Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[KTatis]

If the Earth is 6,000 years old then Mars was created yesterday and threes a party on Jupiter every Friday celebrating the creation of its moon Io

 

[SkyWriting]

Well you did say that Adam was made with the appearance of age.

Please use the quote button when quoting me. Near the bottom of the page there is a button marked "QUOTE". It will accurately reproduce my exact words with which you may dispute and show how wrong I am. It's not sane for you to dispute your own words. Really.

 

[SkyWriting]

Send me a sample and we'll see. Are you suggesting that Jesus made some common wine like any other? Every single component produced by fermenting grapes even the bad tasting ones?

My analysis of Jesus's wine indicates that it was made by someone far superior to man since it has no radioactive carbon nor other radioisitopes indicating extreme age in the billions of years, yet no chemical decay damage indicating very recently made wine, also no methanol indicating it was removed via distillation, yet without removing the other flavorful volatile components again indicting advanced technology. This analysis based on uniformitarian age estimates.

So God creates things perfectly using advanced technology that results in higher quality Creations than
would normally be found in our environment?

That is an excellent answer that fits the story well. I don't agree that the story demands it,
but its a good fit with this passage. You may be right.

John 2:1-11 NIV - Jesus Changes Water Into Wine - On the - Bible Gateway

 

[SkyWriting]

If the Earth is 6,000 years old then Mars was created yesterday and there's a party on Jupiter every Friday celebrating the creation of its moon Io.

Scientists have 1000's of preconceived notions about space. What the planets and moons should look like, how they shroud behave etc. This is all based on the imagination of science-fiction-engineers. Instead of dispassionately looking at the facts first, then drawing conclusions (as they claim) they are very biased. This results in "Surprises". We call them facts. Science calls them surprises.

Dashing through the Snows of Io - NASA Science

NASA - Surprising Jupiter<br> Busy Galileo spacecraft showed jovian system is full of surprises.

Saturn Moon Rhea's Surprise: Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere | Space.com

Retrospective on Io

 

[chris4243]

Please use the quote button when quoting me. Near the bottom of the page there is a button marked "QUOTE". It will accurately reproduce my exact words with which you may dispute and show how wrong I am. It's not sane for you to dispute your own words. Really.

Well, sorry for assuming you remembered what you posted in the last few posts. Yes, you did say that God created things with an appearance of age:

I think it the Garden provided food and everything Adam needed. OK, the ladies were still missing. I think the Garden was a finished product for an adult Adam. And then God provided an another adult Eve. Everything God does appears "old" and ready for use. This is also true of everything Jesus did as well. So "Young Earth" is not a valid idea. God creates "old" because that what works. God isn't trying to "fool" anybody. A "young" earth isn't ready for use.

I understand that "Creation Scientists" are attempting to distance themselves from the old, natural idea of an ancient cosmos that births life all by itself. But we can't ignore the bible creating Adam and Eve as adults and the earth as a mature place, ready for habitation in 6 days. That's how it reads. Young earthers are listening to preachers, not God's actual words.

What exactly are you claiming for the properties of the cosmos after 6 days?
Is the earths crust.......what? Soft mud? If our Sun is 6 days old, are the gasses still gathering?

DOES your scenario say that the Cosmos would be 7 days old after Creation week?
It would all test out exactly 7 days old by modern scientists?

Because if you support a "Young Earth" then Creation week was all mushy rock,
soft crust and plants were all what? Still seeds?

See, I'm a strict biblical Creationist. I see the Creation week as an event that resulted
in a finished earth. Not soft rock, includes mountains, plants are already producing
fruit, etc. Science says that fruiting trees are more than 7 days old. So do the scriptures.
The scriptures point to an old earth at the end of Creation week. Young Earth believers
are not reading the scriptures literally or plainly enough.

We don't know much about the process of how God forms things
"out of nothing". We do know that the results seems already "aged"
and ready for use.

I don't think Adam or Eve had the normal problems that
newborns have the first week. So I don't think our system
of ascribing age to things tells the biblical story accurately.
The Bible shows an aged earth. Men came up with the 6000
years number. God didn't.

So let's try again. If Adam did not have false memories of the past including parents, would this not point to his sudden creation rather than give an appearance of age?

 

[chris4243]

So God creates things perfectly using advanced technology that results in higher quality Creations than
would normally be found in our environment?

That is an excellent answer that fits the story well. I don't agree that the story demands it,
but its a good fit with this passage. You may be right.

