Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

Tolkien R.R.J · Jul 25, 2018

KomatiiteBIF said:
Actually on many peaks, all that is left, is quartzite capping mountain ranges. This is accurate in many mountains here on the east coast of the US.

"Of course the sedimentary rock formed under water during depositions argument applies to above water land surfaces."

And regarding this ^, it does apply, because many of the above ground mountain ranges originated as underwater depositional environments.

Lets look at your claim in a mathematical sense. You said that north america would have eroded in 10 million years. Now how did you come to this conclusion?

You mentioned before, tons of sediment being washed out from the himilayas. But there is no shortage of sediment to be eroded as the entire indian subcontinent is contributing to what may be eroded. And of course the entire Indian subcontinent is contains far more mass than that which is eroded.

Sorry for delay, I have bitten off a bigger bite than I can chew. I have multiple threads on four forums going with hundreds of posts and have not been able to devote much time. Hopefully some will die down soon.

you said "quartzite capping mountain ranges"

and yet erosion happens, seems your arguing for me for a sec.

you said
"And regarding this ^, it does apply, because many of the above ground mountain ranges originated as underwater depositional environments."

I dont disagree one bit. This is why I think you have not understood the argument. Try it like this. Pretend we are back in supposed earth history 300 mya. All of those above water surfaces would have been long ago eroded. It does not say no above land today, small islands and such perhaps some small slender mountains near fault lines etc. but not the old "ages" of fossil bearing sedimentary rock as claimed by evolution.

The quote of erosion of the continent "in a mere 10 million years" came from

S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten

I dont disagree, that is why erosion takes so long.

Tolkien R.R.J · Jul 25, 2018

Jimmy D said:
I am aware of that...and there is a consensus on the validity of the Theory of Evolution for a very good reason.... mountains of evidence from genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, anatomy etc etc etc.

The only reason it is being questioned is because it threatens religious convictions of fundamentalist religious types.

Do you think that the Flat Earth Society members who "provide skepticism" of a spherical Earth are important too? I doubt it, Do you think that climatologists or geologists show "bias" when they assume a spherical Earth in their studies?

Of course not.

And please stop trying to make it into a theist Vs atheist issue, that's utter nonsense, as the many Christians who frequent these boards and accept evolution and an old Earth will tell you.

Sorry for delay, I have bitten off a bigger bite than I can chew. I have multiple threads on four forums going with hundreds of posts and have not been able to devote much time. Hopefully some will die down soon.

I will get into this more in depth in future threads but

I am aware of that...and there is a consensus on the validity of the Theory of Evolution for a very good reason.

“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

Heresyphobia- Fear of deviation from traditional doctrine.
Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge.
Phronemophobia- Fear of thinking

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

Yes the majority do believe in evolution but that is not surprising when it is the only view taught in education from kindergarten through post graduate work. Evolution has become the state sponsored religion of our day and would not survive if not for tax money taken from citizens [many creationist] to fund the belief.

Besides the levels of indoctrination, I think the only reason it is believed is

“powerful human erge to belong inside the group to think like the majority...and to win the groups approval by trashing dissenters conformity and group think are attitudes of particular danger in science. Because progression depends on overturning established wisdom”
new york times 23 july 2009

“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

Yes i think skepticism should be applied to everything.

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

Tolkien R.R.J · Jul 25, 2018

KomatiiteBIF said:
Here is some quick and dirty math for this whole erosion topic.

The western united states is roughly 7 million feet wide and 7 million feet tall. Bedrock extends some 16 thousand feet below grade.

Thats 7 million * 7 million * 16 thousand feet to give us roughly 8*10^17 power cubic feet of rock.

How much sediment is deposited to the calorado river delta? 150
https://www.geo.arizona.edu/ceam/Hecold/hecolcd.htm
160 million metric tons per year. which is 2205 ibs * 160 million = 3.52*10^11 pounds.

How many pounds is 8*10^17 cubic feet of granite? Well granite is about 175 pounds per cubic feet, so thats 8*10^17 * 175 which is 1400*10^17 pounds.

