[_ Old Earth _] DATING METHODS SHOWING A YOUNG EARTH

[Scott]

When an event occcurs, that is evidence. The Bible said it happened, so that is the evidence. Do you mean you don't believe the Bible as evidence?

Mixing the supernatural and science is bad science, and even worse theology.

That is exactly what theistic evolution is.

They defy neither logic nor science.

Why did the sky turn dark (Christ's death) without an eclipse? Where is your logic and your scientific theory?

Once you get into the realms of magic and faith, it doesn't work.

Magic?



How do we understand the creation?; By understanding the Creator.

How do we understand the Creator?; By reading His Word.

 

[The 13th Disciple of JC]

When an event occcurs, that is evidence. The Bible said it happened, so that is the evidence. Do you mean you don't believe the Bible as evidence?

I believe the bible!!!! I'm just saying that people are going to want to be able to find things 4 themselves. And reading about something, and actually seeing it happen are two different things!

 

[Barbarian]

When an event occcurs, that is evidence. The Bible said it happened, so that is the evidence. Do you mean you don't believe the Bible as evidence?

The Bible is testimony, obtained from traditional sources generally thought to be authoritative. It was compiled at a relatively late date, and based on tradition, scholarship, and insperation. It is not evidence, which must be reproducible.

Barbarian observes:
Mixing the supernatural and science is bad science, and even worse theology.

That is exactly what theistic evolution is.

No, that's exactly what theistic evolution avoids. It looks for scientific understanding in science, and religious enlightenment in faith.

Why did the sky turn dark (Christ's death) without an eclipse? Where is your logic and your scientific theory?

Science can't say anything about faith-based things. What exactly happened is forever out of reach.

Barbarian, on science:
Once you get into the realms of magic and faith, it doesn't work.

Magic?

And any other supernatural things or ideas.

How do we understand the creation?; By understanding the Creator.

Right. But science won't do that for you.

How do we understand the Creator?; By reading His Word.

And that is why most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His creation.

 

[Scott]

Quote:
That is exactly what theistic evolution is.

No, that's exactly what theistic evolution avoids. It looks for scientific understanding in science, and religious enlightenment in faith.

Evolution wasn't based on scripture. It is based on science alone. The big bang theory leaves out God, while theistic evolutionists try to fit God into it. So in essence, it is mixing the supernatural and science.

Science can't say anything about faith-based things. What exactly happened is forever out of reach.

This isn't faith based. To use a scientific term, it is called an event. It happened. It didn't happen based on faith.

So what you are saying is that science won't attempt to explain that darkness but tries to explain Biblical creation?

The theory of evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Only by theistic evolutionists are they both mingled together.

And that is why most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His creation.

Thats a stretch. Most liberal Christians is more accurate.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, that's exactly what theistic evolution avoids. It looks for scientific understanding in science, and religious enlightenment in faith.

Evolution wasn't based on scripture.

Neither was electronics. God left out a lot of things that you would see in a science textbook. Apparently, that wasn't His objective.

It is based on science alone. The big bang theory leaves out God, while theistic evolutionists try to fit God into it. So in essence, it is mixing the supernatural and science.

Nope. No theistic evolutionist does science with God in it. But our faith does include the observation that God is responsible for the origin of the physical universe. Here's an easy way to remember it; "Science can't talk about God, but scientists can."

Barbarian observes:
Science can't say anything about faith-based things. What exactly happened is forever out of reach.

This isn't faith based. To use a scientific term, it is called an event. It happened. It didn't happen based on faith.

The Big Bang seems almost certain to have happened. But if you say that God did it, that's a religious observation. In the case of the Big Bang, we can see what happened right after the beginning, but science has no way of seeing the beginning.

As C.S. Lewis had Aslan remark, science knows the magic right after the beginning, but it can't know the deep magic at the beginning.

So what you are saying is that science won't attempt to explain that darkness but tries to explain Biblical creation?

No.

The theory of evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

True, but evolution and creation are compatible. How could it be otherwise? This statement is, of course, a religious one. Science would have no way of saying that. Remember, scientists can talk about religion, even if science can't.

Barbarian observes:
And that is why most Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His creation.

Thats a stretch. Most liberal Christians is more accurate.

Creationists are a minority, even in America, and they are a tiny minority among Christians elsewhere.

 

[victorhadin]

U236 in quantity on the moon? Hehehe....



Look up 'nuclear fission', chaps. :

 

[dwise1_aol]

For evolution to be remotely possible, many millions of years are needed. If it can be shown that the earth is young (about 6000 - 10,000 years old), and not millions of years old (as required by evolution), then evolution would not have enough time to happen.

