The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[buffalo]

Sure – why not?

**Study of Erosion and Precipitation in the Himalayas Presents Surprising Findings, Scholars Say **

…The importance of this study, he said, lies in the fact that erosion rates are not closely linked to the dramatic changes in climate. **Instead, the collision of India and Asia drives rocks steadily upward in the Himalaya and erosion sweeps them rapidly away.

**In this project, Burbank is spearheading work by scholars at six other universities besides UCSB: Harvard, Dartmouth, MIT, University of Southern California, University of Washington, and the University of Wyoming. They work with the Nepalese Department of Hydrology and Meteorology.

 

[Philipp]

:tsktsk: No - merely to show this article that states it happened a lot faster and recently than previously believed.

There a number of such age disputes.

There is one in the Antarctic that I saw many years ago; something like 20 to 30 millions old has been shown to be only 2-3 million years old based on actual field research and new interpretation. These same research group have challenged the computer modeling for Global Warming in the Antarctic.
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/

Lyell, Darwin’s buddy, originally estimated that Niagara Falls begin about 35,000 years ago (due to insufficient data it is claimed). The accepted more modern version was then calculated to be 12,000 years based on more accurate erosion data. Now geologists have suggested somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 years based on new data. The point is that modern science keeps reducing the estimated ages when geologic events happened. This is a legitmate effort who ever performs the research.

Years ago my wife and I took a guided tour of one of the towers overlooking Niagara Falls and were told that the glaciers in that region were over twice the height of tower we were then visiting or roughly 1000 to 1500 feet above Niagara Falls. I have never seen anything that would dispute that. However, how did the glaciers get that thick and what caused them to melt so quickly is up for grabs. I think Michael Oard’s book, **

• The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood

** brings us closer to reality; great book with many photos of geo features. Oard is a meteorologist and has written many books and gives the history of how outraged geologists were over Bretz’s “crazy ideas.”

I have an 87 year old geologist friend who took geology courses under Bretz; he recalls that Bretz was attacked for his Missoula flood theory; it was forty years of outrage by his fellow geologists before the Bretz’s Missoula flood hypothesis was accepted. Similar outrage has occurred over the fossil human footprints with dinosaur ones in Texas which I’ve noted several times.

Regarding the Genesis flood: Oard notes that there were great vertical uplifts and subsidance to drain the flood waters such as Beartooth Mountains, 70 mile wide Bighorn Basin filled with sediments and Beartooth fault (Ref. page 73) with diamgram; and, then he takes note of Psalm 104:6-9. —*** the mountains rose; the valleys sank down***

Back to the Himalyas in Tibet and Napal: Did they really rise out of the oceans 70 million years ago or just thousands as C-14 dating of dinosaur bones suggest (whoops, there he goes again mentioning those C-14 dates ). Like Bretz had to wait 40 years we may have to wait a few more years before geologists accept the Genesis flood. But the hand writing is on the wall.

 

[buffalo]

There a number of such age disputes.

There is one in the Antarctic that I saw many years ago; something like 20 to 30 millions old has been shown to be only 2-3 million years old based on actual field research and new interpretation. These same research group have challenged the computer modeling for Global Warming in the Antarctic.
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/

Lyell, Darwin’s buddy, originally estimated that Niagara Falls begin about 35,000 years ago (due to insufficient data it is claimed). The accepted more modern version was then calculated to be 12,000 years based on more accurate erosion data. Now geologists have suggested somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 years based on new data. The point is that modern science keeps reducing the estimated ages when geologic events happened. This is a legitmate effort who ever performs the research.

Years ago my wife and I took a guided tour of one of the towers overlooking Niagara Falls and were told that the glaciers in that region were over twice the height of tower we were then visiting or roughly 1000 to 1500 feet above Niagara Falls. I have never seen anything that would dispute that. However, how did the glaciers get that thick and what caused them to melt so quickly is up for grabs. I think Michael Oard’s book, **

• The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood

** brings us closer to reality; great book with many photos of geo features. Oard is a meteorologist and has written many books and gives the history of how outraged geologists were over Bretz’s “crazy ideas.”

