Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guyver

Young Earth Creationism

108 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1029

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure I still fully understand your 17000 years for oak calendar. I know that certain trees, like Redwood and Sequoias exist as "groves" meaning that their root systems are entwined and so, although they look like a dozen trees or so, they are really one organism. If one tree dies, another takes it's place. So, if the wood that you're finding preserved but not petrified is laying in a grove of other living trees, then that makes sense to me. But, we're still back to the oldest confirmed living tree being 4700 years old.

I made a mistake on the European Oak Chronology. The trees used were recovered from alluvial deposits of the rivers Main, Rhine and Danube. There is a 2000-year free-floating series that's part of that same chronology; because there is a gap in the chronology, exact dates can't be assigned to the free-floating series. If you're looking for a place to put Noah's Flood, that gap is your best best.

For more information on tree ring studies than you ever wanted to know, googul "Ultimate tree ring".

Many species form root grafts underground. The roots become fused together so that nutrients and sugars from one tree flow into the other. This is a problem for thinning crews that are using injectors to kill unwanted trees as the herbicide can translocate into a tree you didn't want to kill. Under a microscope you can see the graft down to the individual cell, so it is possible to know which cell came from which tree.

The other specimens that you mentioned are still living so determining age is a problem. The reason is that variations in environment, climate, moisture content, or humidity, etc. can affect growth rates. Also, it is possible for certain trees to produce more than one growth ring per year under certain conditions, right?

Ages of species like the creosote bush in the Mojave Desert can be estimated by measuring their size and rates of growth. That does not have the accuracy of actually counting individual rings and such information is useless for climate studies, so not much work is being done in that area.

Multiple rings are particularly common among the pines, but are rare in hardwoods. A false ring has fuzzy edges on both sides, while a true ring will have a sharp line on the late-to-early wood side. This can generally be detected visually under the microscope, but there are exceptions.

The exceptions are detected by cross-dating: In the area in which I am working, 1980 produced a narrow ring with an extremely narrow late wood band. 1993 is also particularly narrow. I can spot those rings easily by looking for two narrow rings with 12 wider rings between them. 1943, 1947, 1956 and 2001 also have narrow rings. 1952 and 1953 frequently produce double rings, and depending on the site, 1978 and possibly 1986 may also have narrow rings.

The entire series is compared statistically with other trees from the same cluster. Any mistake in cross-dating produces a low correlation score so its chronology can be rechecked. A chronology needs to have at least 20 trees to make correlation work.

A year ago I dropped a core while trying to mount it. It shattered into six pieces. I gathered up the pieces and mounted them, but got a thirteen-year section in backwards. I read the core under the microscope without noticing the backward section. The resulting series flunked the correlation test. I reread it, dividing the core into sections at each break. I was able to correlate the other sections, but the backward one just didn't correlate with anything. I decided maybe I was reading it wrong so I repolished it to get a better surface so I could see the anatomy better. When I put it under the microscope the "fuzzy" edge was on the wrong side. Eureka! Problem solved. It turned out that there was a two-year piece that got lost when the core shattered. Besides the missing section, one year was lost at each break. The particular series has several missing years so its usefulness is limited, but at least I don't have to drive clear over to Arkansas to get a new core.

In climate studies, two cores are taken on each tree, then cross-dated against each other to make sure they were read accurately. If "cookies" are being used, four or more series may be created from each tree. When these are in agreement on a tree-by-tree basis, they are cross-dated against other trees in the same stand (Sometimes a ring is missing entirely, or may be only one cell thick; cross-dating within the stand allows this to be detected.).

I guess an example of what I'm talking about would be the year with no summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

How would that effect tree ring growth? Or would it? Just curious.

Yes it would. See comments above.

I have to go. I'll get back to you later.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

But will you recognize it when you see it or dismiss it if it doesn't fit your beliefs??

fullywired

I hope I'll recognize the truth when I see it. In former times I would have dismissed anything that doesn't match my beliefs. But, now that I've had an existential meltdown, I'm on the road to recovery and it feels good. The voice of wisdom speaks.

What would you do?

