Help my apologetics (Full Version)

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



Message

charlotte123 -> Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 12:23:07 PM)

Why does geology support such an old age for the Earth?
Can you help me and point out the holes in the science so I can answer this question?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 12:47:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

Why does geology support such an old age for the Earth?


If, as is believed to be the case, the earth was molten when it was formed, then it would take at least millions of years for it to cool to its present state.

If South America and Africa were once snugged together, the current rates of continental drift would require millions of years for the Atlantic Ocean to form.

Measured rates of erosion and sedimentation provide ages of rock strata and features that are in the millions of years.

Radiometric dating of rock samples provides ages of rocks in the millions to billions of years; careful testing of meteorites provides the best estimate for the age of the solar system and the earth: 4.5 billion years.



charlotte123 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 1:24:52 PM)

so there are no data to support a younger earth?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 2:08:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

so there are no data to support a younger earth?


I know of none that are widely accepted by the scientific community. Most of the claims made by those who promote a young earth are directed toward casting doubt on either the arguments I mentioned before or the honesty of the scientific community, rather than offering positive evidence in favor of a young earth.

Others here may disagree.



cow451 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 2:23:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

Why does geology support such an old age for the Earth?
Can you help me and point out the holes in the science so I can answer this question?


Perhaps you should first gain a greater understanding of why the overwhelming majority of geologists think the earth is old. Since you don't understand it, how would you propose to "poke holes" in it? If you only want help with "apologetics", you will be regurgitating arguments you don't understand and cannot defend.

Here's one article about one creationist argument.



DanJames -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 2:33:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

so there are no data to support a younger earth?


I know of none that are widely accepted by the scientific community. Most of the claims made by those who promote a young earth are directed toward casting doubt on either the arguments I mentioned before or the honesty of the scientific community, rather than offering positive evidence in favor of a young earth.

Others here may disagree.

Some do. Please allow me to cast a bit of doubt on either the arguments ES just mentioned or on the honesty of the scientific community rather than offer any positive evidence in favor of a young earth.

Charlotte, as far as the knowledge of geology is concerned, you're not going to find much help from anyone on this site. You'd have to go to Answers in Genesis to find info on that topic. Ask a biology question and you'll get a lot of help, but not so much with geology. But allow me to help you a bit if I may.
Is there evidence for a young earth? Of course. Is there evidence for an old earth? Sure! The Young Earth Creationist looks at the earth and sees a foundation of the original creation (perhaps what the old-earther would call pre-cambrian). It is overlaid with a massive sediment layer that was the beginning of the flood (perhaps what the old-earther would call cambrian). Then a bunch of layers layed down as a result of the prevailing Flood waters (everything else) Then all of this stuff was overlaid with further sediment, scarified, and other geologic activity that prevailed after the Flood such as the Grand Canyon et al. So where is the evidence for a young earth? Well, it's not the right question. The evidence for a young earth is also the evidence for an old earth.
To be fair and honest, if this is true then the current system of radiometric dating is hopelessly flawed. Some would stake the lives of their mothers on the absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, and that which has declared to be 3,000,000 years old is that old. Well others aren't so convinced. But you can read more about that from the Answers in Genesis website. Thanks for the post, and happy hunting.

DanJames



drmark -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 2:34:11 PM)

Whoa, Charlotte, you're new here so don't believe everything the agno-atheists post on this S&O forum! Give the YECs here some time to respond and you'll have plenty of reassurance about the accuracy of Scripture and the inaccuracy of man's "science".

quote:

Why does geology support such an old age for the Earth?
Now, first of all, geology does not support an "old age for the earth". Absolutely no one (but God) was around umpteen zillion years ago (so the geologists think) to observe geologic phenomena occuring. So all the (unsubstantiated) data that essentialsaltes and his agno-atheist colleagues will throw at you are based on faulty presuppositions and worldview assumptions which grossly conflict with the Biblical account of origins as documented in Genesis. They choose to use man's science as their authority while I choose to use God's Word as my Authority. Which do you choose, Charlotte?