I have an 87 year old geologist friend who took geology courses under Bretz; he recalls that Bretz was attacked for his Missoula flood theory; it was forty years of outrage by his fellow geologists before the Bretz’s Missoula flood hypothesis was accepted. Similar outrage has occurred over the fossil human footprints with dinosaur ones in Texas which I’ve noted several times.

Regarding the Genesis flood: Oard notes that there were great vertical uplifts and subsidance to drain the flood waters such as Beartooth Mountains, 70 mile wide Bighorn Basin filled with sediments and Beartooth fault (Ref. page 73) with diamgram; and, then he takes note of Psalm 104:6-9. —*** the mountains rose; the valleys sank down***

Back to the Himalyas in Tibet and Napal: Did they really rise out of the oceans 70 million years ago or just thousands as C-14 dating of dinosaur bones suggest (whoops, there he goes again mentioning those C-14 dates ). Like Bretz had to wait 40 years we may have to wait a few more years before geologists accept the Genesis flood. But the hand writing is on the wall.

There is a bend near the escarpment that was carved out in a few days. The deep walls of the river below the falls were carved out in less than 10,000 years according to some.

Some new data is coming in that is suggesting half that age.

Lyell - 35000 years
Modern - 10-12000 years
Newest data - 5000 years?

 

[rossum]

I figured you would end up here. We do not see man living to old ages now so we do not believe it happened in the past, so therefore we pull out our scientism card again.

Let us go back to scientific basics. I am sure we can both agree that we do not see men living to 500 years old today. There are two hypotheses to explain this observation. The rossum hypothesis is that human DNA has always been such that no man can live for 500 years. The buffalo hypothesis is that 10,000 years in the past human DNA was such that 500 year lifetimes were possible but that human DNA has degenerated since then so such long lifetimes are no longer possible.

In order to decide between these two hypotheses we need to make predictions from them and then perform experiments to determine which predictions, if any, are correct. Incorrect predictions will result in the rejection of that hypothesis.

The rossum hypothesis predicts that human DNA 10,000 years ago was the same as it is now. The buffalo hypothesis predicts that human DNA 10,000 years ago was different to now because it was less degenerate.

So we now appeal to experiment. So far all DNA results from old human (Homo sapiens) remains have been within the normal modern range of human DNA. This is not because our measuring techniques are inaccurate because we have measured 30,000 year old DNA from Neanderthals which fell outside the modern human range. Hence we know that our techniques are accurate enough to show significant differences in 10,000 year old DNA and that no such differences have been found. We can reasonably say that the rossum hypothesis prediction has not been falsified.

Unless some evidence can be produced to support the buffalo hypothesis prediction then that hypothesis is looking doubtful. You need evidence of significant differences in 10,000 year old human DNA. Without such evidence your hypothesis is lacking scientific support.

I have evidential support for my hypothesis. Where is your evidential support?

rossum

 

[rossum]

No - merely to show this article that states it happened a lot faster and recently than previously believed.

The speed is irrelevant. Whether it took five minutes or five thousand years it still happened at least two million years ago and so cannot be used to support a 10,000 year old Earth.

You need evidence in favour of 10,000 years, not evidence in favour of 2,000,000 years. Your own evidence disproves your case.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Maybe the environement may have been different before all those catastrophic asteroids hit the earth along with the great deluge along with catastrophic mountain building like the Himalayas.

That is a huge “maybe” Philipp. If the bulk of the asteroid creaters we see on Earth happened in a single flood year then Noah and everyone else of the Big Boat would have been parboiled. A big asteroid (think Chicxulub) puts a lot of heat into the planet. All of them together in a single year give enough heat to boil off the oceans. Enough heat to melt the rocks on the surface of the Earth. Noah was sailing a wooden boat in an atmosphere of superheated steam while floating on a sea of molten lava. Heat Philipp, it kills the YEC timescale every time.

A significant and rapid change in the environment may have caused an acceleration of mutations after the “deluge” so by the time the mummy came along very few humans lived beyond say 70 years old.

