SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Wander]

Yeah, I saw that. YEC claim that the Earth can be as old 10,000 so the Sumerians DID exist.

Not only do I find the arguments presented by YEC appalling, I'm also kind of disturbed how common it is.

There are at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars found in at least 125,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. I can't even wrap my mind around this when I try. This is a big reason why I find the notion of a supernatural creator unconvincing (One that cares about us anyway.) The idea that all of this was created for us, a species not even out of tribalism, doesn't settle with me one bit. I have a hard time believing we are something special in ALL of that vastness. I want to help discover that facts behind our universe. I have already decided to dedicate my life to it. Whatever lies at the heart of evidence people gather I can't say, but I will wager it has nothing to do with anything on this planet.

That's one point why I think that something like God is absurd.

Btw. Horus has a good point, IF God existed, I would believe God to be pretty much like that. Maybe he's playing around with other worlds at the moment and he'll return here after a few thousand years and be like "WTF! They already killed themselves. Well, whatever, I'll just create another one."

 

[Statler Waldorf]

I should have gave a warning that I mix those two up more than I get them right!

Statler, I don't know what to say. I have never actually, knowingly at least, had a conversation with someone who believed the Earth is 6000 years old. I feel now that any other attempt for me or anyone else to use scientific clarification would be pointless..

It seems you actually DO believe science is a vast conspiracy and anyone who disagrees with it can tweak it to their satisfaction or ignore it all together.

And for dramatic effect.

Well actually this is my strongest field and I will certainly back it up with scientific evidence if you will listen. Due to the fact that evolution and abiogenesis require a very very old earth and universe you will never hear about all the evidence that points towards a young earth but I will give it to you in a moment.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

And I bet if somebody completley disproved the existance of God and everything in the bible tommorow it still would not be acknowledged by religious society.

Your argument works both ways you delusional, arrogant, fool.

So you admit that my argument does work though then Thanks buddy.

 

[Kenneth R.]

There are at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars found in at least 125,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. I can't even wrap my mind around this when I try. This is a big reason why I find the notion of a supernatural creator unconvincing (One that cares about us anyway.) The idea that all of this was created for us, a species not even out of tribalism, doesn't settle with me one bit. I have a hard time believing we are something special in ALL of that vastness. I want to help discover that facts behind our universe. I have already decided to dedicate my life to it. Whatever lies at the heart of evidence people gather I can't say, but I will wager it has nothing to do with anything on this planet.

What makes you think we're the only planet with humans, or intelligent life? If another planet like earth existed on the other end, and say their development was the same as ours, they'd still not be able to contact us, let alone reach us. We're on an island making guesses about the other islands. We only really know detail about our local area, but then, even the solar system still astounds us like recent discoveries of water oceans and certain elements on moons. With that many planets, it's easier to assume that there ARE others out there.

Statler, Swabs pointed out that your argument can be used for or against science/for or against your YEC theory. That doesn't mean it "works", that means it's inert.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Ken, what you said to Noble Savage was pretty much what he was saying... Christians generally say that God created the universe for the sake of man, and i think Noble was saying that is a very difficult concept to accept.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Do you believe in the speed of light? If so, your theory is shot to hell
The observable universe, and more importantly light from stars on the other side of it, require much more than 6000 years to reach our earth. If it was all made at once, you've got a problem.


I don't believe in young earth. I believe in carbon dating. I have no problem with evolution positing that we are descended from primates either. Keep in mind I'm also a Christian . Thanks for the book recommendation though. Darwin's Black Box is horribly flawed argumentatively. It jumps to conclusions frequently, makes generalizations, hypocritic ignoring of detail, and equivocates often. It's a philosopher's junk box. It's not the data that's not up to date- it's the presentation and logic.

I do, by the way, have knowledge of electromagnetic fields. It was my undergraduate major.

The distant starlight argument is often used by the Old Earth crowd but doesn't prove their point at all actually. It was also used to try and debunk the big bang theory as well but also failed. When something is created from a point and moves outwards like in the big bang or a literal creation the light rays are already present as the objects move away and therefore it doesn't not take millions or billions of years for the light to reach the object.

I assume you mean radio-metric dating, not Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 can't last longer than 100,000 years so therefore can't be used to date the Earth at over 4 billion years.

 

[Kenneth R.]

My bad, read too fast (cause I have to zip out in a min). But yeah, the idea that we're all alone... I don't buy it. I also lol at atheists who believe in aliens but not a supernatural being. I really wish I had more time to discuss the inherent necessity of God as a supernatural being, but I'll have to wait till tomorrow.

 

[Wander]

I would very much like to hear this "evidence" about young Earth. On the other hand, I can't take this dude seriously. It's kind of the same as when my friend makes a song (he's a terrible composer). I kind of feel like I want to hear what crap he's been able to do this time, but at the same time I don't feel like I would ever want to hear any of his songs again.

 

[Kenneth R.]

The distant starlight argument is often used by the Old Earth crowd but doesn't prove their point at all actually. It was also used to try and debunk the big bang theory as well but also failed. When something is created from a point and moves outwards like in the big bang or a literal creation the light rays are already present as the objects move away and therefore it doesn't not take millions or billions of years for the light to reach the object.