quote:

so there are no data to support a younger earth?
Secondly, there are numerous lines of evidence supporting the age of the universe (and earth) to be less than 10,000 years old. You can read about some of them IN THIS ARTICLE. Of course, the agno-atheists (and even some well-meaning Old Earth creationists) will attempt to counter these data but all they have to go on is their interpretation of evidence based on the faulty presuppositions and wordview I mentioned above. The evidence (or data) is all the same - it's how we interpret the evidence that leads to differing conclusions. How do you interpret the data for the age of the earth, Charlotte?

quote:

Can you help me and point out the holes in the science so I can answer this question?
So now maybe we can answer this issue that you first raised. There's no need to "point out the holes in the science", rather you should point out the holes in the faulty presuppositions and worldviews of those who claim geology "proves" the earth is 3.5 billlion years old (or whatever their current pet theory predicts). I think you will find a good understanding of the issues regarding naturalism IN THIS ARTICLE. Pay close attention to section V: Geology - an objective science?



charlotte123 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 2:50:50 PM)

Thank you!
I believe what Genesis says. But don't understand how geology confirms it.
That was the point of my question.
On the surface, they appear (in my drop out got a GED estimation) to be mutually exclusive. But I know they can't be.
Just looking for a way to reconcile the two because I don't think God would try to confuse me on purpose, so the science must be where the problem is. Or the interpretation of the science rather. I just want a way to understand and communicate the truth when someone I talk to thinks faith=ignorance.



DanJames -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 3:01:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

Thank you!
I believe what Genesis says. But don't understand how geology confirms it.
That was the point of my question.
On the surface, they appear (in my drop out got a GED estimation) to be mutually exclusive. But I know they can't be.
Just looking for a way to reconcile the two because I don't think God would try to confuse me on purpose, so the science must be where the problem is. Or the interpretation of the science rather. I just want a way to understand and communicate the truth when someone I talk to thinks faith=ignorance.

Don't get too angry at science, it's good and usually works. I find more about the majesty of God every day, and it's thanks science. It may be leavened with the wild results of years of building assumption upon assumption, and maybe a little bit of lies, but biology, geology, and astrophysics continues to press on, making observations that lead us closer to answering the question of How God Did It.



drmark -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 3:07:27 PM)

quote:

I believe what Genesis says. But don't understand how geology confirms it.
That was the point of my question.
Just a simple reminder, Charlotte - geology (or any of man's fallible fields of science) cannot "confirm" the validity of Scripture. At this point in time, however, there is nothing from any field of science that disproves or contradicts any historical fact or scientific observation recorded in God's Word. And to me, that is a hugely effective apologetic for the reliability of Scripture and the Truth of Christianity!



cow451 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 3:20:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

Thank you!
I believe what Genesis says. But don't understand how geology confirms it.
That was the point of my question.
On the surface, they appear (in my drop out got a GED estimation) to be mutually exclusive. But I know they can't be.
Just looking for a way to reconcile the two because I don't think God would try to confuse me on purpose, so the science must be where the problem is. Or the interpretation of the science rather. I just want a way to understand and communicate the truth when someone I talk to thinks faith=ignorance.



It doesn't make sense that God would try to confuse you. You didn't become a Christian because somebody told you the earth is 6000 years old, so don't think that has to be a cornerstone of your faith. Questioning the way you currently interpret Genesis is not the same thing as questioning your faith.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 3:36:36 PM)

quote:

Secondly, there are numerous lines of evidence supporting the age of the universe (and earth) to be less than 10,000 years old. You can read about some of them IN THIS ARTICLE.


There are 14 'arguments' here. First of all, I stand by my statement that none of these are widely accepted by the scientific community.

