Jump to content


Photo

Schweitzer Does It Again....


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#21 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:07 AM

Okay, so if 100 bits of evidence point to an Old earth and 1 new bit potentially (and at this stage still unproven) points to a Young earth then you say we should ignore the 100bits?

You must realise that any theory/model, in your case a Young earth model, must be able to account for all/vast majority of evidence/data. You cannot simply ignore the Old Earth Data just because you do not like it's conclusions (i.e. you are pre-judging based on a previous belief/assumption - this is NOT how sciece works).

If (and a big if) this is indeed true soft tissue preservation, then Science WILL NOT simply sweep it under the carpet/ignore it. It will be studied, explained and incorporated into a unified theory. That is how Science works.

View Post


You mischaracterize both the balance of the evidence and the response of the scientific community to it. There are tons of evidence that points to a young earth/universe. Aside from those that I pointed out above, there is:

- Planetary magnetic fields
- Geologically active moons (Ganymede, Io, Titan, Triton & more)
- Saturn’s rings
- Galaxy rotation curves
- Paucity of Supernova Remnants
- Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock
- Radiohalos
- Helium retention
- Excess carbon-14 in nearly everything, including fossils & diamonds

Let’s focus on moons for a moment. All of these planetary satellites should be cold and dead, being much too small to stay active for 4 billion some years.

Jupiter’s moon Ganymede has an active magnetic field that it has no business having if it is billions of years old; tidal flexing accounts for some heat, but not enough. Another of Jupiter’s moons, Io, is the most volcanically active body in the solar system.

Saturn’s moon Titan has an atmosphere, which it should not have if it is billions of years old. Further, the atmosphere is dominated by methane. This is a problem because sunlight breaks methane down into ethane. So either there is a monstrous reservoir of methane that keeps replenishing the atmosphere or Titan just isn’t that old. The problem with the first explanation is that any such reservoir should have long ago been depleted.

Another of Saturn’s moons, Encaldus, has an extremely active geyser sending tons of material into space and contributing to Saturn’s rings. Further, Encaldus’ south pole is very active. Additionally, both Titan & Encaldus have ‘young surfaces’ (supposedly having been ‘resurfaced’ in the relatively recent past) which is further proof of continuing geological activity. This activity should have long ago ceased on this small body, yet it persists.

Similarly, Neptune’s moon, Triton, is said to have a “negligible surface age.”

These observations (and more) have not and likely cannot be accounted for within the framework of a multi-billion year age for the solar system. While they have been studied, they have not been explained nor have they been incorporated into a unified model. They are, at best, characterized as ‘opportunities for research’ and, at worst, swept under the rug.

All of these observations, and more, are very consistent with a solar system on the order of thousands of years old and pose enormous difficulties with one on the order of billions of years old. Yet, the possibility of a young system is consistently dismissed and not even considered.

#22 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:42 AM

You must also understand that evolution has no evidence, you must go fossil hunting sometime, you need to go.  I'll provide you with a pick, shovel, and a map.  I'm not ignoring Old Earth Data

View Post


I have already had the pleasure of numerous field trips, and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. As a Geolgist I am more than aware of the abundant fossil record...

#23 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:13 AM

Okay, so if 100 bits of evidence point to an Old earth and 1 new bit potentially (and at this stage still unproven) points to a Young earth then you say we should ignore the 100bits?

View Post


I find it interesting that when Mary Schweitzer began her education in paleontology, she was evangelical Christian and a Young Earth Creationist. A recent book called "How to Build a Dinosaur" by Jack Horner (Schweitzer's colleague on this work) has several chapters discussing her findings and beliefs.

She now accepts evolution and the evidence of an old earth and is offended that Young Earth Creationists are trying to twist her findings. She remains a devout evangelical Christian
http://discovermagaz...start:int=1&-C=

“To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."


She accepts the 68 million year old dates. She questions the theories of how that material is preserved.

Here is a quote from the Smithsonian
http://www.smithsoni...html?c=y&page=3

“Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith.”

