The Earth is young

[mindlight]

I'm just going to start with this one. Did you do calculations to come to this conclusion or are you running on gut feelings?

I have never met a young earth creationist who had more than 4th grade math skills. I mean no offense it's just that people don't always know how little they know.

No the numbers come from AIG. 20 billion tonnes a year of which 1 billion is accounted for by subduction.

 

[KWCrazy]

If the earth is 'young' then the moon is definitely made out of cheese!

Since we've been to the moon and it's a big rock, and since God's word tells us the earth is about 6,000 years old, your post is nonsense.

I could say, "If you don't believe in all of God's word then you don't believe in any of it." Would that be true, just because I said so?

 

[DarkSoul999]

No the numbers come from AIG. 20 billion tonnes a year of which 1 billion is accounted for by subduction.

There are no calculations in that article whatsoever. The author also does not account for why the layers exist at all. If this all happened within a few thousand years then why not a single thick layer? All questions he refused to even consider because he is not curious and is not interested in truth. He doesn't even try to propose a working model.

I have no idea where you are going with the 20 billion tonnes a year and the 1 billion accounted for by subduction. In science you form a working model with the available data. You do not say "this could not possible be so my own belief is the only obvious conclusion". That is the pinnacle of laziness...

so where are you going with this?

"Hardened rock layers are brittle. Try bending a slab of concrete sometime to see what happens!"

Here is an example of laziness. No...rock layers are composed of atoms that just so happen to be moving slower relative to each other than liquid or gaseous substances. Apply gradual force and they will be pushed slightly. Apply it gradually enough and the atoms in those concrete blocks will move apart very slightly. Do this for a really long time and you move those atoms apart with an even spread. Very simple physics.

Here is a basic mental experiment for you. What happens when you spread butter on toast? Now what happens when you throw a stick of butter against the wall at 300 mph? That isn't how rock formations are made but that is an easy way to visualize the underlying forces.

 

[JacksBratt]

I
I have never met a young earth creationist who had more than 4th grade math skills. I mean no offense it's just that people don't always know how little they know.

Seriously?

Google "Kent Hovind"

Oh ya... you can debate him if you want... but be forewarned... he debates accredited, educated, doctors and men of great "earthly" knowledge, sometime two or three at a time, on this exact subject..... and he trashes them....

So..now you can say you know at least one YEC who not only has more than 4th grade math skills but also taught these skills as a teacher and dwarfs the "knowledge" of other learned men, on camera many many many times.

 

[DarkSoul999]

Seriously?

Google "Kent Hovind"

Oh ya... you can debate him if you want... but be forewarned... he debates accredited, educated, doctors and men of great "earthly" knowledge, sometime two or three at a time, on this exact subject..... and he trashes them....

So..now you can say you know at least one YEC who not only has more than 4th grade math skills but also taught these skills as a teacher and dwarfs the "knowledge" of other learned men, on camera many many many times.

THIS Kent Hovind?

I feel sorry for the guy. He knows absolutely nothing about basic science.

He also has zero training in mathematics or advanced science. Unless you would like to prove me (and wikipedia) wrong and link one of his publications.

 

[Goatee]

Since we've been to the moon and it's a big rock, and since God's word tells us the earth is about 6,000 years old, your post is nonsense.

I could say, "If you don't believe in all of God's word then you don't believe in any of it." Would that be true, just because I said so?

Its complete nonsense to believe that (A) The earth is 6,000 yrs old (B) That God's word tells us that!

 

[Goatee]

Hello everybody I need $ 5,000 they will save me life, please do not indifferently write to me
my mail rv1ss2sb3@gmail.com

Can I give you $100,000 instead as I got no change!

 

[JacksBratt]

THIS Kent Hovind?

I feel sorry for the guy. He knows absolutely nothing about basic science.

He also has zero training in mathematics or advanced science. Unless you would like to prove me wrong and link one of his publications.

Yet, he totally defeats PhD's and other educated men in formal debates and universities around the USA..

So, feel sorry for him all you want... unless you think that your intellectual abilities are immune to his wisdom and knowledge of the facts that he used to dummy up other supposed learned men of science.

 

[DarkSoul999]

Its complete nonsense to believe that (A) The earth is 6,000 yrs old (B) That God's word tells us that!

