A Disciple

The Bible shows that the earth is at minimum 6000 yrs old at maximum 12,000 yo. Evolution states that the earth is 4.6 billion yo. Why is there so much empirical science that disproves the 4.6byo theory??
For instance if we use the foundation for evolution: uniformitarianism;(The way things are happening now, are they way they've been happening for millions and billions of years)
and we take a look at the earth/moon system;
The moon is drifting away from the earth approx. 1-2 inches per year(Some say 1-1 1/2). We know the moon causes tides. Well, if the moon is drifting away, then, if we go back in time then the moon would be getting closer to the earth...right.
Ok, with that in mind if we go back 6000 years, creationists(Bible believers) don't have a problem with this, the moons a little closer. But to go back 4.6b yrs. would be impossible. In fact the oldest the system could be is 1.2 billion yrs old. The moon would have been so close to the earth that with gravity, the tides would have drowned everything on earth...TWICE a day.

Or how about earths magnetic field. It is declining...6% in the last 150 yrs. Go back 6-12,000 yrs. No problem but billions of yrs. millions of years? Go back only 150,000 yrs and the earth would have resembled a magnetic star, no life whatsoever could be sustained on earth.

Jupiter is cooling off at a rate twice as fast as it recieves heat from the sun, if it's billions of yrs old then why isn't Jupiter cold by now? Or Jupiters moon Ganymede?

Earths rotation at the equator is 1000mph. It is slowing down a thousandth of a second per day. The International Earth Rotation Service announced that they would add a leap second to the clock about every ten months. See Astronomy Magazine June 1992 p.24 "A Time To Kill"
So if the earths rotation is slowing, then if we go back in time...it was spinning faster!
Well, 6-12000 yrs ago the days may have been approx 23 1/2 hour days no big deal. But billions of years!!! Even millions!!!??? The earths spin causes the Coriolis effect (Prentice Hall Earth Science 1995, p.499. This would have created winds in excess of 5000 mph!!! !!

I don't know...something to ponder I guess.
Thanks for reading and responding.
Jay

Mageth

uniformitarianism

I met some uniformitarians the other day. They came to my door handing out chick tracks. Looked real spiffy in their black pants, white shirts, and red ties.

Seriously, Science does not, and you should not, blindly apply "uniformitarianism" to everything. And "uniformitatrianism" is not the foundation of Evolution. Evolution can be simply defined as "change over time", which, of course, is counter to "uniformitarianism."

Undercurrent

Oh Boy! A Hovindite!

<Gets a big bag of popcorn and a comfortable seat to watch the verbal bloodbath from>

Carry on.

m.

daemon

A quick hunt through the talk.origins archive brought up this:The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

A Disciple

To MAGETHLARO

[B]Seriously, Science does not, and you should not, blindly apply "uniformitarianism" to everything. And "uniformitatrianism" is not the foundation of Evolution. Evolution can be simply defined as "change over time", which, of course, is counter to "uniformitarianism."

So you are saying that evolution does not use uniformitarianism?
I just used it in this example so people would reply saying, "It hasn't happened that way throught time!!"
Because according to "most" evolutionists, "the present is the key to the past." it's been the same since the big dud.
And, if you say that uniformitarianism is not used then, you just stepped on the formation of the geologic column (that's how they figure all the layers got there!!and many other so called "proofs of evolution") Which by the way, did you know that you cannot find the geologic column ANYWHERE in the world in it's full state. You can only find a few layers at a time(Grand Canyon...3 only) and many areas with older layers on top of younger, many out of order.

So, you say evolution goes on uniformitarianism sometimes, and sometimes not???

I'm not just talking about macro evolution, but stellar, planetary, cosmic, organic and chemical evolution as well.
Thanks for responding.
Jay

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: A Disciple ]

Jesse

You should probably take this to the evolution/creation forum, where I'm sure it'd set off a feeding frenzy and be torn to shreds by ten different posters in, like, a minute...

