Why I believe in a young earth.

[trinitarian11]

As I stated, it need not be done on living trees. We both recognize that tree rings still exist even if the wood is no longer alive, right?

Yes, that is correct that it tells when the tree was last alive.

All that needs to be done is find a large enough, usable peice of wood from an area with an established sequence - including wood buried in lake sediments.

trin wrote:



I wonder where people get the idea that some Chrsitians will ignore relevant evidence, responding with bare, unuspported assertions, looking like they want to remain ignorant? Wherever they are getting that idea, it is making it harder for Christians like me to reach them, because they think our minds are closed.




As Assyrian explained, the wood need not be built into a house. Any useable wood of sufficient size can give us an absolute date that it last lived. There are seqences for several places around the world where dendrochronological sequences reach back to about 10,000 years. Here is one example, this one reaching back over 7,000 years:

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe

Papias

What's clear in your articles is not that radiometric measuring is confirmed by tree rings as you argued, but that radiometeric measuring is being CALIBRATED by tree rings...and they are using C14 to confirm long tree rings match! But here we go again with your circular logic:

Radiometric dating is accurate. Radiometric dating validates long tree rings go back 10,000 years because...radiometric dating is accurate.

 

[iambeeman]

Also it must be said that not all trees have consistant tree ring measurement. I myself have seen trees that where started the exact same year growing <10' appart spacing yeald widely varied ring "finger prints". Exact same age, Exact same soil conditions, exact same exposure to the sun, in many cases exact same parent tree, totaly different pattern. Wishing now I'd taken pics of it.

 

[sublime911]

Hi V,

Just some facts that I've been able to dig up.

Re: The Vrederfort crater:
The meteorite, larger than Table Mountain, caused a thousand-megaton blast of energy. The impact would have vaporised about 70 cubic kilometres of rock - and may have increased the earth's oxygen levels to a degree that made the development of multicellular life possible.

Notice that this author thinks the strike actually may have made life possible. Go figure, huh?

Mt St Helen:
Energy release: 24 megatons thermal energy

Technically speaking the 'supposed', remember no one was actually at the asteroid strike to really measure the energy released, difference would be about x40. Not really 10 millions as you propose.

Keep in mind also that the energy release would be different. In the asteroid strike the brunt of the energy would flow into the reasonably solid earth and a great amount of that energy would be disapated as it traveled through the core of the earth. In other words compacting soil and rock as the waves of energy were absorbed into the body of the earth. The Mt. St. Helen's energy, on the other hand is directed into the atmosphere. The top of the mountain, it is measured to be about 3.7 million cubic yards of earth, was blown into the atmosphere by the energy release in an 'outward' direction. This basic energy traveling in the complete opposite direction is believed to have blown some 1.4 billion cubic yards of ash as high as 80,000 feet in a matter of minutes.

When one understands the various affects of the dissapation of energy based on the direction in which that energy is traveling, then the amount of debris released into the atmosphere by the different events can be substantially different.

My suggestion to all who want to believe what well qualified scientists would attempt to teach us about the creation and even such things as the age and evidences found about the earth that are in contradiction to the basic teaching of the Scriptures, begin at the beginning and ask a lot of, 'well, how did you prove that?' and follow that up with, 'ok, and how did you prove that?'

There is a rather humorous story about the encyclopdia britannica that is well documented. It seems that many years ago, I'm sure it's been corrected by now, when one looked up fossils and their ages, it was explained that their age was determined by the rock strata in which they were found. Then when one went to look up rocks and their ages, it was explained that they were dated by the fossils which were found in the layers from which the rocks came. So, the fossils dated the rocks and the rocks dated the fossils. Funny, huh?

Now, yes, I fully understand that we like to think of ourselves as more competent than that today, but it has already been proven repeatedly that most of our dating methods are based on some 'assumed' givens. For example: carbon dating is based on the beginning foundational assumption that carbon levels have remained stable, but there is no real proof of this. Just as it's really just as possible that the iridium content that first began this leg of our discussion may well have been a result of the 'miracle' of the creation event we don't know that the carbon content of material wasn't different at the creation event that would give us bad dating. Now, especially with carbon dating, good, honest scientists have taken the exact same samples from one lab to another as a blind test and received quite a varying range of ages. One author that I read claimed that there seemed to be a slight oddity that carbon dating becomes very unstable beyond 5,000 years. Huh? Why might that be? Maybe because it's all just anybody's guess beyond 6,000 years.

