pmoney25;1599687 wrote:...

Does a young earth have to exist for Christianity to be considered valid?

No. Can you point to a specific section in scripture which points to a young earth model? I see in Gen. 1:1 that God created the heavens and the earth, and then in 1:2 that the earth was "formless and void". That term "formless and void" refers to judgment. With the construction of verses 1 and 2, one is warranted to read an undetermined time period between the two.

The earth was here, but day one had not yet occurred.

tl;dr...whatevs.

cruiser_96;1599692 wrote:No. Can you point to a specific section in scripture which points to a young earth model? I see in Gen. 1:1 that God created the heavens and the earth, and then in 1:2 that the earth was "formless and void". That term "formless and void" refers to judgment. With the construction of verses 1 and 2, one is warranted to read an undetermined time period between the two.

The earth was here, but day one had not yet occurred.

tl;dr...whatevs.

I dont believe that a young earth is necessary for Christianity. The idea of a 6000 year old earth basically comes from tracing the lineage from Abraham back to Adam. Then assuming that each day of creation is literally a day.

pmoney25: according to Moses' account, Adam and Eve were created on day 6. I've seen dates range from 7000 to 10,000 but that's the range for humans. The earth is something COMPLETELY different. ...and it's usually something people don't even consider.

jmog;1599572 wrote:I will make it much more basic for you. Before I knew really anything about science (before college) I believed in creationism.
As I started studying it in grave detail as an undergraduate I abandoned that belief and went full on evolution.

Highly doubtful based upon your dubious arguments against the efficacy of radiometric dating that presumably "persuaded you" that naturalistic evolution with common descent was a farce and that the Earth is not older than 6,000 years old.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. But, you're not free to pretend what you believe is reasonable based on the evidence at hand. Uranium-lead dating is incredibly refined and accurate. We have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is 4.5 years old. But, your standard of proof is unattainable. You need proof beyond unreasonable doubts. Science cannot prove that the Devil is not deceiving us with radioactive decay. Science cannot prove away the wishful thinking of bogus "creation scientists".

The only way that the Earth is 6,000 years old is if the Devil is deceiving us with the scientific method and you know what, I can't prove that he's not! This could all be the matrix! Maybe we are in the matrix but assuming that we are is no way to go through life.

You're spitting religiously motivated pseudoscience in this thread. And, as you usually do, you will pimp your degrees in the sciences and use those to appeal to your own authority as an argument that we should trust your opinions on the age of the Earth, evolution by common descent, climate change, etc. (which is a logical fallacy in case you didn't know since you keep bantering about logical fallacies in this thread) when we absolutely should not.

You're probably a damn good engineer and a decent math tutor but we should not trust your opinion the matter at hand. Your claims about the inaccuracy of uranium-lead dating are unfounded and the type of good faith investigation you say you embarked on in your epistemological journey would easily reveal that. It is not even worth the time and effort to deride the efforts of the Institute for Creation Research to delude their donors and faithful evangelical supporters with "research" that amounts to little more than wishful thinking. In addition, it is boring and we wouldn't even change your mind.

You can't shake the faith of a true believer.

Instead, why don't you tell us about your good faith investigations into common descent that lead you to conclude that humans roamed the earth with Dinosaurs. That would greatly improve the entertainment value of this thread.

jmog;1599667 wrote:Have you seen the "Halo" problem with Uranium-Lead? It actually points to a young Earth date rather than billions of years.

Easily refutable and here is a mainstream, easily accessible source that I'm sure you will claim is biased in favor of atheism and evolution blah blah blah.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

The "researcher" rationalizes away contradictions to his evidence with "ONE TIME DIVINE INTERVENTIONS"


^^^^We're doing "science" boys and girls LOL!

pmoney25;1599687 wrote:The "evidence" you talk about seems to be rather easily refuted and not considered scientifically consistent.

Im not going to pretend Im an expert. I will leave that to the real experts and to me their evidence seems a lot more plausible than yours.

Does a young earth have to exist for Christianity to be considered valid?

1. It is not easily refutable 3 halos vs 8 halos.
2. No, a young earth isn't necessary for Christianity to be valid. However, an old earth is most certainly necessary for cell to human evolution to be valid.

Does a young earth have to exist for Christianity to be considered valid?

Absolutely not. The main Christian sect, the Catholic Church itself allows for evolution or 'creationism', as long as you believe that God is behind creation. The Church is well ahead of the curve of a lot of religions in declaring that scence is not an enemy but a revealer of the wonders of our universe. You will not find the Church disputing or fighting scientific evidence about origins because , quite frankly, it is not important.

BoatShoes;1599718 wrote:Easily refutable and here is a mainstream, easily accessible source that I'm sure you will claim is biased in favor of atheism and evolution blah blah blah.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

The "researcher" rationalizes away contradictions to his evidence with "ONE TIME DIVINE INTERVENTIONS"


^^^^We're doing "science" boys and girls LOL!

