How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, a lot of scientists think they can analyze beyond the ability to know. If I understand that sentence, I think you mean, we look at a star we think is say 50,000 light years away and we can't know that till we gain the ability to go there. Is that the gist? Or looking at the Grand we can't say it took 6 million years to carve out because we weren't the ...[text shortened]... heir thinking then you are just grousing with no real attacks other than 'It can't be that way'.

They can speculate, they cannot analyze, there is a huge difference get
a grip on the language here! If they cannot know, there is no way they
can measure, if they cannot know, there is no way to confirm! They can
throw out a best guess, but put some type of measurement to the
unknown, impossible!
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, a lot of scientists think they can analyze beyond the ability to know. If I understand that sentence, I think you mean, we look at a star we think is say 50,000 light years away and we can't know that till we gain the ability to go there. Is that the gist? Or looking at the Grand we can't say it took 6 million years to carve out because we weren't the ...[text shortened]... heir thinking then you are just grousing with no real attacks other than 'It can't be that way'.

I believe science can do things beyond description from those that were alive
just a few hundred years ago, but it is limited. It is limited to what we
know, see, and measure! Beyond that we start moving into areas that
we can still be right about; however, the chances of us being wrong are
much greater, because we cannot confirm! You think you know how
the Grand Canyon was formed can you be shown to be wrong, no, so why
argue with you over that point? The distant past is a place the best
"Story" could win out, not because it is real or true, just because so many
"believe" it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You cannot analysis what is beyond your ability to know! How did
everything get here, answer, don't know! If you don't know, then you really
no clue what to look at with respect to dating the place!

Was that star there a million years ago, a billion years ago, thousands of
years ago, if it was just put there so that it could be seen as soon as it was ...[text shortened]... th, but going from non-living material, to
life, to the vast array of life we see today, magic!

Sorry Kelly, but that argument just doesn't work. We know the distances to stars of the order of 500 parsecs away by direct measurement of parallax. This measure agrees with the estimates for distances based on indirect measurements, essentially by looking at the inferred absolute magnitude versus apparent magnitude of, for example, Type IA supernovae. You can read about the various methods on the Wikipedia page about the cosmic distance ladder.

The most distant galaxy that has been observed is z8 GND 5296 at a redshift of 7.5 corresponding to a distance of 13.02 billion light years. If the universe were only 6,000 years old then the light from that galaxy could not possibly have reached us. So either the universe is considerably older than 6,000 years or we are 7 orders of magnitude out with our distance estimates.

So, in order for us to see the star just after it has been created "mid-life" so to speak, the light travelling from it has to have been created as well. In fact we need a young universe constructed to appear as an old universe. If this is the case then you have the basic theological problem that the creator has deceived us. To deceive is to be imperfect. So, I think a young Earth is more of a problem for Christians than the apparent contradiction of an old Earth and the Bible stories.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sorry Kelly, but that argument just doesn't work. We know the distances to stars of the order of 500 parsecs away by direct measurement of parallax. This measure agrees with the estimates for distances based on indirect measurements, essentially by looking at the inferred absolute magnitude versus apparent magnitude of, for example, Type IA supernovae. ...[text shortened]... a problem for Christians than the apparent contradiction of an old Earth and the Bible stories.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote did you? If the star was created for
a light to shine on the earth, and that light was seen as soon as the star
was created, then knowing distance and rate does not tell you the how
long that star was in place. Without knowing how this all got here we do not
know how to measure the age, what do you look at?

I asked a Christian on this site how old Adam looked the day he was
created and I don't recall seeing an answer. If you know where and how it
all began than we should have no issue what so ever in finding a way to
date the universe. If it suddenly appeared all parts working together, or if
it became some other way without that knowledge we are left with what we
want to see nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you didn't read what I wrote did you? If the star was created for
a light to shine on the earth, and that light was seen as soon as the star
was created, then knowing distance and rate does not tell you the how
long that star was in place. Without knowing how this all got here we do not
know how to measure the age, what do you look at?

I aske ...[text shortened]... some other way without that knowledge we are left with what we
want to see nothing more.
Kelly

So what about the stars that are too far from us for that light to have gotten here yet? And we know there are nearby stars and far away stars. So you figure your god put all that light in place at the same time, stars millions of light years away and so your god created a universe where the star AND the light was created just so we would THINK the universe was very old but in fact is what you think, 6K years old? We know there are other planets, we have WALKED on the moon, we know there are other planets out there. So tell me, why would a god go to so much trouble for humans? I'll tell you why. It didn't and humans are not so worthy as to be fooled that way by a god. That is the most arrogant stance in the history of religion if you ask me. We are SO special an entire universe was created JUST FOR US but we are being fooled because all the light from stars billions of light years away and stars only 10 light years away were created in just that way with the light from those distant galaxies and light from those very nearby stars, all that light created and the stars just for the sake of humanity. What utter mind boggling arrogance. You have to do MUCH better than that. A god would never do such a thing, what for? Because we are so highly placed in the universe of life? Come on, tell me another one. Maybe you also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you didn't read what I wrote did you? If the star was created for
a light to shine on the earth, and that light was seen as soon as the star
was created, then knowing distance and rate does not tell you the how
long that star was in place. Without knowing how this all got here we do not
know how to measure the age, what do you look at?

