RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.

RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

swan42 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/27/2008 3:47:43 PM)
quote: Is there a reason someone else must do the math? Yes it is called a burden of proof appropriate for this thread.

Zuniceratops -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/27/2008 10:42:18 PM)
quote: If the flood could have created these layers, please explain how. How could enough biological material have been created during 150 days to create over 1000' of limestone in several, non-adjacent layers? If it was redeposited from somewhere else, how did the sediments sort themselves into the layering we see. The chalk cliffs of Dover and other limestone layers are attributed to major algal blooms during the Flood. It is thought that ocean turbulence, decaying fish, temperature changes, and/or nutrients from freshwater flow or upwelling could be factors in algal blooms, and all would have been present in large quantities during the Flood. Woodmorappe and another scientist found algae could reproduce quantities large enough to create all the limestone layers in the world, and more, in as little as 200 years. Furthermore, since algal growth tends to be "highly episodic", that is, algae tends to go longs periods of very slow growth and then suddenly bloom in huge quantities, it is conceivable for massive algal blooms during the Flood to have been profuse enough to create the limestone layers. For more detailed info, check out this link.

drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/28/2008 1:49:18 AM)
Great article, Zunict, but it will fall on deaf ears. You see, even when scientific evidence for a young earth is presented, it is dismissed out-of-hand as worthless assumption/presupposition by the uniformitarian naturalist fanatics who must uphold their religious "faith" at all costs. "Burden of proof" is a double-standard which goes far beyong the bounds of this thread!

iluvatar -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/28/2008 8:36:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Great article, Zunict, but it will fall on deaf ears. You see, even when scientific evidence for a young earth is presented, it is dismissed out-of-hand as worthless assumption/presupposition by the uniformitarian naturalist fanatics who must uphold their religious "faith" at all costs. "Burden of proof" is a double-standard which goes far beyong the bounds of this thread! Why not let us respond first, eh? This isn't the first time I've seen at least some of this evidence presented, but in this writing, they've mentioned some of the rebuttal evidence that was also presented last time this came up. When I have more time, I'll look into it. -Dan.

robto -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/28/2008 11:17:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Great article, Zunict, but it will fall on deaf ears. You see, even when scientific evidence for a young earth is presented, it is dismissed out-of-hand as worthless assumption/presupposition by the uniformitarian naturalist fanatics who must uphold their religious "faith" at all costs. "Burden of proof" is a double-standard which goes far beyong the bounds of this thread! Except for one slight problem: nothing in that post is in any way evidence for a young earth. Assuming for the sake of argument that the science as presented by Zunic is correct, all this shows is that the limestone layers (like Dover) COULD have been generated in a short time. There is nothing at all that would lead us to believe that they actually WERE generated in a short time. Creationists' grasp of logic seems to be flawed in an essential way. Real evidence of age (like radiometric dating) is dismissed as not being evidence at all, and stuff that isn't evidence at all is claimed as evidence.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/28/2008 11:23:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops quote: If the flood could have created these layers, please explain how. How could enough biological material have been created during 150 days to create over 1000' of limestone in several, non-adjacent layers? If it was redeposited from somewhere else, how did the sediments sort themselves into the layering we see. The chalk cliffs of Dover and other limestone layers are attributed to major algal blooms during the Flood. It is thought that ocean turbulence, decaying fish, temperature changes, and/or nutrients from freshwater flow or upwelling could be factors in algal blooms, and all would have been present in large quantities during the Flood. Woodmorappe and another scientist found algae could reproduce quantities large enough to create all the limestone layers in the world, and more, in as little as 200 years. Furthermore, since algal growth tends to be "highly episodic", that is, algae tends to go longs periods of very slow growth and then suddenly bloom in huge quantities, it is conceivable for massive algal blooms during the Flood to have been profuse enough to create the limestone layers. For more detailed info, check out this link. Just a back-of-the envelope calculation, but... I see varying estimates for the total biomass (all plants and animals) of the earth. The largest I've seen (in a quick search) is 2 trillion tons. In Zuni's article, the amount of chalk is estimated at 17.5 million cubic kilometres, or 17,500 trillion cubic meters. The density of chalk is about 2 tons/cubic meter, so that's 8,750 trillion tons of chalk, or 4000 times the mass of all life on earth. Even if we extend the 'flood event' to 200 years, it's hard to see how these algae could process that much matter. Relying on blooms caused by decaying fish is not enough, since this is orders of magnitude bigger than all the fish in the sea (and all the whales, and trees, and beetles, and bacteria, etc.). Still more would be needed to account for the calcareous ooze discussed in Zuni's article. (I also wonder what the effects of that much life-cycling activity would have on the chemical composition of the oceans and atmosphere, or even the thermodynamic effects of that much activity. But I'm lousy at chemistry and biology, so I'll stick to simple physics stuff like mass.)

drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/28/2008 10:27:06 PM)
quote: Except for one slight problem: nothing in that post is in any way evidence for a young earth. Which is the same "slight problem" for old earth theorists who have no observational evidence for all their wildly speculative claims. But that doesn't seem to matter, does it!

Godhead -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/28/2008 11:35:47 PM)
There is the weakening magnetic field, that has remained consistent. If the world is billions of years old then it would have dissolved along time ago. There is the orbit of the moon, that moves away from earth at 2.5 centimeters a year. Even if the moon and Earth where touching each other, at that rate the moon would be further out then it is now. These are facts not fiction. There is also the fact that recorded history only goes back 10000 years. The Earth may only appear old because it was created fully developed just as the first man was created an adult. Anyone who believes that the world is billions of years old is not a Christian. Why don't they just take the side of atheist and stand with them. It just boggles my mind that they claim to be Christians while spending their whole life trying to discredit the scriptures. The fact of the matter is that person has sin in their life, that they do not want to give up. So it is by discrediting the Bible that they justify their sin. What madness!

essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 2:12:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead There is the weakening magnetic field, that has remained consistent. This is false. The magnetic field reverses direction and these changes have left evidence in rocks. There is no consistent weakening of the magnetic field. quote: There is the orbit of the moon, that moves away from earth at 2.5 centimeters a year. Even if the moon and Earth where touching each other, at that rate the moon would be further out then it is now. This is false. A billion years * 2.5 cm = 25000 km, which is far less than the current earth moon distance of 384,403 km quote: These are facts not fiction. Those are not facts, those are lies spread by creationists. Worse yet, the second one can be disproven by multiplying two numbers together and checking it against the distance between the earth and the moon. And yet it is repeated and repeated over and over again by people who believe it and repeat it and present it as fact without even checking it.

Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 4:11:33 AM)
Is science objective? What assumptions are behind the belief that the conclusions of science are trustworthy?

ianz -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 7:12:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Except for one slight problem: nothing in that post is in any way evidence for a young earth. Which is the same "slight problem" for old earth theorists who have no observational evidence for all their wildly speculative claims. But that doesn't seem to matter, does it! The point is that even if it is correct, this evidence for quick chalk formation just tells us that chalk can form quickly. Anyway that aside let's hear a response to ES's envelope workings, rather than a repeat of the usual tit for tat!

gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 10:06:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Strider33 What assumptions are behind the belief that the conclusions of science are trustworthy? 1. That the world is an objective reality 2. That our perceptions (with due cross-checking) are a reliable indicator of that reality. 3. That carefully applied logic leads to valid conclusions. 4. That accurate predictions about future observations confirm the validity of the theory which led to those predictions. These are all axioms which can be and have been disputed. But they are the bedrock of scientific investigation. Are there any which you find particularly problematic?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 11:52:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Strider33 Is science objective? You've asked some deep questions that tread on philosophy, and I am a lousy philosopher. I would say yes, science is objective. There is no such thing as French science or Chinese science or Hindu science or Mormon science or red-haired science or female science... If a scientist measure the gravitational constant, it doesn't matter whether he is French, Mormon, left-handed or whether he is a she. They all get the same answer. Furthermore, when one sees a scientific result in a textbook, one doesn't have to believe it because it is in a book. At least in principle, one could carry out the experiment for oneself and obtain the same result. This replication is an important facet of science that helps to ensure objectivity. That said, scientists are human, and humans are fallible. There are cases of fraud, delusion, and political propaganda. But these errors could be exposed by other researchers attempting to replicate the results. That last case is most interesting with respect to your question, since the Soviets were essentially declaring that evolution and genetics were Capitalist Science, and that Lysenkoism was a proper Socialist Science. They denied that science was objective, and it led them into error. Similarly, we can thank our lucky stars that the Nazis were suspicious not just of Jews, but of the 'Jewish Science' that ultimately led to the development of the nuclear bomb. quote: What assumptions are behind the belief that the conclusions of science are trustworthy? In addition to what gluadys said (or maybe to expand on #3), science relies on the use of logical induction. You drop a rock and it falls. The next day, you drop a rock and it falls. You ask your friend in Melbourne to drop a rock, and she tells you it falls. There is no deductive logical reason that the next rock you drop can't just hover there, or fly figure 8's around your head. Or maybe rocks dropped in Africa behave differently. Or rocks dropped on Tuesdays behave differently. Nevertheless, as we drop more and more rocks in more and more different situations, we become more and more certain of our conclusion (based on induction) that rocks fall when dropped near the surface of the earth. We believe this is true anywhere on earth, we believe this is true for any future dropped rocks, and we believe it was true in the past, as well. And we believe it would be true if we dropped rocks on Mars, or a planet circling some distant star. Certainly, if any contrary evidence appears, we would have to account for it, and modify our 'theory'. But so far, the physical laws we've discovered seem to apply everywhere and everywhen, given similar conditions.

drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 6:40:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead There is the weakening magnetic field, that has remained consistent. If the world is billions of years old then it would have dissolved along time ago. There is the orbit of the moon, that moves away from earth at 2.5 centimeters a year. Even if the moon and Earth where touching each other, at that rate the moon would be further out then it is now. This point has been addressed already in post #30 and #31. I wonder if you have ever read about the creationist challenges against radiometric dating? They almost always attack these dating methods by attacking uniformitarianism. They say we cannot know that the isotopes used to date objects have always decayed at the same rate. Another argument they put forth is that we cannot know that the speed of light has been constant throughout the history of the universe. As for the moon example, the magnetic fields, the sun shrinkage (and many more), notice how they quickly fall back eagerly on the same type of uniformitarianism they decry when discussing dating methods or stars that appear to be billions of light years away. In one breath, they will say that the moon must have always receded at the same rate, or the magnetic field always has to decay at the same rate, and hope that you conveniently forget that somewhere else they are saying that its foolish to assume the speed of light is constant, or that isotopes decay at the same rate in the past. Unfortunately for them, all of the systems they want to claim as uniform operate by mechanisms that are most definitely not uniform, in that sense, as other posts in this thread have explained. Even before you look at the embarrassingly bad math they used in the moon calculations (messing up a simple 4th grade level multiplication problem), the credibility of these arguments is suspect.

Godhead -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 8:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Those are not facts, those are lies spread by creationists. I would far more trust a man who serves God rather then one who serves the Devil.

ianz -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 9:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Those are not facts, those are lies spread by creationists. I would far more trust a man who serves God rather then one who serves the Devil. Caveat of course being that one can determine who serves God and who serves the Devil.

Veritas -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 9:20:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Those are not facts, those are lies spread by creationists. I would far more trust a man who serves God rather then one who serves the Devil. Caveat of course being that one can determine who serves God and who serves the Devil. Do those who spread lies serve God or the serve the Prince of Lies?

drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 9:45:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Those are not facts, those are lies spread by creationists. I would far more trust a man who serves God rather then one who serves the Devil. You have fallen for one of the biggest scams of all: You do not have to be a creationist (in the genesis as a historical narrative sense) to believe in Jesus, nor to follow him.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/29/2008 10:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Those are not facts, those are lies spread by creationists. I would far more trust a man who serves God rather then one who serves the Devil. How can you trust someone who spreads transparent falsehoods? Are you sure which side you're on? To use a different quote from the author of my sig: "An honest whore is less of an insult to humanity than a sanctimonious prig who ignores the truth and fosters error and illusion." -- HP Lovecraft, letter to Maurice Moe 1/4/30

swan42 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/30/2008 3:35:37 AM)
quote: There is also the fact that recorded history only goes back 10000 years. Any conclusions from this premise must include 1. is an application of the anthropic principle 2a. we have no record of the pre-history because no one was around to take notes: or 2b. nobody recorded pre-history from which to discuss 3. is contrary to the date of 4004 BC stated by answersingenesis.org 4. and thus casts doubt on the validity of some or all of the biblical reference used to arrive at 4004 BC

drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/30/2008 7:29:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Godhead There is also the fact that recorded history only goes back 10000 years. Actually, there are some cave paintings that date back to about ~32,000 years. If you want to look at stone tools, presumably made by hominids, we're talking about ~2.5 million years or more. We may not have actual written language before ~10k years ago, but thats not the only kind of trace that humans leave behind....

