A simple question for a complex issue

Eta_Carinae, Actually 9,000 years would be pretty close if the Creation week took 7,000 years, factoring from Adam to the biblical flood around 1,650 years, and 4,350 to bring us to the present, you have around 12,000 years from the point in time where God caused the sun to go nucleur kjv genesis 1:3-4, and 3 God days later, would be 9,000 years when God caused the trees to come forth from the earth kjv genesis 1:11, etc...
P.S. One day to God is as a thousand of our years kjv 2 peter 3:8 & One thousand years is but as a watch in the night kjv psalm 90:4

Whatever, someone is not telling you the truth. I suggest you and truthdetector get together and really try, with a truely open mind, to figure out who it is. The entire scientific establishment or your AIG, ICR etc. sources.Let's try to pick something simple. The dating issue. Why don't you read over a few of the dating threads and add your questions to them.Whatever, it has been pointed out to you that your fussing about argon is missing some very important points.My question to you is: "Do you really want the truth?" If so, start acting like it.

---

Common sense isn't

NosyNed, Don Batten explained the oldest bristlecone pine in 1957 dated to be 4,723 years by counting the tree rings, the difference in the 4,350 years the biblical flood is believed to because after the flood the earth was wetter, producing multiple tree rings, he agrees presently the bristlecone is only producing one annual tree ring per year, etc...

So? He's making up something to get the answer he wants. There was not flood! You don't prove there was by not only assuming there was but then makeing up more and more extra unsupported conjectures about what it might have done. You need some smattering of evidence.Dendrochronology does not depend on one tree being alive over the entire time period. By matching ring patters the time range is pushed back to something like 11,000 years.Why don't you look up some real information rather than repeating this stuff.
The ultimate Tree-Ring Pages

---

Common sense isn't

So you got a +/-4,500 year old tree. What about all that geologic history siting underneath that tree? Oh yeah, all that happened before and during the flood.Nevermind,Moose

minnemooseusI am curious as to how the creationists explain away the fossil record by saying the abating of the flood waters produced the strata effect.What a brilliant ploy.However,it has a hitch.If the food evacuated Earth through fissures in the ground would not the hydraulic forces deposit the fossils in a direction of the very fissures into which the water supposedly departed. There could have been many such "drains" but with global waters at least 29000 feet deep wouldn't this mean the closer we get to the drains the greater the concentration of fossils we would find?Just a thought.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

You have proof, clams are found on top of Mount Everest, even today these mountains are still rising, God created these bounds so the waters would not again cover the earth. kjv psalm 104:8-9, the bible says the waters only rose only 15 cubits above the highest mountain, so with the waters presently in the oceans you can calculate the height of the pre-flood mountains to be under 1/2 mile in height, etc...You have massive flood sediment evidence of erosion, the Hudson Canyon, The Amazon Canyon, the badlands, the grand canyon, clams on top of the mountains, however, you might want to check out Walt Browns site, he explains the mechanics of liquification, with the waters covering the entire earth, with a little shaking going on, underwater tides would of kept the sediments dispersed, causing them to stratify, the fossils would of floated into the sediments, Walt explains how this answers present fossil stratification layerings, are explained by liquification, etc... Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood On Walts personal goggle search engine type: Examples of LiquefactionYou actually have evidences of fossils floating and depositing, the massive coal deposits, show that massive mats of trees were deposited as the flood waters washed by the Rocky mountains, Appalachian mountains, etc...
BNSF 404 Page Not Found[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

quote:

---

You have proof, clams are found on top of Mount Everest, even today these mountains are atill rising, God created these bounds so the waters would not again cover the earth.

---

No. Coninental drift: the Indian plate is attempting to move North against the Asian plate, forcing up the Himalayas.

quote:

---

kjv psalm 104:8-9, the bible says the waters only rose 15 cubits above the highest mountain,

---

No it doesn't. Psalm 104:8-9

quote:

---

104:8
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

​

104:9
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

---

Nothing about the height of the mountains, the depth of the water or, indeed the flood.

quote:

---

so with the waters presently in the oceans you can calculate the heighth of the mountains pre-flood were only around 1/2 mile in height, etc...

