Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Frank Robert]

I thought I gave two good examples: ocean salinity and the earth's magnetosphere.

Scientists have repeatedly answered those and other creationists' objections. That creationists are not happy with the scientific evidence is not a reason to continue the debate.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

According to Hebrews 6:18 he can't (unless he declares that's what he's doing). And that's where you run into problems with your embedded age nonsense. Can you see the problem?

 

[Astrophile]

Yes. God could have even created the universe in one gigasecond; but I believe He "dragged it out" over a six-day period so as to create a template for the workweek as stipulated in one of the Ten Commandments.

One gigasecond is actually about 31.7 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

One gigasecond is actually about 31.7 years.

Thanks for the correction!

Let's make it a nanosecond then.

 

[Oneiric1975]

My pastor says there are some 70 different ways to date the earth, and scientists only use four of them that make the earth look old, and deny the rest.

This is intriguing. I cannot think of a single way to date the earth that winds up with a dramatically younger earth.

I've heard YEC folks make stuff up and call it dating the age of the earth, but no legit science that comes up with a young earth.

 

[Oneiric1975]

He said something about scientists accepting radio carbon dating

If your pastor thinks 14-C is used to date the earth then he has a LOT more to learn in science.

The halflife of 14-C is simply too short.

, argon [something-something], krypton this, and something else that (geology and deep space, I think).

Ar-Ar and Kr-Ar would do better for dating the earth.

Everything else like ocean salinity, strength of the magnetosphere, and others, they find ways to invalidate.

I wonder what those are and how they use it to arrive at a young earth.

 

[driewerf]

I don't know litmus paper from toilet paper.

You better do. And otherwise I advise very good hand hygiene.

 

[Astrophile]

Ar-Ar and Kr-Ar would do better for dating the earth.

This should be K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating, not Kr-Ar (krypton-argon) dating.

I wonder what those are and how they use it to arrive at a young earth.

In Chapter VI of Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris lists the times required for the influx of dissolved elements into the oceans to produce the observed concentrations of these elements in the oceans (i.e. the observed salinity). The ages of the Earth deduced from these calculations range from 100 years for aluminium and 2000 years for lead to 45 million years for magnesium and 260 million years for sodium. Morris does not explain why an age of about 6000 years should be preferred to 100 years or >260 million years.

However, Lorence G. Collins, in http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/collins.pdf , argues that accumulation of Cl- ions in the oceans would require 3.6 billion years, and therefore that the oceans and the Earth must be at least that old. In addition, T.H. Heaton, in https://www.apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/ocean_salinity.html# , explains why the ocean salt clock is an invalid dating method and cannot be used to support either an old Earth or a young Earth.

In the same chapter, Morris cites measurements of the Earth's magnetic field strength (not the magnetosphere) covering 135 years (from about 1835 to about 1970) as showing that the geomagnetic field is decreasing exponentially with a half-life of about 1400 years. If this is true, the field would have been impossibly strong less than 10,000 years ago. This is a clear example of excessive extrapolation; archaeomagnetic measurements have shown that the geomagnetic field fluctuates rather than decreasing exponentially, and that during the last 2800 years the strength of the magnetic dipole has never been more than twice its present value (see below). Thus the recent decrease in the geomagnetic dipole is not evidence for a young Earth.

 

[Oneiric1975]

This should be K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating, not Kr-Ar (krypton-argon) dating.

Thanks! My bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deny anything that dares contradict established scientific paradigms, right?

My pastor says there are some 70 different ways to date the earth, and scientists only use four of them that make the earth look old, and deny the rest.

Your pastor was either lying or did not know what he was talking about. There are examples of "dating" done by creationists where creationists either ignore or pretend that certain factors do not exist. A favorite of theirs used to be the amount of salt in the oceans. They only count how salt is added and ignore how it is removed. And most of these arguments were refuted over forty years ago. Your pastor is without excuse.

 

[AV1611VET]

A favorite of theirs used to be the amount of salt in the oceans. They only count how salt is added and ignore how it is removed.

Like through evaporation, ocean spray, and hydrothermal circulation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like through evaporation, ocean spray, and hydrothermal circulation?

Chemical reactions are probably the top way that sodium is removed from the sea. Evaporation plays a minor role. Though at times it may have been more significant. Right now isolated shallow seas do not exist. And yes, hydrothermal circulation is one of those processes.

Does the ocean continually get saltier or is the salt deposited on land over time?

You should try to remember that once a clock is debunked it is no longer a clock. One of the signs that a clock is inappropriate for an absolute age is when different versions of that clock give vastly different results. Different ions in the sea give different answers as to its age using that creationist clock. That tells you there is something seriously wrong with that clock as being used.

 

[Astrid]

No, you wouldn't quibble over anything He did. The question is, what did he do? And now we're back to the interpretation of ancient texts as Ponderous Curmudgeon pointed out.

Well, surely also by physical evidence. If someone
interpreted it that Mt Ararat is in Kansas, a review of
state geography would reveal that God didn't land an ark
on mountain in Kansas.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well, surely also by physical evidence. If someone
interpreted it that Mt Ararat is in Kansas, a review of
state geography would reveal that God didn't land an ark
on mountain in Kansas.

It landed in Williamstown, KY!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, surely also by physical evidence. If someone
interpreted it that Mt Ararat is in Kansas, a review of
state geography would reveal that God didn't land an ark
on mountain in Kansas.

And how would a review of state geography reveal that God didn't land an ark on a mountain in Kansas, when a review of world geography can't reveal that God landed an ark in the mountains of Ararat?

 

[Astrid]

It landed in Williamstown, KY!

I'd already extensively researched that
very facr, but found I was stonewalled at every turn.

I went so far as to inquire of the
League of Nations, but my letter only
elicited the following response, here quoted
in full:

"We are unable to find any reference to the
so- called 'Ark of Williamstown' , no more than
we can to the alleged 'South African diamond fields'
also so much lately in the news."

Proof of collusion, right there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Proof of collusion, right there.

How did you word your question to them? did you ask them for "evidence," or for "references"?

If you asked for evidence, I notice they told you they had no references.

Probably all they did was Google it themselves; like good scientists.

And if the League of Nations can't find any references to Ken Ham's Ark Encounter, even with Google, then is it any wonder academians can't find evidence of 2 million Israelites living in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'd already extensively researched that
very facr, but found I was stinewalled at every turn.

I wentvso far as to inquire of the
League of Nations, but my letter only
elicited the following response, here quoted
in full:

"We are unable to find any reference to the
so- called 'Ark of Williamstown' , no more than
we can to the alleged 'South African diamond fields'
also so much lately in the news."

Proof of collusion, right there.

I don't understand the formatting of your post.

 

[Astrid]

I don't understand the formatting of your post.

You are wrong

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand the formatting of your post.

Eddie Cochran took his concern to the United Nations, with the same result: nothing.