ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[P8ntrDan]

Are we discussing evolution or the age of the Earth? C-14 dating has not been proven unreliable, and its dating consistently points to an Earth far older than 6,000 years. The geologic record is clear and accurate. His lineage shows who who he was descended from- how does that prove a young Earth?

Evolution is key to the debate as it is the only reason you need an old earth.

Guess you missed this->Radiocarbon dating has been proven inaccurate by the fact that it dated a freshly killed seal at 1300 years, had a 15,000 year difference in ages from samples taken of the same block of peat, dated a living snail shell at 27,000 years old, and dated a piece of coal that was documented to be 1680 years old at 300,000,000 years. The very most a C-14 dating can give you is 60,000 years because of its half life of 5,730 years. However, the story presented by the bible, with a water dome around the earth and the flood explains the levels of C-14.

Before you say it again, do a little lookin' around. You'll find that the geological layers rarely match up with those nice little diagrams they give you in the science books.

Lineage, however, is excellent proof. What better way to determine when something started than to follow the generations back? If I wanted to know when my ancestors immigrated to America, I would follow my lineage, not check my system for levels of americium.

 

[bob b]

You dissapoint me bob
Where is the evidence for creationism??
Evo

Do you believe that there are more than the following two alternatives for explaining life?

1) nature, or

2) intelligent designer.

After you answer that I will explain my reason for choosing the intelligent designer.

 

[SUTG]

No offense, but the best proof of creation of a young earth or whatever is the lack of proof for evolution. Neither can be proven scientifically, so both are theories, and both are based off belief.

They may both be theories, but definitely not in the same sense of the word. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it explains alot of observed phenomena in a cohesive way, has been tested, aligns with the evidence, and is supported by the scientific community. Examples include the theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity.

There is another meaning of the term theory in the sense that someone might say "I have a theory that the tides are controlled by secret beams sent to the Earth by aliens." In other words, it is a just a hunch or a guess. It really says nothing as far as the veracity of the claim. Young Earth Creationism falls in this camp.

I just belive evolution to be a lie, as the age is based off of radiocarbon dating, which is terribly inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating has been proven inaccurate by the fact that it dated a freshly killed seal at 1300 years, had a 15,000 year difference in ages from samples taken of the same block of peat, dated a living snail shell at 27,000 years old, and dated a piece of coal that was documented to be 1680 years old at 300,000,000 years. The very most a C-14 dating can give you is 60,000 years because of its half life of 5,730 years. However, the story presented by the bible, with a water dome around the earth and the flood explains the levels of C-14. Also, the Geological timeline that scientists use by looking at rock layers is very inconsistant and a very small percentage of the world actually matches up with it.

True, there have been cases where rediocarbon dating has given inaccurate results. But they are few and far between. Every method of measurement fails on ocassion, due to human error, abberations, etc., but no-one ever pays any notice. If a seamstress fails to "measure twice, and cut once" and screws up a wedding gown, we don't suddenly suspect the accuracy of measuring with a tape measure. The results of this kind of measurement are so often accurate, that we can confidently attribute the error to somthing else. The same holds true for radiocarbon dating. The only ones suggesting that radiocarbon dating be abandoned wholesale are desperate Young Earth Creationists.

Also, the documented timeline for Jesus's ancestory is actually good proof, but, just like Nacho Libre's partner, I guess you're all saying "I only belive in science..."

I would never say I only believe in science, as much as that disappoints you.

And if you set the bar for evidence so low that you think the "documented" timeline for Jesus's ancestory is actually good proof, then you should have no problem finding evidence for just about anything.

 

[kmoney]

Something like "I used to believe in the story of evolution until I became a systems engineer and worked on complex defense systems and then realized that the cell was complex. You can read about this in my Cell Trends Too thread. With the current DNA evidence I realized that the "molecules to man" theory was impossible and the best explanation was the explanation given in genesis which also solves the Starlight Travel problem. Most scientists are now abandoning evolution. I believe the eventually all scientist will abandon the theory, I only hoope i will be alive to see it. Oh yeah, and the Second law of Thermodynamics and ireeducible Complexity."

I love your avatar!! :rotfl:

 

[SUTG]

And it is illogical to believe that life came from nothing.

Really?! Which law of logic is being violated?

 

[SUTG]

Like life originating from non-life.

Still waiting for your evidence (using the scientific method of course) of life ever coming from non-life.

Do you have any evidence for life being poofed into existence by a supernatural being?

 

[P8ntrDan]

They may both be theories, but definitely not in the same sense of the word. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it explains alot of observed phenomena in a cohesive way, has been tested, aligns with the evidence, and is supported by the scientific community. Examples include the theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity.

There is another meaning of the term theory in the sense that someone might say "I have a theory that the tides are controlled by secret beams sent to the Earth by aliens." In other words, it is a just a hunch or a guess. It really says nothing as far as the veracity of the claim. Young Earth Creationism falls in this camp.




True, there have been cases where rediocarbon dating has given inaccurate results. But they are few and far between. Every method of measurement fails on ocassion, due to human error, abberations, etc., but no-one ever pays any notice. If a seamstress fails to "measure twice, and cut once" and screws up a wedding gown, we don't suddenly suspect the accuracy of measuring with a tape measure. The results of this kind of measurement are so often accurate, that we can confidently attribute the error to somthing else. The same holds true for radiocarbon dating. The only one's suggesting that radiocarbon dating be abandoned wholesale are desperate Young Earth Creationists.





I would never say I only believe in science, as much as that disappoints you.

And if you set the bar for evidence so low that you think the "documented" timeline for Jesus's ancestory is actually good proof, then you should have no problem finding evidence for just about anything.

Ok, your first point was kinda biased and just threw all the evidence for young earth out, not even trying to counter it, just saying that 'I'm right, you're wrong..'-like that will get us anywhere. I could post the same thing in reverse, and have just as much evidence as you did.

If you can produce a manuscript with as much age and documentation that disproves Jesus's lineage, I'd be quite amazed. The bar is actually much higher than you think, that's why I'm not using Plato/Pick any other freak out there.

Those were examples... Not only are creation scientists abandoning it, but other scientists as well, realizing that the only numbers reported are the ones that support evolution.

 

[P8ntrDan]

Do you have any evidence for life being poofed into existence by a supernatural being?

:doh: As much as you have for the big bang.


Like I said before, both are theories, and in the end come down to a matter of belief.

 

[kmoney]

This thread is pathetic so far!! :doh:

Ok, so noguru could have been more explicit in the type of evidence he wanted (i.e. scientific evidence, not the bible) but now that we're clear in what was wanted people still aren't answering the opening post.

What's the evidence??


EDIT: Actually P8ntrDan is having a real discussion about the purpose of the thread. Thank you! :up:

 

[called_out]

In the interest of intellectual integrity I would like to ask others "What they believe to be the best evidence for young earth supernatural creation?" Since Bob B has started another thread asking for the best evidence for evolution, I thought we should also consider the other alternatve.

On a serious note:

Best "evidence" for young earth supernatural creation might be:

Gen 1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
==Each of these ages of creation could be a period of 7000 years, the whole period up to the time of man was six periods, or 42,000 years==

The "days" being determined as follows:
2Pe 3:8 But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[ This would make 6 days, 6,000 years from the creation of man ]

Taking into account that God rested on the 7th "day" which is a sabbath and is 7,000 years long, during which time man has had 6,000 years to show the consequences of sin and then enters the millennial reign of 1,000 years.

From this reckoning the earth would be just under 7x7000 = 49,000 years old.

Just a possibility...:juggle:

 

[SUTG]

Like I said before, both are theories, and in the end come down to a matter of belief.

What i think you're missing is that the word "theory" has a very specific meaning in science. It just happens to be the same word that we use in another non-scientific sense.

This definition applies to scientific theories such as evolution and relativity:

1. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)

Young Earth Creationism definitely does not fall into that camp. So, no YEC is not a theory in that sense of the word. It is not a scientific theory.

If you want to call YEC a theory, you can still do it though! Just realize that you will have to settle for the following definition:

6. contemplation or speculation.

 

[chatmaggot]

Do you have any evidence for life being poofed into existence by a supernatural being?

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,..." Exodus 20:11

But again, I provided this evidence in my very first post in the very first page. It was excluded because it was not written in a science textbook. Then it took over 5 pages in this thread of me asking why does history not count as evidence.

I await your evidence for life originating from non-life.

 

[chatmaggot]

This thread is pathetic so far!! :doh:

Ok, so noguru could have been more explicit in the type of evidence he wanted (i.e. scientific evidence, not the bible) but now that we're clear in what was wanted people still aren't answering the opening post.

It was pathetic from the very first post.

Why is a history text excluded as evidence?

Why is it that truth can only be found in a science book?

