Creationists: Does the earth look old?

[Jet Black]

Possible sources of error in determining distances of stars outside our galaxy.

1. the assumption that the universe is expanding from every point in the universe might be erroneous.

the evidence does not suggest this - it is not merely an assumption.

2. the assumption that ratio of size to luminosity of a star is consistent from galaxy to galaxy might be erroneous.

The temperature/luminosity properties of stars is a result of the nature of nuclear fusion in the core of the star, and results in the HR-Diagram. If you were correct then the HR diagram would appear to be different from theoretical predictions, and it is not. Furthermore the only way to change the temperature/luminosity properties would be to change the fundamental constants between the galaxies, and this would have additional remifications regarding such things as lamb shift and spectral profiles. all the measured properties of matter in other galaxies appears for all intents and purposes to be the same as the properties in the lab. Your suggestion ignores the remifications of differing properties.

3. the assumptions made to allow for a constant speed of light through out the universe might be erroneous.

The speed of light is a derived property and not an assumption as such, since it is simply a function of the permittivity and permeability of free space. to change these parameters would again have significant ramifications in other areas of physics and would be easily observable. no observances of this erronous kind have been made.

What if there is a finate age, and running the clock backwards as far as it goes backwards only goes only takes us back 6000 years. -- the moment of creation as recorded in the Bible? Then the universe couldn't be declared to be 15 billion years old, could it? The only reason the universe can be declared to be 15 billion years old is because the declarer ignores the possibility that it was created 6000 years ago and assumes it started in one spot. Hardly evidence that proves the theory of a young universe is false. It's more like declaring the theory of a young universe is false.

There is no dynamical reason to expect this, and the suggestion is nothing more than the appearance of age argument, which has been rejected by theologists as theologically disasterous. it makes God a liar.

What if Stars in different galaxies don't have the same absolute size and luminosity relationship as stars in our galaxy? What if God has created different "kinds" of galaxies, just as He created diffent kinds of heavenly bodies.

see above. the argument is not as simple as you suggest and would have massive effects on other physical properties. No deviations are observed.

What if the assumptions that were made in place of those given up to allow for the theory of relativity resulted in unforseen errors in describing the universe. When a more accurate description of the nature of the universe is revealed by God, the speed of light through the universe might no longer be assumed constant. If the description of the nature of the universe became more accurate with Albert Einstein's imagination from how Newton imagined it, who's to say there isn't an even more accurate description of the nature of the universe. In fact, wouldn't it be a certainty that there is a more accurate description from what we know now?

see above.

 

[cygnusx1]

I am Sure Adam looked like a man 1 minute after he was created.

I am also sur that the wine that Christ gave them tasted a few years old 10 seconds after it was made...........

etc , etc...........

 

[Jet Black]

I am also sur that the wine that Christ gave them tasted a few years old 10 seconds after it was made...........

etc , etc...........

yeap, this is an interesting problem I think for the TEs. If God does not decieve and give things the appearance of age, then what about the wine, fish and bread in the miracles. I'll start another thread. No problem to me though, I think it's all wrong heh.

 

[awstar]

I don´t have much hope we will see another meaningfull post by Creationists in this thread again.
It will drop silently off page - be forgotten by next week - and a new turn of the roundabout of "I believe in YEC, and I can prove it!" will begin.

I´m tired.

Sorry for the delay in responding to your posts. I've been researching all the links you've referred me to.

You evolutionists have built yourself quite a house of cards. I'm fascinated by how it can all hold together, just by declaring what is obvious to be false.

Before I was just speculating your case was just air, but now when ever you've proclaimed your "truths", I go research them and I get to see for myself they really are just your imagination working overtime.

I believe in YEC but I cannot prove it. Just as you cannot prove it false. You declare it false, but the advantage a YEC'er has over others is that the Word of God declares it true, and so does God's glory.

So far participating in this forum, I've learned about:

How man landing on the moon provided sound physical evidence that the earth is young.

I've learned about red shifting that points to all the stars in the universe moving away from the earth. An astounding fact that can only be explained away by really incredible assumptions.

