Jump to content


Photo

Is There *any* Support For An Old Earth?


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

#1 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 25 August 2009 - 11:57 PM

I see the bulk of the evidence as being in favor of an old earth; however I could be convinced otherwise. Admittedly this would be difficult, but it could be done.

I am curious how this works for the ID'er community?

Is there any evidence that you have come across that gives you pause?

What would it take to convince you that the universe is 13 billion years old?

#2 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:50 AM

Did I miss something? Is ID now arguing for realistic timeframes?

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:50 AM

The question is: What standards does YEC evidence has to meet in your mind? If you require approval by old earth believing scientists, then you ask the impossible.

I don't want any members here doing extra work to convince you when what you require cannot be met. So lay out what you will accept,

The other part about age I have no rpoblem with because the creation I believe is where God aged the universe on the very day He created it. So a 13 billion year aged earth was created 6,000 years ago.

#4 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 27 August 2009 - 02:24 PM

The question is: What standards does YEC evidence has to meet in your mind? If you require approval by old earth believing scientists, then you ask the impossible.


What ever evidence the YEC community puts forward would have to be independently verified and repeatable.

I understand that the scientific community can be closed minded (germ theory is not a shinning moment for medicinal research). On the other hand, the scientific community is so large and there is so much money for people who can upset the status quo, almost any idea can get traction.

I don't want any members here doing extra work to convince you when what you require cannot be met. So lay out what you will accept,


I would like to see a repetition and independent verification of Robert Gentry's Polonium 218 Halo find. Alternatively, any combination of low half-life radioactive elements would do.

The other part about age I have no rpoblem with because the creation I believe is where God aged the universe on the very day He created it. So a 13 billion year aged earth was created 6,000 years ago.

View Post


Do you have any thoughts as to why a creator would do that? I don't want this to sound accusatory, I am genuinely curious. I posted this question else where, but why do you think the scientific community isn't trustworthy?

#5 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 August 2009 - 06:33 PM

What ever evidence the YEC community puts forward would have to be independently verified and repeatable.

Trying to sound "sciencey", huh? Repeatable evidence?

Prosecuting Attorney: "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this shoe, belonging to the defendant was found at the scene of the crime."
Defense Attorney: "Fine. now go find another one there."

As for whether or not things are verified, one wonders if refusal to verify then constitutes grounds for dismissal. No, not really. One doesn't wonder much at all. Neither need one wonder too much about the involvement of double standards. Try and get a look at "Lucy", for example.

I understand that the scientific community can be closed minded (germ theory is not a shinning moment for medicinal research). On the other hand, the scientific community is so large and there is so much money for people who can upset the status quo, almost any idea can get traction.

Hype. And what economy would we have to imagine to suppose all this excess money exists?

I would like to see a repetition and independent verification of Robert Gentry's Polonium 218 Halo find.  Alternatively, any combination of low half-life radioactive elements would do

View Post

See what I meant? Gentry's finds have been known since the 1970's. If evolutionists have refused to look at the evidence, how does that render it bogus? It is the "standard" here that is utterly bogus. Closing one's eyes does not make evidence go away, and it matters not if they eyes be closed individually or collectively.

Prosecuting attorney (after recess): "We did find another shoe."
Defense attorney: "It needs to be independently discovered and verified, so there!"

(There have been other scientists who investigated and found halos. A little google research is all it takes. This is a very poor "example".)

#6 am6019a@gmail.com

am6019a@gmail.com

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Washington, DC

Posted 27 August 2009 - 07:13 PM

Trying to sound "sciencey", huh? Repeatable evidence?

Prosecuting Attorney: "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this shoe, belonging to the defendant was found at the scene of the crime."
Defense Attorney: "Fine. now go find another one there."


I don't know why you have to be so hostile. I am here on a good faith effort, trying to understand why you believe what you believe. I am not trying to sound "sciencey," I am just trying to use common sense. How do you determine what is truth or fiction? Again, I am asking in good faith, how do you know what to believe?

As for repetition of the event, we can consider Gentry's work. Gentry found one example thirty years ago. That doesn't mean he wasn't right, but it begs the question, where are the other examples. You pointed to a google search,

(There have been other scientists who investigated and found halos. A little google research is all it takes. This is a very poor "example".)

