RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.

RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (8/21/2008 11:40:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops quote: Good, here's a method for determining the age of a sample. We all agree that (more or less) we get one ring per year in a tree. No single tree has more than a few thousand years of rings. This is true. However, individual years can be picked out due to greater or lesser rainfall, or fires. So that the same year can be identified in two different trees in the same area. This allows us to build up tree-histories, or dendrochronologies. Dendrochronologies for bristlecone pines go back 8500 years, while others based on different trees have been extended back further than 10,000 years. This falsifies Ussher-oid YEC chronology. Well, I give evidence for a young earth, and you respond with evidence for an old earth. No, I argued that the exact same method you mentioned (dendrochronology) actually provides ages in excess of those allowed in YEC. quote: I must ask what's the point in giving evidence for a young earth when you will just respond "we know the earth is old because radiometric dating/etc. says so." That's not what I said. I used the same method you suggested. quote: There have been cases where's there's been more than one good match for a tree ring pattern. In the specific article brought up in the other thread, a better method reduced the ambiguity from 100+ matches to a single one. quote: As for the carbon dating that's supposed to correlate with the dendrochronology... Although radiocarbon dating bolsters the OE argument, standard dendrochronology alone conflicts with YEC. Indeed, if anything, dendrochronology is regarded as more certain than radiocarbon dating and is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating, not the other way around.

Veritas -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (8/22/2008 1:37:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Never mind that no ancient culture has ever talked about ice covering the earth and over 200 ancient cultures have stories about a global flood, the whole goal of scientists is to deny the bible. So they'll make up any story they can think of to deny the bible, especially stories that no one in history can verify. [sm=purplelaugh.gif] Inf act, scientists know that the earth was once covered in water because there's so much evidence of it, that those who don't use the frozen water theory have claimed there was once a giant global tsunami. [sm=eek.gif] Anything but a flood even though the only event that's been verified by ancient tribes is a flood. [;)] That proves that scientists aren't interested in the truth, but simply to deny the bible. [;)] Civilizations grew up near waters. It makes sense that there would be stories about floods, and many of the floods must have seemed global without the long distance communication we take for granted today. Have you compared these 200 stories of global floods with the story of Noah's flood? Most bear little resemblance to the Biblical flood. If they were all about the same flood, we'd expect they would be similar. They aren't. They are not stories about the same event.

RobertByers -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (8/22/2008 2:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Never mind that no ancient culture has ever talked about ice covering the earth and over 200 ancient cultures have stories about a global flood, the whole goal of scientists is to deny the bible. So they'll make up any story they can think of to deny the bible, especially stories that no one in history can verify. [sm=purplelaugh.gif] Inf act, scientists know that the earth was once covered in water because there's so much evidence of it, that those who don't use the frozen water theory have claimed there was once a giant global tsunami. [sm=eek.gif] Anything but a flood even though the only event that's been verified by ancient tribes is a flood. [;)] That proves that scientists aren't interested in the truth, but simply to deny the bible. [;)] Civilizations grew up near waters. It makes sense that there would be stories about floods, and many of the floods must have seemed global without the long distance communication we take for granted today. Have you compared these 200 stories of global floods with the story of Noah's flood? Most bear little resemblance to the Biblical flood. If they were all about the same flood, we'd expect they would be similar. They aren't. They are not stories about the same event. No we wouldn't expect similiarity. The equation is to get the oldest accounts of each people before corrupted by the process of time. Doing this show so much sameness about a global flood as to defy the odds of each being a invention. The oral and written history of so much of mankind is united on the point of a great flood. As it would be if it was true. Its buessing and speculating to a great degree to say living by water produces floods stories that each people meant to be taken as history. Talk about conspiracy.. This oral history of mankind alone should persuade there was a great flood. Leaving aside revealed religion and the evidence of eareth sciences.

yzf-r1 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/8/2009 10:43:54 PM)
quote: Method:An omnipotent deity could have created the universe last Thursday and implanted us all with fake memories. If the universe and earth are 6,000 years old then we have the same situation, a universe with a fake history. the speed of light in a vacuum is a measure of distance, not time nothing about distant stars renders a starightforward reading of Genesis and other scriptures "fake"

DanJames -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/9/2009 12:12:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yzf-r1 quote: Method:An omnipotent deity could have created the universe last Thursday and implanted us all with fake memories. If the universe and earth are 6,000 years old then we have the same situation, a universe with a fake history. the speed of light in a vacuum is a measure of distance, not time nothing about distant stars renders a starightforward reading of Genesis and other scriptures "fake" Hey, yzf-r1. Welcome to the Forums!!! Wow, way to wake up an old thread!!! I don't even know if EssentialSaltES or Method still exist!!! To your post. You're going to need to expand on that. How does the presence of starlight from billions of lightyears away not render a straightforward reading of Genesis fake? I agree with the second statement you made, but I'm not sure how you arrived at it with the first statement.

schtumpy -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/9/2009 2:33:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: yzf-r1 quote: Method:An omnipotent deity could have created the universe last Thursday and implanted us all with fake memories. If the universe and earth are 6,000 years old then we have the same situation, a universe with a fake history. the speed of light in a vacuum is a measure of distance, not time nothing about distant stars renders a starightforward reading of Genesis and other scriptures "fake" I agree with the second statement you made, but I'm not sure how you arrived at it with the first statement. Neither do I. The speed of light is neither a distance nor a time. It's a speed. How far it travels in a certain period of time is a distance. For example a light second, or the distance it travels in a second is about 300,000km or about 7 times around the earth. It takes 1.3 seconds to reach the moon, and 8.3 minutes to reach the sun. To reach the next nearest star at that speed it takes 4.4 years. In other words, the light from Alpha Centauri has taken 4.4 years to reach us. And, for what it's worth, the light from the edge of the Milky Way, the galaxy of which we're a part, has taken 100,000 years to reach us.

DanJames -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/9/2009 2:23:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schtumpy quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: yzf-r1 quote: Method:An omnipotent deity could have created the universe last Thursday and implanted us all with fake memories. If the universe and earth are 6,000 years old then we have the same situation, a universe with a fake history. the speed of light in a vacuum is a measure of distance, not time nothing about distant stars renders a starightforward reading of Genesis and other scriptures "fake" I agree with the second statement you made, but I'm not sure how you arrived at it with the first statement. Neither do I. The speed of light is neither a distance nor a time. It's a speed. How far it travels in a certain period of time is a distance. For example a light second, or the distance it travels in a second is about 300,000km or about 7 times around the earth. It takes 1.3 seconds to reach the moon, and 8.3 minutes to reach the sun. To reach the next nearest star at that speed it takes 4.4 years. In other words, the light from Alpha Centauri has taken 4.4 years to reach us. And, for what it's worth, the light from the edge of the Milky Way, the galaxy of which we're a part, has taken 100,000 years to reach us. After thinking about what it was that you were saying, yzf, I can see how you would say that the speed of light in a vacuum can be used to calculate the distance to the star. You are saying that the distance to the star does not necessarily disprove the Creation as recorded in Genesis. Right? Well, here Schtumpy is implying that our galaxy is big enough that what you are saying is not true. I agree with you completely, but you are the one that woke this thread back up, so I'm eager to hear your response.

yzf-r1 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/9/2009 10:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames You're going to need to expand on that. How does the presence of starlight from billions of lightyears away not render a straightforward reading of Genesis fake? ever hear of relativity? Einstein showed space-time could be distorted, and I'm confident that's exactly what happened in the prophets, God states, on numerous occasions, that He "stretched out the heavens, and marshaled their starry hosts"...most scientists acknowledge sudden inflation of the cosmos occurred, they simply default to a "big bang", because there is nothing else, short of supernatural Energy, to turn to in order to explain such a mind boggling display of Power it's also during that event I believe billion-fold radio decay may have occurred on earth, and why rocks date at such ostensible ancient ages

Veritas -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 2:07:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yzf-r1 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames You're going to need to expand on that. How does the presence of starlight from billions of lightyears away not render a straightforward reading of Genesis fake? ever hear of relativity? Einstein showed space-time could be distorted, and I'm confident that's exactly what happened Sure I've heard of relativity. Einstein showed space-time can be curved and that the curvature isn't arbitrary; it follows certain laws. It is by using the laws of relativity that we can calculate the time it would take for light to reach us from distant stars. quote: in the prophets, God states, on numerous occasions, that He "stretched out the heavens, and marshaled their starry hosts"...most scientists acknowledge sudden inflation of the cosmos occurred, they simply default to a "big bang", because there is nothing else, short of supernatural Energy, to turn to in order to explain such a mind boggling display of Power it's also during that event I believe billion-fold radio decay may have occurred on earth, and why rocks date at such ostensible ancient ages The expansion of space wasn't an event that happened in the past. Space has been expanding since the beginning and it's still going on.

brujaq -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 9:05:23 AM)
One of the psalm,s states that "If I ascend heaven You are there .. If I make my bed in hell You are there " .... No where in existance can you go where God is not ... So .. When God said " LET THERE BE LIGHT " LIGHT DID NOT BEGAN TO TRAVEL BUT LIGHT IMMEDIATELY EXISTED .. Thus light was created before the stars and the heavenly bodies ..

drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 11:12:08 AM)
quote: So .. When God said " LET THERE BE LIGHT " LIGHT DID NOT BEGAN TO TRAVEL BUT LIGHT IMMEDIATELY EXISTED .. Thus light was created before the stars and the heavenly bodies .. I'm having trouble figuring out how light could exist without travelling! Now I will admit that nobody but God was around to see it for 5 days, but that would not change the physical characteristic of photons moving in space during time. Obviously the source of light was not initially from celestial bodies since they were not created until day 4.

