Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

[gnostic]

Okay here is another easy one. God created dinosaur skeleton fossils already fossilized during Creation week. And He did it not to trick you but that was like a hobby of His, like some like to paint pictures, He thought it cool to create fossils. See how easy it is to poke holes in evolution once you admit there is a God?

That God put dinosaur fossils "already fossilized" and never lived, all of which are simply conjectures.

Scientists do conjecture too in their hypotheses (not theories), but they have to set up parameters in their hypotheses where "he" (or she") or any other independent scientists (peers) to test their conjectures or to "discover" verifiable evidences that support their findings.

No conjecture, like those found in hypotheses, can ever be "true", until they have met the requirements of scientific method and peer review, meaning the hypotheses been repeatedly and thoroughly tested "positive" or that there are enough evidences to verify the hypotheses are true.

Your scenario with the God planting fossils into ground or rocks, cannot be tested...not unless you have photos of God being caught red-handed placing false evidences on sites of discoveries, all around the world.

If you are going to make a claim, then it needs to be back up with evidences. Since you don't have any, except your conjectures for an explanation, if other people criticize your logic, then they have the rights to do so.

Like Shad said, that criticism, not intolerance. And this is debate area, if you are going to present religion, religious belief or your god, as "science" then your claim and your logic will be examined, and if found wanting, dismantle in short fashion, especially if your argument going to be so weak and full of holes.

You do realize in science, people have the rights to question or challenge any scenario, any claim, any explanation, any belief. Science is not in the business of accepting anything at face value; it will be rigorously tested, not just to verify it is true, but also to debunk any poorly presented hypothesis or theory or any pseudoscience.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are both pseudoscience.

Whether the Designer are deities, angels, demons, fairies or extraterrestrial aliens, there needs to be evidences to support such Designer existing.

No ID adherents have ever presented evidences of such being(s) existing. Their arguments are based on wishful conjectures and baseless superstitions.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. October 2nd at sundown, I begin to celebrate Rosh HaShanah. Humankind will be 5777 years old. 1656 years after Adam and Eve were created, the Flood happened. So 4121 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a Flood.

This is not an argument about creation versus evolution. This is an argument for and against a young earth. I opened up my mind a little and researched evidence of civilizations older than 4121 years, and even older than 5777 years.

I accept that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 doesn't preclude a lengthy period of time for creation. That the 6 days prior to Adam being created time didn't pass at the same rate it does now.

So what I'm saying is, produce for me evidence that can't be denied, that if there was a global flood, that it was significantly longer than 4121 years ago. Or produce for me evidence that can't be denied that civilizations existed prior to 5777 years ago.

Again, this is not an argument about evolution versus creation, but rather an argument about how old is human civilization.

"The Kebaran or Kebarian culture was an archaeological culture in the eastern Mediterranean area (c. 18,000 to 12,500 BC), named after its type site, Kebara Cave south of Haifa. The Kebaran were a highly mobile nomadic population, composed of hunters and gatherers in the Levant and Sinai areas who utilized microlithic tools."

Kebaran - Wikipedia

25,000 years ago: a hamlet consisting of huts built of rocks and of mammoth bones is founded in what is now Dolni Vestonice in Moravia in the Czech Republic. This is the oldest human permanent settlement that has yet been found by archaeologists.

Stuart, Gene S. (1979). "Ice Age Hunters: Artists in Hidden Cages". Mysteries of the Ancient World. National Geographic Society. p. 19.

 

[leibowde84]

After demonstrating to me the facts of the evolutionary process, okay- all life is evolving and has evolved since the beginning of time 5777 years ago when God created all life with enough genetic diversity to bring about the myriads of species today.

How do you explain the plethora of fossils that are millions of years old?

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. October 2nd at sundown, I begin to celebrate Rosh HaShanah. Humankind will be 5777 years old. 1656 years after Adam and Eve were created, the Flood happened. So 4121 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a Flood.

This is not an argument about creation versus evolution. This is an argument for and against a young earth. I opened up my mind a little and researched evidence of civilizations older than 4121 years, and even older than 5777 years.

I accept that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 doesn't preclude a lengthy period of time for creation. That the 6 days prior to Adam being created time didn't pass at the same rate it does now.

So what I'm saying is, produce for me evidence that can't be denied, that if there was a global flood, that it was significantly longer than 4121 years ago. Or produce for me evidence that can't be denied that civilizations existed prior to 5777 years ago.

Again, this is not an argument about evolution versus creation, but rather an argument about how old is human civilization.

Or Homo Sapien remains from 200,000 years ago?

 

[Brian Schuh]

The first thing creationists attack when arguing with those who believe in evolution, is that most if not all of your dating methods are unreliable. I guess if Wikipiadea says a settlement is 25 thousand years old, it must be true. Right? Carbon dating is so unreliable that I cannot depend on it to discredit my creationism. Many other forms of dating are also unreliable. If you know the rate of decay and the current amount of a radioactive substance, you also must know the original amount of the radioactive substance, and you must know the rate of decay is constant, before you can know the age of the artifact in question. This is such a simple concept, anyone with only a junior high school education can understand it.

 

[Shad]

The first thing creationists attack when arguing with those who believe in evolution, is that most if not all of your dating methods are unreliable. I guess if Wikipiadea says a settlement is 25 thousand years old, it must be true. Right? Carbon dating is so unreliable that I cannot depend on it to discredit my creationism. Many other forms of dating are also unreliable. If you know the rate of decay and the current amount of a radioactive substance, you also must know the original amount of the radioactive substance, and you must know the rate of decay is constant, before you can know the age of the artifact in question. This is such a simple concept, anyone with only a junior high school education can understand it.

Good thing scientists use more than carbon dating, which you didn't know. More so carbon dating is not unreliable.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Good thing scientists use more than carbon dating, which you didn't know. More so carbon dating is not unreliable.

Again you resort to insults instead of addressing my argument. Dating is only reliable if you assume uniformitarianism. Right off the bat, the Bible makes it clear a believer can't believe in uniformitarianism. But I don't anticipate that you will address the argument but that you will just resort to more insults.

 

[Shad]

Again you resort to insults instead of addressing my argument.

I did address it. I point out that there are more than carbon dating as a dating method. You only target carbon dating as it is the go to argument for copy/paste hacks and their creationist websites.

Dating is only reliable if you assume uniformitarianism.

Which is a dead model. Maybe email your copy/paste site to update their information so you can copy/paste relevant models

Right off the bat, the Bible makes it clear a believer can't believe in uniformitarianism.

Which just confirms you believe in what a bronze age text says, nothing more. So you have no competing model beside a circular argument. The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. Congratulations on your fallacious reasoning.

But I don't anticipate that you will address the argument but that you will just resort to more insults.

Are you going to ignore my points like you did previously to go right to whining again?

 

[Brian Schuh]

I did address it. I point out that there are more than carbon dating as a dating method. You only target carbon dating as it is the go to argument for copy/paste hacks and their creationist websites.



Which is a dead model. Maybe email your copy/paste site to update their information so you can copy/paste relevant models



Which just confirms you believe in what a bronze age text says, nothing more. So you have no competing model beside a circular argument. The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. Congratulations on your fallacious reasoning.



Are you going to ignore my points like you did previously to go right to whining again?

If you call this circular reasoning, go ahead. But if the premise is that there is an Almighty God who can change the laws of nature at whim, then one cannot assume any dating methods are accurate. It is very simple, I would expect a man of your alleged education to understand. So we claim that uniformitarianism can only be assumed back to time of the Great Flood, then prove to me that the Great Flood could not have happened. You must do this BEFORE you can disprove Creation.

 

[Shad]

If you call this circular reasoning, go ahead.

It is by definition since you have no model that can not be refuted by speculation that reality changed when we weren't looking.

But if the premise is that there is an Almighty God who can change the laws of nature at whim, then one cannot assume any dating methods are accurate.

This would be an axiom based premise thus can be rejected without issue.

It is very simple, I would expect a man of your alleged education to understand.

I understand hence why I am pointing out issues with your assertions.

So we claim that uniformitarianism can only be assumed back to time of the Great Flood,

Arbitrary basis based on circular reasoning of the Bible.

then prove to me that the Great Flood could not have happened.

Since you hold foundation axioms that are incapable with modern knowledge I can't. You are asking an impossible question as you have already dismissed any axiom, method and conclusion which is not based on the Bible or what the Bible says about reality. You said it yourself if unwittingly. This is called an irrational argument as you are demanding I hold to your axioms when I don't then argue from that basis. It is pure sophistry. Try again.

You must do this BEFORE you can disprove Creation.

Shifting burden of proof and argument from ignorance. I do not need to disprove creationism as it is not automatically true because you or the Bible says it is. Also see above.

 

[gnostic]

The first thing creationists attack when arguing with those who believe in evolution, is that most if not all of your dating methods are unreliable. I guess if Wikipiadea says a settlement is 25 thousand years old, it must be true. Right? Carbon dating is so unreliable that I cannot depend on it to discredit my creationism. Many other forms of dating are also unreliable. If you know the rate of decay and the current amount of a radioactive substance, you also must know the original amount of the radioactive substance, and you must know the rate of decay is constant, before you can know the age of the artifact in question. This is such a simple concept, anyone with only a junior high school education can understand it.

You have heard of other radiometric dating methods other than radiocarbon dating method, have you?

