Roll over from "Does God Exist" - How old is the Earth?

[-Cp]

Some state the "earth is billions of years old" as if it was somehow fact... I find that notion a bit silly....

If you believe it's that old, why so when so much of the evidence we have points to a young Earth?

[Gaffer]

All the evidence points to 4 billion years. Only pseudo-science points to a young earth.

Genesis was an attempt by an ancient culture to explain the unexplainable. Like so many other cultures did.

[-Cp]

All the evidence points to 4 billion years. Only pseudo-science points to a young earth.

Genesis was an attempt by an ancient culture to explain the unexplainable. Like so many other cultures did.

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

- Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

- The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

- Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.

- A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

- The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).

- Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

[Missileman]

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

- Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

- The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

- Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.

- A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

- The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).

- Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

How about some links for this stuff please?

[Gaffer]

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

90% of the psuedo-science methods is what you should say.

- Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.

So exactly when did these dinosaurs live? An where did these "unfolsilzed" dinosaur bones come from?

- The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.

The magnetic field doesn't decay. It flucuates, can even change polarity but does not decay.

- Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.

Who said there was an atomsphere for billions of years?

- A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

The distance of the galaxy is measured in LIGHT years. A lot of the light we see now started this way millions of our years ago. A supernova doesn't light up the area unless its really really close. And we have only begun to scratch the surface of interstellar exploration.

- The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).

The moon has always been receding from the earth. Where do you thing the moon came from? It was the result of a large collision of a big object with the earth that formed the moon.

- Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.

And salt is pouring into the sea from where? And who said the seas have been here for billions of years.

This is all psuedo-science I have heard before. It's a bunch of fundimentalists making up bullshit to try to prove their own beliefs concerning the bible and creationism. It has no real scientific basis.

Your own statements here say things have been going on for millions of years. That's a long way from 6000.

And by your own statement you say the moon has been moving away from the earth for 1.37 billion years. That too is a long ways from 6000.

There are a number of psuedo-scientist out there that are always publishing thier theories to try to support their fundimentalist goals but they are always proved wrong by real science.

[-Cp]

How about some links for this stuff please?

Sorry bro...

My source is www.answersingenesis.com - here's the link to these particular things that Gaffer can't answer - the only thing he can do is call PHD-holders "psuedo-scientists"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter8.asp

[darin]

-Cp,

It doesn't matter, really, HOW Much evidence you post. The folks here don't WANT it to be true so they say "Oh...right...that bit of evidence doesn't agree with my preconceptions - PLUS if that evidence is to be counted, it'd shatter my precious ego about myself and God...therefore, I will pronounce your evidence as psuedo-science."

[Gaffer]

Sorry bro...

My source is www.answersingenesis.com - here's the link to these particular things that Gaffer can't answer - the only thing he can do is call PHD-holders "psuedo-scientists"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter8.asp

A phd does not make a scientist. Looking at something from a fundimentalist view point is having a bias. None of what you posted has any scientific fact in the REAL scientific community.

[darin]

A phd does not make a scientist. Looking at something from a fundimentalist view point is having a bias. None of what you posted has any scientific fact in the REAL scientific community.

Why do you claim somebody with religious beliefs is somehow 'biased'. I think ALL scientists start out 'guessing' how something works...they have a point of view about a particular thing. Then, using the scientific method, they attempt to prove or prove it more-than-likely.

Perhaps YOUR scientific community is biased against God being real, and what He says being Real. Don't berate other scientists for not agreeing with that close-minded POV.

[Missileman]

Sorry bro...

My source is www.answersingenesis.com - here's the link to these particular things that Gaffer can't answer - the only thing he can do is call PHD-holders "psuedo-scientists"....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...1/chapter8.asp

What I don't see in your link is any information about what studies were done, by whom, to come up with some of the claims presented. For instance, the thing about the non-fossilized dinosaur bone. I believe what is being referred to is scientists finding some yet unfossilized material in the middle of a mostly fossilized bone. The bones in question date millions of years old and it is prudent to assume that the middle hadn't fully fossilized yet in these. Prudent unless you can figure out a way for thousand-year-old material to spontaneously generate within millions-of-years-old bones.

I did see one humorous thing in your link though. I saw it claim that scientists are biased because they attempt to explain things without the use of the supernatural. The statement still has me chuckling. It's like saying that auto-mechanics are biased because they explain car repair without the use of unicorns. Those kinds of statements make it impossible to take creationists or their claims seriously.

[Gaffer]

Why do you claim somebody with religious beliefs is somehow 'biased'. I think ALL scientists start out 'guessing' how something works...they have a point of view about a particular thing. Then, using the scientific method, they attempt to prove or prove it more-than-likely.

Perhaps YOUR scientific community is biased against God being real, and what He says being Real. Don't berate other scientists for not agreeing with that close-minded POV.

I claim somebody using their status as a so called scientist to make fundimentalist points are bias. All these reports cp made have been made for years as a way to mislead people into believing they are legitimate scientific studies and they are not.

God doesn't enter into scientific research. Only facts. The genesis site tries to spin science.

[-Cp]

What I don't see in your link is any information about what studies were done, by whom, to come up with some of the claims presented. For instance, the thing about the non-fossilized dinosaur bone. I believe what is being referred to is scientists finding some yet unfossilized material in the middle of a mostly fossilized bone. The bones in question date millions of years old and it is prudent to assume that the middle hadn't fully fossilized yet in these. Prudent unless you can figure out a way for thousand-year-old material to spontaneously generate within millions-of-years-old bones.

I did see one humorous thing in your link though. I saw it claim that scientists are biased because they attempt to explain things without the use of the supernatural. The statement still has me chuckling. It's like saying that auto-mechanics are biased because they explain car repair without the use of unicorns. Those kinds of statements make it impossible to take creationists or their claims seriously.

All of their references are listed below the article.. for the one in question about the Bone it is:

C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57.

[Gaffer]

All of their references are listed below the article.. for the one in question about the Bone it is:

C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57.

Let the cloning begin.

[Mr. P]

What I don't see in your link is any information about what studies were done, by whom, to come up with some of the claims presented. ....

Bible studies, man. That's the meat of their case. One book, no science just "I believe cuz, it says it right here". Thump, thump.

[darin]

I claim somebody using their status as a so called scientist to make fundimentalist points are bias. All these reports cp made have been made for years as a way to mislead people into believing they are legitimate scientific studies and they are not.

God doesn't enter into scientific research. Only facts. The genesis site tries to spin science.

But you've made NO scientific rebuttal - only dismissal because you're not open-minded enough to consider the points may be valid. You're jaded against ANY conclusion which differes from your specific POV.