John 2:1-11 NIV - Jesus Changes Water Into Wine - On the - Bible Gateway

Glad you acknowledge uniformitarian age estimates to be accurate. Now can we get back to the question of where are the creationist age estimates and whether they have better accuracy than the currently accepted age estimates?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, sorry for assuming you remembered what you posted in the last few posts. Yes, you did say that God created things with an appearance of age:

You JUST can't help but rephrase my words. What you say, does not match what I said. Simple as that. I do not agree with your sentence:
"God created things with an appearance of age."

What God has created appears old to us humans.
I don't know if it IS old or not.
When Jesus healed people did He use "old" body parts or new ones?
I dunno how we would classify them. I don't think it matters.

So let's try again. If Adam did not have false memories of the past including parents, would this not point to his sudden creation rather than give an appearance of age?

We have few quotes from Adam.
None cover your area of knowledge in question.
He had the ability to speak, name things, and converse directly with God.
All abilities that usually come from good parenting.
He came from God, and the scriptures suggest he was the smartest man that has ever existed.
Humanities intelligence has been on the decline ever since.

 

[SkyWriting]

Glad you acknowledge uniformitarian age estimates to be accurate. Now can we get back to the question of where are the creationist age estimates and whether they have better accuracy than the currently accepted age estimates?

As usual, that's not what I said. I said your theory works well within the story parameters.
Scientifically proving a Creation event requires a repeatable experiment without
divine intervention. Not possible, so there are no such proofs.

Your analysis of the wine was pleasantly apt, but fails with miraculous
events like raising from the dead. Because the resurrected still die
in the end from natural causes. This says that purifying technology
was not used as in your possible wine example.

 

[valkyree]

Well I don't care if the creationist dating systems are less accurate than weather forecasts. That's why I use the uniformitarian dating systems, that are quite accurate and consistent (and give error ranges).

uniformitarianism says the present is the key to the past

but most geologic formations found on earth cannot be seen being formed in today's world

today's earth has way too many undersized rivers and streams for their channels, valleys or canyons and there is not not enough local flooding to kill so many billions of animals and plants AND rapidly bury them in such deep sediment - no small local flood will anything of the sort

and radiometric dating always averages of several age dates - many of which are very far apart - that is not accurate or consistent - it is meaningless

 

[valkyree]

Now can we get back to the question of where are the creationist age estimates and whether they have better accuracy than the currently accepted age estimates?

catastrophic events are clearly seen all over the earth in it's sediments

billions of animals and plants cannot be rapidly buried inside thick accumulations of sediment slowly over millions of years - there is no mechanism for that

creating millions of years in between supposed separate events does not change the nature of earth's sediments - something cataclysmic happened on earth in order to rapidly deposit so much sediment and bury so many billions of live creatures


as long as the story of a fabricated succession of slow events is repeated over and over again and an unproveable old-earth paradigm is used along with a not-too-careful look at the sediments then one can be fooled into believing the doctrine of uniformitarianism (the foundational premise of modern old-earth geology)

 

[chris4243]

and radiometric dating always averages of several age dates - many of which are very far apart - that is not accurate or consistent - it is meaningless

Terrible as you may think it is, you have yet to offer any more accurate alternative. Do you acknowledge radiometric dating as the most accurate dating system we know?

 

[miamited]

hi chris,

Sorry to jump in here, but I felt compelled to ask something about your post. You wrote: Do you acknowledge radiometric dating as the most accurate dating system we know?

That's not a particularly fair question. Let's suppose that it is the most accurate dating system that we know, and yet it is still 50 million years 'off'. Let's suppose that it is the most accurate dating system we know for dating things since the last 4,000 years, but for whatever reason beyond that it's no more accurate than waving a 'magic' wand and taking a good guess.

Is it fair then to condemn those who see these problems and therefore refuse to accept what the 'truth' of radiometric dating says in areas in which there is no way to 'prove' its reliability. Let's face it the only way we can really, positively be assured that nothing has changed that might make a dating method correct or incorrect is to have someone to go to that we can say, "Look, we dated this rock to be 50 million years old and since you were alive then can you confirm that? Did you see this rock that wasn't here 51 million years ago and then came into existence 50 million years ago?

Friend, I'm sorry and I know that you'll be inclined to refuse what I'm saying, but we have no assurance whatsoever that the foundations upon which such measurements rest upon have always been constant. None!!!

It's the same with the stars in the night sky. We are taught and many, many people believe that because light travels at a given speed, it must therefore be true that any star we see in the night sky must have at least been there as long as it would take for light waves to travel the great distance from where they are to our eyes. However, for me, the Scriptures say that God put the stars in the heavens to be as signs to tell the times and seasons. I, therefore, must believe that God wanted them seen immediately for men to be able to use them for their intended purpose. I also believe that when God said, "Let there be stars in the heavens..." He has the power to not only have near instantaneously created those huge stars and other heavenly bodies, but also has the power that for that instant and that moment and that purpose, He could also have also stretched the light rays emitted by each of them all across the entire universe in that moment and then the subsequent light began to travel at the speed we now know.

It's called a miracle and the very definition of a miracle is that it in not provable by scientific, natural, logical processes.

Further, just because one believes some process to be inaccurate or unsuitable is not proved or disproved by their not having a suitable alternative. I can believe that radiometric dating is inaccurate and I can be correct about that whether or not I am able to provide an alternative.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[valkyree]

good honest reasoning miamited

Terrible as you may think it is, you have yet to offer any more accurate alternative. Do you acknowledge radiometric dating as the most accurate dating system we know?

NO I do not

There is no accurate age dating system for earth and I don't share the obsession others have with trying to determine earth's age

A true and honest scientist will not overlook unproveable and questionable assumptions (such as those setting the foundation for radiometric dating) and will keep an open mind

Other factors are at play wrt the age of the earth - such as the desire of arrogant men to be free of the burden of being accountable to a higher power or a creator

Continents full of flood sediments and billions of dead animals and plants and thousands of feet of ocean mud full of dead sea life recently pushed up as high as 29,000 feet in our highest mountain ranges and ocean basins with very little sediment in them tell me the earth has seen cataclysm by tons of water in the not so distant past

Yet all mainstream historical geology sources ignore this most obvious fact and obsess on an unproveable ancient earth - they have reasons other than the accurate age of the earth for doing so

 

[Incariol]

Continents full of flood sediments and billions of dead animals and plants and thousands of feet of ocean mud full of dead sea life recently pushed up as high as 29,000 feet in our highest mountain ranges and ocean basins with very little sediment in them tell me the earth has seen cataclysm by tons of water in the not so distant past

Yet all mainstream historical geology sources ignore this most obvious fact and obsess on an unproveable ancient earth - they have reasons other than the accurate age of the earth for doing so

You've never heard of plate tectonics?

 

[Papias]

valkyree wrote:

and radiometric dating always averages of several age dates - many of which are very far apart - that is not accurate or consistent - it is meaningless

Um, do you have a source for this, where an age was presented as accurate after being obtained by averaging dates that were "very far apart"? The expected response is to exaggerate how far apart they are. For instance, if three dating methods give

Dating method 1: age = 344 +or – 4 million years
Dating method 2: age = 347 + or – 5 million years
Dating method 3: age = 345 + or - 1 million years


would you say they "agree" or "are different by millions of years"? I think it is obvious to anyone that these dates "agree", and that it is misleading to imply that they are inconsistent with each other.

Other factors are at play wrt the age of the earth - such as the desire of arrogant men to be free of the burden of being accountable to a higher power or a creator

*sigh*. The fact that the earth is old was established before the mid-1800s, before radioactivity was discovered. The old earth was established by geologists who were Christians themselves (even ministers), within an assumed framework of Christianity. To assert that the realization that the earth is at least millions of years old was done "to be free of the burden of being accountable to a higher power or a creator" shows an appalling ignorance of Christian history. Are you familiar with the Rev. Adam Sedgewick?

Overall, the fact of an old earth was established by Christians, for Christians, within a Christian worldview. For Christians today to argue against an old earth makes us look as silly as the flat-earthers. It also requires one to ignore not just radioactive dating, but many other methods, which confirm each other, and to parade that ignorace as if it were a requirement of being Christian. Any serious discussion of the age of the earth by an old-earth denier needs to start with this question:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

Papias

 

[valkyree]

Terrible as you may think it is, you have yet to offer any more accurate alternative. Do you acknowledge radiometric dating as the most accurate dating system we know?

