Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Sounds interesting.* Show us how the recession of the moon is inconsistent with the age of the Earth as found by other methods.

Hint: look up the mechanism for the recession of the moon, and the measured rate, along with evidence for the length of day millions of years ago.* And it turns out that continental drift has a lot to do with it, although perhaps not the way you might expect.

It might be an interesting conversation.** But show us what you have.

As said.... there are different interpretations of evidence. When you start out with the belief that God created billions of years ago, you interpret evidence within your belief system.*

We can also interpret evidence *and see that everything supports the Biblical account, and the implausibly of evolution and billions of years of time.

See Genesis 1 where God spoke the moon into existence.*

*

 

[6days]

You are sounding almost like untellectual now, throwing out generalized claims with no technical content so they can be examined in detail. Are you just venting, or do you actually understand what is involved in the interaction between the earth and the moon, or in quantum tunneling?

Thanks for comparing me to Untellectual. I am impeessed with his humble attitude... I desire to be more humble. Im also impressed that he starts with Gods Word as absolute truth...as his starting point to understand the world we live in.
No.. I don't understand quantum tunneling and neither do you. We can look at explanations from atheist scientists, or Biblical creationist scientists to get two different interpretations of evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds interesting.* Show us how the recession of the moon is inconsistent with the age of the Earth as found by other methods.

Hint: look up the mechanism for the recession of the moon, and the measured rate, along with evidence for the length of day millions of years ago.* And it turns out that continental drift has a lot to do with it, although perhaps not the way you might expect.

It might be an interesting conversation.** But show us what you have.

As said.... there are different interpretations of evidence.

So nothing? If you don't know what the evidence is, what do you have?

See Genesis 1 where God spoke the moon into existence.*

So, it's "God did it." True, He did. But of course, if you were familiar with the evidence, you'd know He left us a lot of clues about how He did it.

 

[Jacob]

Ah, and it was on the internet, so it has to be true. Maybe the literature is a safer place to get honest information.

Here's an example of the sort of "information" that sometimes turns up:

Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano
Steven A. Austin *
Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/

He dated recent eruption material from Mt. St. Helens, and was shocked to find the dating had it millions of years old.

Here's what he didn't tell his readers:

1. He located a lab whose equipment was unable to accurately date any sample less than two million years old. They warned him of that issue, but he submitted the samples anyway.

2. The Dacite he submitted from the eruption contained unmelted material that would be much, much older than the eruption and would have given a much older date, even if the analysis was capable of dating very young rock.

I notice on the ICR website, Austin now merely claims that his work shows that contamination makes dating impossible. But it's quite possible to find material without such inclusions and there are some methods, like Argon/Argon that can date very recent eruptions. It accurately dated the eruption that buried Pompeii, for example.

Mount Saint Helen's is in my state. I don't know about what you are speaking. However, I do have questions about why it might be that a person has to know the date of a thing before it can be dated.

 

[Jacob]

There must be something non-traditional about your academic career. You say you just graduated as an engineer, yet you have also said you took a class in Differential Equations over a decade ago. On a normal direct path to a BS degree in Engineering, 10 years ago would be Junior High School. I seriously doubt DE was taught in your Junior High. Mid-life career change, perhaps?

WAS polite to me. He's kinda mad at me right now, cause he feels stories about disembodied visitors are his province alone. i don't expect him to keep tossing me rep points any more.

I went to Bible School after Community College (2 associate degrees), and then finished up my twelve years of lifeguarding. I now have two bachelor's degrees as well.

 

[Jacob]

Correct...evidence requires interpretation.
There are Christian geologists who are excited of how evidence supports the Biblical account of recent creation and the global flood.
Can send you some links if you wish.

I would look at them. It is easier to read about what has been done in this area than to go find someone who did the work themselves.

 

[Jacob]

That is false humbleness. He just uses belief in Jesus as a facade to push the weight of his over bloated ego around. You might be easily fooled by such sleazy strategies. But I am not easily fooled. True humility requires a healthy respect for reality, not just claims of belief in Jesus.

If I don't have anything to bring to the table that will help you in terms of science, the best I can do is still the best I can do.

 

[noguru]

If I don't have anything to bring to the table that will help you in terms of science, the best I can do is still the best I can do.

Then why are you even offering your opinion about science? To me that is the epitome of arrogance which you use to cover your ignorance. And judging from your track record I have little confidence in your opinion regarding scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mount Saint Helen's is in my state. I don't know about what you are speaking.

I've been by it a few times, and stopped to go out on the ridge as far as I could. Never went into the crater, of course. It's impressive, even now. You should check it out.

The point, of course, is that Austin, by submitting material that is very recent, was not honest with the lab.

However, I do have questions about why it might be that a person has to know the date of a thing before it can be dated.

Which is a bit like saying if you want to measure the temperature of something, you don't need to know if it's a batch of fudge, or the metal in a blast furnace.

 

[Jacob]

Then why are you even offering your opinion about science? To me that is the epitome of arrogance which you use to cover your ignorance. And judging from your track record I have little confidence in your opinion regarding scripture.

We all have strengths and weaknesses. I am strong in the Biblical record, at least stronger than evolution (I'm pretty certain about that!). But that doesn't mean I don't know anything about science.

 

[6days]

I

As said.... there are different interpretations of evidence.

If you don't know what the evidence is, what do you have?

As you know there is only one set of evidences. There are more than two different ways to interpret that evidence. We know how fairly accurately how much further the moon moves away from the eath each year. We understand fairly accurately how gravity from earth affects the recession rate, and how the recession rate would have been different if the moon was significantly closer. We know what the Roche limit is etc etc.