View Post


Why is an internet search sufficient evidence? Why would wikipedia be sufficient? You claim some "scientist" has investigated, so where is their research? I will happily read whatever papers, journals, websites you point to.

#7 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:19 PM

I don't know why you have to be so hostile.  I am here on a good faith effort, trying to understand why you believe what you believe.  I am not trying to sound "sciencey," I am just trying to use common sense.  How do you determine what is truth or fiction?  Again, I am asking in good faith, how do you know what to believe?

View Post

The trouble is that you repeat the same evobabble everyone's seen a thousand times. This is consistent with propagandizing, and inconsistent with seeking truth. One way to determine what is truth and what is fiction is to compare action to word, after all.

As for repetition of the event, we can consider Gentry's work.  Gentry found one example thirty years ago.  That doesn't mean he wasn't right, but it begs the question, where are the other examples. You pointed to a google search,

Try to follow me here. Even if nobody ever looked into anything he did or said, that's not an excuse to dismiss it. If it were, any unwanted result could be falsified by refusing to investigate. That is absurd, and you certainly don't apply that standard in real life, at least not consistently.

You need to apply the same standards and the same sets of assumptions across the board. This is an essential part of being intellectually honest.

Even here, we can all be certain you don't apply the standard you advocate to evoltionist claims; so it simply does not stand to reason that you here asking questions in good faith. ...Unless you have some cryptodefintion of 'good faith' you'd care to equivocate to.

(There have been other scientists who investigated and found halos. A little google research is all it takes. This is a very poor "example".)

Why is an internet search sufficient evidence? Why would wikipedia be sufficient? You claim some "scientist" has investigated, so where is their research? I will happily read whatever papers, journals, websites you point to.

View Post

I never said an internet search was sufficient evidence. I didn't even discuss what constitutes sufficient evidence to form a conclusion. I discussed your assertion which you selectively apply as an excuse not to accept things you dislike.

In context, the English-speaking person who encounters my words would interpret them to mean you could've found out about some of the follow-up that's been done on the halos. Nobody would take them to mean internet searches constitute sufficient evidence. Your misinterpretation of my words, and attempt to twist them into something they are not is yet another indicator against the premise that you're here looking for answers in good faith.

I have to say your attempt to divert discussion to the topic of radiohalos is extremely poor strategy if, as you claim, you are unaware of what others have found when they looked into the subject. If Dr. Gentry's research exists in a complete scientific vacuum, as you'd have us believe you believe, you must have nothing whatsoever prepared to counter his evidence (beyond dismissing it as "unconfirmed", or the perennial ad hom tactics). Is this really the situation? I suspect it is not.

#8 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:38 PM

I see the bulk of the evidence as being in favor of an old earth; however I could be convinced otherwise.  Admittedly this would be difficult, but it could be done.

I am curious how this works for the ID'er community? 

Is there any evidence that you have come across that gives you pause?  

What would it take to convince you that the universe is 13 billion years old?

View Post

See that attempt to equate ID and YEC, a large set with a distinct subset? Inconsistent with good faith.

And this?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2654

Good faith begins at home. Stop cherry-picking; stop selectively applying the rules of logic and science.

Here's a thread I started on history. Investigating the past is investigating the past. Everyone does it all the time, and they employ the right tools for the job. Only when false results are desired would one even contemplate employing the wrong methods. ...Or they might naively take the suggestion of another to do so.
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1984

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 August 2009 - 02:01 AM

What ever evidence the YEC community puts forward would have to be independently verified and repeatable.


What is required of YEC is often not required of evolution.

Example is the Miller experiment.

1) No life was generated, but yet because the building blocks were. It is implied that it did.
2) Miller filtered out most of all toxic chemicals. Over 90% of what was produced was toxic to any life forming in it. But it is still implied that it just did some how.
3) The electric spark used was no where near what a lightening strike is like. You zap something with a little voltage, you won't do much harm. But if you apply over 100,000 volts like lightening does. Then you pretty much destroy the amino acid building blocks that was created.
4) Heat is also a factor of lightening. It is said that the temperature of a lightning bolt can exceed the temperature of the surface of the sun. So if the voltage does not destroy the amino acid building blocks, the heat will fry it.

