how does a YEC explain trees that are 50,000 years old.

[Father Heathen]

There are prehistoric Kauri trees that are from 36,000 to 50,000 years [C-14 dating] old that are buried in a peat swamp in the North Island in New Zeland. These trees have survived the centuries in an underground resting place, sealed in a chemically balanced environment that has preserved the timber in a perfect wood condition. These trees grew for nearly 1500 years before they were buried and covered in a peat swamp, some have a girth of 40 ft. and as long as 200 ft. For the last 20 years they have been making beautiful furniture from these recovered trees.

I would like to know how a YEC explains how these prehistoric tree have been on earth for up to 50,000 years when the earth is no older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Satan's deception, God testing your faith, or both. Convenient, no?

 

[CaptainBritain]

You could both be horribly wrong. Well, it's a lot more firm than "could". You ARE both horribly wrong.

Well we will all find out one day or we will not, but if we are both wrong we will not have the chance to regret being wrong and no chance to be told we were wrong, we will breath our last, the lights will go out and we will not even know we ever lived atall.
However im very certain you are wrong so its all fine and dandy, we will need a long walk off a short high cliff to find out for sure any time soon, but im happy to wait.
See if any of this "we know where we are, have a rough but very suspect idea about the middle, but we are clutching at straws for a begining and clutching at straws to explain the thousands of very high odds events that brought us to this forum conversation" theory you guys have, gains any extra weight.
I am of mortal flesh so I will not try holding my breath.

 

[CaptainBritain]

A similar question for you that I asked before: since the invention of the compass, how many times in human history have all the compasses suddenly and spontaneously all switched directions?


Ah... so we live in a new Earth that only has the appearance of age (similar to what's suggested in Last Thursdayism). Personally, I think that invoking a deceitful liar-God creates more questions than it answers.

Well for the first question im going to have to let you tell me though i suspect the answer may be never.

for the second bit, the YEC brigade have to think that way, without a mature earth with proper eco-systems, atmosphere, etc etc, for Adam to live in by day 6, Adam is toast.
If the Earth is not fit for purpose by that time, end of story, the YEC brigade have to argue that.
I probably shouldnt speak for them but there doesnt seem to be many on the forum.
Ive said it before YEC is just one theory of many, they just seem to get the best web sites and make the most noise.
Try and find a decent gap theory or day age site etc, I failed,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well for the first question im going to have to let you tell me though i suspect the answer may be never.

And you'd be right. All the compasses on Earth have never all spontaneously pointed in the other direction. Ever since humanity developed them, they've always pointed the same way.

This poses no problem for a several billion-year-old Earth: by accepted dating methods, the last geomagnetic reversal happened almost a million years ago. Nobody was wandering around with compasses then to notice the change.

However, with a young Earth (and I'm classifying anything up to a hundred million years old as "young", here), we run into a problem. When you look at all the sea floor from the oldest parts to the newest parts, you can count about 200 reversals. One of the side effects of claiming that the Earth is anything less than 230 million years old (the age of the oldest parts of the sea floor, thanks to subduction and sea floor spreading), then you start having to compress all those geomagnetic reversals into a smaller window of time.

If you go by the YEC claim of 6,000 to 8,000 years for the age of the Earth, then you would have a reversal about every 20 years on average as a bare minimum.

We know the compass was invented in China around 200 BC. Regardless of any other lines of argument about how rocks are dated and the like, we can be sure of one thing: there have been no geomagnetic reversals in the last 2,200 years, because people have been directly measuring the direction of the Earth's magnetic field that whole time.

Now... how young can the Earth get so that within the last 2,200 years, there were no geomagnetic reversals?

for the second bit, the YEC brigade have to think that way, without a mature earth with proper eco-systems, atmosphere, etc etc, for Adam to live in by day 6, Adam is toast.
If the Earth is not fit for purpose by that time, end of story, the YEC brigade have to argue that.

Hmm. It seems bizarre for me that if someone would throw out evidence, science, logical consistency and common sense to the point that they accepted young Earth creationism to begin with, they'd let little details like that interfere with their beliefs: "people living to the age of 900, a 6,000-year-old Earth, talking snakes, humans being made from dust and/or the ribs of other humans, and a global flood is all reasonable... but a man living under the protection of an omnipotent God without a fully-formed ecosystem? That's just nutty." This mindset makes no sense to me.

