A Few Things That Support a Young Earth

Ok RJ

Go Point by point

Example Radiometric dating

Pros and Cons

Astronomical measuring Parallax and Luminosity

Pros and Cons

I don't believe all science (evolutionist) as well as creationist are trying to be deceptive people believe or understand things based off of something

Manny

http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometric-Dating-is-Accurate/3/

interesting LOL



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Ok RJ

Go Point by point

Example Radiometric dating

Pros and Cons

Astronomical measuring Parallax and Luminosity

Pros and Cons

I don't believe all science (evolutionist) as well as creationist are trying to be deceptive people believe or understand things based off of something

Manny

Both our beliefs are based on assumptions of the past that we were not there to observe. The creationists and the evolutionists often look at the same data and then come up with opposite conclusions based on assumptions that we have not observed. So a debate on the subject has been going on for a long time and will not be resolved any time soon.

Both have valid points....

I wonder if the age of the earth can be estimated by the moon's rotational(or orbital speed I guess would be more accurate) Velocity around the earth ? I guess that would be an assumption that the moon came from the earth and was not captured by the earth's gravity ? Also an assumption on my part that the moon's velocity is changing either accelerating or decaying. The assumption being that the moon came from the earth and would have a higher speed like a top which slows down over time.

Manny

Originally posted by RJHinds
Both our beliefs are based on assumptions of the past that we were not there to observe. The creationists and the evolutionists often look at the same data and then come up with opposite conclusions based on assumptions that we have not observed. So a debate on the subject has been going on for a long time and will not be resolved any time soon.

Well but somethings can be proved beyond a doubt....Like Newtonian mechanics which hold true at least at a macro level. An object shot out of a cannon will behave the same every time. That's how rockets can send satellites into space and how we sent a man to the moon. These laws like the opposite and equal force ect......I guess my point is that not all science is biased and I have an open mind to truth.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Both have valid points....

I wonder if the age of the earth can be estimated by the moon's rotational(or orbital speed I guess would be more accurate) Velocity around the earth ? I guess that would be an assumption that the moon came from the earth and was not captured by the earth's gravity ? Also an assumption on my part that the moon's velocity is cha ...[text shortened]... from the earth and would have a higher speed like a top which slows down over time.

Manny

Apparently the moon's orbit is decaying....and the earth's rotation is slowing





Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Both have valid points....

I wonder if the age of the earth can be estimated by the moon's rotational(or orbital speed I guess would be more accurate) Velocity around the earth ? I guess that would be an assumption that the moon came from the earth and was not captured by the earth's gravity ? Also an assumption on my part that the moon's velocity is cha ...[text shortened]... from the earth and would have a higher speed like a top which slows down over time.

Manny

Yes there are assumptions on both sides of the issue.

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

sorry off subject but kinda related.....if the earth moon system can be looked at then it might be possible to figure the age of the earth that way LOL



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Well but somethings can be proved beyond a doubt....Like Newtonian mechanics which hold true at least at a macro level. An object shot out of a cannon will behave the same every time. That's how rockets can send satellites into space and how we sent a man to the moon. These laws like the opposite and equal force ect......I guess my point is that not all science is biased and I have an open mind to truth.



Manny

Yes, we can establish thet there are certain laws that always work a certain way based on our actual observations and measurements. However, we don't seem able to determine when and how these laws came to be. We have determined that there is a law called biogenesis, that is, life does not arise from non-living material.

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

We see tadpoles growup to be frogs and caterpillars change to butterflies that seem to support the theory of evolution. But embryos of all animals growup to look different from the way they start out. And a "kind" of living thing has never been observed to change from a different kind than its parents, like evolution suggest might happen if given enough time, which seems not to be provided anyway. This seems to support the Biblical account that reproduction is limited by God to those that are after their own kind.

Evolutionary scientist refuse to consider or investigate a Biblical model because of the religious implications. So they claim that since it is not science, but religion, that it is not worthy of scientific inquiry.

I was thinking about C14 dating and a point made for young earth is this. C14 has a half life of aprox 5800 years so double that right to get the time of the C14 life. Now how can something be dated at Billions of years with C14 ? The object dated should not contain any C14 at all it should be C14 dead so to speak. Unless the C14 came later which would make the dating suspect at best.


Manny

Originally posted by menace71
I was thinking about C14 dating and a point made for young earth is this. C14 has a half life of aprox 5800 years so double that right to get the time of the C14 life. Now how can something be dated at Billions of years with C14 ? The object dated should not contain any C14 at all it should be C14 dead so to speak. Unless the C14 came later which would make the dating suspect at best.


Manny

Radiocarbon dating is good for about 60,000 years. Other forms of radiometric dating can be used to give further (approximate but accurate) dates - uranium/lead dating for instance can be used to date certain minerals for a span from about a million years ago to about 4.5 billion years ago. There are a host of different techniques currently in use, and they are all in broad agreement regarding geological, palaeontological and archaeological dating, confirming to all but the most irrational inquirer the approximate date of the earth.

These atheist evolutionists seem to have all the answers. However, their answers come by way of the great deceiver, Satan the devil. The Christian gets his answers from the Holy Bible by way of the Holy Spirit.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
These atheist evolutionists seem to have all the answers. However, their answers come by way of the great deceiver, Satan the devil. The Christian gets his answers from the Holy Bible by way of the Holy Spirit.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

So you equate the work of genius as the work of the devil. So Mind=devil.

That explains SO much.

Originally posted by menace71
Both have valid points....

I wonder if the age of the earth can be estimated by the moon's rotational(or orbital speed I guess would be more accurate) Velocity around the earth ? I guess that would be an assumption that the moon came from the earth and was not captured by the earth's gravity ? Also an assumption on my part that the moon's velocity is cha ...[text shortened]... from the earth and would have a higher speed like a top which slows down over time.

Manny

"Both have valid points"

Yes, I agree. I think the real sciency/rationalist guys need to find a bit more 'spirituality' (in whatever form) , and vice versa. Especially 'vice versa' for those fundies !!

Science and religion both have a place in our world, but a wholistic view, (which is advocated by many spiritual shamans, preachers, etc.), is needed to forge our collective understanding ahead.
They just dont need to fight about it. If it's going to lead to violence then I say religion is the first one that has to go - otherwise it's back to the dark ages for humanity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you equate the work of genius as the work of the devil. So Mind=devil.

That explains SO much.

Pretty much... unfortunately there are still more like RJ out there, predicting 'end times' willy nilly, and then revising their dates, etc.

So dont think too deeply or come up with some sort of scientific genius that may feed the world or give us clean renewable energy, etc. That's the devils work. (Gosh man, I'm starting to admire your patience with this as well - at least it gives us incentive to try to prove beyond doubt that we are not living in a perpetual 1950's- (happy U.S. , church-going, citizens/ families, run by the man...etc,etc....) - that if we stick to that model then we are all going to be a lot more effed up and cause so much more of a clean up for our children and grandkids... they'll look back on our generation as dinosaurs- but more stupid if you compare brain size to body weight 🙂 ).