DanJames -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 12:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas quote: ORIGINAL: yzf-r1 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames You're going to need to expand on that. How does the presence of starlight from billions of lightyears away not render a straightforward reading of Genesis fake? ever hear of relativity? Einstein showed space-time could be distorted, and I'm confident that's exactly what happened Sure I've heard of relativity. Einstein showed space-time can be curved and that the curvature isn't arbitrary; it follows certain laws. It is by using the laws of relativity that we can calculate the time it would take for light to reach us from distant stars. quote: in the prophets, God states, on numerous occasions, that He "stretched out the heavens, and marshaled their starry hosts"...most scientists acknowledge sudden inflation of the cosmos occurred, they simply default to a "big bang", because there is nothing else, short of supernatural Energy, to turn to in order to explain such a mind boggling display of Power it's also during that event I believe billion-fold radio decay may have occurred on earth, and why rocks date at such ostensible ancient ages The expansion of space wasn't an event that happened in the past. Space has been expanding since the beginning and it's still going on. Veritas!! Where have you been hiding!? [;)] Just to dabble on this point a bit, have you looked over Dr Humphrey's explanation of gravitational time dilation as it applies to the creation event? Do you have any comments on it?

raoooul -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 8:22:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 My old Young Earth thread pretty much went unanswered, but I will give this another go. It has been asserted again and again there is evidence for young earth creationism in thread after thread on this forum. Here's your chance (again), to make your case.... Why i it so hard to get a good argument for the universe having been created in 6 (24) hour days. It's a piece of cake, just as the bible states and as science has been preaching for the last sixty years [this is when the name was coined]. Yet the evidence for the young earth thory has been around for the last 82 years. "After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lema�tre in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[3] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

LoyalGypsy -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 9:25:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: raoooul quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 My old Young Earth thread pretty much went unanswered, but I will give this another go. It has been asserted again and again there is evidence for young earth creationism in thread after thread on this forum. Here's your chance (again), to make your case.... Why i it so hard to get a good argument for the universe having been created in 6 (24) hour days. It's a piece of cake, just as the bible states and as science has been preaching for the last sixty years [this is when the name was coined]. Yet the evidence for the young earth thory has been around for the last 82 years. "After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lema�tre in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[3] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang proportional to their redshifts ...Have figured out the center point yet?

yzf-r1 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/10/2009 10:17:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy proportional to their redshifts ...Have figured out the center point yet? http://www.icr.org/article/battle-for-cosmic-center/

raoooul -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (3/12/2009 10:01:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy proportional to their redshifts ...Have figured out the center point yet? And they never will, as it is impossible to determine the center of a rising loaf of raisin bread by how much the raisins are moving.

benelchi -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/2/2009 11:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark My basic assumption is that true knowledge, hence scientific facts, can only be determined by reliance on God's Word. Not man-made theories or humanist dogma. Are you willing to accept that assumption? If you are defining "God's word" as everything made by him in the world around us, then I will accept your assumption that truth can be understood by examining "God's word"; however, if you are defining "God's word" as only the text of the bible then I am NOT willing to accept that assumption because it is NOT biblical! "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psa�19:1-4�NIV) Please let us stick to biblical assumptions rather than the assumptions of organizations like AiG.

drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/2/2009 11:44:47 AM)
quote: however, if you are defining "God's word" as only the text of the bible then I am NOT willing to accept that assumption because it is NOT biblical! Okay, I will bite. Chapter and verse, please, that God's word is more than biblical text. BTW, this thread has been inactive for almost four months. What made you come to it again, benelchi?

benelchi -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/2/2009 11:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: however, if you are defining "God's word" as only the text of the bible then I am NOT willing to accept that assumption because it is NOT biblical! Okay, I will bite. Chapter and verse, please, that God's word is more than biblical text. Actually, my point wasn't about redefining "God's word" and while verses can be found that demonstrate that "God's word" is far more than the written word of Scripture (Jn. 1.1 for example), the point is that Scripture itself declares that a knowledge of God can be seen in his creation and an examination of his creation will reveal aspects about the creator. Assuming that truth is ONLY found in the bible is not biblical. The truth of God's written word will not contradict the truth about God found in his creation (although it clearly does contradict some interpretations of God's word) and an examination of his creation will reveal aspects of the creator to anyone who genuinely seeks to understand. quote: BTW, this thread has been inactive for almost four months. What made you come to it again, benelchi? Your very recent link to this thread in a current thread.

drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/2/2009 12:28:20 PM)
quote: the point is that Scripture itself declares that a knowledge of God can be seen in his creation and an examination of his creation will reveal aspects about the creator. Sure, I agree with this. Thanks for the clarification.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 10 [11]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI