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

[Orogeny]

I know that you are looking at these numbers in a relative manner, but friend, 1-5 million years is a long time to be wrong. Like I say, I understand that those with a scientific mind look at these numbers and say, "Oh, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to 357 million years and I would agree 100% that 5 million compared to 357 million in understanding the length of time is just a blink, but I'm not really interested in these numbers as a comparison and for me personally, even if you're looking at a period 347 million years ago, to be wrong by as much as 5 million years regarding the dating of something, is a very long, long time.

Ted, what you are apparently failing to recognize is that the dates overlap. It is important to understand that if a date is, say, 400Ma +/- 5Ma, the date isn't necessarily wrong by 5Ma. What we are saying with this terminology is that it is most likely that the mineral being dated formed within 5 million years of 400 million years ago. We're not giving an exact date, we're giving the range of most likely dates.

The point that the young man was trying to make was that the dates he gave OVERLAP. This gives us even greater certainty that a particular range is valid. For example, if the ranges of the 3 techniques are represented by these three lines:

_________________________
____
__________________

then all three of the techniques agree on the range covered by the smallest line, so it is most likely that the mineral formed during this time. In other words, in the example he gave, all the techniques agreed on a 2 million year range. That range is less than 1% of the absolute age, which is a rather good margin of error indeed. It certainly isn't perfect, on this we agree, but less than 1% error is pretty close, and I think we can agree on that too.

 

[Orogeny]

I lean to a younger earth because I have seen how old age models throw out too much valid data that doesn't fit the old earth paradigm - data that does fit a younger earth model - both sides are guilty but the old agers have been more deliberate about their falsification - not current geologists but the founders of modern geology

Again with the accusations, and still with no evidence. Provide evidence that anybody, ANYBODY who accepts an old earth has 'thrown out' data, and show that this data is consistent with a young earth.

since that discovery I have found many other reasons to favor the younger earth model - but I don't put years on it - all of these reasons are found at young earth creation sites where it is acknowledged that more research is necessary

And what are these reasons, other than personal incredulity?

the jury is still out as far as I am concerned as an honest scientist

Honest you may be, but you have yet to prove yourself capable. One without the other is useless.

 

[Orogeny]

the rocks are the primary source!! go and look at the rocks!!!

Thousands-nay, millions- of geologists have done this very thing, and none of them has overturned the paradigm of an old earth, none of them has been able to convincingly show that the sedimentary column is the result of a worldwide flood. Just the opposite, in fact- the vast majority of them have accepted that the rock record indicates a very old earth with myriad depositional environments.

If you're convinced otherwise, provide the evidence refuting these paradigms. If it is valid and convincing, I will personally help you write it up for publication.

start looking at sediments w fossils in them - on location - out in the field - where you can make your own interpretations!!! look at the tons of petrified logs out there - always with the roots ripped off - and the billions of clams and small fish that had to have been rapidly buried alive

I do this all the time! I spent my weekend measuring section. Again, you assert the live burial of billions, nay, trillions of organisms, yet you've provided no evidence that this assertion is valid. Is it not possible that the organisms simply lived their lives, died of natural causes, and were buried? If not, why not? And why is catastrophic live burial of EVERY PRESERVED ORGANISM more reasonable than accepting that they died a natural death?

ask yourself what it would take to make such deposits!!

It would take a massive event to make the deposits you claim to observe, but they are deposits that neither I nor any geologist I've ever met has observed. What makes you right? Provide the evidence! My mind is open, I'm here to be proven wrong.

many creationist publications are out there and proceedings of creation conferences in hardbound volumes for anyone who wants to read them

obviously there is a wide range in these articles - but some are so compelling it made me change my thinking because they are right!!!!

If they are right, why do the vast majority of scientists, nearly all of the honest, intelligent people, utterly reject their claims?

give me an area you have access to and i will suggest some deposits to go look at if i can and i will look for relevant articles

I'll be driving through western and central Texas later this month. Luckily I will be in no rush, so I am more than happy to take detours and make stops. Provide me with both mainstream and creationist literature and I will find the appropriate outcrops to test each model.

 

[chris4243]

the rocks are the primary source!! go and look at the rocks!!!

That source shows the earth to be old, so I don't know why you point to a source that contradicts your claims.

many creationist publications are out there and proceedings of creation conferences in hardbound volumes for anyone who wants to read them

Any particular primary source you want to point out? Most creationist sources are exceedingly far removed from a primary source, so I don't care to sift through them to try to find one. Specifically, I was asking for a primary source for creatures buried alive.

 

[rubicontwentytwelve]

Could all the scientific evidence that says the earth is around 4.54 billion years old be wrong?

Is it possible that God used super natural methods to create everything and we are unable to measure these?

Is this the best science can do or are scientist blinded by satan to the possiblity that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

Doesn't the bible say that some people's minds are blinded?

The earth is BILLIONS of years old. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand the Bible. Genesis 1:1 is simply the renewing of the earth in preparation for man's creation, just as Noah's family repopulating it after the flood was a renewing. The earth's surface has been reduced to desolation and been renewed at least several times. how do I know this? God says...' there's NOTHING NEW under the sun...'. That means that everything that existed NOW existed BEFORE. Why haven't remains of such been found? Well, has man ventured to the botom of the oceans to search and excavate under 20,000 = feet of water?

