Which theory points to God?

[shernren]

I actually studied the TE's side first. Then I wanted to see what the YECs had to say. I used to be Catholic, and my priest taught an old Earth. I was surrounded by TE's and believed them. Purely because I had nothing else to believe in and the evidence seemed to point to its correctness. I was convinced the Earth HAD to be old. Period.

In other words, you were a TE because you didn't know you could be anything else. Well, that's a poor comparison to TEs who know about the YEC, day-age, gap theory, OEC, etc, positions and still choose to be TE. For me it was almost the other way around - I only knew I could be a YEC until I joined this forum and realized that hey, TEs are alive-and-kicking Christians, not half-baked compromisers.

Nothing in particular really. It all seems to point to a young Earth.

If the "it" in sentence two refers to the "nothing in particular" in sentence 1, then what you are saying is:

Nothing at all seems to point to a young Earth.

Exactly!

My question is why there are so few burrows if we're talking millions of years and how come they retained their form so well over that time. Like you Jig, I'm happy to conclude the evidence points to a young earth.

I'm not sure just what burrows these are, gluadys, but the first thought popping into my head is "how is a humongous flood supposed to preserve burrows?"

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure just what burrows these are, gluadys, but the first thought popping into my head is "how is a humongous flood supposed to preserve burrows?"

Exactly!

And they are all kinds of burrows made by worms, snails, ants, rabbits, you name it. Any kind of animal that makes any kind of burrow.

 

[shernren]

Wow! I'm astonished. A day in which you learn something new is not completely wasted - David Eddings

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm

 

[Jig]

In other words, you were a TE because you didn't know you could be anything else. Well, that's a poor comparison to TEs who know about the YEC, day-age, gap theory, OEC, etc, positions and still choose to be TE. For me it was almost the other way around - I only knew I could be a YEC until I joined this forum and realized that hey, TEs are alive-and-kicking Christians, not half-baked compromisers.

Ah, ok.

If the "it" in sentence two refers to the "nothing in particular" in sentence 1, then what you are saying is:

Nothing at all seems to point to a young Earth.

Exactly!

Why mock me? You know thats not what I meant. I guess your trying to be funny. I get it. hahaha

I'm not sure just what burrows these are, gluadys, but the first thought popping into my head is "how is a humongous flood supposed to preserve burrows?"

I've read a few things on burrows, interesting it is. The YECs hold a position on this just like the TEs. This is not the place to discuss this though.

 

[Jig]

Well, what convinced you that it does not take time to form angular non-conformities, as Hutton deduced in the 1700's?


What convinced you that it does not take several centuries for one forest to grow on top of another, as they did in the multiple polystrate forests of Nova Scotia?

And have you ever read Glen Morton's discussions of animal burrows in the fossil record? How do you explain the existence of such burrows in a YEC scenario? Not to mention such geological phenomena as preserved nests, spider tracks and even raindrop impact craters?

Or what convinced you that tectonic plates can move rapidly without generating so much heat it would kill all life on earth, including life in the ark?

That's enough for starters. I can generate a couple of thousand more such questions about the evidence.

I would really like you to convince me that you were convinced by the evidence---that anybody could be convinced by the evidence.

lol....the same evidence you use placed under a different theory. It makes more sense to have a young Earth than an old. Like I said earlier, if I'm guilty of anything it's on giving God too much credit.

For I have never seen this yet.

Now you have.

 

[The Lady Kate]

lol....the same evidence you use placed under a different theory. It makes more sense to have a young Earth than an old.

So answer the examples presented to you and we'll understand how it makes more sense.

Like I said earlier, if I'm guilty of anything it's on giving God too much credit.

Sounds more like not giving God enough credit to me. A God of infinite patience and foresight doesn't have to crank everything out in 6 days to satisfy anyone.

 

[gluadys]

lol....the same evidence you use placed under a different theory. It makes more sense to have a young Earth than an old. Like I said earlier, if I'm guilty of anything it's on giving God too much credit.



Now you have.

Well, no I haven't at all. You have simply asserted that it makes more sense. You have not shown that it makes more sense.

I have presented four pieces of evidence that have convinced people the earth is old:

angular non-conformities: Hutton discerned in the 1700s that a natural process to produce angular non-conformities in geological strata would take much longer than 6,000 years.

