Age of the Earth

Dayton

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2003
443
8
41
✟623.00
by Carl Wieland
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 23(1):8–13
December 2000–February 2001

The young man, a carpenter in his early twenties who had recently taken up downstairs lodging in my home, looked at me warily. ‘All right then,’ he said, ‘how old do you guys think the earth is?’

Billions of years old? Not according to true science!

I knew he had had no Christian upbringing, knew nothing of the Bible, and would have been thoroughly ‘evolutionized’ at school. I had just been telling him about my work for a creation ministry, and he was most curious. But when he asked his question about the earth’s age, my inner response was, ‘Uh oh, here it comes.’

Knowing how people in our culture are indoctrinated with belief in an earth millions of years old, I braced myself for the usual incredulous rejection when I said what I truly believed, ‘It’s only a few thousand years old—less than 10,000, probably around 6,000 years or so.’

To my surprise, he said, ‘That’s good.’

‘Why?’ I blurted out.

‘Because,’ he replied, ‘I’ve always thought it looked young.’

Pondering this incident at a later date, I realized that my own reaction (it blew my mind somewhat) showed that, however strong my conviction in the biblical record, and however strong some recent-creation evidences might be, I had become unconsciously influenced by the notion that the earth, though young, looks old.

In fact, there are many firmly Bible-believing Christians who think that way. Even in the ‘kosher’ creationist literature there are sometimes attempts to explain why the earth has an ‘appearance of age’—i.e., looks old.

But in fact it’s easy to demonstrate that this cannot be true. Even if the earth really were millions or billions of years old, one could not say that it ‘looked old’—that one glance at rock layers and canyons just ‘shouted’, ‘Old Earth!’. To justify that statement, I don’t even have to get into sophisticated references to modern philosophers of science, who agree that no facts ‘speak for themselves’ anyway. All we need do is remember that some of the greatest minds that ever lived, the fathers of modern science—Newton, for example—looked at the same earth that we look at today, and did not ‘see’ millions of years. Just as the young carpenter, a truly independent thinker who had resisted the indoctrination of our age, did not ‘see’ the millions of years either.

The earth is only seen as ‘looking old’ because we all take unconscious belief systems to the evidence. In other words, it could be said that the earth looks neither old nor young—it all depends on the ‘belief glasses’ through which one is viewing (interpreting) the evidence. Or to put it another way, it is just as valid for me to say, looking at the world through the ‘lens’ of the Bible (rather than the humanistic, evolutionized lens of our culture), that it ‘looks young’ (i.e. thousands, not billions of years old).

Summarizing just some of the evidence that is consistent with a young age for the world:

1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.1

2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.

Helium, a light gas, is formed during radioactive alpha-decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth’s gravity.2 Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000-million-year age of the atmosphere.

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
a) Common fossils.
There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.

b) Special examples.
We’ve often featured in this magazine instances which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently ‘freeze-framed’ in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs (see Creation magazine for photos—we had only one-off permission for some of them).

4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.
a) Coal formation.
Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.4

b) Stalactites and stalagmites.
Many examples in Creation magazine have shown that cave decorations form quickly, given the right conditions. The photo (in Creation magazine) is of a mining tunnel in Mt Isa, Queensland, Australia. The tunnel was only 50 years old when the photo was taken.

c) Opals.

Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals — no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.

d) Rock and fossil formation.


Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. The ‘petrified’ bowler hat (above right, by Renton Maclachlan) is on display in a mining museum in New Zealand. The photo (above left) shows a roll of no. 8 fencing wire which, in only 20 years, became encased in solid sandstone, containing hundreds of fossil shells. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions—one process has even been patented.5

The famous multiple levels of ‘fossil forests’ in America’s Yellowstone National Park (photo right, by Clyde Webster) have now been shown to have formed in one volcanic event.6 Successive mudflows transported upright trees (minus most of their roots and branches) whose tree-ring signatures confirm that they grew at the one time.