Did you pass Astronomy 101? Cause I did. With a 103 average.

The stars I'm talking about are not the big bang. They're independent entities radiating light from nuclear reactions at their cores. The big bang may have thrown them out in far reaching directions, but even with universal expansion, you're essentially denying the laws of physics to claim 6000 years is the cap.

And yes, how DO you explain the fossil record and geological formations? Is carbon dating a "sham"? Of course the fossil record is missing some links, we aren't there yet. So don't even try to use that as an argument, because although some steps are missing, the line as a whole is fairly complete and much older than 6k.

Off to work. You know, what we grown ups do.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

The distant starlight argument is often used by the Old Earth crowd but doesn't prove their point at all actually. It was also used to try and debunk the big bang theory as well but also failed. When something is created from a point and moves outwards like in the big bang or a literal creation the light rays are already present as the objects move away and therefore it doesn't not take millions or billions of years for the light to reach the object.

I assume you mean radio-metric dating, not Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 can't last longer than 100,000 years so therefore can't be used to date the Earth at over 4 billion years.

First off: starlight. The problem with your argument there is you are saying the big bang or something to that effect happened 6000 years ago, that would mean that the universe is still expanding at an incredibly massive rate. You're absolutely correct that the starlight would be present (at least i think that's right... it makes a lot of sense that this would be the case), but since we'd be essentially flying through the universe at such a rate (only being slowed down over the course of 6000 years as opposed to billions upon billions of years), there would be a much larger red shift when viewing the stars that we're hurtling away from.

Don't have sources to back that up, but it seems to me that soemone would have noticed that if it were the case to help date the universe at less than the billions of years old that it is.

Secondly: Carbon 14 cannot date the earth at billions of years, but it can certainly date it older than 6000 years. Much older.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Did you pass Astronomy 101? Cause I did. With a 103 average.

The stars I'm talking about are not the big bang. They're independent entities radiating light from nuclear reactions at their cores. The big bang may have thrown them out in far reaching directions, but even with universal expansion, you're essentially denying the laws of physics to claim 6000 years is the cap.

And yes, how DO you explain the fossil record and geological formations? Is carbon dating a "sham"? Of course the fossil record is missing some links, we aren't there yet. So don't even try to use that as an argument, because although some steps are missing, the line as a whole is fairly complete and much older than 6k.

Off to work. You know, what we grown ups do.

That's my point, as the big bang throws them out there the light rays are already present, so saying the fact we can see the stars is evidence the earth has been hear for however long it takes light to reach us from the stars is worthless

Carbon 14 does not date the Earth, it dates fossils, redio-metric dating was used to date the Earth at over 4 billion years.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Here is some examples of evidence collected that debunks the 4 billion year old number and gives numbers far closer to an actual 6000 year old earth. If you would like me to elaborate on any of them just let me know. If you also are the type who need citations for this let me know. I will give the concept and then how old it indicates the earth is.


Galaxies winding up far to quickly- few hundred million years
The number of visible supernova remainant- 7000 years
Comet Disintegration- 10,000 years
Sediment Accumulation on sea floor- 12 million years
Sea Salinity dating method- 62 million years
Earth's magnetic field decay- 20,000 years old
Strata deformation- less than 100,000
Biological Material Decay- 10,000 years old
Helium concentrations in Ziricon Crystals- 6000 years
Carbon 14 found in Deep Geologic Strata- Less than 100,000 years
Stone age skeltons found- less than 10,000 years
Agricultural practices by man- 6000 years
Written history by man- less than 5000 years


Looks like those numbers are far closer to my 6000 years than your guys' 4billion plus.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Not exactly. The birth of a planet doesn't automatically happen. It's not like a rock just appeared with the atmosphere already intact. Most scientific evidence that puts the earth around the 4 billion mark (actually I believe it's slightly older than that, but no worries) also shows the life cycle of the planet involving about a billion years for the planet to form followed by many, many years of change to get to where we are today.

All you've shown with your numbers is evidence supporting human life being no more than 6000 years old, but that is making a huuuuuuge assumption that A) That is 100% accurate and B) That humans came into existance at the time that the earth was created. Neither of these are proven and in fact the evidence that you yourself presented shows a few million years difference in the begining of the earth and the begining of mankind.

And no, I'm not saying mankind has been around for only 6000 years. I'm saying that's all you've shown with your evidence and you're not even backing up your own argument.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Not exactly. The birth of a planet doesn't automatically happen. It's not like a rock just appeared with the atmosphere already intact. Most scientific evidence that puts the earth around the 4 billion mark (actually I believe it's slightly older than that, but no worries) also shows the life cycle of the planet involving about a billion years for the planet to form followed by many, many years of change to get to where we are today.

All you've shown with your numbers is evidence supporting human life being no more than 6000 years old, but that is making a huuuuuuge assumption that A) That is 100% accurate and B) That humans came into existance at the time that the earth was created. Neither of these are proven and in fact the evidence that you yourself presented shows a few million years difference in the begining of the earth and the begining of mankind.

