Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    02 Oct '14 14:30
    http://www.raptureforums.com/CreationVsEvolution/ageoftheearth.cfm

    101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
    By Don Batten
    Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)

    Some examples:

    Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth

    96. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today's population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?

    97. "Stone age" human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people?

    98. Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.

    99. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.

    100. Common cultural "myths" speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.

    101. Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.
  2. 02 Oct '14 14:42
    Can science prove the age of the earth?


    Yes.

    Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth


    No.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Oct '14 15:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Can science prove the age of the earth?


    Yes.

    Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth


    No.
    End of story. 96: SO WHAT? The growth rate overall is clearly a lot lower than that, and besides, there was so much disease back in the day they didn't live much past 20.

    97, where are all the fossils? We don't see so many because 99% of the possible fossils don't MAKE it to our time, having been corroded to nothing in those 100,000 years, but we have PLENTY of flint stones dated to nearly 1 MILLION years back.

    And so it goes for every one of those so-called arguments.
  4. 02 Oct '14 16:48
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    Some examples:
    Before we go through the examples. Are you doing a hit and run, or are you willing to discuss the examples honestly? If it turns out that the examples you provided are conclusively wrong, what will you do then? Will you:
    a) admit that the scientific evidence points in a direction unfavourable to your current religious beliefs.
    b) ignore the facts and flood us with more examples.
    c) leave the thread in silence.
    Unless you agree to a) prior the the discussion, there is no point having the discussion as you are not being honest.
  5. 02 Oct '14 17:10
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Before we go through the examples. Are you doing a hit and run, or are you willing to discuss the examples honestly? If it turns out that the examples you provided are conclusively wrong, what will you do then? Will you:
    a) admit that the scientific evidence points in a direction unfavourable to your current religious beliefs.
    b) ignore the facts and fl ...[text shortened]... ) prior the the discussion, there is no point having the discussion as you are not being honest.
    He has just done a hit and run, just like he always does.
    He is a dishonest opinionated trolling total time waster endlessly perpetually verbally vomiting out the same old totally unintelligent religious propaganda crap not ever worthy of any attention whatsoever.
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Oct '14 19:30
    Originally posted by humy
    He has just done a hit and run, just like he always does.
    He is a dishonest opinionated trolling total time waster endlessly perpetually verbally vomiting out the same old totally unintelligent religious propaganda crap not ever worthy of any attention whatsoever.
    I sent him a PM asking that question, will see what he says.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Oct '14 23:19
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I sent him a PM asking that question, will see what he says.
    Answer, basically, someday. So That's it for RB.
  8. 04 Oct '14 15:32
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Before we go through the examples. Are you doing a hit and run, or are you willing to discuss the examples honestly? If it turns out that the examples you provided are conclusively wrong, what will you do then? Will you:
    a) admit that the scientific evidence points in a direction unfavourable to your current religious beliefs.
    b) ignore the facts and fl ...[text shortened]... ) prior the the discussion, there is no point having the discussion as you are not being honest.
    a) Admit that your assumptions about reality are the assumptions that we must all accept.

    Trying to discuss things with people like you is impossible because you believe your assumptions are gospel truth.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Oct '14 15:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    a) Admit that your assumptions about reality are the assumptions that we must all accept.

    Trying to discuss things with people like you is impossible because you believe your assumptions are gospel truth.
    I think you have that 100% backwards. YOU are the gospel spreader. WE on the other hand believe in evidence. If, for instance, we dig up a 200 million year old parakeet fossil, all bets are off on evolution. Till then, we believe the evidence. NOTHING we say is written in stone, as opposed to you theists who LITERALLY think of their books as written in stone, unchanging.

    That is the opposite of science. For instance, it was firmly believed that saturated fats were bad for you, unsaturated fats good for your heart.
    A recent study of 600,000 people from around the globe showed no difference in heart disease from consuming either kind.

    So our ideas have changed and we along with it. That study might not even be the end all but till it is refuted, it seems to refute the old paradigm. That is good enough for us till further evidence comes in one way or the other.

    We don't take ANYTHING as written in stone. Well there is the rule that if you fall off a cliff and hit the ground a thousand meters below you gonna die. I think that is a safe written in stone statement.

    But what about Superman swooping down just in time, or what if the dude had a nice parachute. So even that is up for grabs.

