Jump to content


Photo

Greetings


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:11 AM

No probs, though saying people who believe X needs to get their head examined is an insult regardless of your intent. (I could say the same of people who believe everything came from literally nothing, whereby no space, no time, no energy, no laws of physics, Nothing... However I won't).


There are also various forms of data that support a 6000-10,000 year old Earth.



16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:
Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.


In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See also: "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve" and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.



17. Population Growth:
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 See Population Statistics for more on this.


22. Zircons:
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added



http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

Do you have any informaion on the subject from sources from other than creationist websites?

#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:15 AM

Do you have any informaion on the subject from sources from other than creationist websites?


"Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well,and in their summary they said that:"

I believe there is a book on this line of evidence called "Thousands not Millions"



Furthermore it doesn't matter if the article or website is creationist, (just like how I presume you prefer to read atheist articles), what does matter is the content and if it is supported with links to the information or if it is using a well known concept

#43 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:34 AM

Question, are there any non-creationists or Atheists that believe that Earth is 6000 years old?


I think You are asking the wrong question. What you should first be asking yourself is why a non-creationist or athiest would be motivated to abandon what they have been spoonfed from an early age, just to get insulted.

You have already demonstrated the kind of insults that are associated with a belief in a young earth. Why would an atheist want to be insulted for something that he probably doesn't give a hoot about?

And if a non-creationist took the time to really study this from the creationist side then would he remain a non-creationist? I know of at least one guy who became a creationist after studying the issues and realizing that the claims made by evolutionists are not reasonable. That is how he became a creationist and a believer.

But now that he has become a creationist, I guess he doesn't count!

There is not a shred of evidence that proves an old earth, it is all based on the assumption that rates that we see and measure today have always been the same. No one knows that. Gilbo mentioned a few limiting factors but there are many more.

Now I am one of those that believe in a young earth. So please explain why you think I should get my head examined.
  • MamaElephant likes this

#44 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:37 AM

Nasa tends to disagree with you. http://science.nasa....001/ast17jan_1/ I dont know how to quote this "Scientists are drawing a portrait of how Earth looked soon after it formed 4.56 billion years ago, based on clues within the oldest mineral grains ever found.
Tiny zircons (zirconium silicate crystals) found in ancient stream deposits indicate that Earth developed continents and water -- perhaps even oceans and environments in which microbial life could emerge -- 4.3 billion to 4.4 billion years ago, remarkably soon after our planet formed". I accept Nasa's findings on this as it's pretty clear cut from the evidence. I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:48 AM

I accept Nasa's findings on this asit's pretty clear cut from the evidence. I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.


What evidence was there? All I see in the article is unsupported statements.... Please post up the evidence you are claiming to be "clear cut"

Further you haven't responded to the 20 or so lines of evidence for a young Earth, (if you followed my link, I only posted 3 since I didn't want to make a "wall of text")

#46 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:00 PM

I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.


I don't know of any creationist that believes in a consipiracy among scientists. This is an unfounded prejudice that preachers of evolution try to spread about creationists.

There is no need for a conspiracy! Bias alone is enough.

Once someone has been preconditioned through years of education about what the "facts" of the matter are then everything is interpreted according to what they are taught. They are practically having their worldview chosen for them.

Now how many scientists do you think there are that study all the issues that have to do with the age of the earth and then choose what age they think is correct? It doesn't work that way. Most scientists do what everyone else does - they choose to go along with the evidence that fits their worldview.

#47 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:14 PM

I don't know of any creationist that believes in a consipiracy among scientists. This is an unfounded prejudice that preachers of evolution try to spread about creationists.

There is no need for a conspiracy! Bias alone is enough.

Once someone has been preconditioned through years of education about what the "facts" of the matter are then everything is interpreted according to what they are taught. They are practically having their worldview chosen for them.

Now how many scientists do you think there are that study all the issues that have to do with the age of the earth and then choose what age they think is correct? It doesn't work that way. Most scientists do what everyone else does - they choose to go along with the evidence that fits their worldview.

I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"

#48 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:20 PM

I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"


OK, so how do they know what the original saturation of the "uraniam, rare earth elements and other impurities" were?

And how do they know that the present "known rate" has always been the same?

#49 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 March 2012 - 12:21 PM

I'm pretty sure this has been debunked already. If this was real, where is the DNA from it? If a living dinosaur tissue was found, there would have been DNA, and that would have been all over the news for a long time. Sweitzer says herself that Creaionisss have hijacked and misrepresnted her work for their own fundamental agenda. Her's something from the same researchers who discovered the fossil in question:
"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time. "
Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
http://www.sciencema.../316/58…

And more about soft tissue (which is becoming increasingly common now that we know to look for it:

Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs
http://www.plosone.o...info:do…

Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin
http://rspb.royalsoc...g.org/c…

Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.


