Young Earth Hypothesis

[freezerman2000]

Sometimes I feel I have to tipee-toe.

May God be true and every man a liar.

God is correct and all that disagrees, lies.

The Bible tells me that God did it-
Science tells me the processes involved(old earth science, that is).
If God hadn't intended us to figure out those processes in the first place, why would He have given us the ability to, and left the evidence to be found?

 

[RickG]

My concern is why do some people have to deny well known scientific facts from numerous different scientific disciplines in order to believe in God, and why do these same people continue to propagate deliberate misrepresentations so easily recognized for what they are. Why does one have to portray God as a deceiver in order to accept those scientific facts?

 

[freezerman2000]

My concern is why do some people have to deny well known scientific facts from numerous different scientific disciplines in order to believe in God, and why do these same people continue to propagate deliberate misrepresentations so easily recognized for what they are. Why does one have to portray God as a deceiver in order to accept those scientific facts?

That's a good question..one I have no answer for..
As the old radio show said,"Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men?Only the Shadow knows!"
http://www.oldradioworld.com/shows/The_Shadow.php

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hello, christianforums.

I'd like to know how old you think the earth, and the universe, is. Do you agree with the young earth hypothesis, or do you believe, as I do, that the earth is several billions of years old?

Sorry if there's a thread for this already. I did a search on the subject, but couldn't find an existing thread.

There are probably numerous threads on it, but I found this discussion to be the better one

http://www.christianforums.com/t4616335-19/
How old the earth is... bring it on

Guess what i probably just started an argument thats as old as the earth...Now the question is how old does the Bible say the earth really is?


Since this is a debate forum, lets see a little sumthin sumthin from guys who know this issue.

The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is.

 

[Doveaman]

So here are the observations:

1)_The decay rates have been observed to fluctuate on multiple occasions, even over a period of a year, and they do not always correlate. This indicates that the dating methods used to determine past ages are not consistently accurate.

[FONT=&quot]2)_[/FONT]Multiple layers of sediment have been demonstrated to be laid down simultaneously, and fossilized trees have been found embedded upright in multiple layers of sediment. This indicates that multiple layers of sediment can be laid down instantaneously and that the fossils found in the geological column are not necessarily ordered in any way, but disordered.

[FONT=&quot]3)_[/FONT]The scientific model of the universe (the Big Bang) is based on 95% metaphysics and only 5% physics, and even the interpretation of that 5% is questionable.

[FONT=&quot]4)_[/FONT]Scientists completely ignore historical accounts of past events (including the Biblical account), preferring to rely heavily on speculations and assumptions about the past, rather than on the eyewitness reports of those who actually lived in the past and saw those events.

Now here are the conclusions:

[FONT=&quot]1)_[/FONT]There are scientific theories that lead to the production of useful consumer products such as medicine, technology, etc. Such theories are welcomed and appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]2)_[/FONT]There are scientific theories that rely heavily on pure speculations and assumptions about past events, and on metaphysics and mathemagic to create make-believe stories about present events. Such theories can take a hike.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Doveaman, it gets pretty silly when you keep repeating the same arguments over and over despite the fact that they've been refuted many times over on this forum.

So here are the observations:

1)_The decay rates have been observed to fluctuate on multiple occasions, even over a period of a year, and they do not always correlate. This indicates that the dating methods used to determine past ages are not consistently accurate.

Multiple methods may not always correlate, but the percentage is pretty close to 100%. And all of the cases that don't correlate can be explained without invoking changing decay rates, using observed scientific phenomena.

As for decay rate fluctuations, there are several problems with using that as a counter to radiometric dating.

1) It was observed only in isotopes with very short half lives, which are typically used as medical tracers. None of the isotopes with observed fluctuations are used in radiometric dating.

2) They were fluctuations, not changes. In other words, the decay rate would go up, then down, then back up again, and so on. Over a long period of time, this averages out and has zero effect on the overall decay rate.

3) The fluctuations were so small that, were they observed in longer-lived isotopes used for radiometric dating, the changes from the current dates would be less than the margin of error (i.e. not scientifically significant).

[FONT=&quot]

2)

_[/FONT]Multiple layers of sediment have been demonstrated to be laid down simultaneously, and fossilized trees have been found embedded upright in multiple layers of sediment. This indicates that multiple layers of sediment can be laid down instantaneously and that the fossils found in the geological column are not necessarily ordered in any way, but disordered.

