Old Earth & Young Earth Creationism

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is simple do you know how it got here?

Can you determine a minimum age for your car? If I told you it was built yesterday, would you say 'well its all a matter of faith'? Did you have to know exactly which factory your car was made in to know anything about the age of your car?
If it were 'simple' then you would be able to answer such questions, yet in every discussion we have held in the past on the subject you have avoided answering any question of this nature and just repeated your claim.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If you know what empirical evidence is then you will be able to explain to us all what you think it is. You haven't which is providing me with evidence that you do not.

I am not the one that brought up empirical evidence, so I am not the one that should have to explain it. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not the one that brought up empirical evidence, so I am not the one that should have to explain it. 😏

The first person to discuss the empirical evidence for an old earth, although he didn't use the words empirical evidence, was Whodey on page 2, second post. I was the first person to use the words "empirical evidence" on page 3, post number 6. I did so in order to discuss the difference between where KellyJay and twhitehead, and idealists and empiricists in general, derive justification for their beliefs. You then piped in the very next post with the statement:

Since there is no empirical evidence for an old earth of billions of years, there is no logical reason for KellyJay or RJHinds to believe in an old earth of billions of years instead of a young earth of thousands of years.

So, since you made a claim that there is no empirical evidence for an old earth we have the implication that you are accepting that empirical evidence is a sufficient justification for one's beliefs. Since you have been presented with masses of the stuff it was natural for me to wonder if you knew what the words "empirical evidence" mean. We seem to have discovered that you don't.

Since you are unable to say what empirical evidence is you have no basis for your claim that there is no empirical evidence. You haven't shown us that you could recognise some if you saw it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The first person to discuss the empirical evidence for an old earth, although he didn't use the words empirical evidence, was Whodey on page 2, second post. I was the first person to use the words "empirical evidence" on page 3, post number 6. I did so in order to discuss the difference between where KellyJay and twhitehead, and idealists and empiricis ...[text shortened]... ere is no empirical evidence. You haven't shown us that you could recognise some if you saw it.

A very simple, observable and empirical fact in science clearly proves the earth is only about 6000 years old.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
A very simple, observable and empirical fact in science clearly proves the earth is only about 6000 years old.

[youtube]LCzXNZRgZUg[/youtube]

There's no point in giving me a link to a YouTube video, as I'm missing a cable at the moment and don't have sound. If it's all that simple you should be able to say what the "scientific" fact is. Besides, until you demonstrate that you know what an empirical fact is then it's not worth anyone's while looking at the video as we can't be sure it's empirical.

I'll give you a clue. If it's observable it's empirical.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There's no point in giving me a link to a YouTube video, as I'm missing a cable at the moment and don't have sound. If it's all that simple you should be able to say what the "scientific" fact is. Besides, until you demonstrate that you know what an empirical fact is then it's not worth anyone's while looking at the video as we can't be sure it's empirical.

I'll give you a clue. If it's observable it's empirical.

The Sun and the Moon are both observable and impirical. That is what the video is about and it proves the Earth with the Moon can't be billions of years old.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Sun and the Moon are both observable and impirical. That is what the video is about and it proves the Earth with the Moon can't be billions of years old.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

So in Genesis, what is a "day" before the sun was created RJ?

Originally posted by whodey
So in Genesis, what is a "day" before the sun was created RJ?

Unless you can show it means something different I'd say the time required to have one
was the same. Since God was the one sharing about how it happen, His perspective would
not be hindered by how we look and measure things, it would mean the same thing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A very simple, observable and empirical fact in science clearly proves the earth is only about 6000 years old.

[youtube]LCzXNZRgZUg[/youtube]

His bullshyte is just that, bullshyte. You apparently just believe anything any assshole puts up on a video.

He made only one true statement in that BS video: in 6000 years the moon would have come about 800 feet closer to Earth. The BS part comes from his 'fact' that the moon and Earth would be touching 1.5 billion years ago.

Why didn't you do the math yourself instead of just watching that BULLSTYTE?

Try multiplying 1.5 inches per year by 1.5 billion years. It happens to equal 2.25 billion inches. Well now, lets divide that by 12. That is about 208 million feet.

Well now, lets divide that by 5280. Hmm, a bit short of touching the Earth.

35,511 odd miles inward. From it's present place at around 225 odd thousand miles. Heck, lets run that up to 40 K for grins. So we end up with the moon being 185,000 miles from Earth.

One more huge fail. Now lets go all the way back to 4.5 billion years. That would be three times the 40K miles or 120,000 miles. Doing only those figures, the moon would STILL have been 105,000 miles from Earth.

You really never learn do you, just put up any kind of bullshyte you think will prove your point, and never bothering to actually do the math this assshole thinks proves puts the moon only 6000 years old.

But you and him are equal in asssholeness so what else is new.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Sun and the Moon are both observable and impirical. That is what the video is about and it proves the Earth with the Moon can't be billions of years old.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

No RJ, it is statements and theories that are empirical, the moon and the are just objects. Evidence consists of statements that can be empirical (based on repeatable observation) or based on opinion of some form, testament or theory. Were I to claim I'd seen a flying saucer then that would not be empirical evidence as it is not repeatable. On the other hand if I claimed to have seen a super-nova explosion it would count as empirical as they are visible for around 8 weeks and there are remnants so other people would be able to see this. Sadly I haven't seen either.

One needs to be wary about assuming a constant rate of recession over geological time-scales, the earth-moon system loses energy to tidal heating which depends on the force on the seas and rocks of the earth and the rate of rotation of the earth, but the gravitational energy of the earth-moon system goes inversely with the distance. Basically I don't think back-of-an-envelope calculations are adequate.

You need to look at the table at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on tidal theory [1] to get an idea of how complex the analysis is. Also see the page on tidal acceleration [2], and historical tides. They claim that the average rate of recession of the moon over the last 620 million years is a half of what it is now. So this keeps the moon safely out of the Earth's Roche limit.

In short Barnes made assumptions that are far too simple and stopped his analysis when he got the answer he wanted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Historical_evidence

Originally posted by whodey
So they test the age of the earth and the universe using 3 different unrelated methods and they all point to the same thing but they are all wrong?

Whatever.

I don't believe scientists are purposefully coming up with these numbers to try and disprove the Bible, do you? In fact, if you watch the video I provided it does not disprove the Bible in the lea ...[text shortened]... aside from a very brief description in Genesis and science. Not one of us has the full picture.

You tell me this if the earth is thousands of years and they test for time three different
ways that are unrelated, would that mean they are all wrong if they all suggest millions of
years?

Again if you do not know how it got here *the universe* how do you know what you are
testing is a good measure for time? If the universe was created much like it looks now
would any test or measurement on distances matter with relationships to time due to
space between one object and another, or for that matter what we think a rate of decay
shows us?

I believe most scientist are honorable people never suggested otherwise, I don't think the
Bible comes up in conversation when they test things, and if it did it would be wrong either
trying to prove it or disprove it.

The way the universe got here, the way everything came into being matters. Did it start
with God? If it did do you think there is any way mankind can look at any part of it and
glean time from the data? Can you come up with a way that everything can come from
nothing, or do all of your theories on the beginning of the universe start with some part
of the universe all ready there?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You tell me this if the earth is thousands of years and they test for time three different
ways that are unrelated, would that mean they are all wrong if they all suggest millions of
years?

Again if you do not know how it got here *the universe* how do you know what you are
testing is a good measure for time? If the universe was created much like it l ...[text shortened]... theories on the beginning of the universe start with some part
of the universe all ready there?

RJ and Whodey would diss ANY science saying Earth is even 20,000 years old.

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ and Whodey would diss ANY science saying Earth is even 20,000 years old.

Since Whodey was arguing for an old earth I don't think your statement applies to him.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since Whodey was arguing for an old earth I don't think your statement applies to him.

Sorry Whod for putting you in the same boat as RJ.

Originally posted by sonhouse
RJ and Whodey would diss ANY science saying Earth is even 20,000 years old.

I don't believe it is old as you already know, but the science even though I don't agree with
has brought about a lot of good things. I also have to acknowledge I could be one of the
few people on the planet that is completely wrong while everyone else I debate are right.