It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
DP- wow, I ordered a new mouse.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mugly
originally posted by: TheChrome


so god didnt really create everything in 6 days then?
it was an unknown amount of time?

then why say six days?

so many questions. so few answers



 


The 6 days of creation is untrue for on the 7th day He rested, contemplated, remained idle, which itself is a act of creation...in setting aside the 7th day to set the bar of divisions of 'time'

4 sets of 7 day-night weeks results in a Lunar Month
just as 4 Seasons make up a year... each of the 4 Seasons are composed of 13 each, 7 day-night weeks

the 6 days of work and 1 day rest was a social-economic model of time division to live by...

the 40 hour work-week took thousands of years to get accepted as the norm...and Obamacare policy slew that modern convention in less than a Season (13 weeks of days)
edit on th31143870381204562015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I'm going with "Another_Nut ....... otherwise we have 'Wikipedia' and Reptile ....lizard people... Ten miles of Ice....... inconceivable.......lol.....



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: GetHyped




YECs exist. They post their nonsense here.


Yeah and it's trolling the intelligent discussion at this point, when it does happen, but it is getting rarer, I am in these threads all the time and hardly see them anymore.


That's funny. I see them in almost every thread. You didn't see Born's post on the previous page? YEC is definitely not a straw man, as plenty of folks subscribe to it. Maybe they are all trolls, but I really doubt it.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: wastedown

That's funny, so could Einstein...

If Einstein's theories of relativity are correct, then the more compressed space/time is, the slower time moves. Therefore the farther back in time you go, the more condense the space we exist in is and the slower time moves. Remember, time as we consider it is not time as peoples of the past considered it. They merely considered how long it took for the sun and heavenly bodies to reappear. That would have absolutely nothing to do with time as we understand it.

Same with tree rings, ice core samples, and radiodating methods. None of them measure time as the ancients saw it in the least.

If you really think without any doubt that the earth has traveled around the sun billions of times, then it is you who are living in fantasy land, because if you believe in Relativity, you can't think that it's a certainty.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Negative. Mass affects OUR PERCEPTION of time. Not time itself. If we could step outside of our solar system and observe it from afar, the time would go by really fast to us, but to the people on earth it would feel the same. That's how mass distorts how we experience time.

Using relativity to suggest young earth creationism is a bit over the edge. That would indicate super fast expansion, and we would be able to measure this fast expansion on a yearly basis in order to cram 13.8 billion years into 6000. It would be a HUGE difference. Unfortunately there is no evidence that it is expanding THAT fast.

Just keep in mind that the way we experience time on earth is the standard we use to calculate the age of the universe. Watching the expansion from outside of the universe or away from an object of large mass, would mean a different standard of calculation. It wouldn't mean that our calculations were wrong. They apply to earth time.
edit on 4-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
has anyone mentioned the WW2 bombers they dug out of 150 meters of ice… each ring represents snowstorms, not years. some theorize that one of the major effects of the flood was to cause the poles to suddenly become frigid. some theorize earth was like a large terrarium with no seasons pre-flood. massive amounts of snow fall on the poles as part of the fall-out from the changes (no more "waters from above")



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
and looking at all the data there are many problems with a universe billions of years old…

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 30 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."


It is also significant that both Hubble and Sagan knew that one reason all the galaxies appear to be expanding away from us might be that we are in the center of the universe...



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
tho many Christians believe in evolution over billions of years


yt: Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD
youtu.be...

yt: Young Earth - Young Universe
youtu.be...



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Verum1quaere

No... what Hubble actually said was...

In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.


Here is what Carl Sagan said about God...

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. As quoted in "Scientists & Their Gods" in U.S. News & World Report Vol. 111 (1991)


Do either of these quotes support your citationless musings? I would say no.

Could you provide a citation for your quote regarding supernovas in the Milky Way? Context is everything and you have provided nothing but a quote mine.


originally posted by: Verum1quaere
has anyone mentioned the WW2 bombers they dug out of 150 meters of ice…


www.abovetopsecret.com...


each ring represents snowstorms, not years.


Except that ice cores weren't taken from the site of the plane crash, they aren't ever taken from a moving glacier, only stable ice fields and "counting rings" isn't how they actually date samples. Please do some basic research before jumping to conclusions.


some theorize that one of the major effects of the flood was to cause the poles to suddenly become frigid. some theorize earth was like a large terrarium with no seasons pre-flood. massive amounts of snow fall on the poles as part of the fall-out from the changes (no more "waters from above")


Who "theorizes" these things? If there are theories then there is testable evidence and data to see. That's besides the fact that there is absolutely no evidence at all for a simultaneous, world wide flood event. Anywhere.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

That's the least of it.

When specialists look for ancient crustaceans, they often dig into mountains. Why? because those crustaceans preceded the mountains themselves and as the mountains rose, so did the fossils.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
has anyone mentioned the WW2 bombers they dug out of 150 meters of ice… each ring represents snowstorms, not years. some theorize that one of the major effects of the flood was to cause the poles to suddenly become frigid. some theorize earth was like a large terrarium with no seasons pre-flood. massive amounts of snow fall on the poles as part of the fall-out from the changes (no more "waters from above")



The WW2 planes have already been mentioned and debunked. Who "theorizes" that? I doubt it's anybody who works in science.


edit on 5-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

You've just restored a little of my faith in humanity. I've become profoundly jaded by the sheer number of people who use fossilized sea life on mountains as "proof" of a world wide biblical flood by not actually trying to understand any of the science involved.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yep, I'm in the same boat. I've found I need to back off a little in order to keep my sanity and not get banned.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm trying, real hard, to be nice..

