How old is the world?

[rmwilliamsll]

well that argument fails because we haven't witnessed how old the earth really is.
we have no proof and no observation as YEC's and such
so trying to argue with evolutionists about that won't work.
because we as Christians believe this because the bible says so. see my point?

the same reasoning leads to throwing out all forensic evidence for any criminal trial where there was no witnesses. well we need multiple witnesses since we know how bad eye witness accounts can be.

plus we throw out everything learned before you where born, or is it when you turned 18 and knew everything? since you really can't trust anyone except yourself, then follow that to its logical conclusion and reboot the universe when you where 0, 15, 18, 25 etc you choose.

this leads very naturally to solipsism which is really not where you want to go. The most interesting formulation of your problem is "last thursdayism" which is a form of the omphalic argument we hear here all the time, under the YECist rubric of creation with apparent age.

but since no one was there, this is a specious untenable argument as well.

but go ahead and argue such, a knowledgable atheist will have you in a corner denying the possibility of any knowledge in just a few minutes. for how can you trust the Bible if:
you weren't there to see it translated?
you weren't there to see it transmitted?
you weren't there to see the canon formation?
you weren't there to see it written?
etc.

good luck with your dead end.
google "brains in the vat" for more.
.......

 

[f U z ! o N]

true. you have gotten me into a corner. very nice response.

 

[GodsSamus]

the same reasoning leads to throwing out all forensic evidence for any criminal trial where there was no witnesses. well we need multiple witnesses since we know how bad eye witness accounts can be.

plus we throw out everything learned before you where born, or is it when you turned 18 and knew everything? since you really can't trust anyone except yourself, then follow that to its logical conclusion and reboot the universe when you where 0, 15, 18, 25 etc you choose.

this leads very naturally to solipsism which is really not where you want to go. The most interesting formulation of your problem is "last thursdayism" which is a form of the omphalic argument we hear here all the time, under the YECist rubric of creation with apparent age.

but since no one was there, this is a specious untenable argument as well.

but go ahead and argue such, a knowledgable atheist will have you in a corner denying the possibility of any knowledge in just a few minutes. for how can you trust the Bible if:
you weren't there to see it translated?
you weren't there to see it transmitted?
you weren't there to see the canon formation?
you weren't there to see it written?
etc.

good luck with your dead end.
google "brains in the vat" for more.
.......

There is much evidence for a young Earth.

Evidence for Young Earth (when not mixed with lack of evidence)

Shrinking Sun
Receeding moon
Earth's helium in atmosphere.
salinity of oceans
population growth curve
oil pressure in rocks
Mississippi Delta growth
Niagra Fall's erosion
Earth's slowing rotation
Earth's magnetic field
meteoric dust (now under question)
Mud on ocean floor
Erosion of continents
Saturn's rings
Planets still cooling down
Comets
Spiral galaxies
Oldest desert (4,000 years old)
Oldest tree (4,300 years old, called the Methusalah tree. Spelt right?)
Oldest coral reef (4,200 years old)

Here are the dating methods indicating an old Earth

Radiometric dating
stars many light-years away
Ice rings
Varves, whatever they are


If we were on a committee and 4 people voted to reject a law, yet 19 out of the 24 were in favor of the law, with one person undecided, would you reject the law? Or would you pass the law. Hint: Majority rules in this case.

 

[notto]

Oldest desert (4,000 years old)
Oldest tree (4,300 years old, called the Methusalah tree. Spelt right?)
Oldest coral reef (4,200 years old)

Oldest person, 118. My God, the world is only 118 years old!!!

Silly reasoning that.

 

[random_guy]

There is much evidence for a young Earth.

Evidence for Young Earth (when not mixed with lack of evidence)

Shrinking Sun
Receeding moon
Earth's helium in atmosphere.
salinity of oceans
population growth curve
oil pressure in rocks
Mississippi Delta growth
Niagra Fall's erosion
Earth's slowing rotation
Earth's magnetic field
meteoric dust (now under question)
Mud on ocean floor
Erosion of continents
Saturn's rings
Planets still cooling down
Comets
Spiral galaxies
Oldest desert (4,000 years old)
Oldest tree (4,300 years old, called the Methusalah tree. Spelt right?)
Oldest coral reef (4,200 years old)

Here are the dating methods indicating an old Earth

Radiometric dating
stars many light-years away
Ice rings
Varves, whatever they are


If we were on a committee and 4 people voted to reject a law, yet 19 out of the 24 were in favor of the law, with one person undecided, would you reject the law? Or would you pass the law. Hint: Majority rules in this case.

