• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by UtahRaptor, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. UtahRaptor

    UtahRaptor New Member

    24
    +0
    Christian
    I'll admit, I am not a very firm believer in Jesus, the Bible or anything like that. In my mind, not to insult anyone, it is silly.

    But, to be fair, I want to ask your opinion on some things.


    1. How old is the Earth? What proof do you have?

    The Earth is 165 million years old, through modern science, [which is how we have gotten this far, not the grace of God but by our own intelligence] it has been discovered by exmaining rocks how old the Earth actually is.

    I am only 17 years old, and I know that what science tells us is true.

    How else can you explain the different types of "cave-people" or Homo species that evolved into man?

    How else can you explain the differences between so many animals? Such as zebras and horses.

    How can you explain that hundreds of different bug species are been found all the time in the Amazon?


    2. Dinosaurs? Where did they come from?

    Dinosaurs, I am a big fan of dinosaurs and know quite a lot about them. I know that dinosaurs evolved from tiny creatures that crawled out of the sea 165 million years ago.

    I know that some types of dinosaurs evolved from smaller to larger, but like Raptors [Velociraptors] they evolved from 23 foot long animals to 6 foot long animals.

    Most other animals evolve smaller to larger, such as horses [they were originally VERY tiny].


    3. Variation in animals

    How can you explain, by Bible terms, why one animal is different from another in a different region.

    To make it simiple, lets use two animals. Elephants and Lions.

    The African Elephant is a large animal, with large tusks, large ears and a greyish skin coloration. They are heavily built and designed to move about in wide open ranges.



    The Asian Elephant is a smaller animal, has smaller tusks, and much smaller ears. Its skin is brownish coloration and they are designed for compact forested area movement.



    Now for lions.

    African lions have manes, and heavily built and like in prides of 4 to twenty members.


    Mountain lions do not have manes, are not heavily built, and rarely mingle with their own kind.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. UtahRaptor

    UtahRaptor New Member

    24
    +0
    Christian
    Oh, and as for the apes.

    Man, that is simple.


    There is two different genetic lines that evolved into humans and apes. We originally came from the Old Earth apes, but due to natural selection human beings evolved from the apes.

    As the Earth changed, the surrounding area supported animals that were able to walk upright, rather than swing from trees.

    Chimps are our closest relatives, they use tools, which is what the original first man did.

    This is what is DIFFERENT.

    Not god.
     
  3. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    umm, dating methods show it to be 4.55 billion years old :) this correlates with the dating methods that date comets too.
    actually alot longer ago than that. Even the therapsids were evolving about 200 million years ago (reptile -> mammal transitionals.)
    not sure on this one, but I haven't heard of the raptors evolving from big to small. I think they were dinos that just stayed small.

    no insult, but you still have alot to learn I think, stick around though, there are alot of people here with alot of knowledge :)
     
  4. PhantomLlama

    PhantomLlama Prism Ranger

    +52
    Atheist
    You're out a few years there. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, 165 million years is when the dinosaurs were around.
     
  5. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +303
    Unitarian
  6. IrishRockhound

    IrishRockhound Geologist

    158
    +45
    Other Religion
    *shakes head*

    Saying "evolution is right!" is no excuse for ignorance. Thankfully this is a good place to learn.

    Be careful about what you post, and look to the more senior members for education :)

    Oh, and welcome to the forum!

