Open Challenge: Evidence of a Young Earth

Again, just a little role reversal (see first message). I had a hard time writing my argument, thinking the same things you just wrote. Besides, you would think that proponents of an old earth (4.5e9 yr) could at least come up with better arguments that YEC's.Take a deep breath, just playing Devil's (err Christianity's) advocate.

'fossils are produced by slowly being buried with sediment and therefore the earth is very old, because rocks represent such a long period of time. BUT , In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly. Therefore the rocks don’t represent millions of years after all.'I believe the fossils can be regarded as evidence of youth, and the rocks. I also think the earth would have been blown to bits by meteors over a long period, or at least heavily scarred the earth, thats just an opinion though. I think the fossils and rocks can be the evidence you seek Brian, or don't seek.lol[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-07-2003]

The earth is hevely scared by meteors and asteroids. If you strip away the earths vegitation and oceans you will see thousands of craters and impact sites. Today there are over 160 known impact craters:http://exobio.ucsd.edu/Space_Sciences/all_earth_craters.htmWith on avarage, 2-3 new ones discovered every year.How could these have formed during 8-6,000 years, of recorded history, if no record of such impacts exist today?

Again, that's your best shot?
Could you develop the theme a little? "I think" doesn't really amount to much of a strong argument does it?What have you considered that would counter your arguement and how do you suggest that be handled? Have you actually thought about what you are saying at all?Have you considered impact rates, size of impactors, erosian rates etc.?Do you understand the difference bewteen isolation of a potential fossil from destructive forces and the final fossilization? Do you have any idea of the rates of preservation and fossilization in current condtions? Are you prepared to hang your thesis on these two things?

You missed my main 'reason' or 'evidence' Brian was asking, which I think is the fossils and the rocks;'fossils are produced by slowly being buried with sediment and therefore the earth is very old, because rocks represent such a long period of time. BUT this is simply false. In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly. Therefore the rocks don’t represent millions of years after all. ossils and the rocks;'

'Are you prepared to hang your thesis on these two things?'Listen friend, I didn't say I had a thesis and that my opinion was gospel. However the caption I qouted tells us that the fossils suggest young earth, and that the rocks also agree. That was my main point. And I also THINK (I am not the all knowing) the earth would not have lasted this long.(meteors)[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-07-2003]

'fossils are produced by slowly being buried with sediment and therefore the earth is very old, because rocks represent such a long period of time. BUT this is simply false. In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly. Therefore the rocks don’t represent millions of years after all. ossils and the rocks;'This is half true. While rapid burial can acount for the formation of many fossils, how can it account for all of them?Your assertion that there woulden't be so many remarkably preserved fossils is corect, and inline with current science as many fossils are incompleat.Which is why we find so many fish fossils, because the ocean bottom is full of sediment, perfect for fossilization, and less of the generations of land animals.The ones we find of those are indeed recovered from lime stone, or sediment layers, often from areas we know were once, lakes, rivers, mudflats, swamps etc.No mistery to it. That's why fossil tresure troves like the Labrea tarpit is so rare.If indeed the Flood happend and fossils are it's product, then we should find a whole lot more animal fossils than fish fossils.Not to mention the general falicy of the claim when one takes into acount hydrostatic sorting which would easely see the hevier things on the lower levels of sediment, yet somehow, miraculously they are sorted nicely along the geologic column.Hovind seems to really like this argument, but it is easely debunked here:How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column

Are you quoting someone? That last fragment 'ossils and the rocks' is suspicious.

quote:

---

In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly.

---

Rapidly being instantly to upwards of many years. Ever watch crime shows of TV? The police find bodies that have been laying on top of the ground for years and are still full skeletons. Eventually falling leaves will bury those bones and after that they just kinda sit there. More leaves fall and the bones end up deep under the ground. Pressure turns the dirt to stone and there you have it.We have layers upon layers of this stuff. It didn't accumulate in a few thousand years.

quote:

---

Therefore the rocks don’t represent millions of years after all.

---

This does not follow from what you wrote.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No, this is not a good argument.Although other conditions can inhibit decay (such as the anoxic conditions found at the bottom of some lakes), and some fossils aremore resistant to decay than others, the biggest problem is that it assumes that there is a single rate for deposition.In fact some beds can be deposited very rapidly, but others are deposited very slowly - and geologists can tell which. Moreover we need to distinguish between the AVERAGE rate and the PEAK rate. If, a rare event drops a relatively large amount of sediment that represents a high PEAK rate of deposition - but the average rate would still be much lower. The average rate is needed to work out the age - but the average rate does not need to be high enough to produce fossils - so long as that rate is sometimes reached.

Mike,Things get rapidly buried today, hardly an observation that warrants a global flood inference.However, you still have to respond to this, which was originally pointed out to you in your "millions of years" thread.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]

Hi Brian, Did you know that the sun is shrinking by about one tenth of a percent per century. Project that back 6000 years and theres no real problem but project it back 30 million years and the sun would have been touching the earth. Ok the rate of shrinkage might have been variable but going back so far would have been a tad too hot for me anyway.

Mr Nicholson,The sun pulsates, measure this change during the contraction part & you could infer this. But to infer this now would mean ignoring the fact that it becomes larger, too.http://www.asa3.org/...ronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.html"Within the professional scientific community, a preliminary report which suggested a long-term and rapid shrinkage of the sun presented a puzzle for solar astronomers. Consequently, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not been substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered."What creationist ministry of misinformation did you get that from?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]