So, if we took 1400*10^17 pounds and divided it by the annual deposition of 3.52*10^11 pounds, we would get...

1.4*10^20/3.52*10^11=

400,000,000 years.

This is some pretty rough math, but the pount is that, the total continental land mass present to be eroded, grossly outweights the amount of sediment being eroded by several orders of magnitude. And someone would have to be a doop-dee-doop to think otherwise.

Even if we had 4 Colorado rivers concentrated in just the western half of the US, we would still have 100 million years of rock to erode.

Of course there is only 1 calorado river, and the uplift from the laramide orogeny only occurred in the past 50 million years with the erosion of the grand canyon at less than 30 million. Erosion rates also are much less over rocks that are more dense than granite such as quartzite, and much of the western US isnt directly impacted by water, as most of it is well above the water table where it doesnt come in contact with running rivers at all.

This calculation also assumes that only paleozoic rock (and younger) is available for erosion. Hadean and Archaen rock in the western united states go down to the mantle of the earth and at a minimum another 50 thousand feet thick.

Which would drive our available mass up to 3 times longer than the calculation above, at about 1,200,000,000 years of erosion before they would just all wash away. And in many cases, deep ultramafic rock is brought up to grade by uplift or other mechanisms, just as deep ultramafic rock has been lifted up in the himilayas (they contain ophiolites).

Without checking your numbers I will have to point out their are more rivers than Colorado. I will have to go with calculations that take all erosion into effect from evolutionary peer reviewed sources. See op.

Tolkien R.R.J · Jul 25, 2018

USincognito said:
Debunked.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/continents.html

Levels of Salt in the Oceans

Debunked. And if the sources for the now 50 year old claims are to be taken at face value the amount of aluminum in the oceans means the earth is only 100 years old.
http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2006/20060524_salt.htm

Galaxies Wind Themselves up too Fast

Debunked.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2...alaxies-wind-up-too-fast-for-an-old-universe/

Ocean Floor Sediments

Debunked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html

Decay of Earths Magnetic Field

Debunked.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/magnetic_field.html

Earth-Moon System

Debunked.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recession_of_the_Moon

Comets Disintegrate too Quickly

Short period comets are generated as trans-Neptunian objects, centaurs and Kuiper belt objects. Long period comets come from the Oort Cloud.

Debunked.

Two can play this game.

Debunking the debunkers

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Geology-Creation/dp/0890518742

https://www.amazon.com/Young-Earth-...id=1532524797&sr=1-1&keywords=the+young+earth

https://www.amazon.com/Geology-Design-Carl-Froede-Jr/dp/0890515034

https://www.trueorigin.org/

https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Back-...2524937&sr=1-1&keywords=taking+back+astronomy

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/

https://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa

https://usstore.creation.com/subscribe-journal-of-creation

etc etc

All these [and more] include responses to the above claims. I think it much better that if you think one of your articles does refute one of my arguments, you post on that and tell why and we can go from their.

HitchSlap · Jul 25, 2018

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Sorry for delay, I have bitten off a bigger bite than I can chew. I have multiple threads on four forums going with hundreds of posts and have not been able to devote much time. Hopefully some will die down soon.

I will get into this more in depth in future threads but

I am aware of that...and there is a consensus on the validity of the Theory of Evolution for a very good reason.

“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

Heresyphobia- Fear of deviation from traditional doctrine.
Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge.
Phronemophobia- Fear of thinking

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

Yes the majority do believe in evolution but that is not surprising when it is the only view taught in education from kindergarten through post graduate work. Evolution has become the state sponsored religion of our day and would not survive if not for tax money taken from citizens [many creationist] to fund the belief.

Besides the levels of indoctrination, I think the only reason it is believed is

“powerful human erge to belong inside the group to think like the majority...and to win the groups approval by trashing dissenters conformity and group think are attitudes of particular danger in science. Because progression depends on overturning established wisdom”
new york times 23 july 2009

“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

Yes i think skepticism should be applied to everything.

