The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philipp said:
You simply do not have any answer but the old worn out assumption that some folks who have a deeply held belief system. I admire your faith but there is something radically wrong with your religion. 🤷
Click to expand...
Your response is totally irrelevant to rossum’s post. Try staying on track and address the issues, if you are able, that is.
 
StAnastasia said:
Demonstrate how Adam and Eve can pass on a genome to their progeny that appears to carry the genetic diversity of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs of humans. I suppose God might be a trickster who installed that range of genetic diversity, just like he created glaciers that appear to be 100,000 years old, and galaxies that appear to be billions of light years away.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
The key word in the above claim for Grannmyh to solve is “appears.” This is another great assumption which true believers in descent from a common ancestor must believe. Let nothing else stand in the way. Neutral and and bad mutations be hanged. We believe because the Deity must have done it this way because WE say he did.

Do the math using the formula I gave on a previous post. **Then wait a few years and a smart biologist will probably show you where there was only Adam and Eve. **How many humans can there be in the whole universe based on the above diversity at one pair reproducing at 0.1 %. Ain’t that many electrons in the whole universe.

Your modern biology has only been around about 50 years. When you meet your creator he might ask: Did youi do the Math on population genetics??

Perhaps you can find a freshman math student at your wonderful Catholic Unversity who can do the math for you. 😃
 
I hate to interrupt the party, but the question regarding a pair of primal human beings, who are called Adam and Eve in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and recent interpretations of genetics data, which casts doubts on the existence of a primal pair, is off-topic. I think that subject should be discussed in some other thread. The subject of this thread is the age of the Earth; remember: Re: The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

Besides, the debate about Adam and Eve isn’t going to go anywhere in this thread, because Catholics, like myself, will stand by Church doctrine, and most of us, myself included, do not have background in advanced genetics to discuss the scientific theory side in any depth. So, what would be the point of any discussion other than to beat each other over the head with our own views.
 
itinerant1 said:
I hate to interrupt the party, but the question regarding a pair of primal human beings, who are called Adam and Eve in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and recent interpretations of genetics data, which casts doubts on the existence of a primal pair, is off-topic. I think that subject should be discussed in some other thread. The subject of this thread is the age of the Earth; remember: Re: The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

Besides, the debate about Adam and Eve isn’t going to go anywhere in this thread, because Catholics, like myself, will stand by Church doctrine, and most of us, myself included, do not have background in advanced genetics to discuss the scientific theory side in any depth. So, what would be the point of any discussion other than to beat each other over the head with our own views.
Click to expand...
a world-wide flood was brought up here, too

we’re having trouble staying on the topic of evidence for age of the earth, although I keep asking for information on the page that Phil posted way back
 
Philipp said:
You simply do not have any answer but the old worn out assumption that some folks who have a deeply held belief system. I admire your faith but there is something radically wrong with your religion. 🤷
Click to expand...
If you gave me the correct scientific reference - Journal, Authors, Title, Date - then I would be able to say more. At the moment all I have to work on is what you have told me, which is about as convincing as “I have a rock which is 1,000,000 years old so YEC is wrong.”

Give us the scientific reference for these Triceratops and Hadrosaur fossils being tested. A YEC website is not a scientific reference.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Another piece of self refuting ‘science’. When a volcano erupts, some of the lava stays in the vent and solidifies there. When the next eruption passes through the same vent, some of the solidified lave can be dislodged and transported to the surface with the new eruption. If the transport time is fast enough then the lump of old lava does not melt and becomes a xenolith embedded in the new lava. A xenocryst is a crystal which has undergone a similar process. Dating a xenolith will date the previous eruption, not the current eruption. Dating xenoliths will always give you a date that is too early and is always useless for dating the current eruption.

As a geologist, Dr Snelling should have known this.

Dates from xenoliths and xenocrysts show nothing about the age of the lava flow they are embedded in. If I salvage a 200 year old brick from an old house and I use that brick, along with a lot of new bricks, to build my new house then can I say that my new house is 200 years old, just because that one brick is 200 years old? That is what Dr Snelling is doing by dating xenoliths.

rossum
Click to expand...
Nice point.
 
larkin31 said:
a world-wide flood was brought up here, too

we’re having trouble staying on the topic of evidence for age of the earth, although I keep asking for information on the page that Phil posted way back
Click to expand...
Think big. 😃

Any kind of flood would contribute information to the age of the earth because any kind of flood takes place in real time.

In fact, any kind of data which indicates real time contributes knowledge to earth age.

Could there be two ages of the earth? Two perspectives? If no one is in a forest, does a falling tree make a sound? Does the age of rock really determine the age of living organisms? Even if they are fossils? Does skull size really determine intelligence? Which kind of intelligence?

Since I am not a fundamentalist-creationist (Hope the Saint is sitting down while reading this 😉 and there is no feather nearby.) I can see all kinds of nitty-gritty info involved in earth age.

