[_ Old Earth _] Hey Barbarian

[Lewis]

Evidence for a Young World
http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
https://answersingenesis.org/eviden...nces-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

 

[turnorburn]

Just the facts. They are quite right. The evidence does show an old Earth.



Which is why most Christians don't accept the modern speculations about a young Earth.



Occam?



Which rules out YE. YE depends more on the visions of an adventist "prophetess" than on the text of Genesis. If you take the literal meaning of Genesis, then it becomes clear that you cannot force a young Earth into it. Long before we had physical evidence showing a great age for the Earth, Christians realized the "Yom" of Genesis were not meant to mean literal 24 hour days.

Christians have never had any confusion about a day.. 12 hours of day 12 hours of night..

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Barbarian]

The Gish Gallop? O.K. The error here is to suppose that those arms are solid. The stars move through them, and the different rate makes the arms, not rotation itself:
1. The mechanism that perpetuates the density waves – why they don’t just dissipate – is that as a star approaches a density wave, it will speed up slightly due to the gravity of the stars there. And as a star is about to leave a density wave, it will slow down a little, again because of the higher gravity there. So they won’t just smooth out over time.


How did the spiral arms get there in the first place? The main idea here is that all you need is a disk of stars. Stars closest to the center of the disk will need to rotate around it faster than those near the edge, just like planets in our solar system (Mercury’s velocity around the sun is much faster than Earth’s). This can easily set up the initial differential rotation needed to start them.


In addition to this, stars do not orbit on circular paths, rather on elliptical ones (Kepler’s first law). When farthest from the center, their velocity will be at its slowest (Kepler’s second law). When you have just a few extra stars traveling a little slower in some parts of a differentially rotating disk, then you will get spiral patterns.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2...alaxies-wind-up-too-fast-for-an-old-universe/

The "too few supernova remnants" story fell apart a long time ago. In 1976, Clark and Caswell showed that we are seeing about the right number of remnants for a universe several billion years old:
D.H. Clark & J.L. Caswell, "A Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants, based on Molonglo-Parkes Observational Data", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 174, February 1976

The "too many comets" story falls apart on one very simple fact. We now know there are innumerable comets out just beyond the orbit of Pluto, in the Kuiper belt. Every now and then, one is bumped out of orbit and falls toward the Sun.

Once we couldn't actually see them, but we knew where they were. You see, Kepler's Laws and Newton's theory of gravitation made it easy to tell from where they were coming. And the apogees were all out there. We knew it was a belt, because they all came in on the plane of the ecliptic. Likewise, we know about the Oort cloud by the same method. We can't yet see any of them, but physics makes it plain that they are there.

Too little sediment on the seafloor?
Dr. Hovind has botched it further by asserting that only a few thousand year's worth of sediment is on the ocean floor! In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening. (Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand years" no matter what we are looking at!)

What are the odds of such a triple "coincidence" occurring? It boggles the mind! It's easy to see why scientists "bet" on an old-earth. And what about those magnetic stripes on the Atlantic sea floor? If that ocean floor is indeed spreading, then the thickness of those stripes and their distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge preserve a chronological record of magnetic field reversals. When those distances and widths are divided by the sea floor spreading rate, do we get a match with the magnetic reversal chronology based on the radiometric dating of continental rocks? Yes, we do!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

Galloping on...(next post)

 

[Barbarian]

Christians have never had any confusion about a day.. 12 hours of day 12 hours of night..

In fact, as you learned, St. Augustine pointed out that there was no way to make literal 24 hour days out of the "yom" in Genesis. And no one at the time thought to disagree with him. The idea of revising them to literal days is a very modern one.

 

[Barbarian]

Back to the gallop...

The old "not enough salt in the sea" story, ignores the fact that we have miles-deep deposits of sea salt on land, in the Himalayas, in ancient dried seabeds, and so on. The salt also leaves the sea in various ways. The cool thing is, because various compounds have different solubilities, you can get just about any "age" you want for the world by picking the right element. Iron, for example, would give you hundreds of years.