Hey GodsSamus, I remember posting in a thread where you posted the exact same list and I said that there were things on the list that were wrong. You said show it and you'd stop using it, so I gave a brief explanation why the moon thing was wrong. You dropped off and never came back to the topic. Well, right now, I don't have time to search for it, heck, I might not be able to find it (very bad search function).

However, what if I did find it? You have a chance to be intellectually honest and remove the moon recession, or you can be shown to be intellectually dishonest and leaving it the same. It's your choice. Later, when I have more time, I plan to search for it, and you can rely on the chance I don't find it, or you can take the first step by removing it.

(if anyone knows how to search for every message you've posted that would be helpful. All I remember is I used the word moon, linear, gravity, and squared but nothing is showing up in the search)

 

[GodsSamus]

Oldest person, 118. My God, the world is only 118 years old!!!

Silly reasoning that.

A 4,300 year old desert's pretty old. But I have a question: why isn't there an older desert somewhere in the world if the Earth's 4.6 billion years old and life's 3 billion years old, assuming Noah's flood, if it occured, was a local one? I have a theory. The Earth's 6,000 years old and the flood was global. Therefore, I expect the oldest desert to be less than 4,400 years old. *Gasp* It is!

 

[Elduran]

There is much evidence for a young Earth.

Evidence for Young Earth (when not mixed with lack of evidence)

Shrinking Sun
Receeding moon
Earth's helium in atmosphere.
salinity of oceans
population growth curve
oil pressure in rocks
Mississippi Delta growth
Niagra Fall's erosion
Earth's slowing rotation
Earth's magnetic field
meteoric dust (now under question)
Mud on ocean floor
Erosion of continents
Saturn's rings
Planets still cooling down
Comets
Spiral galaxies
Oldest desert (4,000 years old)
Oldest tree (4,300 years old, called the Methusalah tree. Spelt right?)
Oldest coral reef (4,200 years old)

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE HAS BEEN DISPROVED, and the evidence against all of them has been shown to you repeatedly. Stop ignoring the evidence and admit that in terms of scicence you are completely wrong on ALL of these points.

If we were on a committee and 4 people voted to reject a law, yet 19 out of the 24 were in favor of the law, with one person undecided, would you reject the law? Or would you pass the law. Hint: Majority rules in this case.

Science is not democratic. In any case, more scientists oppose your view than support it, so I guess your ad populum type of argument is a bit silly, isn't it?

 

[GodsSamus]

Hey GodsSamus, I remember posting in a thread where you posted the exact same list and I said that there were things on the list that were wrong. You said show it and you'd stop using it, so I gave a brief explanation why the moon thing was wrong. You dropped off and never came back to the topic. Well, right now, I don't have time to search for it, heck, I might not be able to find it (very bad search function).

However, what if I did find it? You have a chance to be intellectually honest and remove the moon recession, or you can be shown to be intellectually dishonest and leaving it the same. It's your choice. Later, when I have more time, I plan to search for it, and you can rely on the chance I don't find it, or you can take the first step by removing it.

(if anyone knows how to search for every message you've posted that would be helpful. All I remember is I used the word moon, linear, gravity, and squared but nothing is showing up in the search)

One problem with YOUR logic is the inverse-square law. If you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the gravitational pull between them. If the moon was closer, tides would go up further. 70 million years ago, the Earth would be covered with a global flood twice a day from this fact. 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would touch the Earth.

Btw, to locate all my posts, go to my profile and click on view all posts by Godssamus.

 

[Elduran]

A 4,300 year old desert's pretty old. But I have a question: why isn't there an older desert somewhere in the world if the Earth's 4.6 billion years old and life's 3 billion years old, assuming Noah's flood, if it occured, was a local one? I have a theory. The Earth's 6,000 years old and the flood was global. Therefore, I expect the oldest desert to be less than 4,400 years old. *Gasp* It is!

Oldest civillisations are older than that and never noticed a global flood.

*gasp* your "global flood" can't have been all that global!

 

[GodsSamus]

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE HAS BEEN DISPROVED, and the evidence against all of them has been shown to you repeatedly. Stop ignoring the evidence and admit that in terms of scicence you are completely wrong on ALL of these points.




Science is not democratic. In any case, more scientists oppose your view than support it, so I guess your ad populum type of argument is a bit silly, isn't it?

They've been disproven on a LACK of evidence. I have yet to see a good refutation for ONE of them. Besides, many scientists reject Evolutionism. Look up Creationist scientists to prove this claim.

Besides, all the dating methods showing the Earth to be OLD are the ones that have been destroyed by the evidence. (Possibly not the Varves, but 1 dating method doesn't prove anything).

Radiometric dating assumes a constant decay rate, no daughter atoms present to begin with, and no mother or daughter atoms added, all of which are unprovable.

As to the disproving my dating methods, disprove ONE of them.

 

[GodsSamus]

Oldest civillisations are older than that and never noticed a global flood.

*gasp* your "global flood" can't have been all that global!

Oh, no. They DID notice it. The Chinese calendar says this is the year 4390.

 

[Elduran]

One problem with YOUR logic is the inverse-square law. If you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the gravitational pull between them. If the moon was closer, tides would go up further. 70 million years ago, the Earth would be covered with a global flood twice a day from this fact. 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would touch the Earth.

Btw, to locate all my posts, go to my profile and click on view all posts by Godssamus.

One problem with your logic is the inverse square law. According to the inverse square law, the centripetal force required to keep the moon in position greatly increases as the distance decreases. Because of this, the velocity of the moon must have decreased if your "moon loss" argument is true. However, since space is frictionless, the moon must actually have been slowed down by an external force. Since no external force is in evidence, it stands to reason that your moon argument is pure rubbish.

 

[Elduran]

Oh, no. They DID notice it. The Chinese calendar says this is the year 4390.

And the EGYPTIAN one?

 

[notto]

A 4,300 year old desert's pretty old. But I have a question: why isn't there an older desert somewhere in the world if the Earth's 4.6 billion years old and life's 3 billion years old, assuming Noah's flood, if it occured, was a local one? I have a theory. The Earth's 6,000 years old and the flood was global. Therefore, I expect the oldest desert to be less than 4,400 years old. *Gasp* It is!

And when we find deserts buried under what is not currently desert or we find that the current deserts weren't always desert, your theory doesn't hold up to evidence. *Gasp* - reality!

 

[random_guy]

Oh oh. Time for a head shot.

For the listening to God, He will answer, "No, you never listened to Me. I told you I never used Evolution. Add up the chronologies in the Bible, and you get 6,000 years, and Jesus said man was at the BEGINNING of time."

The evidence, let's see. Hmmm. How about:

Earth's magnetic field
Oil in rocky crust
Moon's recession
Shrinking Sun
Earth's slowing rotation
Salinity of oceans
Fossils on top of mountain tops
Lack of evidence Grand Canyon formed over millions of years
Saturn's unstable rings
Less than 300 supernova rings in space
Planets still cooling
Comets still flying in space
Population curve
Meteoric dust
Mississippi River's erosion
Niagra Fall's erosion


As to the jury duty, we can't know for sure, but we can be REASONABLY sure. If the probability of his innocence is less than 1 in 1 in 1,000, he is guilty in my opinion.

GodSamus, that entire list has been refuted before. If I show you one on the list is false, will you concede that you put up a bad list? Would you actually look at what you posted and put some thought behind it? Or would you ignore everything and continue to post other PRATTs?

Show me one on the list that is false. Just one, though. I want to be able to respond.

Moon Recession:

Creationists use a linear formula to calculate the recession distance from the moon to the Earth. However, since the strength of gravity is inversely proportional to the distance squared this screws up their calculation. They're modelling the recession wrong. This is just using high school physics and math.

(Any physics people out there, please correct me if I'm wrong. I kind of did this one off the top of my head)

Okay, now your turn.

This is where you never replied again in the thread. It takes you another thread to finally respond, and only because I called you on it. So much for honesty.

However, even then, your reply is still wrong.

One problem with YOUR logic is the inverse-square law. If you half the distance between two objects, you quadruple the gravitational pull between them. If the moon was closer, tides would go up further. 70 million years ago, the Earth would be covered with a global flood twice a day from this fact. 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would touch the Earth.

