God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[metis]

Wow, that must be convenient. So if you like what I post, it's science, if not, it MUST be pseudo-science. You seem very sure. I'd not hesitate to say you are indicating a strong anti-theism, anti-God, anti-SCIENCE bias by doing so.

Well, it seems that you have this rather nasty habit of jumping to conclusions, and you're simply wrong on each count. Sorry if that doesn't fit your stereotype of me-- I'm not "anti-Gd", nor "anti-Science", nor "anti-theism", so your just spouting nonsense.

Not all sources are equal, and what I have seen time and time again are certain people who'll cite sources that simply are not from any peer-reviewed or any serious science source. As an anthropologist, I have seen such trash more times than I could ever count.

So, let me ask for your source(s) again, and hopefully you can restrain yourself from jumping to conclusions and using stereotypes.

 

[McBell]

Wow, that must be convenient. So if you like what I post, it's science, if not, it MUST be pseudo-science. You seem very sure. I'd not hesitate to say you are indicating a strong anti-theism, anti-God, anti-SCIENCE bias by doing so.

Rather interesting that you do not present anything at all....

 

[BilliardsBall]

I cannot tell you the space difference between Los Angeles and New York with absolute precision.

Should I take seriously claims that the distance between the two cities is comparable to a few yards because of that?

Ciao

- viole

It's a nice analogy you made--I mean that--worthy of a preacher--but that wasn't my point. You started asking me to set an exact date. I think the Earth is a lot younger than some, but scientists who say it is 100 Million years younger than other scientists is not comparable to "a few yards" or the three days it takes to drive NYC to L.A.!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, it seems that you have this rather nasty habit of jumping to conclusions, and you're simply wrong on each count. Sorry if that doesn't fit your stereotype of me-- I'm not "anti-Gd", nor "anti-Science", nor "anti-theism", so your just spouting nonsense.

Not all sources are equal, and what I have seen time and time again are certain people who'll cite sources that simply are not from any peer-reviewed or any serious science source. As an anthropologist, I have seen such trash more times than I could ever count.

So, let me ask for your source(s) again, and hopefully you can restrain yourself from jumping to conclusions and using stereotypes.

It's hard not to when you are wholly unaware that there are any peer-reviewed and serious science sources questioning an old Earth! I mean, while all non-crazy persons believe in gravity, and all scientists believe in an elliptical, not flat Earth, statements like "yes, they ALL believe in a 4.5 B Earth and believe everything about Darwinism and no serious scientists believe in God" and etc. are just LUDICROUS. Don't waste my time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Rather interesting that you do not present anything at all....

I've presented citations quite a number of times on this thread alone, including pointing out where citations the opposing side has presented are filled with mistakes!

 

[outhouse]

I've presented citations quite a number of times on this thread alone,

Nothing credible however.

The age of the earth is considered fact by academia. In other words it is not up for debate because you refuse facts.

 

[viole]

It's a nice analogy you made--I mean that--worthy of a preacher--but that wasn't my point. You started asking me to set an exact date. I think the Earth is a lot younger than some, but scientists who say it is 100 Million years younger than other scientists is not comparable to "a few yards" or the three days it takes to drive NYC to L.A.!

No it is not. And I never asked you to set an exact date.

What I ask if you really believe that a minor uncertainty about the age of earth (100 million years is about 2 percent of the estimated age of 4.5 billions), justifies taking seriously claims that it can be in the range of 6000 years, which corresponds to be about 1 million times younger.

I don't know your age, but I think I would be pretty silly if my uncertainty makes it possible for me to say that you can be only a few minutes old.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

It's hard not to when you are wholly unaware that there are any peer-reviewed and serious science sources questioning an old Earth! I mean, while all non-crazy persons believe in gravity, and all scientists believe in an elliptical, not flat Earth, statements like "yes, they ALL believe in a 4.5 B Earth and believe everything about Darwinism and no serious scientists believe in God" and etc. are just LUDICROUS. Don't waste my time.

I've been reading peer-reviewed periodicals because of my profession for over 50 years, so why don't you post some of these peer-reviewed articles that question the "old Earth".

And, btw, who posted here that "no serious scientist believes in God"? Wasn't me, so why are you getting on my case? Why don't you produce some of the peer-reviewed evidence that you say is there? All I see is smoke-- no fire.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it is not. And I never asked you to set an exact date.

What I ask if you really believe that a minor uncertainty about the age of earth (100 million years is about 2 percent of the estimated age of 4.5 billions), justifies taking seriously claims that it can be in the range of 6000 years, which corresponds to be about 1 million times younger.

I don't know your age, but I think I would be pretty silly if my uncertainty makes it possible for me to say that you can be only a few minutes old.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

Did you determine my age via documentary and eyewitness evidence or by making assumptions about the levels of elements and outside input like solar radiation for the last 4.5 Billion years?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've been reading peer-reviewed periodicals because of my profession for over 50 years, so why don't you post some of these peer-reviewed articles that question the "old Earth".

And, btw, who posted here that "no serious scientist believes in God"? Wasn't me, so why are you getting on my case? Why don't you produce some of the peer-reviewed evidence that you say is there? All I see is smoke-- no fire.

I apologize. I was responding to another poster when you invited yourself in/latched onto me. What is your profession, may I ask?

 

[metis]

I apologize. I was responding to another poster when you invited yourself in/latched onto me. What is your profession, may I ask?

Retired anthropologist. Thanks for the apology and...

Take care.

 

[viole]

Did you determine my age via documentary and eyewitness evidence or by making assumptions about the levels of elements and outside input like solar radiation for the last 4.5 Billion years?

I did not determine your age. But I am confident you are not a few minutes old. Because you being a few minutes old would imply all we know about human beings is wrong.
In the same way I am confident that the earth is not a few thousands years old because an earth that age would signify that basically all we know boy science is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

The real final clincher was the development of radioactive dating techniques, which have given half-lives, plus it's obvious that we well know how radioactivity works. Up until that time, there was no "smoking gun" that could without a doubt shoot down the YEC concept with any certainty.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The real final clincher was the development of radioactive dating techniques, which have given half-lives, plus it's obvious that we well know how radioactivity works. Up until that time, there was no "smoking gun" that could without a doubt shoot down the YEC concept with any certainty.

I could certainly agree with you, but please consider that assumptions have to be made as to the amounts of radioactive particles in the atmosphere, which is why I wrote things like "assumptions about 4.5B years of solar radiation". A quick review of real, peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us that uniform assumptions have to employed regarding temperature, pressure, solar radiation, etc. before we can simply extrapolate half-lives backwards in time. Also, the issues are so dense that it takes years for mass spectrometry experts to learn how to adjust dates (until they fit the Old Earth paradigm!). You know both these facts as an anthropologist, I'm sure. And I'm sure you would agree with me.

Remember also that creationists recognize that the Bible describes great upheavals in the ancient world. Most scientists, liberal and conservative, recognize that IF there was a universal Flood it was likely accompanied by massive amounts of earthquakes and volcanism, both of which would affect--isotopes in the atmosphere for which assumptions are made regarding dating. Finally, most Old Earth scientists admit to multiple catastrophes in Earth's distant and more recent past. Something like a massive meteorite strike, for example, would affect dating assumptions.

Thanks for carefully considering my viewpoint.

 

[metis]

I could certainly agree with you, but please consider that assumptions have to be made as to the amounts of radioactive particles in the atmosphere, which is why I wrote things like "assumptions about 4.5B years of solar radiation". A quick review of real, peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us that uniform assumptions have to employed regarding temperature, pressure, solar radiation, etc. before we can simply extrapolate half-lives backwards in time. Also, the issues are so dense that it takes years for mass spectrometry experts to learn how to adjust dates (until they fit the Old Earth paradigm!). You know both these facts as an anthropologist, I'm sure. And I'm sure you would agree with me.

Sorry but I can't. There are various types of radioactive dating techniques with differing half-lives, and if nuclear physicists didn't know how these actually work and what could hypothetically influence them, then making any kind of nuclear device of any type would be very problematic and highly dangerous.

What's also an important fact to know is that some of these dating techniques can be used to "cross-check" other dating techniques. For example, there are various isotopes of radioactive potassium that have different half-lives but may overlap when dating a given sample.

Carbon-14 is the least reliable radioactive dating technique since it is subject to radiation levels in the atmosphere, and one major technique to adjust them is by the use of tree rings. It cannot be used for aquatic organisms because water tends to block some of the radiation while the organism is alive.

Remember also that creationists recognize that the Bible describes great upheavals in the ancient world. Most scientists, liberal and conservative, recognize that IF there was a universal Flood it was likely accompanied by massive amounts of earthquakes and volcanism, both of which would affect--isotopes in the atmosphere for which assumptions are made regarding dating. Finally, most Old Earth scientists admit to multiple catastrophes in Earth's distant and more recent past. Something like a massive meteorite strike, for example, would affect dating assumptions.

