The Evidence For A Young Earth

Originally posted by RJHinds
Poetry in the Holy Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and sometimes reveals true facts of the past and prophecies of the future. So to dismiss it as mere poetry is being condescending to God.

I did not use the word mere. Nor would I. Poetry is truth. Even religious myth can be truth.

To understand the truth, however, you must learn how to read. Literalism hinders competent reading.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've not been around for 10K to know you are right about that, so I guess I have to take that
on faith.

You don't need faith to believe the science used to measure the growth rates. All you need is understanding of how it's done.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes indead.

How Fast Do Stalactites Grow?

[youtube]kYKNYSXRNME[/youtube]

The Near Genius 😏

I usually don't look at your links because they're crap. But this time I happened to be curious, and yup, it's crap.

-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one.

- The speaker says that the pressure from the biblical Flood (which has been discredited) would be enough to hasten the growth of stalactites. Strike two.

- Even if the Great Flood happened, the, the bible says the water 'sprung forth' from the 'deep' below the ground. There's no way water would be seeping from a cave's ceiling to form stalactites while that cave is completely flooded. Strike three.

This video's out.

Originally posted by vivify
I usually don't look at your links because they're crap. But this time I happened to be curious, and yup, it's crap.

-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one.

- The speaker says that the pressure from the biblical Flood (which has been discredited) would be enough to hasten the growth of stalactites. Strike tw ...[text shortened]... to form stalactites while that cave is completely flooded. Strike three.

This video's out.

Well picky picky🙂

Originally posted by vivify
You don't need faith to believe the science used to measure the growth rates. All you need is understanding of how it's done.

No, you told me that in 10K we would see something. Measuring rates is great and as
long as we know how it will always behave, or had always behaved. As I pointed out
earlier if we don't know how, or why any process begins we are left with assumptions.
Science is great, but it is limited to what we can see and test now. After we leave that we
begin to make assumptions that may or may not be true. The distant past is just a place
we can make assumptions about, it does not mean we are right, unless you think we
are flawless, which would be another point of faith in my opinion.

Originally posted by vivify
I usually don't look at your links because they're crap. But this time I happened to be curious, and yup, it's crap.

-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one.

- The speaker says that the pressure from the biblical Flood (which has been discredited) would be enough to hasten the growth of stalactites. Strike tw ...[text shortened]... to form stalactites while that cave is completely flooded. Strike three.

This video's out.

"-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one."

Shouldn't the research be all that matters, not what the "scientists" believes?
Why should a strike be given for any point of view if the research is sound?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"-The research cited by was be 'scientists' who believe in creationism. Strike one."

Shouldn't the research be all that matters, not what the "scientists" believes?
Why should a strike be given for any point of view if the research is sound?

There is a process called 'peer review' but creationists just stick to their own pubs:
This is the reference list to one of their articles 'proving' Earth to be young:

References and notes
S.A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986; for a simplified article, see K. Ham, I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, June–August 1993. Return to text.
Don Batten, Sandy stripes, Creation 19(1):39–40, December 1996–February 1997. Return to text.
P. Julien, Y. Lan, and G. Berthault, Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Journal of Creation 8(1):37–50, 1994. Return to text.
G. Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Journal of Creation 3:25–29, 1988. Return to text.
H.A. Makse, S. Havlin, P.R. King, and H.E. Stanley, Spontaneous Stratification in Granular Mixtures, Nature 386(6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also A. Snelling, Nature Finally Catches Up, Journal of Creation 11(2):125–6, 1997. Return to text.
Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1994). Return to text.
R.A. Kerr, Pathfinder Tells a Geologic Tale with One Starring Role, Science 279(5348):175, 9 January 1998. Return to text.
O. Morton, Flatlands, New Scientist 159(2143):36–39, 18 July 1998. Return to text.
S.A. Austin, Excess Argon within mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Journal of Creation 10(3):335–343, 1986. Return to text.
A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, p. 503–525. This document lists many examples. For example, six were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8(2):109–117, April 1970; five were reported by G.B. Dalrymple, 40Ar/36Ar Analysis of Historic Lava Flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6(1):47–55, 1969. Also, a large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria, Nature Physical Science 232(29):60–61, 19 July 1971. Return to text.
A.A. Snelling, Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict, Creation 20(1):24–27, December 1997–February 1998. Return to text.
A.A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogma, Creation 20(4):48–50, September–November 1998. Return to text.
Institute for Creation Research, Acts and Facts 27(7), July 1998. Return to text.
C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57. [Update: see Squirming at the Squishosaur and the linked articles for more recent evidence of elastic blood vessels in T. rex bones.] Return to text.
D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 113–126; J.D. Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(2):15–19, March–May 1998. Return to text.
L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990); J.D. Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is young, Creation 20(3):19–21, June–August 1998. Return to text.
K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.E. Walsh, 1994, p. 175–184; J.D. Sarfati, Exploding stars point to a young universe, Creation 19(3):46–49, June–August 1998. See also How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? Dr Russell Humphreys himself explains …. Return to text.
D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. R.E. Walsh and C.L Brooks, 1990, 79–84; J.D. Sarfati, The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39, September–November 1998. Return to text.
S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17–33; J.D. Sarfati, Salty seas: evidence for a young earth, Creation 21(1):16–17, December 1998–February 1999. Return to text.
Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine; available online from <fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html> (cited 18 February 1999). Return to text.