Look, each of you are going to believe what you will believe and some are more easy to accept 'facts' thrown at them, than others. I have found in every piece of evidence that is 'dated', there are a lot of unanswered questions about the foundation of those dating methods. Every single one is based on some foundation of a 'constant' that really can't be assured other than to 'assume' that everything has always been as it always is. As I understand the 'creation' event, just as with the light being visible to the naked eye across the entire universe in an instant, I'm convicted by the Spirit in my spirit that things aren't really as they appear to be.

Now, you are free to say, 'well, that makes God a liar,' and quite frankly how you can justify such a statement that really just explains our inability to understand the things and ways of God, oh, that's in the Scriptures isn't it? Or for you to say that 'well, men today are much wiser than those ancient fools of old,' although God's word also says that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise, I guess some might construe that to mean that God is going to make men believe lies.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

You can predict the energy released using simple formulas learned in 8th grade physics.

 

[sublime911]

That's because creation was a supernatural event. Any of us who believe in God have no problem believing that He created deep space objects on the fourth, 24 hr, day and instantly made their light hit the earth just like the Bible says. And then from that moment the speed of light has been constant.

SO he created stars already exploding?

 

[trinitarian11]

SO he created stars already exploding?

Ge 1:16-18
He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
NASU

Do exploding stars give off light?

 

[crawfish]

Ge 1:16-18
He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
NASU

Do exploding stars give off light?

Yes.

Did God also create light from an exploding star traveling in-process to the earth, 6000 light-years away? In other words, light from an exploding star that never really exploded or even existed?

 

[trinitarian11]

Yes.

Did God also create light from an exploding star traveling in-process to the earth, 6000 light-years away? In other words, light from an exploding star that never really exploded or even existed?

What exploding star is 6k ly away?

 

[miamited]

Hi sublime,

Well, it's good to have some fresh perspectives. How about you show me. I'm from Missouri (not). Would you be so kind as to fill in all the unknowns and show me the formula to determine the energy released when the asteroid struck the Vredefort area?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Ted wrote:

How about you show me. I'm from Missouri (not). Would you be so kind as to fill in all the unknowns and show me the formula to determine the energy released when the asteroid struck the Vredefort area?

First, Ted, we already did give you a hint, when back in post #41, I mentioned that it it proportional to the velocity squared. To help you even more, the formula is very simple :

KE =1/2 m v(squared)

Secondly, and more imporantly, you brought that up, so the burden of proof is on you to do so, not sublime. It's a very common creationist tactic to through out a bunch of information, say that they don't understand it, and then demand that other's take their burden of proof. That's almost as common as the argument from personal incredulity.

Thirdly, I haven't seen your response to my question of what you meant by "up to a point".

Thanks-

-Papias

 

[miamited]

Hi Pap,

Yea, I know, but I'm asking for more than hints. What was the velocity of the asteroid?

Then you wrote:
Secondly, and more imporantly, you brought that up, so the burden of proof is on you to do so,
Listen, double speak doesn't work well to obfuscate with me. I merely asked sublime to further explain his position by filling in all the equation blanks. He's the one who said there was a simple grade school equation that would give me the answer that I seek. I just asked him to go ahead and show me how that works. It's not really a matter of my bringing up the subject first. He claims to have the answer to my question, but I'm fairly dull, as I'm sure you've gathered by now, and want him to fill in the blanks for me.

Finally you wrote:
Thirdly, I haven't seen your response to my question of what you meant by "up to a point".

The phrase 'up to a point' means that there is some truth in what is being said, but only a portion. It is not all truth. There is a 'point' that what is being taught or instructed is true and then beyond that 'point', maybe not.

Sorry, I didn't know that you were unfamiliar with the phrase. Now, your next question will probably be, "Well, what I really meant to ask was, at what point do you not agree?"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Ted wrote:

Hi Pap,

Yea, I know, but I'm asking for more than hints. What was the velocity of the asteroid?

OK, fine, I'll humor you and run through a quick calculation, without writing down every step just to save time, and assuming rock of density of 4, and a 14 km impactor:

KE = 1,000 MT (1 MT ~ 4GJ) = 4E19 GJ.

4E19GJ = 1/2 (4000) 4/3 pi (7,000)raised to 3, v raised to 2

5.9E22 = (7,000)raised to 3, v raised to 2

9.7E3 = v raised to 2/3

about a million m/s or 2 million miles an hour.

All the numbers and calcs are estimates due to the nature of the situation.