---

Only if you know the depth of the ocean pre flood. You've got to assume a shallow ocean to make this work. Alternatively, knowing the height of the mountains, you could calculate the depth of the oceanSince there is nothing in the reference quoted to show what the pre-flood height of the mountains is, or what the depth of the se is, the calculation is moot.Further, lets examine this thesis.We have a pre-flood world with low mountains and shallow seas. The flood happens, and Noah sets sail. All around him, as well as the flood, you have mountains rising at hundreds of feet a day, and the ocean floor sinking at a similar rate, you have volcanoes erupting here there and everywhere, and, if you also hold to the "single continent" pre-flood thesis, with the modern continents moving around the surface of the world like demented dodgem cars.[irony]Throughout this the Ark sails placidly along[/irony].And at the end of all this, the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates - mentioned in the Bible both in pre and post flood periods - drop calmly back into their original beds as if nothing had happed.

Oh no...not the dreaded polonium halos! A while back, the same sort of garbage appeared in our school newspaper, using polonium halos to prove that the Earth was instantly created. I wrote a reply and I will duplicate it here. (I gathered the information from a couple sources, and I think that Talk Origins was one of them, but honestly, I don't remember where I got all of the information).
When all the evidence is examined rather than just selected evidence, a simple scientific explanation exists to explain the so-called problem of Polonium (Po) halos. Robert Gentry's claim is that Po halos prove the Earth was instantly created. Of course, he only discusses the isotopes of 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po (products derived in 238Po disintegration) while ignoring the Po isotopes of other mass numbers (215Po, 211Po, 216Po, and 212Po) which are produced in the 235U and 232Th disintegration series. If included, these isotopes would invalidate his claims (Masson, S.L. and Garden, J.B., 1981. Radioactive mineral deposits of the Pembroke-Renfrew area: Ontario Geological Survey, Mineral Deposits Circular 23,155 p., accompanied by Preliminary Map P. 2210. scale 1:126,120.). And, as it turns out, if you examine the location where Mr Gentry collected his samples, you find that 253U and 232Th are present in the surrounding strata. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it? His logic follows the typical creationists style of ignoring contrary evidence.
I'm not geologist (and I'm sure someone else out there can explain this far better than I can), but I'm also not the type to simply trust what I'm told without trying to validate it from other sources. Guess what...I could not find any other evidence to support Mr Gentry's claims. Why did I try to find alternate explanations to the polonium halos? Is it because I trust in the ToE? Partly. But it also seemed rather foolish to me to think that one man (Robert Gentry) could be correct and that everyone else is incorrect. Think about it, which seem more likely? Robert Gentry is correct (the Earth was instantly created) and everybody else...geologists, astronomers, physisicts, biologists, etc..are all incorrect. Or could it be that Mr. Gentry based his results on faulty evidence and perhaps other explanations exist? It's typical of creationsists. They get the answer they want and then stop looking. Kinda sad really. SpinyNorman73, don't fall into the same trap.

MarkAustin, Where in the bible is the tigris river mentioned pre-flood, with mountains being present, there probably was rivers pre-flood, etc... kjv Genesis 7:20 actually says Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.I agree with you that the oceans sank and the mountains rose, but with this in context, that the oceans sank, there is enough water in the oceans themselves, if the earth was a smooth sphere to cover the earth over 1/2 mile in water, meaning the mountains were a whole lot lower in height pre-flood, meaning less than 1/2 mile of water covered the earth, etc...P.S. Its interesting how Ron Wyatt, found giant sea anchors in the mountains of Ararat, and because of fluid dynamics, would of made an arked boat float quite well within the waves, though because of the direction the earth rotated and where Mt.Ararat is located is was likely protected from the bulk of the outpressing waters, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

FliesOnly, I have no problem with the earth being 4.6 bilion years, however, the granites show evidence they were formed recently, their is really no concrete evidence that the sun has been shining over 12,000 years, or that the tree fossils are older than 9,000 years old, in light of the granites being formed recently, no matter what, all sediment ages are meaningless, because of dual porosity, if they came up out from the inner earth, etc...P.S. However, the granites show they were created recently, how does this not support the biblical creation week, happening only 12,000 years ago, if one day is as a thousand years too God, the granites show evidence they were supernaturally created, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

You have no backup for any of those assertions. Until you do they are worth about what they cost to store, if that much.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-19-2004]

