Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not in quantities that can/would be deposited in various layers it doesn't. Furthermore these "non typical' ash layers correspond quite nicely to known large scale eruptions.
A catastrophic change of some sort wouldn't even necesarily produce "layers", let alone layers with materials that can be traced to known historical events.
Why not?
http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html
How so?
A perceived "lack of precision" would ultimately correlate to a few years at best, certainly not enough to get you from 800,000 years all the way down to 6,000 years.
The only way that daughter species would be present would be for God to go completely out of his way to make the Earth *appear* to be older than it is, simply to confuse us. Why would God even do such a thing?
Your 'method' isn't an actual scientific method, and therefore it's not going to be convincing to "scientists". If you're going to get "scientists" to take YEC seriously, you'll have to at least make an attempt to support a young Earth concept with actual evidence. Doubt of any other random theory isn't the same thing as supporting your own assertions. Science requires evidence and support for all assertions, not just 'doubt' about another idea.
Keep in mind that your argument is ultimately based upon the presumption that your personal "revelation' is somehow more "enlightened and true" compared to say the Pope, or any other "Christian" that just so happens to support the concept of an ancient Earth, which by the way happens to include the *majority* of all Christians. What makes your personal 'revelation' more accurate than any other Christian revelation? Catholics tend to embrace an ancient Earth, and YEC is a minority viewpoint even inside of Christian circles.
One of the biggest issues Young Earth Creationism runs up into is all scientific evidence points the the Earth (and the universe) at the very least being older than 4000/5000 years old (or whatever the number is that they are using). The only creationist hypothesis that doesn't "exactly" go against scientific evidence would be the Omphalos hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
This states that some thousand odd years ago, God created the universe in it's entirety, but created it with signs of great age. It's sorta like if you took a video and started watching it halfway through. Even though it "started" at he half way point, if you rewound, you'd go back past the "start".
So by this theory God, being all powerful of course, created the universe that at it's moment of creation was already 13 billion or so years old. If you "rewound" the universe, it would play out all 13 billion years of it's "false" history in reverse. By the Omphalos hypothesis, the universe created 4000/5000 years ago would still be 13 billion years old anyways.
Obviously, the vast majority of people wouldn't think this is likely the actual case.
I could state that the universe actually popped into existence the moment before I started typing out this post, it's just that is so happened to come into existence with all the signs of being here much longer, such as all human memory, all the light already moving from distant stars, all the history books, all the buildings and roads and trees, and so on and so on. There's no way to prove that the universe did indeed pop into existence like that, but there's also no way to disprove it.
And science can't 'work' with something that cannot be both proven or disproven. Science cannot confirm the existence or lack of a soul either, at this point we enter the realm of faith rather than science.
Science is grounded on what we can observe, what we can deduce, and what we can experiment with. If the universe was "created" 4000 years ago, but with all the signs of being 13 billion years old, then the universe is still 13 billion years old.
And no, I don't believe in the Omphalos hypothesis. I don't believe in YEC at all. I believe the universe is 13.82 billion years old (give or take a few), started at the Big Bang, and evolution is how we got to Homo sapiens sapiens.
Got it. "A tad condescending" was a gross understatement on my part, it turns out.Then you missed the point of my response. You do not tell a person who lives in the light to walk into a dark room just because you have spent decades sitting in it.
Do you live on the ice sheets in Greenland, or in Antarctica? If not, your claims fall pretty flat. What we find in the ice layers is both ash and strong chemical signals, such as a sharp rise in sulfuric acid. We find the known volcanic eruptions in the right layers.
The ice layers record the temperature and conditions under which they formed.
Any lack of precision would show up when we compare different ice records and then compare those ice records to independent records such as tree rings and lake varves. All of these methods are consistent with one another.
We have exactly that audit trail. When zircons form, the exclude Pb and include U. We can watch it happen in the lab. Also, the temperatures and pressures needed to change half lives are well in excess of those needed to destroy the rocks where these isotopes are found. Again, this is all shown in the lab. We also have astronomical observations which verify that the physical laws that govern radioactive decay have been the same for billions of years.
I am guessing that you believe that a supernatural deity produced life through a supernatural process, and you have no evidence for any of it happening nor do you expect to find any evidence of it.
How is that being an extreme skeptic?
Got it. "A tad condescending" was a gross understatement on my part, it turns out.
Or Gods primary purpose of creating a universe in which daughter elements were already present in rock samples had nothing to do with satisfying the dating requirements of later scientists
Condescension is not the right word. I do not feel patronising and disdainfully superior to you. I believe you to be living in deep darkness and calling on credentials which bolster error rather than truth. I have a contempt for lies not those deceived by them. You are my equal relating to your origins as one made in Gods image, Christ sacrifice for our sins and potential future in Him.
I start with the Creator and you start with His creation is the basic difference. I am sceptical about all supernatural and natural claims that contradict what I know of Him and His basic reality and what He has said.
Right. And if I told you that you are my equal as God's creation and his child, but that everything you believe is a product of your deep ignorance, bad education and intellectual blindness, it wouldn't be condescending in the least. Uh huh.Condescension is not the right word. I do not feel patronising and disdainfully superior to you. I believe you to be living in deep darkness and calling on credentials which bolster error rather than truth. I have a contempt for lies not those deceived by them. You are my equal relating to your origins as one made in Gods image, Christ sacrifice for our sins and potential future in Him.
Right. And if I told you that you are my equal as God's creation and his child, but that everything you believe is a product of your deep ignorance, bad education and intellectual blindness, it wouldn't be condescending in the least. Uh huh.
Rather than simply asserting the superiority of your spiritual state, how about instead you address the point I raised before: why can't creationism tell me anything accurate about the physical world? That would seem to be a more profitable way to demonstrate the superiority of your point of view.
Would God create fake evidence in the Creation just to fool us?
Creationism tells you that their is a Creator that has designed the universe we inhabit and who sustains it. Creationism therefore provides a foundation that explains the seen and unseen causes of our existence. Thus it both encourages science as a legitimate and reasonable exploration of Gods creation and sets limits to what science can find out. On 90% of what scientists do creationists should differ very little to an honest scientific approach. In speculative areas such as origins and human nature the antagonism should be absolute. So Creationists will either agree with you completely or disagree with you completely. If you are looking for something different you will not find it.
No but he might create a universe decorated with rock combinations that defy your dating assumptions for reasons of 10 dimensional aesthetics
So says the person who has swallowed creation science whole.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would "10 dimensional aesthetics" require isotope combinations that produce the same dates across 3 different isotopes systems?
It seems that you are just making this stuff up. Am I wrong?
all lies , your religion , the priests of your religion doesn't know how anything alive even works.... they should stick with dead ,cold and hard.. ... the religion that pawns itself off as naturalists , what a joke ! it and it's minions are just the biggest bully on the block today anyway. nothing new.. but that shall end.I call them primates, just as humans are still primates. I try not to use paraphyletic terms such as monkey.
I see that you won't look at the evidence. Kind of predictable at this point.
Nothing you said describes things we actually observe in reality. I don't see one prediction of what we should see. For example, can creationism predict genetic distances between species. If human cytochrome c is X% different than chicken cytochrome C at the DNA level, what should the distance between mouse and chicken cytochrome C be, and why? Evolution can make this prediction. Can creationism?
Or Gods primary purpose of creating a universe in which daughter elements were already present in rock samples had nothing to do with satisfying the dating requirements of later scientists
No I have swallowed the bible whole. I use creation science as a source of questions which most mainstream scientists are either too blind or cowardly to ask.
But my purpose is only to establish legitimate grounds for doubt....
It is only when they start talking about origins, human nature or remote cosmology that they go all wild eyed and frothy at the mouth.
I predict that men will remain men and chickens will remain chickens. That speciation in the broadest sense will never occur.
all lies , your religion , the priests of your religion doesn't know how anything alive even works.... they should stick with dead ,cold and hard.. ... the religion that pawns itself off as naturalists , what a joke ! it and it's minions are just the biggest bully on the block today anyway. nothing new.. but that shall end.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?