Do you think they would of be able to test things back then like they can now?
Obviously our ability to test hypotheses is much greater today than in biblical days.
Also, you have not shown me any studies or evidence all you have given me is your word, which isn't enough.
Oh, didn't know you wanted that. Since I was speaking of 18th-19th century science (when the earth was first shown to be old) what you need is something on the history of geology.
And since it is related to faith, a history of geology as it relates to faith would seem to be suitable.
Here is one that is on-line and if you want more detail you can get the book it is based on.
History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth
I would also recommend browsing through the threads indexed here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2580923/
While it is a mixed bag, many of these posts are well-researched and lead to further references.
In the second post I recommend especially the two threads on Biogeography by Frumious Bandersnatch and in the third post Jet's Black's articles on the laws of physics and chalk deposits and both articles by Glenn Morton.
Saw another post of yours I hadn't responded to earlier, but I will do so now.
It sounds like some christians are trying to stretch the bible to conform to science, instead of stretching science to conform to the bible.
If a scientist believes a 6,000 year old earth is impossible they don't focus on it at all. It is not a goal of theirs.
I think absolute dating is the key to determining the true age of rocks. Are there conditions that could affect the absolute dating processes?
Could the atmosphere been different in the first few days of creation than it is now?
A good Christian source on all things radiometric is Radiometric Dating by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
Radiometric Dating
Short answer to your questions: there are very few conditions that affect the dating process and none of them exist (or ever have existed) on earth. They occur only in the heart of stars.
Yes, the atmosphere of earth not only could be different, but was very different in its initial stages, but this would not affect radioisotope dating.
Could God have super naturally sped up the processes that naturally would of taken billions of years?
Depends on how far you want to take the miracle argument. That is, at what point does the super-natural give way to the natural?
Of course God could speed up the processes, but if that were all God did, the result would be an enormous amount of heat, enough to boil off all the world's oceans and keep the minerals of the earth in a molten state. This effect would not leave the earth in a condition to support life. And not just for a short time either. The heat would dissipate into the cold of space, but it would take much, much longer than 6,000 years. (And that is assuming no radiation in the earth itself continuing to maintain a warm temperature.)
But--couldn't God super-naturally cool things down as quickly as speed them up? Yes, God could do that too. So as soon as the speeded-up processes have done what is needed, we get a super-natural deep-freeze to solidify the rocks and cool them down enough that God can add an ocean to the planet. But now we have some other effects. For example, since the speeded up processes would bring rocks into a molten lava-like state, all the radioactive isotopes would be reset to begin their half-life countdown at 6,000 years ago and we would not get any dates from earth rocks older than that. Yet we clearly do.
So has God intervened super-naturally to change all the radioisotopes from the correct circa 6,000 year dates to incorrect old-earth dates? It would seem he would have to for physicists to get the results they do--but it seems irrational to have God doing anything like that.
Since, absolute dating can not be tested concerning things before man had a written history, how can it be proven?
This is why I recommended the article on the laws of physics. The laws of physics are the fundamental laws of the whole universe throughout time and space. The behaviour of sub-atomic particles like electrons is consistent from one galaxy to another, from the centre of a star to the depths of the ocean or in a living body and at every moment of the existence of the universe. And radioisotope dating is based on the properties & behavior of electrons in unstable atoms. Because of the universality of the laws of physics we know that whatever behaviour we see in radioactive material today is precisely the same as it is everywhere in the universe and precisely the same as it has been for the whole temporal existence of the universe. So we don't need a written history toi prove it; it is proven by the very nature of the fundamental building blocks God created as the basic structure of matter itself.
Since the scientist who came up with the estimation involved in indetifying the ages of rocks and fossils based on the assumption of an old earth, they would of never conceived on a scientific reason for the materials in the geologic column being order in a 6,000 or so period.
This is incorrect. If you are speaking about the geologists who first gave us an understanding that the earth is very old, most began as Christians who assumed the earth was young. It was their own investigations into the causes of the geological layers that drove them to the conclusion that the earth is not young.
If you are speaking of the physicists who developed the technology of radioisotope dating, that does not require any assumption that the earth is old. All that is needed is that the laws of physics be universal through time and space.
If the whole world was flooded during Noah's flood from clouds above and fountains or springs beneath the earth spewing out water. It is possible that the water and earth was severely churned up and land was blown up from the earth as well from fountains inside the earth that God released.
If you made a model of the earth and you simulated fountains spewed with great force from inside the earth to breaking through the crust and then you stimulated rain from above. What would happen?
You would get a very, very different geological and paleontological (fossil) record than the one we actually have. I recommend the various posts by Glenn Morton in the index referenced above for examples of how different it would have to be.
Yes, simulations have been done (mostly computer simulations) and the mathematics show that the pressures required to generate this sort of flood scenario would create enough heat to kill all life on earth whether or not they were in an ark. Even John Woodmorappe, the young-earth creationist who promoted high-speed plate tectonics said he hadn't been able to work out the heat problem.
The fact is ng that pretty much anything you might think of which might support a young-earth has been thought of before, has been investigated and has been found wanting.
