How can you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

PS, Our company just finished a permitting project for a low magnesium (cement rock) limestone that is about 900 ft thick. It uncomformably overlies the underlying strata (an earlier high magnesian (dolomite) and uncomfomably underlies another Dolomitic limestone that is more massively bedded. All three units show laminae of deposition and different patterns of hardening (diagenesis) the underlying dolomite contains fractures that show strong compression over the region (like an uplift) then these dolomites were eroded and then the cement rock was deposited in a high calcium, low magnesian seawater. It too was fractured and eroded before the next formation was deposited. Each of these formations have different aged fossils, different magnetic poles and different detrital chemistry. that correlates nicely to nearby volcanics with fresh and isolated zircons unique to that volcanic. So we can bracket the ages quite nicely.

Id like you to discuss a similar sequence wherein a detail knowledge of the rocks is in line with your Biblical convistions, and is evidence based.

Please dont merely cut the "cute" sections and avoid the hard stuff .

0 Replies

There is no part of the process which REQUIRES long periods of time (i.e. thousands , tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands of years) to complete.

If there is, can you name one?

0 Replies

Re: How can you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years

real life wrote:

kickycan wrote:
real life wrote:
kickycan wrote:
real life wrote:
kickycan wrote:
This is for the so-called "young earth" creationists. I suspect that Real Life subscribes to this idea, but if there are any others on this board, I would like to ask you too. So here it is. I'd like to know how, with all the fossils, geologic data, and scientific evidence out there, you can possibly believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Thanks.

Why would you 'suspect' such a thing, when I've stately clearly that I do consider the earth to be young?

I'm sorry, but I don't read everyone of your posts. I thought I'd seen you say that somewhere, but when I wrote this thread I wasn't sure. Plus, you frequently say things in an ambiguous way. So I only suspected.

Less than four hours before you began this thread, you had responded to an exchange between ros and I where I discussed this very thing.

Yes, but you didn't actually say that you believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, you just said you believed the earth to be young.

Alright, perhaps I overreacted. My apologies.

kickycan wrote:
So I, in an effort not to embarrass you by assuming that you did believe such a ludicrous idiotic idea, gave you the benefit of the doubt.

But now I see that you actually DO believe this idiocy.

So please carry on. In all honesty, your beliefs are fascinating.

In an effort not to overreact again, let me just ask you:

If an idea goes against the accepted (even informed) view of the majority, is it by necessity ludicrous or idiotic?

Isn't the history of science filled with instances where the majority view was incorrect?

Apology accepted. And although I do feel that your beliefs on this topic are ludicrous, maybe I was being a bit harsh there. It was only a response to your perceived smugness to me. Although I doubt highly that what you profess to believe here is true, I will try in the future to keep my thoughts about that to myself. My aplogies for getting all snippy about it.

0 Replies

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no part of the process which REQUIRES long periods of time (i.e. thousands , tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands of years) to complete.

Please discuss this with some evidence . Im such a hardcase that I cant accept your 'say so". You made the proposition that it doesnt take lots of time, I think youre incorrect, can you prove me wrong?.

0 Replies

I'm beginning to think that RL is a lawyer...

"Mr. Farmer, was there any point during the shooting when the smoke from the gun was REQUIRED to come from the bullet in question?" [delivered with a knowing nod to the jury]

0 Replies

The member "real life" is fundamentally dishonest, in that he never directly acknowledges and clearly states the basis for his assumption of the age of the planet, which is all to obviously scriptural.

His poofism relies upon the assumption that his imaginary friend can create the entire cosmos as we find it in an instant. To that extent, his boy god could have created the world exactly as we find a century ago (long enough ago that none of us posting here would have been aware of the deception), and could have created it with all of the scientific and historical artifacts which convince us that it is far, far older. Therefore, "real life" must have a basis for asserting that the world is any older than he is himself, and i assert that his basis is a scriptural exegesis.

Not that i expect him ever to tackle the question with that much direct honesty.

