02 Feb 12
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?
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
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?
not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah, I forgot, 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up'.
I don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry.
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have no clue what scientists are doing about anything, including evolution, and that
I don't know much about what scientists are doing with ice cores. I have
not gotten interested in that subject. Sorry.
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.
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeEvolution is an easy one. Even Dasa knows that is not true. Sorry Dasa,
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.
I hope you don't mind. 😏
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was referring to your first sentence in which you say "including evolution".
I didn't mention evolution... I was talking about astronomy...
Did you actually read my post?
I quote,
"You have no clue what scientists are doing about anything, including evolution, and that never stopped you espousing your ignorant views before."
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, that's what comes from writing posts while listening to podcasts.
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."
However a response to my question which doesn't have anything to do with evolution,
would be nice.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
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.
03 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI am not a YEC, I am an OEC.
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?
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Feb 12
Originally posted by whodeyYes but once you stop treating the bible as being literally true and thus inherently open to
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.
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?