I've learned that it's quite all right to claim that the universe is 150 billion years old because if you wind the clock back that far that's when the universe existed as one small point. (and they call me crazy)

But when a creationist points out that winding the clock back just 10,000 years the magnetic field of the earth would be so strong, the earth would be a magnetic star, the evolutionist comes up with some obtuse explanations as to why you can NOT just straight line these data points.

I'm tired too. But I stand by my original response. Physical evidence shows that the earth and the universe appear to be young.

Have a good day and be safe.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So far participating in this forum, I've learned about:

Good grief, man, have you ever heard of "reading for comprehension"?

How man landing on the moon provided sound physical evidence that the earth is young.

It doesn't. The amount of dust on the moon is consistent with it being billions of years old. Or have you found Creationist Lie #653689 that states the contrary, based on very approximate, old data that has long been superceded by more accurate measurements?

I've learned about red shifting that points to all the stars in the universe moving away from the earth. An astounding fact that can only be explained away by really incredible assumptions.

It's all the galaxies that are moving away; some individual stars are actually blue shifted. We don't explain this away; it's a fundamental aspect of mainstream understanding of the universe.

I've learned that it's quite all right to claim that the universe is 150 billion years old because if you wind the clock back that far that's when the universe existed as one small point. (and they call me crazy)

15 billion, not 150.

But when a creationist points out that winding the clock back just 10,000 years the magnetic field of the earth would be so strong, the earth would be a magnetic star, the evolutionist comes up with some obtuse explanations as to why you can not just straight line these data points.

Magnetic field strength can be shown to have oscillated repeatedly through earth history. What on earth is obtuse about oscillation?

I'm tired too. But I stand by my original response. Physical evidence shows that the earth and the universe appear to be young.

It doesn't, because either you completely failed to understand even the creationist version of the evidence, or you're deliberately mistating it. I don't think you're deliberately dishonest, so I suspect the former. Fortunately, ignorance is more curable than dishonesty.

 

[Mistermystery]

Sorry for the delay in responding to your posts. I've been researching all the links you've referred me to.

You evolutionists have built yourself quite a house of cards. I'm fascinated by how it can all hold together, just by declaring what is obvious to be false.

empty statements hold no ground here.

Before I was just speculating your case was just air, but now when ever you've proclaimed your "truths", I go research them and I get to see for myself they really are just your imagination working overtime.

You are reall not paying attention to class. I gave you *SOLID* evidence that in 4000 years there could never been 170 meteors. I gave you *SOLID* evidence that 100.000 layers are countable in the vostock ice-core, with detailed explainations how one layer = to one year. I gave you *SOLID* evidence that there are supernovae that are + 6000 years away from Earth. So far you have not come up with refutations what so ever. There's only one conclusion anyone can draw:

F- : come see me after class.

I believe in YEC but I cannot prove it.

Then what are you doing in the science forum? shoo! shoo!

Just as you cannot prove it false.

I did. deal with it.

You declare it false, but the advantage a YEC'er has over others is that the Word of God declares it true, and so does God's glory.

You mean:

How man landing on the moon provided sound physical evidence that the earth is young.

You didn't learn that here. You learned that from your buddy Hovind.

I've learned about red shifting that points to all the stars in the universe moving away from the earth. An astounding fact that can only be explained away by really incredible assumptions.

Yes, that the Earth is not in the center of all creation (GASP).

I've learned that it's quite all right to claim that the universe is 150 billion years old because if you wind the clock back that far that's when the universe existed as one small point. (and they call me crazy)

You're crazy.

But when a creationist points out that winding the clock back just 10,000 years the magnetic field of the earth would be so strong, the earth would be a magnetic star, the evolutionist comes up with some obtuse explanations as to why you can NOT just straight line these data points.

You're still crazy.

I'm tired too. But I stand by my original response. Physical evidence shows that the earth and the universe appear to be young.

That's great, you first say that you can't proof it, then you say I can't, then you can and now you've somehow proved it all? Geuss what: you have done NOTHING. Your trolling bores me, Go away. You don't come here to learn, you only come here to propagandate that you are the arbitter of all knowledge. If that's what you want to do, there's a great forum for that down the road called the creationist-forum. You can get your willy wet there.

 

[eddiesmith]

if the earth isnt very old, we'll see if we can regain our coal and oil supplies in, say, 1000 years or so shall we?

if you know anything about these materials you'll know how long it took them to form, millions of years. thats why everyone is worrying because after we use these up we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

 

[Freodin]

I'm tired too. But I stand by my original response. Physical evidence shows that the earth and the universe appear to be young.

Have a good day and be safe.

Creationists standard tactic: Don´t adress the points, evade, wait for the original arguments to drop from the front page, redo from start.

We gave some explicite arguments that show that they universe is older than 10000 years. You did not deal with them. Why not?

See, it´s easy. When you have two contradicting arguments, one of them must be wrong.
I can explain where your arguments ARE wrong - can you do so for mine?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You evolutionists have built yourself quite a house of cards.

This topic has nothing to do with evolution.

I'm fascinated by how it can all hold together, just by declaring what is obvious to be false.

It is not obvious that the earth is young; it is quite the contrary. There is not a single piece of supporting evidence that indicates that the earth is 6,000 years old, but abundant evidence that it is much, much older than this.

Furthermore, you are using a particularly annoying catchphrase, of sorts, saying that people here are "declaring false" YECism rather than demonstrating this. If what you said was true, people would not be providing evidence If anything, you are the one "declaring false" evidence brought to these threads without any rigorous analysis and just claiming "you lose!" before your discussion even begins.

I believe in YEC but I cannot prove it. Just as you cannot prove it false.

Actually it's quite easy to prove it false and one just has to point to virtually any feature in the sedimentary rock record, the Hawaiian Island chain, varve formations, and radiometric dating as only a few of the pieces of evidence that demonstrate that YECism is false. YECism is falsifiable and was falsified almost two centuries ago.

You declare it false, but the advantage a YEC'er has over others is that the Word of God declares it true, and so does God's glory.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what the verb "to declare" means, or else you are being disingenuous.

How man landing on the moon provided sound physical evidence that the earth is young.

Then you have either been lied to, or you accepted it without even investigating the claim only to find out that Kent Hovind was wrong and dishonestly used outdated data for this argument that has been proved wrong for ages now.

I've learned about red shifting that points to all the stars in the universe moving away from the earth. An astounding fact that can only be explained away by really incredible assumptions.

I've learned that it's quite all right to claim that the universe is 150 billion years old because if you wind the clock back that far that's when the universe existed as one small point. (and they call me crazy)

I don't see people claiming that the universe is "150 billion years old" but hasn't this already been gone over in this thread? Simply by reading it one would think so, but considering you continue to misrepresent these claims it would be hard to know that. I'm beginning to think you don't actually fully read what people write.

But when a creationist points out that winding the clock back just 10,000 years the magnetic field of the earth would be so strong, the earth would be a magnetic star, the evolutionist comes up with some obtuse explanations as to why you can NOT just straight line these data points.

This argument is false because it is based upon a handful of measurements of the dipole magnetic field magnitude over a century (give or take, I can't remember precisely). It requires that you ignore all paleomagnetic evidence and the fact that the nondipole component is actually increasing rather than decaying. The magnetic field fluctuates in magnitude. People have known this for decades...except creationists apparently.

The dipole field magnitude is known to fluctuate throughout time, and it also usually precedes polarity reversals, which are well documented on the ocean floor, first discovered by Vine & Matthews. When new rock is extruded as magma, it crystallizes. During crystallization minerals are influenced by the orientation, magnitude and polarity of the earth's magnetic field. As new crust is produced at spreading centers, the cooled, crystallized crust gets pushed further away, like in the following (obviously time-lapse) animation:

http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/animate/A49.gif

This means that on both sides of the ridge, the crust gets progressively older the closer you get to the continents, and the pattern of magnetic anomalies will be nearly symmetrical. That's exactly what we find:

http://gemoc.anu.edu.au/courses/geol3005/jean/GEOL3005/PlateTectonics/Figures/Anomaly2.gif

Positive and negative magnetic anomalies recorded in the rocks that make up the seafloor indicate such reversals. We can combine this with radiometric dating to determine ages and a magnetic reversal timescale. This also matches what we find on continents when lavas are extruded, crystallized, and preserved in the geologic record, they also record such magnetic reversals and fluctuations of field intensity.

