Is the earth really 6,000 years old?

[jonathan]

wow guys.

i honestly dont undersatnd how any rational, semi-intellectual human being can possibly think the world is only 6,000 years old. floods happen ALL the time and have been happening for BILLIONS of years. floods are a quite neccessary event. they benefit nature by moving nutrients around.

But the geologic record doesn't show lots of small floods. It shows one big flood, as pointed out eariler.

jonathon- where the did u find scientific evidence that all mountains were under water?? thats just dumb. mountains were formed millions of years ago when the super-continent pangea came together and pulled apart. then after more millions of years, erosion created all the peaks we have today. there is no mother fuckin way any mountian was created in less than even 1 million years. unless formed by a giant impact... but that would be documented or mentioned somewhere during the long, 6000 year history of everything, right?

Pangea is just a hypothesis. There's no way to remotely even come close to proving what the continents were all shaped like back then. YOu don't know about all the proof they've found up in the mountains. So you can't say until you look. And mountains can form very quickly with plates moving and earthquakes, and natural phenomena. The way the layers of sediment formed, it's widespread, and it's like when you shake a glass with different minerals and they setttle in different layers. When earthquakes happen continents can get squshed and they form a mountain range like the rockies or the himlayas or appalation mountains in a line.

i also dont think the people cutting and pasting this "scientific evidence" either read them or know who wrote them. 100% chance the author of everything like that is christian. or from a christian organization

I read the evidence I post. I research the stuf I talk about. I don't pretend to be a genius and know all this stuff, but that doesn't keep me from understanding what it mrans if someone explains it to me.Yes it is a Christian organization and theirs nothing wrong with being CHristian or having a bias. I don't agree with everything they think, and I use discernment.

please...i beg u naysayers to read this thread below.... (you'll see it has these crazy things called REFERENCES!!!) the site point blank takes "young-earthers' arguements and tells why they are invalid/wrong/dumb/impossible
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-....html#creadate
can't wait to hear the garbage jonathon has to say about that site...... i bet he wont even read it, "bow out" of the thread and then rationalize that since he stopped posting he some how is right

I hope you're not expecting me to answer the whole site. I just think it's like this. I don't have to pull out every evidence for creation or answer every arguemnt you have against creation. All I have to prove is a logical line to the Truth. I think I've shown enough fallacies to show that evolution is an unobserved hypothetical phenomena with repeatedly provn wrong hypothesis' and touted proofs.

this thread is pretty much a duplicate of....http://forum.grasscity.com/spiritual...od-come-3.html...

where i already pointed out the all of jonathons "evidence' comes from an ridiculously bias website called, "answersingenesis". no shit that site is gonna say the world is 6000 years old. thats like trying to find out about the color blue from a website called "answers in red"

Basically your saying, answersingenesis stinks because answersingenesis stinks. You prejudge before you began to debate the evidence. My sources were excluded before you even began.

also.... if the earth was only 6000 years old... it would still be molten. when our solar system formed out of the disk of material orbiting around the sun, it was a molten ball for a looooong time before the crust even hardened.

You state this stuff about our solar system being a disk around the sun and it being molten like you know it for a fact, but we don't have all the information and this stuff is highly debated. We're talking about the past in a place where we have no witnesses alive. It reminds me of when I looked in the science book and it said the earth weighed 6.6 sextillion tons, and besides the obvious kabbalism there they have no way of knowing that exactly. There's no way known to measure it. Now we REALLY don't have any way to measure back in time..the evidence needs to be interpereted. It's not like.. we can seee back in time like going back in a movie or something. Besides as far as the galaxies go I think #1 back there showed a major flaw:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.<SUP>1</SUP> Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”<SUP>1</SUP> The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.<SUP>2</SUP>

so, you're saying that the explosion from our sun....the entire accretion process.....the cooling process....the forming of the crust.....the bombardment of impactors giving earth water....the forming of mountain ranges (including those under the ocean that dwarf those on land)....and the emergence of man from microbial life forms in the primordial soup all took place in 6000 years. you are nuts.