Read this thread for a highly in-depth discussion of polystrate fossils. Several geologists (myself included) explained in that thread how they can form.

[FONT=&quot]

4)_[/FONT]

Scientists completely ignore historical accounts of past events (including the Biblical account), preferring to rely heavily on speculations and assumptions about the past, rather than on the eyewitness reports of those who actually lived in the past and saw those events.

Historical sources are not ignored. However, it is recognized that eyewitness accounts are not reliable, so they must be corroborated before they can be accepted as evidence of anything. If a source can't be corroborated, then it isn't used.

Now here are the conclusions:

[FONT=&quot]1)_[/FONT]There are scientific theories that lead to the production of useful consumer products such as medicine, technology, etc. Such theories are welcomed and appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]2)_[/FONT]There are scientific theories that rely heavily on pure speculations and assumptions about past events, and on metaphysics and mathemagic to create make-believe stories about present events. Such theories can take a hike.

This sounds a lot like "Wah, math is hard! If I don't understand it and it doesn't have a tangible benefit for me, it must be made up!" Which is a load of baloney and you know it.

 

[The Engineer]

So here are the observations:

You never give up, do you?

1)_The decay rates have been observed to fluctuate on multiple occasions, even over a period of a year, and they do not always correlate. This indicates that the dating methods used to determine past ages are not consistently accurate.

Dude, RickG pounded this issue to death! The decay rates oscillate, they don't fluctuate. The oscillations are less than 1%, and they don't happen in the isotopes that are actually used for dating. Inaccuracies in decay rates are already accounted for by scientists.

[FONT="]2)_[/FONT]Multiple layers of sediment have been demonstrated to be laid down simultaneously, and fossilized trees have been found embedded upright in multiple layers of sediment. This indicates that multiple layers of sediment can be laid down instantaneously and that the fossils found in the geological column are not necessarily ordered in any way, but disordered.

This was pounded to death, too. Even a real geologist told you that you're wrong.

[FONT="]3)_[/FONT]The scientific model of the universe (the Big Bang) is based on 95% metaphysics and only 5% physics, and even the interpretation of that 5% is questionable.

Interesting numbers. Source? Evidence?

[FONT="]4)_[/FONT]Scientists completely ignore historical accounts of past events (including the Biblical account), preferring to rely heavily on speculations and assumptions about the past, rather than on the eyewitness reports of those who actually lived in the past and saw those events.

That's not true. Historians use eyewitness accounts all the time. It's just that claims about how a famous person was revived, how snakes can talk and about how the planet earth was completely flooded, once, need more evidence than a few eyewitness reports!

Now here are the conclusions:

[FONT="]1)_[/FONT]There are scientific theories that lead to the production of useful consumer products such as medicine, technology, etc. Such theories are welcomed and appreciated.

True.

[FONT=&quot]

2)

_[/FONT]There are scientific theories that rely heavily on pure speculations and assumptions about past events, and on metaphysics and mathemagic to create make-believe stories about present events. Such theories can take a hike.

Not true. All your objections about scientific assumptions and theories have been refuted a thousand times, and you have shown several times that you have zero knowledge about anything related to science. You have absolutely, positively no idea what you are talking about, your arguments are crap and I'm sick and tired of presenting you the exact same counter-arguments ten times a day.

By the way, what exactly is mathemagic?

 

[AECellini]

You never give up, do you?


Dude, RickG pounded this issue to death! The decay rates oscillate, they don't fluctuate. The oscillations are less than 1%, and they don't happen in the isotopes that are actually used for dating. Inaccuracies in decay rates are already accounted for by scientists.


This was pounded to death, too. Even a real geologist told you that you're wrong.


Interesting numbers. Source? Evidence?


That's not true. Historians use eyewitness accounts all the time. It's just that claims about how a famous person was revived, how snakes can talk and about how the planet earth was completely flooded, once, need more evidence than a few eyewitness reports!


True.

[FONT=&quot]
Not true. All your objections about scientific assumptions and theories have been refuted a thousand times, and you have shown several times that you have zero knowledge about anything related to science. You have absolutely, positively no idea what you are talking about, your arguments are crap and I'm sick and tired of presenting you the exact same counter-arguments ten times a day.

By the way, what exactly is mathemagic?

he is one of many lost causes.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Doveaman So here are the observations:

You never give up, do you?

he is one of many lost causes.

Jeremiah 50:6 " My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray;
They have turned them away [on] the mountains. They have gone from mountain to hill;
They have forgotten their resting place

 

[Doveaman]

Doveaman, it gets pretty silly when you keep repeating the same arguments over and over despite the fact that they've been refuted many times over on this forum.