The problem with the creationist version of the argument is that it takes data from a limited period of time, ignores paleomagnetic data from the seafloor and the continents which show such fluctuations and polarity changes, and then it extrapolates a current trend over the course of a century and a half backwards while disregarding all of this other evidence. The earth's dipole magnetic field is decreasing in intensite, but has also increased in the past. These fluctuations are typically marked by polarity reversals.

No "obtuse explanations" at all. Just pointing out that creationists ignore the evidence they don't like and thus practice dishonest science.

I'm tired too. But I stand by my original response. Physical evidence shows that the earth and the universe appear to be young.

And yet you have not provided any evidence that supports this claim and have continually asked the rest of us to prove it false, which we did, and which you ignored.

http://www.christianforums.com/t724866 (Ten Falsifications of YECism)
http://www.christianforums.com/t95378 (Many of the threads on this forum that disprove YECist geology)
http://www.christianforums.com/t866228 (Refutations of common young earth arguments)

There is no physical evidence that the earth is young and it's certainly not the consensus of the scientific community. The notion of a young earth was disproved almost two centuries ago. The only people who cling onto it, and doing so dishonestly I might add, are young earth creationists.

 

[awstar]

There is no physical evidence that the earth is young and it's certainly not the consensus of the scientific community. The notion of a young earth was disproved almost two centuries ago. The only people who cling onto it, and doing so dishonestly I might add, are young earth creationists.

Hi guys!

Look whose writings I found browsing the web yesterday, while I was waiting for my hurt feelings to go away.

Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics


Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.

Geomagnetism: Developed theory for origin of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted later spaceprobe measurements, 1983 - present.

Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990 and has challenged evolutionists.

Cosmology: Began development of a relativistic creationist cosmology. The first article won an award at the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994. Wrote a best-selling book about it, as well as several technical articles defending it and developing it further

Sorry I can't stay and chat. I've got a lot of formulas and diagrams and quotes to wade through. One of my favorites already is:

The key postulates of my theory come directly from the Bible, as I mentioned above. If the solar system were much older than the Biblical age, the predictions would not fit the observations. But the predictions do fit the observations, thus supporting the Bible and a straightforward creationist understanding of it. In contrast, dynamo theory predictions have fared poorly in the solar system, not only at Uranus and Neptune, but elsewhere, particularly at Mercury, the Moon, and Mars. One commentator says, you would have thought we would have given up guessing about planetary magnetic fields after being wrong at nearly every planet in the solar system. . . ."

bye!

 

[Mistermystery]

Hi guys!

What are you still doing here? Shouldn't you be gone or something? Go on. shoo!

Look whose writings I found browsing the web yesterday, while I was waiting for my hurt feelings to go away.

Oh good, you've found some really "peerviewed indipendant articles" that have absolutly nothing to contribute to this thread. Good job in totally ignoring everyone else on the thread who gave you a bunch of links to investegate. No, instead you just pull out some random quotes, which has nothing to do with ANYTHING, that have no PROOF or EVIDENCE, and paste them here.

If you really want us to take you seriously, take us serious first. I have specifically asked that if you offer any refutation (WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO FAR) you should not get your investegations from Drdino. This comes suspiciously close to Drdino, and like I said it offers no evidence.

I hope you don't mind that I don't get my knickers wet because of this.

Sorry I can't stay and chat. I've got a lot of formulas and diagrams and quotes to wade through. One of my favorites already is:

la la la you are not listening.

bye!

And don't come back.

 

[Freodin]

Calm down, MM. He´s trying.

Let´s wait if he can bring some real arguments.

 

[Mistermystery]

Calm down, MM. He´s trying.

Let´s wait if he can bring some real arguments.

I'm sorry, but when he doesn't want to invesst any time in his responces, he shouldn't expect me to invest any time in mine either. So far I have not seen any real arguments, and I don't expeect him to. He still has to come up with a basic refutation of the first point that I brought up, other then "I don't like it".