You give me one guys blog, I give you decades of published results in scientific publications.

1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

The final Baillieul blog 'results' basically says "Gentry's results are wrong because we KNOW the Earth is old from other sources/data". I am paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

If you read back, I stated that IF the halo problem for U-Pb radiometric dating was true/real then it was a HUGE problem for evolution. I never stated that it was fact, because quite frankly, I am not a physicist.

Also, quite frankly I find it funny that a geologist is telling a physicist that they don't know what they are talking about with respect to radiometric dating when that is a physics process that happens to be contained in the rocks. The geologist would be an expert on where that rock came from and how it was made, but the physicist would be the expert on determining how to calculate radio active decay. We didn't have geologists design nuclear bombs and reactors, we have physicists do that.

I am glad to see you went back to the "jmog is just lying" mantra though, now the new key word is "pretending" to have believed in evolution instead of lying or delusional.

You can keep changing the wording, but in the end you are still saying that I am lying about my own experiences. I am just curious how you are so sure that I am lying about my own belief system journey (and I do believe that we all evolve our belief system over time, like a journey, mine has probably changed more drastically than others, but that doesn't make it a lie).

Ok jmog,Lets concede that the earth is only 8,000 years old even (though it's not) How do you explain that the rest of our galaxy (the milky way ) is over 13 billion years old. Do you think the creator was just passing through the neighborhood and created earth in 6 days..... 8 thousand years ago?

Devils Advocate;1599837 wrote:Ok jmog,Lets concede that the earth is only 8,000 years old even (though it's not) How do you explain that the rest of our galaxy (the milky way ) is over 13 billion years old. Do you think the creator was just passing through the neighborhood and created earth in 6 days..... 8 thousand years ago?

pmoney25: See what I mean?

Devils Advocate;1599837 wrote:Ok jmog,Lets concede that the earth is only 8,000 years old even (though it's not) How do you explain that the rest of our galaxy (the milky way ) is over 13 billion years old. Do you think the creator was just passing through the neighborhood and created earth in 6 days..... 8 thousand years ago?

How are we so sure that the galaxy is 13 billion? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

If it is, then to answer your question yes, the life/etc on the planet could have easily been created 8k years ago, I don't see a logical problem with that.

However, how do we 'know' the galaxy is 13 billion? The common 'dating' method is light travel right? How do we measure the speed of light? The answer is reflection, bounce light off a reflective surface, like a mirror, and measure the time it takes to get back to the source. Divide the to and from total distance by the time and bam, speed of light.

Now, what is the assumption there (and it is a pretty good one, I am not saying it's stupid)? That the speed of light is a constant number regardless of direction, meaning that it is the same speed leaving the source as it is returning. This makes perfect logical sense because we are used to macroscopic speeds acting like this.

However, there are theories out there based on the fact that light is not really a particle but combination of waves and particles (as in it is really neither, but has properties of particles and waves) that the speed of light varies based on direction/reference. All we know for sure is that when light travels away from us, reflects, and comes back is that the average between the speeds leaving us and coming back is ALWAYS a constant. However, what if the speed leaving us is different than when it is coming towards us?

The Big Bang has a "light speed" problem as well, it is called the "horizon problem". In the early universe in order for the Big Bang to "work" light (and energy) would have had to travel faster than the speed of light due to how well distributed the temperatures were.

So cosmologists have come up with many "light speed" theories to explain the horizon problem but when those same theories are used to explain light speed variances you are worried about (at star 13 million light years away in distance that we can see...so it "can't possibly be 8000 years old) they are immediately disregarded as "bad science". When they are used to fix 'holes' in the Big Bang theory they are "major break throughs in modern science", when they are used to fix 'holes' in creation science they are "bad science".

See the hypocrisy there?

Carl Sagan said the exact date was a Wednesday (not a Monday as most theologians believe).

jmog;1599830 wrote:You give me one guys blog, I give you decades of published results in scientific publications.

Sigh, I gave you the talk origins source because it was simple. Robert Gentry is a kook! The guy converted to Seventh Day Adventism and was convinced that this Halo idea was the key to proving the Earth was young before he even did the research. Sleeper's message board posts are more credible than anything that man has produced and his results have been debunked numerous times.

Like I said, get on with talking about how you think Dinosaurs roamed the Earth with mankind. Much more entertaining than pimping a demented charlatan's "research".

BoatShoes;1599876 wrote:Sigh, I gave you the talk origins source because it was simple. Robert Gentry is a kook! The guy converted to Seventh Day Adventism and was convinced that this Halo idea was the key to proving the Earth was young before he even did the research. Sleeper's message board posts are more credible than anything that man has produced and his results have been debunked numerous times.