5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
Each year, the world’s rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age.7

Despite some inevitable unsolved problems in such a complex issue (see below for why radiometric dating is not infallible), it is thus not hard to establish:

i) The reasonableness of believing what the Creator of the world says in His Word, the Bible, about the world being thousands, not millions or billions, of years old.

ii) The fact that the earth neither ‘looks old’ nor ‘looks young’ as such—it all depends on the ‘glasses’ through which the evidence is interpreted. We all need to be aware of how much we have been conditioned by our culture to ‘see’ geological things as ‘looking old’.

The earth is old!
But let us stretch our minds still further. It concerns the way we use words such as ‘old’ or ‘young’ for the earth’s age. I actually believe that the earth is old—very old. It is thousands of years old—as many as six thousand, in fact. Does that angle surprise you? My point is to make us aware of how we have allowed our culture to condition us into thinking that a thousand years is a very short time, and that ‘old’ always means millions or billions of years.

That is why tourists, coming across the ‘petrified waterwheel’ in Western Australia gawk in amazement. ‘It only took sixty years to cover this thing in solid rock?’ Sixty years, with water carrying dissolved limestone dripping night and day onto an object, is actually an incredibly long time. It is our culture, soaked in the myth of ‘deep time’, that has indoctrinated us into the belief that a million years (an unimaginable time period, in reality) is only like ‘yesterday’.

We need to recapture our thoughts from this enslavement to secular philosophy (see Colossians 2:8, 2 Corinthians 10:4–5). The Bible concurs with this way of looking at things. In 1 Chronicles 4:22, it refers to human records as ‘ancient’. But it is clear from the Bible’s genealogies that at the time of its writing, ‘ancient’ meant no more than some 4,000 years—certainly not billions. This realization puts things in perspective when Scripture also talks of ‘ancient mountains’ (Deuteronomy 33:15), an ‘ancient’ river (Judges 5:21) and ‘ancient times’ (Isaiah 46:10). Compared to a person’s lifetime, these things are indeed ancient—thousands of years old. The ‘millions of years’ idea is nowhere found in the Bible.

What’s more, accepting a billions-of-years time-span for creation (very common among evangelical leaders) undermines the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Creator of the world (see Q&A: Jesus Christ for evidence) — see below. Not only that, but it turns the whole logic of the Gospel upside down, by putting the effects of the Curse before the Fall. Death, thorns, cancer, suffering and bloodshed millions of years before sin must be accepted if the fossils were laid down before people were created. Such thinking twists the Bible into foolish self-contradiction, because it would put death, the ‘last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26) into a creation which God calls ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31).

So next time you hear someone say that the earth ‘looks old’, you can respectfully disagree—it can look almost ‘any age you want’, depending on how you interpret the factual evidence through the belief system in your mind.

And if someone says the earth is old—you can agree with them, so long as you define what you mean by old—it’s really, really old, in fact it’s ancient. Some six entire millennia have elapsed since God made the world (once perfect, now corrupted due to sin and the Curse) in six real days.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/
 
Dayton said:
by Carl Wieland
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 23(1):8–13
December 2000–February 2001

The young man, a carpenter in his early twenties who had recently taken up downstairs lodging in my home, looked at me warily. ‘All right then,’ he said, ‘how old do you guys think the earth is?’

Billions of years old? Not according to true science!

I knew he had had no Christian upbringing, knew nothing of the Bible, and would have been thoroughly ‘evolutionized’ at school. I had just been telling him about my work for a creation ministry, and he was most curious. But when he asked his question about the earth’s age, my inner response was, ‘Uh oh, here it comes.’

Knowing how people in our culture are indoctrinated with belief in an earth millions of years old, I braced myself for the usual incredulous rejection when I said what I truly believed, ‘It’s only a few thousand years old—less than 10,000, probably around 6,000 years or so.’

To my surprise, he said, ‘That’s good.’

‘Why?’ I blurted out.

‘Because,’ he replied, ‘I’ve always thought it looked young.’

Pondering this incident at a later date, I realized that my own reaction (it blew my mind somewhat) showed that, however strong my conviction in the biblical record, and however strong some recent-creation evidences might be, I had become unconsciously influenced by the notion that the earth, though young, looks old.