Repeatable? I have heard that science has repeated what miller did and got the same results. Problem is, if one does not use real world conditions as much as possible. One gets a controlled condition result, and not a real world result. So what they need to do is:

1) Match the voltage of a bolt of lightening. It can be done because stun guns can do it.
2) Report the toxic chemicals as part of the results instead of ignoring them.
3) Do not filter off the toxic chemicals so that the conclusion is based on the whole of the experiment instead of 2% of it (the amino acids produced).
4) Don't imply that life can walk out of this soup when a little over 70% of the amino acids made are building blocks for life. Which means almost 30% is missing.

You see if we use Millers experiment as a guide, because science deems it as one of the greatest experiments around. And the evidence is considered more or less an absolute. Then we don't really have to prove much.

Because if we were allowed to use only 2% of the good for our evidence, while throwing out 98% of the bad. Then use unreal world conditions. All the creation evidence would be on the very same level as the great Miller experiment is, and would be acceptable.

So what I need is a guideline. You give some evolution evidence as a guideline that we have to meet on that very same level of a guideline, then we can go from there.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 September 2009 - 06:52 AM

Kinda funny how this thread went dead as soon as I required a level playing feild.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 September 2009 - 05:02 PM

Kinda funny how this thread went dead as soon as I required a level playing feild.

View Post

:D Interesting...

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 September 2009 - 06:39 PM

:D Interesting...

View Post


Indeed, a level playing field is not what evolutionist want... bad ikester... BAD.

#13 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 01 October 2009 - 09:34 AM

1) Match the voltage of a bolt of lightening. It can be done because stun guns can do it.

View Post


Not entirely correct. There was a college student who put together a capacitor to capture a lightning strike. Using great care in his calculations he designed the capacitor with high quality materials and it was the size of a train box car. During one storm, lightning struck the lightning rod designed to channel the energy into the massive capacitor and....The capacitor exploded and killed the student.

#14 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 01 October 2009 - 09:36 AM

The other part about age I have no rpoblem with because the creation I believe is where God aged the universe on the very day He created it. So a 13 billion year aged earth was created 6,000 years ago.

View Post


I'm sorry but there is no proof written or otherwise that supports that.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 October 2009 - 06:38 AM

I'm sorry but there is no proof written or otherwise that supports that.

View Post

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old...


;)

There is nothing in existence that can be proofed for age conclusively without an eyewitness. That goes for an infant to a brand new car. You need a source other than the object itself to verify and conclude a proper age.

Adam and Eve were made on day six. They were created to observe a creation that already was filled with plants, animals and geologic features. To them, as to us, the earth appears as it always was. Even we know that the earth is not as it always was. In fact, we knew it had a beginning. The question is, which is more unreasonable to believe; An earth that slowly progresses towards order from disorder and nothingness, or an earth that was created similar to its current state with the purposes we see all around us?

#16 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 04 October 2009 - 09:37 PM

An earth that slowly progresses towards order from disorder and nothingness, or an earth that was created similar to its current state with the purposes we see all around us?

View Post


Might be a little off-topic, but what purpose?

Regards,

Arch.

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 October 2009 - 04:41 AM

Might be a little off-topic, but what purpose?

View Post

Please note that I used the plural... "purposes" ...very intentionally. :lol:

#18 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 October 2009 - 06:25 PM

Please note that I used the plural... "purposes" ...very intentionally. :lol:

View Post


Okay, what purposes?

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 October 2009 - 09:59 AM

Okay, what purposes?

View Post

Molecular biological machines have the purpose of keeping us alive.

Plants have the purpose of converting sunlight and inorganic matter into usable nutrition for other organisms.

The earth's atmosphere, distance from the sun, type of orbit, and magnetic field have the purpose of making earth habitable... along with countless other factors.

All these purposes were either purposed, therefore logically created and started like a clock wound for its first time plausibly about 6000 years ago, or it's only apparent and the result of eons and eons of stuff just falling into a designed looking fashion.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 October 2009 - 11:50 AM

Exactly Adam, everything on this planet works together for a purpose, and recorded human history doesn't go much past 6,000 years, or at all.

Purpose, it's a very key word.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users