Spinynorman73The Bible is a book that every intellectual in western civilization must study, because of its consistent impact on history and its phenomenal perserverance in popularity, as a serious philosophical (love of truth and wisdom) reference.The Bible presents itself as dictated by a living being, a God to us, made of non-electomagnetic stuff ("Spirit", perhaps similar to the dark matter of modern physics), basically existing to show us how to establish contact with this Being. It provides mechanisms by whatever epistemological (way of knowing) strategy one might choose to know the truth, by which one may establish contact with this God, to hear His voice and engage Him in conversations or interviews. These include authority, art, science, and history.Following these "materials and methods" many persons (including me, using the epistemological strategy of science) report contact with this God, who in interview describes as much as we or I can understand how He created the heavens and the earth.Thus, I came to believe that the whole universe is created, originally over a "long" time, with more recent "restorations," the latter happening quickly, miraculously, the former by slower artificial selection and genetic engineering by the Creator.I use this "truth" to deal justly with this Creator, giving them full due for the magnificence of what They created, and dealing with the environment as a steward of someone's beloved creation.Teach your children how to use the four main natural epistemological strategies (trustworthy authority, the good answer to the question, "Oh yeah, who says?"; inspired art, "truth is beauty, etc."; defensible science, evidence supporting theory; and history, choices and consequences of choices of the past.) to find and love the truth. This will bring much reward, as much as it is possible for a teacher to obtain.Stephen

Hello whatever:You have me a bit confused here. In reading this it appears to me that even you don't accept this evidence?
Anyway, from what I know of Mr Gentry's Po halos, they were not a tool used to show the age of the Earth in any way. Rather, they were a feable attempt by him to show that the Earth was instantly created. Other evidence (an overwhelming amount of it I might add) tells quite a different story. Polonium halos do not show an instantaneous creation, it's plain and simple. Whatever, you should read some scientific literature.As for this: Have you ever heard of Albert Einstein and his famous equation E=mc2?
(hey, does anyone know if it's possible to do superscripts and subscripts on the wed page...and if so, how?).And this: Again, you have no relaible scientific evidence to support this sort of claim.And finally, this: Are you kidding me? I mean, you actually say "if one day is a thousand years to God". Hey, whatever, let's suppose that one day is really only 1/1000 of a second to God...then what?
And once again, the granites do not show that they were supernaturally created. Do you even know what poloniums halo are, or how they are formed?

quote:

---

MarkAustin, Where in the bible is the tigris and euphrates mentioned pre-flood, kjv Genesis 7:20 actually says Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

---

Here, Genesis 2:14

quote:

---

And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

---

Hiddekel is the Hebrew for the Tigrisand here, Genesis 15:18

quote:

---

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

---

Note this also implies that the Nile was in the same place both pre and post flood.Also note this: Genesis 7:20

quote:

---

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

---

It doesn't say the mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water, but that the water rose 15 cubits and covered the mountains.

quote:

---

I agree with you that the oceans sank and the mountains rose, but with this in context, that the oceans sank, there is enough water in the oceans themselves, if the earth was a smooth sphere to cover the earth over 1/2 mile in water, meaning the mountains were a whole lot lower in height pre-flood, meaning less than 1/2 mile of water covered the earth, etc...

---

Apart from the fact that you commit the logical error of assuming your conclusion, in order to postulate a flood by this means, you have to either:Have the sea bed rise to push the water out - thus denying the clear Biblical word of 40 days rain.Or:As I said, assume shallow seas, have the rain fall, and cover the land.In both cases, you have fantastically fast simultaneous falling ocean beds and rising land, and with the first scenario, it has to rise first. You simply can't deform rock that fast: it'll snap. If you come back and say it was soft sediment, it won't rise and fall be the required amounts without slumping.

quote:

---

P.S. Its interesting how Ron Wyatt, found giant sea anchors in the mountains of Ararat, and because of fluid dynamics, would of made an arked boat float quite well within the waves, though because of the direction the earth rotated and where Mt.Ararat is located is was likely protected from the bulk of the outpressing waters, etc...

---

Not sure aboute these stones, will come back later.However, Mt Ararat would have to be rising at the same fantastic rate as every other mountain. Given its current height of 16,916 ft and your estimate of an original maximum height of 1/2 mile or this gives a rise of 14,276 ft. Even allowing a year, this is a rise of just over 40 ft/day. This must have caused immense disturbance to the waters around: I don't think even a drogue anchor could have stabilised the Ark.