In fact, there are many firmly Bible-believing Christians who think that way. Even in the ‘kosher’ creationist literature there are sometimes attempts to explain why the earth has an ‘appearance of age’—i.e., looks old.

But in fact it’s easy to demonstrate that this cannot be true. Even if the earth really were millions or billions of years old, one could not say that it ‘looked old’—that one glance at rock layers and canyons just ‘shouted’, ‘Old Earth!’. To justify that statement, I don’t even have to get into sophisticated references to modern philosophers of science, who agree that no facts ‘speak for themselves’ anyway. All we need do is remember that some of the greatest minds that ever lived, the fathers of modern science—Newton, for example—looked at the same earth that we look at today, and did not ‘see’ millions of years. Just as the young carpenter, a truly independent thinker who had resisted the indoctrination of our age, did not ‘see’ the millions of years either.

The earth is only seen as ‘looking old’ because we all take unconscious belief systems to the evidence. In other words, it could be said that the earth looks neither old nor young—it all depends on the ‘belief glasses’ through which one is viewing (interpreting) the evidence. Or to put it another way, it is just as valid for me to say, looking at the world through the ‘lens’ of the Bible (rather than the humanistic, evolutionized lens of our culture), that it ‘looks young’ (i.e. thousands, not billions of years old).

Summarizing just some of the evidence that is consistent with a young age for the world:

1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other ‘recycling’ processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.1

2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.

Helium, a light gas, is formed during radioactive alpha-decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth’s gravity.2 Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000-million-year age of the atmosphere.

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
a) Common fossils.
There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.

b) Special examples.
We’ve often featured in this magazine instances which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently ‘freeze-framed’ in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs (see Creation magazine for photos—we had only one-off permission for some of them).

4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.
a) Coal formation.
Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.4

b) Stalactites and stalagmites.
Many examples in Creation magazine have shown that cave decorations form quickly, given the right conditions. The photo (in Creation magazine) is of a mining tunnel in Mt Isa, Queensland, Australia. The tunnel was only 50 years old when the photo was taken.

c) Opals.

Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals — no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.

d) Rock and fossil formation.


Scientists have long known that petrifaction can happen quickly. The ‘petrified’ bowler hat (above right, by Renton Maclachlan) is on display in a mining museum in New Zealand. The photo (above left) shows a roll of no. 8 fencing wire which, in only 20 years, became encased in solid sandstone, containing hundreds of fossil shells. Petrified wood can also form quickly under the right conditions—one process has even been patented.5

The famous multiple levels of ‘fossil forests’ in America’s Yellowstone National Park (photo right, by Clyde Webster) have now been shown to have formed in one volcanic event.6 Successive mudflows transported upright trees (minus most of their roots and branches) whose tree-ring signatures confirm that they grew at the one time.

5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
Each year, the world’s rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age.7

Despite some inevitable unsolved problems in such a complex issue (see below for why radiometric dating is not infallible), it is thus not hard to establish:

i) The reasonableness of believing what the Creator of the world says in His Word, the Bible, about the world being thousands, not millions or billions, of years old.

ii) The fact that the earth neither ‘looks old’ nor ‘looks young’ as such—it all depends on the ‘glasses’ through which the evidence is interpreted. We all need to be aware of how much we have been conditioned by our culture to ‘see’ geological things as ‘looking old’.

The earth is old!
But let us stretch our minds still further. It concerns the way we use words such as ‘old’ or ‘young’ for the earth’s age. I actually believe that the earth is old—very old. It is thousands of years old—as many as six thousand, in fact. Does that angle surprise you? My point is to make us aware of how we have allowed our culture to condition us into thinking that a thousand years is a very short time, and that ‘old’ always means millions or billions of years.

That is why tourists, coming across the ‘petrified waterwheel’ in Western Australia gawk in amazement. ‘It only took sixty years to cover this thing in solid rock?’ Sixty years, with water carrying dissolved limestone dripping night and day onto an object, is actually an incredibly long time. It is our culture, soaked in the myth of ‘deep time’, that has indoctrinated us into the belief that a million years (an unimaginable time period, in reality) is only like ‘yesterday’.