PS. A couple of weeks or a few weeks ago, someone around here made a thread about young earth creationists, or just creationists in general being the laughing stock of the scientific community. It sure would be nice to see Mr. Confident stomp in here and disprove YEC as I've requested in this thread. A person's whose confident enough in their position to mock others for their ignorance should be able to own in a situation like this, right? Sometimes things are not so easy. First, one must address the issue of what it means to "prove" anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

A year ago I dropped a core while trying to mount it. It shattered into six pieces. I gathered up the pieces and mounted them, but got a thirteen-year section in backwards. I read the core under the microscope without noticing the backward section. The resulting series flunked the correlation test. I reread it, dividing the core into sections at each break. I was able to correlate the other sections, but the backward one just didn't correlate with anything. I decided maybe I was reading it wrong so I repolished it to get a better surface so I could see the anatomy better. When I put it under the microscope the "fuzzy" edge was on the wrong side. Eureka! Problem solved. It turned out that there was a two-year piece that got lost when the core shattered. Besides the missing section, one year was lost at each break. The particular series has several missing years so its usefulness is limited, but at least I don't have to drive clear over to Arkansas to get a new core.

In climate studies, two cores are taken on each tree, then cross-dated against each other to make sure they were read accurately. If "cookies" are being used, four or more series may be created from each tree. When these are in agreement on a tree-by-tree basis, they are cross-dated against other trees in the same stand (Sometimes a ring is missing entirely, or may be only one cell thick; cross-dating within the stand allows this to be detected.).

Yes it would. See comments above.

I have to go. I'll get back to you later.

Doug

Sounds like you have a really cool job. Regards.

PS. So in general it can be said that while tree rings offer much information about climate, and environment; they are no definitive measure when it comes to firmly establishing the actual age of the earth. Would you agree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digitalartist

Question: Is a young earth possible?

1. Natural Clocks some of the natural clocks include the size/diameter of the sun, the recession rate of the earth-moon system, dust accumulation on lunar surface, silt accumulation on the sea floor. Check this link for a complete version of the natural clock argument.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

Haven't had a chance to thoroughly look at the site but a couple of things that popped out at me.

1 - They state that 90% of the public believe in some kind of creation. Most of the reports I have seen on the net show the number as about 44-46%

2 - In number two of their list of time clocks "Oil Pressure", they state "Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago?" I have done a fair ammount of research into some of the story of Noah's Ark and found that statement to be incorrect. I know they say that pitch made from tree sap is what was used to seal the ark but The Latin vulgate bible uses the term bitumine and the the Septaguint Bible uses the phrase asphaltos when refering to the pitch used to seal the ark. Both are indications of petroleum based pitch which could not have existed to seal the ark if oil was not created until the flood.

When I get the chance I'll look the site over more thoroughly.

Edited by digitalartist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Sounds like you have a really cool job. Regards.

PS. So in general it can be said that while tree rings offer much information about climate, and environment; they are no definitive measure when it comes to firmly establishing the actual age of the earth. Would you agree with that?

The oldest chronology to date goes back only 17,000 years. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the age of the earth. Tree rings can't even come close to estimating the age of the earth; besides, there were no trees around 4.567 billion years ago.

But they can establish that there was an Ice Age and that it was in progress at the beginning of the oldest chronologies.

BTW: Some folks think I was a forester too long. On one of my earliest thinning jobs I found a fossil which I was recently able to identify. The fossil is a cast of a plant about 15 feet long, about five inches in diameter at the top and about ten inches in diameter at the bottom. My piece of it is from the small end and is about ten inches long. The leaf scars are plainly visible and arranged in the classic double spiral. I found it near Beaver Dam, Kentucky which is a few miles east of the West Kentucky Coal Field. The coal field sits in a graben block that has been down-faulted about 300 feet. Subsequent erosion removed the surrounding uplands so the area is now more-or-less level. That would place the fossil's position in the column just below the level of the coal field.

A month ago I took my fossil to a paleontologist. He instantly identified it a lepidodendron - a giant club moss. My fossil was a little one; they commonly reached heights of 100 feet with trunks three feet in diameter! Lepidodendrons lived only during the Pennsylvanian Period, so that clearly establishes the age of the strata at the location where I found the fossil. Of course, the Pennsylvanian lasted several million years, so give-or-take a few million years I know the fossil's age.

My fossil is a cast; it is not petrified. A cast forms when something is buried in mud. As the material decomposes, mud oozes into the void and eventually hardens. So I have the impression of the bark, but absolutely no indications of the cellular structure of the stem. And that means I can't make a chronology of it. So I have a ten-pound paper weight sitting on my bookcase shelf. But it's still good for a story or two.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

2 - In number two of their list of time clocks "Oil Pressure", they state "Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago?" I have done a fair ammount of research into some of the story of Noah's Ark and found that statement to be incorrect. I know they say that pitch made from tree sap is what was used to seal the ark but The Latin vulgate bible uses the term bitumine and the the Septaguint Bible uses the phrase asphaltos when refering to the pitch used to seal the ark. Both are indications of petroleum based pitch which could not have existed to seal the ark if oil was not created until the flood.

