getting dates about a young earth

[nogard]

Has anyone talked about the ice age as evidence for an earth that is at least older than 6,000 years? It has nothing to do with carbon dating. Back during the ice age, large glaciers formed over land. When the weather warmed, the glaciers receded. This is evidenced by the smoothed out land and fertile topsoil that can be found in the northern United States. The topography of the land completely changes around the points the glacial borders ended. The geological evidence for an ice age is undeniable; in fact, according to geologists, there is evidence that multiple ice ages have happened over and over again throughout the course of history. But even if you would just concede to the most recent ice age, that would put the earth, at it's youngest, at 15,000-20,000 years old.

If you think carbon dating is the only evidence evolutionists have of an old earth, then you are sorely mistaken. Another example is being able to see stars that we would only see if the sun was millions of years old, since that's how long it would take for light to travel from the sun, to that star, then back to earth.

 

[Tintin]

Has anyone talked about the ice age as evidence for an earth that is at least older than 6,000 years? It has nothing to do with carbon dating. Back during the ice age, large glaciers formed over land. When the weather warmed, the glaciers receded. This is evidenced by the smoothed out land and fertile topsoil that can be found in the northern United States. The topography of the land completely changes around the points the glacial borders ended. The geological evidence for an ice age is undeniable; in fact, according to geologists, there is evidence that multiple ice ages have happened over and over again throughout the course of history. But even if you would just concede to the most recent ice age, that would put the earth, at it's youngest, at 15,000-20,000 years old.

If you think carbon dating is the only evidence evolutionists have of an old earth, then you are sorely mistaken. Another example is being able to see stars that we would only see if the sun was millions of years old, since that's how long it would take for light to travel from the sun, to that star, then back to earth.

The one Ice Age occurred a couple hundred years after the Great Flood. It takes incredibly abnormal conditions for an Ice Age to occur. The Great Flood was the catalyst. That's the only way it can occur. The Ice Age is believed (by biblical creationists) to have lasted for a grand total of 700 years. So no, the Ice Age isn't a string in the old earth mythology's bow. Nice try though.

 

[Dino246]

Another example is being able to see stars that we would only see if the sun was millions of years old, since that's how long it would take for light to travel from the sun, to that star, then back to earth.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. The starlight we see didn't originate with our sun.

As for distant starlight, Jason Lisle (Ph.D. Astrophysics) has done some good videos on the subject. His take is that we can't measure the one-way speed of light. This has significant implications for starlight and apparent time of its travel.

 

[nogard]

haha, what kind of half-baked baloney is that? The speed of light is a measurable constant. It travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles/sec. This is universally accepted and confirmed among the entire scientific community. But hey, some guy with a phd says otherwise, so feel free to keep your head in the sand.

This is what bothers me so much about young-earth creationists. Your motto is "Find and cling to any possible or plausible reason that can dismiss what is basically common knowledge in the scientific community."

Your motto should be, with this and with everything else: "What is the truth, regardless of my preconceived notions"

 

[Tintin]

haha, what kind of half-baked baloney is that? The speed of light is a measurable constant. It travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles/sec. This is universally accepted and confirmed among the entire scientific community. But hey, some guy with a phd says otherwise, so feel free to keep your head in the sand.

This is what bothers me so much about young-earth creationists. Your motto is "Find and cling to any possible or plausible reason that can dismiss what is basically common knowledge in the scientific community."

Your motto should be, with this and with everything else: "What is the truth, regardless of my preconceived notions"

Yay for consensus science or something? Why again are we looking for truth from secular humanists who worship themselves, not God. Why are we entertaining the ideas of people who look for explanations to anything, but only so long as it has a purely naturalistic explanation? Besides, cosmology isn't science, it's philosophy. The difference is that biblical creationists work outwards from the Bible (the infallible Word of God).

 

[Tintin]

haha, what kind of half-baked baloney is that? The speed of light is a measurable constant. It travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles/sec. This is universally accepted and confirmed among the entire scientific community. But hey, some guy with a phd says otherwise, so feel free to keep your head in the sand.

This is what bothers me so much about young-earth creationists. Your motto is "Find and cling to any possible or plausible reason that can dismiss what is basically common knowledge in the scientific community."