Consider these examples proving a young earth:

[ snip ]

17. HOT "O" type stars are 10,000 times the diameter of our sun, and radiate 100,000 times more energy. Burning down at this rate, and working back in time, the entire universe would have been filled with the mass of these stars 20,000 years ago, not millions of years ago.

Source: H. Slusher, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1975, p.2

[/b]

Could you please explain this claim to me? I had just recently encountered it in a somewhat less coherent form. For one thing, what are the assumptions being made? Since you have the source article, could you please summarize how Slusher had arrived at this claim?

Actually, if you could scan the article and email me the graphics file, I would really appreciate it.

 

[Barbarian]

Since we can observe star formation, and the formation of supergiants, even in very dense clouds, is pretty rare, I don't see from where his conclusion comes myself.

I would also like to see the reasoning.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

It's a biblethumper arguing cosmology and astronomy in the 70's. He probably knows some assorted facts he read in an encyclopedia and little else and has calculated everything from there. Utterly worthless in a modern debate considering the state of modern cosmology.

 

[Vic C.]

...Source: H. Slusher, Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1975, p.2

Could you please explain this claim to me? I had just recently encountered it in a somewhat less coherent form. For one thing, what are the assumptions being made? Since you have the source article, could you please summarize how Slusher had arrived at this claim?

Actually, if you could scan the article and email me the graphics file, I would really appreciate it.

I'm sure Atonement can help you help you out. But in the meantime, you piqued my curiosity. Here's what I came up with in a Google search... >Bible Science Newsletter<

 

[dwise1_aol]

It's a biblethumper arguing cosmology and astronomy in the 70's. He probably knows some assorted facts he read in an encyclopedia and little else and has calculated everything from there. Utterly worthless in a modern debate considering the state of modern cosmology.

Actually, Harold Slusher has degrees in physics and training in astronomy, so he should know better than to make such claims. He is currently on staff as an assistent professor in the physics department of a state university, along with another creationist, Thomas Barnes (of geo-magnetic-field-decay infamy) who is for some reason no longer on the web site (probably retired by now). Slusher's monograph critiquing radiometric dating is considered by some to contain one of the best explanation of half-lives out there, even though his conclusions are totally unsupported by the evidence and by scientific practices.

Therefore, Slusher's false claims are not simply errors made out of ignorance, but rather deliberately false claims made with the knowledge that they are false. That is something much worse and much more troubling.

Now, is this ATONEMENT guy even around any more?

 

[Atonement]

WOW.. I'm surprised, amazed, shocked that this topic is still here, I thought it would have fallen of the earth by along time ago.. In answer to your question about the source, alot has happened to my files on my computer, infact had to buy a new computer because my mother-board crashed over a year ago.. Look at the date I started this thread.. Sep 17, 2002 2:03 pm WOW!! No I no longer have the source, and I'm very sorry for that, but there is nothing I can do to retrieve the source, my old computer is gone, and that file was saved on there. When I bought my new PC I tried to retrieve many files but that was all in vain..

-Atone

 

[dwise1_aol]

WOW.. I'm surprised, amazed, shocked that this topic is still here, I thought it would have fallen of the earth by along time ago.. In answer to your question about the source, alot has happened to my files on my computer, infact had to buy a new computer because my mother-board crashed over a year ago.. Look at the date I started this thread.. Sep 17, 2002 2:03 pm WOW!! No I no longer have the source, and I'm very sorry for that, but there is nothing I can do to retrieve the source, my old computer is gone, and that file was saved on there. When I bought my new PC I tried to retrieve many files but that was all in vain..

-Atone

Hence the reason for maintaining backups.

However, assuming that your wet-ware didn't also crash (ie, your brain), you should at least remember something about your source. Did you use the primary source (ie, Slusher's article itself)? Or did you get it from a secondary, tertiary, etc, source? In print or online?

But more importantly, what is that claim saying? What are its premises and assumptions? Remember, my main problem with it is that it appears to be incoherent nonsense (and your copy is the most coherent form I've found it in so far). Assuming that Slusher had written it coherently and every creationist repeating it had jumbled it because they had no idea what it said and so didn't know how to quote it selectively, that would mean that what you have there had lost its meaning a long time ago.

So, what DOES that claim say and what does it mean? You had a reason and purpose for posting it; what was that reason and what was that purpose that you thought it would serve?

For the sake of the truth.

