- May 19, 2018
- 11,003
- 11,750
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
Young earth is about as real as a chocolate sun.
Upvote
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Either something looks ancient or it doesn't. And the earth looks extraordinarily old.
In the absence of knowing what a young Earth looks like, the only way one can (logically) perceive that the earth is old is to believe it is old (whether that belief is valid or not).
This if "affirmed" using radiometric dating of unstable elements, which this method has a number of assumptions: 1) That the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) that the system has always been closed (no contamination), and 3) that the initial starting count of parent and daughter atoms is known.
Topic is actually about how YEC's explain dinosaurs.Nothing in the above post addresses anything that I've said.
If anything it just seems to be a poor attempt to change the topic from the angular unconformity.
Oh and by the way... notice how NOBODY is responding to provide you such answer? It's because everyone can see what you keep missing and that is that none of us can truly know what happened in the past
Komatiite, what you have done very well for everyone though is successfully confirmed that your faith has nothing to do with God's word
Indeed, even if the planet truly is 6000 years old, by all accounts, God has given it the appearance of a planet that is at minimum tens or even hundreds of millions of years old.
And we have Lord Kelvin's calculations showing that the heat flux from the Earth (even in the absence of energy from radioactive decay) would require the Earth to be tens of millions of years old.
I guess we're done then here because all of your posts are just parroted claims you cannot actually demonstrate are true. But it's your God-given freedom to believe what you want and justify it by whatever you place your faith in... and even the atheists are justified in their own eyes in what they believe.Thats true as well.
Really all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Young earth ideas are disproved in science, by countless countless, countless lines of evidence.
Or at least it should be said that, through countless lines of research, the earth has the appearance of being old.
God could hypothetically have made the earth to look old. But i just dont think this idea makes much sense.
I guess we're done then here because all of your posts are just parroted claims you cannot actually demonstrate are true. But it's your God-given freedom to believe what you want and justify it by whatever you place your faith in... and even the atheists are justified in their own eyes in what they believe.
What there is to demonstrate is: Specifically that the processes you assert took millions of years actually occurred as you say they did and took as long as you say they did. Telling a story that they did does not demonstrate they are true.What is there to demonstrate? That there are numerous independent layers of glacial till?
That nests and complex burrow networks are found throughout the geologic column?
What there is to demonstrate is: Specifically that the processes you assert took millions of years actually occurred as you say they did and took as long as you say they did. Telling a story that they did does not demonstrate they are true.
Let me save you some time.Well, lets think about this then.
Above is our simplified geologic column for reference.
Regarding the pleistocene glaciation, we are talking about really the uppermost shallow layers, predominantly consisting of glacial till and lensed layers of gravel and silt. Thats just what it is.
How fast do glaciers move? They move very slowly by the nature of what they are.
They dont have legs so they wont get up and run at 50 miles per hour.
How fast do glaciers retreat? Pretty slowly as well.
If you have 5 independent glaciations, one would anticipate this taking longer than a single year to unfold.
But even if you hypothetically believed that the planet plummeted in temperature and then shot back up in temperature over and over and over and over and over again...in a brief period of time...and even if you believed that glaciers could travel hundreds and thousands of feet, several times over and over again...
This still is only scratching the surface, literally.
Throughout the cenozoic, we have complex burrow networks.
View attachment 246465
"In the last ten years, more than 1,500 large burrows have been discovered in southern and southeastern Brazil"
And ya know, large slow mammals, such as giant armadillos, they take time to make these burrows.
They scratch, they claw, they dig.
Armadillos dig slowly. As we know them to exist.
So we have these huge tunnels that likely would take, days or even weeks for these animals to dig. Or even months perhaps, dependending on the animal and the burrow network.
How fast can an armadillo dig? Not very fast, theyre slow animals.
And this is further down in the cenozoic, where the flood allegedly was laying down sediment. So somehow the armadillo would have to hold its breath really long while it did this?
Or maybe the flood was over at this point, but then we just have more issues in understanding how it is that cenozoic layers were deposited, if not by the flood. But these animals are long extinct, so presumably they were killed off in the flood?
But this is still just the beginning.
Really we are only a small fraction through the geologic column yet. We are still in the pleistocene which is still very recent in the geologic column.
We still have 80% of the cenozoic to go, 100% of the mesozoic and 100% of the paleozoic, and even still we are only scratching the surface.
And already we have several glaciations and really massive time consuming burrows. Which are now in rock btw, as the rock has had time to lithify.
Ill continue in a bit with the list.