Radiocarbon dating is just one method of radiometric dating, among a dozen.

Radiocarbon (carbon-14) should only be used from 2 centuries from now to near the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic (10,000 to 50,000 years ago). So dating human (urban) civilisations (starting 3600 BCE or 5600 years ago) is still pretty reliable as well as that of the Neolithic period (5100 to 10,000 years ago; 5100 years ago 3100 BCE being roughly the time of the starting point of the Bronze Age in the Middle East and the Aegean).

And radiocarbon dating has some limitations, one of which become increasingly unreliable, the further beyond 40,000 years. Another common error due to its limitations is contamination, which can give false reading.

This is why you would compare them with other radiometric dating methods. Anything older than 40,000 years, potassium-argon dating method is far more reliable than radiocarbon. Even more accurate and reliable is the uranium-lead dating method, which can date the oldest rocks.

Any junior high school education would teach you that there are better radiometric dating methods than doing radiocarbon tests. And only idiots would waste their time on using radiocarbon methods on a million year old objects (rocks or fossils) when there are many more reliable methods.

The real question is WHY creationists always single out radiocarbon dating AND IGNORING ALL OTHER DATING METHODS??!!!!

 

[Skwim]

You have heard of other radiometric dating methods other than radiocarbon dating method, have you?

Radiocarbon dating is just one method of radiometric dating, among a dozen.

Radiocarbon (carbon-14) should only be used from 2 centuries from now to near the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic (10,000 to 50,000 years ago). So dating human (urban) civilisations (starting 3600 BCE or 5600 years ago) is still pretty reliable as well as that of the Neolithic period (5100 to 10,000 years ago; 5100 years ago 3100 BCE being roughly the time of the starting point of the Bronze Age in the Middle East and the Aegean).

And radiocarbon dating has some limitations, one of which become increasingly unreliable, the further beyond 40,000 years. Another common error due to its limitations is contamination, which can give false reading.

This is why you would compare them with other radiometric dating methods. Anything older than 40,000 years, potassium-argon dating is more reliable than radiocarbon.

Any junior high school education would teach you that there are better radiometric dating methods than doing radiocarbon tests. And only idiots would waste their time on using radiocarbon methods on a million year old objects (rocks or fossils) when there are many more reliable methods.

Yes, ignorance is a terrible thing to waste on those whose minds are already made up. Leave ignorance to those willing to learn.


.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, ignorance is a terrible thing to waste on those whose minds are already made up. Leave ignorance to those willing to learn.

Brian is using the same tiresome radiocarbon flaw that creationists frequently use.

Does he really think that scientists don't know about radiocarbon limitations?

Does he seriously think that scientists cannot use other radiometric dating methods?

If Brian was smart at all, then he look outside the tiny box that he put himself in.

You would think by now that creationists would have learned or know that there are other radiometric dating methods out there; apparently they can ignore them by putting on blinkers. That's what I would dishonesty and wilful ignorance.

If Brian want to measure the age of dinosaurs then he would go with potassium-argon (K-Ar) or uranium-lead (U-Pb) methods, not radiocarbon.

If he want to date the Australopithecus or the earliest Homo erectus than he should use potassium-argon method, not radiocarbon.

And I certainly wouldn't use radiocarbon on Homo sapiens that are older than 50,000 years. And the oldest Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years. Again, I could use potassium-argon because it can date anything BEFORE 100,000 years old.

So where would I only use carbon-14 (radiocarbon) to date remains or objects?

My answers to this would be:

• Neolithic period (approx. 10,000 to 3100 BCE)
• Bronze Age (3100 to 1000 BCE)
• Iron Age (1000 BCE to 500 CE)
• Middle Ages (476 CE to 1400)

Maybe I would use it for the Upper Palaeolithic period, but only if i compare them against other radiometric methods.

Only idiots would use radiocarbon to date dinosaurs or other animals older than 50,000 years.

 

[Skwim]

Brian is using the same tiresome radiocarbon flaw that creationists frequently use.

Does he really think that scientists don't know about radiocarbon limitations?

Does he seriously think that scientists cannot use other radiometric dating methods?

If Brian was smart at all, then he look outside the tiny box that he put himself in.

You would think by now that creationists would have learned or know that there are other radiometric dating methods out there; apparently they can ignore them by putting on blinkers. That's what I would dishonesty and wilful ignorance.

If Brian want to measure the age of dinosaurs then he would go with potassium-argon (K-Ar) or uranium-lead (U-Pb) methods, not radiocarbon.

If he want to date the Australopithecus or the earliest Homo erectus than he should use potassium-argon method, not radiocarbon.

And I certainly wouldn't use radiocarbon on Homo sapiens that are older than 50,000 years. And the oldest Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years. Again, I could use potassium-argon because it can date anything BEFORE 100,000 years old.

