You are not logged in.
There are plenty of web sites which purport to have evidence to prove the young age of the earth, and this is the thread to list and explore them.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.... <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/243.jpg" alt="SmileySpider">
Offline
For those of you that feel that the Evolutionists and Old Earthers are winning the war, let me direct you to a website, the author of which is dedicated to science proving the Bible account of our origins: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.globalflood.org/" target=_top>http://www.globalflood.org/</a>
Offline
here is the authors first radio button link proving the "flood" <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.globalflood.org/scripture/index.html" target=_top>http://www.globalflood.org/scripture/index.html</a> <BR> <BR>that is not science proving the Bible.... when the most prominent "proof" is the Bible proving the Bible.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
The scientific method is not the only thing used in proving the flood or creation. In fact, science, Darwinian, even stays away from origins, because the scientific method can't be used. Right, John???
Offline
<font color="0000ff">the scientific method can't be used</font> <BR> <BR>but it often can, and is used..... <BR>witness this experiment to see if the early conditions of the earth could have been right for the beginning of life: <BR> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimen t</a> <BR> <BR>while those who believe in the religious explanation, don't bother to test anything, they just believe what they think their sacred writings tell them...even when it runs contrary to the evidence. <BR> <BR>the Bible says the earth is only 6,000 yrs old.... <BR> <BR>therefore all the worlds scientists, historians, <BR>linguists, archeologists, biologists, geologists, DNA historians, etc, must all be wrong!
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Bob, what other modern scientific discoveries do you accept or reject? <BR> <BR>For example: if you are sick, or suspect a serious disease, do you consult a religious faith healer, or a reputable physician? <BR> <BR>If you want the best advice for a legal opinion, do you ask a neighbor or friend, or do you consult a good attorney? <BR> <BR>Why not use the Bible to diagnose and treat your medical conditions? The Israelites were given specific instructions by God to heal and handle many disease conditions. Are they valid today? <BR> <BR>Is the understanding of people living then, the latest information and knowledge on geology and biology?
Offline
John, a response to your post: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.idthefuture.com/2008/10/rehabilitating_the_millerurey.html" target=_top>http://www.idthefuture.com/2008/10/rehabilitating_ the_millerurey.html</a> <BR> <BR>Listen to the audio.
Offline
Come on Elaine, the Bible is about eternal salvation, not medical miracles and the methods to accomplish them.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">the Bible is about eternal salvation,</font> <BR> <BR>doncha mean the New Test? <BR> <BR>because the Old Test seems to be more about how many people the Hebrew God can massacre, or how many his closest friends can kill in His name, purportedly at His command. <BR> <BR><a href="http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/gods-uncounted-and-uncountable.html" target=_top>http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/go ds-uncounted-and-uncountable.html</a> <BR> <BR>btw, what is your next evidence for a "young earth"?
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, you haven't been reading too much John Gill lately I see. That's ok, some love their own hangups and beliefs more than truely searching for truth. <BR> <BR>I'm still with Baumgardner and his models. They are as good or better, IMO, than the speculations of Evolutionists.
Offline
Bob, then why do you prefer the Bible for scientific understanding if it's only about eternal salvation? Poor logic, isn't it to say the Bible is not about miracles, etc., and then use Genesis to validate origins?
Offline
<font color="0000ff">I'm still with Baumgardner and his models.</font> <BR> <BR>here are a few of the reasons that scientifically educated people who know, do not agree: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65473" target=_top>http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65473</a> <BR> <BR><font color="0000ff">John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994] <BR> <BR>The main difficulty of this theory is that <BR><font size="+2">it admittedly doesn't work without miracles.</font> [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and <font size="+2">miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.</font> <BR> <BR>Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. <font size="+2">This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans.</font> In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.</font> <BR> <BR>Baumgardners participation in the RATE group...relying on Rapid radioactive decay, cannot explain things either, as when things decay via radiation, they give off heat... <BR> <BR>and by having things decay rapidly, the heat has no time to dissapate, and all the oceans would be boiled off into space if that had occured over the last few thousand years. <BR> <BR>Once you really understand the science behind it, you will find out that either Baumbardner is <BR>faking it for jesus, or totally ignorant about the science which supports long term history and denies the Young Earth postulate.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Elaine, my point was, God's purpose for His word is not to explain with scientific method his miracles. Right? He does them, ourside the realm of the the bunsen burner, test tubes and auger plates. That doesn't mean is didn't happen becauase there isn't any scientific equation or method outlined. That was my point.