One polystrate forest on top of another: this has already been discussed. The time required to grow a forest, drown it, bury it in sediment, lower the sea level, produce new soil, grow a new forest, and drown it an bury it in sediment requires a lot of time. It is consistent with an old earth.

Burrows. See the link in shernren's post. You say there is a YEC explanation. What is it?

The slow movement of tectonic plates. All movement produces heat. The larger the body and the faster it moves, the more heat produced. Rapid plate tectonic movement of the sort that would break up a single continent and create the ones we have in the space of a few generations would increase the atmospheric heat into thousands of degrees and kill all life. But slow movement--on the order of a few centimetres per year, takes time---a lot of time.

To me, these are clear indications that the earth is very old. You say that to you, the earth looks young and everything makes sense on the basis the earth is young.

So show me what I am missing. How can these things make sense in a young-earth framework?

If you cannot deal with these and the many other evidences that the earth is old, please stop being dishonest with me and with yourself in claiming you were convinced by the evidence. The truth is you were convinced in spite of the evidence. You were convinced to set the evidence aside and ignore it.

Indeed the truth is probably that you never really knew what the evidence for an old earth is.

Am I being harsh? Maybe. But you are the one making the claim to be convinced by the evidence. So show me. How does a different theory make sense of this evidence in a way that allows the earth to be young?

 

[shernren]

Well, Jig, when you have presented nearly nothing that points to a young earth, I think I'm justified to say what I did say. Sorry if it hurt.

 

[Micaiah]

Exactly!

And they are all kinds of burrows made by worms, snails, ants, rabbits, you name it. Any kind of animal that makes any kind of burrow.

Since you are the resident worm burrow expert, a few questions for starters. Please advise:

1. How many worms you estimate would be needed to make these burrows?
2. How fast the worms would burrow?
3. The maximum exponential rate of growth of the worm population?
4. The diameter of the worm hole?
5. What period of time the formations represent?
6. What type of worm produced these borrows?

If you are unable to provide answers to these questions with scientific evidence to support your answers and assumptions, we must conclude that this is just another case of TE's bleeting after the athiest god called 'science'.

 

[gluadys]

Since you are the resident worm burrow expert, a few questions for starters. Please advise:

1. How many worms you estimate would be needed to make these burrows?
2. How fast the worms would burrow?
3. The maximum exponential rate of growth of the worm population?
4. The diameter of the worm hole?
5. What period of time the formations represent?
6. What type of worm produced these borrows?

If you are unable to provide answers to these questions with scientific evidence to support your answers and assumptions, we must conclude that this is just another case of TE's bleeting after the athiest god called 'science'.

Didn't say I was the expert. Ask Glen Morton.

 

[shernren]

1. How many worms you estimate would be needed to make these burrows?

A lot.

2. How fast the worms would burrow?

Probably somewhere around the region of a centimeter a second? How does that help creationists?

3. The maximum exponential rate of growth of the worm population?

In a creationist model it has to be negative. You try dumping 54 feet of sediment on a worm population a day and see if it doesn't die out within a week.

4. The diameter of the worm hole?

Probably about 0.5-1.5cm.

5. What period of time the formations represent?

At least both the Carboniferous and the Ordovician. Google them and you'll see how long ago.

6. What type of worm produced these borrows?

Paleophycus, at least for one set of burrows.

If you are unable to provide answers to these questions with scientific evidence to support your answers and assumptions, we must conclude that this is just another case of TE's bleeting after the athiest god called 'science'.

It is a case of TEs accepting conventional scientific interpretations because YECs have no methods whatsoever of explaining these burrows. There isn't even a clear alternative we should adopt.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you are unable to provide answers to these questions with scientific evidence to support your answers and assumptions, we must conclude that this is just another case of TE's bleeting after the athiest god called 'science'.

Since every one of your questions has been answered, would you like some ketchup to go with your foot?

 

[Micaiah]

I have posed the same questions to Morton in the past, and like the responses above they were inadequate.

 

[shernren]

You know, if you're so unconfident and unsatisfied, maybe you should get a colony of marine worms and dump 2.28 feet of sediment on them an hour and see what kind of burrows they make. I'm not being patronizing. It's becoming clear to me that even creationist "science" experiments really skirt the issues that they don't even tell creationist science supporters. When I was a creationist, I never heard anything about burrows. Figures since there's no creationist explanation for them.

Now, if creationists could repeatably demonstrate the formation of similar worm burrows in flood conditions ...