YoungEarthSciGuy Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 If you google "young earth science" (w/ quotes) you get 18K+ hits. If you bing the same you get 154K items - go figure. What actually is Young Earth Science (YES)? YES claims that history and science reveals a planet that's thousands of years old and not billions. YES is often dismissed, but consider these words from R. F. Diffendal, from his article “Earth in Four Dimensions: Development of the Ideas of Geologic Time and History”: To some extent the arguments about a short Earth history of a few thousand years versus a long history of billions of years are still going on today. Most natural scientists support the long history. However, some people including Richard Milton [Mensan, agnostic, science journalist] … support the idea of a short one. [1] Be rational, this planet is younger than you think. Some of the best evidences for a young earth include: No fossil trees with thousands of rings Contradictory radiometric dates Solar effects on decay rates History only goes back thousands of years The human genome is going downhill Lack of trillions of Neanderthal graves [2] Here is a short summary of the meaning of YES from Wiki. Notes: 1) Nebraska History (Fall 1999), p. 103. 2) Young Earth Science by Jay Hall (Ideas, Big Spring, TX, 2014). 1 4
Torero Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Some of the "best" evidences for a young earth include: No fossil trees with thousands of rings It means trees are not growing to those ages. They die before they get to the millennia age. Contradictory radiometric dates Radiometric dating is a difficult process where it's hard to obtain clean samples. Multiple methods are used to remove error margins as much as possible. This statement is useless as "evidence" against a billions of years old Earth Solar effects on decay rates What is meant by this? History only goes back thousands of years That's because of the lack of writing. Archeological and paleo-antropological finds go back much further than "thousands of years" The human genome is going downhill Even if this is true, what does that have to do with "a young Earth"? Lack of trillions of Neanderthal graves Trillions? Graves? You wouldn't even find all graves of all the people who die today.Even less from past ages where weathering, erosion, flash floods, distribution by scavengers, chemical processes, etc. etc. were active on the possible finds. The fossil record is fragmented by the forces of Gaia herself. Not the fault of the researchers. If you google "young earth science" (w/ quotes) you get 18K+ hits. If you bing the same you get 154K items - go figure. If you google "abducted by aliens", "Flat Earth" or "God exists" I guess the amount of hits is the same or even higher. What does that mean? It's true? What actually is Young Earth Science (YES)? YES claims that history and science reveals a planet that's thousands of years old and not billions. Is it based on James Ussher's "calculation" based on the Bible (not the most reliable source due to numerous contradictions and written hundreds of years after things happened or "happened"), who claimed "4004" or is it based on this Richard Milton you mentioned who says: "...claimed in his book that the earth may be as young as 175,000 years old, based on the amount of helium in the atmosphere." (wiki)? "thousands of years" = how many? YES is often dismissed, but consider these words from R. F. Diffendal, from his article “Earth in Four Dimensions: Development of the Ideas of Geologic Time and History”: To some extent the arguments about a short Earth history of a few thousand years versus a long history of billions of years are still going on today. Not an argument. People still fight over which god is actually "real", long after Zeus, Wodan and Ra disappeared from the stage. Most natural scientists support the long history. However, some people including Richard Milton [Mensan, agnostic, science journalist] … support the idea of a short one. "Supporting ideas" is not science. A "science journalist" is not a geologist. Be rational, this planet is younger than you think. I am quite a rational person. This claim is unfounded. 3
Mister Mister Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Don't care don't care don't care, it's still wrong to tell your kids with certainty that God exists, they have Original Sin, and there is a horrible place called Hell where they will go if they are bad 4
Will Torbald Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 The following statement does not represent the views of FDR, any of its other members, nor any of the staff. It is only my own. Go fuck yourself. 1 7
dsayers Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 I'm always skeptical when somebody's post 1 is to tell people things. Given your username, I don't think your inquiry is an honest one.
shirgall Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Does anyone find it ironic that the original post shows the grand canyon, which has visible stata going back to the proterozoic era? 2
Pelafina Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 It's sad that science hasn't reached any firm conclusions on the age of the earth.
polyb1123 Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Well this certainly makes for an interesting study regarding confirmation bias and religious propaganda. The fact that it is posing as science and critical thinking demonstrates the dishonesty or irrationality of the author. It also demonstrates how poorly people are being educated, I mean how strongly people are being indoctrinated! I hope one day humanity will reach the age of reason!
