Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?
You misunderstand. The supernatural in Genesis is the science that creation scientists want to teach in public schools and what they theorize versus today's secular scientists. It includes Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel. The other supernatural events such as Jesus' miracles and Resurrection, while of supreme importance, would fall under religion than science. .
If you reject the supernatural in the rest of the Bible other than Genesis.....why do you accept Genesis?
You misunderstand. The supernatural in Genesis is the science that creation scientists want to teach in public schools and what they theorize versus today's secular scientists. It includes Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel. The other supernatural events such as Jesus' miracles and Resurrection, while of supreme importance, would fall under religion than science. Maybe historical science. Perhaps, it can be included if we find more scientific evidence of the afterlife through neurology and personal anecdotes. I was thinking that would be more historical science since much of what is known is through witness accounts and forensic evidence.
ETA:
Remember this? Around 4200 YA, there was Tower of Babel. I'd include that, but probably some creationists do not want to include it even though it's in Genesis. I've seen in it this exact past timeline; It appears to have been removed. As for Jesus' Birth, I'm not sure if that would be included even though it's of supreme importance and he is a historical figure..
OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .
Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
And you have it sort of backwards.
Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.
So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.
What are 'myths'?
The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
LOL, myths are pseudoscience, too, like humans from apes. Or a single-cell creature from primordial soup via lightening. .
OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .
Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
And you have it sort of backwards.
Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.
So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.
What are 'myths'?
The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
Or much of what Darwin said which led to social Darwinism, eugenics or genocide, Hitler and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood. You need to take responsibility for that.
And I do not belong to a cult, but a scientific movement to teach creation science because today's atheist scientists have rejected real science for a pseudoscientific one. .OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .
Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
And you have it sort of backwards.
Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.
So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.
What are 'myths'?
The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
The Creationist cult are Christians who believe that the Bible should be taught in school- among other things. Creationists are without exception Christians. So to ignore their Christian roots is like ignoring the Islamic roots of Islamist terrorists. Of course most Christians are not Creationists, just as most Muslims are not Islamists.
I have no desire to 'stamp' out Christianity- nor do I even have a desire to 'stamp out' Creationists- I just confront the attack on science.
Of course "Creationism", with a capital "c", is Christian in our context. But Islam has a creation story as well (a very similar one). Dont tell me you cant find vast swathes of Muslims who believe Allah created the world then "sat back on his throne and was not tired". But out culture is Christian based.
Schools are local. I'd like to leave it to the locals to teach as they see fit. Generations of Americans were taught in schools which answered to parents rather than the Federal government and their Bible time and prayers didnt preclude them sending out future scientists and political leaders who created the greatest nation on Earth.
And they didnt have to hide under desks from school shooters while they studied. Creationists are not who you should be fearing. They arent the ones who destroyed a culture.
1) Even the single-cell is a complex organism which no human can create.- irrelevant to the theory of Evolution- since evolution doesn't say that humans created single cells. Of course we have no evidence that any god created any single- cell eitherOTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .
Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
And you have it sort of backwards.
Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.
So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.
What are 'myths'?
The Creation stories of all cultures- the Navajo, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Mesopotomians, the Egyptians, the Jews.
Most Christians(and Jews) do not subscribe to a literal Bible, and are comfortable with understanding that the creation stories are essentially myths- and that is of course how most Christian scientists view them.
It is the members of the specific cult of Creationists that reject the science of evolution and virtually every other part of physics that demonstrates that the earth was not created in 6 days.
LOL, myths are pseudoscience, too, like humans from apes. Or a single-cell creature from primordial soup via lightening. Or much of what Darwin said which led to social Darwinism, eugenics or genocide, Hitler and the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood. You need to take responsibility for that.
Do you believe in the Bohr model? You do not mention much science in your posts and I can see why. It's weak, so very weak. What's the weakness with the Bohr model?
What's good about it?