Too bad people are trying to “manipulate” her findings. It is sad that an Evangelical Christian feels attacked and persecuted by YECs for her beliefs. Sounds like she is well aware of the hundreds of lines of evidence that point to the age of these fossils.

#24 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:14 AM

You mischaracterize both the balance of the evidence and the response of the scientific community to it. There are tons of evidence that points to a young earth/universe. Aside from those that I pointed out above, there is:

- Planetary magnetic fields
- Geologically active moons (Ganymede, Io, Titan, Triton & more)
- Saturn’s rings
- Galaxy rotation curves
- Paucity of Supernova Remnants
- Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock
- Radiohalos
- Helium retention
- Excess carbon-14 in nearly everything, including fossils & diamonds

View Post


Unfortunately it is YOU who are blindly mischaractizing both the balance of evidence and the response of the scientific community.

All of the above have been answered by numerous, equally plausable mechanisms. Again, the balance of evidence IS for an old earth/universe.

I have not got time to respond to each item indivudually, but I will try to address a few:

Saturns Rings - what of them? Are you implying that they are young? I agree that there is good evidence that they may indeed be a young phenomena. Recent study suggests that the rings are not older than 100 million years (Discover, April 1994, pp.86-91). However whose to say that they were always present? The planet could still be billions of years old if its rings formed later.


Excess carbon-14 The presence of 14C in coal is I agree an anomaly that requires explanation. There are several good theories that are currently being investigated such as the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals. There is also a competing The fungi/bacteria hypothesis (that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there) may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks. Both of these are still being investigated. Either way this has little bearing on C14 dating as coal is NOT used for this known problem.


Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock - You will have to forgive my ignorance when I ask how this is evidence of a young earth?

Radiohalos By this I assume you mean Polonium Haloes and the now discredited work of creationist Robert Gentry who has argued that ring-shaped discoloration haloes in primordial granite rocks are the result of damage from alpha-particle emission by radioactive isotopes of the element polonium (Po). Scientest/Geologist Tom Bailleul has taken a look at look at Gentry's work arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.

This is all the time that I have at the moment, however may I state that for all of these lists that I have seen presented (usualled sourced from the Kent H*vind's of this world) there are always extremely plausible, scientific arguments to counter these claims and I might point out that these never get presented or acknowledged (merely ignored/swept under the carpet).

This list is NOT a list of problems with an Old Earth Model, you are just choosing to believe it is.

#25 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:09 AM

May I also add that I find it puzzling (amusing?) that when I entered Kent H*vinds name it appears with an asterix. Is his name considered blasphemous? I had'nt realised it was considered swearing? :blink:

#26 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:11 AM

Unfortunately it is YOU who are blindly mischaractizing both the balance of evidence and the response of the scientific community.

All of the above have been answered by numerous, equally plausable mechanisms. Again, the balance of evidence IS for an old earth/universe.


Indeed.

Evolutionists rely on the dynamo-theory for planetary magnetic fields which requires a liquid core. The persistence of magnetic fields - especially of small bodies like Mercury & Ganymede - have not been explained. These small bodies should have gone cold and dead long ago. They have tried to rescue Mercury from this fate by postulating sulfur in the core of Mercury, which would forestall the cooling. This doesn't work, however, because the Nebular-Hypothesis precludes elements such as sulfur from coalescing so close to the sun.

Regarding this issue, Dr. Humphreys' theory of planetary magnetic fields has been very successful. He layed of four predictions in his 1984 paper, three of which have been fulfilled and the fourth, regarding Mercury's magnetic field is looking good given the recent data from Messenger. In 1986, when Voyager flew by Neptune, Humphrey's nailed it and the evolutionists weren't even in the ballpark.

One of the fundamental aspects of Humphreys' theory is a ~6,000 year age of the solar system.

Regarding carbon-14, what of its presence in diamonds?

Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock - You will have to forgive my ignorance when I ask how this is evidence of a young earth?


They (along with the lack of intermediate erosion surfaces) indicate a rapid, silmultaneous water-borne formation, as opposed to the billions of years postulated by uniformitarian paradigm.