Blessings,
granny

Human life should be respected from the moment of conception.
 
itinerant1 said:
Your response is totally irrelevant to rossum’s post. Try staying on track and address the issues, if you are able, that is.
Click to expand...
The issue of C-14 dating of dinosaur bones has been responded to many times on this and the previous thread entitled, “Why did God make Dinosuars;” you might refere to my posts there for closure. I may have not been so good on repeating. You’ve seen the photos on www.dinosaurc14ages.com I presume, yet you act like a skeptic who is trying to make it look like the web site manager is faking it.

The web master does an excellent job of providing the reader with useful information on the origins issue. The last article below is where I obtained the posted abstracts. Dino experts bust up prehistoric party theory

Single-celled giant upends early evolution squid

Squid ink preserved squid ink

Man as Old as Coal Man and Coal

Fishapod’ reveals link first land animals

Why did Neanderthals have such big noses?

Eight-armed animal preceded dinosaurs

Bolivian farmer leads to dinosaur discovery

Fish Yields Anatomical Clues on How Animals of the Sea Made it to Land Fossil

Devils’ Trails Are World’s Oldest Human footprints

Some catastrophe killed millions of fish in antarctic bone bed

Researchers have discovered what might be remains of 6000 year old city in water off western cuba!

A conference concernig a critical critique of evolution held in Rome November 9, 2009. scientific critique of evolution

If interested go to www.dinosaurc14ages.com and read.
 
Caritasregat said:
Alright here is a clear definition of redshift and what it is. I think we were both right in talking about it, because redshift can happen for different reasons.

However, what is the relevence of this post?
Click to expand...
Didn’t you read my post? Redshift is related to distance. If the redshift is not a measure of distance then all of the distances are wrong which means the ages are wrong. That means the universe may actually be a lot younger because the objects are a lot closer.

God bless,
Ed
 
grannymh said:
If no one is in a forest, does a falling tree make a sound?
Click to expand...
Yes, if there are any organisms present who have evolved sound-detecting organs. A falling tree will create sound waves whether or not there are any animals present to receive and process those waves a s sound. If there are ears and brains, the tree will make a noise!
 
Philipp said:
Man as Old as Coal Man and Coal
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for you Philipp. You obviously work very hard putting together these posts about how the Earth is much younger than most scientists say it is, and you try to buttress your position by using scientific arguments. Unfortunately you have just completely blown all possible scientific credibility for the website (dinosaurc14ages.com/) that you are using.

The phrase “Man as Old as Coal” in inextricably associated with a well known internet kook called Ed Conrad. When I go to the site you reference and look at the article you refer to, what do I find but:HON. Paul E. KANJORSKI of Pennsylvania Tuesday October 27, 1987

Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to an article from the October 10, 1987 Hazleton Standard Speaker entitled "man as Old as Coal” The story concerns the research of one of my Constituents, Ed Conrad whose findings are on exhibit in the Greater Hazleton Historical Society Museum. (Emphasis added)
Two points. Firstly Ed Conrad has the scientific credibility of a man in a tinfoil hat claiming that all humans are actually Venusians. The fact that this site you refer to has a reference to Ed means that the site has no bullcarp detector and is a warning to anyone with any scientific knowledge that this site includes some complete rubbish.

Secondly, it shows that either you or the site owner has not read what Ed is saying. Ed says that he has found a human skull in a coal measure. To Ed, this means that man is over 200 million years old because the coal measure is over 200 million years old. Ed is completely the wrong side of the age debate for a young earther. I suspect that he is only on the site because he says “Darwin was wrong” and some creationist didn’t bother to look any further and thought his stuff might help.

All of the time you have spent trying to convince us about the scientific usefulness of that site has been wasted because it is now obvious that the site contains some unscientific rubbish and that its authors do not have the knowledge required to recognise that rubbish for what it is.

Unfortunately you will need to start all over again with a different website, and this time I strongly suggest that you check through what the website says first to make sure that it does not contain any giveaways like this.

Ed doesn’t post as much as he used to, but he was always good for a laugh. Thank you for a few minutes of amusement.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
[Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong

What if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .](News, sport and opinion from the Guardian's US edition | The Guardian)
Click to expand...
I also read these articles yesterday Buffalo…fascinating.

There were some articles linked from the above to some Time magazine articles on epigenetics, which should be required reading for, well, you know who.

I’m surprised that Time (of all places) would have that kind of article.
 
ricmat said:
I also read these articles yesterday Buffalo…fascinating.

There were some articles linked from the above to some Time magazine articles on epigenetics, which should be required reading for, well, you know who.

I’m surprised that Time (of all places) would have that kind of article.
Click to expand...
The 200,000 working biologists should read them.😃 Maybe someone will forward them on. 😉
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, if there are any organisms present who have evolved sound-detecting organs. A falling tree will create sound waves whether or not there are any animals present to receive and process those waves a s sound. If there are ears and brains, the tree will make a noise!
Click to expand...
I love to rephrase your claims: Let’s try>>> Yes, if there are any oragnisms present that have been created [SIMUL] with those complicated intelligently designed sound-detecting organs, otherwise very good. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top