LOL, more atheistic evolutionists making more claims about their evidence that must always solely conform to evolution (conformism is not science). What would one expect from a group of people who all believe the same thing. And your continued attempt to make us sound stupid using categorizing tactics about people whom disagree with you as a group that is stupid. Childish games do not prove anything scientific only that it shows that you must act childish to be an evolutionist and to defend evolution itself. Because if it were not needed so many of you would not be doing it.

We also laugh at you when you guys use terms like freethinker. If you guys were truly about freethinking you would not care what we thought. And anyone could be apart of yur group because your group of freethinkers would not care either. But let's be honest. Freethinking in your group is only within the realm in which you all determine. And only those who think and believe within that realm of thinking that is acceptable will you accept. Pitiful that you point fingers at us and make accusations while all along from your own own hands you guys have 3 fingers of your own pointing right back at you. I guess your motto is: Do as I say not as I do. Because everything you accuse us of I can point it right back to you. If you don;t believe me make a list of what makes you justified in your belief against us and see,

And one more thing, you skipped over half of my post, I guess if you are to ignorant to answer questions and therefore must us categorizations instead what should I expect? Certainly not any scientific answers. But some how knowing it all and ignorance goes together? I guess that's what I should expect from a theory that allows you to be right and wrong at the same time. No wonder there is no real definition for truth scientifically because real truth does not exist in science. And If I am wrong give us the scientific definition of truth.

But I guess to define truth you would also have to have written down morals that everyone on your side should follow, but that don't exist either does it. I guess when your side has to constantly change truth actually committing to it is out of the question. Because once you do then you actually would have a standard you might have to live up to. Can't have that can you?

#50 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:29 PM

OK, so how do they know what the original saturation of the "uraniam, rare earth elements and other impurities" were?

And how do they know that the present "known rate" has always been the same?

Because no one has found evidence that they havent. If you want to overthrow all of geology as well as the other disiplines of earth science go for it, but you have to bring your own research to the table. Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..

#51 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:35 PM

Because no one has found evidence that they havent. If you want to overthrow all of geology as well as the other disiplines of earth science go for it, but you have to bring your own research to the table. Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..


It doesn't matter whether or not they have found evidence that they haven't, that is another discussion, but what I am talking about here stands - no one knows the age of the earth.

#52 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:36 PM

LOL, more atheistic evolutionists making more claims about their evidence that must always solely support evolution. What would one expect from a group of people who all believe the same thing. And your continued attempt to make us sound stupid using categorizing tactics about people whom disagree with you as a group that is stupid. Childish games do not prove anything scientific only that it shows that you must act childish to be an evolutionist and to defend evolution itself. Because if it were not needed so many of you would not be doing it.

We also laugh at you when you guys use terms like freethinker. If you guys were truly about freethinking you would not care what we thought. And anyone could be apart of yur group because your group of freethinkers would not care either. But let's be honest. Freethinking in your group is only within the realm in which you all determine. And only those who think and believe within that realm of thinking that is acceptable will you accept. Pitiful that you point fingers at us and make accusations while all along from your own own hands you guys have 3 fingers of your own pointing right back at you. I guess your motto is: Do as I say not as I do. Because everything you accuse us of I can point it right back to you. If you don;t believe me make a list of what makes you justified in your belief against us and see,

And one more thing, you skipped over half of my post, I guess if you are to ignorant to answer questions and therefore must us categorizations instead what should I expect? Certainly not any scientific answers. But some how knowing it all and ignorance goes together? I guess that's what I should expect from a theory that allows you to be right and wrong at the same time. No wonder there is no real definition for truth scientifically because real truth does not exist in science. And If I am wrong give us the scientific definition of truth.

But I guess to define truth you would also have to have written down morals that everyone on your side should follow, but that don't exist either does it. I guess when your side has to constantly change truth actually committing to it is out of the question. Because once you do then you actually would have a standard you might have to live up to. Can't have that can you?

What I've done is provide materials and supporting evidence for an old earth. I'm well aware that you think it's bunk and a conspiracy and I respect your opinon on that. However that doesnt make the evidence go away, It's still there. If you think there is some experiment that can be used to test somthing like the outdated idea of a global flood, please propose it. There is little "scrutiny" among creation scientist peers. They propose all kinds of models, etc. based on speculation centered around their own interpretations of scripture, but that's about it. Rarely do they propose any means of testing their hypotheses or models. You have to bring somthing to the table if you want to eat. As for not "responding" to every point, I cant as I'm at work. It's not outta disrespect. :Just_Cuz:

#53 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:38 PM

It doesn't matter whether or not they have found evidence that they haven't, that is another discussion, but what I am talking about here stands - no one knows the age of the earth.

