Re: If the earth is 6k years old

On Apr 14, 11:45 am, "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:07 pm, "Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 13, 7:21 pm, "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 4:57 pm, "Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:52 pm, "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ian Chua wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:49 pm, "Friar Broccoli" <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:37 pm, "Ian Chua" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:26 pm, edward_...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 12, 10:06 pm, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The standard fundy response is that the universe was created with the
light from the stars already en route to the earth.
Stupid, I know. But remember who we're talking about.
Also keep in mind that: 1) At the creation trees were produced by
seeds from the ground (see Genesis), they were not created already
grown with preexisting growth rings.
2) It is possible to determine the age of a tree by counting the
rings. The dates and ages of trees can form a date sequence that
extends back in time by several thousand years, well beyond the
bibical dates. (leave aside the false creationist argument about C14
dating).
It is easy to explain all this by accelerated growth if we assume God
did all this.
Are you suggesting that God provided us with misleading information?
Nope, we're not decoding it properly.
OK, so how we are supposed to "decode" those human fossils are
presented to you in reply to your first post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e0a92fce34afd29a
I'll try some exploratory thinking:
Theory - Objects can be subject through a process of
accelerated decay to make them appear much older than they
are.
There are two obvious problems with this explanation:
- It doesn't deal with the problem of misleading information,
because we have no reason to believe that accelerated aging
occurred. In addition, these fossils are found in identified
strata where other extinct species etc are also found.
- It also doesn't deal with the fossils themselves which show
evolutionary steps from small brained hominids to large
brained hominids. Even if we were completely unable to date
fossils and/or their surrounding sediments, this would be
prima facie evidence for human evolution.
- How do we explain that we can see light from Andromeda which is
2,000,000 light years away?
This is an easy one - we are seeing light that was simply
emitted 2,000,000 light years ago. The earth could have come
into existence light years after the wavefront left Andromeda.
And Andromeda might not be where she was today.
So God created a complete universe, filled with about
100,000,000,000 galaxies, many of which contain about
100,000,000,000 stars, and then God came along 13 billion years
later and created a brand new earth, in which everything has
been subject to accelerated aging?
You're obviously a smart man. No doubt a lot smarter than me.
Do you find this reasoning plausible? For example, why did He
create the other 100 billion galaxies - after all we can only
see two of them with the unaided ege.
Isn't it more likely that you and the people who taught you are
misinterpreting scripture? Or perhaps that the people who
transcribed the old testament simplified God's message for
their readers?
This is a non-issue with most Christians, I think. Their focus
is more about their relationship with God and with man.

I completely agree. The writers of the old testament were not
concerned with achieving a completely accurate description of
the physical process of creation. Their focus was human and
spiritual.

The old testament writers were writing under inspiration of God.
The account must be accurate.

There's a lot of creativity and imagination in evolutionary
science. In a sense it is a good things because it gives
insight into how different people can view things differently.
And we need this latitude and flexibility to solve complex
problems.

True in general, but do you believe you can design a
structure working with information that is clearly false
(character of underlying soil - compression strength of the
concrete etc)?

There are more than one way to design a structure.
Cost can be minimized or efficiency can be maximized
if several options are explored. Note that public housing
contracts in Hongkong do not use beams at all!
Are you curious how they did it?

But coming back to the point, your proposition seems to be that there
is only one
way to interpret an observation (the evidence).
Would you like to reiterate again that this is your position?

If not, why would you think that any science (and biology in
particular) could advance working from false premises?

The greater the number of possibilities for the same
observation (the "evidence") that can be imagined, the better.

Including clearly ridiculous explanations? Would you trust an
engineer who thought the top part of a beam operated in tension
and shear forces were greatest in the middle?

Top of beam does indeed operate in tension at the supports for
continuous beams and cantilever beams.
You can have high shear stresses in the middle if the architect
insists on having an opening there.
Should the structural engineer tell the client or the architect
their explanation of wanting an opening in the middle of a
beam is ridiculous?

(The problem with fixed percentage fee would be a problem
if you have a very creative client or architect - a lot more work
would be involved).



