Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Job 33:6]

unless they are rising from pressure and yet losing mass from erosion. Its like a teenager [in this case a very old one] getting taller and losing weight, it does happen.

This of course isnt the case with mountain ranges, as the mass lifting them up is greater than what is being eroded away.

For example, with the Himilayas, the mass that is lifting them up is the entire indian subcontinent pushing into asia.

This mass is obviously far greater than the amount that is eroding off the top of the mountains peaks.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are about a hundred dating method that show the earth cannot be as old as the evolutionist need it to be.

You can be sure academians will pick only the few that give them the age they're looking for and truncate the others.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

This of course isnt the case with mountain ranges, as the mass lifting them up is greater than what is being eroded away.

For example, with the Himilayas, the mass that is lifting them up is the entire indian subcontinent pushing into asia.

This mass is obviously far greater than the amount that is eroding off the top of the mountains peaks.

I dont see how that would help your argument in any way sir. I never meant to say locally mass cannot increase. When I say mass added or eroded i meant above water land mass of course. Unless you thought i meant the small amount of erosion out did the total below sea level land mass of the earth. Like we are floating on lilies pads or something lol.

 

[Job 33:6]

I never said tens of millions my good sir.

"In geological terms, in other words, there ought to be no land forms or land surfaces of an age greater than 30MYA and certainly no older than the Cenozoic...yet many features that are several tens of millions, or even a few hundreds of millions of years old, remain....since these land forms exists, they must be possible.””
-Twindale CR and Campbell EM Australian Land forms Understandings a low, flat, arid arid or a landscape Rosenberg publishing new south wales Australia 2005


Of course Hawaii can be a rare exception as new land mass if being added. Yet its oldest tiny uninhabited island is Kure Atoll 28 mya.

And yet uplift is occurring. You are trying to argue that continents should all be sinking, yet in many places on earth, continents are rising.

Whether the continents appeared yesterday or a billion years ago is irrelevant to whether or not they are rising right now.

Regarding the himilayas, the entire indian subcontinent is pushing into asia. There are no tricks to this, it just is what it is. Its pushing the mountains up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm surprised this list of PRATTs didn't include the moon dust argument.

Like here?

Moondust

 

[Job 33:6]

I dont see how that would help your argument in any way sir. I never meant to say locally mass cannot increase. When I say mass added or eroded i meant above water land mass of course. Unless you thought i meant the small amount of erosion out did the total below sea level land mass of the earth. Like we are floating on lilies pads or something lol.

Yes and as you know, or ought to know, as the indian subcontinent pushes into asia, land mass raises in elevation, including mass that is lifted up above sea level. Not only are the mountains increasing in total mass, but the outer regions are rising above sea level as well.

This is what happens when land masses rise in elevation as they push into up and over one another. They rise.

 

[pitabread]

In future threads i will be showing how evolutionist arguments dont hold up, would you than question evolution? or be willing to defend it? I hope so.

Nah. I spent years debating this stuff to come to the realization how pointless all of this is. Nothing said on this forum ultimately matters in how science is performed or used in the real world.

Modern science has already won that one.

 

[Job 33:6]

Imagine taking two rocks. One dense rock and one light rock, and pushing them into one another.

The lighter rock rises into the atmosphere. Total mass of the continent increases as the two continents press into one another. Simultaneously, land mass of the surface, including land mass at sea level, rises above sea level and into the atmosphere.

Mass increases both in total, as well as above sea level.

Hawaii, as you appear to admit, is also another example of land rising above sea level in which magma from below dries and hardens at the surface, increasing the size of the island.

And this happens all over the world. Volcanic islands are a regular everyday thing. Volcanic Arcs and hotspots are regular everyday things in which landmass above sea level increases.

Ever heard of the deccan traps? All those indonesian islands surrounding supervolcanoes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes and as you know, or ought to know, as the indian subcontinent pushes into asia, land mass raises in elevation, including mass that is lifted up above sea level.

QV please:

Thaumaturgy argues that India torpedoed itself into Asia, and is still shoving itself inland, causing the mountains of Tibet to rise, I think, 5 centimeters per year.

Yet this assumes that at one time India was detached from Asia for some unknown distance; and when I asked how long it took for India to ram into Asia, the answer I got was 250 million years.

I don't buy that at all.