#1: Not geology. Age of earth ~100s of millions of years
#2: Not geology. Stellar dynamics show that even very heavy stars should live for millions of years before they go supernova, so if young earthism is correct, there should be no supernova remnants at all.
#3: Not geology. Even if the argument is right, it provides an age of around 100,000 years.
#4: This one is about geology. Even if the argument is right, it provides an age of around 10 million years.
#5: Quasi-geology. Argument typically ignores other sinks of salts. Even if the argument is right, it provides an age of in the tens of millions of years.
#6: Geology. Unfortunately, it is a big fat chunk of pseodoscience. Paleomagnetism demonstrates that the magnetic field is not decaying & is old. Floods do not affect magnetic fields.
#7: Geology. Under pressure and temperature, rocks are ductile. Under a slow strains, rock strata can deform without cracking.
#8: Not geology. Does not address the age of the earth.
#9: Geology. There are alternative explanations (radon) for the formation of radiohaloes that make them agree with all the other radiometric dating methods.
#10: Geology. This one is complex that all I can do is rely on the experts. They're not convinced.
#11: Geology. There are known geological sources of background radiation that can create radiocarbon in the samples. Actual radiocarbon content still implies 'ages' of around 50,000 years.
#12: Not geology. Says nothing about age of earth.
#13: Not geology. Says nothing about age of earth.
#14: Not geology. Says nothing about age of earth.

Hardly any of those actually provide a measurement consistent with standard young earth creationism. Even if argument #1 is correct, saying that the galaxy is younger than 100 million years is not the same as saying that it's less than 10 thousand years old.



charlotte123 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 3:56:41 PM)

Thanks to everybody for the links, information and respectful answers to my questions. I have a lot to think about and a lot of sites to check out. I appreciate your time.
Have fun geniuses.[;)]



drmark -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 3:56:52 PM)

quote:

First of all, I stand by my statement that none of these are widely accepted by the scientific community
Well, Charlotte, here's a perfect example of how science by democracy works. Do you see how the faulty assumptions of uniformitarian naturalism (fancy talk for the physical world has been pretty much the same for zillions of years because that's what they assume and want to believe) allow some folks to interpret the data to suit their needs. Of course, essentialsaltes isn't telling us that 50,000 years or 100,000 years or even 10 million years is way too short for his beloved religion of evolutionism to work out. He only wants to cast doubt on the Biblical timeline derived from a plain sense reading of the Genesis account. So, by this logic, evolution is as scientifically questionable as YEC, yet atheists will cling to their religion all the while claiming it to be proven science. So sad!



charlotte123 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 4:02:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

First of all, I stand by my statement that none of these are widely accepted by the scientific community
Well, Charlotte, here's a perfect example of how science by democracy works. Do you see how the faulty assumptions of uniformitarian naturalism (fancy talk for the physical world has been pretty much the same for zillions of years because that's what they assume and want to believe) allow some folks to interpret the data to suit their needs. Of course, essentialsaltes isn't telling us that 50,000 years or 100,000 years or even 10 million years is way too short for his beloved religion of evolutionism to work out. He only wants to cast doubt on the Biblical timeline derived from a plain sense reading of the Genesis account. So, by this logic, evolution is as scientifically questionable as YEC, yet atheists will cling to their religion all the while claiming it to be proven science. So sad!


I feel your pain. I agree that the time it would take for evolution to produce as many complex life forms by chance useful mutations is way longer that the 'widely accepted scientific' data suggest the earth has been in exsistance. Unless they had some devine intervention.



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 4:45:29 PM)

quote:

...the time it would take for evolution to produce as many complex life forms by chance useful mutations is way longer that the 'widely accepted scientific' data suggest the earth has been in exsistance.


How did you work this out?



charlotte123 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 4:51:52 PM)

I agreed with somone else's work.
www.windmillministries.org

quote:

ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake

quote:

...the time it would take for evolution to produce as many complex life forms by chance useful mutations is way longer that the 'widely accepted scientific' data suggest the earth has been in exsistance.


How did you work this out?



drmark -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 4:57:26 PM)

quote:

How did you work this out?
She probably did not, but Dr Henry Morris has shown the Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution!



DanJames -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 5:20:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

I agreed with somone else's work.
www.windmillministries.org

quote:

ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake

quote:

...the time it would take for evolution to produce as many complex life forms by chance useful mutations is way longer that the 'widely accepted scientific' data suggest the earth has been in exsistance.


How did you work this out?


Are you sure you want to open up this can of worms? Because they're going to take you for a ride if you don't start ignoring them now.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 5:21:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

First of all, I stand by my statement that none of these are widely accepted by the scientific community
Well, Charlotte, here's a perfect example of how science by democracy works.


I know it's counterintuitive to ask the experts what they think, but if you do not accept expert advice, you are bound to be led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing.

quote:

Of course, essentialsaltes isn't telling us that 50,000 years or 100,000 years or even 10 million years is way too short for his beloved religion of evolutionism to work out.


You are changing the subject. The subject was, "Where is the data that show that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?" The data you provided does not support that view.



cow451 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 5:25:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotte123

I agreed with somone else's work.
www.windmillministries.org

quote:

ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake

quote:

...the time it would take for evolution to produce as many complex life forms by chance useful mutations is way longer that the 'widely accepted scientific' data suggest the earth has been in exsistance.


How did you work this out?



And he world-class hedges about the age of the earth.

So there are multiple views on how God created human life. These views differ mostly on how to reconcile Biblical creation with scientific observations. According to surveys over the last twenty years, Christians are evenly divided between the Young Earth and Old Earth views.



DanJames -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 5:28:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

First of all, I stand by my statement that none of these are widely accepted by the scientific community
Well, Charlotte, here's a perfect example of how science by democracy works.


I know it's counterintuitive to ask the experts what they think, but if you do not accept expert advice, you are bound to be led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing.

What you mean to say is, "we need to ask the uniformitarian geologists what they think, if you do not accept the uniformitarian advice, you are bound to be led to a Young earth conclusion by Young-earth geologists."
quote:



quote:

Of course, essentialsaltes isn't telling us that 50,000 years or 100,000 years or even 10 million years is way too short for his beloved religion of evolutionism to work out.


You are changing the subject. The subject was, "Where is the data that show that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?" The data you provided does not support that view.

No, I think the question is "where are the holes". Strangely you have done nothing but attempt to stucko them over.



charlotte123 -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 5:36:28 PM)

This is a very interesting subject. I don't think either side is ever going to be able to prove the other is wrong.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 6:49:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

First of all, I stand by my statement that none of these are widely accepted by the scientific community
Well, Charlotte, here's a perfect example of how science by democracy works.


I know it's counterintuitive to ask the experts what they think, but if you do not accept expert advice, you are bound to be led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing.

What you mean to say is, "we need to ask the uniformitarian geologists what they think, if you do not accept the uniformitarian advice, you are bound to be led to a Young earth conclusion by Young-earth geologists."


That's not what I said, and it's not what I meant to say. If you ask 100 people with doctorates in physics about relativity, you'll get 99 who accept it and one who doesn't. The same is true in geology and the age of the earth. Most experts agree it is old. Apart from preconceived theological biases, why should one prefer the tiny minority position when you examine the positions of knowledgeable experts?



unclemonkey -> RE: Help my apologetics (9/29/2008 10:05:59 PM)

ORIGINAL: charlotte123
quote:

I believe what Genesis says. But don't understand how geology confirms it.

Geology can neither confirm nor deny the Bible and shouldn’t be used to try to do either. As the word of God the Bible is true and ANY “scientific interpretation” that disagrees with the Bible is wrong. It is as simple as that.

It is appropriate, however, to confirm or deny the interpretations geologists give us by viewing them from a Biblical perspective. I.e. Sound Biblical hermeneutics yields the conclusion that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. ANY interpretation that disputes that is simply wrong because it is not based on God’s revealed truth.

To prevent anyone from jumping on the implication that I am saying that any geological interpretation that fits a 6,000 year old earth is correct I will go ahead and address it now. Agreement with the Biblical age of the earth does NOT in itself make an interpretation correct, but disagreement with the Biblical age of the earth DOES in itself make an interpretation wrong.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI