Jump to content


Photo

Talk Origins And Young Earth Arguments


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#21 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 October 2005 - 07:24 PM

I suppose the data has been handled accurately but, the root of the issue is never solved. The point is to put a limit on the age of the earth. Whether that be 62 or 80 million is not the issue. The numbers have been adjusted but the problem remains.

View Post


I don’t think you have read the article closely enough, when Austin and Humphreys revised figures are added to the missing methods of salt removal, the ‘problem disappears’. Given that Austin and Humphreys have been more or less silent on the matter for nearly 10 years, I would think the matter settled, I mean it’s not as if the methods of salt removal are in question.


They are there to defend evolution at all cost.

View Post


“At all costs” is rather broad don't you think? That would include things like misrepresentation, lying, falsification of data, from the scientists who produced the original material.

#22 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:04 PM

I suppose the data has been handled accurately but, the root of the issue is never solved. The point is to put a limit on the age of the earth. Whether that be 62 or 80 million is not the issue. The numbers have been adjusted but the problem remains.
They are there to defend evolution at all cost.

View Post


Do you think what they have to say is true?

#23 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:35 PM

Do you think what they have to say is true?

View Post

I don't agree with them at all and I think a lot of their science is contestable. Some of what they say I honestly don't know about and cannot really comment. However, it seems that they assume evolution is true and then based on that claim that creationists arguments are false which is circularity at its best.

I don’t think you have read the article closely enough, when Austin and Humphreys revised figures are added to the missing methods of salt removal, the ‘problem disappears’.

Correct me if I am wrong but, with the revised numbers the age goes back only to 80 million. Is that correct? While that is not the nail in the coffin it certainly limits the age of the earth.

Given that Austin and Humphreys have been more or less silent on the matter for nearly 10 years

Both AIG and ICR are still using the argument which both Humphreys and Austin are affiliated with.


“At all costs” is rather broad don't you think? That would include things like misrepresentation, lying, falsification of data, from the scientists who produced the original material.

I don't mean to say that they are intentionally lying I think their purpose is to refute creation. The scientists who originally produced the data are coming from the evolutionary world view which means everything they produced will fit right in with that thinking.

#24 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 October 2005 - 07:16 PM

Willis> I don’t think you have read the article closely enough, when Austin and Humphreys revised figures are added to the missing methods of salt removal, the ‘problem disappears’.

Correct me if I am wrong but, with the revised numbers the age goes back only to 80 million. Is that correct? While that is not the nail in the coffin it certainly limits the age of the earth.


You must then add the missing mechanisms of salt removal to the revised Austin and Humphreys figures, then you have Salt in = salt out.


Given that Austin and Humphreys have been more or less silent on the matter for nearly 10 years

Both AIG and ICR are still using the argument which both Humphreys and Austin are affiliated with.


That doesn’t surprise me, perhaps you should ask them why their article has not been updated, yes?


“At all costs” is rather broad don't you think? That would include things like misrepresentation, lying, falsification of data, from the scientists who produced the original material.

I don't mean to say that they are intentionally lying I think their purpose is to refute creation. The scientists who originally produced the data are coming from the evolutionary world view which means everything they produced will fit right in with that thinking.


But the scientist come from all walks of life, and old earth, and evolution implications, crosses many disciplines in science. Plus science has an objective to test the unusual, to ensure that all evidence is put through the ringer. The current situation in the USA can hardly have gone unnoticed by even the most closeted scientist, do you not think that they have perhaps said, “hang on, wait a bit, perhaps there is something to this YEC?” the reality of it is some of the evidences against evolution are so absurd that real scientist don’t bother to address them in the public forum, it is left to the popularisers of science, to create the database to reference the mass of evolutionary evidence and place it in easy accessible web sites.

The recent court cases (e.g. Dover) I feel will tend to bring this situation to the for, and I expect a bit of a scientific backlash, should ID, or YEC push much harder.

#25 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 06 October 2005 - 11:35 PM



You must then add the missing mechanisms of salt removal to the revised Austin and Humphreys figures, then you have Salt in = salt out.

I am going to see why this argument is still being used if it is flawed. I am going to get back to this but in the mean time you might have a point.

That doesn’t surprise me, perhaps you should ask them why their article has not been updated, yes?

Indeed I am doing it right now.

But the scientist come from all walks of life, and old earth, and evolution implications, crosses many disciplines in science. Plus science has an objective to test the unusual, to ensure that all evidence is put through the ringer. The current situation in the USA can hardly have gone unnoticed by even the most closeted scientist, do you not think that they have perhaps said, “hang on, wait a bit, perhaps there is something to this YEC?” the reality of it is some of the evidences against evolution are so absurd that real scientist don’t bother to address them in the public forum, it is left to the popularisers of science, to create the database to reference the mass of evolutionary evidence and place it in easy accessible web sites.

The recent court cases (e.g. Dover) I feel will tend to bring this situation to the for, and I expect a bit of a scientific backlash, should ID, or YEC push much harder.

View Post


Edit: Fixed the quote problems-Admin3... You had two /quote back to back. Confuses forum program when you do that, and it won't quote anything.

#26 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 15 February 2006 - 05:26 PM

I've been looking at the young earth/flood erosion argument as well as the talkorigins proposed explanations see bottom left:

http://www.talkorigi...nd/howgood.html

I think (despite talkorigins claims) that this is an area that creationists can still hold a strong easy to understand argument.

The erosion arguments involve:
1. Total continental erosion:

"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been eroded since middle Cretaceous time 100 m.y. ago."
Dott, R. H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the earth. McGraw-Hill, New York.

see also http://www.answersin...v22/i2/ages.asp http://www.grisda.or...gins/13064.htm)
http://www.detecting...ogiccolumn.html

2. Paraconfomity erosion
"At a 10-million-year paraconformity gap we would expect an average of about 300 m (1000 ft) of removal of the underlayer; but we usually see nothing to suggest that the missing layers were ever present." Roth

http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf

(see page 3.)


I hope to shortly provide reasons why the talkorigins explanations do not solve the problem.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users