The Origin of Oil Points to Young Earth

[Gaffer]

Dude - EVERY scientist goes about proving a hypothesis the same way - they presume. They start with a particular point of view, and seek to prove it. Macro-evolution violates a HUGE portion of the scientific method, yet it's somehow MORE plausible than what the guy in quesiton suggest? You're likely well-versed in science; So were popular scientists who shouted from the rooftops 'the world is FLAT!'. It took a man of FAITH to show it was, indeed, NOT-flat, right?



Open your mind and read the guy's claims...chew on 'em...study and see if he's right. IF he's right...it certainly changes things, right?

He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.

[Insein]

i read the one on Radiometric dating in particular. Stop fucking accusing me of not reading your bullshit when someone discredits it.

[Insein]

He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.

Again, the world being round was fundamentally understood long before man sailed across the oceans.

[-Cp]

i read the one on Radiometric dating in particular. Stop fucking accusing me of not reading your bullshit when someone discredits it.

Not hard to "accuse" you when it's obvious you didn't go to the link by this quote:

He states that because 3 individual studies on the lava flows of a volcano in New Zealand yielded bad results, then ALL results are therefore faulty.

That tells me - and any other reasonable person - that you did NOT go to the link I linked.... had you done so, you'd see there are obviously a LOT more than 3 studies on there...

You ape-men (evolution kool-aid drinkers) sure get defensive when called out... jeesh..

[Mr. P]

You didn't even go to that link did you? I count at LEAST 30+ articles on there regarding how c14 - and other forms of radioactive dating - are dubious at best..

Carbon dating has been disputed by fundies for at least 30 years that I know of. Its been replaced and still ain’t good enough..Oh well, time will tell.

[darin]

He starts with the hypothesis that god created the world and the universe in 6 days. And goes from there. First he needs to explain to me how days were measured when there was no time. Time is a measurement developed by man. It is the revolution of the earth and the movement about the sun.

It wasn't scientists that said the world was flat. It was fundimentalists who refused to believe the world was round and not the center of the universe. It took explorers who were not afraid to go out beyond what was known of the world and see what lay beyond the horizon. It had nothing to do with faith as you put it.

Fundimentalism, of any kind, is restrictive and limits your ability to observe what is really going on. Like looking at a room through a tube. You only see what you point the tube at. Too really see the room you have to put aside the tube. And in doing so you discover the room is bigger and filled with many more things than you thought.

That's a reply. Thanks! Good reading your (wrong) viewpoints.

:

[darin]

Also not to be a downer on DMP, it was known by many scientists as early as 6th century BC that the world was round. Pythagorus hypothesized that the Earth was round but his theory didnt gain momentum till about the 3rd century BC. According to history though, everyone was relatively positive that the Earth was round by the 1st century AD based upon the way constellations would rotate in the sky depending on the time of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Ironically, it was a Fiction book in the 19th century according to the wikipedia article that gave the popular notion that Many people thought the world was flat during Columbus' time. Much like what we're dealing with here.

I know others thought the world was round, too - I was simply using that example to help illustrate a point.

[Gaffer]

Again, the world being round was fundamentally understood long before man sailed across the oceans.

I know but I couldn't remember those greek names.

[Insein]

Not hard to "accuse" you when it's obvious you didn't go to the link by this quote:

I went to your bullshit link and read your bullshit articles. I said that on the VOLCANO IN NEW ZEALAND STUDY, the 3 experiments that they ran on that ONE study, they determined that the results were inaccurate. Their conclusion then ON THAT ONE STUDY, was that ALL results are inaccurate and therefore that proves their theory to be right.

That tells me - and any other reasonable person - that you did NOT go to the link I linked.... had you done so, you'd see there are obviously a LOT more than 3 studies on there...

You ape-men (evolution kool-aid drinkers) sure get defensive when called out... jeesh..

That tells me that you havent read a fucking post ive made on the issue. Post a link of the exact location where i believe in evolution. All ive been arguing is that the theory of a young Earth is based solely upon discrediting the theory of an old Earth. It offers NO evidence to prove why the Earth is young. It offers lots of conjecture as to why the methods for determining the Earth to be old are flawed.

[Gaffer]

Carbon dating has been disputed by fundies for at least 30 years that I know of. Its been replaced and still ain’t good enough..Oh well, time will tell.

Any form of dating, no matter how acturate, is going to be disputed by the fundies.

[Insein]

Any form of dating is not going to be 100% accurate by basic human error. However, they have yet to show me any form of dating that suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old. All they have done is attempt to discredit other forms and call that discrediting their proof.

[-Cp]

I went to your bullshit link and read your bullshit articles. I said that on the VOLCANO IN NEW ZEALAND STUDY, the 3 experiments that they ran on that ONE study, they determined that the results were inaccurate. Their conclusion then ON THAT ONE STUDY, was that ALL results are inaccurate and therefore that proves their theory to be right.


[/b]

That tells me that you havent read a fucking post ive made on the issue. Post a link of the exact location where i believe in evolution. All ive been arguing is that the theory of a young Earth is based solely upon discrediting the theory of an old Earth. It offers NO evidence to prove why the Earth is young. It offers lots of conjecture as to why the methods for determining the Earth to be old are flawed.

K... here are a few pieces of EVIDENCE for a Young Earth - for you out there who claim "junk science' - you'd better be able to back up your refutes to these issues and not just toss out random insults.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.” The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers8 and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

[avatar4321]

I'm not familiar with this guys credentials, but I have read that some of these creation scientists have bogus degrees from bogus universities and are no more qualified to offer a scientific opinion than Oprah.

While Id be seriously skeptical if there was some obscure university, but the University of Sydney sounds pretty unbogus to me. Especially since its one of the leading research universities in Austrailia. http://www.usyd.edu.au/

[avatar4321]

He has a theory. Its not proved in anyway. When he has real scientist that are not fundimentally motivated support his theory then he will have some credibility. And I say he has a unproven theory because its fundimentally based, not scientically based, and is not even a true scientific theory.

I find these guys to be offensive. They attempt to spin science to achieve their particular agenda of making the bible appear literally true when it is not. It's simply a blueprint for civilization.

This guy has as much credibility as al gore.

See the problem with finding "scientists that are not fundamentally motivated" is if they proved it, they would convert to some judeo Christian religion, and thus youd disqualify them as fundamentally motivated. Its an impossible standard.

[Mr. P]

Oh Stop with the 'THUMPER' site, CP. Get some real science. Geeeezzzz