Btw, to locate all my posts, go to my profile and click on view all posts by Godssamus.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed.

Again, you use a linear model to model a non-linear model. You, like Barnes, assume that the moon close to the Earth by taking the present recession rate and multiplying by the age of the Earth and using that as the distance. Using a correct model, though, the moon would never start out that close. The inverse square law, the moon would start out receeding slower, and it's recession would speed up as it gets father away. That's why it's as far as it is now.

 

[GodsSamus]

One problem with your logic is the inverse square law. According to the inverse square law, the centripetal force required to keep the moon in position greatly increases as the distance decreases. Because of this, the velocity of the moon must have decreased if your "moon loss" argument is true. However, since space is frictionless, the moon must actually have been slowed down by an external force. Since no external force is in evidence, it stands to reason that your moon argument is pure rubbish.

Ah, but if the moon is further away by a couple of centimeters every year, the slow rate is attributable, not to God or the supernatural, but to the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Earth pulls on the moon, but the moon still receedes. This will cause it to slow down. Besides, if the Earth is 6,000 years old, as I believe, this is no problem because the speed of the moon's orbit would be extended only a couple hours, which you won't notice if the moon's cycle is 29.5 days. In reality YOU have the problem. The moon would have stopped spinning if it slowed down it's recession over billions of years. Btw, according to the Bible, Revelation says the skies shall be rolled back as a scroll, and the Sun, Moon, and stars will fall on Earth. Thus, the moon's recession and slowing fits PERFECTLY with the Bible scientifically.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

How about you take a crack at the quiet thread then GS. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15844232&postcount=29

 

[GodsSamus]

Oh oh. Time for a head shot.









This is where you never replied again in the thread. It takes you another thread to finally respond, and only because I called you on it. So much for honesty.

However, even then, your reply is still wrong.





Again, you use a linear model to model a non-linear model. You, like Barnes, assume that the moon close to the Earth by taking the present recession rate and multiplying by the age of the Earth and using that as the distance. Using a correct model, though, the moon would never start out that close. The inverse square law, the moon would start out receeding slower, and it's recession would speed up as it gets father away. That's why it's as far as it is now.

Lol. We know that. As it gets closer, it receedes less. So far, there's no problem with this fact. Except to the Evolutionists.

Btw, whoever asked if I would still use PRATTs, your refutations are based on a LACK of evidence, therefore, there's no danger in them.

 

[nvxplorer]

Btw, according to the Bible, Revelation says the skies shall be rolled back as a scroll, and the Sun, Moon, and stars will fall on Earth. Thus, the moon's recession and slowing fits PERFECTLY with the Bible scientifically.

*rubs eyes* *shakes head* *rubs eyes again*

Did you just spout the words "rolled back as a scroll" and "scientifically" in the same breath?

 

[Elduran]

Ah, but if the moon is further away by a couple of centimeters every year, the slow rate is attributable, not to God or the supernatural, but to the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Earth pulls on the moon, but the moon still receedes. This will cause it to slow down. Besides, if the Earth is 6,000 years old, as I believe, this is no problem because the speed of the moon's orbit would be extended only a couple hours, which you won't notice if the moon's cycle is 29.5 days. In reality YOU have the problem. The moon would have stopped spinning if it slowed down it's recession over billions of years. Btw, according to the Bible, Revelation says the skies shall be rolled back as a scroll, and the Sun, Moon, and stars will fall on Earth. Thus, the moon's recession and slowing fits PERFECTLY with the Bible scientifically.

I could have predicted that you would completely misunderstand my point. I'll spell it out in even simpler terms

If the moon is orbiting the earth at a specific distance, it has a fixed velocity. there is only one variable in this equation because fo the necessity of balancing the centripetal force (F = mv^2/r) and the gravitational force (F = GMm/r^2).

If you solve these equations to eliminate F (which presumable you are capable of doing if you consider yourself knowledgable to discuss this subject) then you can obtain an equation relating v to r.

If you take a fixed orbital distance and decrease the velocity, the orbiting body (i.e. the moon) falls to the larger mass (i.e. the earth). If you increase the orbital distance, you must decrease the velocity in order to remain stable. Here is your problem: decreasing the velocity causes the moon to drop, yet you must decrease the velocity to move to a higher orbit. Contradition?

Presumably you have a way to explain this apparent problem away?