- How about coal
mines which typically include multiple seams
(layers) of coal, with intervening layers of rock, like this
one:
http://www.qgxgold.com/html/shtml/qgx_projects_baruun.shtml
http://www.qgxgold.com/assets/PDF_downloads/Section_36600E_060131.pdf
That one shows 8 or 9 paired layers of coal and rock. How did
that happen in 10,000 years?
Theory - The process of Creation involves constant shocks
because the earth was to be created in just 1 day. The
accelerated process results in what we see as evidence today
of very old earth.
Coal deposits are filled with fossils of LONG extinct trees and
plants which often date back 300,000,000 years. This ancient
plant material (which normally forms part of the coal) is evidence
of the natural organic origin of the deposits.
In addition, the intervening sedimentary layers are frequently
filled with fossils of equally extinct animals, like burrowing
worms that left holes in the sediments when they were at the
bottom of shallow seas.

[I have inserted your corrected text below]

Thanks

Creationists would like to say this is all due to a great
flood in Noah's time.

Noah's flood is very popular here in Talk-Origins because it is
so easy to show how silly it is. Problems include:

- What did the predators eat after they got off the ark?

Food stored in the ark.

- How did the kangaroos get back to Australia? What about the
other 175 species of marsupials and monotremes that live only
there? There are also more than 100,000 species of insects
that are found ONLY in Australia. How did they get back?
Same problem for Madagascar and South America. Think about
the South American sloth!

Very interesting questions.
It would be nice if God later show us how all these happened in
heavem!


- Why didn't Noah put any dinosaurs or trilobites on the ark?

He might have - baby ones.

Another possibility may be that these fossils came with other
earth material when God created earth. These materials
included organic matter from other planets which had life
forms.

One of the problems with this idea is the tree of common
descent which describes the relationships between species both
living and extinct.

I actually find this useful for classification purposes.

The information needed to build such a tree of relationships
for plants and animals can come from one or more of three
sources:

- Their shared biological characteristics (usually
physical/morphologic)

- The fossil record (which is just a record of a few of the
biological characteristics usually of the bones from extinct
species)

- The genetic characteristics which now usually come from DNA
samples. (The "Phylogenetic Tree" again this is just another
set of biological characteristics.)

In a nutshell, the morphologic and genetic information agree
pretty closely about how closely living species are related,
and that information points back to species that are just like
the species we find in the fossil record.

We can be grateful that God made use of the same biochemical
components to make man as those He used to make animals
or plants. This makes it possible for new drug discoveries to
treat human diseases. Many of the new drugs are tested in
animals which have biochemical components homologous
to those in humans to make the tests possible.


So multiple lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that all
life on earth has common ancestors, which ancestors are seen
in the fossil record.

If the fossils had been imported from somewhere else they
should not look like our ancestors.

(And in any case, if such fossils existed on another planet it
would just show that evolution had occurred somewhere else, so
why not here too?)

Better not let the mind delve too far.
It is a challenge for both evolutionists and creationsists to try
and figure out how it all started. How did something existed
from nothing? How did God come into existence?

The great flood in Noah's time would be a more plausible
explanation, if we accept the Bible is true.

I hope that all this is not causing you to question your faith.
Just remember that the people who originally transcribed the
Bible did not know all that we know today, and simply did not
have the language needed to provide an accurate account of
physical reality.

Yes, indeed. However, the Bible did say that knowledge shall
be increased and men will "run to and fro". In a sense God
is very interested in the evolution of man - not in the biological
or organic sense, But rather how the human race can develop
the love and tolerance to live with each other and most of all, to
love and trust Him.

I really do appreciate your time and effort sharing here.

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If the earth is 6k years old
    ... light from the stars already en route to the earth. ... these fossils are found in identified ... strata where other extinct species etc are also found. ... observation (the "evidence") that can be imagined, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_For_the_=22Theist=2DEvolutionist=A9=22?=
    ... "24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after ... because we know that species are not fixed. ... clearly shown with science today. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poll: 30% of Texans Believe Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed; 41%
    ... humans developed from earlier species of animals, ... God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development ... injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved ... �or does the earth orbit the sun or does ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies Say The Darndest Things
    ... I am a species immutabilist, accept an Old Earth, and we ... I enjoy being a thug who beats up on Darwinists. ... Concerning the Pharisees, Jesus, the Son of God, said they were devil ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poll: 30% of Texans Believe Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed; 41%
    ... humans developed from earlier species of animals, ... God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development ... injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved ...  or does the earth orbit the sun or does ...
    (talk.origins)