Decaying magnetic field?
The Earth's magnetic field has gone up and down over the millions of years. Occasionally, it even flips. The fluctuations leave traces in the particles of magnetic material in rocks. See the ocean data, above. Creationists simply assumed that it's been decaying from the start, when it's actually been increasing and decreasing at different times.

Many strata are too tightly bent?
Rock can bend over long periods of time, if the stress isn't too great and the time is long. We know this is true, because there are cases where it happened too fast or too strongly, and the layers shattered, often with only some of them so affected. No way this would happen with soft sediment.

Biological material lasts too long?
So far, nothing has gone beyond the theoretical limits of reaction mechanisms. Since many biological reaction rates in the absence of enzymes go to millions of years, it's not surprising that some biological material is very long-lived.

By now, you're probably wondering if there's anything here that might stand up under inspection. If this is a little tedious for you, why not pick out two or three you find most convincing, and I'll get to them first?

 

[Lewis]

Hmmmm ok will return shortly

 

[Jacks Bratt]

They used to say that about the Kuiper Belt, which was discovered by the same sort of evidence by which we know the Oort Cloud exists. To wit:
Using Kepler's laws, and Newton's theory of gravitation, astronomers calculated the orbits of short-term comets, finding that they almost all had apogees (orbit point most distant from the Sun) in a zone out beyond Pluto. Because short-term comets come in along the ecliptic (plane of the solar system) they knew that the comets were in a belt along that plane.

And later, when we had the technology, scientists confirmed the existence of the Kuiper Belt by direct observation.

The Oort Cloud was discovered in the same manner. Analysis of their paths shows that they originate far from the Sun, some of them nearly a light-year away. Because they come in at all angles, scientists know that they exist in a spherical shell around the solar system.



Neither was the Kuiper belt. But we knew about it long before we could see it.



See above. You were misled about that.



See above. God gave us curiosity and intelligence to be able to work these things out in the world He gave us. One of the great joys of living, is learning more about His creation, which reflect His power and majesty. Don't shut yourself off from that.



In these cases, no speculation was needed. We had sufficient evidence to know.

And...... It is still unproven, unseen, a figment of those well wishers imaginations. It should never be spoken of as if it were fact or tangible or a scientific constant on which to build arguments..... It's an assumption. We all know what an assumption does.....

 

[turnorburn]

In fact, as you learned, St. Augustine pointed out that there was no way to make literal 24 hour days out of the "yom" in Genesis. And no one at the time thought to disagree with him. The idea of revising them to literal days is a very modern one.

Literal days have been the standard since the beginning, Augustine was just another confused man, not some god that you present him to be..

 

[Barbarian]

And...... It is still unproven, unseen, a figment of those well wishers imaginations.

That's what they said, when the Kuiper Belt was discovered by plotting the paths of short-term comets. But then the method was validated when we were able to directly observe the Kuiper objects. So it's rather pointless to deny that the method works, seeing as it has already been demonstrated to work.

It should never be spoken of as if it were fact or tangible or a scientific constant on which to build arguments.....

As you now realize, the method worked exactly right in finding the Kuiper Belt. The predicted mass of comets beyond Pluto has been verified. There was never any doubt; the laws of physics made it certain.

It's an assumption.

It was an inference from evidence. It is now a verified fact. Your assumption... well...

We all know what an assumption does.....

Yep. You see why science goes with facts, instead of assumptions?

 

[Barbarian]

Literal days have been the standard since the beginning,

I just showed you otherwise. St. Augustine spent years trying to find a way to understand Genesis as a literal history, and he could not. No one at the time contradicted him. Today, he is considered one of the most authoritative theologians in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant branches of our faith.

Augustine was just another confused man,

Sorry, his piety and scholarship make him far more credible than anyone on this board. That's just how it is.

not some god that you present him to be..