0 Replies

However I do really enjoy his attempts at appearing scientifically curious.
By the way, wheres gunga dim?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The member "real life" is fundamentally dishonest, in that he never directly acknowledges and clearly states the basis for his assumption of the age of the planet, which is all to obviously scriptural.

Real dishonest?

What else would you expect from a Creationist. Dishonesty is the only thing they have to support their beliefs.

0 Replies

In reply to RL's question...

If an idea goes against the accepted (even informed) view of the majority, is it by necessity ludicrous or idiotic?

No.

I can give three examples of ideas that go against the accepted and informed view of the majority, which still got published and eventually became the norm.

[1] Barry Marshall identified Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. Initially this met with much resistance from surgeons (principally because they stood to lose financially if his work was accepted), but the evidence in favour of his hypothesis won the day. Interestingly, he experimented on himself to prove his point. He even ended up with a Nobel prize for his work.

[2] Stanley Prusiner put forward the paradigm breaking idea that specific proteins might be capable of engaging in replication processes independently of a nucleic acid intermediary. Initially his work met resistance from those who considered that replication without a nucleic acid intermediary was impossible (on the grounds that no such replication mechanism had been discovered, and therefore, the good scientific practice was to assume that no such replication process existed until supporting evidence for one was presented). In other words, his work went against the viewpoint that something had to have DNA or RNA in order to reproduce. His work eventually earned him a Nobel prize. What he discovered is now what we call prions and what we now believe to be the cause of BSE and vCJD.

(Incidentally, a week ago, I read an article in NewScientist where his viewpoint--which is now the norm--is being challenged once again).

[3] Lynn Margulis hypothesised that eukaryotic cells arose by something she labelled the 'endosymbiont hypothesis', a process in which prokaryotic precursors ingested other cells without destroying them, but integrating them into their own cytoplasm, in order to acquire structures such as mitochondria and chloroplasts. Again, resistance to her ideas was due to the absence of evidence supporting them initially, but, sure enough, that evidence arose - Margulis found some of it herself, and it was independently confirmed by other scientists. The endoysmbiont hypothesis is now a standard part of biology textbooks. Margulis won the Proctor Prize for Scientific Achievement and was awarded the American National Medal of Science by President Clinton.

The difference, of course, between these three and Creationists is that their evidence stands up to scrutiny. The evidence of Creationists, especially young Earth Creationists, does not.

0 Replies

Wolf gives three excellent examples of how the scientific method works. Contrast that with the fraudulant techniques employed by the creationists and their ilk who pick on a issue within science where debate is vigorous (it seems any issue will do) as somehow "proof" that their bronze age scribblings are true. Its laughable really.

0 Replies

Im quite familiar with Lynn MArgulis' work. Her "gglomming genomes" is loaded with evidence from the Archeozoic sediments when the distinction between plant and animal was more hazy.
However , there is still much of her work that is "fringy", (such as being the main scientific guru of "Gaia Hypothesis". Ive never been really fond of feedback mechanisms that take in an entire planet/ Too spiritual for my cereal bowl.

Good examples Wolf. Im sure that, when RL does return, he will either

1pick out a single line of you stuff or

2completely change the subject.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no part of the process which REQUIRES long periods of time (i.e. thousands , tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands of years) to complete.

Please discuss this with some evidence . Im such a hardcase that I cant accept your 'say so". You made the proposition that it doesnt take lots of time, I think youre incorrect, can you prove me wrong?.

Good ploy, FM, asking me to prove a negative. Gotta give credit. :wink:

I would simply point out again that when we find an entire organism fossilized, the reasonable assumption is that it was probably buried quickly , before decay and / or scavengers had the best of it.

If it was buried quickly that means the strata in which it resides was not formed millimeter by millimeter over lllllllllllllllllooooooooooonnnnnnnngggggg ages, as we are so often led to believe by old earth advocates.

Please, don't accept my 'say so'. Think it thru for yourself.

0 Replies

In the Dolomite mountains (the mineral calcium magnesium cabonate is called dolomite, and because it was there that the geologist Déodat de Dolomieu first identified the mineral, both the mineral and the mountains were so named), there is a mountain massif which the Italians call the Gruppo Sella.

http://www.hotel-guide.it/easy2web/upload/images/1181735336sella.jpg

The highest peak in the massif, Boè, reaches an elevation of 3151 meters above mean sea level. These limestone cliffs rest on basement rock, but let us just consider the portions which lie above mean sea level.

Had this rock been formed a millimeter at a time, it would have required 3,151,000 years to form--a figure to which, obviously, "real life" objects. But let us look at the math in other ways. Had the magnesium carbonate been deposited a centimeter at a time (1/5 of an inch), it would have taken 315,100 years to form. If it had been deposited a decimeter at a time (4"), it would have taken 31,510 years to form. To have been formed in 6000 years, it would have required a deposition of the magnesium carbonate at an average rate of more than 20" per year, every year for that 6000 years.

The member "real life" is positing that the deposition of minerals can occur at much faster rates that is implicit in the rate for an old earth--and he objects to the concept of an old earth. So i would ask, what evidence does "real life" have that limestones can be deposited at a rate as fast as 20"+, every year for thousands of years on end. (A meter is 39.36 inches, half that is 19.68 inches--to deposit more than 3000 meters of material in 6000 years time would require an average deposition rate of more than 20" per annum for the entire period.)

Even the extraordinary deposition rate of 4" per annum would have required more than 30,000 years to accomplish the formation, and would have required an average annual deposition rate of 4" for every one of those more than 30,000 years. Even such an extraodinarily heavy constant average rate of deposition shoots "real life's" young earth theories in the ass. The proposition is too absurd to consider.

0 Replies

Great math Set....I wonder how we'd factor in cumulative compaction rates of the deposits over that same time period. Piling 20" of material on top of 20" of material has a negligible effect on the bottom 20". By the time thousands of meters of deposits are laid upon one another, I'm sure a fair amount of packing occurs, resulting in an overall net increase of total deposits required to reach 3152 meters.

I also wonder what the peak height of Boè was, prior to any erosion?

0 Replies

Those are also great points, C1. However, i tried to restrict to the most simple-minded math, so that even a religionist could understand my objection to the absurdities "real life" is attempting to foist off on us.

0 Replies

deposition, as set has nicely pointed out, can take a variable length of time, depending upon the nature of the solubility of the precipitated limey muds, (or coral detritus, or dolomitic limey muds). Limestones and dolomites are about the least rapid depositional sed rocks , just because they are mostly precipitates , not particulates and sands.
So the deposition phase can take many , many, many years. So many that fossil trilobites show major genera evolution in subsequently younger layers.
Then we add to the deposition the "hardening" process called diagenesis. In this process, many hundreds of feet of raw sediment dessicate or are compacted to thicknesses tenths of the levels of the original muds.
So my point RL , all along , is being nicely exemplified by others who"get it ".
My question is, How comes you dont? you seem like an intelligent guy?

0 Replies

Set, I had to wiki-up info on Dolomieu. Thanks for the great "Type section" nomenclature for dolomite. I always thought it was named just for the type area of the Ital Alps. I never knew the whole sheebang was named after this dude[QUOTEJump to: navigation, search

Deodat de DolomieuDieudonné Sylvain Guy Tancrède de Dolomieu usually known as Déodat de Dolomieu (Dolomieu near La Tour-du-Pin, June 23, 1750 - Chateuneuf November 28, 1801) was a French geologist; the rock dolomite was named after him.

Déodat de Dolomieu was born in Dauphiné, France, one of 11 children of the Marquis de Dolomieu and his wife Marie-Françoise de Berénger. As a child young Déodat showed considerable intellectual potential and special interest in the natural surroundings of his home in the Alps of southeastern France. Dolomieu began his military career with the Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights of Saint John (also called the Knights Hospitaller or the Knights of Malta) at the age of 12. His association with the Maltese Order caused him difficulties throughout his life, beginning with a duel, which he fought at the age of 18, where he killed a fellow member of the order. For this infraction he was sentenced to life in prison but due to the intercession of Pope Clement XIII he was released after 1 year.

