Evidence For A Young Earth

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Because you know so little and you believe so much. What's the fun with discussing things with you?

You don't listen, and you blabber. You are like a crocodile with big mouth with no ears.

You never learn anything. You repeat your ignorance again and again, even when we give you the science behind. But no, you repeat your ignorance again and again. ...[text shortened]... you are willing to listen and learn, then it might be quite fun, but until then? Will pigs fly?

I guess you are not a good teacher then.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess you are not a good teacher then.

I have no intention to teach things to people who hold their hands over their ears shouting "I don't want to learn, I don't want to learn".

I rather teach people who have something to teach me in return. Simply called a discussion or debate. You have nothing to offer as long you pretend you know things. Debating with you is a bore.

Originally posted by CalJust
I, and many others, have presented to you scientific evidence proving evolution, including from leading Christians such as Francis Collins, and YOU blindly refused to even consider or discuss their findings!

Methinks the shoe is on the other foot.

Just for the record, would you concede that there is an ever so slight possibility that some of your opinions could be wrong? Or are you more infallible than the Pope?

Just wondering...

I don't remember any compelling information concerning the truth of evolution that you have presented. Perhaps I did not see it. It might have been during the two week you guys had the mods ban me from posting.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would debate them, if you would look at them and make coments on what you think is wrong with the information.

okay lets begin with the opening few minutes of the youtube clip in your op. can you explain why how up right tree fossils cause of problem for science?

Originally posted by DeepThought

...the visible universe appears ~13.77 billion light years across.

It is in fact something like 90 billion light years across. As the universe is expanding while the light from the most distant objects is in flight it has further and further to go to get here.

I know. That's why I said that it appears to be ~13.77 Billion ly across.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sure you can challenge what I say anytime and still show some respect. The reason I post is to teach, learn, and debate. I don't post with the intent to insult or call people names, but sometimes I do because their response makes me angry.

I admit it is hard to teach an old dog, like me, new tricks. But let me tell you something about your age. At 42 ...[text shortened]... get to at least 65 for most everything else, and you will most likely live a more youthful life.

Provided no one calls me an atheist I think I'm polite by the standards of these forums. I post to test my own ideas. The chances of me teaching anyone else here anything are pretty remote.

There is more than one alternative to young, I count as middle aged these days. Edit: There, you've made another post I agree with.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
okay lets begin with the opening few minutes of the youtube clip in your op. can you explain why how up right tree fossils cause of problem for science?

It is not that an upright tree fossil by itself causes any problems for science, but the fact that many of these tree fossils go through several layers of rock strata that are supposed to represent millions of years to lay down.

Creationists believe this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for the strata to slowly accumulate around it.

The length of these tree trunks must have been preserved very quickly, which suggests that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly during a single catastrophe. catastrophic burial must have formed the rock strata and caused the fossilization, otherwise the tree would have rotted and collapsed.

Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone “fossil forests” were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens that happened after the 1980 volcano eruption.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]It is not that an upright tree fossil by itself causes any problems for science, but the fact that many of these tree fossils go through several layers of rock strata that are supposed to represent millions of years to lay down.

These trees go through different layers the same strata, so geologists do not claim that the difference in the age of the strata is millions of years. The difference between the top layers and bottom layer of strata containing these trees usually measures in tens or hundreds of years.

Creationists believe this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for the strata to slowly accumulate around it.

Non-creationists also believe this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly (or at least buried quickly, using quickly in a geologic time sense).

The length of these tree trunks must have been preserved very quickly, which suggests that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly during a single catastrophe. catastrophic burial must have formed the rock strata and caused the fossilization, otherwise the tree would have rotted and collapsed.

It can take many years for wood to decompose, so this would only indicate that the tree was buried within the time it takes for the tree to decompose, and not necessarily indicate a catastrophic event. Also, if the tree were buried over decades, the tree would possibly still live for much of the burial time.

Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone “fossil forests” were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens that happened after the 1980 volcano eruption.

Geologists do not dispute that geologic events can happen quickly. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are not mutually exclusive. Proving some geologic events happen quickly does not prove they all act quickly.

Originally posted by PatNovak
These trees go through different layers the same strata, so geologists do not claim that the difference in the age of the strata is millions of years. The difference between the top layers and bottom layer of strata containing these trees usually measures in tens or hundreds of years.

[b]Creationists believe this type of fossil was formed relatively quic ...[text shortened]... ally exclusive. Proving some geologic events happen quickly does not prove they all act quickly.

Nor does showing coal CAN develop quickly means ALL coal does.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nor does showing coal CAN develop quickly means ALL coal does.

Well, that is science fact that coal CAN develop quickly.

There is NO science fact that coal can develop as slow as millions of years or even 100,000 years.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, that is science fact that coal CAN develop quickly.

There is NO science fact that coal can develop as slow as millions of years or even 100,000 years.

Even if you were to prove that all coal formed quickly, what does that get you? You seem to be operating under at least two false assumptions.

First, proving catastrophism true and uniformitarianism false in 100% of cases would still not indicate a young Earth.

Second, the primary way the Earth is dated is not through geology. Geology is more focused on relative dating and not absolute dating. Absolute dating is done using radiometric dating.

That you would link to a video that starts out discusing geology as "Evidence For A Young Earth" shows how little you (and the person making the video) know about the subject.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Even if you were to prove that all coal formed quickly, what does that get you? You seem to be operating under at least two false assumptions.

First, proving catastrophism true and uniformitarianism false in 100% of cases would still not indicate a young Earth.

Second, the primary way the Earth is dated is not through geology. Geology is more focused ...[text shortened]... or A Young Earth" shows how little you (and the person making the video) know about the subject.

They just move the goalposts when you mention radioactive decay studies like this:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/Using%20Radioactive%20Decay%20to%20Determine%20Geologic%20Age.pdf

Now it's another science only based on unproven assumptions. If there was no connection with dating the Earth, they would have no problem with that science. Connect it with Earth age and all of a sudden its a conspiracy.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Even if you were to prove that all coal formed quickly, what does that get you? You seem to be operating under at least two false assumptions.

First, proving catastrophism true and uniformitarianism false in 100% of cases would still not indicate a young Earth.

Second, the primary way the Earth is dated is not through geology. Geology is more focused ...[text shortened]... or A Young Earth" shows how little you (and the person making the video) know about the subject.

Radioisotope dating—An evolutionist's best friend?

YouTube


Radiometric Dating

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Radioisotope dating—An evolutionist's best friend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVvGDu9mDuQ


Radiometric Dating

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you dont debate ideas from videos, you just post videos.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would debate them, if you would look at them and make coments on what you think is wrong with the information.

Remember this exchange? I have made two posts "commenting on what I think is wrong with the information" in your video, and you have not offered a single word in response, but instead linked to more videos. I think you just proved stellspalfie's point.

Originally posted by PatNovak
[b]Originally posted by stellspalfie
you dont debate ideas from videos, you just post videos.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would debate them, if you would look at them and make coments on what you think is wrong with the information.

Remember this exchange? I have made two posts "commenting on what I think is wrong with the information" in yo ...[text shortened]... rd in response, but instead linked to more videos. I think you just proved stellspalfie's point.[/b]

Well, I believe the video helps answer your question better than just me typing the ideas back to you. The point of the video was to point out to you that radiometric dating does not actually date time, but instead just measure the amount of isotopes in the rocks or fossils.

I also linked a website that covers the problems with radiometric dating. So what else do you want from me?