I'm sure that when you settle down, you'll realize that was a very unwise thing for you to write.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's a golden oldy:
Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

First, the polonium halos only show up in rocks near or with significant radioactive material. But the easiest way to dispose of this story is to point out that Gentry considers these to be the first rock created. But they are intrusive rock, which flowed into existing sedimentary rock, and therefore cannot be first.

No way to dodge that one.

 

[Barbarian]

The "excess helium" story has been refuted by other creationists:
However, the most extensive and devastating recent criticisms of Dr. Humphreys' claims originate from old-Earth creationist and materials engineer Dr. Gary H. Loechelt. Dr. Loechelt applied multi-domain diffusion models to Dr Humphreys' and R. V. Gentry's data, which raise many new arguments that further undermine Dr. Humphreys' young-Earth creationist (YEC) claims. Loechelt (2008a; 2008b), which are at the old-Earth creationist Reasons to Believe website, are brief and less technical summaries of Loechelt (2008c). Loechelt (2008c) is a detailed report that argues that Dr. Humphreys' claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent and erroneous, and that Dr. Humphreys' helium diffusion data are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl4.htm

 

[Barbarian]

Here's one so dumb, I'm surprised even the ICR would try it:
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

Fossilization is extraordinarily rare. There are certainly many artifacts from very early man, and his predecessors, but the ICR argument would also mean that there would be billions of skeletons from Roman and Medieval times still intact. And there are not.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

That's what they said, when the Kuiper Belt was discovered by plotting the paths of short-term comets. But then the method was validated when we were able to directly observe the Kuiper objects. So it's rather pointless to deny that the method works, seeing as it has already been demonstrated to work.



As you now realize, the method worked exactly right in finding the Kuiper Belt. The predicted mass of comets beyond Pluto has been verified. There was never any doubt; the laws of physics made it certain.



It was an inference from evidence. It is now a verified fact. Your assumption... well...



Yep. You see why science goes with facts, instead of assumptions?

And, It's still an assumption.

A guy watches another guy go over to a bucket and pull out a rock..... He goes over and reaches around....no rock......

Your argument is bogus. Just because the Kuiper belt was there has absolutely zero basis for the Oort cloud to be there. It is created to explain an unexplainable event. It is presented as fact when it is all talk. This is not science. You cannot "if this, then this, if that, then this and so on and so on. All the while the first IF is unproven....That is kangaroo science and they teach this and talk about them as if they are as real as Mount Everest. Meanwhile they are as real as Spider-man.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's what they said, when the Kuiper Belt was discovered by plotting the paths of short-term comets. But then the method was validated when we were able to directly observe the Kuiper objects. So it's rather pointless to deny that the method works, seeing as it has already been demonstrated to work.
As you now realize, the method worked exactly right in finding the Kuiper Belt. The predicted mass of comets beyond Pluto has been verified. There was never any doubt; the laws of physics made it certain.

And, It's still an assumption.

Nope. Inference from evidence. And as you now see, we did the same thing to discover the Kuiper Belt, which we can now observe. So we know it works. Kepler's laws make it certain. If you observe the path of a comet, you will find the apogee, from which comets come.

A guy watches another guy go over to a bucket and pull out a rock..... He goes over and reaches around....no rock......

That's not what scientists did. You still don't get it.

Your argument is bogus. Just because the Kuiper belt was there has absolutely zero basis for the Oort cloud to be there.

The same evidence and reasoning confirmed the Kuiper Belt long before we could actually see it. So there's really no point in denial, is there?

It is created to explain an unexplainable event. It is presented as fact when it is all talk.

As you learned, it's evidence and reason.

This is not science.

It's what science does. We take evidence, see what it indicates, and make predictions. Then we test them. And in this case, we know it works, because we've tested it and verified it.