It puzzles me why YECs deny evolution yet they blithely require super-speed evolution after the Big Boat lands. What about Haldane’s Limit Philipp? That limit that YECs quote to deny the possibility of evolution? That limit which is broken by the YEC super-speed evolution after the Flood. The inconsistency of YECism is shown here. YEC arguments about Haldane’s Limit prevent your own claim of super-speed evolution.

What might some of those beneficial environments be on earth during those early year 1000’s of years after creation?

Another huge “might” there. How about “evidence” instead of “might”? We can measure all sorts of things from 10,000 years ago, why not show us the evidence you have for your “might”, or might it be that you don’t have any?

Well how about an hyperbaric situation on earth like in the treatment of some medical ailments in modern medicine.

I am shocked, shocked to see a uniformitarian assumption in your post Philipp! This is talking about modern medicine. How can you just assume that what we see now was the same in the antediluvian past? You spend all of your post telling us about how different things were before the Flood and now you are telling us that things were the same before the Flood. Human DNA was different back then because people lived for hundreds of years. What works on modern degenerate human DNA cannot just be assumed to work on the non-degenerate pre-Flood human DNA of the time. Do try to be consistent Philipp. Less of your uniformitarian assumptions please.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is one in the Antarctic that I saw many years ago; something like 20 to 30 millions old has been shown to be only 2-3 million years old based on actual field research and new interpretation.

Fail, and a bad fail. You cannot use a 2 million year old date to support a 6,000 year old Earth. Your own evidence refutes you. Foot. Aim. Fire.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

I am shocked, shocked to see a uniformitarian assumption in your post Philipp! This is talking about modern medicine. How can you just assume that what we see now was the same in the antediluvian past? You spend all of your post telling us about how different things were before the Flood and now you are telling us that things were the same before the Flood. Human DNA was different back then because people lived for hundreds of years. What works on modern degenerate human DNA cannot just be assumed to work on the non-degenerate pre-Flood human DNA of the time. Do try to be consistent Philipp. Less of your uniformitarian assumptions please.
rossum

You expect consistency, rossum?

 

[buffalo]

Let us go back to scientific basics. I am sure we can both agree that we do not see men living to 500 years old today. There are two hypotheses to explain this observation. The rossum hypothesis is that human DNA has always been such that no man can live for 500 years. The buffalo hypothesis is that 10,000 years in the past human DNA was such that 500 year lifetimes were possible but that human DNA has degenerated since then so such long lifetimes are no longer possible.

In order to decide between these two hypotheses we need to make predictions from them and then perform experiments to determine which predictions, if any, are correct. Incorrect predictions will result in the rejection of that hypothesis.

The rossum hypothesis predicts that human DNA 10,000 years ago was the same as it is now. The buffalo hypothesis predicts that human DNA 10,000 years ago was different to now because it was less degenerate.

So we now appeal to experiment. So far all DNA results from old human (Homo sapiens) remains have been within the normal modern range of human DNA. This is not because our measuring techniques are inaccurate because we have measured 30,000 year old DNA from Neanderthals which fell outside the modern human range. Hence we know that our techniques are accurate enough to show significant differences in 10,000 year old DNA and that no such differences have been found. We can reasonably say that the rossum hypothesis prediction has not been falsified.

Unless some evidence can be produced to support the buffalo hypothesis prediction then that hypothesis is looking doubtful. You need evidence of significant differences in 10,000 year old human DNA. Without such evidence your hypothesis is lacking scientific support.

I have evidential support for my hypothesis. Where is your evidential support?

rossum

Which gene do you think is responsible for shorter lifespans?

 

[buffalo]

The speed is irrelevant. Whether it took five minutes or five thousand years it still happened at least two million years ago and so cannot be used to support a 10,000 year old Earth.

You need evidence in favour of 10,000 years, not evidence in favour of 2,000,000 years. Your own evidence disproves your case.

rossum

I am going to :tsktsk: :tsktsk: you again. Of course the writers of the article have to try to fit this in with the current paradigm. The point is things are changing - again. So we move from 70M to 2M a reduction factor of 35.

Speed (or lack of it) is important to a uniformatarian, don’t you think?

 

[buffalo]

Itinerant1 here is another timely article to help with your objections and St Thomas. Please read the entire article.

IDvolution - liking it more and more.

A Response to Professor Feser

For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed.

• Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 27, article 1, reply to objection 3.
  Although creatures do not attain to a natural likeness to God according to similitude of species, as a man begotten is like to the man begetting, still they do attain to likeness to Him, forasmuch as they represent the divine idea, as a material house is like to the house in the architect’s mind.
• Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 44, article 3, reply to objection 1.
  For just as an architect, without injustice, places stones of the same kind in different parts of a building, not on account of any antecedent difference in the stones, but with a view to securing that perfection of the entire building, which could not be obtained except by the different positions of the stones; even so, God from the beginning, to secure perfection in the universe, has set therein creatures of various and unequal natures, according to His wisdom, and without injustice, since no diversity of merit is presupposed.
• Summa Theologica, Vol. I, q. 65, article 2, reply to objection 3.

 

[Sideline]

"rossum:

The speed is irrelevant. Whether it took five minutes or five thousand years it still happened at least two million years ago and so cannot be used to support a 10,000 year old Earth.

You need evidence in favour of 10,000 years, not evidence in favour of 2,000,000 years. Your own evidence disproves your case.

rossum

I am going to :tsktsk: :tsktsk: you again. Of course the writers of the article have to try to fit this in with the current paradigm. The point is things are changing - again. So we move from 70M to 2M a reduction factor of 35.

Speed (or lack of it) is important to a uniformatarian, don’t you think?

I’ve been lurking on this thread for awhile now, and I have to say I agree with Buffalo on this one. You seem to be missing the point rossum.

Phillipp and Buffalo aren’t saying that a date of 2,000,000 years is supporting a 10,000 year old earth. What they are saying is that since some scientists have discovered (or supposed) that certain geological formations are younger than they originally thought, then it stands to reason that all geological approximations of age will be shown to be out by an order of magnitude** several thousand times greater** than the adjustments they have already had to make.

To be fair, I can see why you would be confused! You are blinded by the current scientific paradigm. You are under the impression that the theories, predictions, and observations of the past 150 years are somehow… factual. You fail to allow yourself to be persuaded that any evidence (or supposition) that any previously accepted hypotheses is wrong (or could be wrong) casts doubt on the entire sciences of geology and biology. If you would just open your mind, and open your heart, you will see how woefully misguided sticking to the available evidence is. Just allow yourself to extrapolate beyond the data, and you will see that creationism has to be true.

 

[Philipp]

Fail, and a bad fail. You cannot use a 2 million year old date to support a 6,000 year old Earth. Your own evidence refutes you. Foot. Aim. Fire.

rossum

Not my foot. I take the position of a scientist who uses the most respected tool to determine ages such as AMS C-14 dating. I also use historical documents as other scientists do who are unsure of those long ages or who support the wisdom of the church fathers.

ANTARCTIC RESEARCH (20 M DOWN TO 2-3 M): Actually the researchers in the Antarctic were even wondering about the age of the unfossilized wood they discovered in the strata they were studying and tried to C-14 date the wood. Why did they use C-14 dating? I suspect they were unsure of the real age so like good scientists they C-14 dated the wood; but, alas they obtained a > RC age back in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s because of antiquated C-14 dating equipment. Had they redated the wood using the newer AMS equipment and/or allowed for a long account on state-of-the-art beta counters at a major professional lab they might have obtained C-14 ages in the 30,000-40,000 year range as have other scientists in alleged 108 million year old strata along the Paluxy River in Texas. ; in a gold mine in Western USA.

ASTEROID IMPACTS: Who said that they all impacted during the flood year! It may be that the Earth/Earth moon/Mars/Jupiter comples were undergoing bombardment over several hundred years thus allowing plenty of time to allow the heat to dissipate. Every planet shows 100’s of impacts. But the point is that all impacts appeared to have occurred in the sedimentary rock sediments here on earth. There could have been one or two impacts that initiated a world-wide catastrophe mentioned by all cultures with other impacts following over years thereafter. No wonder the ancients were so interested in astronomy and astrology. Those studies will come along more rapidly once freedom of research along with sufficient funding is made available.

AREAS OF RESEARCH: C-14 date the fossils in the Tundra of Alaska down 8,000 feet - plenty of unfossilized wood down to at least 2,000 feet; other core samples of fossilized wood, shells and the like in the drill holes of asteroid impacts and volcanism areas. Scientists have really just really begun to study the earth. They’ve been challenged to C-14date dinosaur bones world-wide. Perhaps when some nation returns from Titan with some of those hydrocarbons they can test for C-14 content also.
Pacem!

 

[buffalo]

I’ve been lurking on this thread for awhile now, and I have to say I agree with Buffalo on this one. You seem to be missing the point rossum.

Phillipp and Buffalo aren’t saying that a date of 2,000,000 years is supporting a 10,000 year old earth. What they are saying is that since some scientists have discovered (or supposed) that certain geological formations are younger than they originally thought, then it stands to reason that all geological approximations of age will be shown to be out by an order of magnitude** several thousand times greater** than the adjustments they have already had to make.

To be fair, I can see why you would be confused! You are blinded by the current scientific paradigm. You are under the impression that the theories, predictions, and observations of the past 150 years are somehow… factual. You fail to allow yourself to be persuaded that any evidence (or supposition) that any previously accepted hypotheses is wrong (or could be wrong) casts doubt on the entire sciences of geology and biology. If you would just open your mind, and open your heart, you will see how woefully misguided sticking to the available evidence is. Just allow yourself to extrapolate beyond the data, and you will see that creationism has to be true.

Sideline - where have you been? Haven’t run into you in a while.

 

[rossum]

Which gene do you think is responsible for shorter lifespans?

Your lack of knowledge of biology is showing. That singular “gene” speaks volumes of the amount you have yet to learn.

You are the one who is proposing the hypothesis that lives used to be longer; it is up to you to demonstrate the genes that used to be responsible but now are not. Get sequencing that old DNA and see what has changed. Then work out the effects of the changes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am going to :tsktsk: :tsktsk: you again. Of course the writers of the article have to try to fit this in with the current paradigm. The point is things are changing - again. So we move from 70M to 2M a reduction factor of 35.

Speed (or lack of it) is important to a uniformatarian, don’t you think?

You have a strange idea of what uniformitarian means. Today we see some slow processes and some fast processes at work in geology. We are not at all surprised that there were some slow processes and some fast processes working in the past. The past between 40 million and 2 or 3 million years ago. A past long enough ago to completely rule out a 10,000 year old Earth. Your own evidence refutes your position.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Your lack of knowledge of biology is showing. That singular “gene” speaks volumes of the amount you have yet to learn.

You are the one who is proposing the hypothesis that lives used to be longer; it is up to you to demonstrate the genes that used to be responsible but now are not. Get sequencing that old DNA and see what has changed. Then work out the effects of the changes.

rossum

I am respecting historical writings.

For thousands of years the universe was eternal. Genesis’ very first line:

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

Only in the last century has science caught up with this. Archaeological findings are continually supporting the historical claims of Scripture.

There is no single gene.

As you well know (or maybe not yet aware) the DNA language is powerful. Gene sequencing alone and comparisons from the past probably will not show why they lived long ages. Regulatory functions and coding will have to be examined. We know without a doubt though the genes of Adam were better than ours. Adam is the prototypical human with genes not yet subjected to mutations (corruption). Epigenetic effects of environment and lifestyle had not yet accumulated. The environmental conditions of the time we can only guess at.

Since you cannot show a gene that accounts for lifespan your evidence is worthless. (and you really do know this, don’t you)

These historical writings must be respected.

 

[rossum]

I’ve been lurking on this thread for awhile now, and I have to say I agree with Buffalo on this one. You seem to be missing the point rossum.

Phillipp and Buffalo aren’t saying that a date of 2,000,000 years is supporting a 10,000 year old earth. What they are saying is that since some scientists have discovered (or supposed) that certain geological formations are younger than they originally thought, then it stands to reason that all geological approximations of age will be shown to be out by an order of magnitude** several thousand times greater** than the adjustments they have already had to make.

This is an incorrect argument. The arguments about the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau depend crucially on the particular geology of that region. I quoted a different scientist saying that different parts of the region were formed at different dates and that the older parts were 40 million years old. Just because other parts are younger does not invalidate the 40 ma age of the older parts.

In Greenland the Amitsoq gneiss is dated to 3.5 billion years old and the geology there has no resemblance to the geology of the Himalayas. Buffalo and Philipp are trying to extend a dubiously valid argument about a specific piece of geology to all of geology. For example, I can make a valid case for their being doubt about the Book of Maccabees being included in the Bible; Protestants deny that it is canonical. What I cannot do is to extend that to pretend that there is also doubt about the Book of Genesis. That is what is being tried here, using a small doubt about the Himalayas to try to put a large doubt on all of geology. That is an incorrect argument unless you also accept that there is doubt about Genesis being canonical.

If a 10,000 year old Earth is correct then no rock anywhere on Earth can be over 10,000 years old. Not one piece. There is a lot more old rock on Earth than is found in the Himalayas. Greenland, Scotland, Siberia, Australia, the Appalachians and Canada all have ancient rocks that completely refute the proposed YEC age of the Earth. Do you know how many varves there are in Lake Suigetsu? Do you know how many varves there are in Lake Baikal? Do you know how many varves there are in the Green River Formation? Do you know how old the oldest living thing on Earth is? The evidence for an Old Earth is beyond reasonable doubt.

You fail to allow yourself to be persuaded that any evidence (or supposition) that any previously accepted hypotheses is wrong (or could be wrong) casts doubt on the entire sciences of geology and biology.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity both showed that previous scientific paradigms were wrong and I accept both QM and GR. Lyell’s geology showed that the previous scientific paradigm, catastrophism, was wrong. Darwin’s evolution showed that the previous scientific theory, creationism, was wrong. Creationism was once the current scientific theory; it has been replaced by a better theory. It is because I do accept scientific change that I do not accept the ludicrous hypotheses of Young Earth Creationism.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

You are the one who is proposing the hypothesis that lives used to be longer; it is up to you to demonstrate the genes that used to be responsible but now are not. Get sequencing that old DNA and see what has changed. Then work out the effects of the changes.

Is that how it is determined that species A (e.g. pre-humans) evolved into species B (e.g. humans)?

 

[buffalo]

This is an incorrect argument. The arguments about the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau depend crucially on the particular geology of that region. I quoted a different scientist saying that different parts of the region were formed at different dates and that the older parts were 40 million years old. Just because other parts are younger does not invalidate the 40 ma age of the older parts.

In Greenland the Amitsoq gneiss is dated to 3.5 billion years old and the geology there has no resemblance to the geology of the Himalayas. Buffalo and Philipp are trying to extend a dubiously valid argument about a specific piece of geology to all of geology. For example, I can make a valid case for their being doubt about the Book of Maccabees being included in the Bible; Protestants deny that it is canonical. What I cannot do is to extend that to pretend that there is also doubt about the Book of Genesis. That is what is being tried here, using a small doubt about the Himalayas to try to put a large doubt on all of geology. That is an incorrect argument unless you also accept that there is doubt about Genesis being canonical.

If a 10,000 year old Earth is correct then no rock anywhere on Earth can be over 10,000 years old. Not one piece. There is a lot more old rock on Earth than is found in the Himalayas. Greenland, Scotland, Siberia, Australia, the Appalachians and Canada all have ancient rocks that completely refute the proposed YEC age of the Earth. Do you know how many varves there are in Lake Suigetsu? Do you know how many varves there are in Lake Baikal? Do you know how many varves there are in the Green River Formation? Do you know how old the oldest living thing on Earth is? The evidence for an Old Earth is beyond reasonable doubt.

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity both showed that previous scientific paradigms were wrong and I accept both QM and GR. Lyell’s geology showed that the previous scientific paradigm, catastrophism, was wrong. Darwin’s evolution showed that the previous scientific theory, creationism, was wrong. Creationism was once the current scientific theory; it has been replaced by a better theory. It is because I do accept scientific change that I do not accept the ludicrous hypotheses of Young Earth Creationism.

rossum

How many varves can form per year?