Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open Challenge: Evidence of a Young Earth
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 42 (48252)
07-31-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by The General
07-31-2003 2:58 AM


Re: A young Earth.
quote:
Oil fields are under too much pressure to be too old. Scientific estimates say that the longest maximum time a rock layer could keep pressure is 100, 000 years. And using this time-table the oil we have right now suggest that it is less than 10 000 years old, not millions.
Actually, such estimates aren't particularly scientific ... real petroleum geologists find them laughable because they're simplistic and unrelated to reality.
From Oil deposits by Glenn Morton (former Young Earth Creationist and professional petroleum geologist):
"The pressure in oil wells is kept in by capillary pressure not in the way that Young-earthers calculate it. They use permeability and ignore
capillary pressure. ... Using a smectite grain diameter .0007 cm and a density difference of .1 for oil, we find that capillary pressure can hold a 560 foot column of oil without leaking. Salt can hold about a 4000 foot column if need be and many of the oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico are associated with salt."
"Young earth creationists are wrong to ignore capillary pressure when
dealing with oil fields (of course very few of them actually work in the oil industry)."
And at The North Sea Rocks Refute Young-earth Arguments he quotes from Leveille, Gregory P. et al. 1997b. Compartmentalization of Rotliegendes Gas Reservoirs by Sealing Faults, Jupiter fields Area, Southern North Sea, in K. Ziegler, P. Turner and S. R. Daines, ed. Petroleum Geology of the Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Geological Society Special Publication 123 (London: Geological Society), pp 87-104:
"The petrophysical properties of fault rocks encountered in the depth range of most oil and gas reservoirs are largely determined by the amount of cementation, mechanical grain rearrangement, grain fracturing, frictional grainboundary sliding, and cataclastic flow that has occurred. These processes control pore sizes and pore geometries, and thereby determine the porosity, permeability and sealing capacity (i.e. capillary pressure) of fault rocks."
Note that Glenn's recently moved his web site; the home page is now at DMD Publishing Co. Home Page .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by The General, posted 07-31-2003 2:58 AM The General has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 17 of 42 (48379)
08-02-2003 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Jack
07-31-2003 11:12 AM


Hi,
The question is not a strawman at all, there are countless creationists who claim that there is scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old, do a search on Google, there are thousands of sites dedicated to a young earth. Their arguments are extremely embarrassing, but they do argue that it can be scientifically proven. The 'not enough moondust' argument is especially funny. How did they get the data for calculating the depth of moondust, a man ran about a hilltop with a cotton sheet for 10 minutes!
Re your biblical genealogies, these genealogies are mostly artificial. These are usually set out to follow some chronological some scheme. All theses references to 'forty' and multiples of 40 are really unknown lengths of time because 40 is normally used as a term for 'a long time' or a generation.
These schematic chronologies make the Bible a pretty useless source of information in attempting to reconstruct many biblical events. The reference in 1 Kings 6:1 places the Exodus in the middle of Thutmosis III reign, the apex of Egyptian power. This chronology asks us to accept the ludicrous situation of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt, then escaping from Egypt to wander for 40 years in another part of Egypt, then finally the rediculous scenario of Joshua's armies fighting for their right to settle into the promised land which was another part of Egypt!
Clearly the biblical author didn't know that Palestine/Canaan was simply a province of Egypt. If you are interested then this information is very easy to access, the reign of Thutmosis III is well documented, visit a library and look him up, his empire was very impressive.
anyone claiming an exact date is lying assumptions have to be made
Well the date of creation as being 4004 BCE was worked out by Bishop Ussher, so why would he lie, he was a man of God. He worked these dates out from the very genealogies that you cite, but by your calculations as well, you are asking us to believe that the universe is no older than 7000 years. Yet you base this on nothing except the claims of an ancient mutli-edited text and a probable psychotic episode that shortcircuits your rationality.
The bible is true because God/Jesus/Holy Spirit (or Ghost if you prefer) exists, and they know this because of personal revelation.
I agree, so lets keep creationism in the Religious Studies classroom where it belongs, along with all the other 'faiths'.
Finally, if my argument is a strawman, why are so many christians campaigning to have creationism taught in High School Science departments?
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 07-31-2003 11:12 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 08-04-2003 6:17 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 18 of 42 (48380)
08-02-2003 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by The General
07-31-2003 2:58 AM


Re: A young Earth.
Hi,
Could you pick out which one you consider to have the best evidence to support a young earth.
Could then give some supporting data, such as how this date was arrived at, who are the main scientists behind this claim, is the data falsifiable, is it reliable, you know the sort of thing I mean.
While I appreciate your time in replying to my question, you really didnt support anything you posted. For example, the claims you make about human civilisation, what is the evidence for this, who claims that the human civilisation is only 6000 years old, who says that civilisation suddenly apears 6000 years ago on the historical record?
You will appreciate that in an investigation into anything historical that I wouuld like something a bit more persuasive than you simply claiming these are true. Give me some names, give me some information that I can research myself.
Many thanks
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by The General, posted 07-31-2003 2:58 AM The General has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 19 of 42 (48551)
08-04-2003 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
08-02-2003 6:37 AM


Brian.
I think you are missing my point. Creationism is not a belief formed on the basis of scientific evidence, so asking for the scientific evidence for it misses their motivation. You are right that there are plenty of creation 'science' web sites. I have yet to see one that actually made a case for creationism, rather than simply bashing evolution (and rather ineptly at that).
Well the date of creation as being 4004 BCE was worked out by Bishop Ussher, so why would he lie, he was a man of God.
Yeah, lying was a poor choice of word. Wrong might be better. Incidently I found this http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm about Bishop Ussher's estimate, it's kind of interesting.
He worked these dates out from the very genealogies that you cite, but by your calculations as well, you are asking us to believe that the universe is no older than 7000 years. Yet you base this on nothing except the claims of an ancient mutli-edited text and a probable psychotic episode that shortcircuits your rationality.
Not mine, matey, not mine. Merely describing the other side as I see it.
Finally, if my argument is a strawman, why are so many christians campaigning to have creationism taught in High School Science departments?
Because they see the science of evolution as a direct threat to their religion, and therefor false. Do you want your children (or hypothetical children if you have none) taught something you believe to be false as scientific fact in the classroom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 08-02-2003 6:37 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 08-04-2003 6:30 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 20 of 42 (48554)
08-04-2003 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Jack
08-04-2003 6:17 AM


Mr Jack writes:
I think you are missing my point. Creationism is not a belief formed on the basis of scientific evidence, so asking for the scientific evidence for it misses their motivation. You are right that there are plenty of creation 'science' web sites. I have yet to see one that actually made a case for creationism, rather than simply bashing evolution (and rather ineptly at that).
I think you and Brian may be in violent agreement - I'm not sure why he mistook you for a Creationist. You both seem concerned about the potential impact of Creationism on the educational system.
I agree with you that Creationist "science" is readily recognized as nonsense by those familiar with science. From my perspective the problem is that the lawyers in legislatures and judgeships and the citizens on school boards are usually poorly equipped when it comes to science, and all Creationism needs to be successful in these venues is to give the impression that there is an active debate within scientific circles. If I detect a difference in your points of view it is that Brian may see this possibility as a greater threat than you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 08-04-2003 6:17 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 42 (48590)
08-04-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Jack
07-31-2003 11:12 AM


I agree with Mr Jack on the point that this:
quote:
The bible is quite clear that they were created at the same time as the earth, therfore the earth is young.
forms the basis for most Creationists' belief in a young earth. However, any resulting science comes from their desire to prove to everyone else what they believe in.
By this I mean that a creationist of this kind doesn't wallow through reams of data on our little planet, its moon, our universe, etc. then conclude that it all came into existence a little over 6000 years ago. (S)he starts with the belief that God created this then tries to unearth () data that will support their already-stated conclusion.
------------------
quote:
All the boys think she's a spy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 07-31-2003 11:12 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 42 (48835)
08-05-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-30-2003 12:27 PM


Link
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
If any of the issues in this page need to be talked about just say so and hopefully I'll get back on here soon. I know this might not be wanted but I dont like typing a lot or info.
------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-30-2003 12:27 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Admin, posted 08-05-2003 9:20 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 23 of 42 (48841)
08-05-2003 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by joshua221
08-05-2003 8:30 PM


Re: Link
Hi, prophecyexclaimed! Welcome aboard, but this is not the way things work here:
prophecyexclaimed writes:
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
If any of the issues in this page need to be talked about just say so and hopefully I'll get back on here soon. I know this might not be wanted but I dont like typing a lot or info.
Rule 5 of the forum guidelines states:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided.
The intention is that issues and supporting points be presented and discussed here on site, rather than simply referenced. In other words, if *you* have any points from your link that "need to be talked about" then describe them here. You can cite your link as a reference.
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by joshua221, posted 08-05-2003 8:30 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 42 (48883)
08-06-2003 7:12 AM


Creation "science"
The question of whether there is any scientific backing for creationism is of critical importance, in the US at least.
I strongly suspect the real reason for YECism is religious. The number of YECs who are not religious literalists of one flavour or another is vanishingly small. However, a scientific backing is sought to try to give YECism validity as science. And why? Because a scientific model can be taught in school science lessons; a religious one can't.

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 42 (48936)
08-06-2003 12:36 PM


Leap seconds
Hi, this is some rock hard evidence for a young earth.
Every year the earth rotates a second faster then the previous year, if the earth is billions of years old then the earth would be spinning so fast that nothing could live on it and everything would be flying off of the earth literally. If someone could back me up on this and if anyone knows what organization estimates the leap seconds it could send some really solid information for a young earth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Asgara, posted 08-06-2003 1:43 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 08-06-2003 1:47 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 26 of 42 (48944)
08-06-2003 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by joshua221
08-06-2003 12:36 PM


Re: Leap seconds
Hi prophesyexclaimed,
The leap second is simply an attempt to reconcile the atomic clock with the actual rotation of the Earth. The Earth's rotation is not constant but it is not rotating faster by a second every year. If anything the rotation is slowing due to a braking action of the tides, and it is by no means slowing by a second a year. The International Committee of Weights and Measures and the International Earth Rotation Service are two of the organizations that decide on the insertion of a leap second.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
404 - NPL
Page not found
Leap second - Wikipedia
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by joshua221, posted 08-06-2003 12:36 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 27 of 42 (48945)
08-06-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by joshua221
08-06-2003 12:36 PM


Re: Leap seconds
Hi, Proph!
prophecyexclaimed writes:
Every year the earth rotates a second faster then the previous year...
Wherever you're getting your information, you've garbled it. This particular Creationist argument goes something like this, though note that there are numerous variations:
The earth's rotation is slowing, and for this reason nearly every year we have to add an extra second to the year, called a leap second. This means that each year is a second longer than the year before. Since there are only about 31 million seconds in a year, the earth couldn't possibly be more than 31 million years old, and certainly not the 4.6 billion year figure accepted by evolutionists.
There are a couple problems with this argument.
  1. For simplicity, let's say there are exactly 31 million seconds in a standard year. If we add a second to this year it makes the length 31,000,001 seconds. And if we add a second to next year it is also 31,000,001 seconds. As you can see, the length of the standard year is not changing. And if we don't add a second to the following year the length is back to 31,000,000 seconds. The years are not getting longer. It's just that an actual second based on how many times the earth rotates in a single orbit of the sun (neither the rotation nor the orbit are constant) and the second based on atomic time are not quite the same, and so, on average, an actual year is about 0.9 seconds longer than the standard year.
    I'm avoiding the scientific nomenclature of "solar day" and "Coordinated Universal Time" and so forth because they don't aid understanding of the basic principles.
  2. Somewhat modifying what I just said in point 1, the earth *is* very gradually slowing down. I can't recall the exact figure, but I think it is estimated that the year becomes a couple seconds longer every 100,000 years or so. Notice how different a figure this is from slowing down by a second every year. Billions of years ago earth's day may have been only half as long.
In other words, this is not evidence for a young earth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by joshua221, posted 08-06-2003 12:36 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 42 (49249)
08-07-2003 6:13 PM


I like the role reversal, so why not give it a try.
There are radioactive elements naturally occuring on the Earth today that have relatively short half lives (C-14 5,000 years I believe). Scientists claim that these elements are being constantly produced, e.g. C-14 is produced in the uppper atmosphere/ionosphere. However, it cannot be argued with any certainty that every radioactive atom with a short half life has been produced by these means. Therefore, without certainty, C-14 could be proof of a YE.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 08-07-2003 6:42 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 08-07-2003 6:55 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 29 of 42 (49256)
08-07-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Loudmouth
08-07-2003 6:13 PM


Hey, Loudmouth! Welcome! Say hi to my brother out in Parma if you see him wandering about.
I, personally, am fonder of the "the vapor canopy protected the atmosphere from radiation so there wasn't any 14C before the Big Flud" argument. But that's just my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 08-07-2003 6:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 42 (49262)
08-07-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Loudmouth
08-07-2003 6:13 PM


Wasn't someone supposed to trot out their best argument?
If this is the best one you've got maybe you should put some more into it.
1) We know that there are conditions and processes which can create c-14 in the upper atmosphere. So why postulate that some isn't?
2) We measure the amount in older things and it is appropriate for the independently determined age. Can you show how this would be true for some amount of "primoridial" (there form the beginning at 6,000 years ago) C-14?
3) How much of the C-14 would be "primordial" in your hypothosis?
4) Why do somethings date so well by other means to older than 6,000 years and why does this agree with C-14 dating? In what way would it be thrown off by the mix of new and old C-14?
5) If the earth is less than 6,000 years old why is some of all carbon samples the radioistope C-14? Why is there effectivly non after about 50,000 years?
Now then, what about other short lived isotopes? Why are only very long lived elements still present or the only place short-lived ones are found isassociated with their parent elements? Shouldn't they all be there? Shouldn't the only ones missing be those with half lives less than 1 or 2 thousand years?
This is the *best* you've got? sheesh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 08-07-2003 6:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024