Strider33 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/1/2008 4:37:17 AM)
Most of the replies I've gotten on the subject of whether science is objective focus on the absence of bias in science against any groups of people such as Frenchmen, or left handers or Mormons. That's good as far as it goes. But what if there were something dreadfully wrong with humanity in general such that when we apply the scientific method, to the best of our ability, what we arrive at is not truth but a pale shadow of truth? What if there were another observer of the universe that were not subject to such a limitation? What if that observer communicated with us? What then? The proviso you made with regard to scientists being subject to certain human foibles such as deception or delusion, apply equally well to purveyors of revealed truth, such as the authors of the books of the bible, or prophets. While those of us who are Bible believers accept the inclusion of certain writings as inerrant canon, there was a time when humans had to decide which books would be included in the canon and which would be excluded. As far as logical induction goes, we have a tendency to dismiss reports of reliable witnesses to events that would suggest exceptions to the rules we think we see. Thus if we have a mountain of evidence that supports the proposition that a person cannot walk on water, and then we get a report from some reliable witnesses that they have seen a person walking on water, we tend to dismiss that observation as deceitful or deluded, not because we have discredited the witnesses, but because accepting their testimony would disturb our logical system too much. Logical induction, coupled with selective dismissal of apparently anomalous reports, introduces a bias against believing in miracles. I'm sorry to lump these replies all together in one response, but I hope it won't cause too much trouble.

gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/1/2008 10:02:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Strider33 Most of the replies I've gotten on the subject of whether science is objective focus on the absence of bias in science against any groups of people such as Frenchmen, or left handers or Mormons. That's good as far as it goes. But what if there were something dreadfully wrong with humanity in general such that when we apply the scientific method, to the best of our ability, what we arrive at is not truth but a pale shadow of truth? What if there were another observer of the universe that were not subject to such a limitation? What if that observer communicated with us? What then? If such were the case, our assessment of that communication would be subject to the same defects as our assessment of the natural world. We would make the same errors in interpreting that communication as we do in interpreting physical evidence, and with less ability to detect our errors. Furthermore, assuming that you are speaking of the communications of the God of Christianity, the natural world IS a communication from that deity. Why would we be any less able to understand that communication than any other from the same deity?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/1/2008 11:56:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Strider33 But what if there were something dreadfully wrong with humanity in general such that when we apply the scientific method, to the best of our ability, what we arrive at is not truth but a pale shadow of truth? What if there were another observer of the universe that were not subject to such a limitation? What if that observer communicated with us? What then? This observer could communicate the truth to us and we could check it. If this new truth passes this test, then we would gain in knowledge and be freed from our pale shadow. If this new truth does not pass this test, then we are in a quandary. Either the new truth isn't truth, or we are so deceived, we can never know the truth. If this observer told us the sky was actually orange, not blue... My eyes say it's blue, photographs say it's blue, spectrometers measure it as blue. At that point, we might as well say we're living in 'The Matrix' or we are brains in vats, or deceived by demons. Or we can decide that this observer may not be correct after all. How could we ever establish (since our own observational skills are suspect) that her credentials (of being a better observer than we) were valid? quote: Logical induction, coupled with selective dismissal of apparently anomalous reports, introduces a bias against believing in miracles. If they are repeatable miracles, they can be studied under controlled conditions that would help to establish the reality of the phenomenon. For more unique events, anecdotal evidence is not worthless, but it is not really the stuff of science.

everstudy -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (7/1/2008 2:59:58 PM)
quote: Anyone who believes that the world is billions of years old is not a Christian. Wow... That's pretty harsh. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is hell bound? You might want to rethink that one. ~ Everstudy

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI