 |
I would be most interested in learning how those who believe in a "Young Earth" (created 6,000 years ago by God) support that position.
It is obviously not a mainstream position, so I am hoping all posters will be open to reading what the proponents will say and refrain from jumping down their throats. Thank you.
They go by the fact that if you do a timeline from present day to Adam and Eve and creation it is approximately 6 to 7 thousand years.
I have been trying to explain to Christians about the gap theory and how it makes sense that the earth is older than the 6 day creation.
The Bible says in the beginning but it does not say the beginning of what,
I believe the earth and angels were here before God's creation for us.
The original translation for beginning is even more in context of a reshaping or recreating of the order of things as well as the verse 'without form and void' is stated in Genesis 1:2 BEFORE it goes into the 6 day creation.
Thanks.
I'm mostly interested how they explain the various scientific findings about the age of the earth, the universe, the red shift from galaxies, Carbon-14, fossil records, etc.
They say carbon dating is inaccurate. I forget how they say it is inaccurate. One thing is that carbon dating is only effective for 50,000 to 60,000 years not millions
50,000 or 60,000 years is more than 6,000 years. Wouldn't that settle the matter?
"God did it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
We have a few Young Earthers on the forums, hopefully they'll come out to chat.
Actually, 50-60k years is the far outside limit that it could be used for. The accuracy even then is fading. Further, there are numerous assumptions that must be made to even accept that data, most of which cannot be validated in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Carbon dating was dealt with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Red shift - even thought about what assumptions are involved here? For example, red shifted from what? Since we cannot see stars and galaxies without that shift, we don't know what the proper colour is. Maybe there is no shift, maybe it is much less than thought - it all depends upon the assumption that one makes regarding the staring point. And, finally, even if there is a red shift, so what? That only means that there is a specific rate of change between us and the other object.
Fossil record - even Darwin said that was his biggest concern and the weakest link in his argument. The fossil record is chock full of problems for evolutionists.
Thank you, TJ3.
Are there any other arguments you would like to make in support of a Young Earth?
How can Man measure God's existence or creation? Or even time lines?
We can all assume that man made measurements of time and space , etc... are accurate, but how do we truly know? We do not. It is all based on theory and hypothisis.
But it's the same theory and hypothesis that developed the computer you are writing on, interplanetary spacecraft and navigation, the car, medicine, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
So you admit that your belief in the existence of God is not based on any observable reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
That is your take but not mine. I am not going to get in this argument but I was just sharing my thoughts.
Nighty night.
As far as the earth being older than 6,000 years maybe BUT I guess that carbon dating can only go back 50, to 60, years and then scientists are trying to use carbon dating to go back further I suppose that to young earthers it only discredits it entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
If time permitted, I could post far more than could be posted in this thread. Entire books have been written on the topic. I do not intend to try to post an exhaustive summary for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I have far too many other things which take up my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I will however contribute to this thread as time permits.
They're not. They use other radio-dating methods for ages over 60,000 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
They still suffer from unvalidated assumptionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
What are some of those unvalidated assumptions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Any peer reviewed papers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Certainly. I do not see scientific papers split into two groups - YEC and OE. All science is a study of God's creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
The most basic is an assumption of an uncontaminated sample, and the other is the assumption of what the starting point is since the technique depends upon the half-life of the substance. If there was, for some reason, a lower concentration of the substance at the site than would be expected, then you will get a much different reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
These are a couple of examples.
If that is the starting point of a scientific study then isn't the science flawed from the get-go due to preconceived notions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That depends upon the specific scientist. Good scientists are willing to accept the facts that their assumptions may be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So according to Young Earth adherents, God created the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley or the Himalayas as is?
I have never heard anyone make that claim. Have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Actually, yes, I have. So how then do the Young Earth people explain those natural wonders? They've been shaped during the past 10,000 years (or less)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No one knows exactly how they came to be, but there are certainly easy ways for such things to form in a very short timeframe. For one, check out the scientific studies done on the Mount St. Helen's area and the impact of the eruptions, the canyons, the layers, etc. that were formed. Formations once thought to require millions of years occurred in minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Secondly, when the worldwide flood occurred, it is reasonable to expect that such immense amounts of water would cause major changes to the surface of the earth.
I find the "appearance of age" arguments interesting. A few years ago a geologist tried to prove the age of the earth by sending me this picture and said - he questioned how could that fossilized beach occur in a short timeframe. For it to have been formed and risen that far above the modern beach much have taken millions of years, he said.
http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/pictures/geol6.gif
Simple calculations come to a different answer. At a rate of 1.5 cm/yr, to reach 45 meters, the beach would be only 3000 years old. At the time, I was given more information on the maximum and minimum height of the beach, and using those calculations, the maximum and minimum ages worked out to be 1000-4000 years old.
The counter argument was that the rocks behind the beach were smooth, and that must take millions of years. However, Niagara falls loses about 5-10 feet of rock every year. Now, it is under far more stress than these rocks would ever see, but to smooth the rough edges off a rock only requires a removal of an inch or two of rock, and rocks pounded by waves from the ocean for years would certainly lose an inch or so in far less than millions of years, indeed likely in less than a hundred.
I show this just to point out appearance of age does not mean that it is millions of years old. We, having lived for at most a few decades, have difficulty in getting a perspective on how fast or slow aging occurs over several hundred or thousand years.
I'm from the NF area. This is from onlineniagara.com --Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
How much does Niagara Falls erode each year?
Studies to determine how much erosion was taking place were started in 1842. Between that year and 1905 erosion took place at the rate of 1.16 meters, or 3.8 feet per year, at Horseshoe Falls. Between 1906 and 1927 the erosion rate declined to .70 meters, or 2.3 feet per year. The decline was due to water being diverted for hydro electric generation.
Currently remedial efforts are underway to reduce the erosion even more. It is estimated that erosion is reduced to less than 1 foot per year due to those efforts.
At American Falls the flow rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second is insufficient to cause any major erosion. As it stands today, American Falls has an erosion rate of about 3 to 4 inches per year. The biggest factor for the American falls is the fact that it has cracks at the Crestline in the top cap rock layer. Underneath that is a softer shale layer. The lifting action of water coming through these cracks cause them to become larger and along with the freezing and thawing each year, the rock structure continues to weaken until that part finally cracks and falls off. The flow at American Falls isn't strong enough to erode the rocks at the bottom of the Fall.
We could argue over the exact amounts that it erodes, but whether your source or mine is more accurate does not matter. It still supports what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And your source is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I looked it up years ago, and would have to dig through a lot of information to locate it again. But as I said, it does not matter. Your figures support what I said just as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
They do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
A few inches vs. 10 feet are the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Don't you mean 4 feet vs 5-10 ft? And I did not say that they were the same, but they both support my point. If you disagree, please explain. BTW, even a few inches erosion per year would be enough, so I don't know what your point is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
My post #28, bolded print. 3-4 inches vs. your 10 feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Have you ever driven through Monument Valley? No water there. How were those monoliths created?
Btw --
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...a%3DN%26um%3D1
You are arguing after erosion control and location specific rates. But nonetheless, 3-4 inches per year is more than enough. A fraction of an inche per year would be plenty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Like I said, no one knows how each of these were created. The fact that there is no water now does not mean that there was not at one time. Indeed we know that there was.Quote:
Have you ever driven through Monument Valley? No water there. How were those monoliths created?
Hmmmmmmmmmm... Please visit the American Southwest at your earliest convenience. Bring your camera and a wide-angle lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mentvalley.jpg
So what? You should see what the scenery is near where I live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I have. And it was all created within the past 6000 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 AM. |