 

[CaptainBritain]

And you'd be right. All the compasses on Earth have never all spontaneously pointed in the other direction. Ever since humanity developed them, they've always pointed the same way.

This poses no problem for a several billion-year-old Earth: by accepted dating methods, the last geomagnetic reversal happened almost a million years ago. Nobody was wandering around with compasses then to notice the change.

However, with a young Earth (and I'm classifying anything up to a hundred million years old as "young", here), we run into a problem. When you look at all the sea floor from the oldest parts to the newest parts, you can count about 200 reversals. One of the side effects of claiming that the Earth is anything less than 230 million years old (the age of the oldest parts of the sea floor, thanks to subduction and sea floor spreading), then you start having to compress all those geomagnetic reversals into a smaller window of time.

If you go by the YEC claim of 6,000 to 8,000 years for the age of the Earth, then you would have a reversal about every 20 years on average as a bare minimum.

We know the compass was invented in China around 200 BC. Regardless of any other lines of argument about how rocks are dated and the like, we can be sure of one thing: there have been no geomagnetic reversals in the last 2,200 years, because people have been directly measuring the direction of the Earth's magnetic field that whole time.

Now... how young can the Earth get so that within the last 2,200 years, there were no geomagnetic reversals?


Hmm. It seems bizarre for me that if someone would throw out evidence, science, logical consistency and common sense to the point that they accepted young Earth creationism to begin with, they'd let little details like that interfere with their beliefs: "people living to the age of 900, a 6,000-year-old Earth, talking snakes, humans being made from dust and/or the ribs of other humans, and a global flood is all reasonable... but a man living under the protection of an omnipotent God without a fully-formed ecosystem? That's just nutty." This mindset makes no sense to me.

Well now we will need to find a young earth creationist to answer these things, what I know of there Dogma is not up to the task, though im glad you asked the questions and look forward to reading the answers, Is there any YEC types on this site that you know of who we could invite to answer them as it will be interesting to see how they get out of that one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well now we will need to find a young earth creationist to answer these things,

I thought you said that you believe the Earth is only a few million years old. If that's the case, it's for you to answer, too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah-ha!

There are no such things as "years."

 

[CaptainBritain]

I thought you said that you believe the Earth is only a few million years old. If that's the case, it's for you to answer, too.

never said a few, more than a million and less than a billion is my very wide ball park, there is a great deal of difference between that and thinking the world is less than 10000 years old, a lot of the age of the universe is based on suppositions, but then im not fixed on my age of the universe ideas, as it has no impact on my theological beleifs, there are wildly different numbers for age even in the science community, my feeling is we many never know for sure.
But on the upside I think ive found a YEC candidate to answer your questions and will invite him to take part.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

never said a few, more than a million and less than a billion is my very wide ball park,

Okay. I guess I misunderstood.

there is a great deal of difference between that and thinking the world is less than 10000 years old, a lot of the age of the universe is based on suppositions, but then im not fixed on my age of the universe ideas, as it has no impact on my theological beleifs, there are wildly different numbers for age even in the science community, my feeling is we many never know for sure.

Are you talking about the age of the Earth or the age of the universe? The age of the Earth is settled to a matter of a percentage or two of precision, as is the time since the Big Bang. The only way I can see it really being a matter of dispute is semantics: I know that there is significant debate about what happened before the Big Bang, and I suppose whether what existed before could rightly be called "the universe" is part of that. Similarily, the evidence points to one particular moment when the Earth coalesced into its own cloud of dust, another when it formed into a molten sphere, and another when the surface cooled to form a solid crust... which of those moments you choose to identify as the moment of creation for the Earth doesn't change the fact that they're all pretty much fixed.

I'm curious where you got your age of "more than a million, less than a billion" from, though. I mean, Biblical literalists can point to the Bible as their source for their figure of 6,000 years. Scientists who specialize in this sort of thing can point to reams and reams of evidence for their figure of 4.55 billion years. What do you point to as the source for your figure?

 

[painted wolf]

We have evidence of life back over 3 billion years.

Perhaps the numbers are just too big for some people to be comfortable with?