We need to recapture our thoughts from this enslavement to secular philosophy (see Colossians 2:8, 2 Corinthians 10:4–5). The Bible concurs with this way of looking at things. In 1 Chronicles 4:22, it refers to human records as ‘ancient’. But it is clear from the Bible’s genealogies that at the time of its writing, ‘ancient’ meant no more than some 4,000 years—certainly not billions. This realization puts things in perspective when Scripture also talks of ‘ancient mountains’ (Deuteronomy 33:15), an ‘ancient’ river (Judges 5:21) and ‘ancient times’ (Isaiah 46:10). Compared to a person’s lifetime, these things are indeed ancient—thousands of years old. The ‘millions of years’ idea is nowhere found in the Bible.

What’s more, accepting a billions-of-years time-span for creation (very common among evangelical leaders) undermines the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Creator of the world (see Q&A: Jesus Christ for evidence) — see below. Not only that, but it turns the whole logic of the Gospel upside down, by putting the effects of the Curse before the Fall. Death, thorns, cancer, suffering and bloodshed millions of years before sin must be accepted if the fossils were laid down before people were created. Such thinking twists the Bible into foolish self-contradiction, because it would put death, the ‘last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26) into a creation which God calls ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31).

So next time you hear someone say that the earth ‘looks old’, you can respectfully disagree—it can look almost ‘any age you want’, depending on how you interpret the factual evidence through the belief system in your mind.

And if someone says the earth is old—you can agree with them, so long as you define what you mean by old—it’s really, really old, in fact it’s ancient. Some six entire millennia have elapsed since God made the world (once perfect, now corrupted due to sin and the Curse) in six real days.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/
If any of these purported "facts" were scientifically accurate, why are they only in some piece of fiction in "Creation Ex Nihilo/Answersingenesis" and not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or textbook?

Also, bits and pieces of a religious text written in ancient, un-enlightened times have nothing to do with science and current theories/study.
 
Upvote 0

SirKenin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2003
6,518
526
from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits
✟9,370.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
haha. That drivel is the best you guys could do to debunk a rather exhaustive presentation? I would have thought you boys could do better than that.

Maybe it isn't in science mags because it contradicts mainstream science. People that do that, believe it or not, get laughed at and shunned from the profession, so your argument has no validitiy.

Maybe read the actual article and get the subnotes. You're little attacks are pathetic and devoid of fact themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Fovezer

Member
Jul 14, 2003
18
0
Visit site
✟7,628.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Democrat
dayton said:
In fact, there are many firmly Bible-believing Christians who think that way. Even in the ?kosher? creationist literature there are sometimes attempts to explain why the earth has an ?appearance of age??i.e., looks old.

Have you ever considered that since the earth "looks" old, it may actually be old?
 
Upvote 0

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
40
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Oh, good, you listed everything, makes it easier to respond


1- I'd like to see how they came to this conclusion. They may be right, the continents are eroding faster than they're regenerating NOW. However we live in a very stable enviroment compared to the history of the earth. When volcanos go nuts, as has happened several times in the past, they can add massive amounts of land. There is lots of evidence for a violent volcanic activity in the past. This is how islands form afterall.

2- Again, they're almost right but they leave out one little detail... the polar winds. Check out Banks and Holzer's work on the subject, they show that helium escapes as fast as it is created. Even negating all escape of helium it would take 200,000 years to get to it's current level, that's to long for most YEC's.

3- Fossils can form rapidly. This means they can form in either scenario, it has no effect on an old earth system. I've yet to find any actual studies comparing fast forming fossils to slow forming ones. There are different types and degrees of fossil material and each kind form in different conditions and over varying time spans.



4- A.) A young earth could not account for the vast coal deposits we find. These plants took time to grow and die on top of one another. It forms a peat bog over time. The material required to form the coal would take a long time to pile up and be compressed. Dinosaur footprints have been found above coal deposits so there goes your flood theory, which would have only created a small seam of coal anyways. We can do many things at an accelerated rate in a labarotory, it doesn't mean that they happen in nature this way. To add to this it's only one way of forming coal, there are many and they require different times and conditions.

B.) see above

C.) We can grow lots of materials. Again, this doesn't mean that nature does it in the same amount of time.

D.) See 3

5.) This one smells alot like the helium accusation. Oceanographers, not creationists, think that the input and output of salt is at about equilibrium. Salinity is decreased mainly BY the runoff from the land, rainfall, ice melting, and salt settling on the sea bed.



Overall... I give you a D for effort, you did copy and paste afterall, and an F for thought.

Aside from ignoring many factors nothing you said really proves anything important. Yes, some things will actually fit within the YEC model, they're usually the little things that also work in OEC. However what good is supporting evidence when your main evidence is full of holes? The flood, population, ancient cultures, etc...
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
41
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
Well, many have been addressed here before.

I did read the article, and it is rather long, so I was curious if he was willing to learn, if so I would be willing to do the research to teach him, its really not that hard. :)

So, since he has yet to answer my question, maybe you can take a crack at it, do you think its acceptable for AIG to present Half truths and lies and facts?


drfeelgood said:
haha. That drivel is the best you guys could do to debunk a rather exhaustive presentation? I would have thought you boys could do better than that.

Maybe it isn't in science mags because it contradicts mainstream science. People that do that, believe it or not, get laughed at and shunned from the profession, so your argument has no validitiy.

Maybe read the actual article and get the subnotes. You're little attacks are pathetic and devoid of fact themselves.
 
Upvote 0

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
40
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
drfeelgood said:
haha. That drivel is the best you guys could do to debunk a rather exhaustive presentation? I would have thought you boys could do better than that.

Maybe it isn't in science mags because it contradicts mainstream science. People that do that, believe it or not, get laughed at and shunned from the profession, so your argument has no validitiy.

Maybe read the actual article and get the subnotes. You're little attacks are pathetic and devoid of fact themselves.


In defense of the people making fun of him... he's pretty much said that he doesn't care what evidence is provided, he won't change his mind.

If they could make a case for it maybe they would be accepted by mainstream science? Everybody with new ideas gets slammed in science. If your presentation can't hold up under close scrutiny then it has no place in science. They get laughed at because they rely on an invisible man in the sky for their theory to work.

Read it and debunked it in about 20 minutes. It's attacks on OEC were incorrect and ignoring many important factors. It's support of YEC, even if correct, have no impact on the debate since they're so trivial in comparison to the big issues.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dayton

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2003
443
8
41
✟623.00
the_malevolent_milk_man said:
Oh, good, you listed everything, makes it easier to respond


1- I'd like to see how they came to this conclusion. They may be right, the continents are eroding faster than they're regenerating NOW. However we live in a very stable enviroment compared to the history of the earth. When volcanos go nuts, as has happened several times in the past, they can add massive amounts of land. There is lots of evidence for a violent volcanic activity in the past. This is how islands form afterall.

There is no proof that continental formation has slowed down.

2- Again, they're almost right but they leave out one little detail... the polar winds. Check out Banks and Holzer's work on the subject, they show that helium escapes as fast as it is created. Even negating all escape of helium it would take 200,000 years to get to it's current level, that's to long for most YEC's.

God Created the earth fully mature, so this is not a problem.

3- Fossils can form rapidly. This means they can form in either scenario, it has no effect on an old earth system. I've yet to find any actual studies comparing fast forming fossils to slow forming ones. There are different types and degrees of fossil material and each kind form in different conditions and over varying time spans.

This is actually evidence for Creation. It does not take millions of years to form fossils.

4- A.) A young earth could not account for the vast coal deposits we find. These plants took time to grow and die on top of one another. It forms a peat bog over time. The material required to form the coal would take a long time to pile up and be compressed. Dinosaur footprints have been found above coal deposits so there goes your flood theory, which would have only created a small seam of coal anyways. We can do many things at an accelerated rate in a labarotory, it doesn't mean that they happen in nature this way. To add to this it's only one way of forming coal, there are many and they require different times and conditions.

With God all things are possible.


C.) We can grow lots of materials. Again, this doesn't mean that nature does it in the same amount of time.

God Created the earth fully mature, so this is irrelevant.