Even the single-cell is a complex organism which no human can create. Evo cannot conduct an experiemtn where protein is formed from amino acids outside the cell. I even talked about population and how it matches the 6,000 year old theory vs the 200,000 year one. And what we are discussing now under historical science with fossils of ape-humans. We have no transitional evidence of apes becoming humans through the fossil record, nor any other creature for that matter transforming into some completely different creature like a fish to a tetrapod. There should be plenty of evidence even though fossilization is rare. We have atheist scientists who are able to create synthetic DNA, so why can't they turn a fish into a tetrapod? When it comes to observational science, evolution is very weak, indeed, like your posts.
OTOH, creation scientists study dinosaur fossils and find there is still soft tissue which can be tested. This is part historical science and part observational. .
Well lets talk about that. I think that the discovery of 'soft tissue' in dinosaur bones is one of the most fascinating stories of paleontology.
Unfortunately no one has been able to replicate Mary Schweitzer's research.
And you have it sort of backwards.
Mary Schweitzer was a creationists- and didn't believe in evolution- but she learned and grew
Over the next 6 months, Horner opened Schweitzer's eyes to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and Earth's antiquity. "He didn't try to convince me," Schweitzer says. "He just laid out the evidence."
She rejected many fundamentalist views, a painful conversion. "It cost me a lot: my friends, my church, my husband." But it didn't destroy her faith. She felt that she saw God's handiwork in setting evolution in motion. "It made God bigger," she says.
So Mary is a real scientist. Not one of your faith healers.
Don’t act like that’s unusual. Christians are behind much of the science you use to bash them. And Christian evolutionists are far from rare. In fact, so far as they care or are interested, I would say they outnumber those who have a problem with evolution. But not all have even an interest.
Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
I believe in quantum mechanics and the Bohr Model. However, I draw the line at evolution. Why many people believe evolution is because they were taught it. I would think Schweitzer is one of the few who do not believe in creation. It's more likely that a Christian would believe in an old earth model. I just think that a young earth model fits observational science and the historical Bible. It's not like we ignore historical science. What gets me is these people who claim evolution and they do not understand it and state that Christians are the ones who do not understand science and believe in myths. If they showed me what are myths, then I would tend to believe them more. So far, it's all been assertions.
When it comes to observational science, evolution is very weak, indeed, like your posts.
Except of course- that the observational evidence supports the theory of evolution- and not some fairy poofing everything into existence 6,000 years ago.
What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds. These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found. All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements. However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
Yeah- controversial is a polite term for this collection of BSWhat about Giant human beings like in the story of David vs. Goliath? This is historical science, but it doesn't fit the evolution myth. Skeletons of giant humans have been found which atheist scientists seem to ignore or have covered up. What it means is the controversial hypothesis that earth's gravity was different, i.e. weaker, in the past. This would also explain dinosaurs being so large. In fact, atheist scientists cannot explain how the pterosaurs were able to fly.
Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True
This is one of the more controversial Christian websites. The giant humans were real and observable, and the weaker gravity hypothesis has some credibility, but it's not observable science. t.
What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds. These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found. All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements. However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
Or what about the recession of the moon? Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth. It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect. If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL. Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
Finally, the one I've been investigation currently. The earth's decaying magnetic field. If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys. In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM. If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now. Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years? If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away. Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more. This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable..
What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds. These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found. All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements. However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
Or what about the recession of the moon? Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth. It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect. If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL. Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
Finally, the one I've been investigation currently. The earth's decaying magnetic field. If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys. In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM. If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now. Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years? If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away. Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama. However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity. This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity. It's how magnetism works. You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment. I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you. That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns. If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles. It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.
What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more. This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old. The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank. It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic. You can't even name who this person was.
The basic assumption of evo scientists is that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time. The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate. However, it may or may not be applicable. As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field. If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results. Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today. Vastly different.
The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample. How do you know what it was in the past? The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass. We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table. We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top. Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running. The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over. It could have been some or none. Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running. It could have tipped over and someone righted it again. Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.
Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time. This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs. Not facts, theories, but beliefs. Uniformitarianism is more faith-based than actual science. This belief also affects their evolution science. The other belief they have is that of an old earth. This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time. There is few observational science, but mostly historical science. The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator. There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.
What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center
As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.
And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.
And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.
And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?
lol
Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah.
Mrs. Noah?
Actually, this post belongs in the "Religion" section. This is the "Science and Technology" section and there is absolutely NOTHING scientific about superstition.I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.
lol
Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah.
Mrs. Noah?
Ron Wyatt meant well, but he was off on several of his findings. He had his moments and huge blunders, too. I pointed him out to show that creationists who use historical science can be off, too. It just goes to show that historical science leads to huge errors like that which evolution made ha ha.
I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking and forensics to your evolution scientists who think humans came from apes.
lol
Ron Wyatt, on one of his first trips to the Ark site, discovered Noah's house and the grave of his wife, Mrs. Noah.
Mrs. Noah?
Ron Wyatt meant well, but he was off on several of his findings. He had his moments and huge blunders, too. I pointed him out to show that creationists who use historical science can be off, too. It just goes to show that historical science leads to huge errors like that which evolution made ha ha.
I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking and forensics to your evolution scientists who think humans came from apes.
I would compare Ron Wyatt's thinking to every single other creationist.
I am going to declare victory and bow out of this discussion.
James rejects science in favor of his faith- which is his choice.
But there is no arguing with a person who rejects all of the real science and believes in quack theories pretending to be science.
So I will let him continue to believe his fairy tales in peace- at least in this thread.
What observational science fits a young earth model? Please explain.
We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds. These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found. All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements. However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.
Or what about the recession of the moon? Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth. It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect. If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL. Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.
Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia
Finally, the one I've been investigation currently. The earth's decaying magnetic field. If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys. In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM. If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.
Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field
Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?
Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?
I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?
As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.
So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.
The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now. Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years? If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away. Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?
The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama. However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity. This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity. It's how magnetism works. You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment. I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you. That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns. If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles. It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.
What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more. This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old. The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank. It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic. You can't even name who this person was.
The basic assumption of evo scientists is that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time. The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate. However, it may or may not be applicable. As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field. If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results. Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today. Vastly different.
The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample. How do you know what it was in the past? The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass. We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table. We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top. Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running. The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over. It could have been some or none. Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running. It could have tipped over and someone righted it again. Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.
Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time. This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs. Not facts, theories, but beliefs. Uniformitarianism is more faith-based than actual science. This belief also affects their evolution science. The other belief they have is that of an old earth. This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time. There is few observational science, but mostly historical science. The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator. There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.
What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?
Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center
As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.
And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.
And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.
And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?
You present nothing concrete on seafloor magnetic anomaly. Where is the evidence? I am looking for patterns that they see and already in the solidified magma. I even gave you the patterns NSSN and NSNS in the experiment vid. If that's it, then the experiment shows that it's not pole reversals but properties of magnetism and proximity. I provide science that works and is backed up by scientific reasoning. You provide evo fodder talk.
Show me the errors in the math then.
I just provided you three solid pieces of evidence not based on radiometric dating. Besides, you could not refute the big one against radiometric dating. .Already provided the weaknesses with it. As for the diamonds, they were natural diamonds that were formed due to intense pressure.
One evidence is diamonds found in kimberlite. In this one case, they found an unpetrified piece of wood 300 m deep in the kimberlite. These are like fresh pieces of wood, so the diamonds would not be millions of years old. Secular scientists believed that the kimberlite was 53 millions years old, but if it was, then the would have not been there. Cellulose breaks down rapidly.
Pristine Early Eocene Wood Buried Deeply in Kimberlite from Northern Canada.
Today, scientists can grow diamonds artificially using the same temperature and pressure and carbon in short time. It doesn't take millions of years to form a diamond from carbon. Thus, it wasn't surprising to find C14 still remaining in the natural diamonds. It just goes to show that evos assume that the diamonds are millions of years old. How can one create synthetic diamonds in months using the same temperature and pressure as natural diamonds?
The Difference Between Natural and Synthetic Diamonds
How to Tell If A Diamond Was Grown In A Lab
Source for RATE finding C14 in diamonds
Thousands... Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Don DeYoung. Master Books, 2005, 190pp.
The evidence is overwhelming
Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
