I am now a YEC

[RichardT]

the old age creation(or evolution ) theory uses circular reasonning to guess the age of the earth, and with that , they calculate the age of fossils and for where the fossils are suppiosed to be on the strata level.

The strata level is supposed to calculate the age of fosils , and fossils are supposed to calculate the strata level that there in. ..

Hold on, im trying to understand everything myself and I might be terribly wrong about everything, I will edit...

im sure that there is some kind of logical error with this whole theory...

 

[random_guy]

the old age creation(or evolution ) theory uses circular reasonning to guess the age of the earth, and with that , they calculate the age of fossils and for where the fossils are suppiosed to be on the strata level.

The strata level is supposed to calculate the age of fosils , and fossils are supposed to calculate the strata level that there in. ..

Hold on, im trying to understand everything myself and I might be terribly wrong about everything, I will edit...

im sure that there is some kind of logical error with this whole theory...

You might want to check up on the differences between the Theory of Evolution, and geology, the study of the planet. Next, you might also want to study what index fossils actually are and how radioactive dating works. There's no circular reasoning. What we have is different dating methods converging to the same values.

 

[Micaiah]

Why did you make the change? Was it because you became convinced that the YEC position is more scientifically correct, or because you believe it is what Scripture teaches. I am you embraced what YEC's say about origins, because it is plainly what God intended. At times you may find arguments from evolutionists that sound convincing. They may know a lot more than you about science. I would encourage you to hold on to God's truth in spite of those arguments - and keep searching for scientific truth. In the end we can be confident that there will be no difference between what Scripture teaches about origins, and what true science discovers.

 

[shernren]

I am you embraced what YEC's say about origins, because it is plainly what God intended.

And what does that intend to say about TEs? No prizes for guessing.

the old age creation(or evolution ) theory uses circular reasonning to guess the age of the earth, and with that , they calculate the age of fossils and for where the fossils are suppiosed to be on the strata level.

The strata level is supposed to calculate the age of fosils , and fossils are supposed to calculate the strata level that there in. ..

Hold on, im trying to understand everything myself and I might be terribly wrong about everything, I will edit...

im sure that there is some kind of logical error with this whole theory...

Any specific examples / falsifications you can show us? Where have you been hearing this (junk ) anyway? One crucial measurement of the age of the earth is through isochron dating of meteorite fragments that fall to earth. The meteorite fragments fall very nicely along an isochron line, and the Earth falls very well on that line too, and the line itself has a slope that points to the age of the Solar System as being approx. 4-5 billion years. This method of dating is not circular by your defintion since no fossils were involved, only pure radiometric dating.

 

[RichardT]

And what does that intend to say about TEs? No prizes for guessing.



Any specific examples / falsifications you can show us? Where have you been hearing this (junk ) anyway? One crucial measurement of the age of the earth is through isochron dating of meteorite fragments that fall to earth. The meteorite fragments fall very nicely along an isochron line, and the Earth falls very well on that line too, and the line itself has a slope that points to the age of the Solar System as being approx. 4-5 billion years. This method of dating is not circular by your defintion since no fossils were involved, only pure radiometric dating.

can you show me how radiometric dating works anyway ? im pretty sure that its impossible to guess that the earth is that old using the carbon's half life..

 

[random_guy]

can you show me how radiometric dating works anyway ? im pretty sure that its impossible to guess that the earth is that old using the carbon's half life..

You're right. Carbon only has a half life of some thousand years. Because of this, there's be too little carbon left to record after a billion years (plus C14 dating only works with once living creatures, I believe).

Geologists use radioactive isotopes with longer half-lifes in order to date the Earth. You can check out this site for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

I think it's pretty well written as it goes over the history of calculating the age of the Earth and gives an honest opinion on accuracy and problems with the methods. You'll notice that there's nothing circular going on, and that the Age of the Earth was considered far older than 10k before the theory of evolution was formed, and how the age was constantly updated and changed due to new scientific evidence.

That's just how science works.

 

[RichardT]

You're right. Carbon only has a half life of some thousand years. Because of this, there's be too little carbon left to record after a billion years (plus C14 dating only works with once living creatures, I believe).