Pelafina Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Well this certainly makes for an interesting study regarding confirmation bias and religious propaganda. The fact that it is posing as science and critical thinking demonstrates the dishonesty or irrationality of the author. It also demonstrates how poorly people are being educated, I mean how strongly people are being indoctrinated! I hope one day humanity will reach the age of reason! Reason, logic and evidence demonstrates that science is very weak in coming to firm conclusions. Don't make science your god, because science hasn't even begun to figure out the age of the earth. Make the scientific method your god instead, and admit that we are not there yet in terms of firm conclusions.
shirgall Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 It's sad that science hasn't reached any firm conclusions on the age of the earth. The estimates don't have big error bars. 4.54 plus or minus 0.05 billion years, based on radiometric dating of terrestrial, lunar, and meteoric materials. A common error is assuming that such dating is only based on carbon, but yes, this age is "accepted" not proven, because of core assumptions that have, as yet, not been overturned by new evidence or experiments. It has not risen to a level such as the law of gravity, but it's pretty solid compared to the YES hypothesis. For example, experiments trying to show that radiometric dating is flawed have been found to have flaws of their own. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.htmletc. etc. The question becomes, "what does 'firm' mean to you?" Don't make science your god, because science hasn't even begun to figure out the age of the earth. What does 'begin' mean to you? It obviously means something quite different to me.
Pelafina Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 From the physics department of Georgia State University: However, there are two obvious problems with radioactive dating for geological purposes: 1) uncertainty about the composition of the original sample and 2) possible losses of material during the time span of the decay. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html Don't you hate it when scientists know they are guessing and playing with the truth, but they try to hide it because they need to feel like they have all the answers? 1 1
polyb1123 Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Reason, logic and evidence demonstrates that science is very weak in coming to firm conclusions. Don't make science your god, because science hasn't even begun to figure out the age of the earth. Make the scientific method your god instead, and admit that we are not there yet in terms of firm conclusions.I only have one god and he is a flying spaghetti monster! Begone ye agent of the invisible unicorn! LOL! Uh, science is a concept/idea and the method is what works albeit not perfectly as well as the fact that it is a human endevour and thus is subject to manipulation and corruption. Your first sentence doesnt even make any sense and demonstrates a bias on your part so from the get go you are discrediting yourself. Worse you are interjecting religious notionalsim which also demonstrates irrationality on your part. NEXT, how much coursework and labwork in physics have you done because if you understand anything about the methods regarding radiometric dating you would know they are fairly reliable but again not perfect and concisely accurate, ie you can get rough orders of magnitude interms of dating! Now I am all for critical thinking regarding science as a topic because that is how we make progress in one respect. But to blindly reject established methods without proper argumentation to discount those methods demonstrates your unwillingness to properly investigate and argue. So, imho, you have failed and in no respect brought anything to the conversation worth noting. Why do you want to waste your time? Do you thik reinforcing an opinion more valuable than figuring out what is true? What is your motivation?
shirgall Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Don't you hate it when scientists know they are guessing and playing with the truth, but they try to hide it because they need to feel like they have all the answers? Now you need to define "guess" and "play" along with the other words I've asked you to define, because once again it obviously means something rather different to me.
TheAuger Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 @YoungEarthSciGuy, I think others have refuted your evidences pretty well. I'm curious about your views on the Bible and the existence of deities. What can you mention about those two topics?
Thomasio Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 No fossil trees with thousands of rings Can't remember in which one, because I've seen too many of them, but I remember Richard Dawkins stating in a discussion about this topic, there are in fact not only fossile, but existing trees today that have more than 6000 rings.
Torero Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 We just had a Young Earth Science guy call into the show last night... it should be up sometime soon! Thank you Mike, it's online now! After Flat Earth also Young Earth will be scrutinized on the most basic observations. Perafina said: Reason, logic and evidence demonstrates that science is very weak in coming to firm conclusions. Don't make science your god, because science hasn't even begun to figure out the age of the earth. Make the scientific method your god instead, and admit that we are not there yet in terms of firm conclusions. You're contradicting yourself: - on one hand you hold it against "science" that there is no "firm conclusion" about the age of the Earth - demanding certainty - on the other you call it "god" and claim the many researchers are "guessing" - blaming the lack of certainty The beauty about (natural) science is that it's never finished. It's not like religion (or media for that matter) that demands a 100% fixed carved in granite story. It's an eternal search for answers, with at each step encountering more questions and challenges. The basis of science is philosophy, logic and empiricism.
AccuTron Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Does anyone find it ironic that the original post shows the grand canyon, which has visible stata going back to the proterozoic era? Oooooh, good catch! Totally missed it. It's sad that science hasn't reached any firm conclusions on the age of the earth. I never know how many candles to put on the birthday cakes. From the physics department of Georgia State University: However, there are two obvious problems with radioactive dating for geological purposes: 1) uncertainty about the composition of the original sample and 2) possible losses of material during the time span of the decay. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html Don't you hate it when scientists know they are guessing and playing with the truth, but they try to hide it because they need to feel like they have all the answers? I assume the above is STEP ONE in discovery, which is to identify areas of possible error. I assume this is from a publication that included more sentences than just the above.
rosencrantz Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Lead can be used for dating the age of the earth. This is because Uranium decays into lead over time. Different isotopes of Uranium decay into different isotopes of lead.The decay of Uranium isotopes is known with a little margin of error. This means that when you have Uranium isotopes and lead isotopes in a geological sample you can use three methods to get the age of that sample. Get the ratio of Uranium isotope 1 / lead isotope 1. This gives you age 1 for the sample.Get the ratio of Uranium isotope 2 / lead isotope 2. This gives you age 2.Get the ratio of lead isotope 1 / lead isotope 2. This gives you age 3. This means you have three different ways to test the age of a sample. Geologists have done that numerous time and determined the age of the earth with a very tiny margin of error. All samples indicate that the earth is 4,5 billion years old.
st434u Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 I haven't researched this enough to have any strong position, so I just assume the old earth hypothesis is correct. It also fits my biases and understanding of the world. I've always been fascinated with dinosaurs and ancient cavemen, for example. As well as the current understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. That said, once I started viewing archaeologists in film, searching for fossils, I sort of got the feeling that they were just either finding something that looked like something that they wanted to find, or outright sculpting a fossil out of a rock in order to claim that it was there all along. This is just a sense and not a strong opinion, but I keep having that doubt in the back of my mind. The only fossils I know for a fact are real are when the whole animal body remains, such as with insects fossilized in amber. But then there's the question of age. Admittedly, I know very little if anything about the science behind radiocarbon dating, but it seems to me that assuming that we can deduce the rate of decay per year for a timeframe of several million years, based on the rate of decay for a given period of time that can be observed in a lab (say 100 years), could be a big mistake.
Torero Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 That said, once I started viewing archaeologists in film, searching for fossils, I sort of got the feeling that they were just either finding something that looked like something that they wanted to find, or outright sculpting a fossil out of a rock in order to claim that it was there all along. This is just a sense and not a strong opinion, but I keep having that doubt in the back of my mind. The only fossils I know for a fact are real are when the whole animal body remains, such as with insects fossilized in amber. But then there's the question of age. Admittedly, I know very little if anything about the science behind radiocarbon dating, but it seems to me that assuming that we can deduce the rate of decay per year for a timeframe of several million years, based on the rate of decay for a given period of time that can be observed in a lab (say 100 years), could be a big mistake. Archaeology is the science of studying historical human culture and their finds Paleontology is the science studying fossils So I assume you saw paleontologists looking for fossils. I don't know where you live but fossils are found worldwide. It's actually quite fun to look for them. A world-class site to find ammonite and belemnite fossils are the beaches bounding the English Channel; Kimmeridge Bay in SE England Cap Blanc-Nez in NW France And Jay (OP), if you're still around, see my review on your call into the show.
rosencrantz Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 I spent a vacation in Bavaria (Eichstätt) where you can enjoy the beautiful nature, go rafting or look for fossils yourself.http://www.eichstaett.de/poi/fossiliensteinbruch_fuer_hobby-253/I found a trilobite, a crustacean and parts of a plant.
st434u Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Archaeology is the science of studying historical human culture and their finds Paleontology is the science studying fossils So I assume you saw paleontologists looking for fossils. I don't know where you live but fossils are found worldwide. It's actually quite fun to look for them. Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. I always mix it up because to me, paleontology sounds like the study of the paleolithic period. I keep forgetting it's meant to be the study of the periods up to the paleolithic. I've never looked for fossils myself, but again I would have the same doubts. Is what I'm finding actually the fossilized remains of an animal, or just a rock with strange patterns? And likewise, even if it is the fossilized remains of an animal, how old it is?
Torero Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 I've never looked for fossils myself, but again I would have the same doubts. Is what I'm finding actually the fossilized remains of an animal, or just a rock with strange patterns? And likewise, even if it is the fossilized remains of an animal, how old it is? Have you looked at the photos from Kimmeridge Bay, Dorset (Jurassic Coast), Southern England? A pretty famous site for fossils: "Just a rock with strange patterns" does not produce the same pattern all the time, right? Of course there are rocks showing strange patterns (that mostly have their own explanatory theories) but if you find thousands of them the pattern is more than just a pattern. The material is different too; enclosing shales, limestones, siltstones or sandstones and calcareous or silicium-rich fossils. What you also can do with some time and patience is using small drill bits to scrape away the rock surrounding the fossil and end up with the fossil in your hand. On the French side of the Channel you can just pick the ammonites (in many cases pyritized; pyrite (FeS2) (also called "fool's gold") replaced the original material over time) from the beach. The age of formations is documented so you would have an idea. Also certain animals are restricted to certain periods because of mass extinctions. I am surprised that rosencrantz was able to find a trilobite in Eichstätt, Bavaria because the rocks there are of Mesozoic age (<250 Ma = Mega-annum = million years ago) when they were already extinct. Rosencrantz, was it exactly there that you found it or in the neighbourhood? And was it inside a rock or a single washed out specimen? The latter can come from erosion of older rocks higher up and transported to where you found it. The geological map of the area shows Upper Cretaceous (Oberkreide; light green) and Jurassic (Malm, Dogger, Lias) rocks only, no Paleozoic (Perm, Carboniferous and older): What is coloured purple and called "Ries-Auswurfmassen" is material produced by the impact of a meteorite some 14.5 Ma ago, the famous Ries impact crater. The yellow and lighter colours are younger material (Tertiary, so <65 Ma old). Pues st434u, veo que sos argentino? In Argentina a lot of dinosaur fossil remains (bones, tracks and eggs) have been found. Paleontological sites of Argentina
rosencrantz Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 I found a layer of Orthocerenkalk (no idea what that is in English) when I looked a bit off site. You can't trilos in the normal site. I went prepared with a geological hammer since these layers can be tough to work with. The ice age was not generous with Southern Germany / Austria but with a good luck, you can find some layers left by glaciers.