 

[Atonement]

dwise1_aol, I did use Slusher's article that I found at the public library, That article was posted verbatim. I went and asked the libaranian where I could find something on Slusher. I can not and will not try to go through each of these claims, unless I have the material to use. That would be unwise for me to try it.. However, you can go to the library and look for some of his stuff, and read up on it. As I stated this thread was started nearly two years ago. I refuse to contemplate each of these claims now.

-Atone

 

[dwise1_aol]

dwise1_aol, I did use Slusher's article that I found at the public library, That article was posted verbatim. I went and asked the libaranian where I could find something on Slusher. I can not and will not try to go through each of these claims, unless I have the material to use. That would be unwise for me to try it.. However, you can go to the library and look for some of his stuff, and read up on it. As I stated this thread was started nearly two years ago. I refuse to contemplate each of these claims now.

-Atone

I have been trying to find a library that carries Bible-Science Newsletter but without success.

You say that the article was posted verbatim. Was that the complete article? Was that all that he had written on that claim? Did he have a bibliography attached to it that might have indicated that he was summarizing it from something else he had written?

Was that the entire article that you quoted? If so, then I can email Slusher requesting clarification. Unfortunately, Slusher has for decades had a reputation for refusing to support any of his claims, so I wanted to have at least had a chance to read the original article before asking him about it.

And I find your own negative attitude towards the truth rather disturbing. I am seeking the truth and most Christians claim to serve Truth, so what's with your attitude there? You posted those claims, which makes you responsible to support your use of those claims. Since when were Christians supposed to avoid responsibility for their actions? According to my own observations, that's what they are always accusing atheists of doing.

You had a reason for choosing to post that particular claim. And you apparently thought that it would serve a purpose. You do not need to have in your possession a copy of the original article to be able to say why you had chosen to post that particular claim or what purpose you thought that it would serve.

Besides, if you are indeed in the service of Truth, wouldn't you need to know whether a particular claim is true or not? Or do you believe that God is to be served with falsehoods?

That is a serious question: isn't God supposed to be serve through truthfulness and not through falsehood?

 

[Atonement]

And I find your own negative attitude towards the truth rather disturbing.

My own negative attitude? Sorry but I don't have a negative attitude on this subject at all, I'm open to hear all views. Infact I find it discerning that you are still trying to debate a topic that was posted almost two years ago, and you wanna give me hell about it because I longer have the material your asking for.. So if one's attitude needs to be checked it's diffentley yours..

You posted those claims, which makes you responsible to support your use of those claims. Since when were Christians supposed to avoid responsibility for their actions?

Do I feel responsable?? NO!! Here's why read the orginal thread again at the bottom, I added this disclaimer..

Atonement Wrote:
I have provided the magazines, books and authors of these experiments. Research this stuff. I only bring it here for you to look at and review. Maybe it will help with some questions that you have.

And who has the attitude here? Your asking for the material that was lost over a year ago, do your own research dwise1_aol, I did mine and I posted it, didn't I? So yes please email Slusher, get all the material you can and start a thread of your own. It's your time to do the research. I posted those claims because it was a great topic starter. I don't feel the need to anylonger, debate this topic, argue any points of views on this topic either. Did I ever point out my views on this matter?? Not once did I?? Read again if you disagree with that statement!!!! So check your attitude here man, because with your attitude, "if" I did have the material I sure would not post it here and now.. As far as I'm concerend this topic is done, over with, and I will not check back for responces.. Take sometime to really enjoy your life and May God Bless you brother..


-Atone

 

[dwise1_aol]

And I find your own negative attitude towards the truth rather disturbing.

My own negative attitude? Sorry but I don't have a negative attitude on this subject at all, I'm open to hear all views. Infact I find it discerning that you are still trying to debate a topic that was posted almost two years ago, and you wanna give me hell about it because I longer have the material your asking for.. So if one's attitude needs to be checked it's diffentley yours..

What does that have to do with seeking the truth?

I had just encountered that claim elsewhere and Google'd for it to try to find a version of it that made at least some sense. Your post from 18 months ago (your "almost two years ago" is somewhat of an exageration) was one of the very few I could find and the only one that made more sense than the one I had first encountered. Furthermore, I am trying to discover information about that claim, not to debate it with you. So your complaint of "trying to debate a topic that was posted almost two years ago" is groundless, false, and misleading (since it is an attempt to change the subject -- a dishonest trick far too often employed by creationists).

Furthermore, I am not trying to "give [you] hell about it because [you] longer have the material [I'm] asking for". I asked you for what you remembered about it! Your claim and false accusation is lie. Why are creationists so prone to resorting to lies?

[quote:4ce15]You posted those claims, which makes you responsible to support your use of those claims. Since when were Christians supposed to avoid responsibility for their actions?

Do I feel responsable?? NO!! Here's why read the orginal thread again at the bottom, I added this disclaimer..

[quote:4ce15] Atonement Wrote:
I have provided the magazines, books and authors of these experiments. Research this stuff. I only bring it here for you to look at and review. Maybe it will help with some questions that you have.

And who has the attitude here? Your asking for the material that was lost over a year ago, do your own research dwise1_aol, I did mine and I posted it, didn't I? So yes please email Slusher, get all the material you can and start a thread of your own. It's your time to do the research. I posted those claims because it was a great topic starter. I don't feel the need to anylonger, debate this topic, argue any points of views on this topic either. Did I ever point out my views on this matter?? Not once did I?? Read again if you disagree with that statement!!!! So check your attitude here man, because with your attitude, "if" I did have the material I sure would not post it here and now.. As far as I'm concerend this topic is done, over with, and I will not check back for responces.. Take sometime to really enjoy your life and May God Bless you brother..


-Atone[/quote:4ce15][/quote:4ce15]
Did I ask for that material? In my first post, yes, I did, hoping that you did still have it. I've got materials I researched more than ten years ago, so if you were at all serious in how you conduct your own research, it would be reasonable that you would still have those materials on file.

Then when you replied that you no longer had the article, I asked you for what you remember about it. Specifically, since you explicitly claim that you had quoted the article verbatim, I asked whether you had quoted it in its entirety (since your statement seemed to imply that you might have) and, if so, whether you remember whether it had included a bibliography containing another of Slusher's works. I am doing my own research! And since I have been unable to find a single library in the area that carries that publication, I was looking for clues that would aid me in my research. So far, you are the only one I know of who had actually seen that article, which makes you my best lead and which is why I have requested this information.

Therefore, you have misrepresented and lied about what I had written. You want to complain about my attitude? I value the truth very highly. For over twenty years, I have witnessed almost every single creation-science-worshipping creationist I have encountered and observed demonstrate their hatred for truth and their enthusiastic willingness to tell any lie and commit any deception they can in order to "serve" the God of Truth, even though doing so blatantly violates the "absolute" laws of the Bible that they declare they follow. There have been a few exceptions of honest creationists, but they have been extremely few and rare.

So you will need to excuse me for my lack of tolerance for such "true Christians". I do, however, have considerable respect for those Christians who do actually try to live by the moral and ethical standards taught in the Bible. Unfortunately, those sincere Christians have also proven to be extremely rare and lost in the crowd of immoral and unethical "true Christians".

What other purpose could you have had for posting so many false and misleading claims that to deceive? As much as you want to deny your personal responsibility for posting those false claims, you cannot. Don't you believe that you are personally responsible to God? Do you think that you can escape that responsibility? Do you think that you can turn away from righteousness and towards wickedness and God would reward you for it? Not from what I've read in the Bible! Yet creationists continue to practice their wickedness unrepentently.

Their own unrepentent wickness damns them as yours damns you. Have a Happy Judgement Day. You should enjoy eternity in Hell, since you'll be there will all your creationist buddies.

 

[cd27]

wow, bravo atonement, i like your work. please allow me to contribute. this is my very own evidence, along with some other evidences given by one other source.



http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=8956


mine should be at the very last, but if it isn't, jsut look for mine on the page somewhere.

 

[Barabbas]

The Scriptures do NOT say the Earth is flat, nor do they say the Earth is square. If you truly think you can find those verses. Let me have them. .
What I'm asking here again for is the Scripture and translational word itself. I eagerly await your responses, because from my studies, I find the hint of, if not the outright statement of,a round or spherical Earth, as was mentioned in earlier posts.
Yol Bolsun.

 

[Quath]

The Scriptures do NOT say the Earth is flat, nor do they say the Earth is square. If you truly think you can find those verses. Let me have them. .
What I'm asking here again for is the Scripture and translational word itself. I eagerly await your responses, because from my studies, I find the hint of, if not the outright statement of,a round or spherical Earth, as was mentioned in earlier posts.
Yol Bolsun.

Daniel 4:10-11 says the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds" - this is impossible on a spherical world.

Matthew 4:8 says "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. " - This is also imposible on a spherical world.

Revelation 1:7 says "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him" - Again impossible on a spherical earth.

There is no science ever given in the Bible that was not known to the people of that time. So a flat Earth seemed appropriate for the writers. The writers also said that the Earth was fixed and immovable and this was shown to be false later.

Quath