Nope.

Has he excavated below the crust 10,000 feet?

Nope.

I recall when just thirty years ago it was taught that steam engines only came into being 200 - 300 years ago. Now its common knowledge that the ancient Romans and Greeks and others used them 2000 - 3000 + years ago.


The earth has been the sight of many creation periods and desolations as well. How many; the Bible isn't specific, only three are mentioned for sure.

Before Genesis 1:1, the Flood, and the one we are at the brink of presently just before Christ's return. Archeological history suggests quite a few i think, but, alas; there will always be those who believe God snapped his fingers and everything popped into existence as it is, without any experimentation or discovery periods.

And in doing so they DENY the very things that make Creation CREATION... the excitment and satifaction of trial and error, design, testing, redesign, retesting, and fianally IMPLEMENTATION.

God creates. What excitement and satisfaction is there in just "POPPING" things into existence? Do we KNOW that this is the methodology God used? Sure do...read Genesis, its all spelled out right there.... in the end God was SATISFIED with his work.

A master craftsman would NEVER be satisfied by simply snapping his fingers and having something materialize in its finished form. He would want to work it and finess it.

As far as HOW he did it, energy can manipulate both matter and energy. Matter on the other hand for the most part can only manipulate matter. Elements fused together and altered with energy have the potential to become charged with that energy and therefore become an existence between the two.

Its really quite simple to understand if one considers it. Flesh isn't quite material, nor is it quite energy. Its inbetween. Man can CLONE and grow organs...but he can not CREATE them out of sand, water, oxygen, minerals, and dirt.

That takes the infusion and manipulation by energy. And what IS that energy, and can I PROVE it exists?

YOU are ALIVE are you not? WHAT IS L I F E if not PURE energy? What happens when LIFE is removed from something material? It dies does it not? so theres your proof. LIFE is the energy God uses to manipulate material into flesh and other building 'materials'.

 

[Keachian]

Angelic Gap has no scriptural basis, I keep asking for some and continually get disappointed

 

[Assyrian]

the rocks are the primary source!! go and look at the rocks!!!
start looking at sediments w fossils in them - on location - out in the field - where you can make your own interpretations!!! look at the tons of petrified logs out there - always with the roots ripped off

Here is one from the Joggins Formation in Nova Scotia


You can find a tree with roots from Yellowstone here:
Specimen Ridge

Check out the petrified forest on the island of Lesbos (Lesvos)
Petrified tree & roots, a photo from Lesvos, North Aegean | TrekEarth
"Petrified Forest of Lesvos" Personal Page by hrestos1

 

[valkyree]

Time.


.

time does NO geologic work

most geologic work is done by WATER


a little bit of water will do a little bit of geologic work

a lot of water will do a lot of geologic work


regarding earths sediments - the question is whether earth has seen a lot of water do a lot of work in a short period of time - the creation/global flood model

or if earth has seen smaller amounts of water do less geologic over greater amounts of time - the uniformitarian/evolutionary model


most geologists only consider the latter model - but that does not necassarily make them correct - they are only correct if the rocks agree with them



uniformitarian/evolutionary based geological doctrine overemphasizes great lengths of time to the point that you did not even know how to answer one of the most basic questions of geology

this obsession with great lengths of time has destroyed historical geology and a real quest for what has happened on earth thru it's history

 

[valkyree]

What is this contrast, and what does it have to do with a global flood?


.

nothing from the perspective of the uniformitarian old earth model


but if radiometric dating is invalid (which it may be - yet to be determined) and the earth is younger rather than older - then from the perspective of a younf earth/global flood model earth's mountain ranges fall into two categories -

the older mountains of the pre-flood earth (Appalachia/Greenland/Norway/Scotland/Caledonides and W Australia/S Africa and Brazil/W Africa) that have been subjected to the damage the flood and accompanying events caused - when today's continents are put back together as they would have been before the Atlantic opened up the connection between all of these ranges is apparent - they could have all been eroded and split apart at the same time

and the younger mountain ranges (Cordillera and Himalaya) could all be about the same age and have formed farther out from the center of rupture (Atlantic rift) as the effects of this first rupture spread across the rest of the planet and sea floor was thrust up - Alps don't quite fit the model

it's just a general model - don't nit-pick - i know it's not perfect

 

[valkyree]

Yes. Old mountain ranges tend to be in tectonically quiescent areas, while younger mountain ranges tend to be in orogenic provinces. What is your point?



.

there is no point if you use the slow old earth model

but if you use a young earth-global flood model it may be showing a single spectacular series of events that cracked the crust of the earth in the middle of earth's single continent, spread the pieces of that continent far apart while simultaneously causing a series of other cracks to form around the globe and new mountain ranges to form simultaneously - as well as all the geologic work due to the flood waters which caused a short time later to be deposited en masse a great pile of sediments upon and up aganist the new continents as those waters receded into newly formed deeper ocean basins ........... you get the picture

 

[valkyree]

If I did, what insight into geological processes would they provide that the last 200 years of geological inquiry have not?


