I reiterate
I seem to have missed it altogether
Perhaps you could give me a transcript of the talks as
I seem to have missed it altogether
Upvote
0
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.
Perhaps you could give me a transcript of the talks asI am having problems reconciling these statements Could you help me please . I have so far checked with N T Wright but cant see where he believes in evolution and billions year old earth
I reiterate
Perhaps you could give me a transcript of the talks as
I seem to have missed it altogether
Scientific explanations as to the beginnings of the universe is at the epicentre of man's foolishness.
TasManOfGod said:progmonk
Ok I have it now . You make a statement and say it is backed up by somebody, but when that persons public statements are checked nothing seems to back up your assertions. Then when you produce "the evidence" it still doesn't back up your statements . Tell me is there any reason why we should believe anything else you say?
TasManOfGod said:I am having problems reconciling these statements Could you help me please . I have so far checked with N T Wright but cant see where he believes in evolution and billions year old earth
1. As I have stated several times the numbers have an effect but not a conclusive one to my opinion.
2. See # 1, but I have seen statistics that say more Christians believe in creation than evolution. (by your reasoning this should make a big difference) but it doesn't to me.
3. See 1, 2, 3. Keep in mind (as it seems everyone keeps forgetting from their arguments) that I am not convinced that the Earth is young or old. I believe there it is not a forgone conclusion and the evidence requirement for that is lower atleast for me.
4. I don't know about others I am too lazy to conciously pull off the list of tactics you claim. Also I just don't care half enough to go through all that, but I will admit that I have had to reject some creation evidence myself.
How the heck am I supposed to devote enough time to address all this but I will try to answer most anyway.
When Christians are charged to believe scriptures like: Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."
that we have less confidense in man than you do.
I have to say that the people I have been discussing with in this thread have seemed far less arrogant or condescending that I am used to seeing from evolutionists but it is usually so prevelant I am always expecting it. I appreciate your candor.Given the comment you made about how you find people to be insulting while talking about his, I should note that I am quite blunt about some things in this post, but I'm not intending to be insulting to you in any way.
He should not be completely dismissed solely because of his education however I understand the point. Many people have made huge breakthroughs that weren't formally educated. Is a PhD a requirement to be considered a scientist? (just curious)Petersen has a B.S. so he knows some science. He went on to get a master of arts, that's arts, not astro physics. He further went on to take theology courses and become a pastor, that's "pastor", not astro physicist. In fact, he has never spent any time in an observatory dealing with real data in a practical setting. It's too bad your best source isn't even a scientist, but if this is the best you've got I will look at the argument itself instead of focusing on how Petersen doesn't actually work with or study this kind of data.
Please keep in mind I have a background in math and engineering to some extent but not enough to consider myself completely able to evaluate advanced points, so much of my point of view whether I find the presenter credable. I recognize my limitations but what I was posting early in this thread was an attempt to indicate the volume of counter arguments against an old earth not the validity of any particular one. I know Christians apologists sometimes over reach or selectively choose data. I was taking that into account and even if 50% of the arguments for a young earth are bad science, (that still leaves 50%) I still think it is worth keeping an open mind as there is no need to make a binding decision about it./quote]I found this on the web, I guess I was copying your link wrong before
I don't see any scientific work done here. What is his source and calculation for 100,000 tons being pulled in? How much dust could there have been to begin with? How much is left? What about solar winds that push dust away? What about influence from other stars?.
I did not pick any of these points or arguments for the reason that I have checked into them and find them especially good ones. As I have stated I was interested in volume at this point in the discussion and this was probably the first one I saw. It does come down to who you believe in many instances. This one is not one of those but many will be good science by good scientists and it will come down to which sounds more credible. It would require a very high degree of education to evaluate every claim independently on your own. This reminds me, I have asked many times what credentials the people have who are addressing me, and I have yet to get it.Like I said earlier Petersen isn't a scientist and obviously has no experience in this field. Let's look at a paper done on the Poynting-Robertson effect done by a real astro-physicist posted on the Harvard website
In this eight page article he actually makes calculations based on observed data, and takes the time to explain it. This way it can be reviewed, criticized, and corrected if needed. The information is available for anyone, even Petersen, to criticize.
In the final paragraph it says that it can take up to 10^16 years for a body to spiral into the nucleus (which is 10,000,000,000,000,000) and it can even happen up to 100 times as fast as that, which is 100,000,000,000,000 years.
Now, you may think this is about who decides to trust what source. It isn't about that at all, it's about objectively weighing the evidence. Your pastor did not provide any evidence, whereas the astrophysicists I referred to did provide specific evidence with calculations that can be analyzed. The scientists that wrote the paper work in the field where getting results that are torn apart will result in them losing their jobs. A pastor designing an apologetics course can be wrong about everything and it won't actually make a difference.
I do not choose to listen to scientists because I like them better or because I arbitrarily decided to trust them over your sources, I listen to them because they have the objective evidence. It's the evidence that speaks to me.?.
I've never understood this argument. Do you know how long it takes a nebula to produce a star? What do you expect us to observe?
I have heard this argument many times before but so long ago I can't remember exactly what it was. I think it applies a known star death rate against the known number of dead stars and this indicates a young universe The only thing that could make it invalid is if new stars are coming into existence hence the no new stars point. Don't quote me but I think that was it. From here on out I will only post claims I have checked out and have found logical. I hope this satisfies why you wanted me to respond to post #37 as that was 30 minutes I will never get back (just kiddingWe have observed the different stages of star formation taking place. There are many resources online to show you how nebulas act like star nurseries and we have observed the different stages of stars forming within them, although it takes too long for us to have observed the entire process from start to finish.