    As for assumptions, you base your 'assumptions' on biblical fairy tales. That is not even CLOSE to reality. So right away you are in trouble logic wise.
  10. 04 Oct '14 18:10
    Is someone trying to turn the Science forum into a spiritual forum?
    This is Science Forum where science is the intended topic. Do we really fall inte this trap this easily?
  11. 04 Oct '14 20:03 / 2 edits
    Some years back I read a book on the geology of California. It said there is a volcano that has been split in half by the San Andreas Fault, with the halves gradually separating in a northwest-southeast direction, to today's separation of 200 miles. This has taken 23 million years according to this brief article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neenach_Volcano
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    05 Oct '14 13:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
    Some years back I read a book on the geology of California. It said there is a volcano that has been split in half by the San Andreas Fault, with the halves gradually separating in a northwest-southeast direction, to today's separation of 200 miles. This has taken 23 million years according to this brief article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neenach_Volcano
    I posted a question in the spiritual forum, How can YECers ignore all the data pointing to an old Earth?

    You mentioned the San Andreas fault but there is another smoking gun, literally and that is the spreading of the seafloor between the western hemisphere and the East, Europe and Africa.

    That spreading forces magma to freeze out as it gets pumped up slowly to the surface which happens to be covered by a couple of miles of water so it cools down and freezes rather quickly. That spreading leaves a magnetic trail of the state of the Earth's magnetic field in the cooling rocks which take on the state of Earth's magnetic field and that field gets frozen into the rocks as the fresh surfaces recede from each other like two conveyor belts close together going in opposite directions. So the rocks on the East side of the divide at the same distance from the rocks on the West side will have the same magnetic field frozen in time in the now cool magma and since the magnetic field of Earth switches poles every few centuries, there is a continuous record of those changes for millions of years, where the spreading is going on at roughly a Cm or two per year.

    How can these YECers rationalize all that away?

    That and a hundred other results of science all pointing to the true age of Earth?

    I hope the YEC crowd tries to refute that work in that forum. Can we all go to that forum to talk about the issue?
  13. 05 Oct '14 15:59 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I posted a question in the spiritual forum, How can YECers ignore all the data pointing to an old Earth?

    You mentioned the San Andreas fault but there is another smoking gun, literally and that is the spreading of the seafloor between the western hemisphere and the East, Europe and Africa.

    That spreading forces magma to freeze out as it gets pumped ...[text shortened]... wd tries to refute that work in that forum. Can we all go to that forum to talk about the issue?
    I heard on a TV documentary about millions of layers of fossilized corral dating back millions of years. Corals go through daily and seasonal growing cycles that form bands akin to growth rings in trees; counting them shows how many days passed in a year. Because of the tidal forces from the Moon, the rotation of the Earth is slowing down at a predictable rate from physics. There are not only annual layers in these fossilized corals but, superimposed over those annual layers, there are daily layers. Just as predicted by physics, the very old fossilized corrals show that there were not about 385 days per year millions of years ago but noticeably more days per year because the rotation of the Earth on its axis was faster then. The oldest fossilized corals show more than 400 daily layers per annual layer -corresponding to each day length being less than 23 hours long instead of the now 24 hours long.
    Now, obviously, it can be mathematically shown that, when you plug in the numbers in the equations for physics, it would take many millions of years for the Earth to slow down that much!
    There is no way YECers can explain this! they cannot even say their usual crap about all the annual layers of rock being deposited by one great flood because this is rock hard CORAL that grows in one piece, not sediment that has to first separates out from water by gravity before it can form layers, and OBVIOUSLY it is a total absurdity that coral could grow millions of layers many meters thick overnight!

    Radioactive dating of these corals agrees with their estimated age by the number of daily layers per annual layers -an excellent vindication of radioactive dating as well as independent verification that these oldest fossilized corals are millions of years old.

    I believe that fossilized corral must therefore be one of the strongest if not thee strongest pieces of evidence for old Earth.
  14. 08 Oct '14 00:22
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think you have that 100% backwards. YOU are the gospel spreader. WE on the other hand believe in evidence. If, for instance, we dig up a 200 million year old parakeet fossil, all bets are off on evolution. Till then, we believe the evidence. NOTHING we say is written in stone, as opposed to you theists who LITERALLY think of their books as written in ston ...[text shortened]... cal fairy tales. That is not even CLOSE to reality. So right away you are in trouble logic wise.
    Of course you believe I have that 100% backwards, your religious beliefs lead you to accept the opposite view that I have.

    That's a no brainer.
  15. Standard member menace71
    Can't win a game of
    08 Oct '14 06:31 / 1 edit
    98. Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.

    99. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.

    I believe these 2 have the most validity as recorded history only appears to go back 6K + years ago if we've been here millions of years then where is the written history ? Am I to believe man has been around for millions of years but only learned to read and write in the last 6 or 7000 years ? Same with cities and agriculture did we just suddenly learn to build cities and farm in the last 6 or 7K years ....something does not match up with what we are taught main stream

    Manny