Especially considering that some of the civilizations mentioned in the Bible are OLDER than 6,000 years! xD

 

[Monksailor]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JacksBratt]

Especially considering that some of the civilizations mentioned in the Bible are OLDER than 6,000 years! xD

I missed these civilizations.. can you tell me where the Bible talks of them?

 

[Ronald]

Im not implying anything. Ive been factual. If you want to debate evolution v creation do it with someone else not me. My comment is purely in relation to the end text referencing in the OP articles used. Theres no implication. The references listed in these articles are opinion pieces not research and the opinions are derived from creationist sites. That's my only position in this thread.

OK

 

[gideon123]

You can easily do a search on the Internet, for example on Wikipedia, and look for the 'oldest rocks on Earth'. You will find that the oldest rocks are dated to 2.5-3.8 billion years old. But there is one rock from Canada that has been dated to 4 billion years ago! Its really a fascinating discovery ... very near the original formation of the Earth.

You could discover these things easily ... just by searching with Google. But a better idea is to buy an introductory college textbook on geology, and read that. These days, the college books have excellent illustrations and writing ... the authors are doing a great job.

There is NO evidence that the Earth is 10,00 years old. And the arguments made to support this all use specious logic.

It is important for teachers of Christian home school groups to know this.

 

[dqhall]

Not sure that Snelling rules out the possibility that rocks may never be bent after hardening. But as you say if a rock has hardened and then bends then fractures (even microscopic ones ) are likely. Snellings study was of rocks in the Grand Canyon and did not have these fractures.

Rocks can bend over the course of long periods of time and constant pressure. Sudden movements of rocks may fracture them. An undergraduate geology student was taught these things.

This site has a photo of a stone slab in a cemetary that bent over the course of years.
Baltimore, MD - Sagging Tombstone

The OP arguments would not get a person a PHD in geology in any reputable university.

The Niger River delta contains fluvial and marine sediments that are miles thick. One would not expect to find thick sediment on newer formed portions of ocean floor near the Atlantic seafloor spreading zone that includes Iceland.

Carbon 14 is not used for dating old rocks. Scientists used potassium argon dating for rocks older than 100,000 years.

I would think God had a hand in creation, but am of the opinion the earth is very old.

 

[Ronald]

Never happened. When they landed on the moon, they knew that the dust layer would be thin. That's why Snelling recommends not using this argument.

There was speculation prior their landing on the moon. Here's something I found:
Is there any evidence that NASA was worried about deep lunar dust?

"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. And the surface is fine and powdery. I can pick it up loosely with my toe." The second thing that comes out of his mouth after this historical event is about the dust. Maybe he was surprised and finally put everyone back home at ease ... to rest the case?


"The fear that lunar dust was fine, deep, and motile enough that a lander could sink under its surface was mostly backed by Thomas Gold, a noted astrophysicist who was a consultant to NASA in the 1950s."

Note especially in the image below of a Popular Mechanics article from 1964, the quote from his article in Science magazine on the subject: "Without any clear signs [in Ranger images] of firm rock, the pictures must lead to more concern about sinkage of impact."

 

[mindlight]

There are no calculations in that article whatsoever. The author also does not account for why the layers exist at all. If this all happened within a few thousand years then why not a single thick layer? All questions he refused to even consider because he is not curious and is not interested in truth. He doesn't even try to propose a working model.

Woh wait a second. You were talking about sediment layers in your original post and now you are talking about bent rock layers. So are you sure you read the correct article. I was responding to your comments on sediments. Think we have our wires crossed somewhere here.

I have no idea where you are going with the 20 billion tonnes a year and the 1 billion accounted for by subduction. In science you form a working model with the available data. You do not say "this could not possible be so my own belief is the only obvious conclusion". That is the pinnacle of laziness...

so where are you going with this?

Right these are stats relating to the amount of sediment deposited in the ocean every year

Stats that are comparable to independent research by Stanford university (about half the estimate)

http://ocean.stanford.edu/courses/bomc/chem/lecture_14.pdf
"Detrital: brought into the ocean from outside, consists of terrigenous, volcanic, and cosmogenic material........ Rivers and glaciers carry large particles and deposit 10 to the 10 tons annually, while the winds deposit 10 to the 8 tons of much smaller particles.

Hardened rock layers are brittle. Try bending a slab of concrete sometime to see what happens!"