You cannot "if this, then this, if that, then this and so on and so on. All the while the first IF is unproven....That is kangaroo science and they teach this and talk about them as if they are as real as Mount Everest. Meanwhile they are as real as Spider-man.

See above. Scientists used facts and demonstrated theories to predict the Kuiper Belt long before it was seen. That's how science works. Even creationists now admit that half of that story is false. And when we find a way to detect the Oort Cloud, it will be found. Because the same process verified the Kuiper Belt. BTW, I think you actually mean "inexplicable", not unexplainable. "Unexplainable" means there can't be an explanation for it, while "inexplicable" means that there hasn't been an explanation found for it. Today, most people use the two interchangeably. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud were once inexplicable, but as you just discovered, they were not unexplainable.

 

[turnorburn]

I just showed you otherwise. St. Augustine spent years trying to find a way to understand Genesis as a literal history, and he could not. No one at the time contradicted him. Today, he is considered one of the most authoritative theologians in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant branches of our faith.



Sorry, his piety and scholarship make him far more credible than anyone on this board. That's just how it is.



I'm sure that when you settle down, you'll realize that was a very unwise thing for you to write.

Your forgetting something else about Augustine "Augustine is often recognized explicitly as the father of the Inquisition" and he's your go to guy??..

St Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion. Had not Christ himself blinded St Paul in order to make him see the true light. According to Augustine, coercion using "great violence" was justified. He made a distinction between unbelievers who persecuted because of cruelty as against Christians who persecuted because of love. A war to preserve or restore the unity of the Church was a just war, a bellum Deo auctore, a war waged by God himself. He also found a way to avoid churchmen getting blood on their hands: dissension against the Church amounted to dissension against the state, so anyone condemned by the Church should be punished by the state. Centuries in the future such ideas would culminate in the activities of the Inquisition, which also required the secular authority to execute its judgements of blood. Augustine is often recognised explicitly as the father of the Inquisition, since he was responsible for adopting Roman methods of torture for the purposes of the Church in order to ensure uniformity. Already, in AD 385, the first recorded executions for heresy had been carried out under Emperor Maximus at the request of Spanish bishops. Priscillian, Bishop of Ávila, had been charged with witchcraft, though his real crime seems to have been agreeing with Gnostic opinions. Along with his companions he was tried and tortured. They confessed, and were executed. The Church now had precedents for both witch-hunting and for persecuting heretics, with a moral unpinning provided by St Augustine.

http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html

 

[Barbarian]

I think you lost focus a bit. We're talking about why it's a bad idea to re-interpret Genesis as a literal history. It's true that people like Torquemada, Calvin, Cromwell, Cotton Mather, and so on, looked back to Augustine to justify their atrocities. But as you say, Augustine was a man, a fallible man. He was just more careful in his reading of Genesis than you are.

 

[turnorburn]

I think you lost focus a bit. We're talking about why it's a bad idea to re-interpret Genesis as a literal history. It's true that people like Torquemada, Calvin, Cromwell, Cotton Mather, and so on, looked back to Augustine to justify their atrocities. But as you say, Augustine was a man, a fallible man. He was just more careful in his reading of Genesis than you are.

i didn't lose focus just pointing out that your going to a fallible man with fallible ideas to get the truth, Genesis is easy to understand a child can understand it..

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Barbarian]

i didn't lose focus just pointing out that your going to a fallible man with fallible ideas to get the truth,

Of course he's fallible. He's just not as fallible as those who want to revise Genesis to a literal history. You lost focus, dropping the issue of Genesis and switching to the issue of religious persecution.

 

[turnorburn]

Of course he's fallible. He's just not as fallible as those who want to revise Genesis to a literal history. You lost focus, dropping the issue of Genesis and switching to the issue of religious persecution.

Not losing focus because it has everything to do with your theology, a man that thinks the Inquisitions are acceptable in the kingdom of God doesn't know Jesus. If said person doesn't know Jesus why listen to him at all when it comes to the things of God?