What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Uphill Battle]

No, considering you always say the same thing without providing any substantive evidence.

what you said was already discussed. we'll wait for you to catch up, if you want.

 

[Guywiththehead]

yep, I know we went over these in several threads. I am not satisfied because the evidence does not point to carte blanche acceptence of an old world. None of the dating methods are TRULY self supporting. Period.

Yes, they are. Unless you have a flaw with them that you're keeping from the rest of the world, like evidence for Jesus and a young Earth.

Not all is right. I think the earth looks to be about 6000 years old. It doesn't look like a billion year old planet to me, no matter how you splice it.

Yeah! Craters in the moon sure look to be formed over 6000 years. The population growth, too! Half a million people in the world when Christ was alive is perfectly fine. Those silly dating methods, too! Everyone knows that if you stick your fingers in your ears and say "LALALALALA" they don't really say over 6000-years-old!...

 

[Split Rock]

Not all is right. I think the earth looks to be about 6000 years old. It doesn't look like a billion year old planet to me, no matter how you splice it.

I guess that's fine. For myself, I do not understand how you can say the earth looks just a few thousand years old.

These are photos of old worn and eroded mountains and hills in Norway:
http://www.camk.edu.pl/~ptz/hobbies/panorama/part2/12.html
http://www.camk.edu.pl/~ptz/hobbies/panorama/part2/10.html
http://www.camk.edu.pl/~ptz/hobbies/panorama/part2/11.html

To me, these images give the impression of extreme age. The dating methods just confirm it. Imagine the tall mountains that these used to be when they were created about 400 million years ago when Norway collided with North America...

 

[Donkeytron]

what you said was already discussed. we'll wait for you to catch up, if you want.

So what creationist models does your friend prospect with?

 

[TheNewAge]

yep, I know we went over these in several threads. I am not satisfied because the evidence does not point to carte blanche acceptence of an old world. None of the dating methods are TRULY self supporting. Period.

Not all is right. I think the earth looks to be about 6000 years old. It doesn't look like a billion year old planet to me, no matter how you splice it.

All of the current dating methods ARE self-supporting, and they greatly support each other.
I'm not sure if you are debating the age of the universe as a whole or just the earth, but it can be shown that just the earth is no mere 6000 years old by even a cursory study on:
1) plate tectonics and continental drift.
2) the strata in the earth's crust and the times required for those to accumulate.
3) the fossil record (does not display an exact timeframe, but the estimates far exceed 6000 years).
4) the presence of the ice age (which, guess again, occurred more than 6000 years ago).
5) radioactive isotope dating.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Not all is right. I think the earth looks to be about 6000 years old. It doesn't look like a billion year old planet to me, no matter how you splice it.

That is a curious position, indeed. I say that because I do not know of any YE-geology that positively supports a 6000-year-old Earth.

The number itself was not arrived at using empirical methods at all. Ussher added up the ages and begats in the Genesis lineages and came up with 6000 years, give or take.

No actual science that I am aware of actively suggests a 6000-year-old Earth. The YEC tactic invariably is to surreptitiously set up a dichotomy, whereby any perceived blow to old-Earth geology is automatically claimed as support for the YE position.

So I guess I have to call 'shenanigans' on your claim that the Earth actually "looks" 6000 years old.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So what creationist models does your friend prospect with?

again, read the WHOLE thread before posting. It saves time.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is a curious position, indeed. I say that because I do not know of any YE-geology that positively supports a 6000-year-old Earth.

The number itself was not arrived at using empirical methods at all. Ussher added up the ages and begats in the Genesis lineages and came up with 6000 years, give or take.

No actual science that I am aware of actively suggests a 6000-year-old Earth. The YEC tactic invariably is to surreptitiously set up a dichotomy, whereby any perceived blow to old-Earth geology is automatically claimed as support for the YE position.

So I guess I have to call 'shenanigans' on your claim that the Earth actually "looks" 6000 years old.

I know that the 6000 year old number is not arrived at outside of the geneologies. It's a number used arbitrarily. It wouldn't look much different if it were 10,000 years old either. The basic point is I believe the earth to look young, compared to the billions of years old point of view. It isn't use of a tactic, its use of a number. If I said 7000, or 8000, or 6,769.25 to account for a leap year, it makes little difference.

 

[Uphill Battle]

All of the current dating methods ARE self-supporting, and they greatly support each other.
I'm not sure if you are debating the age of the universe as a whole or just the earth, but it can be shown that just the earth is no mere 6000 years old by even a cursory study on:
1) plate tectonics and continental drift.
2) the strata in the earth's crust and the times required for those to accumulate.
3) the fossil record (does not display an exact timeframe, but the estimates far exceed 6000 years).
4) the presence of the ice age (which, guess again, occurred more than 6000 years ago).
5) radioactive isotope dating.

number one and two depend completely on uniformitism... something I don't believe to be true in the slightest. number 3 is exactly as you said. Estimated. Assumed. And not self supporting, it uses the Geological column, something that I don't believe to be accurate either. 4 is speculation as well. It hasn't been proven that the ice age was over 6000 years ago. It is assumed using other methods. Again, not self supporting. And I already have mentioned in this thread that I don't believe that radioactive isotope dating is self-supporting truth either. (another one of those things that depend on uniformitism.)