There are tar seeps near the place where Noah was supposedly from. It's in the middle of the Tigris-Euphrates plain where pine trees are a rarity (I'm not sure they grow there at all.). I think you've got this one right - it was tar.

BTW: if you check out the description of Eden in Genesis, you can match it to a specific location. The Euphrates still flows in more-or-less the same place it did 5000 years ago. The Hidekel is the Tigris which still flows "east of Asyria" in the same channel it occupied 5000 years ago. The Gihon is the Karkun and the Pison is Wadi al-Batin, a now-dry wash that was once the Incense Road. There is gold and agate (onyx) at Madh al Dabha (sp?) - the name means "Cradle of Gold" - and frnakincense and myhrr were brought up the road by camel caravan.

The King James Version refers to the Gihon as flowing out of Ethiopia, but other versions have different opinions. Actually, the Kingdom of Kush was located along the Nile just south of Egypt at the Fifth Cataract. In some Persian languages that are still spoken, "Kush" means "mountain," as in Hindu Kush. It's easy to see how the tranlators got mixed up. The Gihon flows out of the Zagros Mountains.

The city of Eridu, 5000 years ago, sat on the shore of the Persian Gulf. A small stream flowed out of it and into the marshlands to the northeast where it joined the four major rivers in an estuary. Eridu is a perfect fit for Eden. The marshlands, then some of the most productive lands on earth, were the Garden of Eden.

Now the fly in the ointment: Eridu and those rivers sit on top of 30,000 feet of sediment (Info from oil well logs.). If that sediment was there when the Garden of Eden existed, it was there well before Noah's Flood. And that means that the claim of the "young earth geologists" that those sediment layers were deposited by Noah's Flood is bogus.

Bible stories can often be checked by reference to the local geology and biology.

Tar seeps are present; pine trees aren't: Noah used tar.

30,000 feet of sediment were in place before Noah's Flood.

Kush and Cush sound a lot alike and it is physically impossible for the Nile to flow from Africa into Sumeria: KJV got it wrong.

Honestly, if these folks would read their Bibles, they'd realize that a lot of what they're saying just ain't so. They don't even have to read a geology report or accept evolution.

Doug

P.S.: Bruce Masse collected about 150 flood stories from people around the world. He used descriptions of astronomical events in those stories to precisely date the flood's occurence: "On or about May 10, 2807 BC."

I note that the White Mountain Chronology shows a dip in growth rate for the years 2806 to 2802 BC.

Masse and Abott propose an asteroid impact as the explanation of Noah's Flood. There is a giant crater (Burkel Crater) in the floor of the Indian Ocean; there are chevron deposists 600 feet high on Madagascar and tsunami deposits in those marshes near Eridu/Eden.

During Egypt's First Dynasty there was a large disaster, apparently a flood, but the records are vague, so we don't really know what it was. However, the course of the Nile through what is now Cairo was rerouted so that much of the modern city sits in the old river channel.

There are lots of old ruins in the Tigris-Euphrates delta, but none in the southeastern area predate 2800 BC.

Has Noah's Flood been identified? Draw your own conclusions.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lismore

I'm not scientist, but according to my knowledge, I understood that the age of the universe was pretty well established scientifically speaking.

Hello!

I disagree there. When I was at University, the figure presented { for the age of the earth} was 4.8 billion years. I was surprised to find a current figure {in a book from the uni library where I work} given of 19 billion years.

Now that's a wide change in only seven years! Reading between the lines 'science' doesnt seem able to give a definitive answer. I think in a few years the age will have jumped again!

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Hello!

I disagree there. When I was at University, the figure presented { for the age of the earth} was 4.8 billion years. I was surprised to find a current figure {in a book from the uni library where I work} given of 19 billion years.

Now that's a wide change in only seven years! Reading between the lines 'science' doesnt seem able to give a definitive answer. I think in a few years the age will have jumped again!

:rofl:

I'd really like a reference for that. I am trying to give you the benefit of doubt that your not simply making that up or terribly mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I'd really like a reference for that. I am trying to give you the benefit of doubt that your not simply making that up or terribly mistaken.

"If you build it....they will come." I wondered when you were going to show up. So, how about it? Can you prove that YEC is false?