When he can do that I'd be glad to talk to him.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Hi guys!

Look whose writings I found browsing the web yesterday, while I was waiting for my hurt feelings to go away.

I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote, so I don't see why you quoted it, but it does demonstrate the dishonesty of creationists.

Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.

Winning a prize for a "technical paper" at a creationist convention is no big feat. I guess it gives creationists like the one quoted a sense of self importance.

All he really did was say that magnetic reversals happened rapidly during the flood because he needed them to happen and that magnetic field magnitude was highest when Jesus was on Earth because it had theological importance to say so. What he fails to understand about paleomagnetism (and I question how many field measurements HE physically took...probably zero) is that only half of it is figuring out the magnitude and orientation of the magnetic field by looking at magnetized minerals in rocks. The other half is radiometric dating, which sufficiently disproves his claims.

Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990 and has challenged evolutionists.

Poor study of geochemistry and was previously addressed in this forum in a thread that I have already given you twice:

http://www.christianforums.com/t866228

Sorry I can't stay and chat. I've got a lot of formulas and diagrams and quotes to wade through. One of my favorites already is:

So he basically lies to you and you believe it because he says that his explanations are derived directly from the Bible and he tries to take a swipe at real scientists in the process. Perhaps you should be wading through the past posts on this thread rather than the creationist "literature" and you might learn something.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Calm down, MM. He´s trying.

Is he? Although I think MM was being a bit harsh (but you gotta love the guy anyway), it seems like the only tactic he has is saying "you lose" when he starts his post, pretends like arguments were not previously brought up, and does not respond directly to points people bring up seemingly waiting for them to go away so he can distract with irrelevancies. It's like a stereotypical YECist struck with a case of Morton's demon. If anything, he's trying not to learn about the claims brought up here, it seems.

 

[Freodin]

Is he? Although I think MM was being a bit harsh (but you gotta love the guy anyway), it seems like the only tactic he has is saying "you lose" when he starts his post, pretends like arguments were not previously brought up, and does not respond directly to points people bring up seemingly waiting for them to go away so he can distract with irrelevancies. It's like a stereotypical YECist struck with a case of Morton's demon. If anything, he's trying not to learn about the claims brought up here, it seems.

Well, at least he has brought a possible refutation for the shifting magnetic field.
That is the way to do it - put contradicting arguments against each other, and then try to falsify them.

I´m quite sure that the argument he brough can and will be falsified (for example, by the methods mentioned in your last post) - and if he then reverts back to the evasion/denial method, I will agree to your evaluation as Morton-demonic-possession.

It´s weekend, and my patience reserves have just been replenished.

 

[feo]

Children children; can we not play nice?

My two cents about the OP: the earth is pretty old, and the universe is even more old. You look up at the sky at night, see a star- and wonder: how long is light taking to travel all the way over here?

Something else also caught my eye on this thread. It wasn't really directed to me, but I might as well butt in.

And if God didn´t want the planet to look like this, for humans sake: why didn´t he create it as lush grassland and airy forests all around, but in some places looking as if there had been a lot of molten lava.

In other words: why did he add a "created several billion years ago" sign to the planet?

I don't believe God has the same view of time as we do. Perhaps He was bored, and thought it would be fun?

As an Engineer, I find the designing aspect of my work a lot of fun; I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like on a cosmic level.

 

[no_worries]

uumm.. compared to what? I must say this is the only planet I've ever been on so I wouldn't know how to tell on old one from a young one. That's all I got's to say about that.

 

[JohnR7]

A simple question: does the earth and the universe look old?

Not where I live at. It looks to be about 12,000 years old. Of course the ice age pushed everything older than that south of here.

 

[Philosoft]

Not where I live at. It looks to be about 12,000 years old. Of course the ice age pushed everything older than that south of here.

So, not only does wherever you live look not particularly old, you can actually give a numerical estimate? By just pointing your eyes at the earth?

Stupid question alert: Does your convenient estimate in any way rely on, oh, say, a certain interpretation of Genesis as an arbitrary starting point?