|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 8/21/2008 11:40:16 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/8/2009 10:43:54 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
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"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/9/2009 12:12:07 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 865
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/9/2009 2:33:09 AM
|
|
|
schtumpy
Posts: 900
Joined: 12/2/2008
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
I deplore what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/9/2009 2:23:13 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 865
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/9/2009 10:49:18 PM
|
|
|
yzf-r1
Posts: 572
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/10/2009 2:07:18 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 543
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/10/2009 9:05:23 AM
|
|
|
brujaq
Posts: 15
Joined: 4/29/2007
Status: offline
|
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 ..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/10/2009 11:12:08 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4632
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/10/2009 12:20:02 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 865
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/10/2009 8:22:31 PM
|
|
|
raoooul
Posts: 168
Joined: 3/7/2009
Status: offline
|
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 Lemaître 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
_____________________________
Are our beliefs biblical ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/10/2009 9:25:29 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2244
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
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 Lemaître 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?
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 3/12/2009 10:01:18 AM
|
|
|
raoooul
Posts: 168
Joined: 3/7/2009
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Are our beliefs biblical ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/2/2009 11:40:05 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4567
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/2/2009 11:44:47 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4632
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
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?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/2/2009 11:57:04 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4567
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 7/2/2009 12:28:20 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4632
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
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. 
Anything but a flood even though the only event that's been verified by ancient tribes is a flood. 