5.) This one smells alot like the helium accusation. Oceanographers, not creationists, think that the input and output of salt is at about equilibrium. Salinity is decreased mainly BY the runoff from the land, rainfall, ice melting, and salt settling on the sea bed.

This can happen within 6,000 years under the right conditions (Flood).
 
Upvote 0

goat37

Skeet, skeet!
Jul 3, 2003
1,148
39
41
Chesapeake Beach, MD
✟9,013.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
I will not even dignify Dayton's posts anymore with a response after this...

He clearly does not want to learn, and only wants us to waste our time posting our evidence so he can look at it just to dismiss it because he says so.

Just like his sig says, he will dismiss all evidence because he is deluded by his misinterpretation of the bible.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
78
Visit site
✟23,431.00
Faith
Unitarian
Dayton's arguments all come from the good old YEC PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) list.
It gets really tedious to refute these same bogus arguments over and over. Maybe that's why some people react so negativily to seeing the PRATT list for the umpteenth time.

The Frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0

the_malevolent_milk_man

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2003
3,345
141
40
Apopka, Florida
✟4,185.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Dayton said:
1-There is no proof that continental formation has slowed down.



2-God Created the earth fully mature, so this is not a problem.



3-This is actually evidence for Creation. It does not take millions of years to form fossils.



4-With God all things are possible.




5-God Created the earth fully mature, so this is irrelevant.





6-This can happen within 6,000 years under the right conditions (Flood).


I know I shouldn't but I'm gonna reply anywyas. Numbered your responses so I can respond without confusion

1- Um, hello? Do you see volcanos around the world errupting? Is the sky covered with ash? No? Didn't think so. It's slowed down from those times when volcanos were going nuts.

2- God dunnit, cop out. It's a problem because it refutes your false claim against OEC. Hello, credibility damaged?

3- I said as much, but it doesn't prove anything either way.

4- God dunnit, cop out. You have no answer.

5- God dunnit, cop out.

6- I wasn't trying to make a point for OEC, I was refuting your false claim against it. Wether the flood could do it or not is irrelevant to the original statement.


You lack evidence against OEC, you present faulty and incomplete possibilities that ignore contradictory evidence, the cornerstone of your arguement is an all powerful invisible man that you fallback on when you have no answer, and you're admittidly to stubborn to admit that you're wrong.

/pwnd
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
41
Visit site
✟28,817.00
Faith
Taoist
Not only is "god created the earth mature" a cop out, it suggests god made the earth purposly lie to us. :)

God didnt just create the earth "mature" he created it to look 750,000X older than it really is.

There is No reason for him to do that unless its an ellaboratly constructed Lie to fool people.

Generally I wouldnt think many people would want to suggest that God created the world as huge Lie. :)
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Arikay said:
Not only is "god created the earth mature" a cop out, it suggests god made the earth purposly lie to us. :)

God didnt just create the earth "mature" he created it to look 750,000X older than it really is.

There is No reason for him to do that unless its an ellaboratly constructed Lie to fool people.

Generally I wouldnt think many people would want to suggest that God created the world as huge Lie. :)
Actually God didn't lie to you at all. He said he created things already grown in Genesis. Its your dismissal and refusal to believe God's account of creation that is the lie, and thats your problem, not his. If you trust God's word first, and then based the validity of science on whether it agrees with God or not, there wouldn't be a problem. You use science to undermine God, so you are deceiving yourself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
78
Visit site
✟23,431.00
Faith
Unitarian
A little trick that creationists use with fossil formation is to confuse permineralization(infusing mineral into a structure), which can occur quickly with mineralization (replacing all the structure with mineral) which takes far more time. I would like to see a trilobite fossil that is not completely mineralized some time. In any case the fact that some fossils can form quickly is not really evidence for a young earth. I am really amazed that YECs ever mention fossils since the fossil record so clearly falsifies the myth of the YEC worldwide flood.

One thing you will notice is that when young earth arguments are presented they are quickly and easily refuted but worldwide flood and young earth falsifications that have never been refuted or even really addressed have been on the board for months.

The Frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0