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

1. ToE is fact. Accept this and move on.
2. Argument from quote mines impresses no one.
3. Even if ToE were wrong (which it isn’t), wouldn’t make make creo right by default.
4. Creationists are serial liars and frauds, and will say anything to get people like you to support them.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2018

HitchSlap said:
4. Creationists are serial liars and frauds, and will say anything to get people like you to support them.

That's pretty rich, coming from a mindset that votes to get THOU SHALT NOT LIE off of public property.

Tolkien R.R.J · Jul 25, 2018

HitchSlap said:
1. ToE is fact. Accept this and move on.
2. Argument from quote mines impresses no one.
3. Even if ToE were wrong (which it isn’t), wouldn’t make make creo right by default.
4. Creationists are serial liars and frauds, and will say anything to get people like you to support them.

1]The age of the earth is fact? I agree, how could it not be, my age is fact the earths age is fact. What is not fact is evolutionist beliefs about its age. Further the age of the earth according to naturalism/materialism is always changing, so is it fact today or 20 years ago or 20 years from know?

2] I like to support my claims instead of baseless ones [no offence such as yours] rather i feel baseless claims impress me not one bit. But i also am not hear to try and impress anyone.

3] Very true, never said it did since they in fact agree, the aof and creation.

4] Evolutionist are serial liars and frauds, and will say anything to get people like you to support them.

This is my favorite subject and my next thread is on this. I think I will tittle it "Evolutionist caught lying for their religion." Great stuff.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 25, 2018

I’m still confused how any of you think the dates obtained are correct when everybody is ignoring relativity?

I’ve yet to hear a single valid response as to why? Oh sure, I have heard lots of cop outs and confirmation bias in past posts, but not a single valid scientific reason to ignore the time dilation correction required by the theory.

HitchSlap · Jul 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
That's pretty rich, coming from a mindset that votes to get THOU SHALT NOT LIE off of public property.

Lol. Now you know my “mindset”? Rich indeed.

Jimmy D · Jul 25, 2018

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Sorry for delay, I have bitten off a bigger bite than I can chew. I have multiple threads on four forums going with hundreds of posts and have not been able to devote much time. Hopefully some will die down soon.

No problem, that'll teach you to start too many new threads.

Tolkien R.R.J said:
I will get into this more in depth in future threads but

I am aware of that...and there is a consensus on the validity of the Theory of Evolution for a very good reason.

Yes, as I said, mountains of evidence from many different areas of study.

Evolution has been directly observed.

Evolution is an applied science (i.e it has real-world applications in medicine etc.)

Tolkien R.R.J said:
“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

Meh, people have opinions. Quotes are the least useful method of debate I could just as easily post a pro-evolution quote.

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Heresyphobia- Fear of deviation from traditional doctrine.
Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge.
Phronemophobia- Fear of thinking

We have established that evolution and common descent area facts.

Do those words apply to people who refuse to entertain the notion that the Earth is flat?

Tolkien R.R.J said:
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

I know what an argumentum ad populum is. I never claimed that the TOE is true because it's most people "believe it".

Tolkien R.R.J said:
“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

I couldn't care less about those two blokes opinion.

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Yes the majority do believe in evolution but that is not surprising when it is the only view taught in education from kindergarten through post graduate work. Evolution has become the state sponsored religion of our day and would not survive if not for tax money taken from citizens [many creationist] to fund the belief.

Yeah sure.

As I said before..

People accept evolution because of the mountains of evidence from many different areas of study.

Evolution has been directly observed.

Evolution is an applied science (i.e it has real-world applications in medicine etc.)

It's taught because it's correct.

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Besides the levels of indoctrination, I think the only reason it is believed is

“powerful human erge to belong inside the group to think like the majority...and to win the groups approval by trashing dissenters conformity and group think are attitudes of particular danger in science. Because progression depends on overturning established wisdom”
new york times 23 july 2009

“Evolution can better be understood as the pseudo-scientific justification for a life lived without accountability to ones maker.”
-John D Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017

You would be wrong then.