I have no proplem with the mountains rising 5 centimeters per year, or even India shoving itself northward; but I do have a serious problem with the 250 million years requirement.

 

[pitabread]

There are Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, and even Jewish YECs actually.

I'm aware of other creationists from other religions, but not explicitly Young-Earthers though... Do you have any examples?

Regardless, it's predominantly a Protestant Christian phenomenon. The Age of the Earth isn't something which is being contended from secular circles.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

And yet uplift is occurring. You are trying to argue that continents should all be sinking, yet in many places on earth, continents are rising.

Whether the continents appeared yesterday or a billion years ago is irrelevant to whether or not they are rising right now.

Regarding the himilayas, the entire indian subcontinent is pushing into asia. There are no tricks to this, it just is what it is. Its pushing the mountains up.

Ok I think i found your misunderstanding of my op. It never claims locally no "rise" or movement cannot happen. Neither do any continent need life-floats [especially with solid earth under them]. Large ranges can move "up" "north" or whatever you call it such as the example you gave with the himilayas. This does not contradict my op properly understood.

My argument is that land mass is eroded at a rate that if the earths continents have been above ground as claimed for as long as evolutionist believe, would have eroded into the sea long ago. And that above sea level land mass [total not all locals such as your example] are being eroded into the oceans. Land mass away from fault/mountain areas as well have no input and would have eroded away. Further if input in erosion were going on as long as claimed, no old layers would exists, they would have been replaced many times over.

 

[pitabread]

Human Population Growth

Oh no, it's the dumbest young Earther argument ever: the population growth argument. Wow, I'd hope you weren't going to spring that one but too late.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Let me try this again :

If you build a "Stick Built" house, how old is that house ?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

I'm aware of other creationists from other religions, but not explicitly Young-Earthers though... Do you have any examples?

Regardless, it's predominantly a Protestant Christian phenomenon. The Age of the Earth isn't something which is being contended from secular circles.

That is why creationist are important, they offer the only real critical look at what is otherwise unquestionably accepted. But their are yec catholics, jews and muslims, not sure who else. But than once more I dont care what others say.

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”

- Albert Einstein



“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, here is another simple concept to throw in.

It doesnt matter if a continent eroded away. As long as there is continental crust floating around and ramming into other continental crust. There will always be continents. They would never magically all erode away because they are always constantly being pushed around and into one another and uplifting.

 

[pitabread]

That is why creationist are important, they offer the only real critical look at what is otherwise unquestionably accepted.

Wow, the hubris to think that creationists are the only one's capable of critically looking at science.

But their are yec catholics, jews and muslims, not sure who else

Again, do you have any examples?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Oh no, it's the dumbest young Earther argument ever: the population growth argument. Wow, I'd hope you weren't going to spring that one but too late.

Not sure how it could be worse that what evolutionist offer us. Do tell.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Also, here is another simple concept to throw in.

It doesnt matter if a continent eroded away. As long as there is continental crust floating around and ramming into other continental crust. There will always be continents. They would never magically all erode away because they are always constantly being pushed around and into one another and uplifting.

I dont disagree.

 

[pitabread]

Not sure how it could be worse that what evolutionist offer us. Do tell.

Two words: carrying capacity. Google it.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Wow, the hubris to think that creationists are the only one's capable of critically looking at science.



Again, do you have any examples?

“Even if all of the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. “ -Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature. 401 (6752): 423.

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.


‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’ Professor -Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“evolutionist reject as a matter of printable not because of evidence “
-F.M harold 2001 the way of the cell molecules organisms and the order of life oxford university press new york new york

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
-Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph,

“I suppose the reason we why we lept at the orgin of species was that the idea of god interfered with our sexual mores-
-sir julien Huxley

I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
-Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.


"evolution is a anti-scientific fable intended to avoid accountability to god"
-2011 Dr David stone laser physicists with 5 degrees including PHD in mechanical endangering from Michigan state U creation mag 34 [1] 2012

“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

“Our theories are more statements about us and our ideology than about the past. Paleontology revels more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is Hersey”
-Piloeans review of Leakey's origins in American Statistic may-june 1978

“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

“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

“Simply put most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. It is all they have ever been taught. If creation is ever mentioned it is ridiculed and unfairly catheterized, thus, evolution is assumed, not proved and creation is denied, not refuted”
-John Morris The Young earth

“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

“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university

“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994