.

using the old earth model nothing

but by using a younger earth/global flood model ancient history is validated

most significantly hundreds of flood legends in hundreds of different cultures become real and not just something to laugh at or wonder where the heck they all came from

the fact we have no history beyond a few thousand years makes sense

it is corraborative evidence to invalidate an old earth

some ancient locations may represent pre-flood cultures

the meaning of the fossil record completely changes - all plants and animals co-existed just like the Bible says they did

the preponderance of very large animals and plants in the fossil record tells us something was very unusual about the pre-flood earth

all the oil/gas/coal/oil shale/etc that is found in great abundance all over the planet was deposited within a short period of time and also tells us the pre-flood earth was very different than the post flood earth

uniformitarianism is invalidated - the past is allowed to be dramatically and drastically different than the present is

species to species evolution is invalidated - creation of species is validated



just to name a few

 

[valkyree]

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

the old age - uniformitarian model of the earth is hammered into every geologist's head

this hammering starts in grade school



the legitimate alternate model of a young earth and a global flood which asks compelling and important questions about earth's history that the old earth model does not ask is scoffed at and not, with few exceptions, presented at all



so no - this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black

 

[TasManOfGod]

The only thing old about the creation model is the age of the people before the Flood -up to 1000 years. Perhaps that might suggest that there was a significant enviromental change - not just some localised flooding.

 

[Keachian]

The only thing old about the creation model is the age of the people before the Flood -up to 1000 years. Perhaps that might suggest that there was a significant enviromental change - not just some localised flooding.

No, we are not having this ludicrous conversation in two threads. It is a ridiculous assumption based on the age of one man with no other scriptural evidence that the World was different before the flood.

 

[valkyree]

The only thing old about the creation model is the age of the people before the Flood -up to 1000 years. Perhaps that might suggest that there was a significant enviromental change - not just some localised flooding.

the longer life span of pre-flood man recorded in Genesis and elsewhere and the much larger size of so many species found in the fossil record
and the presence of much more lush vegetation before the flood as indicated by the global distribution of monstrous deposits of fossil fuels/coal/oil shale/etc are all indications of a pre-flood earth that was very different from the post-flood earth

the earth is in a much more degraded state now than it was before the global flood

 

[Incariol]

Does anyone know if valkyree was going to bother presenting scientific evidence of anything she has said at any point?

 

[Keachian]

Does anyone know if valkyree was going to bother presenting scientific evidence of anything she has said at any point?

Well the normal creationist stance is to not provide evidence, scriptural or scientific.

 

[valkyree]

Does anyone know if valkyree was going to bother presenting scientific evidence of anything she has said at any point?

yes I will - I have been bombarded w questions and am deciding which ones to take seriously

 

[Keachian]

the longer life span of pre-flood man recorded in Genesis and elsewhere and the much larger size of so many species found in the fossil record
and the presence of much more lush vegetation before the flood as indicated by the global distribution of monstrous deposits of fossil fuels/coal/oil shale/etc are all indications of a pre-flood earth that was very different from the post-flood earth

the earth is in a much more degraded state now than it was before the global flood

I don't really understand the reasoning in this post, you have made an assumption (preflood is different to postflood) and now you're using science to back it up, using what I assume to be dinosaurs, you also use fossil fuels. All to make it so that you can have a convoluted and shaky idea. Does anyone else want a razor?

 

[valkyree]

Here is one from the Joggins Formation in Nova Scotia


You can find a tree with roots from Yellowstone here:
Specimen Ridge

Check out the petrified forest on the island of Lesbos (Lesvos)
Petrified tree & roots, a photo from Lesvos, North Aegean | TrekEarth
"Petrified Forest of Lesvos" Personal Page by hrestos1

excellent pic - this is exactly what I am talking about - a large trunk w one lone root - no branches and no top - no bark - no root ball

the rest of the root ball is back at the place of origin

this is not an in situ tree! (actually in this case it's not even a tree - read more at link) but in most places they are trees

this trunk has been transported and tumbled removing the branches and the top and the bark

read more here and look at the pictures

Joggins, Nova Scotia - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I have >100,000 kb of articles w pics from all over the world - how do I condense it all down? what else do you want to know?

the same situation is seen all over the world

trees are often huge - original old growth

transported trees just like this one - both vertical and horizontal

waterlogged tree trunks w some root ball intack will float vertically in water w rootball down
those w/out root ball will lay horizontal

transported tumbled tree trunks were left floating in water or very wet mud at point of deposition when tons of volcanic ash rained down

they are all buried both vertically and horizontally in huge deposits of volcanic ash and sediments and often w huge animal bones and other vegetation and sometimes coal or oil

Specimen Ridge is same - those are not in situ - no roots - will try to find an excellent article on it

keep googling petrified wood - you will find amazing pictures - look at how thick the deposits are - huge events - lots of water and volcanic ash involved - excellent ones in Argentina


if you want a lot more info start a new thread on petrified wood and I will post links/pictures from all over the world - then you will see the pattern of how tons of water deposited all of these huge trees and all the other debris along w the trees