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Yes i think skepticism should be applied to everything.

So it should.

But when something has been demonstrated to be factual and accurate, yet you still don't accept it, it's fair to tell you that you're mistaken and to ask...

exactly why you are so sceptical?

Jimmy D · Jul 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
I’m still confused how any of you think the dates obtained are correct when everybody is ignoring relativity?

I’ve yet to hear a single valid response as to why? Oh sure, I have heard lots of cop outs and confirmation bias in past posts, but not a single valid scientific reason to ignore the time dilation correction required by the theory.

You missed all those posts where people attempted to point out your errors? You know, the one's you dismissed and claimed that you were right and no one else understood relativity?

Good to know that you think that you have spotted a simple glaring error that the world's greatest physicists missed though, and one that has huge such repercussions for the Earth sciences and the way we view the world.

Delusions of grandeur much.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2018

HitchSlap said:
Lol. Now you know my “mindset”? Rich indeed.

You use your God-given talent(s) to dilute the Bible ... that says it all.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 25, 2018

Jimmy D said:
You missed all those posts where people attempted to point out your errors? You know, the one's you dismissed and claimed that you were right and no one else understood relativity?

Good to know that you think that you have spotted a simple glaring error that the world's greatest physicists missed though, and one that has huge such repercussions for the Earth sciences and the way we view the world.

Delusions of grandeur much.

You missed the responses where their points were shown to be in clear error.

Apparently they don’t understand relativity, including you.

Let’s look at it and if you think you can present a valid argument feel free to chime in.

Fact: the twin in motion believes his clocks do not change.

Fact: the twin in motions clocks do change, unbeknownst to him, until he returns to the velocity he started at.

Fact: the twin in motion believes the stationary twins clocks change.

Fact: the stationary twins clocks never change at all, he is stationary.

Fact: if the twin in motion were to attempt to calculate his true age by his current clock rate, he would arrive at the wrong answer without adjusting for the time he spent in the slower frame when he aged faster.

Fact: if clocks slow as velocity increases, clocks speed up as velocity decreases. Else they could not slow unless they were once faster.

Fact: the twin in motion can perceive nothing correctly. He can’t tell his clocks changed when they did. He thinks the stationary clocks changed when they never did. He thinks by his observations the stationary twin should be younger, but finds this not to be true upon his return.

Fact: you are thinking like the twin in motion that could not get one single observation correct from inside his frame because of his motion.

So we know the twin’s clocks slow when he believes they don’t. We know that unless he adjust for the time spent at a slower velocity when he aged faster, his true age can never be determined.

But you continue on as the twin, believing incorrectly that nothing has changed, despite the facts and the science demands that they have.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest example being displayed before our eyes....

Job 33:6 · Jul 25, 2018

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Without checking your numbers I will have to point out their are more rivers than Colorado. I will have to go with calculations that take all erosion into effect from evolutionary peer reviewed sources. See op.

Where are the actual values that you are using for your justification?

They are not in the OP.

Job 33:6 · Jul 25, 2018

Tolkien R.R.J said:
Without checking your numbers I will have to point out their are more rivers than Colorado. I will have to go with calculations that take all erosion into effect from evolutionary peer reviewed sources. See op.

This really isnt even a response. Its just you saying that without looking at any actual numbers, you will have to disregard what I've said. And yes, of course there are more rivers than the Colorado, the Colorado however is connected to the Colorado river delta which deposits concentrated amounts of sediment from many rivers.

The more rivers you factor into the equation, the more land mass you also have to factor into the equation. And if the Colorado has enough sediment to erode for 400 million years, unless you have hundreds of thousands of Colorado rivers, your position is pointless.

And of course we all know that there are not hundreds of thousands of Colorado rivers.

At best you might find 5 or 6 rivers of comparable size, if even that in the western US.

Even if we hypothetically assumed that there were 10 Colorado rivers in the western US, you would still have 40 million years worth of sediment to erode. And this still further assumes that all land comes in contact with rivers. Much land in the western US is above the water table and doesnt even come in contact with rivers, and erosion rates decrease as rivers reach equilibrium with the water table.