I aske ...[text shortened]... some other way without that knowledge we are left with what we
want to see nothing more.
Kelly

I did read what you wrote. I did not investigate the earlier posts in this rather long thread. I answered the point you appeared to be making. In fact I answered the point you appear to be making in this post as well, but never mind.

There is a problem with your second sentence:

If the star was created for a light to shine on the earth, and that light was seen as soon as the star was created, then knowing distance and rate does not tell you the how long that star was in place.

Skating past the difficulty with the word "created", formed is better as it doesn't rule out a "designer" while not ruling one in either, then the only star that this could apply to is the Sun. The light from more distant stars can't reach us until a significant time after they start shining. We know the metalicity of the sun from direct measurement, and we know it is 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium at birth. After that it is a matter of working out how long it has been around from the luminosity. They get hotter as they get older. Admittedly that estimate could change if theories of stellar evolution change, but the sun cannot be significantly younger than the Earth so the fact that the age estimates of the Sun agree with the measured ages of the oldest rocks gives us some confidence in them.

I'd always imagined Adam to have been created in the 14-20 age range, but that's probably cultural bias from things like the Sistene Chapel ceiling. We have a straightforward estimate for the age of the universe of 13.5 (ish) billion years based on regression from the current expansion. From that we infer the initial conditions.

I think there is a problem with your use of the word "knowledge". Knowledge is normally defined as something like "justified belief in something which is true". The problem for the epistemology of science is that things are not so much true as not yet proved false. So in a sense we don't know anything. All Scientific claims come with a margin of error, but the margin of error is not so great that we can be seven orders of magnitude wrong on things like the age of the Earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what about the stars that are too far from us for that light to have gotten here yet? And we know there are nearby stars and far away stars. So you figure your god put all that light in place at the same time, stars millions of light years away and so your god created a universe where the star AND the light was created just so we would THINK the universe ...[text shortened]... iverse of life? Come on, tell me another one. Maybe you also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

The reason you doubt God's ability to control the light is because of your evil thoughs of your puny mind.
REPENT OF YOUR SINS

Originally posted by DeepThought
I did read what you wrote. I did not investigate the earlier posts in this rather long thread. I answered the point you appeared to be making. In fact I answered the point you appear to be making in this post as well, but never mind.

There is a problem with your second sentence:[quote]If the star was created for a light to shine on the earth, and t ...[text shortened]... not so great that we can be seven orders of magnitude wrong on things like the age of the Earth.

You have the same problem as sonhouse in not believing in the creator God and his ability to control light that He made because of your unrighteous thoughts in your puny mind.
REPENT OF YOUR SINS

Originally posted by C Hess
If you read the meaning of the word as used in evolutionary biology, it means:

From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=evolve

2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.

To devolve in a biological sense would be to develop in a way that makes it impossible for your species to survive. It mea ...[text shortened]... e or less well adapted to its environment.

Also, note the keyword "often" in your definition.

You should get educated on mutations.

Evolutionary theory asserts that random mutations (changes in the DNA code), followed by natural selection, can result in complicated and functional protein structures. But mutations are almost always harmful.

As Nobel Prize winner H.J. Muller concedes, "it is entirely in line with the accidental nature of natural mutations that … the vast majority of them are detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation."

French evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse noted, "no matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Similarly, leading biologist Lynn Margulis (who opposes intelligent design) argues that “new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired” and writes that “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.”

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1145

Originally posted by DeepThought
I did read what you wrote. I did not investigate the earlier posts in this rather long thread. I answered the point you appeared to be making. In fact I answered the point you appear to be making in this post as well, but never mind.

There is a problem with your second sentence:[quote]If the star was created for a light to shine on the earth, and t ...[text shortened]... not so great that we can be seven orders of magnitude wrong on things like the age of the Earth.

That is a huge assumption on your part isn't it, formed over created?
You have no clue how it started, none, so was it created with all the parts
in place preforming their function on the whole, or did they form over time?
Since that is the debate simply telling me I'm wrong, because I don't agree
with you is a bit laughable.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So what about the stars that are too far from us for that light to have gotten here yet? And we know there are nearby stars and far away stars. So you figure your god put all that light in place at the same time, stars millions of light years away and so your god created a universe where the star AND the light was created just so we would THINK the universe ...[text shortened]... iverse of life? Come on, tell me another one. Maybe you also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

I believe God created it all as a standing system, with each of the parts
functioning as they should for the whole, just as I do life. I'm waiting on
your working theory on the topic.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you didn't read what I wrote did you? If the star was created for
a light to shine on the earth, and that light was seen as soon as the star
was created, then knowing distance and rate does not tell you the how
long that star was in place. Without knowing how this all got here we do not
know how to measure the age, what do you look at?