During the period prior to the French Revolution Dolomieu took full part in the intellectual ferment of France and the rest of Europe. He maintained numerous social contacts among the nobility and although he never married, Dolomieu had something of a reputation as a ladies' man. Through his friend and mentor, the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, Dolomieu was made a corresponding member of the Royal Academy of Sciences. He spent his spare time taking scientific excursions throughout Europe collecting mineral specimens and visiting mining areas. His particular interests included mineralogy, volcanology, and the origin of mountain ranges. Although Dolomieu was greatly interested in volcanos, he became convinced that water played a major role in shaping the surface of the Earth through a series of prehistoric, catastrophic events. Dolomieu was not a uniformitarian geologist. His contemporary, James Hutton, did not publish the principle of uniformitarianism until 1795. Dolomieu was an observationalist and spent much time collecting and categorizing geological data. Unlike Hutton, no scientific principles or theories are credited to him, although he left his permanent mark on geology in another way.

During one of his field trips to the Alps of South Tyrol (today part of northeastern Italy) Dolomieu discovered a calcareous rock which, unlike limestone, did not effervesce in weak acid. He published these observations in 1791 in the Journal de Physique. The following year, in the same journal, the rock was named dolomie (or dolomite, in English) by Nicolas-Théodore de Saussure. Today both the rock and its major mineral constituent bear the name of Dolomieu, as do the Dolomites, the mountain range in northwestern Italy, where he first identified the rock.

In addition to his scientific activities Dolomieu continued to advance in rank in the Knights of Malta and was promoted to Commander in 1780. However, he continued to have difficulties as a result of his liberal political leanings which were unpopular among the conservative nobility who controlled the Order. Dolomieu retired from active military service in 1780 to devote full time to his travels and scientific work.

Dolomieu was at first was a strong partisan of the French Revolution, which began in 1789. However, the murder, of his friend the Duc de la Rochefoucauld, a close brush (shave?) with the guillotine, and the beheading of several of his relatives, turned him against the revolution
[/QUOTE]]

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Déodat de Dolomieu was born in Dauphiné, France,....

Name like that should have been good for at least two fights a day even in a frog school...

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no part of the process which REQUIRES long periods of time (i.e. thousands , tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands of years) to complete.

Please discuss this with some evidence . Im such a hardcase that I cant accept your 'say so". You made the proposition that it doesnt take lots of time, I think youre incorrect, can you prove me wrong?.

Good ploy, FM, asking me to prove a negative. Gotta give credit. :wink:

Or perhaps, you could try to prove that all the processes involved require a short amount of time to complete. Oh, wait, you can't. So therefore, you're wrong.

Quote:

I would simply point out again that when we find an entire organism fossilized, the reasonable assumption is that it was probably buried quickly , before decay and / or scavengers had the best of it.

Before decay... What decay? Decay of what? Do you even know what a fossil is?

Quote:

If it was buried quickly that means the strata in which it resides was not formed millimeter by millimeter over lllllllllllllllllooooooooooonnnnnnnngggggg ages, as we are so often led to believe by old earth advocates.

I do believe this is a strawman. Am I right in saying that, FM?

Please, don't accept my 'say so'. Think it thru for yourself.[/quote]

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
I would simply point out again that when we find an entire organism fossilized, the reasonable assumption is that it was probably buried quickly , before decay and / or scavengers had the best of it.

Before decay... What decay? Decay of what? Do you even know what a fossil is?

I can't believe that I have to explain this to you, Wolf.

There is a critter.

It dies.

For fossilized remains of this critter to be found many years from now, the freshly dead carcass will have to be somehow protected from decay (dead bodies rot) and scavengers.

Even evolutionary sources that I have posted will grudgingly admit that a fairly rapid burial is necessary in this process.

Yet, on the other hand, evolutionists also continue to defend the idea that the strata in which these fossilized critters reside were slowly , incrementally laid down over llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg ages.

How can the rock surrounding the critter take long ages to be laid down, while acknowledging that the critter was buried in (sediment which became) rock quickly?

0 Replies

How can you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know