "earth is very old — billions of years old".
It is a lie that the age of ice sheets is assumed.
etc.

 

[Heissonear]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.

Yes, Tolkien will answer for himself, but you may have ignorance that allows you to state in the many accounts to Tolkien, that you are a liar in those very accounts.

You may not agree that you are a big liar too but that is fine.

Why might you be lying? Because this Earth was not formed void, but with natural age.

Just like Eve, if you were to approach her 1 day after she was Created and ask her how old she was and she said 24 hours, you could have possibly to her face called her a liar. Why? She sure would not have looked 1 day old, that is why.

And you may not know the other Bible passages that show God is a Creator who uses Apparent-Mature Age at times when Creating.

The Eve example is but one example of how God can Create that answers the naturalistic proofs you have presented.

If God Created this Earth with Apparent Mature Age then you have errorred greatly. The Eve-factor turned your world upside down.

 

[Heissonear]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.

I just did in the post above. It is by the Eve-factor, that you do not know exists about this Earth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, Tolkien will answer for himself, but you may have ignorance that allows you to state in the many accounts to Tolkien, that you are a liar in those very accounts.

9 August 2018 Heissonear: Insults rather than a rational answer to the question.
My question was:
6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.

Accusing God of creating a lying universe is standard YEC apologetics that I already know about. A fantasy about Eve is not an answer.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I just did in the post above. It is by the Eve-factor, that you do not know exists about this Earth.

Ditto: 9 August 2018 Heissonear: Insults rather than a rational answer to the question.
And wrong, I know that what you call "Eve-factor" exists.
9 August 2016 Heissonear: God creating a lying universe is a well known YEC belief.
We have over a billion measurement of light from stars in the Milky Way. These stars are mostly > 6000 years away. That is maybe 1 billion lies that God created.
We count annual layers in ice cores and every time that we get to > 6000 that is a lie that God created.
etc.
Personally when I was Christian, I believed in a truthful God so that the Bible can be trusted. I could not believe in a God who creates lies about everything except the Bible. Your faith sounds different but that is your choice.

 

[Job 33:6]

Flat Gaps

“Paraconformities, or flat gaps, pose a serious problem for the concept of long geologic ages. On the surface of our restless earth, during the period of the gap with the proposed millions of years of weathering, tectonic activity, and drifting of continents, you have either deposition or erosion of the sedimentary layers. If there is deposition there is no gap because the layers just keep building up. If there is erosion the contact surface (underlayer) should be highly irregular, and not flat. The flatness of the gaps indicates little time has occurred at the gaps.The flat gaps, with their incredibly widespread sedimentary layers just above and below, severely challenge the many millions of years proposed for the standard geologic time scale. The complete absence of the deep erosion expected at these gaps over their alleged long ages is very difficult to explain within the long-age uniformitarian paradigm.”
-‘Ariel A. Roth Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages

paraconformities have never been an issue for geologists. Erosional surfaces do not have to be jagged or uneven. Indeed, bedding planes which have undergone erosion are more often than not, flat. So it should be no surprise that there are flat unconformities in the earth in which deposition has occurred over flat bedding planes.

I've looked at plenty of these features and I've never perceived them as anomalous, nor have any other geologist i know. Only young earthers who want to make something out of nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

That’s ok hon I’m Black and I use niggardly when I mean stingy with supplies or food.

Were you upset when Doug Adler got the ax for using a sports term ("guerrilla") to describe Venus Williams' style?

He was accused of saying "gorilla," which is a derogatory term, compliments of evolution.

Unbelievable that theyd censor that! what a facepalm moment

Content-control software does more good than harm.

X-ing a paragrab is the price one pays for keep potty-mouths away.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually I think this whole Christian censorship thingy they’ve got going is rather silly . So much pretense !

 

[Job 33:6]

You dont even see any circular reasoning in this statement do you? how do you know it is a good date? if it fits my beliefs, and if it does not? that we know its contaminated. But how does a rock that gives 3 radical different dates by 3 methods somehow = an accurate date for the evolutionist? i guess i will never understand evolutionary thinking.

You just seem unable to comprehend the concept of inclusions. Take time to read about them. Note that inclusions such as zircons are always older than the rock matrix (the granite) which contains them. This is like geology 101, literally.

You keep asking how it is that the rock can yield different ages, without acknowledging that the rock is not homogenous.