What? man from microbial life in six thousand years? No, God created us on day 6 of creation. All of those things you're saying are asumptions about our universe that are formed by hypthetical scenarios. For instance, many evolutionists seem to be abandoning the big bang theory. These things are contested even amoung evolutionists. Creationists have thier own ideas of how we got here, and we use what we know know and God's word to form hypothesis and test it to see if it fits with what we know know. And it does.

if the earth was only 6000 years old the moon would fill up our entire night sky and the tides would be several x several times bigger. since the moon formed slightly after the earth.... then u have to throw the creation of the moon in that 6000 years too. certainly a proto-planet the size of mars smashing into a molten earth...thus creating earths own accrection disk and eventually the moon.....would have been noticed by someone, right?? since people were around at the beginning of everything, they surely would have noticed an event like that right??? or do u deny the existance of our moon?? or do u have another 'answeringenesis' the explains the creation of the moon.

"if the earth was only 6000 years old the moon would fill up our entire night sky and the tides would be several x several times bigger. since the moon formed slightly after the earth"

This is based on evolutionary assumptions and naturalistic presuppositions.

THe moon is evidence for creation:


http://www.icr.org/article/150/

http://www.icr.org/article/204/

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/

[dynasty]

Originally Posted by jonathan

dynasty:



I'm sure he would if they would allow him. You think they just go an publish an creationist paper. No way. They discriminate against them all the time.

Why do you make this presumption? Science isn't based on personal opinions on a person's character. Everything published is published for review, so that other scientists can confirm the findings of other scientists.

Baumgardner has not even tried to have his paper submitted in any peer reviewed science journals, that was the point I was driving at. He hasn't tried to confirm his findings with any other scientists.

First of all, do you see all those pictures of pangea they are disputing over? That is purely hypothetical. I don't believe in pangea at all. I think we don't know what the landmass looked like exactly, but from the bible it teaches that the land was one.

Do you agree though that the continents move apart?



Jonathan, let's look over the scientific reasons given for a global flood:

1. All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.

The following is from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
   • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
   • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
   • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

This explanation also accounts for number 2 of the "scientific reasons" for a flood, which stated the following:

Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.

Here is some info on land uplifting:

During the last glaciation enormous fresh-water masses were stored in ice sheets in northern Europe and northern America. The global sea-level rise since the last glacial maximum (18 000BP) can be estimated to be between 90 and 130 meters (Pirazzoli 1996).
The two most important factors affecting sea level changes in the Baltic Sea on time scales of more than 100 years are the land uplift (or the glacio-hydro-isostatic effect) and the global average sea level rise (or the eustatic rise). These two factors determine whether the sea level is generally rising or lowering in relation to the bedrock.
During the 20th century a general rise of the global average sea level has been observed. So far this rise has been linear, in the limits of observational accuracy. The current estimate of the rise amounts to 1-2 mm yr-1 (Church et al. 2001). Within this study a eustatic sea level rise of 1.5 mm yr-1 is used. In the future, the linear trend of the global average sea level might change. According to the IPCC scenarios the sea level will rise from 1990 to 2100 by 9 to 88 cm.
Since the Baltic Sea is located in an area of post-glacial rebound, land uplift and subsidence have to be considered for the calculation of sea level changes. The land uplift varies between -1 and 9 mm yr-1 relative to the mean sea level, with the smallest values in the south and the largest values in the Bothnian Bay near the coast of northern Sweden (Fig.1). To calculate the mean sea level rise during the 21st century both land uplift and sea level results of the regional climate model were calculated relative to the geoid.


Figure 1. Land uplift relative to the mean sea level following Ekman (1996).

Comparing height systems

The current Finnish height system N60 and the Swedish system RH70 are eventually getting out of date because of land uplifting. The increasing international co-operation also causes pressure to choose a new datum comparable to the neighbor countries. The connection of different systems is difficult. Small local leveling networks, like those of cities and municipalities can be connected to national leveling networks in a straightforward way. Connecting national networks this is not true anymore. It is an oversimplification to compare height systems of two countries just by giving one number for the height difference (Poutanen 1999). A more reasonable way to do the connection is to establish a new, well defined height system for the area and compute transformation parameters from the old national systems to the new one (Poutanen 1999).
This is one of the reasons why the Nordic Height System NH60 was selected to be the project height system. It covers the whole Baltic Sea area and it is found to be well suited especially for oceanographic purposes.