Torero Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 I found a layer of Orthocerenkalk (no idea what that is in English) when I looked a bit off site. You can't trilos in the normal site. I went prepared with a geological hammer since these layers can be tough to work with. The ice age was not generous with Southern Germany / Austria but with a good luck, you can find some layers left by glaciers. A layer? Or a boulder? Because Orthocerenkalk is transported to the south by the glaciers (so in fact; "generous" so you could find that trilobite so far south); boulders, cobbles, pebbles. It is ~ 500 Ma old; Ordovicium, indeed an age where trilobites were thriving. Das Herkunftsgebiet des roten Orthocerenkalks ist Schweden. Area of origin of red Orthoceren limestone is Sweden.
rosencrantz Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Area of origin of red Orthoceren limestone is Sweden. You can find it all over Germany, the best site for that is around Berlin where it was pushed by glaciers. Occasionally, you can find them south of the Thuringian shale.
st434u Posted February 7, 2016 Posted February 7, 2016 Have you looked at the photos from Kimmeridge Bay, Dorset (Jurassic Coast), Southern England? A pretty famous site for fossils: I'm not saying fossils don't exist, but in the first two pictures, doesn't it look to you like those may have been carved into the rock? Maybe it's just weird lighting, but it looks to me like the fossil made a dent on the rock's surface and is at a lower level, and not on top of it.
Devolvophobe Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 First off What do you actually mean by "young earth"? That it's only looked like a moldy blueberry from space for thousands of years? That it literally formed from stardust into the complex life supporting planet it is now over the course of a few thousand years? Or what? From a geological standpoint I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to make a case that earths development into its current state required only a few thousand years... Unless of course and it sounds like perhaps you are, invoking: a series of "divine poofing" creation antics. If your purpose for desiring earth to be young is for that belief to comport with a kindergarten flannel board interpretation of Genesis; where a Sunday school teacher flops a flannel globe, sun and moon onto the board as God snaps his fingers. Well then I think you may need to reconsider why/how a proposed miraculous universe creator should be expected to reveal and attempt to explain to mere mortals detailed explanations of his divine finger snapping capabilities; how they function; in what order; and over how many earth days, years, millenia this all took place. Maybe big fella snapped his fingers once cause he's all powerful a big bang ensued as he sat back on his lazy boy with a Jupiter sized bowl of popcorn and watched the incredible show of billions of years of spectacular universe formation from his realm in which the passage of time may not even be experienced? Or may not be in any way painful to endure? After all time is relative right here in our very realm.
Devolvophobe Posted March 6, 2017 Posted March 6, 2017 First off What do you actually mean by "young earth"? That it's only looked like a moldy blueberry from space for thousands of years? That it literally formed from stardust into the complex life supporting planet it is now over the course of a few thousand years? Or what? From a geological standpoint I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to make a case that earths development into its current state required only a few thousand years... Unless of course and it sounds like perhaps you are, invoking: a series of "divine poofing" creation antics.If your purpose for desiring earth to be young is for that belief to comport with a kindergarten flannel board interpretation of Genesis; where a Sunday school teacher flops a flannel globe, sun and moon onto the board as God snaps his fingers. Well then I think you may need to reconsider why/how a proposed miraculous universe creator should be expected to reveal and attempt to explain to mere mortals detailed explanations of his divine finger snapping capabilities; how they function; in what order; and over how many earth days, years, millenia this all took place. Maybe big fella snapped his fingers once cause he's all powerful a big bang ensued as he sat back on his lazy boy with a Jupiter sized bowl of popcorn and watched the incredible show of billions of years of spectacular universe formation from his realm in which the passage of time may not even be experienced? Or may not be in any way painful to endure? After all time is relative right here in our very realm.
Recommended Posts