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Jesse ]

MOJO-JOJO

Hey Jay, good luck venturing into these waters on this board. Just to let you know, you're not the first. Others jumped in trying to pitch a persuasive argument, but have drowned in the pool of reason as well.

Take a look at this brief essay first. You may want to bounce these questions off of a spiritual brother of yours who is at least "qualified" to argue your case. Please also pay special heed to the last couple of paragraphs. They address the "bigger issue" here, thanks.

An Honest Creationist

Keep researching this site, it's discussion boards, the library essays and debates, etc. If you are BRAVE enough, you will be enlightened!!

faded_Glory

Jay,

Welcome to the boards.

You have raised a number of points which you think throw doubt on the old age of the Earth. These points are not new. In fact, they have bee around for years, have been considered and refuted because they are not valid. You will find many people here willing to engage in the discussion with you, including myself.

However, before I would consider spending time on this, I have a question for you.

Are you willing to change your belief in a young Earth, if presented with reasonable evidence that your belief is incorrect? 'Evidence' being geological, physical, chemical and biological data that has been properly documented and published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

Please be honest when answering this question, because it can save all us a lot of time and energy if your answer is 'no'.

fG

Mageth

A Disciple:

Please reread my post. I did not say science does not use Uniformitarianism. Go to this site for a rebuttal of Creationists' claims about uniformitarianism in science.

Darwin did work under the theory of uniformitarianism as he developed his theories of Evolution, but it is incorrect (IMO) to call it the "foundation" of Evolution. Modern science (including evolutionary science), as I said, does not blindly apply uniformitarianism in its theories and/or as it interprets data. Punctuated equilibrium is, I believe, a good example of this in Evolution Science.

Jesse

A Disciple:
So you are saying that evolution does not use uniformitarianism?
I just used it in this example so people would reply saying, "It hasn't happened that way throught time!!"
Because according to "most" evolutionists, "the present is the key to the past." it's been the same since the big dud.

Scientists do not assume "uniformitarianism" in the sense that 19th century geologists meant--they accept plenty of "catastrophic" theories, like the asteroid impact theory about the dinosaur extinction or the planetoid impact theory about the formation of the moon. The only "uniformitarian" assumption is that the basic laws of physics, like the speed of light, have stayed the same, and even these sorts of assumptions are subject to all kinds of independent checks.

And, if you say that uniformitarianism is not used then, you just stepped on the formation of the geologic column (that's how they figure all the layers got there!!and many other so called "proofs of evolution") Which by the way, did you know that you cannot find the geologic column ANYWHERE in the world in it's full state. You can only find a few layers at a time(Grand Canyon...3 only) and many areas with older layers on top of younger, many out of order.

No, that's a false claim repeated by a lot of creationists--in fact, the complete geologic column does exist in North Dakota and at least 26 other places, as outlined in this article (which includes a map of the locations):
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm

In any case, the existence of the geologic column was realized by 19th century geologists who didn't believe in evolution, the "out of sequence" examples are usually associated with specific markers of thrust faulting, and the order of the geologic column has been confirmed again and again by radiometric dating techniques.

Some more good refutations of creationist arguments about the geologic column can be found on Dave Matson's site:

The Geologic Column

I'd suggest you check out the rest of Dave Matson's site before posting more on this subject, since he refutes almost all of the standard creationist arguments in support of a young earth. The site is here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...n/young-earth/

In various sub-topics he debunks all the arguments you gave in your first post:

The Moon is Receding and it Could Only Have Been So Close

Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Decaying Exponentially?

Jupiter and Saturn Still Give Off Heat

The Earth's Rotation is Slowing Down!

As this last article points out, your claim that the earth slows a thousandth of a second each day is totally wrong...I suspect it's just another one of many creationist mistakes that circulates around endlessly because no one bothers to check any non-creationist sources. The actual figure is only about 0.005 seconds per year.

Like I said, it would probably be worth your time to go over Matson's site (and maybe talkorigins too) and compare his arguments to whatever Hovind has been telling you.