 

[bob b]

This thread is pathetic so far!! :doh:

Ok, so noguru could have been more explicit in the type of evidence he wanted (i.e. scientific evidence, not the bible) but now that we're clear in what was wanted people still aren't answering the opening post.

What's the evidence??

Actually when I rejected evolution as an explanation for how today's life came to be I had no idea that the cell contained dozens if not hundreds of automatic feedback control mechanisms. I did not even realize how extensive DNA was, even in "primitive" organisms like bacteria (actually they aren't primitive at all, they are awesomely high-tech). All that knowledge came later.

No, I originally rejected evolution because there was no way for the DNA/RNA system to arise naturally step-by-step. I had read John Maynard Smith's excellent book, The Theory of Evolution and knew that not only did there have to be a feasible pathway for mutations to be able to create complex servomechanism devices, but that each step in a gradual step-by-step process had to be an improvement to the previous state of the organism so that natural selection could spread the change to the rest of the population.

This seemed to me to be absurd. So I rejected their theory.

 

[chatmaggot]

Consider the following:

A child has a father who dies when the child is 6 years old. At the age of 18 the child asks its mother "what is the best evidence that dad loved me?" The mother provides a letter that she wrote (an eye witness) about a day that the three of them went on a picnic. In the letter the mother tells of how the father hugged the child, played with the child, and told the child how much he loved them.

The mother, being an eyewitness to the events, wrote a letter and gave it to her child. This letter is the best evidence.

Now suppose that God, being an eyewitness to the creation of the world, dictated a letter. Ok, several letters. And all those letters were bound together. Within those letters we have an account of an eyewitness of the events of creation. That eyewitness dictated some letters. Those letters are the best evidence because they are an account of the eyewitness!

So again, how is an eyewitness account of creation not considered evidence?

What is pathetic is that someone poses a question and then excludes the answers that they don't like.

 

[kmoney]

Why is a history text excluded as evidence?

Because noguru didn't want to discuss scripture in this thread. The other thread was meant to discuss science so noguru made a similar thread but from the other viewpoint. Why is that so hard?

Why is it that truth can only be found in a science book?

I don't think anyone in this thread would say that.

 

[kmoney]

Actually when I rejected evolution as an explanation for how today's life came to be I had no idea that the cell contained dozens if not hundreds of automatic feedback control mechanisms. I did not even realize how extensive DNA was, even in "primitive" organisms like bacteria (actually they aren't primitive at all, they are awesomely high-tech). All that knowledge came later.

No, I originally rejected evolution because there was no way for the DNA/RNA system to arise naturally step-by-step. I had read John Maynard Smith's excellent book, The Theory of Evolution and knew that not only did there have to be a feasible pathway for mutations to be able to create complex servomechanism devices, but that each step in a gradual step-by-step process had to be an improvement to the previous state of the organism so that natural selection could spread the change to the rest of the population.

This seemed to me to be absurd. So I rejected their theory.

That's fine and dandy. I'm sure noguru would be willing to discuss DNA/RNA with you because that is more of what he wanted to talk aobut in this thread.

One thought though, you reject evolution because of DNA/RNA, but how does that equal a young earth?

 

[macguy]

One thought though, you reject evolution because of DNA/RNA, but how does that equal a young earth?

He was referring essentially to the evolutionary theory and not in regards to the age of the earth. Noguru said that we should demonstrate one evidence in biology and another in age of the earth. I can't say anything because I have hardly done studies on geology but most of the articles would have to be in CRSQ and not on a primitive website such as AiG because most of the articles are incomplete but there are some technical articles.

 

[SUTG]

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,..." Exodus 20:11

But again, I provided this evidence in my very first post in the very first page. It was excluded because it was not written in a science textbook. Then it took over 5 pages in this thread of me asking why does history not count as evidence.

Well, if you can show that the Bible is historically accurate, you might have a point. So far, you just have a quote from a book saying that the LORD made everything. There are lots of books floating around, and they say lots of things. You can't just declare them to be history books.

I await your evidence for life originating from non-life.

That is a great reply to a post I haven't made. Where have I ever stated that life originated from non-life? The point of the thread was to see if any of you have any evidence for the claims of YEC. It isn't looking good...

 

[Quincy]

I don't really see the point to proving it. It cannot be proven or disproven because no one alive today was alive then. Honestly, if you think about it, do u really wanna know the answer? There is a 50 50 chance since there are only two ideas that are being talked about that your all wrong. Or right, however you choose to view it.