I aske ...[text shortened]... some other way without that knowledge we are left with what we
want to see nothing more.
Kelly

Sunhouse tries to defend his lack of knowledge by claiming science is young and like a 6 year old child, but he still uses that lack of knowledege to claim science knows the earth is so many billions of years old, just like a 6 year old child would do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should get educated on mutations.

Evolutionary theory asserts that random mutations (changes in the DNA code), followed by natural selection, can result in complicated and functional protein structures. But mutations are almost always harmful.

As Nobel Prize winner H.J. Muller concedes, [b]"it is entirely in line with the accidental nature of ...[text shortened]... ads to speciation.”

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1145[/b]

It is you that lack information on the subject. While beneficial mutations are rare and far in between, they have been observed to happen:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

While it's hard to imagine tiny changes like that eventually accumulating into larger changes on the level of speciation, it's a simple excercise to demonstrate that small changes accumulating over vast stretches of time inevitably lead to larger changes. What creationist scientists need to do is show the mechanism that they obviously think exist, which prevent small changes from accumulating into larger ones. It's not enough to say that we have not observed larger changes, or that most mutations are neutral or bad, because if we observe just a few changes that are beneficial, logic dictates that they not only can, but should accumulate over time.

Science wins, yet again.

Originally posted by C Hess
It is you that lack information on the subject. While beneficial mutations are rare and far in between, they have been observed to happen:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

While it's hard to imagine tiny changes like that eventually accumulating into larger changes on the level of speciatio ...[text shortened]... ic dictates that they not only can, but should accumulate over time.

Science wins, yet again.

It is not so hard to imagine tiny little changes in a system breaking it down
in key spots, since there are no controls on when and where they occur.
It is amazing the things you and others here give random changes credit
for.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe God created it all as a standing system, with each of the parts
functioning as they should for the whole, just as I do life. I'm waiting on
your working theory on the topic.

Lets work on YOUR working theory first. Creating a universe with everything in place and all the starlight posted in place as if it were an ancient universe, that is your hypothesis, right? So answer me this: Why would a deity do that? Seems to me a far simpler task in the universe making scale to just do the 'let there be light' thing and let things take its own course in its own time. Doing it that way allows for many civilizations to be born and die on planets around stars in every galaxy in the universe where life comes about according to the rules set forth by this deity in its original work. I kind of view that as a young deity in a classroom designing the best universe, where the entire lifetime of the universe takes place over lunch for the deity in question and this young deity gets judged on how well the rules were set up originally, seeing the end results and so forth. That of course would mean there are many other universes out there with variations on the design theme and the young deities all in competition with one another to gain the best scores.

Then there is the other hypothesis, a deity generates an ancient universe fully blown in order to fool humans into thinking the universe was 13 odd billion years old when in fact it is only 6000 years old. Besides the light flight times issues, you have to account for all the facts we humans in our scientific work of the last 200 years, still in scientific infancy, but still with a large volume of collected data, like we see the Grand Canyon as being slowly created and we see other flood areas with fast flows and that fast flow creating its own distinct pattern on the floor of the flood. These things we have seen already, so how do you account for the fact we see the GC as having been done in millions of years? You say it was all created just to LOOK like it was millions of years old when in fact that too is 6000 years old?

How can you propose such a situation with a straight face? Because some verses are in your bible? Remember, that is ALL you have. You have no people YOU know who were there so we can put that same argument to you: You were not there so all you can do is take the words written down in that bible where in fact was done over hundreds of years where most of the writers didn't even meet each other so you have stories hundreds of years apart in time making up tales you have ZERO way to independently verify, since you were not there, you can't tell ANYONE with certainty ANY of those tales have ANY bearing of reality, just stories made up by men seeking to start a new religion. As far as I can see, that is the sum of it. So now we are in the position of literally billions of people totally duped by fairy tales written thousands of years ago by people who know absolutely nothing of the real world but just made up tales of how we all got here.

That makes MUCH more sense than buying into their fairy tales hook line and sinker without as much as a single thought of verification.

Don't forget for one moment, a deity NEVER told you directly any of the BS in the bible. It was ALL 100% told to people by people and if a deity really wanted to make a religion for all mankind, it could just as easily have spoken to each one of us in our own languages the tale it wanted to put forth and we would all be on the same page but instead we have hundreds of religions and a lot of them diabolically opposed to one another. You really think a REAL deity would have allowed that to happen? You really thing a deity would say, YOU people, you are special, you others there, you go to hell and I will enjoy watching you suffer throughout all time.

Come one, THINK about that scenario. Try thinking critically for a change rather than just take the word of simple humans about this. Use your own brain.