Your motto should be, with this and with everything else: "What is the truth, regardless of my preconceived notions"

No, no. You're confusing the issue. That's evolutionists who do that. They dismiss any possible or plausible reason if it points back to a Creator God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

(I'm on an old computer that won't play youtube... maybe I can look at the vid later)

"The ball weighs more than air..."
sounds good! now, if the ball weighs more, can we say there's an attraction between the earth and the ball?

If the ball weighed more than the air. it would not have resistance from the air, and keep on going.. Or if anything, the small resistance the air does provide will stop the ball eventually and it would just stop. where it is at..

If there is no gravity, nothing could bring it back down (or up depending on where you are on the earth) or better yet, toward the center of the earth.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Has anyone talked about the ice age as evidence for an earth that is at least older than 6,000 years? It has nothing to do with carbon dating. Back during the ice age, large glaciers formed over land. When the weather warmed, the glaciers receded. This is evidenced by the smoothed out land and fertile topsoil that can be found in the northern United States. The topography of the land completely changes around the points the glacial borders ended. The geological evidence for an ice age is undeniable; in fact, according to geologists, there is evidence that multiple ice ages have happened over and over again throughout the course of history. But even if you would just concede to the most recent ice age, that would put the earth, at it's youngest, at 15,000-20,000 years old.

If you think carbon dating is the only evidence evolutionists have of an old earth, then you are sorely mistaken. Another example is being able to see stars that we would only see if the sun was millions of years old, since that's how long it would take for light to travel from the sun, to that star, then back to earth.

Actually the ICE Age is adequately explained as following noah's world wide flood..

 

[valiant]

The one Ice Age occurred a couple hundred years after the Great Flood. It takes incredibly abnormal conditions for an Ice Age to occur. The Great Flood was the catalyst. That's the only way it can occur. The Ice Age is believed (by biblical creationists) to have lasted for a grand total of 700 years. So no, the Ice Age isn't a string in the old earth mythology's bow. Nice try though.

So as you take the flood at 2400 BC that makes the ice age 2300 - 16O0 BBC. Strange that the histories know nothing about it?

 

[Dan_473]

No there is no attraction to the earth because there is no Newtonian gravity in reality. It would be more dependent on the ball itself and its properties and the properties of the medium surrounding it.



Lol only problem is that it is a critical bit of information pertaining to the age of the earth which supports the Bible.

say, GodIsSalvation, how about if we open another thread, or we could pm, on the subject of gravity? let me know, plzzzz

 

[Dan_473]

Has anyone talked about the ice age as evidence for an earth that is at least older than 6,000 years? It has nothing to do with carbon dating. Back during the ice age, large glaciers formed over land. When the weather warmed, the glaciers receded. This is evidenced by the smoothed out land and fertile topsoil that can be found in the northern United States. The topography of the land completely changes around the points the glacial borders ended. The geological evidence for an ice age is undeniable; in fact, according to geologists, there is evidence that multiple ice ages have happened over and over again throughout the course of history. But even if you would just concede to the most recent ice age, that would put the earth, at it's youngest, at 15,000-20,000 years old.

If you think carbon dating is the only evidence evolutionists have of an old earth, then you are sorely mistaken. Another example is being able to see stars that we would only see if the sun was millions of years old, since that's how long it would take for light to travel from the sun, to that star, then back to earth.

interesting ideas!

what date do you put the earth at?

how do you feel it lines up with the creation stories in the scriptures?

 

[nogard]

No, no. You're confusing the issue. That's evolutionists who do that. They dismiss any possible or plausible reason if it points back to a Creator God.

I agree, it does work the other way around too. But young earth creationists should check themselves when they decide to ally with a very unscientific theory like the one you are bringing up concerning the speed of light. Even Answers in Genesis lists that there are doubts to the merit of the belief that the speed of light changes over time. So don't just cling to any theory that supports your beliefs, but test it and see if it is something that has any merit at all.

 

[valiant]

Actually the ICE Age is adequately explained as following noah's world wide flood..

in 2300-1600 BC by whom? LOL

 

[nogard]

interesting ideas!

what date do you put the earth at?

how do you feel it lines up with the creation stories in the scriptures?