Let's examine number three.

There are few whole organism preservations. Most fossils consist of only parts of an organism, such as bones, shells, teeth, or footprints.

Very rarely are entire plants preserved as fossils. But, occasionally, trunks of trees were preserved when they were buried under mud containing volcanic ash. These groups of trees became petrified forests.
Some of the best-known whole fossils are eggs of dinosaurs, small reptiles, and birds. These usually come from animals which laid their eggs in lowlands where mud, silt, or other sediment covered the eggs.
The La Brea tar pits provide excellent examples of fossils which are of the whole organism. Numerous examples of organisms have been preserved there by asphalt, which preserves only the hard parts of the organisms. Bones, complete skeletons, insects, leaves, and flowers have been reclaimed from this site.
Wax, a infinitesimal part of the formation of fossils, is, however, an excellent preservative. It preserves all parts of the organism, not just the hard parts.
A unique type of fossilization is desiccation, or mummification. Bones and tissues of organisms are preserved, even keeping their natural colors. Desiccation occurs in areas void of moisture, such as the desert or in a dry cave. Dehydration occurs and the entire organism is preserved.
Freezing preserves a fossil of the highest quality. It preserves the organism with little alteration to the chemical composition. The temperature prevents little, if any, change to the organism.

http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/TuttS/fossil_formation.htm

Also:

Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism.

http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaur...formation.html

So, CATASTROPHE?

No. Fossils are created when minerals take the place of bone, or take place of the shape of the bones, or make a cast or mold, taking the shape of the animal.

Let's look at the very next thing you source after these scientific arguments and see what it has to say: As far as science is concerned, it should be remembered that events of the past are not reproducible, and are, therefore, inaccessible to the scientific method. Neither uniformitarianism nor catastrophism can actually be proved scientifically.

So, catastrophism cannot be proven. Your article goes on to say that catastrophism fits all the geologic facts "more directly and simply."

Maybe catastrophism is right. Maybe it isn't. However there's no way we can prove God was directly involved. And do not tell me the Bible is proof, that's circular reasoning.

Number 4 time.

Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

Jonathan, I'd like to say first I'm surprised you used this for argument, considering the fact that you don't believe the geological column to be accurate. However let's assess what is said anyways.

Take a look at the North Dakota Geographic Column: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

Now, even though young earth creationists argue the geologic column is not real, the source you've presented said the following: "...since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments..."

When we examine the evidence, how is this at all true? We have absolutely NO evidence, NONE, ZIP, NADA, that each unit of the geographic column was formed rapidly.

Oh boy this is just so much fun!

I'm getting off the topic of plate tectonics though and continental drift. I'll revisit these scientific arguments later.






Jonathan, I really hope you're some 14 year old homeschooled child. If not, I truly pity you.

[notbakedenough]

Jonathan...every day I hope to come onto S+P to see you laughing your ass off about how we all got into pointless fights with you. Then you would tell us that you were kidding the whole time.

Maybe tomorrow you will...

[shasta]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

The land my house current sits on used to be underneath a shallow tropical ocean.

A friend and rock hound (he has his masters in geology) found a really great sheet of rock covered in trilobite fossils from the Silurian period not 100 kilometers from here.

Crazy huh?

I think its pretty obvious that Satan planted them there to fool you into thinking that the Bible is not an accurate history of the world. It certainly makes more sense than thinking the world is older than 6000 years.

[ElectricJW]

Jonathan,

The Earth is NOT 6000 yrs old. What about carbon dating dinosaur bones or other fossils? Or is this just some trick that the devil conjured up.

I understand that you want to blindly believe everything the bible tells you, but only a small small % of hardcore christians believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old. Why don't you just listen to what the MAJORITY of scientists say, and go from there.

And anyway the bible shares some of its major themes from earlier religious folklore, I dont want to go into a great detail about it, b/c more than likely you will play it off. But whatever.

[jonathan]

Jonathan,

The Earth is NOT 6000 yrs old. What about carbon dating dinosaur bones or other fossils? Or is this just some trick that the devil conjured up.

I understand that you want to blindly believe everything the bible tells you, but only a small small % of hardcore christians believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old. Why don't you just listen to what the MAJORITY of scientists say, and go from there.

And anyway the bible shares some of its major themes from earlier religious folklore, I dont want to go into a great detail about it, b/c more than likely you will play it off. But whatever

Yes it i thousands of years old. Carbon dating.. Do I have to point out the same things over and over again? Try reading the thread.

I don't know what you mean hardcore, but I strive to be the best Christian I can. I don't go by what majority says.

And I'm well aware of the supposed origins and similarites of Christianity. I've researched them all and in the end I found out that pretty much everyone besides true Christians worship those other mythologies (or mythology) in one form or another.

[XPiperX]

Yeah, how about YOU try reading what your posting.. Because every intelligent person who has read it has seen it for the pure, biased bullshit that it is. Every time you post, you fail at something, whether it be logic, debating skills, intelligence.. Oh well. At least you're consistent in your rate of suckage.

[cheebaa]

Fuck arguing mountains and tectonic plates.....



How do you explain the stars- some 2-3 billion light years away- yet we can see the light they produce?

If the earth was only 6,000 years old starlight would not be visible.

I think thats concrete enough.

EDIT::

O it would not be visible unless "God sent it en route for Adam"

haha, what a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem

EDIT 2::

Jonathan-

I want to point out a couple things:
You do realize that when it was theorized that the earth revolved around the sun- Christians/catholics didn't want to believe that.

When the earth was theorized to be round- Christians/catholics didn't want to believe that.


Basically- it's easier to believe something which may not be true to protect religious beliefs.....

[ElectricJW]

Originally Posted by jonathan

Yes it i thousands of years old. Carbon dating.. Do I have to point out the same things over and over again? Try reading the thread.

I don't know what you mean hardcore, but I strive to be the best Christian I can. I don't go by what majority says.

And I'm well aware of the supposed origins and similarites of Christianity. I've researched them all and in the end I found out that pretty much everyone besides true Christians worship those other mythologies (or mythology) in one form or another.

I'm not going to read all that crap you post, b/c its way to long. How about next time, you just post the most important parts off the website, then past the website so we can read everything else if we want.


And I didn't say it before, but most scientists consider the Earth to be billions of yrs old. And what I mean by hardcore christian, is someone who takes the bible 100% literally.

Since you are Christian, do you believe that we should have slaves nowadays? (like it says in the bible) And do you also agree that women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church? And what about stoning your kid in the town square for back talking you? And all of these things I speak of are in the Bible. I'm not going to bother posting the versus that they are in, b/c you should of read the Bible, and read these yourself.


EDIT: I don't understand why some religious folks don't accept science, just b/c their religious book doesn't agree with it. How about your God/allah/budda/nothing created this universe and it has certain laws that govern's how everything is. You think you can jump to the moon, think again b/c gravity tells you other wise. You think you can walk on water, go ahead and try, but you better hope you can swim.

[cheebaa]

Originally Posted by ElectricJW

Since you are Christian, do you believe that we should have slaves nowadays? (like it says in the bible) And do you also agree that women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church? And what about stoning your kid in the town square for back talking you? And all of these things I speak of are in the Bible. I'm not going to bother posting the versus that they are in, b/c you should of read the Bible, and read these yourself.

You're going to de-rail this thread making it a debate about the bible.

[ElectricJW]

Originally Posted by cheebaa

You're going to de-rail this thread making it a debate about the bible.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was just trying to point out that the bible has things in there, that are flat out wrong, even though its 100% God's word, just like the earth being 6000 yrs old.

[Zylark]

Well, it is kinda' funny how some prefer iron-age myth over well researched proven knowledge. Such willful ignorance can only be called delusional.

If there is a god, I'd wonder how impressed it would be by people who claim to follow it, yet fail to take in the facts of this wonderful universe and existence that the deity presumably created? People who deny facts of the grandeur of the universe (age included) just to put themselves somehow in the center of all of cosmos, at the expense of ignoring reality.

