1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    02 Feb '12 20:20
    Since you think the Earth and presumably the whole universe is under 10,000 years old, can you explain or rationalize this: Since we have had modern science, say in the last 100 years or better we see ice layers build up quite regularly and know those layers in the last 100 years come with seasonal snows and such. Since we have a history of at least 100 years in the ice core data which would only go down a few feet to get to say the snow of 1900, we see exactly the same depth variations in snow levels in the ice core that goes back a solid 200,000 years, there are miles of cores stored in universities around the world and they build up a picture of the weather on earth for that time frame and by studying subtle clues in air bubbles embedded in the ice, we can see what was happening, like whether X year back was in an ice age or a warming period, which has cycled around several times in that quarter million year duration.

    Since the ice layer variations are just like what we have seen for the last 100 years, and at the bottom of the cores they look pretty much exactly the same as now, how can you explain away that data to try to convince people the Earth is only 8000 years old or thereabouts?
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Feb '12 20:34
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Since you think the Earth and presumably the whole universe is under 10,000 years old, can you explain or rationalize this: Since we have had modern science, say in the last 100 years or better we see ice layers build up quite regularly and know those layers in the last 100 years come with seasonal snows and such. Since we have a history of at least 100 yea ...[text shortened]... xplain away that data to try to convince people the Earth is only 8000 years old or thereabouts?
    I don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
    not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    02 Feb '12 20:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
    not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry.
    Yeah, I forgot, 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'.

    If you read about ice core data it might blow a hole in your preconceived myth about how old the Earth really is, so my advice is don't read about it, you might get a headache.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    02 Feb '12 20:55
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
    not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry.
    You have no clue what scientists are doing about anything, including evolution, and that
    never stopped you espousing your ignorant views before.


    I could ask a similar question.

    We know that precisely how fast light travels, (slightly less than 3*10^8m/s) and can also
    accurately measure how far away particular stars are from us and thus know how long the
    light from those stars has been travelling to reach us.
    Given our own galaxy is much much more than 6 or even 10 thousand light years across we
    know that we must have been here longer than that for the light to have reached us.
    Given that we can also accurately measure the distance to other galaxies including Andromeda
    which is really close at about 2.5 Million light years away 6 to 10 thousand years seems to be
    totally impossible as an age of the universe.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Feb '12 20:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Yeah, I forgot, 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'.

    If you read about ice core data it might blow a hole in your preconceived myth about how old the Earth really is, so my advice is don't read about it, you might get a headache.
    Thanks. Ha ha 😀
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Feb '12 21:03
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    You have no clue what scientists are doing about anything, including evolution, and that
    never stopped you espousing your ignorant views before.


    I could ask a similar question.

    We know that precisely how fast light travels, (slightly less than 3*10^8m/s) and can also
    accurately measure how far away particular stars are from us and thus know h ...[text shortened]... ht years away 6 to 10 thousand years seems to be
    totally impossible as an age of the universe.
    Evolution is an easy one. Even Dasa knows that is not true. Sorry Dasa,
    I hope you don't mind. 😏
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    02 Feb '12 21:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evolution is an easy one. Even Dasa knows that is not true. Sorry Dasa,
    I hope you don't mind. 😏
    I didn't mention evolution... I was talking about astronomy...

    Did you actually read my post?
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Feb '12 21:11
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I didn't mention evolution... I was talking about astronomy...

    Did you actually read my post?
    I was referring to your first sentence in which you say "including evolution".
    I quote,
    "You have no clue what scientists are doing about anything, including evolution, and that never stopped you espousing your ignorant views before."
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    02 Feb '12 21:28
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Evolution is an easy one. Even Dasa knows that is not true. Sorry Dasa,
    I hope you don't mind. 😏
    When I said, in another thread, about christians and low education, I had RJHinds in mind.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    02 Feb '12 21:28
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I was referring to your first sentence in which you say "including evolution".
    I quote,
    "You have no clue what scientists are doing about anything, including evolution, and that never stopped you espousing your ignorant views before."
    Sorry, that's what comes from writing posts while listening to podcasts.

    However a response to my question which doesn't have anything to do with evolution,
    would be nice.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    02 Feb '12 21:49
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    When I said, in another thread, about christians and low education, I had RJHinds in mind.
    The sad part is, RJ has at least SOME education.
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Feb '12 23:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The sad part is, RJ has at least SOME education.
    So he alleges!
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    02 Feb '12 23:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Yeah, I forgot, 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'.

    If you read about ice core data it might blow a hole in your preconceived myth about how old the Earth really is, so my advice is don't read about it, you might get a headache.
    I thought the standard explanation is that all evidence that appears to contradict YEC and other things revealed in the Bible, was put there by Satan to deceive us, and we are allowed by God a free choice on whether to believe God's Word or our lyin' eyes.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Feb '12 00:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Since you think the Earth and presumably the whole universe is under 10,000 years old, can you explain or rationalize this: Since we have had modern science, say in the last 100 years or better we see ice layers build up quite regularly and know those layers in the last 100 years come with seasonal snows and such. Since we have a history of at least 100 yea ...[text shortened]... xplain away that data to try to convince people the Earth is only 8000 years old or thereabouts?
    I am not a YEC, I am an OEC.

    As far as scientific evidience that the universe is billions of years old, it is overwhelming. I suppose it plausible to question one method of measuring time, like carbon dating, but not a hand full of means to calculate the passage of time, such as the one you brought up.

    So does this mean I throw out Genesis? Not at all, I simply don't believe the 6 days to be 6 literal days.
  15. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    03 Feb '12 01:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am not a YEC, I am an OEC.

    As far as scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old, it is overwhelming.
    I suppose it plausible to question one method of measuring time, like carbon dating, but not a hand full of
    means to calculate the passage of time, such as the one you brought up.

    So does this mean I throw out Genesis? Not at all, I simply don't believe the 6 days to be 6 literal days.
    Yes but once you stop treating the bible as being literally true and thus inherently open to
    be interpreted then it ceases to have any value as a guide because you can interpret it to
    mean almost anything you want.

    If you are interpreting it (or your preacher is) then you have to have faith that either you or
    you and your preacher are interpreting it correctly IN ADDITION TO having faith in what you
    actually decide it means.


    My question to you is why believe any of it?

    If you don't accept it as being literally true (very sensible) then why regard it as any kind of
    source of truth and simply go where the evidence leads, and say "I don't know" to questions
    that are not yet answered?

    What's the point in believing in the bible if it isn't literally true? Because it's trivially easy to make
    it mean anything (as demonstrated by the huge number of sects and faiths disagreeing over it's
    meaning).
    If you can't rely on the bible as an accurate literal guide then why not abandon it altogether and
    decide based on evidence and reason?
Back to Top