We have the exact same evidence, but very different interpretations. And, that is what BJ's question was. He was (I think) asking what dating methods *we would use to determine that we don't live in a universe billions of years old. There are other methods... for example we know comets cant last billions of years. We interpret the evidence different according to our beliefs. ( no need to explain your belief in Oort)

See Genesis 1 where God spoke the moon into existence.

So, it's "God did it." True, He did. But of course, if you were familiar with the evidence, you'd know He left us a lot of clues about how He did it.

.

Yes...God did give us a lot of clues about how He did it. See Genesis 1

And,

BIBLE "For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command.


BIBLE "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

 

[Jacob]

I've been by it a few times, and stopped to go out on the ridge as far as I could. Never went into the crater, of course. It's impressive, even now. You should check it out.

The point, of course, is that Austin, by submitting material that is very recent, was not honest with the lab.



Which is a bit like saying if you want to measure the temperature of something, you don't need to know if it's a batch of fudge, or the metal in a blast furnace.

How would you already know the age on something before submitting it to determine its age?

 

[6days]

We all have strengths and weaknesses. I am strong in the Biblical record, at least stronger than evolution (I'm pretty certain about that!). But that doesn't mean I don't know anything about science.

Haha yes! Its like atheists who want to discuss the Bible. Some dont know it... some know it well... but all are welcome to discuss.

 

[Jacob]

Haha yes! Its like atheists who want to discuss the Bible. Some dont know it... some know it well... but all are welcome to discuss.

I agree.

 

[The Barbarian]

How would you already know the age on something before submitting it to determine its age?

Sometimes you don't. I'm just pointing out that it was dishonest of Austin to submit material that he knew the lab could not accurately date.

There are methods that will work on short periods of time. Argon/argon, for example, will work on the scale of thousands of years. Probably too close for comfort, for what Austin was trying to do.

 

[Jacob]

Sometimes you don't. I'm just pointing out that it was dishonest of Austin to submit material that he knew the lab could not accurately date.

There are methods that will work on short periods of time. Argon/argon, for example, will work on the scale of thousands of years. Probably too close for comfort, for what Austin was trying to do.

I don't know how anyone could date anything beyond 6,000 years being that this is how long it has been since creation.

However, how would this person, Austin, know the age... submit it to a lab... and the lab then not know the age but give an age anyway? I don't even know what age they gave, but how would Austin have more knowledge about the age than the people in the lab?

 

[6days]

Mount Saint Helen's is in my state. I don't know about what you are speaking. However, I do have questions about why it might be that a person has to know the date of a thing before it can be dated.

You need to know what the expected range is so that the lab can give you that date. Haaa loved your question.

 

[The Barbarian]

As you know there is only one set of evidences. There are more than two different ways to interpret that evidence. We know how fairly accurately how much further the moon moves away from the eath each year.

Currently, but any attempt to use the current rate has to explain the data:

Precambrian length of day and the validity of tidal rhythmite paleotidal values
George E. Williams
Geophysical Research Letters >
Vol 24 Issue 4
Abstract

Paleotidal records obtained from sedimentary tidal rhythmites may be systematically abbreviated and so may give incorrect paleotidal and paleorotational values. The validity of determined values, including past length of day (l.o.d.), can be assessed by testing for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Three independent values obtained from the ∼620-Ma Elatina-Reynella rhythmites in South Australia (14.1 sidereal months/year, 401 sidereal days/year, and 19.5 years for the lunar nodal period), when employed in different equations that make allowance for lunar and solar tidal effects, each give a lunar semimajor axis in the range of 96.5–96.9% of the present figure. Such self-consistency strongly supports the validity of the derived l.o.d. of 21.9 hours at ∼620 Ma. The validity of the estimated l.o.d. of 20.9 hours at ∼900 Ma (revised value, Big Cottonwood rhythmites, Utah) and of 17.1–18.9 hours at ∼2.5 Ga (Weeli Wolli rhythmites, Western Australia) cannot be assessed in that way because each data set has only one directly determined value. The derived mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 cm/year since ∼620 Ma averts a close approach of the Moon at least since 3 Ga and a lower rate of retreat seems likely during the Proterozoic.

We understand fairly accurately how gravity from earth affects the recession rate

Actually, since the measured effect of gravity varies mostly from ocean tides (which are vastly more compressible and therefore much more strongly affect the transfer of kinetic energy to the Moon from the Earth) and since this force is dependent on the shape and fragmentation of continents (more coast, more tidal effect) we can't assume that the rate has been constant. In fact, as you see above, it was much less when continents were joined together in a large mass.

and how the recession rate would have been different if the moon was significantly closer. We know what the Roche limit is etc etc.

From the data, the moon was far beyond the Roche limit, even three billion years ago.

We have the exact same evidence

No. Your conclusion is possible only by ignoring that evidence.

There are other methods... for example we know comets cant last billions of years. We interpret the evidence different according to our beliefs. ( no need to explain your belief in Oort)

It's easy to demonstrate the Oort cloud. First, Kepler's laws allow us to calculate the apogee of a comet very accurately. The long-period comets come from a source up to 50,000 AUs (an AU is the distance from the Sun to the Earth). We know it's a cloud, because long-period comets come in at all angles, not just on the plane of the solar system, as is the case with short-period comets, which come from the Kuiper belt.

As with the Kuiper belt, occasionally one of the bodies in the area is gravitationally disturbed, and falls toward the Sun.

 

[6days]

There are methods that will work on short periods of time. Argon/argon, for example, will work on the scale of thousands of years. Probably too close for comfort, for what Austin was trying to do.

So radiometeic dating results are not accurate on things God created 6000 yeara ago?

 

[noguru]

Haha yes! Its like atheists who want to discuss the Bible. Some dont know it... some know it well... but all are welcome to discuss.

The Bible is theology. Science is science. That is why the courts have ruled that your myopic theology is religion and not science. Get it now?