U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-29-2008, 10:46 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,920,447 times
Reputation: 465

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Really Nikk...Amazon selling a YEC book...(Your link)....I'm sure you can do better than that. I would suggest also that you try to get up to date on the newer dating methods.

Now a day's there is only a 1% chance of error occurring with the current dating technology. In fact new geologic time scales are published every few years, providing the latest dates for major time lines. One important result is that some older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but the younger dates are very stable.

Thermoluminescence, Fission Track and Other Dating Techniques: Timing is Everything, Part 4
Science is done by scientists regardless of their belief system. Yes amazon dose sell YEC books. I am not too sure of what your point is. I just gave you a reference to the book.

These other dating methods that you propose are "modern" still require major assumptions to be made. Fission Tracking itself is only good above 20 million years in the article that you cited. So, the study that I cited above would not have benifited from your "new" better test. This method was developed in the 1960's according to your article so it is not something so new that us YEC are unaware of it.

1% of error from what? An erroneous date only 1% out on an erroneous time scale is absolutly usless.

 
Old 09-29-2008, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,037 posts, read 30,671,240 times
Reputation: 12213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
Science is done by scientists regardless of their belief system. Yes amazon dose sell YEC books. I am not too sure of what your point is. I just gave you a reference to the book.

These other dating methods that you propose are "modern" still require major assumptions to be made. Fission Tracking itself is only good above 20 million years in the article that you cited. So, the study that I cited above would not have benifited from your "new" better test. This method was developed in the 1960's according to your article so it is not something so new that us YEC are unaware of it.

1% of error from what? An erroneous date only 1% out on an erroneous time scale is absolutly usless.
So what if Fission tracking is only good above 20 million years? It still trashes your young earth hypothesis I would say....Come on now admit it.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 10:52 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,920,447 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Just call it quits man. No amount of reasoning can work on an unreasonable person.
What is unreasonable fancofu?
 
Old 09-29-2008, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,863,957 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
The sad fact is Sanspuer,
Just an fyi...it's hard on the eyes to read your messages when you bold the whole thing. It's going to make people pass over your posts.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 10:59 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,920,447 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
So what if Fission tracking is only good above 20 million years? It still trashes your young earth hypothesis I would say....Come on now admit it.
I never said that it can only date above 20 million years. I said your site said this. I think it is bunk all together! Remember I believe that the Universe is only 6012 years old plus 6 days. So a dating method that works for dates greater than this is totally usless as far as I am concerned.

I was using your site to prove that your dating method you proposed was not a better dating method.

Since the date was bogus for the study I sited in the first place then it is still bogus!
 
Old 09-29-2008, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,169,537 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
What is unreasonable fancofu?
Who, not what. You.

Geology and paleontology aren't the only sciences that disprove YEC.

Explain SN 1987A.
Quote:
Since 51.4 kiloparsecs is approximately 168,000 light-years, the cosmic event itself happened approximately 168,000 years prior to its observation in 1987.
Explain stellar evolution.

These 2, out of many, things contradict YEC.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,169,537 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
I never said that it can only date above 20 million years. I said your site said this. I think it is bunk all together! Remember I believe that the Universe is only 6012 years old plus 6 days. So a dating method that works for dates greater than this is totally usless as far as I am concerned.

I was using your site to prove that your dating method you proposed was not a better dating method.

Since the date was bogus for the study I sited in the first place then it is still bogus!
That would mean nothing could be farther than 6,000 light years away. We would be incinerated by the intense heat if this were true. It's 100% impossible.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,037 posts, read 30,671,240 times
Reputation: 12213
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Just call it quits man. No amount of reasoning can work on an unreasonable person.
Naw...He/she's not unreasonable, just a desperate person trying to defend beliefs. Remember if creationism is admitted to be wrong, then perhaps it's all wrong. The funny thing is that the more YEC believers try to defend their position the deeper the hole gets.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,169,537 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Naw...He/she's not unreasonable, just a desperate person trying to defend beliefs. Remember if creationism is admitted to be wrong, then perhaps it's all wrong. The funny thing is that the more YEC believers try to defend their position the deeper the hole gets.
I'd say that ignoring reality is an unreasonable thing to do. He/she being unreasonable is besides the point though. I get a kick out of their (YEC) answers.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 12:45 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,920,447 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Who, not what. You.

Geology and paleontology aren't the only sciences that disprove YEC.

Explain SN 1987A.

Explain stellar evolution.

These 2, out of many, things contradict YEC.
Not too sure what you are saying. God created the Universe. What size was the universe when God created it? I don't know.

A light year however is a distance. It is the amount of space that a light travels in one year. That is based on the current speed of light and what we think is the distance from us and a given object in space. But it does not imply that light at the current speed has passed that perticular distance using the same method that we understand today.

There are several questions about the past that we do not know.

Has C degraded over time (or changed whether increase or decrease)? Has the distance always been the same that we think it is now? How did God create the Universe? (ie. did he create light in transit? Did he aid in the movement of light?)

Remember creation is a miracle. It was done is 6 days. Adam was able to enjoy the stars the day he was created.

It is Humphreys et all that has proposed the idea that we are coming out of an events horizon and that creation occured within the events horizon of a "white" hole. If we look at Einstiens theory this would give an inflated time at creation which would account for the extra time needed for light to travel from the stars. This is called the "time dialation" of space. This theory still attempts to stuff time into Genesis which is contrary to scripture (even if it is the effects of time rather than actually more days).

I prefer to side with Mark McCutcheon's theory even though he is an evolutionist. That is "The Final Theory" see: here. In his book he explains how the universe has expanded and explains the errors that we find in our current science in the "Standard Theory". He shows how both Einstein and Newton have erred, but because there incorrect Models work we still use them. I however reject his evolutionary ideas. But his model works better for and in favor of a recent creation. This model explains what gravity really is and how not only the universe but all of matter is expanding.

So currently I do not think C has degraded and I think space is the same size. I think that based on what is observed the Universe and all matter is expanding giving us gravity and a recent creation. That is light had much less distance to travel in the past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top