 

[Electric Sceptic]

number one and two depend completely on uniformitism... something I don't believe to be true in the slightest. number 3 is exactly as you said. Estimated. Assumed. And not self supporting, it uses the Geological column, something that I don't believe to be accurate either. 4 is speculation as well. It hasn't been proven that the ice age was over 6000 years ago. It is assumed using other methods. Again, not self supporting. And I already have mentioned in this thread that I don't believe that radioactive isotope dating is self-supporting truth either. (another one of those things that depend on uniformitism.)

You "don't believe" uniformitism, or the geological column, or radioactive isotope dating....how nice. Tell me, do you have ANY evidence to support your lack of belief? What is there about the evidence FOR these things that you disagree with?

 

[Loudmouth]

number one and two depend completely on uniformitism... something I don't believe to be true in the slightest.

You don't accept that the observed laws of nature were the same in the past? Are you jumping on dad's bandwagon now?

All uniformitarianism states is that the same mechanisms in action today were in action in the past. This applies to geomagnetism, isotopic content of magma, radioactive half-lives, etc. All of these laws were used to determine the age of the earth.

For sake of argument, can you name one test I can do in the laboratory that would tell me the true age of the earth?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I know that the 6000 year old number is not arrived at outside of the geneologies. It's a number used arbitrarily. It wouldn't look much different if it were 10,000 years old either. The basic point is I believe the earth to look young, compared to the billions of years old point of view. It isn't use of a tactic, its use of a number. If I said 7000, or 8000, or 6,769.25 to account for a leap year, it makes little difference.

Except the problem is you don't have the first clue what an Earth of any of those ages would look like. You hardly have another terrestrial planet against which to compare. And the younger features of the Earth are young-looking because they stand in stark contrast to the much older features.

I feel like you are trying to take me for a fool here. I have no problem believing you would take a 6000-year-old Earth on faith, but this "looks 6000 years old" stuff is just absurd.

I have to assume that, if you can honestly say you know what a 6000-year-old Earth looks like, you should be able to describe what a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth should look like. Or a 2 million-year-old Earth. Or a 150,000-year-old Earth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Except the problem is you don't have the first clue what an Earth of any of those ages would look like. You hardly have another terrestrial planet against which to compare. And the younger features of the Earth are young-looking because they stand in stark contrast to the much older features.

I feel like you are trying to take me for a fool here. I have no problem believing you would take a 6000-year-old Earth on faith, but this "looks 6000 years old" stuff is just absurd.

I have to assume that, if you can honestly say you know what a 6000-year-old Earth looks like, you should be able to describe what a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth should look like. Or a 2 million-year-old Earth. Or a 150,000-year-old Earth.

then tell me why it always said the earth "looks old?" what other terrestrial planet do you compare against? I never said that it wasn't faith based to take the earth at 6000 odd years. But to me, it looks like a young earth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You don't accept that the observed laws of nature were the same in the past? Are you jumping on dad's bandwagon now?

All uniformitarianism states is that the same mechanisms in action today were in action in the past. This applies to geomagnetism, isotopic content of magma, radioactive half-lives, etc. All of these laws were used to determine the age of the earth.

For sake of argument, can you name one test I can do in the laboratory that would tell me the true age of the earth?

no, no bandwagon jumping. I just don't subscribe to the "this is how it is, so this is how it had to be" mode of thinking.

and for the sake of argument, no, none that you would likely accept.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You "don't believe" uniformitism, or the geological column, or radioactive isotope dating....how nice. Tell me, do you have ANY evidence to support your lack of belief? What is there about the evidence FOR these things that you disagree with?

I've already stated my position on most of that before. Geological column is assumptive, and there are more "anomolous" finds than can be realistically refuted. Uniformitism doesn't work with Catastrophism. My personal beliefs are in a worldwide flood, which would drastically differ the results on all of the above. That being said, I recognize that you reject that, and don't expect you to believe it.

 

[KerrMetric]

But to me, it looks like a young earth.

I don't believe you. No other way to put it, I just think people are not being honest when they say something like this.

All your everyday experiences of how your surroundings change over time (or the fact they don't) allied with common sense tells you that the Earth around you is not young. It perhaps doesn't give you a metric for determining whether it is a million years or a billion or 4.57 billion but it sure as heck does allow you to realise it isn't a few centuries or 60 centuries for that matter.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't believe you. No other way to put it, I just think people are not being honest when they say something like this.

All your everyday experiences of how your surroundings change over time (or the fact they don't) allied with common sense tells you that the Earth around you is not young. It perhaps doesn't give you a metric for determining whether it is a million years or a billion or 4.57 billion but it sure as heck does allow you to realise it isn't a few centuries or 60 centuries for that matter.

seeing as it is a subjective observation, you can't really make that assertion, can you?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I've already stated my position on most of that before. Geological column is assumptive, and there are more "anomolous" finds than can be realistically refuted.

No, there aren't.

My personal beliefs are in a worldwide flood, which would drastically differ the results on all of the above.

Back to your "personal beliefs" with no evidence whatsoever to support them.

 

[KerrMetric]

seeing as it is a subjective observation, you can't really make that assertion, can you?

Actually I think I can but that is a reflection on you not I.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually I think I can but that is a reflection on you not I.

Sorry, I stated that it was a subjective observation. This means that I see the world, and see it as young. You say that isn't true. That isn't a reflection on me, that is you accusing me of being a liar, with absolutely nothing to back that up.