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

The age of the universe has been established to be 13.7 billion years, +/- 1%.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The age of the universe has been established to be 13.7 billion years, +/- 1%.

Seems a bit useless to measure the "age" of the universe in "years."

 

[YmirGF]

Seems a bit useless to measure the "age" of the universe in "years."

Sheesh, eh? Next people will say that we should count rings in imaginary trees...

"The horror ....
... the horror ..."

 

[Nepenthe]

Seems a bit useless to measure the "age" of the universe in "years."

How so? Do you mean the distinction between look-back time and look-back distance?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Seems a bit useless to measure the "age" of the universe in "years."

There's no such thing as measuring.

 

[Draka]

Well we will all find out one day or we will not, but if we are both wrong we will not have the chance to regret being wrong and no chance to be told we were wrong, we will breath our last, the lights will go out and we will not even know we ever lived atall.
However im very certain you are wrong so its all fine and dandy, we will need a long walk off a short high cliff to find out for sure any time soon, but im happy to wait.
See if any of this "we know where we are, have a rough but very suspect idea about the middle, but we are clutching at straws for a begining and clutching at straws to explain the thousands of very high odds events that brought us to this forum conversation" theory you guys have, gains any extra weight.
I am of mortal flesh so I will not try holding my breath.

Boy, your logic is all messed up. Your idea of how old the earth is and a YEC's idea of how old the earth is aren't the only options. How is it impossible for you to think that the earth could be exactly as old as what scientists approximate and there still be an afterlife and a deity? And we don't need a "short walk of a high cliff" to find out the age of the earth...it's already been scientifically determined to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. If you want to take a short walk off a high cliff to find out you are wrong about what really is after death and beyond the physical though...then that is on you. I already have my answers and I am very certain you are wrong too.

Oh and I don't clutch at straws...I drink straight from the cup.

 

[Autodidact]

never said a few, more than a million and less than a billion is my very wide ball park, there is a great deal of difference between that and thinking the world is less than 10000 years old, a lot of the age of the universe is based on suppositions, but then im not fixed on my age of the universe ideas, as it has no impact on my theological beleifs, there are wildly different numbers for age even in the science community, my feeling is we many never know for sure.
But on the upside I think ive found a YEC candidate to answer your questions and will invite him to take part.

How did you come to that conclusion?

And no, there are no wildly different numbers for age within the scientific community. The geologists, working together with the physicists, have solved this one, and concluded that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Boy, your logic is all messed up. Your idea of how old the earth is and a YEC's idea of how old the earth is aren't the only options. How is it impossible for you to think that the earth could be exactly as old as what scientists approximate and there still be an afterlife and a deity? And we don't need a "short walk of a high cliff" to find out the age of the earth...it's already been scientifically determined to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. If you want to take a short walk off a high cliff to find out you are wrong about what really is after death and beyond the physical though...then that is on you. I already have my answers and I am very certain you are wrong too.

Oh and I don't clutch at straws...I drink straight from the cup.

Well thats your opinion and I defend your right to have it, we are both very certain each other is wrong, but there really is no horribly wrong on the subject, science is subject to changes of heart unless there is a mathmatical proof involved, and with much of the universe unaccounted for the scientists are not playing with a full deck as yet, and if you happen to be 100 percent right I do not see any downside to it.
If im here one minute and gone the next, im never going to know I was wrong.

well if no straws, how did it all start?

 

[CaptainBritain]

How did you come to that conclusion?

And no, there are no wildly different numbers for age within the scientific community. The geologists, working together with the physicists, have solved this one, and concluded that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old.

So your saying that every scientist has the same opinion on the age of the earth?

Can you show me the workings out of how these geologists and physicists reached that conclusion?

 

[Jose Fly]

CaptainBritain demonstrates very well the appeal to post-modernist thinking that creationists are so prone to. His response is "You have your opinion and I have mine" as if all opinions are equally valid..."science changes" as if that by itself justifies rejecting inconvenient conclusions....and "If I die and I'm wrong, I'll never know, so oh well" as if whether something is accurate or not doesn't matter anyways.

So to sum, the creationist mindset here is:

1) All opinions are equally valid;

2) You can off-hand reject any conclusion from science for no other reason than "science changes"; and

3) Reality doesn't matter because we're all going to die anyways.

Wonderful!!