Geologists use radioactive isotopes with longer half-lifes in order to date the Earth. You can check out this site for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

I think it's pretty well written as it goes over the history of calculating the age of the Earth and gives an honest opinion on accuracy and problems with the methods. You'll notice that there's nothing circular going on, and that the Age of the Earth was considered far older than 10k before the theory of evolution was formed, and how the age was constantly updated and changed due to new scientific evidence.

That's just how science works.

is there a possibility that an advancement in science can prove a young earth ?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

is there a possibility that an advancement in science can prove a young earth ?

Probably not. To do so, one would need to find an alternate explaination for multiple lines of evidence that is consistent.

 

[RichardT]

Probably not. To do so, one would need to find an alternate explaination for multiple lines of evidence that is consistent.

tell me what this evidence is...

 

[S Walch]

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Radiometric dating isn't as accurate as most people here are trying to make out.

 

[random_guy]

tell me what this evidence is...

Well, evidence against a 10000 year old Earth is alot. Radioactive dating of all isotopes point against this, lack of any natural short half-life radioactive isotopes on Earth point against it, ice cores, tree ring, varves, sediment formation, anthropology, etc...

All of it point against a 10k year old Earth. While they may not all point towards a 4.5 billion year old Earth, they all point to an older Earth. Whatever scientific discovery we find must somehow show all of this is wrong. This is why science rarely finds a falsified theory to be true.

Remember that many of the dating techniques are independent of evolution, they are done by other scientists like geologists, chemists, and physists. If there's a conspiracy to hide a young Earth, every scientific discipline would have to be on it, as well as every single University.

 

[john crawford]

im sure that there is some kind of logical error with this whole theory...

All YEC's are automatically qualified for, and classified as, in the Neanderthal Club, as Caucasian descendents of Neanderthal people like Noah and his natural decendents whose longevity on earth is recorded as exceeding more than 200 years.

 

[gluadys]

All YEC's are automatically qualified for, and classified as, in the Neanderthal Club, as Caucasian descendents of Neanderthal people like Noah and his natural decendents whose longevity on earth is recorded as exceeding more than 200 years.

Do you have evidence unknown to science that any H. sapiens are descendants of H. neanderthalensis?

 

[shernren]

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Radiometric dating isn't as accurate as most people here are trying to make out.

And a site which tells us that we need a sample with either a zero or a known amount of daughter atoms is obviously not telling us about isochron dating. Sigh.

Talk.Origins is a good place to learn about creation/evolution.

 

[john crawford]

Do you have evidence unknown to science that any H. sapiens are descendants of H. neanderthalensis?

What makes you assume that all evidence must be scientific in order to claim biological ancestry and descent from Neanderthals like Noah and his three sons and their wives? Are you a supporter of neo-Darwinist race theories of all human descent from African people or common ancestors of African monkeys and apes? If so, what right do you have to impose such racist theories on Jewish, Christian and Islamic descendents of the ancestors of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What makes you assume that all evidence must be scientific in order to claim biological ancestry and descent from Neanderthals like Noah and his three sons and their wives? Are you a supporter of neo-Darwinist race theories of all human descent from African people or common ancestors of African monkeys and apes? If so, what right do you have to impose such racist theories on Jewish, Christian and Islamic descendents of the ancestors of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

I'm a gentile Christian. I highly doubt that I am a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[gluadys]

What makes you assume that all evidence must be scientific in order to claim biological ancestry and descent from Neanderthals like Noah and his three sons and their wives?

So the answer to my question was obviously "no". Now do you have any non-scientific evidence that Noah was a Neanderthal?

 

[Scholar in training]

I am you embraced what YEC's say about origins, because it is plainly what God intended.

Please support your assertion with background data indicating that the creation account is intended to be read as factual science. Nothing written in a high-context society, if you know what that is, is "plain".

I'm a gentile Christian. I highly doubt that I am a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Not literally, but in a sense God-fearing Gentiles do belong to the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).

 

[billwald]

>Radiometric dating isn't as accurate as most people here are trying to make out.

"Scientific" measuring, most all mechanical measuring for that matter, specificies limits of accuracy.

 

[AndrewinIdaho]

This is a good website to look up objections on radiocarbon dating ect. www.contenderministries.org