02 Mar 12
What young earthers can't explain away (through appeal to ignorance) is the multiple billion years required for the universe to evolve to its present state since it is a relatively easy task to determine some of the oldest objects in space (white dwarfs: ~10 billion years old).
Even if our measurements were significantly skewed (they aren't: 1% accuracy based on Einstein's General Relativity and measurements of the mass of the universe), the number of years required to explain our observations would far, far exceed the mere several thousand years insisted upon by YECs.
That said, it is important to completely divorce the views of YECs from what is revealed biblically. The Bible says nothing at all about the age of the universe. The overwhelming majority of (legitimate) bible-scholars and apologists understand this. Young earth creationism, I repeat, isn't the orthodox Christian view. Not by a long shot.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayPhil McCafferty, 'Instant petrified wood?', Popular Science, October 1992, pp. 56-57.
What we know is its petrified, beyond that....
I agree it would be better had there been more sources.
Kelly
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and God's natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood
http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/Lessons/howDoesWoodPetrify.htm
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSo does science have it more right now ?
Phil McCafferty, 'Instant petrified wood?', Popular Science, October 1992, pp. 56-57.
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and God's natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well k ...[text shortened]... vastating global Flood
http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/Lessons/howDoesWoodPetrify.htm
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by epiphinehas"What young earthers can't explain away (through appeal to ignorance) is the multiple billion years required for the universe to evolve to its present state since it is a relatively easy task to determine some of the oldest objects in space (white dwarfs: ~10 billion years old)."
What young earthers can't explain away (through appeal to ignorance) is the multiple billion years required for the universe to evolve to its present state since it is a relatively easy task to determine some of the oldest objects in space (white dwarfs: ~10 billion years old).
Even if our measurements were significantly skewed (they aren't: 1% accura ...[text shortened]... Young earth creationism, I repeat, isn't the orthodox Christian view. Not by a long shot.
You say that just like you know what it takes to build a universe, like you know
how this one came into being, like you know how all things got here and before
all things got here like you knew what was here and how it changed. You are
not appealing through ignorance, instead you are appealing through arrogance,
as if you had answers, as if your beliefs about the distant past are not beliefs
instead are facts.
Kelly
Originally posted by usmc7257I use the word of truth, the Holy Bible, to gauge if science is right. If our
or the christians that still cling to theirs. How are you able to pick and choose when science is right or wrong?
understanding of science agrees with our understanding of the Holy Bible,
then the science and our understanding is probably true. If they do not
agree then our understanding of science or the Holy Bible is at fault. 😏
P.S. Like KellyJay said, people are good at being wrong in both science
and religion.
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsBut of course in your mind, there is some kind of mental breakdown in science only in those areas that refute your biblical version of life. Math, check. Cancer research, Check. Computer science, check. Astronomy, partial check, biology, partial check. Anatomy, check. linguistics, check, Anthropology, partial check. Evolution, NO WAY.
I use the word of truth, the Holy Bible, to gauge if science is right. If our
understanding of science agrees with our understanding of the Holy Bible,
then the science and our understanding is probably true. If they do not
agree then our understanding of science or the Holy Bible is at fault. 😏
P.S. Like KellyJay said, people are good at being wrong in both science
and religion.
physics, check unless it refutes the bible. Atmosphere science, check. no problem.
Only those sciences that disagree with the biblical version are the scientists dead wrong. They are strangely correct in all other disciplines. What's wrong with that picture?
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouse
But of course in your mind, there is some kind of mental breakdown in science only in those areas that refute your biblical version of life. Math, check. Cancer research, Check. Computer science, check. Astronomy, partial check, biology, partial check. Anatomy, check. linguistics, check, Anthropology, partial check. Evolution, NO WAY.
physics, check unles ...[text shortened]... ead wrong. They are strangely correct in all other disciplines. What's wrong with that picture?
But of course in your mind, there is some kind of mental breakdown in science only in those areas that refute your biblical version of life.
Arguments over the age of the earth aside, until you can point to someone else in human history of the caliber of Jesus Christ I'll run with the "biblical version of life."
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAs usual; an attempt to muddy the waters, any theories on how those demons managed to sneak it into a rock formation or do they get formed overnight as well?
Phil McCafferty, 'Instant petrified wood?', Popular Science, October 1992, pp. 56-57.
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and God's natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well k ...[text shortened]... vastating global Flood
http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/Lessons/howDoesWoodPetrify.htm
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillSo now we have it Christianity is just another cult of the personality.But of course in your mind, there is some kind of mental breakdown in science only in those areas that refute your biblical version of life.
Arguments over the age of the earth aside, until you can point to someone else in human history of the caliber of Jesus Christ I'll run with the "biblical version of life."
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouseNothing, that I can see at first sight. Looks good to me. 😏
But of course in your mind, there is some kind of mental breakdown in science only in those areas that refute your biblical version of life. Math, check. Cancer research, Check. Computer science, check. Astronomy, partial check, biology, partial check. Anatomy, check. linguistics, check, Anthropology, partial check. Evolution, NO WAY.
physics, check unles ...[text shortened]... ead wrong. They are strangely correct in all other disciplines. What's wrong with that picture?
03 Mar 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Recorded in Scientific American of March 17, 1855, page 211:
As usual; an attempt to muddy the waters, any theories on how those demons managed to sneak it into a rock formation or do they get formed overnight as well?
"On the 20th of August, 1847, Mrs. Phelps, wife of our informant, Abner P. Phelps, died, and was buried at Oak Grove, in Dodge Co. On the 11th of April inst., she was taken up to be removed to Strong’s Landing. The coffin was found to be very heavy, and the body to retain its features and proportions. After its removal to Strong’s Landing, a distance of some 45 miles, the body was examined, and found to be wholly petrified, converted to a substance resembling a light colored stone. Upon trial, edge tools made no more impression upon it than upon marble. In striking upon the body with metal, a hollow singing sound was produced....The ground in which she had been buried was a yellowish loam, and the body lay about three feet above the lime rock....A few years ago a lady died in the neighborhood of Felicity, in this County, and was buried in the orchard on the farm. About four years, after she was disinterred, for the purpose of removal to a public graveyard, she was found to be completely petrified, being as solid as stone and fully as heavy. Every feature was distinct and perfect."
This reminds me of Lot's wife getting turned to stone in the Holy Bible.
04 Mar 12
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI do have the answers, Kelly, right here in my Astronomy textbook.
"What young earthers can't explain away (through appeal to ignorance) is the multiple billion years required for the universe to evolve to its present state since it is a relatively easy task to determine some of the oldest objects in space (white dwarfs: ~10 billion years old)."
You say that just like you know what it takes to build a universe, like ...[text shortened]... answers, as if your beliefs about the distant past are not beliefs
instead are facts.
Kelly
Remember, the YEC claim that the universe is 6-10,000 years old is not found in scripture. Tell me, should I really question my Astronomy textbook (when it tells me that some of the oldest objects in space (white dwarfs) are 10 billion years old) based on a number somebody pulled out of thin air?!? That doesn't strike you as an unreasonable request?
I don't question scripture, I question a particular interpretation of scripture. What's arrogant about that?