My guess is the deity wouldn't be much impressed at all. That is unless the deity values flattery and sheep mentality before honesty and inquiry. In which case it's not that much of a deity worthy of admiration in the first place.

[jonathan]

dynasty:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan




I'm sure he would if they would allow him. You think they just go an publish an creationist paper. No way. They discriminate against them all the time.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Why do you make this presumption? Science isn't based on personal opinions on a person's character. Everything published is published for review, so that other scientists can confirm the findings of other scientists.

But evolution isn't based on science. It's a dead religion.

Baumgardner has not even tried to have his paper submitted in any peer reviewed science journals, that was the point I was driving at. He hasn't tried to confirm his findings with any other scientists.

Why don't you actually find out and stop makeing presumptions. I have studied creationist material and I know more than you how they are discriminated against. Yo say he hasn't tried to confirm his findings with other scientists but that's absolutely false, and there's a good chance he's tried to submit it to a secular journal I believe.

Bigotry Victim

Dr Jerry Bergman, author of the well-researched and down-to-earth article on UFOs and evolution in this issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, was dismissed from Bowling Green State University in Ohio several years ago for his creationist beliefs. Contrast Newsletter now reports that when it was suggested Dr Bergman had been a victim of religious bigotry, Attorney G. Merle Bergman (no relation to Jerry) reacted by saying he was ‘aghast’ at the suggestion. The attorney claims the real issue is not bigotry, but whether Dr Bergman can be an objective teacher with a proper grasp of reality. Since Dr Jerry Bergman is a creationist, the attorney argues, he cannot be an objective teacher or have a proper grasp of reality.
Watch for the same thing happening in New South Wales, Australia.
For more evidence of anti-creationist bigotry, click here
Contrast Newsletter,
January, 1986.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> First of all, do you see all those pictures of pangea they are disputing over? That is purely hypothetical. I don't believe in pangea at all. I think we don't know what the landmass looked like exactly, but from the bible it teaches that the land was one. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Do you agree though that the continents move apart?

Not like some people think they do. I do indeed believe in tectonic plates, but I don't believe that continents move apart like some think they do. Here I'll show you why.





You see here's the problem. They show the continents being cut out like a cookie cutter, not exactly the same shape but pretty much. The over 225 million years the continents drift sometimes hundred and hundreds of miles, and they still look the same. This is rediculous. I laughed at this when I was in like 4th grade. It was so obvious. Continents are part of geoligical plates. They don't just float away as if they were in water and stay the same shape. Sure, the continents can move, but the movement they would make is not some purely floating movement. They have to go through massive geological upheaval, different geological weakness and detours. Think of making a wave in water. That's pretty supple, and the shape will stay the same longer, than if it was for instance, going through mud. There's more friction and the continents don't just rest on the plates, the continents are part of the plates. If plates move and one gets squished, then the continents get squished too, and this creates mountain ranges and valleys, showing that the continents are part of the plate. Whoever thought of this pangea thing is totally stupid. And I honestly think that there's a good chance that the earth before the flood didn't have lots of big bodies of water but like a supernetwork of rivers and lakes. I've been attracted to that idea. But it's in the end speculation. All of this is speculation on both sides.

You go on and on, I have a life. I was invited here to come and share my view and I did. And the geologic column is bunk, dating methods are flawed, and evolution doesn't happen in real life. I think I've showed more than enough evidence for a worldwide flood and there's more than that, much more. And I think people can look at the evidence and see for themselves. I'm sick and tired of people pulling out lots of little things when big critical things (such as I point out) can be dealed with to so easily falsify evolution.

The earth shows a flood. If there was a worldwide flood, what would we expect to find? Dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. And that's what I have to say about that.

[XPiperX]

Originally Posted by jonathan

dynasty:



But evolution isn't based on science. It's a dead religion.

With this post as evidence, I move that we ignore all further posts from this guy. I can't even begin to convey how hard I'm laughing. Wait till RM, Zylark and MelT see this.. ahahahah...

[cackpircings]

I like snooch beer and weed.... God is good