Listen, double speak doesn't work well to obfuscate with me. .......

and

The phrase 'up to a point' means that there is some truth in what is being said, but only a portion. It is not all truth. There is a 'point' that what is being taught or instructed is true and then beyond that 'point', maybe not.

Sorry, I didn't know that you were unfamiliar with the phrase. Now, your next question will probably be, "Well, what I really meant to ask was, at what point do you not agree?"

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Sigh. Ted, back in post #119 I explained what I meant by "what did you mean?". And you accuse me of doublespeak?

Going by #119, what do you mean?

Thanks, Papias

 

[Papias]

Trin wrote:

What's clear in your articles is not that radiometric measuring is confirmed by tree rings as you argued, but that radiometeric measuring is being CALIBRATED by tree rings...and they are using C14 to confirm long tree rings match!

Trin, yes C-14 is fine tuned by tree rings because the C-14 levels were expected to have changed. Because there are many samples, if it were unreliable, then it wouldn't be confirmed over hundreds fo samples, and especially wouldn't be confirmed by the other methods.

So, for example, in a given sample, C14 says 1,100 years, and the tree rings say 1000, then for the next sample, C14 says 1,110, and the tree rings say 1,100, then for the next sample, C14 says 1,200, and the tree rings say 1,100. See how that works? The C14 date is off by 10%, so the by taking 90%, you get the same date. Then by speleotherm, the 90% C14 agrees, which agrees with the varve date, and with the U-Th method, and so on.

But here we go again with your circular logic:

Radiometric dating is accurate. Radiometric dating validates long tree rings go back 10,000 years because...radiometric dating is accurate.

No, we don't. The tree rings show 10,000 years by counting the rings, not by relying on the C14 date. The speleotherm date is arrived at by counting the cave deposit layers, independent of the C14 date. The varves are arrived at by the spring/fall layers, without any depended on the C14.

Several independent methods confirming each other is the opposite of circular logic.

Make sense?

Papias

 

[miamited]

Hi Pap,

The point is where true science leaves off from assumed results.

For the purposes of my explanation to you, I will explain that I only trust science in what it can reproduce. My explanation of the creation has been and always will be that it is a miracle. When God spoke all things seen and not seen in this realm of creation it was a miraculous event. Light appeared immediately and did not, at the time of the miracle, hence a miracle, follow what we see today as the 'laws' of science.

But to make it simple, yes, I won't ever, ever believe that the crdeation is over 6 - 10 thousand years old, no matter what any 'science' tells me. Why? Because it was a miracle and miracles are not explainable by science. You can't 'prove' how Mary became pregnant. You can't prove how the Red Sea parted. You can't prove faith.

Anyway, I hope that this helps and I'm still going with, the intellectual baboon, position that the earth and all the universe is 6-10 thousand years old.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Jase]

What exploding star is 6k ly away?

HE 1523-0901 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This star, one of the oldest in our galaxy, is 7500 light years away. In other words, if the Earth were 6,000 years old, we still have another 1500 years until we ever see the first emissions of light from this star.

 

[Mikecpking]

Hi Pap,

The point is where true science leaves off from assumed results.

For the purposes of my explanation to you, I will explain that I only trust science in what it can reproduce. My explanation of the creation has been and always will be that it is a miracle. When God spoke all things seen and not seen in this realm of creation it was a miraculous event. Light appeared immediately and did not, at the time of the miracle, hence a miracle, follow what we see today as the 'laws' of science.

But to make it simple, yes, I won't ever, ever believe that the crdeation is over 6 - 10 thousand years old, no matter what any 'science' tells me. Why? Because it was a miracle and miracles are not explainable by science. You can't 'prove' how Mary became pregnant. You can't prove how the Red Sea parted. You can't prove faith.

Anyway, I hope that this helps and I'm still going with, the intellectual baboon, position that the earth and all the universe is 6-10 thousand years old.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted,
We all know God could have created the universe in an instant, but he did not.

Firstly, if the universe was only 6 to 10,000 years old, how would it be possible to observe deep space objects like the Andromeda spiral galaaxy at 2.5 million light years away? That means you can see an object as it was 2.5 million years ago aqs it was. Much longer than 6,000 years!

We all agree that God is creator, but he left it to us to explore his creation to his glory, but to squeeze Genesis chapter 1 into a literal story is not what that is about. It is simply poetry (it rhymes) to remember the Sabbath.
My concern is that would be Christians who have knowledge of the cosmos and geological time would be put off by the anti science stand by many young earth creationists.