Notice where most of the references point? Hint, they have the word 'creation' in them. That PROVES they are totally unbiased, right?
So they pat themselves on the back, going, yep, we all agree, Earth is 6004.560 years old. Good job everyone of you creationists!

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, you told me that in 10K we would see something. Measuring rates is great and as
long as we know how it will always behave, or had always behaved. As I pointed out
earlier if we don't know how, or why any process begins we are left with assumptions.
Science is great, but it is limited to what we can see and test now. After we leave that we
begin to m ...[text shortened]... e right, unless you think we
are flawless, which would be another point of faith in my opinion.

But we do know how the process begun. It's not like new stalactites have stopped forming. Scientists can also observe the younger stalactites that are either forming, or have recently formed.

Originally posted by vivify
But we do know how the process begun. It's not like new stalactites have stopped forming. Scientists can also observe the younger stalactites that are either forming, or have recently formed.

For those we can witness the whole process we have no disagreements that is more of
a documented process than making projections on rates with periods of time that are
suggested way beyond our ability to verify.

How the process begun isn't something you know. None of us knows for sure how all of
this got here, there are assumptions, there are scriptures, there are theories, and on and
on. Picking one doesn't mean you know how it began only that you've settled on a view
that you are now going to use to view everything else you see.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is a process called 'peer review' but creationists just stick to their own pubs:
This is the reference list to one of their articles 'proving' Earth to be young:

References and notes
S.A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Scie ...[text shortened]... k, going, yep, we all agree, Earth is 6004.560 years old. Good job everyone of you creationists!

I don't care if you say the earth is young or old, no matter what you claim it isn't a fact it is
something you believe. They can attempt to prove a young earth, or old one, but still if we
don't know how it got here we will not know what to look at to measure.

If for example the universe was created fully functional setup so life can be setup here and
it was all done a few thousand years ago, would rates and distances of light matter with
respect to the age of the universe? Special creation takes out science, there would be
no method available it could use to measure the distant past correctly.

Originally posted by KellyJay


How the process begun isn't something you know. None of us knows for sure how all of
this got here, there are assumptions, there are scriptures, there are theories, and on and
on. Picking one doesn't mean you know how it began only that you've settled on a view
that you are now going to use to view everything else you see.

We know how stalactites form, because new stalactites have been observed forming. As far how "all this" came about, again, based on what we have observed, we can at least make logical conclusions. It's scientific observation--not guesses--that lead to logical conclusions such as the age of the earth. Stalactites are merely one example that points to this, out of many.

Originally posted by vivify
You don't need faith to believe the science used to measure the growth rates. All you need is understanding of how it's done.

But once you have understanding of the science, you should lose faith in the dating method. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have an idea. Let's put all the young Earth creationists on their own planet and come back a thousand years later and see which planet is doing better, Earth or the Creation state.

Hinds, when was the last time you had an actual original thought? One that did not involve a bogus video?

You should try these pills:

http://healthymaglife.com/brain/cnn/v2/femalemil-cogniq-alert.php

Your IQ could go up as high as 120.......

I am quite sure it must already be that high for I am ....

The Near Genius

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I did not use the word mere. Nor would I. Poetry is truth. Even religious myth can be truth.

To understand the truth, however, you must learn how to read. Literalism hinders competent reading.

Then perhaps you are the one that needs to learn how to read competently. Just saying. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Shouldn't the research be all that matters, not what the "scientists" believes?
Why should a strike be given for any point of view if the research is sound?

Absolutely. The research that matters is peer reviewed.

So far, creationists and their ilk have published in scientific journals exactly one peer reviewed article putting forth their hypotheses. Citing more than that one article is not about scientific research; it is about something else. Belief in most cases. Lies in other.

In answer to your second question. The paucity of peer reviewed articles is easily explained: the research is not sound.