If no one "knows the age" of the earth, then how can you say Earth is 6000 years old? That's a pretty bold, matter of fact statement if no one "knows".

#54 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:40 PM

Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..


How do you test the original saturation?

How do you test that rates were always the same?

#55 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:41 PM

If no one "knows the age" of the earth, then how can you say Earth is 6000 years old? That's a pretty bold, matter of fact statement if no one "knows".


I don't know that the earth is 6000 years old. You can scan this entire forum and you will never find me saying that.

#56 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 March 2012 - 12:42 PM

The other part of the dino blood and tissue is the scientific field of forensics. Now when they tell their class that it is best to get to the evidence before it degrades is the timeline within dinosaur extinction time or our lifetime? Because either evidence like this lasts millions of years which means there is no hurry and the forensic field is wrong, Or it does not and all that you have presented is wrong. Why? You cannot have contradictions like this and be right on both counts. So somebody lying to protect a theory that if true does not need protection. But if not true needs more untruth to prove it.

#57 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:52 PM

The other part of the dino blood and tissue is the scientific field of forensics. Now when they tell their class that it is best to get to the evidence before it degrades is the timeline within dinosaur extinction time or our lifetime? Because either evidence like this lasts millions of years which means there is no hurry and the forensic field is wrong, Or it does not and all that you have presented is wrong. Why? You cannot have contradictions like this and be right on both counts. So somebody lying to protect a theory that if true does not need protection. But if not true needs more untruth to prove it.

Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this. If this was real news then DNA would have been found, It wasnt.

#58 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

Schweitzer offered hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long. One is that the densely mineralized bone, combined with as-yet-undiscovered geological or environmental processes, protected the structures within. Also a response to Schweitzer's 2007 paper the one reporting the presence of protein points out several questions about the findings, including the likelihood of contamination. The comment, written by Mike Buckley and an array of co authors, pointed out that the likelihood of collagen breakdown. Tests that should have been performed but were not. The inability to perform standard analyses on fragmented peptide sequences.

#59 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 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

What I've done is provide materials and supporting evidence for an old earth. I'm well aware that you think it's bunk and a conspiracy and I respect your opinon on that. However that doesnt make the evidence go away, It's still there. If you think there is some experiment that can be used to test somthing like the outdated idea of a global flood, please propose it. There is little "scrutiny" among creation scientist peers. They propose all kinds of models, etc. based on speculation centered around their own interpretations of scripture, but that's about it. Rarely do they propose any means of testing their hypotheses or models. You have to bring somthing to the table if you want to eat. As for not "responding" to every point, I cant as I'm at work. It's not outta disrespect. :Just_Cuz:


Let's go deeper into the problem so you can see what most atheists refuse to see, But first I will ask a question to make you ponder what I am about to present,

Can you are any other atheist prove that the laws of physics and time always remained the same? No you cannot, So possibilities where the laws and times were different also have to be pondered or you deny other possibilities in favor of one conclusion which is not science. With me so far?

So we have to include that something may have been different but what? If you apply what the Bible says it makes it very clear that time during the creation was different. Why? According to what it says death cannot exist until the first sin. And the first sin did not happen until the 6th day. So all that was done before it was done under different laws of physics and different laws of time. With me so far?

So what would have to change in the laws of physics and time to make what we currently know infinite instead of finite? 2 things have to change:

1) The process of aging.
2) The laws of thermal dynamics.

For time to pass and nothing die or decay the process of "aging" has to become separate from time. In other words age becomes a constant even though time passes. Which means that whatever age something is created as it will stay that age unless the laws change. This is why all the animals and humans were created old enough to go forth and multiply. Because if all were created as babies, when would they grow up in a timeline were "aging" no longer exists? And if God creates all living matter already aged because of this, why not dead matter such as the earth and other things in the universe?

What this does and what we would expect to see if this were true is that the correct age of everything would be perfect for life on this planet to survive. And that is exactly what we have. Or sun if the correct age and type star so that life can exist on this planet. Our planet is the correct age to be cool enough and have a strong magnetic field to deflect the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere away. And I could go on and on about how creation with age makes everything we see work just like it does. And what do you have? It just randomly happens, Fat chance.

#60 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 March 2012 - 01:03 PM

Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this. If this was real news then DNA would have been found, It wasnt.


In the video did she mention creationists or was her main problem evolutionists who did not want her to test their evidence because they were afraid that she would find confirmation that would bring up questions about the old earth time-line. Like I said you cannot prove that the laws of physics and the laws of time remained the same. So to ignore this which I know you will only shows that you believe that all evidence must conform to evolution and to prove that you are willing to bend any rule that you can. If you choose to be ignorant on purpose it is your own fault.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users