Skip to comments.101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe
Posted on 06/04/2009 8:50:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe
Can science prove the age of the earth?
There are many different categories of evidence that the cosmos and the earth are much younger than is generally asserted today...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Who needs evidence? Creationism is an act of faith.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason can go hand-in-hand.
I wonder if I’ll get to read “Science is stupid” on this thread like on past, similarly themed threads.
What’s a Billion years here or there between friends.
I don’t know that “Science is stupid” but, that list is pretty funny.
Science is science. Evolution is not science, but pretends to be science, and is therefore stupid.
Very little factual data in this article. Most of the references are the result of severe ignorance or just the usual lies.
But at least Dr. Batton likes plants. Don’t see that too much around the creationist zoo.
I can’t help but think of ‘Grand Canyon 2’ whenever I see this sort of piece.
Ever wonder why you can’t mine plutonium anywhere? No shortage of people wanting it but nowhere on earth can so much as an atom of the stuff be found. Every bit we have is manmade. Why is that?
With all due respect - and as a person of faith:
Good grief? What is this creationist stuff doing here?
The “science” is just about as believable as drivel coming from Gore.
Leave God alone. The universe is quite good as it is. God is obviously a mathematician...and far more advanced than these creationists pushers are.
True; not mutually exclusive. But to my question: Who *needs* evidence?
Pure nonsense. The Appalachians, for example, formed in three separate episodes from 470 miilion years ago to 250 million years ago. Most of the Rockies formed about 65 million years ago.
When ever I hear someone saying that something is millions of years old I always wonder how they know that their calculation is correct. To me, that’s an act of faith.
Creationist are like David Letterman. They love putting out top-10 (or 100 in this case) lists that are somewhat amusing.
Yes, and I personally do not see any reason why science and faith cannot be together. I personally have never encountered any conflict whatsoever. The problem is that certain people on both sides (yes, not only the science side can have nut-jobs ...some of the greatest nutjobs are on the faith side) always have to try and one-up the other side. Like little birds fighting over a fleck sheared off grain of rice.
Your reading skills are hopelessly inadequate. Evolution, and Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science.
Well, one evolutionist has already posted that evidence is unnecessary, which is more of the theme of that side of the argument.
But anybody who follows the global warming hysteria knows that, while science is not stupid, scientists can and do push stupid ideas pretending they are science.
Thanks again for the daily laugh. Some of the entries on that list are real howlers!
An all-powerful God can do anything, which does mean that anything can be explained by the unsatisfying “God just did it that way” argument.
However, even supernatural miracles can leave evidence.
I agree with you. Nobody really knows. Except God. So I just let him worry about it.
The origin of the Earth is really none of my business. How I live while on the Earth is should be my focus.
Wouldn’t you agree that the science of global warming has been hijacked by kooks, and is in fact evidence of “Stupid Science”?
We see scientists ‘surprised’ by discoveries in many fields. I generally don’t think of them as stupid, as much as somewhat unrealistic to think they know more than they do at times.
When El Nino and El Nina were discovered, the scientific community nearly came unhinged, blaming everything under the sun on these “new” anomolies. Now you hardly even hear the terms any longer.
Just recently the sun has pulled the rug out from under the common understandings of it’s cycles.
I just think it’s silly the way scientists think everyone is a heretic (for lack of a better term), when they won’t buy into every word that drops from their lips.
I do find their work very interesting, but I also consider myself to be a realist, and I don’t think we as humans are quite as smart as we think we are at times.
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]”
—St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430)
I truly believe this. And so, I see no problem accepting evolution AND the idea that God created the world.
It sure can...
for certain values of "science".
Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce todays population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
Yeah and 6 flies can produce a trillion desendents in 5 years, so the fact we ain't up to our necks in flies must mean the earth is less than 2 years old.
War, Crime, Plagues, etc? Ever hear of those?
Let me guess, You are really an Atheist and are posting this stuff just to make Christians look bad
AugustineThe City of God Against the Pagans
II Of the Falseness of the history which ascribes many thousands of years to times gone by
Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
My pleasure :o)
The “folding” in the photo in the article is nothing compared to what is readily visible along the coast of California.
At a beach in northwest Santa Barbara, there is a cut next to the parking lot that has a completely un-cracked fold that begins at a pin point center. It is absolute proof that it occurred while wet.
GGG is a parody poster...posts totally outrageous silly things, then responds to post in over-the-top cliches and non-sequiters...he’s a hoot when you understand his purpose here on FR...magritte
Seriously, there is nothing that science can do to convince me God did not have a hand in creating the universe, and our planet. How old is the earth? Who cares. But I do think it is far younger than what science-with-an-objective tells us. And what about the Dinosaurs? I believe in the time of Noah, man populated only a tiny area of the Earth. It is not unthinkable that creatures not written about in the Bible roamed other continents of the planet.
It’s a real yuck fest. The creationists balk at the evos for taking such liberties with science, yet reading this list tells me that Creationists are the worst offenders because most of their “proof” is based upon assumptions of a static universe.
ANY equation looks simple if you remove all but one of the variables. Which is exactly what appears to be going on here - Remove any variables that are inconvenient to you, and only leave the ones that help your cause.
Lists like this do more harm than help to their cause.
Finally a voice of reason on this thread!
I used to live in Santa Barbara. What beach are you talking about. Maybe I’ll give it a looksee next time I’m up that way.
Yes, thank you very much. While I don’t subscribe that everything on the list may necessarily be true (as all reasoning of man is subject to flaws), I do see there is ample evidence that “Scientists” are largely ignorant of natural laws around them. Hence, we have “theories.” And yes, I understand the difference in the term theory as it applies to science.
However, when all is said and done, while we have come a long way, I think when we meet our maker, and all is revealed in His own due time and pleasure, so many pompous and proud “scientists” and outright liars and deceivers will look more foolish then than do bloodletters and alchemists look to us now. Even a period of 100 years causes so many paradigm shifts, I take all “science” related to age of earth with a grain of salt.
I personally do not believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but that it has been about that much time since the fall. I also do not know that our term we use for “days” is consistent with the use of time utilized by God, as He has stated “Behold I come quickly.” While true, it does not obviously match with our concept of time, as He is infallible.
Still, I know of no record that indicates the time between Adam/Eve’s creation and that of the fall, so I do not know the period of time between the creation and fall. Therefore, I have no problem accepting that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, yet far younger than man’s notions. I also have no problem accepting an old earth, but with a growing human population (after the fall) only having been around a short time.
Hope that can be insightful to anyone.
More of your completely non-scientific claptrap again I see.
You creationistas are really grabbing at straws even more frantically.
“It is not unthinkable that creatures not written about in the Bible roamed other continents of the planet.”
I concur, and yet we don’t find it odd that nearly every major culture has “myths” about “dragons” and giant lizards found in their society, including the Bible. Granted, there are other fantastic creatures in the Bible, which may not be literal, ie he Beast in Revelations, but the Bible is not without the realm of possibility of being such a record itself.
You left out the entire context of Augustine’s argument. He was arguing against the “highly mendacious documents” of the pagans which purported to give a history of the human race of many thousands of years, and none of which agreed with each other.
But be that as it may, Augustine is arguing there about the date *of the creation of the human race*—NOT the creation of the world, which as you know as two separate things, especially if one holds some variant of the day-age hypothesis.
And while I’m on the subject, Augustine didn’t believe the universe was created in six days either. He believed it was all created SIMUL = “simultaneously” and that the 6 days in Genesis represent progressive revelations to the angels. ANd he ALSO said in his “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis” that it was an extraordinarily difficult text to interpret and that perhaps a better explanation could be found than that which he was offering.
He was not reckless with the text. He was careful. So his admonition stands against those who prop up one explanation and pretend to speak for all of Christianity in this regard instead of being a little more humble and admitting that we don’t have all the answers.
[[When ever I hear someone saying that something is millions of years old I always wonder how they know that their calculation is correct. To me, thats an act of faith.]]
They don’t know- they simply insist- their calculations are FULL of problems, but by golly- ‘it’s science’ and so their conclusions can’t be questioned or exposed- if one does so, they are then ‘anti-science’. I have a wholel ist of links showing hte problems with each and every one of hte dating methods used to calculate ages past 5000- You are correct- it is a pure act of faith to beleive in their asusmption driven calculating methods which extend beyond actual testable, verifiable ages up to 5000 years- beyond that the methods rely on pure assumptions and outright guesses-
Wrong XXX. When Augustin said that not more than “6000 years have yet passed,” he was referring to all of creation. Where he differed from biblical creationists is that he thought creation occurred in an instant, whereas biblical creationists believed creation occurred over six Earth days.
Look, I believe the Sacred Scriptures are completely infallible, but how do you know that *your* calculations are correct? The Bible nowhere gives an exact age of the earth. We can arrive at one only by inferring a figure by tallying up lifespans and generations, and that's not an exact science. It's not clear whether the descendants are all strictly "offspring of" or merely "descendants of"--and some of the geneologies may be incomplete. Plus the Septuagint, Masoretic text, and Peshitta all give different figures, so we come up with widely varying ages of the earth.
I don't think that many people fully appreciate the difficulties of exegesis here.
This is a good list. You are doing a great service to the conservative movement by providing FR with a view of how gargantuan the case against evolution is.
Thanks for that. I sat in World Archaeology in college years back thinking the same things.
Professor: Such and such piece of pottery, tens of thousands of years old...
Me: “Um, how do you know?”
Professor: Well science...
Me: “Um, has anyone actually witnessed tens of thousands of years.”
Me: “Oh, ok, so this is just what we put on the test..gotcha.”
If any remembers in recent history the khouros (dunno how it is spelled) that was faked by putting a potato mold on the surface which changed the chemical composition of the stone, which supposedly could only happen from thousands of years of exposure, one would recall if man can simulate anything, it means calculations based on phenomena can all be manipulated. Because if we can alter variables, so can forces which we know nothing about alter them.
Science proved the khouros to be genuine, when it was and remains a fraud. So are thee=se “dating” methods, subject to variables we know little about, cannot witness, and often “proven” incorrect.
How could you 'like it' and not understand that periodic population declines for 'war, crime, plagues, etc' are factored in the .5% growth factor?
"Let me guess, You are really an Atheist and are posting this stuff just to make Christians look bad."
Let me guess, you are really a Christian and are posting this stuff to make the atheists look bad.
Thanks for the ping!
Exact? No. Close to 6,000 years? Yes.
"I don't think that many people fully appreciate the difficulties of exegesis here."
I don't think that people fully appreciate the impact of the assumptions involved in a 'scientific' age estimate for either the universe or the earth.
Very true, and that's why I believe it's not important. What is important is that we are here right now, and have a life to live. Studying different cultures from the past, different events in the past, and things like that are informative and good to know. Worrying about how old the earth is has no benefit whatsoever. In my opinion anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.