I truly don't know how old the earth or the universe is, but what I can feel confident about is that it is definitely older than 6,000 years. Remember, that would make the beginning of the world around 4,000 BC. With the Flood happening some time after that. Contrary to what people are proposing, that is simply not enough time for an ice age to come and go. Massive glaciers don't disappear overnight! Also, Chinese history goes back further than 4,000 BC. I mean, there is just so much evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, I'm not even scratching the surface of it. But that evidence starts to shrink after about the 25,000-30,000 year mark.

After that, a bit more scientific guesswork takes the forefront. Carbon dating is the main source used to give the 4.6 billion number, but things such as evidence of asteroid impacts and the starlight conundrum also point to an earth that may be at least millions of years old.

 

[valiant]

Yay for consensus science or something? Why again are we looking for truth from secular humanists who worship themselves, not God. Why are we entertaining the ideas of people who look for explanations to anything, but only so long as it has a purely naturalistic explanation? Besides, cosmology isn't science, it's philosophy. The difference is that biblical creationists work outwards from the Bible (the infallible Word of God).

but its interpreters are by no means infallible !!!!

 

[valiant]

I truly don't know how old the earth or the universe is, but what I can feel confident about is that it is definitely older than 6,000 years. Remember, that would make the beginning of the world around 4,000 BC. With the Flood happening some time after that. Contrary to what people are proposing, that is simply not enough time for an ice age to come and go. Massive glaciers don't disappear overnight! Also, Chinese history goes back further than 4,000 BC. I mean, there is just so much evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, I'm not even scratching the surface of it. But that evidence starts to shrink after about the 25,000-30,000 year mark.

After that, a bit more scientific guesswork takes the forefront. Carbon dating is the main source used to give the 4.6 billion number, but things such as evidence of asteroid impacts and the starlight conundrum also point to an earth that may be at least millions of years old.

Carbon Dating is NOT the main source for 4.6 billion years, there are many others cited such as radiometric dating.

 

[nogard]

So as you take the flood at 2400 BC that makes the ice age 2300 - 16O0 BBC. Strange that the histories know nothing about it?

I just want to reinforce this point. There is simply not enough time for an ice age to occur in a 6,000 year old earth. We have no historical account of anyone living through ice age in history in a period where historical accounts were abundant (trust me, someone would have commented on it. I'd be a bit hard to notice).

 

[nogard]

Carbon Dating is NOT the main source for 4.6 billion years, there are many others cited.

They all have to do with testing rocks or ice or coral or asteroids for age. The 4.6 comes from how much uranium turned into lead in zircon or whatever. While there are many different methods used to come up with that age, they all fall under the umbrella of dating materials based on the assumption of age. Granted, the fact that they were able to date all those different things and come to the same conclusions does reinforce the probability of the results being correct, but it still leaves room for error in my mind.

 

[Dino246]

haha, what kind of half-baked baloney is that? The speed of light is a measurable constant. It travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 miles/sec. This is universally accepted and confirmed among the entire scientific community. But hey, some guy with a phd says otherwise, so feel free to keep your head in the sand.

This is what bothers me so much about young-earth creationists. Your motto is "Find and cling to any possible or plausible reason that can dismiss what is basically common knowledge in the scientific community."

Your motto should be, with this and with everything else: "What is the truth, regardless of my preconceived notions"

First, check your attitude. Your input will be disregarded if you choose to act like the hind end of a donkey, regardless of whether it has merit to the discussion.

Second, check what I wrote. The ONE-WAY speed of light.

Third, before criticizing, try checking out the evidence presented.

Fourth, and maybe it should be first, before you go pointing out the speck in another's eye, check out the log in your own.

Fifth, generalizations are generally wrong. Your generalization is specifically wrong.

Sixth, next time someone asks what you mean by something, try explaining it.

If you want to discuss politely and respectfully, then you're welcome here. If you want to throw around garbage, you're welcome to do it somewhere else.

 

[valiant]

interesting ideas!

what date do you put the earth at?

over 10000 years,

how do you feel it lines up with the creation stories in the scriptures?

It fits well with them, properly interpreted,