And no, I'm not saying mankind has been around for only 6000 years. I'm saying that's all you've shown with your evidence and you're not even backing up your own argument.

Well I am a little confused because obviously you either did not even read my post or you don't know what any of those words in it mean. Nine out of the 13 topics I listed deal directly with the age of the Earth and the Universe, not mankind's existance, none of which give a 4-5 billion year number. As for your rock comment, why would the creation of matter from non-matter seem anymore plausible to you if it's done gradually over billions of years than instaneous, a complete breech of logic.

 

[Wander]

I agree with Zach. (ZOMG GANG UP AGAINST THE CREATIONIST)

And I really found your facts strange. Aren't you speaking against yourself as some things are much much older than 6000 years? I feel like you didn't bring up anything that'd make me even doubt that the world could be as young as you are saying.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Well I am a little confused because obviously you either did not even read my post or you don't know what any of those words in it mean. Nine out of the 13 topics I listed deal directly with the age of the Earth and the Universe, not mankind's existance, none of which give a 4-5 billion year number. As for your rock comment, why would the creation of matter from non-matter seem anymore plausible to you if it's done gradually over billions of years than instaneous, a complete breech of logic.

And I'm a little confused because once again you have completely ignored everything i said in favor of keeping them blinders on, so let me re-iterate what i said in bullet points. May be a bit easier for you to follow.

-You believe in a young earth, which you have said you believe to be 6000 years old in this post.

-You've only presented evidence that humankind is no older than 6000 years, which, again, i would dispute but that's a moot point and you'll just ignore the rest of this point and debate that instead. So for the sake of argument, let's say humankind is 6000 years old. According to your beliefs, humanity and the earth came into existance simultaneously. That is an incredibly logical conclusion for me to reach.

-You've presented, as you said, 9 out of 13 points which put the earth at "a few hundred million years old". This is a very far reach from 6000 years old. And to say that your evidence (and ONLY your evidence) says it can't be 4-5 billion means that you are correct is completely flawed in the logic department.

Finally, look more into what scientifically goes into the creation of anything, be it stars, planets, etc. The big bang theory is not a clown car theory, that things exploded out of nothingness already intact. The creation of planets and stars comes from both nebulae and previous supernova... it is not even close to say that it is a creation of matter from non-matter. It is a slow accumulation of matter that has been given off by one means or another (again, the death of a star is a great source) that takes a very long time. I never said anywhere that it was creating matter from non-matter, but it was my mistake to assume you had a basic concept of how celestial bodies are formed.

 

[Swabs]

You're forgetting something... The Dinosaurs never existed! :O

Anyway, so we measure our years from the supposed year of the birth of christ right? So thats 2008 years of existance since Jesus Christ was born. Well the Sumerian civilization existed around 5300BC, so 2008 years after Christ + 5300 years before christ = 7308 years since the time of the Sumerians to Present day...

And you can't deny the existance of the Sumerians.

I'm still waiting on a reaction to this, I think it would be quite interesting to see how a Young Earth enthusiast can try to deny fact.

I'm not even bothering to go into the ol' "radio-carbon dating and blablabla millions of years old" stuff. My point is practically recent history.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

-You've presented, as you said, 9 out of 13 points which put the earth at "a few hundred million years old". This is a very far reach from 6000 years old. And to say that your evidence (and ONLY your evidence) says it can't be 4-5 billion means that you are correct is completely flawed in the logic department.

I worded this point very poorly. What I was getting at here is you're basically saying that you've shown evidence that disproves (again, to me it doesn't but i am paraphrasing here, so stick with me) the 4 billion year theory. And even though it doesn't support your 6000 year theory in any way, shape or form, in your mind you have debunked the 4 billion year theory which you assume makes the 6000 year theory correct. This is what i was referring to when i said your logic was flawed. Horribly.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

I agree with Zach. (ZOMG GANG UP AGAINST THE CREATIONIST)

And I really found your facts strange. Aren't you speaking against yourself as some things are much much older than 6000 years? I feel like you didn't bring up anything that'd make me even doubt that the world could be as young as you are saying.

Actually my post accomplishes two things. The first of all it shows just how difficult dating the Earth is because of all the different dates my topics produced. The second is that is shows that though these numbers are all way different, they are all far closer to my 6000 year estimate than your 4,000,000,000 year estimate. The problem with your side of the argument is they ascribe to only the oldest date ever found for the Earth, yielded by radio-metric dating. Yet, the other 5 dating methods conducted on the Earth all yielded much lower numbers, the lowest number being 6000 years with the Magnetic Field Decay method. So my position is no less valid than your's, I ascribe to the lowest number yielded, you ascribe to the very highest number yielded. I don't care if you guys gang up on the Creationist, this is my strongest field and I have hundreds of publications to pull from so I am not worried in the least.

 

[Wander]

Hey! I have a theory! Maybe he's not really serious and this is just april fools! That would give me a huge relief and I'd be able to recover some of my trust for human kind.