Here is an example of laziness. No...rock layers are composed of atoms that just so happen to be moving slower relative to each other than liquid or gaseous substances. Apply gradual force and they will be pushed slightly. Apply it gradually enough and the atoms in those concrete blocks will move apart very slightly. Do this for a really long time and you move those atoms apart with an even spread. Very simple physics.

Here is a basic mental experiment for you. What happens when you spread butter on toast? Now what happens when you throw a stick of butter against the wall at 300 mph? That isn't how rock formations are made but that is an easy way to visualize the underlying forces.

So let me guess we have shifted to bent rocks now. Yes you can bend hard rocks. Usually this results in fractures or just microscopic fractures even if you do it at 1cm a day.

But newly formed soft rocks could also be bent and more easily and without fractures. So we have two possible ways of doing this and the timescale does not change the fact that rocks can be bent. If there are no fractures and no microscopic fractures then the soft rock bending is the more likely option. If that is the more likely option then the theories about rocks forming over billions of years are false.

 

[mindlight]

Rocks can bend over the course of long periods of time and constant pressure. Sudden movements of rocks may fracture them. An undergraduate geology student was taught these things.

This site has a photo of a stone slab in a cemetary that bent over the course of years.
Baltimore, MD - Sagging Tombstone

The OP arguments would not get a person a PHD in geology in any reputable university.

Since geology departments and the AIG generally do not get on it is not a surprise that they may not use each others arguments. The discussion was to do with fractures in bent hard rocks versus a lack of them in the observed rock sample. The soft rock bending is a better explanation if there are no fractures / micro fractures.

The Niger River delta contains fluvial and marine sediments that are miles thick. One would not expect to find thick sediment on newer formed portions of ocean floor near the Atlantic seafloor spreading zone that includes Iceland.

Was a non uniform distribution of sediment something that AIG denied. The point was that more is going onto the floor of the ocean than can be accounted for by subduction and so in the long run the overall levels of sediment are way too thin

Carbon 14 is not used for dating old rocks. Scientists used potassium argon dating for rocks older than 100,000 years.

The point was that if there anything more than a trace reading of carbon 14 in the diamonds, coal or fossils then they cannot be that old. When alternate radioactive sources and contamination are referenced as explanations as to why there is more than a trace level then all this does is overthrow the whole concept of precision from these parent ---> daughter element isotope decay dating methods.

I would think God had a hand in creation, but am of the opinion the earth is very old.

The bible seems to deny that view and the scientific case is looking weak right now.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can easily do a search on the Internet, for example on Wikipedia, and look for the 'oldest rocks on Earth'. You will find that the oldest rocks are dated to 2.5-3.8 billion years old. But there is one rock from Canada that has been dated to 4 billion years ago! Its really a fascinating discovery ... very near the original formation of the Earth.

You could discover these things easily ... just by searching with Google. But a better idea is to buy an introductory college textbook on geology, and read that. These days, the college books have excellent illustrations and writing ... the authors are doing a great job.

There is NO evidence that the Earth is 10,00 years old. And the arguments made to support this all use specious logic.

It is important for teachers of Christian home school groups to know this.

My kids were all schooled in a private, Christ based school and they all know for certain that the earth is not more than 6000 years old.
Thank goodness they were not brainwashed by "college textbooks" that teach false pseudo scientific assumptions.

 

[CitizenD]

My kids were all schooled in a private, Christ based school and they all know for certain that the earth is not more than 6000 years old.
Thank goodness they were not brainwashed by "college textbooks" that teach false pseudo scientific assumptions.

I think maybe you have that backwards.

 

[CitizenD]

Knowledge should build up not puff up. When it is accompanied by the levels of arrogance I have witnessed i cannot believe it to be knowledge at all.

I am quite happy to accept the expertise of experimental scientists as setting limits to discussions. Inferential science is however just a word game and its so called experts are really just guessing.

I don't feel like you're really acknowledging the point I'm making. Inferences are informed by experiment.

Scientific theories survive experiment and then are applied in areas where we have no experiments. We build up a set of "beliefs" (theories) that are consistent with all the observable experimental evidence, and then use it to drive insights into the areas where we can't experiment.

This is hardly "puffing up" explanations by dint of authority. It's by dint of experiment.