PS. Greetings Copasetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

PS. A couple of weeks or a few weeks ago, someone around here made a thread about young earth creationists, or just creationists in general being the laughing stock of the scientific community. It sure would be nice to see Mr. Confident stomp in here and disprove YEC as I've requested in this thread. A person's whose confident enough in their position to mock others for their ignorance should be able to own in a situation like this, right? Sometimes things are not so easy. First, one must address the issue of what it means to "prove" anything.

You have a logical error here Guyver. It is your job to provide suitable evidence for YEC, if there is no evidence than it can be completely dismissed. We have more than enough evidence already to say that YEC is a ridiculous idea. It is no one else' responsibility to show other wise.

And technically Yeti, how can you prove something doesn't exist or does exist? Can you prove you exist?

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Having said that, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that quite clearly indicates that the Earth is most emphatically not young. How about some of our more geologically-minded members post some of these arguments, for those who have not seen them before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I disagree there. When I was at University, the figure presented { for the age of the earth} was 4.8 billion years. I was surprised to find a current figure {in a book from the uni library where I work} given of 19 billion years.

Now that's a wide change in only seven years! Reading between the lines 'science' doesnt seem able to give a definitive answer. I think in a few years the age will have jumped again!

Sounds like a typo to me. Or maybe somebody is getting the age of the earth mixed up with the age of the universe. I suggest you check a few more sources.

Most scientists will check 30 to 50 sources before proposing a research hypothesis. By the time they've finished the project, they may have read 300 or more papers on the subject. Do a little more reading; you don't have enough information to make a decision.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Can you prove you exist?

Cogito ergo sum.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Cogito ergo sum.

Doug

I think that the Cogito Ergo Sum can be disproven from the standpoint of subjective verses objective reality. It will take time to set up criterion that we all can agree upon in order to prove or disprove anything. Mattshark brings the first and most prominent point. I don't have time right now to do it. I hope that in time we can set up a series of parameters that we will be able to agree upon and see if we can take this somewhere. I don't know that I'll have much time to put into it today, but I'll try. Anyway, this should make for an excellent excercise if nothing else. I'll be looking forward to the dialog. At the very least I'll try to get some base definitions out there for us to kick around. Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

It sure would be nice to see Mr. Confident stomp in here and disprove YEC as I've requested in this thread.

Guyver, you should know this by now - it is not the skeptic's responsibility to disprove someone else's claim.

All areas of modern science show to age of the earth to be demonstrably over 10,000 years. The website you posted had scientific errors and misrepresentations coming out of its pores.

There is nothing to disprove at the moment, as no serious or realistic evidence has been presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

LEPRECHAUNS DON'T EXIST!

But wait, as soon as I said Leprechaun, everyone here knew what I was talking about! So, Leprechauns do exist! They exist subjectively as an idea! But, there are ideas that exist and are not subjective, they are objectively verifiable - like the square root of two.

I think it was Pythagorus who first came up with the idea of the square root of two - but what did he discover? He discovered and objectively verifiable idea that exists whether we think about it or not; a truth or truism.

Anyway, I'd like to develop the idea of verifiable proofs, and see where this thing goes, OK Emma?

If, the proofs of the age of earth being older than 30,000 years are so abundant, then it shouldn't be a problem proving it - right?

PS. I used to marval at the brilliance of Pythagorus discovering the square root of two. I could not conceive of how he came up with 1.4142... But now that I'm older and wiser (hopefully) I see how he got it. He started with the idea of a square root. Something simple, like the number 4. Then, he began to look for other whole numbers that lend themselves to having a rational root. From there, it was just crunching out each number and finally arriving at the conclusion that every whole number does have a square root, it's just that some are not rational. Maybe the same type of thing will happen here? IDK. I have no preconceived ideas here, I just want to see if a young earth can be disproven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

LEPRECHAUNS DON'T EXIST!

But wait, as soon as I said Leprechaun, everyone here knew what I was talking about! So, Leprechauns do exist! They exist subjectively as an idea! But, there are ideas that exist and are not subjective, they are objectively verifiable - like the square root of two.

I think it was Pythagorus who first came up with the idea of the square root of two - but what did he discover? He discovered and objectively verifiable idea that exists whether we think about it or not; a truth or truism.

Anyway, I'd like to develop the idea of verifiable proofs, and see where this thing goes, OK Emma?

If, the proofs of the age of earth being older than 30,000 years are so abundant, then it shouldn't be a problem proving it - right?