And even further, the Grand Canyon was never claimed to be more than 10 million years old to begin with.

HitchSlap · Jul 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
You use your God-given talent(s) to dilute the Bible ... that says it all.

You believe a myth to be literal ... that says, everything.

Jimmy D · Jul 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
You missed the responses where their points were shown to be in clear error.

Apparently they don’t understand relativity, including you.

Let’s look at it and if you think you can present a valid argument feel free to chime in.

Fact: the twin in motion believes his clocks do not change.

Fact: the twin in motions clocks do change, unbeknownst to him, until he returns to the velocity he started at.

Fact: the twin in motion believes the stationary twins clocks change.

Fact: the stationary twins clocks never change at all, he is stationary.

Fact: if the twin in motion were to attempt to calculate his true age by his current clock rate, he would arrive at the wrong answer without adjusting for the time he spent in the slower frame when he aged faster.

Fact: if clocks slow as velocity increases, clocks speed up as velocity decreases. Else they could not slow unless they were once faster.

Fact: the twin in motion can perceive nothing correctly. He can’t tell his clocks changed when they did. He thinks the stationary clocks changed when they never did. He thinks by his observations the stationary twin should be younger, but finds this not to be true upon his return.

Fact: you are thinking like the twin in motion that could not get one single observation correct from inside his frame because of his motion.

So we know the twin’s clocks slow when he believes they don’t. We know that unless he adjust for the time spent at a slower velocity when he aged faster, his true age can never be determined.

But you continue on as the twin, believing incorrectly that nothing has changed, despite the facts and the science demands that they have.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest example being displayed before our eyes....

Ah, I apologise.

I thought that you were talking about the age of the Earth, not hypothetical twins.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 25, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
You missed the responses where their points were shown to be in clear error.

Apparently they don’t understand relativity, including you.

Let’s look at it and if you think you can present a valid argument feel free to chime in.

Fact: the twin in motion believes his clocks do not change.

Fact: the twin in motions clocks do change, unbeknownst to him, until he returns to the velocity he started at.

Fact: the twin in motion believes the stationary twins clocks change.

Fact: the stationary twins clocks never change at all, he is stationary.

Fact: if the twin in motion were to attempt to calculate his true age by his current clock rate, he would arrive at the wrong answer without adjusting for the time he spent in the slower frame when he aged faster.

Fact: if clocks slow as velocity increases, clocks speed up as velocity decreases. Else they could not slow unless they were once faster.

Fact: the twin in motion can perceive nothing correctly. He can’t tell his clocks changed when they did. He thinks the stationary clocks changed when they never did. He thinks by his observations the stationary twin should be younger, but finds this not to be true upon his return.

Fact: you are thinking like the twin in motion that could not get one single observation correct from inside his frame because of his motion.

So we know the twin’s clocks slow when he believes they don’t. We know that unless he adjust for the time spent at a slower velocity when he aged faster, his true age can never be determined.

But you continue on as the twin, believing incorrectly that nothing has changed, despite the facts and the science demands that they have.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest example being displayed before our eyes....

More like a misunderstanding of special relativity displayed before our eyes...

It's called relativity because it applies to relative motion - which means there's no preferred reference frame and no absolute time; each observer (e.g. twin) is in motion relative to the other, and each is correct in their own frame of reference. They can even validly disagree on the order of events that are not causally connected. One twin ages less than the other if he has changed inertial frames (i.e. accelerated/decelerated) when the other has not.

Your description is just mistaken (I'm fairly sure I've explained this before).

HitchSlap · Jul 25, 2018

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Your description is just mistaken (I'm fairly sure I've explained this before).

Until their need to know outweighs their need to believe, it's Groundhog Day for you, buddy.

AV1611VET · Jul 25, 2018

HitchSlap said:
Until their need to know outweighs their need to believe, it's Groundhog Day for you, buddy.

He should be more interested in the One who had ... stripes ... across His back.

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency