Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[shinbits]

Shinbits they say it isn't a bad assumption. They mean it won't adversely affect their argument in a significant way

The link actually says that it WILL change: they just say that the incorrect assumption that won't isn't a bad one. But it's still false, as the link says.

I put in bold where the link says it.

 

[Adriac]

You seem to have "missed" this:


First of all, when the sun was bigger, it had more to burn off. Correct? This means that the sun's energy output was MUCH higher thousands, and especially millions of years ago.

That's just wrong. Our sun is operating on a timeframe measured in billions of years, not millions, and definitely not thousands.

The 1% issue is only if it is ASSUMED that the rate will remain the same. And the reason that the link says that it won't remain the same, is because the amount of energy being used up changed with it's size, and it's size changes as a result the sun burning off it's energy.

You are NOT taking the time to read carefully.

It's assumed because a difference in luminosity is marginal. That link just doesn't support your claim.

 

[Baggins]

The link actually says that it WILL change: they just say that the incorrect assumption that won't isn't a bad one. But it's still false, as the link says.

I put in bold where the link says it.

So they are lying to you then when they say that the sun isn't shrinking in any significant way?

You amaze me, you post a link to the site because you think it backs up your silly claims, it is pointed out to you that it doesn't support your claims but contradicts them, and then you rubbish the site because they made an assumption they claim doesn't affect the outcome.

And you still haven't produced any evidence that the sun shrinking by tiny amounts would have any appreciable affect on earth anyway.

Way to go, big boy, you've got us on the run

 

[Adriac]

This combined with the fact the sun was bigger, and putting out more energy, and combined with the fact that earth would've had much more sunlight per day because of it's rotation that was faster----

1) All these factors and others make carbon-dating unreliable, because there is far too much to take into account.

2) Life would've been impossible even a million years ago.

All of that combined is still marginal! If you take one micrometer, one picosecond, and one thousandth of one degree Kelvin, what you end up with is still meaningless.

 

[shinbits]

Once again, that article actually says the exact opposite of what you assert, namely, that climatic events can have an effect on the earth's rotation.

True enough, it does.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html

The Earth rotates. As it rotates, it drags the atmosphere around with it causing the air to mix with the higher level atmosphere resulting in turbulence and pressure systems.

Again, the earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning it used to spin faster: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?

Two things to consider with this: one is that the winds would make the earth's surface to unstable to hold life. Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.

 

[TexasSky]

Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? Is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?

As a side note, I read in another thread that 'The Big Bang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, pæleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.

How about the personal testimony of thousands of people, including kings and rulers, over thousands of years?

It is "easy" to dismiss certain things - until you stop and look at it a little more reasonably.

That Egypt freed the slaves seems to be an easily accepted part of history.

You don't have any Egyptians objecting to the Jewish presentation of that history either. No one standing up going, "No, no. That isn't what happened!"

Now, get into more details. Moses said he spoke to God on numerous occasions. Moses says God performed miracles that resulted in freeing the people from slavery.
The biblical accounts talk about the people seeing things like the parting of the Red Sea, the column they followed, etc.

If Moses was "insane" and "making it up". . . . . . why did all those people follow him? Wouldn't they have seen (or not seen) the truth or the lie of his claims?

Why would generation after generation teach this as "history" and not "myth" if they had lived through the events?

Lest you point to a few cults - let me remind you - we are not talking a few dozen cult-members, or even a few hundred. We are talking THOUSANDS of people.

And that is just one part of the biblical accounts that generation after generation taught as fact.

Somewhere along the way, if it was all a lie, others would have decried it as such near the times the events are reported to have taken place.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1) All these factors and others make carbon-dating unreliable, because there is far too much to take into account.


when this author finally reads on the topic, the idea:

*

will be evident.
then the whole process of calibration via dendrochronology will come up.

then we'll know someone did their homework, before typing.....

*source:
http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/c14/c14.htm

 

[Baggins]

How about the personal testimony of thousands of people, including kings and rulers, over thousands of years?

.

No, that isn't evidence, that is heresay

 

[Baggins]

: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?

I don't know, do you?

Judging by the fact that the flora and fauna of earth was broadly comparable to what we see today including abundant flying birds, then it would appear it had little affect

Two things to consider with this: one is that the winds would make the earth's surface to unstable to hold life. Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.

This is just bunk, people have shown it to be bunk and yet you still come back with it. Have some dignity

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.


repeat:
C14 dating is not used for greater than about 60Kya.

as needed for reality check.