    The Rock Hound
     
  7. DURANG0

    DURANG0 Member

    311
    +1
    Christian
    Actually the earth is quite young.
    As you well know, the evidence of the actual fiat of creation was destroyed in the flood. The evidence the YEC present is chiefly flood evidence.
    Although, Polonium Halo's can be considered as evidence of a rapid fromation of the Basalts.
    Not to mention that C-14 hasn't met equilibrium as of yet...which it should have if the earth is as old as some claim.
    Many say the continents should have eroded by now, that is if the continents are as old as some claim.
    Judging from the erosion rate of Niagra falls as it retreats from lake Ontario, the falls are much much younger than the old earthers claim.
    The observation of the earth population and population growth also support a recent creation.
    We also must not forget the decay of the magnetic field of the earth which STRONGLY indicate a young earth and recent creation along with the recession rate of the moon that would have put it too close to earth a few billion years ago.The low amount of helium in the earth atmosphere and the low level of salt in the ocean also say young earth. Not to mention that the sediments in the ocean would be higher is another example of a young earth. Polystrata trees are also a good example and proof that strata forms quickly and not over millions upon millions of years. The soft sediment deformation of rock strata is a very good indicator of a rapid folding of the pre-hardened rocks and not millions upon millions of years as the continents drifted slowly. The rapid formation of the Grand Canyon when the Hopi and Grand lakes broke through their damns show how it could have been formed in a very short period of time and not millions of years. The Mt St. Helen Volcano and after results PROVED the possibility of quick canyon formation.

    Here is a list of other reasons as to why the earth CAN’T possible be 4.5 BY old.
    Personally I haven't investigated each item as I cut and pasted them from somewhere a little while ago. I also don't claim to understand each topic presented in the list. But the point is there is a lot of scientific objection to a 4.5BY old earth or a 16 BY old universe.


    1. The amount of dust on the moon's surface - I understand this argument is generally no longer used due to more up to date rates of processes and info. being utilized (i.e. Snelling's article in TEN Tech J)
    2. Lack of meteorites in the geologic column
    3. The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Cosmic Dust Sphericals
    4. The Abundance of Short-period comets v.s. its average life-span
    5. Io being geologically active
    6. The Moon, i.e. Lunar Material with high levels of radioactivity
    7. Types of Radiation that shouldn't be in existence on the Moon
    8. Turbulance & instability of Saturn's Rings
    9. Existence of 3 Giant Dust Rings that circle the solar system
    10. Rock-Flow of Lunar Material v.s. craters of the Moon
    11. Lack of emitted Neutrinos from the sun
    12. The chemical composition of stars being roughly the same
    13. Star clusters gravitationally bound yet containing stars with vastly different thurmonuclear-burn
    sequences
    14. Paradox between the expected nuclear-fusion temperature history of the sun and the temperature
    history of the Earth
    15. Controversy over our Shrinking Sun
    16. The White Dwarf Star Sirius B Mystery
    17. The Missing Mass Problem
    18. Velocity of Light Deccaying with Time idea
    19. Lack of Helium in Earth's Atmosphere
    20. Problems with Radioactive Clocks
    21. Age of Diatoms v.s. fossil skeleton of a Baleen Whale on End
    22. Lack of erosional lines separating depositional formations
    23. Polystrate Fossils in Sedimentary Rocks
    24. Tilt of the Earth Axis based on Astronomical Evidence via. Eudoxus, Stonehenge & Solar Temple of
    Amen-Ra
    25. Geocentric Pleochroic Polonium Halos in Precambrian Granite & Coalified Wood
    26. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
    27. Oil & Natural Gas - their existence
    28. Carbon-14 Disintegration v.s. production
    29. Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Moment
    30. Dinosaur Tracks & Man Tracks at Paluxy - Generally no longer used by most creationists
    31. Large Stars - Mass problems
    32. Delta Filling - Rate of growth of delta
    33. Ocean Chemical Concentrations - Much less than what they should be
    34. Erosion of the Continents - Problems with supposed time involved
    35. History - Record of man's existence
    36. Dendrochonology - Age of trees much less than what they could be
    37. Sea Ooze - Lack of sea ooze on ocean floors
    38. Rotation of the Earth - Rotation much to fast by evolutionary standards
    39. Ocean Sediment - Rate of sediment added to the oceans precludes an old ocean
    40. Volcanic Water & Rocks - Time problem based on present rate of rock accretion
    41. Mutation load - Lack of it indicates biological world couln't have vast antiquity
    42. Population Statistics
    43. Earth Heat - Earth young based on considerations of existing temperature gradient in the earth and its
    rate of cooling
    44. The existence of Lunar Inert Gases
    45. Stalagmites & Stalactites
    46. The existence & depth of topsoil
    47. Certain Geological features a) unconsolidated rock b) various fossils & minerals & their current rate of
    formation c) the lack of uniformitarian horizontal layers of sedimentary rocks blending & d) meandering
    serpentine course of many rivers and canyons
    48. Niagra Falls and the rate of its edge wearing away
    49. The existence of Hydrogen still in the universe
    50. The existence of Atmospheric Oxygen
    51. Grand Canyon Dating
    52. Dating of the Cardenas Basalts
    53. Basalts on the Rim of the Grand Canyon
    54. Age of Meteorites/Earth & Allende
    55. Recent Dating of Civilization
    56. Plate Tectonics and the age of the Earth
    57. Salt in the Ocean
    58. Rocks on the Earth's Surface
    59. Various Surface Features of the Earth (such as ripple marks, raindrop impressions, animal tracks)
    60. Bioturbation - Deficiency of evidence of living communities within a layer of rock
    61. Lack of soil layers anywhere in the geologic column
    62. Undisturbed Bedding Planes
    63. Soft-Sediment Deformation
    64. Clastic Dikes
    65. Limited extent of unconformities
    66. Lack of evidence of in situ petrified tree stumps
    67. Escape of methane from Titan
    68. The Recession of the Moon
    69. The presence of star clusters
    70. The sudden appearance of Advanced Life forms
    71. The permanence of prototypes
    72. Absence of Transitional Forms
    73. The Nature of Fossilization & the Fossils themselves
    74. Preservation of Soft Parts
    75. Sirius B White Dwarf & observation
     
  8. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +303
    Unitarian
    This is really cute. 59 Says animal tracks are evidence for a young earth. 60 Says lack of bioturbation is evidence for a young earth. I've got some news for you. Animal tracks are bioturbation. Why doesn't it bother YECs at all to post "evidences" the directly contradict each other.

    The entire post is just a rehash of the PRATT (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) list. The ones that are not directly false (for instance fossil soils and places with extensive bioturbation are well known) are irrelevant to the age of the earth. As an example there is no reason that Niagra falls should be anywhere near as old as the earth. Some of them are actually backwards. Interplanetary dust accumulation actually supports an ancient earth and not a young earth or global flood.
    http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/idp.htm

    Detailed refutations of all this nonsense have been available for a long time. I sure they will be pointed out. I don't have the time right now but will get those other don't cover later if necessary.

    The frumious Bandersnatch
     
  9. ThePhoenix

    ThePhoenix Well-Known Member

    +103
    Christian
    Lets just start with point number 2. There's been over 200 recorded meteorite strikes. How does this mean a LACK of meteorites in the geological column? That's an average of one per 30 years if the earth is 6000 years old. Think we might have noticed that?
     
  10. IrishRockhound

    IrishRockhound Geologist

    158
    +45
    Other Religion
    Durang0, do you ever get tired of spouting the same tired junk? Possibly you just have a lot of ready-made messages you can cut and paste - otherwise I salute your endurance, as that much typing would easily have me running for an icepack for my wrists.

    Refuted. The magnetic field strength has been shown to have waxed and wabed before, typically around the time of a magnetic reversal if I remember correctly. As for the recession rate of the moon - I'm happy to say that a postgraduate student in the Geology Dept of my university developed an excellent computer model of the changing distance of the Moon from the Earth, which was subsequently borne out by tidal data from coral fossils.

    False. There are significant differences in strain markers for soft sediment deformation and those for lithified rock. The strain history of any rock can be determined by examining these - particularly when there are mineral veins and inclusions. They are easily distinguished from each other.

    How, exactly? The Mt. St. Helens eruption was spectacular, yes, but I saw no mention of a canyon appearing after it. Unless you are referring to the side of the mountain that was destroyed in the event?