PS. I used to marval at the brilliance of Pythagorus discovering the square root of two. I could not conceive of how he came up with 1.4142... But now that I'm older and wiser (hopefully) I see how he got it. He started with the idea of a square root. Something simple, like the number 4. Then, he began to look for other whole numbers that lend themselves to having a rational root. From there, it was just crunching out each number and finally arriving at the conclusion that every whole number does have a square root, it's just that some are not rational. Maybe the same type of thing will happen here? IDK. I have no preconceived ideas here, I just want to see if a young earth can be disproven.

For a start you are completely ignoring logic. The existence of an idea is not the same as something existing.

Secondly, as has been told you thousands of times, science is not about proofs it is about evidence.

Thirdly, it is up to you to provide verifiable evidence of YEC

Fourthly, you are wilfully ignoring the tons of evidence already presented to you

You want to know again why creationists are not taken seriously? It requires unbelievable amounts of wilful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Prove - to show or demonstrate conclusively. To convince beyond the possibility of doubt.

Subjective - relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience. Personal judgements, open to interpretation, peculiar to a particular individual, variable, or open to interpretation. And most importantly; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

Objective - real, independently verifiable; of or relating to being an object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought.

Are these definitions sufficient to begin debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Guyver, you should know this by now - it is not the skeptic's responsibility to disprove someone else's claim.

I'm skeptical of the claim of YEC's. I presented their arguments as best I could and asked if anyone here could disprove them.

So far, no one has. Saying this or that doesn't disprove anything. As I said before, you could make the statement that young earth has been scientifically disproven. That statement doesn't disprove YEC. I could say boom boom golly golly is for real. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Prove - to show or demonstrate conclusively. To convince beyond the possibility of doubt.

Subjective - relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience. Personal judgements, open to interpretation, peculiar to a particular individual, variable, or open to interpretation. And most importantly; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

Objective - real, independently verifiable; of or relating to being an object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought.

Are these definitions sufficient to begin debate?

Yes and science always leaves room for doubt. It doesn't stop you argument being fallacious.

If you want to be taken seriously subjective is irrelevant.

No they aren't you need evidence, real evidence and you haven't got any and you are ignoring all the evidence their is. YEC has as much scientific value as unicorn farting rainbows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

For a start you are completely ignoring logic. The existence of an idea is not the same as something existing.Secondly, as has been told you thousands of times, science is not about proofs it is about evidence.

Thirdly, it is up to you to provide verifiable evidence of YEC

Fourthly, you are wilfully ignoring the tons of evidence already presented to you

You want to know again why creationists are not taken seriously? It requires unbelievable amounts of wilful ignorance.

No, I'm using perfect logic and I just proved to you that an idea can be objectively proven. The square root of two squared equals two. Proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

No, I'm using perfect logic and I just proved to you that an idea can be objectively proven. The square root of two squared equals two. Proven.

No, you are just unwilling to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

No, you are just unwilling to learn.

And so it begins.....the breakdown of communication that will eventually lead to the destruction of this thread. Just like when I was attempting debate with the YEC's. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't.....blah blah blah. Finally, they just banned me from their site.

You're an idiot, no you're an idiot.

Presuppositions and no discussion. Preconceived interpretations that cannot withstand scrutiny.

Mattshark - all you are doing is ever so increasingly raising your voice saying, "No it isn't." You are offering opinion with no support other than a false appeal to authority because I don't accept you as the scientific authority for all things. Therefore, you must substantiate your claims, or they are meaningless.

Edited by Guyver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

And so it begins.....the breakdown of communication that will eventually lead to the destruction of this thread. Just like when I was attempting debate with the YEC's. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't.....blah blah blah. Finally, they just banned me from their site.

You're an idiot, no you're an idiot.

Presuppositions and no discussion. Preconceived interpretations that cannot withstand scrutiny.

Mattshark - all you are doing is ever so increasingly raising your voice saying, "No it isn't." You are offering opinion with no support other than a false appeal to authority because I don't accept you as the scientific authority for all things. Therefore, you must substantiate your claims, or they are meaningless.

No sorry Guyver, you are not even making a case for you claims. All you have done is say prove me wrong. That is a fallacious argument. You have presented no evidence for YEC and until you do, there is little we can discuss. You have had years to get evidence and we are still waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

I'm skeptical of the claim of YEC's. I presented their arguments as best I could and asked if anyone here could disprove them.

I understand you are, but there is nothing to disprove. There statements are so utterly erroneous that anyone with access to the internet can go through their website point by point and find out for themselves why its nonsense. It shouldn't be up to other people to do the graft for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.