Like I said, get on with talking about how you think Dinosaurs roamed the Earth with mankind. Much more entertaining than pimping a demented charlatan's "research".

I love it, a guy that has a PhD in physics and has been published in numerous scientific publications is a "kook" because he doesn't happen to agree with you.

But I am full of lies according to you, so why should my opinion matter?

Tiernan;1599873 wrote:Carl Sagan said the exact date was a Wednesday (not a Monday as most theologians believe).

Anyone who says they know the exact day is VERY misguided.

Whether they think it was a Sunday, Monday, or Wednesday.

If I am not mistaken, Jewish theologians actually believe it was Sunday, not Monday due to the "1st day of the week and the 7th day was rest" thought process. I am not saying they are right, just saying what they believe.

jmog;1599901 wrote:I love it, a guy that has a PhD in physics and has been published in numerous scientific publications is a "kook" because he doesn't happen to agree with you.

But I am full of lies according to you, so why should my opinion matter?

No Jmog, he is a kook because he publishes garbage that is contravened by the entirety of scientific knowledge that has been compiled by 99% of other people with Ph.D's in the natural sciences. He is a kook because his ideas are terrible and have been easily refuted and yet he fights on because he is an ideological committed Christian, young earth, pseudoscientist who has had his ideas rejected by people with just as many credentials as he, his entire life.

Now tell us about the Dinosaurs. Did Jesus ride them into Jerusalem or were they all killed in the great flood because Noah couldn't fit them on the Ark???

jmog;1599903 wrote:Anyone who says they know the exact day is VERY misguided.

Whether they think it was a Sunday, Monday, or Wednesday.

If I am not mistaken, Jewish theologians actually believe it was Sunday, not Monday due to the "1st day of the week and the 7th day was rest" thought process. I am not saying they are right, just saying what they believe.

BoatShoes;1599876 wrote:Sigh, I gave you the talk origins source because it was simple.

Never mind that it's the first result that shows up on the Google search. : thumbup:

BoatShoes;1599876 wrote:Robert Gentry is a kook! The guy converted to Seventh Day Adventism and was convinced that this Halo idea was the key to proving the Earth was young before he even did the research. Sleeper's message board posts are more credible than anything that man has produced and his results have been debunked numerous times.

He may be a kook, but he's a peer-reviewed kook. Sleeper isn't, neither are you...and for that matter, neither is Tom Baillieul.

At least this thread has achieved intellectual purity with the timely arrival of BoatShoes.

fish82;1599908 wrote:Never mind that it's the first result that shows up on the Google search. : thumbup:

[/QUOTE]

Hence the term "simple" LOL

BoatShoes;1599904 wrote:No Jmog, he is a kook because he publishes garbage that is contravened by the entirety of scientific knowledge that has been compiled by 99% of other people with Ph.D's in the natural sciences. He is a kook because his ideas are terrible and have been easily refuted and yet he fights on because he is an ideological committed Christian, young earth, pseudoscientist who has had his ideas rejected by people with just as many credentials as he, his entire life.

Now tell us about the Dinosaurs. Did Jesus ride them into Jerusalem or were they all killed in the great flood because Noah couldn't fit them on the Ark???

100% of that post was your opinion with zero facts. Let's list BS's opinions:
1. He publishes garbage.
2. His published research is contravened by the entirety of scientific knowledge that has been compiled by 99% of other people with PhDs.
3. His ideas are terrible.
4. His ideas have been easily refuted.
5. He is a pseudo-scientist.
6. His ideas have been rejected his entire life.

fish82;1599908 wrote:Never mind that it's the first result that shows up on the Google search. : thumbup:



He may be a kook, but he's a peer-reviewed kook. Sleeper isn't, neither are you...and for that matter, neither is Tom Baillieul.

BS did a 5 second google search, posted the first thing that came up and immediately he is an expert at how Dr. Gentry has been a kook his whole life and has always had his kook ideas immediately refuted by 99% of PhD scientists out there.

His logical failure jumps couldn't be funnier.

I do like your last statement however...Sleeper, BS, and Tom Baillieul are not peer reviewed, but this "kook" Gentry is...

fish82;1599908 wrote:


He may be a kook, but he's a peer-reviewed kook.

In effect, that's what his peers say. In more detail they say it's junk science meant to "prove" a preconceived idea. Peer-reviewed != credible.

fish82;1599908 wrote: He may be a kook, but he's a peer-reviewed kook. Sleeper isn't, neither are you...and for that matter, neither is Tom Baillieul.

There are articles that have bothered to refute his ideas in peer reviewed journals as well but you already knew that.

BoatShoes;1599906 wrote:

couldn't have said it better BS...this guy had his head so far up his Bible Belt he can't see when people are just fuckin with him.