So where would I only use carbon-14 (radiocarbon) to date remains or objects?

My answers to this would be:

• Neolithic period (approx. 10,000 to 3100 BCE)
• Bronze Age (3100 to 1000 BCE)
• Iron Age (1000 BCE to 500 CE)
• Middle Ages (476 CE to 1400)

Maybe I would use it for the Upper Palaeolithic period, but only if i compare them against other radiometric methods.

Only idiots would use radiocarbon to date dinosaurs or other animals older than 50,000 years.

Trouble is, the spokesmen of creationism don't care if they spread misinformation, and those who read their trash certainly don't care to check its accuracy. Hence we have the same stupid statements repeated over and over again. Just look at how many times a new creationist comes onto RF and starts in on evolution by arguing against abiogenesis. This isn't surprising considering the investment they have in the truth of their faith, but it is tiring to those of us who do know the score.


.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The first thing creationists attack when arguing with those who believe in evolution, is that most if not all of your dating methods are unreliable. I guess if Wikipiadea says a settlement is 25 thousand years old, it must be true. Right? Carbon dating is so unreliable that I cannot depend on it to discredit my creationism. Many other forms of dating are also unreliable. If you know the rate of decay and the current amount of a radioactive substance, you also must know the original amount of the radioactive substance, and you must know the rate of decay is constant, before you can know the age of the artifact in question. This is such a simple concept, anyone with only a junior high school education can understand it.

Hmm, then I wonder why the scientists that have university degrees and study this stuff for a living don't agree with you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you call this circular reasoning, go ahead. But if the premise is that there is an Almighty God who can change the laws of nature at whim, then one cannot assume any dating methods are accurate. It is very simple, I would expect a man of your alleged education to understand. So we claim that uniformitarianism can only be assumed back to time of the Great Flood, then prove to me that the Great Flood could not have happened. You must do this BEFORE you can disprove Creation.

It is circular reasoning, by definition.

And if there is a god that can change the laws of nature on a whim, we should find ourselves living in a world of chaos where the laws of nature as we understand them don't actually exist and/or operate as we understand them. The fact that we live in a world of predictable natural law kinda of throws a wrench in your argument here.

Also, there's no evidence of any massive global flood.

 

[McBell]

If you call this circular reasoning, go ahead. But if the premise is that there is an Almighty God who can change the laws of nature at whim, then one cannot assume any dating methods are accurate. It is very simple, I would expect a man of your alleged education to understand. So we claim that uniformitarianism can only be assumed back to time of the Great Flood, then prove to me that the Great Flood could not have happened. You must do this BEFORE you can disprove Creation.

Lets me see if I understand you correctly...

Your argument seems to be "I believe in creationism and until you can prove to me it is not true I will hold that it is true".

Is this correct?

 

[gnostic]

So we claim that uniformitarianism can only be assumed back to time of the Great Flood, then prove to me that the Great Flood could not have happened. You must do this BEFORE you can disprove Creation.

In what year do you think the Genesis Flood occur, Brian?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Okay. October 2nd at sundown, I begin to celebrate Rosh HaShanah. Humankind will be 5777 years old. 1656 years after Adam and Eve were created, the Flood happened. So 4121 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a Flood.

This is not an argument about creation versus evolution. This is an argument for and against a young earth. I opened up my mind a little and researched evidence of civilizations older than 4121 years, and even older than 5777 years.

I accept that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 doesn't preclude a lengthy period of time for creation. That the 6 days prior to Adam being created time didn't pass at the same rate it does now.

So what I'm saying is, produce for me evidence that can't be denied, that if there was a global flood, that it was significantly longer than 4121 years ago. Or produce for me evidence that can't be denied that civilizations existed prior to 5777 years ago.

Again, this is not an argument about evolution versus creation, but rather an argument about how old is human civilization.

It's possible for several reasons time runs at different rates, if the universe if of finite extent and the earth is near the center according to the theory of Hoss Humphrey's he argues time would run fastest at the edge and slowest at the center. But.... in the end the way God creates the universe, stretching it out, and the way God sustains the universe don't have to be the same way.

I would take young earth view but as far as universe I believe they started at the same time but time proceeded at different rates

 

[whirlingmerc]

Okay, let me clarify. I should not have said, young earth. By the end of my introduction to this thread, I am interested in seeing scientific and historical evidence that human civilizations predate 5777 years ago. Sapiens has produced a lot of interesting stuff. Instead of mocking someone who sincerely wants to see the evidence, it seems that you can contribute by showing me the evidence. No offense.

There are many arguments put forth in 'thousands not millions'
1) the high amount of Helium in Zircons
2) the high amount of C14 in Cambrian diamond
would be examples