Here's a good place to start:
Eh? Did you mean Tomas Newcomen? Newcomen invented the steam engine, but he was dead before James Watt (who did not invent the steam engine) was even born! How could they work together on anything?
Also I have asked many times for the educational credentials of the people making counterpoints to any young earth claims I have made.
You are right, I shouldn't dismiss him soley because of his education and that is why I went on to address the argument itself.He should not be completely dismissed solely because of his education however I understand the point.
Like who?Many people have made huge breakthroughs that weren't formally educated.
At the very least they should be working the field with the actual data itself.Is a PhD a requirement to be considered a scientist? (just curious)
I contend that 100% of them are bad, as you will see as we go through them 1 by 1, until you give up on it.I was taking that into account and even if 50% of the arguments for a young earth are bad science, (that still leaves 50%) I still think it is worth keeping an open mind as there is no need to make a binding decision about it.
So you are admitting that the amount of space dust implying the universe is young is a bad argument. Thank you for your honesty. Let's move on to the next argument you choose to use.This one is not one of those but many will be good science by good scientists and it will come down to which sounds more credible.
It would require a high degree of education which is why I look to what they experts are saying and provide references for my counter arguments.It would require a very high degree of education to evaluate every claim independently on your own. This reminds me, I have asked many times what credentials the people have who are addressing me, and I have yet to get it.
Thanks for replying, post #37 probly took me a half hour as well.I hope this satisfies why you wanted me to respond to post #37 as that was 30 minutes I will never get back (just kidding
(1) James Watt and Mr Newcomb (Inventors of Steam Power and the science of
Thermodynamics) estimated the earth age based upon thermal decay which is
how we determine about all of our heat processes and adding an error factor
of 2 to the calculation giving an older age the earth still falls less than
10,000 years old.
1robin-
First, the most important point will continue to be the consensus view of the experts. I myself am a practicing scientist, with a dozen publications (including in the journal NATURE), yet even that is not enough to disagree with the experts. So I have the sense not to disagree with the experts, practically all of whom support evolution and a 4.6 billion year earth.
Second - I can give a short response to your cut- and - paste. If I do so, will you please respond to the point that credentials only matter if someone is disagreeing with the experts?
Because they ignored radioactive decay. However, your source has lied to you. Their calculations showed an age in the millions of years, thus again showing that a literal intepretation of Genesis was wrong. Here is the history:
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
NASA knows well enough to include radioactive decay, so this statement is obviously false.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
If you are going to deny radioactivity, please talk with a Hiroshima resident first.
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
False.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
False.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
False - neutrinos have been routinely detected since the 1960's.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
False - they are plentiful, as any geologist will tell you.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
False - it dominates the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
False, both because these calcs are bogus, and especially because river deltas change location over time.
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway.
No evidence for subduction zones? Wow, that's a pretty silly claim. - Geologists confirm that subduction zones are real based on multiple lines of evidence.
If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
No, those are other ocean bottom features. Looking at that makes it clear.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
that's because calcium based sedimentary rock like limestone is from fossilized sea creatures - millions of years of fossilized sea creatures. We can even look at it under a microscope and see the fossils.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
Because a lot of the sediment is small enough to be washed out into the ocean. This guy really is clueless about geology.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
Source? Really?
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']is merely a body in the Solar System
Wow, that's another howler! That's as bad as the creationists who say that the sun actually goes around the earth.
*****************************************
In summary, 1robin, these are terrible. They show massive ignorance of actual science and are an embarrassment to anyone uttering them.
Papias
P. S.
This quote from Saint Augustine is relevant to our discussion:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
St. Augustine
Thanks I am not qualified to critique these type of arguments. I will give your responses to the scientist that sent them to me and see what he says.
I do wish you had given me more of a counter argument rather than a general dismissal for some but I will take what I can get.
Was the Augustine quote relevant specifically to me or just the discussion itself.
Are you a believer, I just assume it sometimes?
1robin wrote:
I suspect your friend isn't qualified either, if he gave you that list thinking it was anything other than a joke. Even a freshman geology student knows better than these. I didn't want to spend the time on more detailed responses to such pathetic and often refuted claims, especially when you yourself don't seem to the willing to look up the answers to these on the talkorigins website I gave you.
Did you consider actually taking the time to look them up on the website (staffed by actual experts) that I gave you?
To the discussion itself.
Yes, I'm a believer. You can see that from my faith icon, and I'm posting in the "Christians only" section. Be aware that site rules bar the questioning of whether or not another Christian is a "true Christian", though we TE's get that a lot from "Christianer than thou" young earth creationists.
You also might want to ask your friend if he agrees with the statement by the actual experts, here:
Many rocks of over a billion years in age can
now be dated with great precision. The ages of many rocks have been confirmed by repeated tests in multiple laboratories,
often using different isotopic decay schemes. The results are consistent with the processes that uplift the land and cause
the erosion and deposition of sediments. Geologists can now identify rocks that record hundreds of millions of years of
sedimentation by the slow layer
‐by‐layer accumulation of mud, the rhythmic rise and fall of tides on ancient continental1robin, I've asked you several times now if you accept that the consensus view of the experts matters, and that the opinions of non-experts is irrelevant. Do you still refuse to answer that basic question?
margins, or the slow back
‐and‐forth meandering of rivers in ancient valleys. Organisms that grow only a few millimeters
each year have formed reefs hundreds of meters thick. Additionally, techniques that date more recent deposits have been
repeatedly and accurately compared to known historical events.
Papias
I've asked this before but it's been quite a while.
YECs, do you think the universe had a beginning? Or has it always been here? How do you know?
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?