Offline
John, would you agree that a Global Flood would be a miracle??? If so, why not miracle used to create it??? and handle any side effects?? disapate any heat?? Raise any mountain like Everest in HIS time??? <BR> <BR>I am aware there are those that use the scientific method, Uniformitarianism and other principles to shoot down the Bible account, but I am in no rush to dispose of it. You appear to be, but some scientists that believe in creation are still working on answers. You appear to take the first answer that comes along. Sorry, not me.
Offline
Bob, which is simply saying that you take 100% the story of Creation from the Bible, disregarding good scientific evidence to the contrary. <BR> <BR>When one believes in miracles (which is how the Bible describes Creation), anything is possible. <BR>It is impossible, then, to discuss Creation scientifically with two totally different paradigms. One might as well say (as ancients did) that the world sits on turtles, "all the way down." This can not be disproved, can it? IOW, is is not falsifiable.
Offline
That is right, my body as is is impossible to discuss with Evolution as the cause. It is like your car in the driveway. Did it evolve, can it be discussed scientifically and dated with it's methods?? <BR> <BR>As far as the earth sitting on turtles, we have the picture of the earth from the moon. Didn't see any turtles. <BR> <BR>Elaine you said "disregarding good scientific evidence". This has to be where we part. The hoaxes and flaws are plentiful. You allow your reading sources to state it is dependable. There are plenty that will counter that.
Offline
it IS turtles all the way down!!!! <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/284.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR> <BR>at least all the way down to 86 feet, where the coral is no longer growing, and the turtles have nothing to eat.... <BR> <BR>the corals at this depth no longer grow because ocean levels have risen over the last 20,000 years to cover the former growing coral too deeply for the sun to reach and power the little marine animals that make up the corals. <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/285.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>over the next million or so years, even this coral will probably become buried by more sediment, and become LIMESTONE...
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
There is a lot of difference from a manufactured car, which one can observe from start to finish, than observing a seed growing into a majestic tree. It cannot be duplicated yet. <BR> <BR>Some people call it "God" others "Nature" and that is what ancients have believed as far back as history goes. They first worshiped the sun, because without it there would be no life. And yet, if the Creation account is believed, vegetation occurred before the sun, which is absolutely essential for all growing things. We now observe a tree that begins from seed; but in the Creation story were fully-developed trees created? Fully developed humans? Stars that only appeared but were millions of years old? <BR> <BR>When will intelligent people recognize that the Bible is NOT a scientific textbook explaining all of creation, but it is an attempt by our ancestors to explain their world with their understanding, not those of their descendants thousands of years later. No one should take literally everything written therein, as no one could write of Creation literally.
Offline
Only you, Elaine, keep insisting that people consider the Bible is a scientific textbook, most realize by definition, it can't be a scientific handbook, just like some of the extrapolation of Darwin's Origin of the Species, eh???
Offline
<font color="0000ff">Didn't see any turtles.</font> <BR> <BR>Only the Spiritually Realized see them. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/293.gif" alt="swami">
Offline
If I am the one maintaining the Bible is a scientific textbook, why do you, Bob, consistently reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that negates the Bible account of creation? Do you, or do you not accept the Genesis account of Creation? Yes or No.
Offline
Where have I ever stated that the Bible story of Creation is a true and literal account?
Offline
I accept the Genesis account of Creation, YES.
Offline
Bob, do you also accept the Gilgamesh creation account? It describes the days of creation week almost identical to that in Genesis. It was written at least 1,000 years before. Coincidence?
Offline