apologetics website

[Brian37]

I'm curious about what you all think about this website.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/...earth.html

What's to click on? the url itself gives it away. Same claptrap different person who owns that url.

[primemover7]

apologetics website
I'm curious about what you all think about this website.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/...earth.html

Based on the available evidence, this website gives a far more accurate date of the age of the earth: http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

[Aractus]

I'm curious about what you all think about this website.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/...earth.html

"History of the age of the earth" - correct, except that the Bible doesn't implcitly imply a minimum age of 6000 years, rather that's a more broad calculation.

"Incomplete genealogies" - correct.

"Length of creation days" - mostly correct, except it leaves out a few points. The ancient Isralite/Hebrew day is calculated from and to sunset - not dawn not midnight. How can a literal day begin at sunset before the sun is created? Also, the events are not chronological, meaning that as implied in the article, one must assume an expression "day of the creation of man" for instance. So really length has nothing to do with it, rather the imagry implicig in genesis is enough to show what is not strictly literal as an "24 hour period".

"Age of humanity" - correct. I always seem to get criticised for placing the exodus at 2250 BC, however, that's what fits all the evidence best and implies that the ancient Hebrews represent an older still line of decendants whome were chosen specifically by God.

"The age of the earth can be measured by numerous different techniques, most of which provide just a minimum age." - completely correct.

"Radioactive decay" ... ah, radioactive decay....

• A fundamental physical law, called the weak nuclear force, determines the stability of atoms that contain differing numbers of neutrons. Some isotopes are somewhat or very unstable and decay in a predictable way and at a predictable rate. Depending upon the isotope, this decay can occur in several different ways. One form of radioactive decay consists of a neutron decaying into a proton and electron, which is ejected from the nucleus. The atom's atomic number increases by one, so it becomes one element higher on the periodic table, although its mass remains about the same. In other forms of radioactive decay, a proton combines with an electron to form a neutron, resulting in its atomic number decreasing by one. Still another form of radioactive decay results in the emission of an alpha particle (two neutrons and two protons), which lowers the atomic number by 2 and mass by 4. Both the original amount of an element and its decay product(s) can be measured to determine the age of the sample.

I know you think I'm nitpicking, but no, there are not any "fundemental physical laws" of nature, if there was one then you should be able to prove that all other laws rely upon it - including say QM, GM, Crystalography, biology, chemistry, economics, etc. Belief to the otherwise is a blind belief that something in science is 100% correct, which is the opposite of how science works.

What we have is a law of physics - or rather a theory, and that theory is as sound as QM or GR, it isn't complete, but it's useful. There are many, many types of materials which cannot be reliably dated using radiocarbon dating but that doesn't mean that the principle is wrong, isn't helpful, or cannot predict accurate results when used in the correct conditions.

With all that said, radiocarbon dating is one of the most useful dating methods we have for ancient materials.

"Isotopes and the age of the earth" - correct.

[primemover7]

Nightfoot92,

You wrote:

The ancient Isralite/Hebrew day is calculated from and to sunset - not dawn not midnight. How can a literal day begin at sunset before the sun is created?

Genesis was written to people who knew how long a day is so that is a moot point. Furthermore, the Jews for thousands of years maintained the earth was about 6,000 years old because that is how the context of the Hebrew text reads. See: http://creation.com/creation-days-and-or...-tradition and http://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1

Next, how many assumptions does radiocarbon dating rely on when it posits long ages? How many anomalies are there to the old age paradigm? Are there over 100? See: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

[Zen Badger]

Nightfoot92,

You wrote:

The ancient Isralite/Hebrew day is calculated from and to sunset - not dawn not midnight. How can a literal day begin at sunset before the sun is created?

Genesis was written to people who knew how long a day is so that is a moot point. Furthermore, the Jews for thousands of years maintained the earth was about 6,000 years old because that is how the context of the Hebrew text reads. See: http://creation.com/creation-days-and-or...-tradition and http://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1

Next, how many assumptions does radiocarbon dating rely on when it posits long ages? How many anomalies are there to the old age paradigm? Are there over 100? See: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

You're not going to go far here quoting articles from creation ministries lad.

---

Nightfoot92,

You wrote:

The ancient Isralite/Hebrew day is calculated from and to sunset - not dawn not midnight. How can a literal day begin at sunset before the sun is created?

Genesis was written to people who knew how long a day is so that is a moot point. Furthermore, the Jews for thousands of years maintained the earth was about 6,000 years old because that is how the context of the Hebrew text reads. See: http://creation.com/creation-days-and-or...-tradition and http://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1

Next, how many assumptions does radiocarbon dating rely on when it posits long ages? How many anomalies are there to the old age paradigm? Are there over 100? See: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

You're not going to go far here quoting articles from creation ministries lad.

[primemover7]

Zen Badger,

You wrote:

You're not going to go far here quoting articles from creation ministries lad.

This is not a valid argument. You are employing the genetic fallacy (see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html ).

[Aractus]

Genesis was written to people who knew how long a day is so that is a moot point.

So your argument is that the Hebrew language had no idioisms?

And FYI, I'm Aractus and not "Nightfoot92".

[Esquilax]

Zen Badger,

You wrote:

You're not going to go far here quoting articles from creation ministries lad.

This is not a valid argument. You are employing the genetic fallacy (see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html ).

You misunderstand Zen's point, bud. The reason we won't accept articles from creation.com is because it, like a number of other creationist sources, have this nasty little phrase in their "what we believe," section:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Given this little presupposition taints every last thing they say, they have nothing objective to add, and are literally proud of the fact that they won't even consider information if it conflicts with the view they already have.

The reason we won't deal with creation sources is, frankly, because they're liars. The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with it: their admission that they're only open to their own viewpoint does.