    The fact that you posted a long, unreferenced cut and pasted list is doing nothing to help your position. Many of these make no sense whatsoever.

    ...that geologists are well aware of, and have been aware of for some time now - leading to them taking extreme care in the selection of samples to be tested? I assume that you are referring to possible contamination - such as in the Rb/Sr method.

    What lines would they be then? Unconformities? Disconformities? Paraconformities? These all exist in abundance, all over the world. Why does the notion that there could be long periods of sustained deposition disprove an old Earth?

    I just can't go through your entire list and pick out everything I am capable of refuting. What would be the point, when you seem to have no interest in educating yourself... However if there are one or two geological points you wish to address, I'll happily stick around.

    The Rock Hound
     
  11. shenzhou

    shenzhou Member

    168
    +5
    See: A Paleosol Bibliography http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pweathering.htm

    and Joe Meert's paleosol page: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm


    Joe's response: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walker.htm

    A paper on paleosols in the Columbia river basalt "Pedogenesis and Geochemical Alteration of the Picture Gorge Subgroup, Columbia River Basalt, Oregon" http://www.uoregon.edu/~nsheldon/Bulletin2003.pdf

    A paleosol is also mentioned in my flood falsifying thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t90596

    and here: http://www.christianforums.com/t90261
     
  12. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    11. Lack of emitted Neutrinos from the sun

    neutrino oscillations have now been observed.
     
  13. Frumious Bandersnatch

    Frumious Bandersnatch Contributor

    +303
    Unitarian
    We have a thread on meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions

    http://www.christianforums.com/t50702

    Here is the impact data base

    http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CIDiameterSort.html

    Note that 20 of them are 40 km or more in diameter and 5 are more than 100 km in diameter. The Sudbury crater is 250 km in diamter and the Vredefort crater 300. Both are significantly bigger than the Cicxulub impact which is thought to have led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. You would indeed think that someone would have noticed these huge impacts if they had all occured in the last 6000 years.


    The frumious Bandersnatch
     
  14. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    49. The existence of Hydrogen still in the universe

    totally expected. actually the ratios of elements as calculated through atomic physics matches what we see in the stars. During nuclear fusion through the life of the star, only a relatively small amount of the hydrogen is converted into heavier elements. Despite the massive amount of energy release by the sun, the sun actually emits less radiation per kilo than humans do.
     
  15. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    68. The Recession of the Moon

    the recession of the moon is right in line with what it should be, using modern mathematical models which actually treat the continents properly. older calculations treated the continents as a single band around the equator, which is incorrect.
     
  16. obediah001

    obediah001 Active Member

    617
    +5
    Most of the meateors & they were ice meteors hit hte earht at the outset of the Noahic flood not over eons of time. I heard a professor on NPR's evolution moments declaer the reason we do not find any sign of the meteaors is cause of plate tectonics which over the eons of evolutionary time has ground them to powder; another good laugh for me here; the reason we do not find them is they were mostly water. DUH!
     
  17. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    sorry durango, but that list is just full of junk. most of your objections there have been falsified decades ago. why do you persist in reposting this rubbish? next you will be telling us that man never landed on the moon.
     
  18. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    If any remotely significant amount of meteors hit the earth, it would boil the earth. please remember that kinetic energy gets converted to thermal energy. This is why the bottom of the niagra falls is slightly warmer than the top.
     
  19. obediah001

    obediah001 Active Member

    617
    +5
    But you are forgetting supercooler ice is magnetic & about all of the animals frozen in the miles thick ice on te poles with NO water in their lungs; remember waht oxygen etc does when it is supercooled? There are also tropical plants under all this polar ice which was deposited ALL at once & obviously so due to the tropical environs below, by the way this meat is oft ate whem dug out of the ice in Alaska. Please explain how they all plants & animals got buried soo deep & frooze so quickly that they are fresh to eat now? hmmm
     
  20. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    +0
    what on earth are you drivelling on about?
     
Loading...