No as I said above - but I do acknowledge relative ages of earth rocks and some rocks are clearly older than others


the Caledonides/Appalachians/mtns of Greenland-Scotland-Norway are all pieces of the same old mtn range split apart during the flood by the rifting and opening of the Atlantic Ocean

and the old cratons of S Africa and Australia share the same lithology (rock types) and are clearly older rocks

and the original mountain range of Nevada which has now been split apart by rifting into several parallel old stubs of it's former glory is an older mtn range

the Brazilian craton is old

and there are other locations of older rocks

these all represent pre-flood rocks


the entire Cordillera running from Alaska to Patagonia is young

the Alps are young

and the Himalaya are young

these all represent post-flood mtn ranges

 

[valkyree]

You've never heard of plate tectonics?

the breaking of earth's thin cooling crust into plates was part of the cataclysm called the great flood

great uplift of the Cordillera and Alps and Himalaya putting mud and fossils as high as 29,000 feet abover sea level and collapse of parts of the ocean basins accompanied the series of events known to hundreds of cultures as the great flood

these hundreds of flood stories are all recollections of the same event - an event so cataclysmic it was worthy of remembering

the slow plate movement we see today is remnant plate movement from this cataclysmic event

 

[valkyree]

valkyree wrote:




Um, do you have a source for this, where an age was presented as accurate after being obtained by averaging dates that were "very far apart"? The expected response is to exaggerate how far apart they are. For instance, if three dating methods give

Dating method 1: age = 344 +or – 4 million years
Dating method 2: age = 347 + or – 5 million years
Dating method 3: age = 345 + or - 1 million years


would you say they "agree" or "are different by millions of years"? I think it is obvious to anyone that these dates "agree", and that it is misleading to imply that they are inconsistent with each other.





Papias

I know sometimes the dates are considered too far apart to be valid -

and I know at other times numbers that are too far apart are still used -

millions in grant money from the govt is at stake as well as professor's jobs (they are all under pressure to publish) and a little or a lot of fudging of the numbers to get the desired result happens all the time

an old earth is important to people for many reasons other than the true and honest pursuit of earth's past

 

[valkyree]

valkyree wrote:





*sigh*. The fact that the earth is old was established before the mid-1800s, before radioactivity was discovered. The old earth was established by geologists who were Christians themselves (even ministers), within an assumed framework of Christianity. To assert that the realization that the earth is at least millions of years old was done "to be free of the burden of being accountable to a higher power or a creator" shows an appalling ignorance of Christian history. Are you familiar with the Rev. Adam Sedgewick?

Overall, the fact of an old earth was established by Christians, for Christians, within a Christian worldview. For Christians today to argue against an old earth makes us look as silly as the flat-earthers. It also requires one to ignore not just radioactive dating, but many other methods, which confirm each other, and to parade that ignorace as if it were a requirement of being Christian. Any serious discussion of the age of the earth by an old-earth denier needs to start with this question:

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

Papias

have you age dated anything?

do you know anyone who has age dated anything?

have you ever been under the pressure to publish what agrees w mainstream academic thought even though you know it requires you to fudge the data and be dishonest?

have you looked at earth's sedimentary deposits?

do you know what is required to break-up and pulverize great volumes of rock and then round it all and put it thru a sorting process so that great volumes of fine-grained mud are left in some spots of earth and huge deserts of well-rounded sand grains of uniform size are found in other spots?

there is only one mechanism on earth that can do such a thing - huge movements of blocks of earth's crust accompanied by huge volumes of moving water

have you looked at the rocks of earth's mountain ranges to see the stark contrast between the younger ranges and the older ranges?

have you looked at the relative locations of earth's old mtn ranges and the younger mtn ranges?

have you read any of the few remaining ancient texts of history?


you are repeating what has been hammered into your head

 

[valkyree]

. Any serious discussion of the age of the earth by an old-earth denier needs to start with this question:

"why do the various dating methods (including
C14,
K-Ar,
varves,
dendrochronology,
ice cores,
obsidian,
protein racecimization,
speleotherms,
superposition,
geologic event dating,
geomagnetic polarity,
Pb/U, association,
Rb/St, and others),
agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

Papias

relative age dating of rocks is valid - age of one deposit/formation v age of another deposit/formation

absolute age dating may or may not be valid - until the assumptions involved can be proven absolute age dating will remain of questionable value

the methods you have listed are all used for different purposes by different people studying different subjects of different ages - each one has it's own assumptions that may or may not be correct - sometimes two methods may agree and sometimes they may not - that agreement may or may not be valid