|
Author
|
Topic: An honest question for creos regarding dates and dating
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 105 (122340)
07-06-2004 3:37 AM
|
|
|
In another thread, Buz writes: We believe many of our arguments for the existence of the supernatural dimension are evidentury whereas you people don't. Obviously you want the letter to favor your view. Some of us believe the supernatural possibility would render much of your dating data erroneous due to the fact that created things such as stones, planets including earth, the moon and sun would have a degree of appearance of age when created, for example.
I would honestly like to know how the creationists on this site explain what appear to be many scientific evidence that point to an old earth rather than a relatively young one. Buzz indicated that, perhaps, everything was created in place to appear old. I would like to know how this could be substantiated. Honest to goodness, this thread is not intended as a debate. I will not post anything but questions regarding the topic... unless someone posts something that is totally out of wack, like the sun orbits the earth. I promise to behave this time. I just want to find out how creationists view this section of our debate. By the way, I ask that old earth supporters not post anything but questions that came from your curiosities. I don't want this thread to turn into a debate. Only post non-question messages if you smell something fishy. One other thing, do not think this is a trap or anything. As many people here already know, I know next to nothing about dates and dating methods. I wouldn't know how to set up a good trap, so do not be afraid to tell me what you think you have. This message has been edited by Lam, 07-06-2004 02:38 AM
The Laminator
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 2 of 105 (122343)
07-06-2004 4:23 AM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6891 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: 04-09-2004
|
Old earth
This creationist believes that the earth is very old. If you look at the creation account, you will note that it says 'in the beginning God created'.....yet it does not state who's beginning. We know that God has no beginning and no end, therefore, it would be plausible to suggest the earth is so very old that we have not yet begun to find the means to measure her age. It also says that the earth was dark and void and covered in water. This suggests that God did at some point decide to start something different on this planet. God made the earth God made the sky God made the people God knows why A line from a tune done by Lee Marvin in the movie 'Paint your Wagon', and a very good question to me.
"In that day I will also make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the sky and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land, and will make them lie down in safety. I will betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, in lovingkindness and in compassion, and I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the LORD." -the prophet Hosea (8th century B.C.) in Hosea 2:18-20
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 07-06-2004 3:37 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4387 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: 02-06-2004
|
|
|
Message 4 of 105 (122436)
07-06-2004 4:27 PM
|
|
|
The Laminator asked us creationists how do we deal with an old looking earth if we say its young. I've heard this before and question what it is that looks old? Rocks?Airplane jokes? So Lam asked for questions and I ask. What are the top three old earth looking things? All the best Rob
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
While I think you are trying to push my buttons, I'll respond to this anyway. Because I am not an expert in dates and dating, I'm refering you to this thread. The very first message tells you about some of the things that appear to be much older than the 6,000 years account.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Robert Byers, posted 07-06-2004 4:27 PM | | Robert Byers has not replied |
|
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6891 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: 04-09-2004
|
There's a pusher and a pushee. Don't give the pusher a chance.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 07-06-2004 4:38 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
heh
already tried to steer him that way 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 07-06-2004 4:38 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Just so you newbies know about this, I have a reputation for losing my patience with bogus arguments and the people that make the bogus arguments. However, I'll remain as calm as I can possibly be. Go ahead, keep pushing the buttons and see what makes me tick. 
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 07-06-2004 4:38 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
|
|
Message 9 of 105 (124540)
07-14-2004 5:49 PM
|
|
|
i have a question for yecs. why would a god of truth create something that is deceptive and steers people away? yes, i am asking the same question that led to the reply of "the devil made dinosaur bones to confuse us".
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 10 of 105 (124542)
07-14-2004 6:02 PM
|
|
|
How did the flood sort out different isotopes of radiogenic elements so that rocks lower in the geologic column consistently date older than rocks higher up? How did this sorting occur so that any given species is sorted into rocks that have a consistent radiometric age? Was potassium-40 concentrated with the mammals for some reason? Does uranium-238 run uphill faster than lead-206? Edited to fix my joke. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-14-2004 05:03 PM
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
I just noticed that many creationists don't really have a unifying theory except the "goddunit" explanation. This is why we see a lot more picking and poking of the theory of evolution by creationists more than explanations of the "theory" of creation by creationists.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 12 of 105 (124663)
07-15-2004 3:49 AM
|
|
|
Bump
Where are all the creationists? I was sure there were more.
The Laminator
|
Snikwad
Inactive Member
|
Chiroptera writes: How did the flood sort out different isotopes of radiogenic elements so that rocks lower in the geologic column consistently date older than rocks higher up? This is an excellent question. I'd like it answered too. Where are the creationists?
Does uranium-238 run uphill faster than lead-206? Sadly, that's probably the most reasonable explanation we'll get.
"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom." --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 07-14-2004 6:02 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 496 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 105 (131788)
08-09-2004 3:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by Snikwad
08-07-2004 7:30 AM
|
|
I'm giving it another bump.
The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by Snikwad, posted 08-07-2004 7:30 AM | | Snikwad has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 105 (131942)
08-09-2004 2:22 PM
|
|
|
If I may propose a question for the creationists: Is there a reliable method for dating the age of the Earth? I often here YEC's proclaim that everything "makes more sense" if the Earth was young, but when asked for the things that "make more sense" they are pretty tight lipped. Also, could the YEC's also offer potential falsifications of their dating method (eg, for radiometric dating a potential falsification is nonconstant radioactive decay in earth like environments).
|
™ Version 4.2