Radiohalos By this I assume you mean Polonium Haloes and the now discredited work of creationist Robert Gentry who has argued that ring-shaped discoloration haloes in primordial granite rocks are the result of damage from alpha-particle emission by radioactive isotopes of the element polonium (Po). Scientest/Geologist Tom Bailleul has taken a look at look at Gentry's work arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.


Actually, I was thinking of Austin's much more recent work, which includes successful predictions based on his fluid transport model.

This list is NOT a list of problems with an Old Earth Model, you are just choosing to believe it is.

View Post


Give me a break. Usually, evolutionists deal with these problems with various 'materialism of the gaps' arguments.

A perfect example is the persistence of comets in our solar system. They postulate the 'Oort Cloud' for which there is zero observational evidence. The only reason it is theorized is to avoid the the conclusion of a young solar system. Instead, they take refuge in a wholly hypthetical, unobserved object. The fact that they make such an appeal speaks volumes.

Incidentally, the Kuiper Belt isn't adequet for a solution either.

#27 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:27 AM

Indeed.

Evolutionists rely on the dynamo-theory for planetary magnetic fields which requires a liquid core. The persistence of magnetic fields - especially of small bodies like Mercury & Ganymede - have not been explained. These small bodies should have gone cold and dead long ago. They have tried to rescue Mercury from this fate by postulating sulfur in the core of Mercury, which would forestall the cooling. This doesn't work, however, because the Nebular-Hypothesis precludes elements such as sulfur from coalescing so close to the sun.
.

View Post


Okay, so you are saying that because the persistence of magnetic fields - especially of small bodies like Mercury & Ganymede have not been explained therefore GOD must have done it? Could it not be that science doe'snt (yet) have all the answers? Is this solution not at least as likely as "God did it" ?

Your response to my question about Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock is also rather strange. Given uniformitarianism and an Old Earth Model, then tightly folded rock is NOT a problem. There have been many numerous episodes of uplift/erosion, orogenic mountain building, crustal compression/extension over the previous 4.2 billion years or so. These process can easily produce tightly folded rocks and there has never been any serious advocacy within the Geological field to suggest otherwise.

#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:17 AM

I have already had the pleasure of numerous field trips, and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. As a Geolgist I am more than aware of the abundant fossil record...

View Post


Oh really now, if you were the geologist you claim you are, then you would have seen with your own eyes that the geological/illogical time column does not exist. I believe you are a Geolgist, not a geologist. Please now take the pleasure and go fossil hunting, because if you really were you would have a very very different view.

I am more than aware that no evidence exist for evolution, unless offcourse you can show some real hands on evidence, it's not convincing AT ALL.

#29 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:20 AM

Okay, so you are saying that because the persistence of magnetic fields - especially of small bodies like Mercury & Ganymede have not been explained therefore GOD must have done it? Could it not be that science doe'snt (yet) have all the answers? Is this solution not at least as likely as "God did it" ?

Your response to my question about Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock is also rather strange. Given uniformitarianism and an Old Earth Model, then tightly folded rock is NOT a problem. There have been many numerous episodes of uplift/erosion, orogenic mountain building, crustal compression/extension over the previous 4.2 billion years or so. These process can easily produce tightly folded rocks and there has never been any serious advocacy within the Geological field to suggest otherwise.

View Post


Yes Given millions upon bagillions of years in the atheist mindset... anything is possible. Yeah right, 4.2 billion years was definately assumed, you cannot show it's that old. You cannot stick a piece of dirt in a machine and get your date, which is what Carbon dating is... and it is extremely flawed. It's fake, and highly unreliable.

#30 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:25 AM

No no no, and no again. Schweitzer is just brainwashed by evolutionism. She may accept the old fake dates of her fossils which constantly show a young age, but she like many others.... must be popular... must stick with the politically correct atheist... who know ALL THINGS. Especially bagillions of assumed years dating methods.

Carbon dating= sticking a rock in a machine and getting your date.

Yes, this is the stuff of science fiction, yet so many see it as real, nope sorry it's not.

So far, at no point in the history of mankind has soft fossil tissue been in support of the OLD EARTH, nope, it supports a young age, and by using common sense it is extremely easy to see why.

#31 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:38 AM

I find it interesting that when Mary Schweitzer began her education in paleontology, she was evangelical Christian and a Young Earth Creationist.

And many young-earthers started out as evolutionists - what of it?

She now accepts evolution and the evidence of an old earth and is offended that Young Earth Creationists are trying to twist her findings. She remains a devout evangelical Christian

Since when did she get a monoply on the interpretation of the evidence? We are not 'twisting' her findings, we are just interpreting them differently. She needs to grow a thicker skin if this is all it takes to offend her.

[i]“To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

This is nonsense. First, her own co-workers intially expressed incredulity at her findings. There is a reason her findings were so surprising and unexpected. It his hardly 'contorting' her findings to follow these unexpected results to an entirely reasonable conclusion, albeit one at odds with the reigning paradigm.

Second, her comment that:

"The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

...is puzzling. First, our faith in WHAT is important to God? One of the things He expects of us is faith in His WORD.

Second, it is interesting that, while she insists that God will not 'allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies', she apparently thinks that He will allow His Word to be reinterpreted by scientific methodologies.

Further, who is she to determine how God will allow himself to be proved?

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

There is no excuse for such e-mails. It is perfectly fine, however, to point out that her views are inconsistent with her professed faith.

Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

I'm not sure I understand her here. How does organic material preserved over billions of years constitute 'God escaping one of her boxes'?

She accepts the 68 million year old dates. She questions the theories of how that material is preserved.

And we disagree...

#32 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:47 AM

Okay, so you are saying that because the persistence of magnetic fields - especially of small bodies like Mercury & Ganymede have not been explained therefore GOD must have done it? Could it not be that science doe'snt (yet) have all the answers? Is this solution not at least as likely as "God did it" ?


No, I am not saying therefore GOD must have done it. I am saying, therefore, these objects are not billions of years old. Remember, the subject here is the age of the system. Further, I am saying that science has a perfectly good answer: these bodies are not billions of years old.

Your response to my question about Sharp bends in the strata of sedimentary rock is also rather strange. Given uniformitarianism and an Old Earth Model, then tightly folded rock is NOT a problem. There have been many numerous episodes of uplift/erosion, orogenic mountain building, crustal compression/extension over the previous 4.2 billion years or so. These process can easily produce tightly folded rocks and there has never been any serious advocacy within the Geological field to suggest otherwise.

View Post


There are literal mountains of folded rock, this speaks of rapid, catastrophic, water-based deposition on a grand scale. The rock would have to be folded before it hardened. This is not consistent with uniformitarianism, which posits slow & steady gradualism over long periods of time. Perhaps this is more of a conflict between uniformitarianism and catastrophism than an age isse. Interestingly, while creationists have held firm on the latter, the uniformitarians are gradually having to incorporate catastrophic processes in their model (e.g. the ‘neo-catastrophists).

#33 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 11:18 AM

No, I am not saying therefore GOD must have done it. I am saying, therefore, these objects are not billions of years old. Remember, the subject here is the age of the system. Further, I am saying that science has a perfectly good answer: these bodies are not billions of years old.
There are literal mountains of folded rock, this speaks of rapid, catastrophic, water-based deposition on a grand scale. The rock would have to be folded before it hardened. This is not consistent with uniformitarianism, which posits slow & steady gradualism over long periods of time. Perhaps this is more of a conflict between uniformitarianism and catastrophism than an age isse. Interestingly, while creationists have held firm on the latter, the uniformitarians are gradually having to incorporate catastrophic processes in their model (e.g. the ‘neo-catastrophists).

View Post


You are a bit disengenous by saying that you ar not implying that God did it. By claiming a young age for the earth/universe you are indeed implying a 6000year old biblically create world i.e. God.

To address your folded rocks issue, please realise that the process does not have to be a quick and catastrophic. Semi-lithified rocks, buried at shallow depth can be folded/compressed over long time frames. It was not I who said this had to be a rapid process. Indeed, the folding that is currently taking place deep inside mountain belts (wihin the Himlayers for example) has been going on for millions of years. Infact fully lithified rocks can also be tightly folded many millions of years after they had been deposited - how? A simple application of heat, pressure and an external force (compression for example).

Taking a closer look at your list makes me keen to do more research to address the individual claims in more detail. If you would be kind enough to repost your list (and any other evidence) with cited references I would be happy to take some time and issue a more datailed reply.

#34 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 11:35 AM

Yes Given millions upon bagillions of years in the atheist mindset... anything is possible.  Yeah right, 4.2 billion years was definately assumed, you cannot show it's that old.  You cannot stick a piece of dirt in a machine and get your date, which is what Carbon dating is... and it is extremely flawed.  It's fake, and highly unreliable.

View Post


Can you please therefore explain how ages produced from Carbon dating are independantly verified from things like tree rings, mud/ice cores etc. Even Carbon dating things like the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates a dating as would be expected (and I don't hear any YEC arguing against that).

Please do not forget that Carbon dating is only applicable (and is ONLY) used for ages les than 50,000 years or so. For older dates we have to rely on other radiometric methods.

#35 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 12:47 PM

Oh really now, if you were the geologist you claim you are, then you would have seen with your own eyes that the geological/illogical time column does not exist. 

View Post


Fortunately, I have a degree and an postgraduate degree in Geology (currently working in the Oil Industry) so I have studied LOTS of evidence over the past 15 years.

You have obviously already made your own mind up about things, so it looks like I will have a hard time convincing you otherwise...

#36 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 01:01 PM

You are a bit disengenous by saying that you ar not implying that God did it. By claiming a young age for the earth/universe you are indeed implying a 6000year old biblically create world i.e. God.

View Post

You're the one equating a "young" earth with "God exists". It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists if the earth isn't crazy-aged, but this is a separate conclusion based upon other lines of reasoning, is it not?

Now which of those separate lines of reasoning is the topic of this thread? Or which of them has wombatty presented here?

#37 Guest_Overture_*

Guest_Overture_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2009 - 01:10 PM

All evidence points to a young earth. 


Then why does the vast majority of the scientific community consider YEC pseudoscience? If there is no evidence to support an old earth, why did people start theorizing about the possibility?


Evolutionist are the majority, the majority are atheist.  The majority hate God.  The majority rule this world. 

View Post


You know this isn't true. In the United States, 76.5% of the population identify themselves as Christian. Globally Christianity claims 2.1 billion members, Islam 1.1 billion, hinduism 900 million. Atheism/agnosticism/no affiliation is around 1.5 billion worldwide.

Even among the sciences, only 52 percent claim "No religious affiliation". This is far from an overwhealming, dominating majority capable of the kind of unified censorship that is routinely claimed by creationists.

The simple fact is that intelligent, logical study of evidence leads inevitably to a rejection of the theories of YEC.

#38 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 03:46 PM

Then why does the vast majority of the scientific community consider YEC pseudoscience? If there is no evidence to support an old earth, why did people start theorizing about the possibility?
You know this isn't true. In the United States, 76.5% of the population identify themselves as Christian. Globally Christianity claims 2.1 billion members, Islam 1.1 billion, hinduism 900 million. Atheism/agnosticism/no affiliation is around 1.5 billion worldwide.

Even among the sciences, only 52 percent claim "No religious affiliation". This is far from an overwhealming, dominating majority capable of the kind of unified censorship that is routinely claimed by creationists.

The simple fact is that intelligent, logical study of evidence leads inevitably to a rejection of the theories of YEC.

View Post


Actually I know it is true, the majority of people YOU would consider christians are not christians. They only profess to be christians. If those percentages were correct then AMERICA would not be a LIBERAL ATHEISTICAL MINDSET NATION. Have you been outside lately??? Apparently not.

Atheist consider YEC psuedoscience, and evo theist who can't quite NOT be apart of the fashion trend of atheism. Yes it's a big herd... it really is.

So your saying the majority of scientist are.... Gaaasssspppppp CREATIONIST???????????????????????????????? Wow this is great news... I can't wait for the discovery channel, and national geographic to start showing real history.

#39 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 05 May 2009 - 03:49 PM

Fortunately, I have a degree and an postgraduate degree in Geology (currently working in the Oil Industry) so I have studied LOTS of evidence over the past 15 years.

You have obviously already made your own mind up about things, so it looks like I will have a hard time convincing you otherwise...

View Post


Yes, I have already made up my mind, because you have NO reliable evidence to present. Only atheistical heresay and textbook drawings.

Radiocarbondating is also a sham. I've already made my mind up on that one too for it is IMPOSSIBLE to pick up a rock, put in a machine... an SHAZAAAMMM your official DATE.

#40 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 05 May 2009 - 05:41 PM

You are a bit disengenous by saying that you ar not implying that God did it. By claiming a young age for the earth/universe you are indeed implying a 6000year old biblically create world i.e. God.


Nonsense. The issue we are discussing is the age of the solar system, not how it came to be. These are two completely different issues. Aside from Humphreys' [very successful] planetary magnetic field theory, the other issues (volcanically/geologically active moons, Titan's abundance of methane/dearth of ethane, etc.) don't necessarily require a ~6,000 year time frame. Many would fit within a time period of a few million years - still far short of the purported age of the solar system.

To address your folded rocks issue, please realise that the process does not have to be a quick and catastrophic. Semi-lithified rocks, buried at shallow depth can be folded/compressed over long time frames. It was not I who said this had to be a rapid process. Indeed, the folding that is currently taking place deep inside mountain belts (wihin the Himlayers for example) has been going on for millions of years. Infact fully lithified rocks can also be tightly folded many millions of years after they had been deposited - how? A simple application of heat, pressure and an external force (compression for example).


I found a small article making the same claims here. Snelling offers a rebuttal in this recent article.

The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial, the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break.7 However, pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism.8 But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior9 is not observed in these rocks. The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere.

7. E. S. Hills, “Environment, Time and Material,” Elements of Structural Geology (London: Methuen & Co., 1970), pp. 104–139; G. H. Davis and S. J. Reynolds, “Dynamic Analysis,” Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pp. 98–149.

8. R. H. Vernon, Metamorphic Processes: Reactions and Microstructure Development (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976); K. Bucher and M. Frey, Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th ed. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002).

9. Ref. 8; G. H. Davis and S. J. Reynolds, “Deformation Mechanisms and Microstructures,” Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pp. 150–202.


This makes sense as heat & pressure do alter minerals. If these folded rocks are not thus altered, the explanation doesn't work.

Taking a closer look at your list makes me keen to do more research to address the individual claims in more detail. If you would be kind enough to repost your list  (and any other evidence) with cited references I would be happy to take some time and issue a more datailed reply.

View Post


I'll work on a better list - it'll take a bit. For the time being, you can look for recent material on Saturn's moons Enceladus (very active geyser & south pole) and Titan (with an atmosphere & the methane/ethane discrepancy). Jupiter's moons Ganymede (magnetic field), Io (peppered with very active & powerful volcanoes). Io also emits twice the heat of earth, only part of which is accounted for by tidal flexing.

You can find a lot of good stuff regarding these moons and related material (including tons of beautiful pictures taken from the spacecraft) on NASA'S Cassini website. Also you can search for the names of the moons (and anything else for that matter) at Creation-Evolution Headlines. Yes, it's a creationist website, but they provide extensive quotations from scientific papers and cite all references. In fact, this is where I'll be getting a lot of my material since they do provide extensive citation which makes it easy to track stuff down (assuming no subscriptions are required - which they often are :huh: )

And, as mentioned above, look into the comet issue. These things shouldn't still be around, which is the sole reason why the wholly hypothetical and unobserved Oort Cloud was hypothesized. The only 'evidence' that it exists are the very comets it was invented to explain. This is a blatant example of a 'materialism of the gaps' argument.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users