We know with certainty that there was not any universal flood, so it's really a moot point. Instead, the Flood narrative is important but as allegory since it's the teachings that are found in that narrative that are truly important. Other natural catastrophic events would not have any effect whatsoever on radioactive dating techniques other than C-14.

Thanks for carefully considering my viewpoint.

Ditto, and thanks.

 

[outhouse]

Remember also that creationists recognize that the Bible describes great upheavals in the ancient world.

Most of which we know are factual pseudo history. Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC at which time they were still proto Israelites and not writing yet.


They were beat down so many times the multiples cultures that made up these people of diverse origins, did not even know their own origins.

 

[outhouse]

IF there was a universal Flood it was likely accompanied by massive amounts of earthquakes and volcanism, both of which would affect--isotopes in the atmosphere

Ridiculous as there is no evidence either took place ever since the last ice age, let alone a time period you refuse to designate.

Finally, most Old Earth scientist

No such thing.


There are only credible scientist, and pseudoscientist who hold no credibility what so ever.

 

[gnostic]

Remember also that creationists recognize that the Bible describes great upheavals in the ancient world. Most scientists, liberal and conservative, recognize that IF there was a universal Flood it was likely accompanied by massive amounts of earthquakes and volcanism, both of which would affect--isotopes in the atmosphere for which assumptions are made regarding dating.

Except that if there was such an "universal" flood as you believe, then there would be massive amount of evidences for such flood everywhere in the world, to single point in time.

There are no such evidences in that instance of time in any part of 10,000 years history of man.

You are speculating, nothing more, nothing less, that such a flood has occurred. There have always floods occurring each year, some larger than others, but none of show evidences of that as described as the bible, in which it wiped out all those except the survivors in the ark.

And you are further speculating about Genesis flood, by that there were volcanoes and earthquakes, but none of that is remotely hinted at in the 2 chapters of Genesis. It mentioned no sea, only rain and water coming directly from the ground, so it doesn't say anything about tsunami.

And you are forgetting that if there were earthquakes and volcanic activities to go with the global flood, there would also be tonnes of evidences that there were quakes and volcanic eruptions to go with the flood at one specific point in time...but guess what, BilliardsBall, there are no such evidences.

If quakes and volcanic activities were the cause of the global flood, then there would be conclusive evidences in every parts of the world, all pointing to a single year of global apocalyptic event. But no scientists, no geologists and no anthropologists have ever been able to dated such an apocalypse.

If there were quakes, volcanoes and flood, all happening globally as you claim, then in what year did all this happen, BilliardsBall?

All you are doing is just making things up, but with no evidences to show for it. That's not science, that's not history, it just your spinning your pseudoscience circular reasoning.

 

[Parsimony]

Something like a massive meteorite strike, for example, would affect dating assumptions.

Only in those rocks close enough to be directly affected by the impact (i.e. breaking them open and making them susceptible to gaining or losing isotopic material). Rocks far from the impact would not be affected and geologists have ways of knowing whether a sample is contaminated or not anyway.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry but I can't. There are various types of radioactive dating techniques with differing half-lives, and if nuclear physicists didn't know how these actually work and what could hypothetically influence them, then making any kind of nuclear device of any type would be very problematic and highly dangerous.

What's also an important fact to know is that some of these dating techniques can be used to "cross-check" other dating techniques. For example, there are various isotopes of radioactive potassium that have different half-lives but may overlap when dating a given sample.

Carbon-14 is the least reliable radioactive dating technique since it is subject to radiation levels in the atmosphere, and one major technique to adjust them is by the use of tree rings. It cannot be used for aquatic organisms because water tends to block some of the radiation while the organism is alive.



We know with certainty that there was not any universal flood, so it's really a moot point. Instead, the Flood narrative is important but as allegory since it's the teachings that are found in that narrative that are truly important. Other natural catastrophic events would not have any effect whatsoever on radioactive dating techniques other than C-14.



Ditto, and thanks.

As long as we both stand in recognition that the differing types of dating methodology all require uniform assumptions regarding the ancient Earth. Again, a catastrophism could alter the amounts of quite a number of isotropes in the atmosphere and etc. And again, I think the fact that years are required of study to learn how to tweak radiometric readings is telling.