You cannot refute observed facts with a mere explanation. All you can do is offer excuses to distract the gullible from those facts. Not all of us are gullible, and those excuses can take a hike.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by RocksInMyHead Doveaman, it gets pretty silly when you keep repeating the same arguments over and over despite the fact that they've been refuted many times over on this forum.

You cannot refute observed facts with a mere explanation. All you can do is offer excuses to distract the gullible from those facts.
Not all of us are gullible, and those excuses can take a hike.

That's a fact!

 

[The Engineer]

You cannot refute observed facts with a mere explanation. All you can do is offer excuses to distract the gullible from those facts. Not all of us are gullible, and those excuses can take a hike.

The thing is, we refuted every single one of your points a dozen times, and you just keep repeating them in the hopes that we grow tired of refuting them. Then, you pronounce yourself the winner of the debate, and we tell you how wrong you are, and then you come back an hour later and the cycle begins anew.

The truth is, you have no idea what you are talking about, no matter what the topic is, and you don't even know it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You cannot refute observed facts with a mere explanation. All you can do is offer excuses to distract the gullible from those facts. Not all of us are gullible, and those excuses can take a hike.

Cute. The explanations are based on fact. Keep running...

 

[RickG]

You cannot refute observed facts with a mere explanation. All you can do is offer excuses to distract the gullible from those facts. Not all of us are gullible, and those excuses can take a hike.

Look in the mirror, that is exactly what you have been doing. You have been denying irrefutable facts, twisting what those facts actually say and refusing to try to even understand what is being presented to you.

Review and try to understand:

• Decay rates do not change.
• An oscillation is not a change in rate.
• Those few isotopes that exhibit an oscillation, oscillate less than 1% of the decay rate. In other words, almost unmeasurable.
• None of those isotopes exhibiting oscillations are used in radiometric dating.
• Non radiometric dating methods agree with radiometric methods.
• None of the published research pertaining to isotope oscillations suggest in any way that radiometric dating is problematic.
• Isotopes observed in supernovae millions of light years distant show the same decay rates as those observed on earth today. That is irrefutable physical evidence that decay rates have not ever changed.

Having presented that, I ask you to stop criticizing well known and supported scientific facts. Instead try to understand them and ask questions about what you do not understand.

 

[AndrewRyan]

Most scientists say Billions of years. To me thats seriously a long time and I cant even imagine that long. I could imagine hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Most scientists say Billions of years. To me thats seriously a long time and I cant even imagine that long. I could imagine hundreds of thousands of years.

Fair enough - the geologic timescale can be a difficult thing to grasp for some - but why hundreds of thousands? If you use the literal biblical model, it's only about 6,000-10,000 (depending on who you talk to), but to my knowledge, there is no one advocating for a timescale in the 100k year range, and there's nothing the can be cited as evidence of an Earth of this age - the 6000 year people at least have the Bible to fall back on.

 

[RickG]

Most scientists say Billions of years. To me thats seriously a long time and I cant even imagine that long. I could imagine hundreds of thousands of years.

Most scientists, or more correctly, practically all scientists, agree with that because earth's age is determined by the oldest known rocks on earth as well a comparison with moon rocks and and meteorites. This determination brings the earths age to 4.54 billion years +/- 1%.

 

[AndrewRyan]

Fair enough - the geologic timescale can be a difficult thing to grasp for some - but why hundreds of thousands? If you use the literal biblical model, it's only about 6,000-10,000 (depending on who you talk to), but to my knowledge, there is no one advocating for a timescale in the 100k year range, and there's nothing the can be cited as evidence of an Earth of this age - the 6000 year people at least have the Bible to fall back on.

Well you see, 6,000-10,000 years is just simply crazy. If you told me that a thousand years ago I might have believed that.

 

[AndrewRyan]

Science is what we do to keep the lies within ourselves.

Your so funny.Its because of science we know anythnig about the world around us.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well you see, 6,000-10,000 years is just simply crazy. If you told me that a thousand years ago I might have believed that.

So then why hundreds of thousands? It just seems like an arbitrary number, like you thought "a billion is huge, but a hundred thousand is much more digestible, so I'll just go with that". As RickG said, the billions of years figure is backed up by multiple dating methods, all of which can be checked by other means. You claim that science tells us what we know about the world around us, so why don't you believe science in this?