It can yield different ages because it is made of different parts that are different ages. Its that simple. There are no tricks up my sleeve, it's just that simple.

correction: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ge-of-the-earth.8074528/page-21#post-73047443

The worst part of this though, is that the authors of the source, probably knew this, but decided to make the argument anyway. Because the reality is that they don't care about science or truth. They don't care about honesty, or credibility. And they don't care if they misinform people. People like you.

 

[46AND2]

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017



I am unsure if you are aware of the assumptions and circular reasoning going on here. I will link you to some sources.


Do Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Measurements Prove an Old Earth?
Refuting a Popular Argument by Old-Earth Geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of...ngs-radiocarbon-measurements-prove-old-earth/



rees grow annual rings; and in lakes thin sediment layers called varves are deposited. Like radiocarbon, these are used as dating methods. It is claimed these methods agree with one another. But closer examination renders them questionable at best. The key to their misuse is circular reasoning, which only proves what is assumed to begin with. For instance, radiocarbon is calibrated against tree rings, but then the tree-ring master chronology is calibrated using radiocarbon. And varves are counted at one per year, but then the counts are corrected using the radiocarbon in organic debris found in the varves themselves. Thus there is no objective dating standard for these three methods. Instead, this forced agreement renders these dating methods totally unreliable. They cannot be used to discredit the Bible's timescale for earth's history.
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/circular-reasoning-dating-methods/



Layers of Assumption
Are Tree Rings and Other “Annual” Dating Methods Reliable?
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/layers-assumption/


Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.

https://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

Guess I better get in before page 20.

I asked you to reply in your own words because I want to be sure that you even understand my argument. Which you clearly don't. As none of those links even approaches the topic I was discussing. Please do not use links AS your argument. Use them in SUPPORT of your argument. But make the argument yours.

I also asked you not to use quotes, as they are meaningless to me.

Please have a little integrity and confidence in your arguments, and refrain from using such poor discussion tactics.

 

[46AND2]

they found higher levels than just background reading was the point. Further creationist have done multiple tests [they did not even see the samples they used a coal company and university to test] and found the same results. Thus supports a young earth.

I find it funny that you use BOTH arguments, that decay rates could have been much faster before than they are now, AND that we find carbon-14 in fossils. If the decay rate was faster before, there SHOULDN'T be ANY carbon-14 in anything buried prior to the decay rate event, as it would have all rapidly decayed away in that event. You refute one of your own arguments by claiming we find c-14 in fossils.

 

[46AND2]

Do Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Measurements Prove an Old Earth?
Refuting a Popular Argument by Old-Earth Geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of...ngs-radiocarbon-measurements-prove-old-earth/

Indeed, the authors of this paper have no concept of the point I made in my post about cross-checks, calibration, and consilience. They complain about the fact that the scientists used "calibrated" dates when matching the carbon dating to the varves. Um...yes...that's exactly what I said they do. And I explained WHY they do that. It is necessary to do that to account for the variation in atmospheric carbon concentrations which we know are variable. Yet, here they are claiming that scientists assume a constant concentration.

That is a straight lie. The whole reason for using calibrated dates is because we don't assume that.

 

[46AND2]

Layers of Assumption
Are Tree Rings and Other “Annual” Dating Methods Reliable?
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/layers-assumption/

And this one...oh my. He makes so many claims about what scientists have done, but doesn't use citations in the entire piece! And I know that he is quite aware of just how egregious this is, because he's actually published in legit journals (using standard radiometric dating results, which have hacked off plenty of Christians, btw). He knows that he should be citing papers any time he makes a claim about what scientists have done wrong. But he doesn't. Do you know why? Because it isn't written as a legitimate rebuttal to the science. It's apologetic fluff. He knows you wouldn't check his sources, anyway, to find out if they actually did what he claims they did. He doesn't care. Because he makes money off of people like you who just want to be reassured, rather than actually trying to advance science.

This kind of dishonesty is all too common with apologists. When I was still a practicing Christian I was horrified when I started trusting secular papers more than Christian ones. I began by checking the sources of secular papers, and conversely trusting, sight unseen, the few citations apologists provided. Gradually, I started checking apologist sources, and found that the few things they did cite didn't match their actual claim. Sometimes the paper wasn't even the same topic of discussion! *cough*Hovind*cough*

 

[DogmaHunter]

so as a quick response, you offered no justification for your faith or for your statements. Thanks for your opinions though.

I don't need faith. I have evidence.

Here's just one: hundreds of thousands of layers of snow-ice in arctic ice cores.
That's hundreds of thousands of winter summer cycles.

That fact alone, already completely demolishes the idea of a young earth.