 

[Papias]

Ted wrote:

Hi Pap,

The point is where true science leaves off from assumed results.

For the purposes of my explanation to you, I will explain that I only trust science in what it can reproduce.

Evolution is as fully testable by science as any other area of science. Science is about making a hypothesis and then testing it. Just as it was science that showed OJ's DNA at the murder scene, it is science that has confirmed evolution and an old earth through many different tests. At least we agree that the confirmation of the earth's age by many different dating methods shows that it's age is confirmed by evidence.

But to make it simple, yes, I won't ever, ever believe that the crdeation is over 6 - 10 thousand years old, no matter what any 'science' tells me. Why? Because it was a miracle and miracles are not explainable by science. You can't 'prove' how Mary became pregnant. You can't prove how the Red Sea parted. You can't prove faith.

So, being that dozens of different ways of testing the real world have confirmed evolution and an old earth, are you saying that God intentionally put all that evidence there to make it look exactly like it would look like if evolution happened?

Anyway, I hope that this helps and I'm still going with, the intellectual baboon, position that the earth and all the universe is 6-10 thousand years old.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

And a flat earth, since that is what the Bible literally says, even though it is contradicted by scientific evidence?

Papias

 

[miamited]

Hi Pap.

read Isaiah:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Seems God must have changed His mind about that a long time ago.

Anyway, it's evident that we are both well entrenched in what we each believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Ted wrote:

Hi Pap.

Hi Ted-

It seems that you ignored my point about science testing past events. Unless you think science can't be used to help solve murders and such, I'm not sure why you object to science looking into the history of God's creation.

You also ignored this question:
...are you saying that God intentionally put all that evidence there to make it look exactly like it would look like if evolution happened?

read Isaiah:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Seems God must have changed His mind about that a long time ago.

First, as you probably know, your quote above says "circle", which is flat, like a coin. It does not say "globe". The very verse you gave says the earth is flat, and to use it to say "globe" shows that YECs are willing to change the meaning of the words they find in their Bibles.

Secondly, that's supported by many other verses. Here is Mallon's quick summary of some of them:



“As I've already pointed out, the Bible tells us that the earth is flat, shaped like a piece of clay stamped flat under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is circular like a flat disc (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these passages show a flat earth.

The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). ....Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer") as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is stretched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.”

Anyway, it's evident that we are both well entrenched in what we each believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well, I don't mind discussing these things.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is as fully testable by science as any other area of science. Science is about making a hypothesis and then testing it. Just as it was science that showed OJ's DNA at the murder scene, it is science that has confirmed evolution and an old earth through many different tests. At least we agree that the confirmation of the earth's age by many different dating methods shows that it's age is confirmed by evidence.

OJ's DNA evidence was mishandled and not conclusive. Evolution is more then one thing and in your case it is far more then testing of hypothesis, it's a foregone conclusion based on the preference of natural law over miracles.

You missed his whole point because you don't understand the nature of his convictions. God's Word is believed because of a relationship, he walks by faith, not by sight.

So, being that dozens of different ways of testing the real world have confirmed evolution and an old earth, are you saying that God intentionally put all that evidence there to make it look exactly like it would look like if evolution happened?

Perhaps he does not trust you or them.

And a flat earth, since that is what the Bible literally says, even though it is contradicted by scientific evidence?

That is not true, the Bible does not discuss a flat earth. Your obsession with equivocation is astonishing.

 

[papakapp]

Ted wrote:






So, being that dozens of different ways of testing the real world have confirmed evolution and an old earth, are you saying that God intentionally put all that evidence there to make it look exactly like it would look like if evolution happened?






Papias

Actually, I have not been convinced. Although I would not theologically have a problem with genesis if the earth were old. I would have a problem with the genealogy of Luke, and probably a theological problem with the ten commandments, but not really with Genesis so much.
However,I do have an intellectual problem with the position that says "the part of the bible that says 'the 4 corners of the earth' absolutely must have been understood as literal, and not poetic to the original readers, but at the same time the author of Genesis 1 intended for the reader to read his book as quasi-literal.

But yeah, I would by no meant say it has been "confirmed" that the earth is old. For example, the predictions science makes concerning the effects of erosion contradicts the scientific postulate that layers in the earth are different ages. The postulate that the layers are due to hydrologic sorting is actually much more intellectually tenable.
Simply check any source and compare the rate of subduction and the ages of the geologic column. Mathematically, they can't both be right. And neither one must be right.