But, it gets extremely frustrating debating folks who are married to fraudulence and trickery to sell a religion. I'm starting to understand Creationists can't do honest. It just does not work for them and instead works against them, though they fail to see it. I'm finding the honest creationist is the "ex-creationist" and even, solely because of creationism's false theology, equals... ex-Christian.



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Do you realize how ignorant this statement makes you seem? Einstein's theories of relativity predict that time and space are inextricably linked and that in a gravity well where space is compressed, time will move more slowly. IOW time is relative.

This is why his theories also predict that as one accelerates towards the speed of light they will gain in mass and time will slow down for them. This is the whole can't travel faster than light farce, because the theory really says NOTHING about traveling faster than light, only accelerating to and past the speed of light.

It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with human perception of time. The atomic clock experiments provided evidence that supports this portion of the theory, since they synced up two atomic clocks out to many many decimal places and put one at high altitude in a place and took one deep underground. When they brought them back together they discovered that the one deep under ground had moved more slowly than the one in the plane.

It really doesn't PROVE time dilation, it only proves that gravity affects the oscillation rate of cesium, but it does support it.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

I have to laugh out loud at this... You aren't finding that the only honest creationist is an ex-creationist, you're finding that the only creationist that agrees with YOU is an ex-creationist.

I think to find honesty, you're first going to have to be honest with yourself. Then I would suggest taking a look at all of your beliefs and the rational behind them. I think if you do that, you're likely to find that you simply put your faith in something different.

Me, I only put my faith in my own ability to observe and logically evaluate. I wish more would do the same without dismissing possibility because "not what I believe".

Jaden



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

debunked? probably not... Dismissed? what's new????

Jaden



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden




I have to laugh out loud at this... You aren't finding that the only honest creationist is an ex-creationist, you're finding that the only creationist that agrees with YOU is an ex-creationist.


Your flat wrong, I can give you pages of testimony from ex- creationist and almost none of them know me or for that matter agree with me. But that's the beauty of science, it's true whether or not you believe in it. Anyone can verify for themselves by simply looking, in science you take no ones word without objective evidence.




I think to find honesty, you're first going to have to be honest with yourself. Then I would suggest taking a look at all of your beliefs and the rational behind them. I think if you do that, you're likely to find that you simply put your faith in something different.



Honestly, I don't do beliefs and have no faith without objective evidence. An increase in emotional satisfaction is irrelevant to the accuracy or utility of an explanation. An explanation either increases understanding of a phenomenon, allowing us to make more accurate predictions, or it fails.
Our feelings and beliefs on the matter are meaningless.




Me, I only put my faith in my own ability to observe and logically evaluate. I wish more would do the same without dismissing possibility because "not what I believe".



Regardless of the source of the explanation (whether you think the explanation is true due to faith or empirical evidence), a possibility doesn't actually serve to explain anything at all.
An explanation is something that increases our understanding, you may gain confidence in faith and belief in your understanding, but do not increase your actual understanding.
Certainly when it comes to the "how" of Creation, "God did it by magic" is a possible answer and is utterly useless, explaining nothing.
An example would be "Lightning is the great spark thrown when Thor strikes his mighty hammer Mjonir." This might make you feel like you understand lightning. But, in reality you can no better predict anything about lightning than you could before you had that answer.
The actual answer will give us more information. An actual answer is the solution to the problem of lightning, it's a theoretical framework that increases our actual understanding, not just our confidence in belief and faith.

fish
edit on fFriday154886f483306 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TheChrome
My question is: Why do atheists/evolutionists think the bible says the earth was created 6000 years ago? Have they read the bible? Probably not. Presumably they are quoting other certain people who claim to be Christian, who probably haven't read the bible either.


Do you honestly believe that it is the atheists who believe that? That is the claim made by young earth creationists. Most folks don't care what the bible says if they are not believers. The 6,000 number is what creationists believe they have added up to equal the presumed lineage in the bible. The bible itself doesn't actually say that. I don't understand why they are so adamant about that figure as it involves humans that live 900+ years and all kinds of other weird assumptions.


No, I don't think atheists believe that, but atheists quote people who are not knowledgeable about science and the bible. If I did not have my knowledge of the bible, I would be atheist myself. As I stated, nowhere does the bible indicate the earth is 6000 years old. It can be proven, by the speed of light, that the farthest object we as humans have observed via telescope, is billions of years old. (It takes that long for the light to travel here to earth) So the time frame in which God created such galaxies, must also be that old. That does not contradict the time frame of "the creative days" mentioned in the bible.

Humans lived 900+ years in the beginning, because God created man as perfect beings capable of living forever. Our bodies and intellectual capacity have deteriorated over time as we have gotten further from the genetically perfect state. I would say we have much more knowledge today, but are not as smart as our predecessors. We in our genius, still cannot figure out how the Egyptians built the Pyramids.

The whole theme of the bible, is the restoration of man to the perfect genetic state, where man can inhabit the planet earth forever without inherent sickness or death.
edit on 7-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Oh for goodness sake, not this same old schtick again...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join