 

[shinbits]

Judging by the fact that the flora and fauna of earth was broadly comparable to what we see today including abundant flying birds, then it would appear it had little affect

It had little effect, because life did NOT begin millions or billions of years ago. Six thousand years ago, all these factors like the earth being closer to the sun combined with the fact that earth's rotations are slowing down, combined with the fact that the sun was bigger and putting out more energy---

all these wouldn't have mattered six thousand years ago, and didn't matter.

Millions of years ago---it would've. That's why life on earth could NOT begin millions or billions of years ago.

 

[Adriac]

True enough, it does.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html



Again, the earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning it used to spin faster: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?

Where are you getting that number from? Because it's just wrong.

(As an aside, the amount of daylight over the course of a year is exactly the same, regardless of how fast the earth turns.)

 

[shinbits]

Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.


repeat:
C14 dating is not used for greater than about 60Kya.

I know. I actually mentioned that this was so already. I'm responding to a lot of people, and get things mixed.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

How about the personal testimony of thousands of people, including kings and rulers, over thousands of years?

Just as many people, including kings and rulers, testify that Allah, Shiva or the Shinto gods exist. Should you believe them, or should you perhaps erase subjective experience from the List Of Arguments?

If Moses was "insane" and "making it up". . . . . . why did all those people follow him? Wouldn't they have seen (or not seen) the truth or the lie of his claims?

What's your stance on Hitler?

 

[Baggins]

It had little effect, because life did NOT begin millions or billions of years ago. Six thousand years ago, all these factors like the earth being closer to the sun combined with the fact that earth's rotations are slowing down, combined with the fact that the sun was bigger and putting out more energy---

all these wouldn't have mattered six thousand years ago, and didn't matter.

Millions of years ago---it would've. That's why life on earth could NOT begin millions or billions of years ago.

I am astounded by your logic, I shall become a YEC immediately.

As soon as you can explain about those termite mounds.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

True enough, it does.

here:
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~raojw/crd/essay/essay000300.html



Again, the earth's rotation is slowing down, meaning it used to spin faster: so how harsh would the turbulence be if the earth spun fast enough to give it even one hour less daylight, which would be only 360,000 years ago?

Two things to consider with this: one is that the winds would make the earth's surface to unstable to hold life. Two, there would be that 360,000 years ago, there would be a significant difference in the amount of sunlight recieved each day, which makes carbon dating unreliable, because of such factors like this.

NASA Physicist Tim Thompson debunks this one here.

The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because the two use seconds that are not the same length). The leap second is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within 0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing down by one second per year.

The actual spin down rate of the earth is about 2 milliseconds per 100 years. 360,000 years ago the day was about 7 seconds shorter. Not a big deal.

 

[shinbits]

Where are you getting that number from? Because it's just wrong.

WHY is it wrong? What reason do u have for saying so? Just make absolute statements like that whithout saying why.

As an aside, the amount of daylight over the course of a year is exactly the same, regardless of how fast the earth turns.)

true. But the rate of sunlight entering earth's atmosphere is affected, and is another factor making carbon dating unreliable. And of course, not just this alone, but all the other factors TOGETHER that i've mentioned on this thread. These same factors would make life impossible a million years ago.

 

[caravelair]

It had little effect, because life did NOT begin millions or billions of years ago. Six thousand years ago, all these factors like the earth being closer to the sun combined with the fact that earth's rotations are slowing down, combined with the fact that the sun was bigger and putting out more energy---

all these wouldn't have mattered six thousand years ago, and didn't matter.

Millions of years ago---it would've. That's why life on earth could NOT begin millions or billions of years ago.

i'm sorry, but all of these arguments have been throughly refuted a long time ago.

who told you the earth was closer to the sun in the past? where is your evidence of this?

the earth's rotation does not indicate a young earth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

and the sun is not shrinking in the way that you claim:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

in case you have any other arguments for a young earth, maybe you could check this list to see if they are there:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[Baggins]

WHY is it wrong? What reason do u have for saying so? Just make absolute statements like that whithout saying why.

.

Read post 116 by Mr Bandersnatch

 

[Adriac]

WHY is it wrong? What reason do u have for saying so? Just make absolute statements like that whithout saying why.

You claim the day was one hour shorter 360,000 years ago. You need to support that claim. For a start, I'd try the link in the post directly above mine.

Whoop, totally ninja'd. Yup, read post #116.