On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 20:57:15 GMT you wrote:
TJ>continued from last message
>SJ>2. Then radiometric dating established that the earth is
> >thousands of millions of years old.
TJ>I'm sorry, radiometric dating relies on too many assumptions, and
>there are way too many known gigantic errors, such as the basaltic
>rocks of the Uinkaret Plateau of the Grand Canyon (an area I'm very
>familiar with), and many, many others, for it to be convincing to me.
Too easy, Tony! :-) You would need to show that these "assumptions"
and "errors", can reduce 4.6 billion years down to 10,000 years. That
is, you would have to show that it is out by *millions*":
"Moving on to their final arguments, creationists deal quickly with
the age of the Earth. It is boiled down to around a millionth of what
we learn from various radiometric dating techniques. (Think of it.
The age of the Earth is a million times shorter than most believe.)"
(Ruse M., "Creation science: the ultimate fraud", New Scientist, 27
May 1982, p590)
>SJ> The universe appears to be between 8 and 20 billion years old,
> >based on ...star burning rates.
>
>Please elaborate.
I suggest you read Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer:
"The results derived by the three age-determining methods discussed
earlier in this chapter, along with a few others, appear in table 9.1.
These measurements and calculations yield consistent figures for the
age of the universe- about 17 billion years, give or take a billion or
two. The consistency argues strongly for certainty.
Table 9.1: Measurements of the Age of the Universe
For more details on the listed methods see my book The Fingerprint of
God, second edition (Orange, California: Promise Publishing, 1991),
pages 81-93.
Measuring Method Age (billions of years)
relaxation times of star clusters more than 4
erosion on Mercury, Mars, and the moon more than 4
star stream interactions in galaxies more than 8
expansion of the universe 15.5 +/- 4.0
color-luminosity fitting 18.0 +/- 2.4
nucleochronology 17.0 +/- 4.0
deuterium abundance and mass density 19.0 +/- 5.0
anthropic principles 17.0 +/- 7.0
mean age = 17 +/- 3 billion years
"
(Ross H., "Creation and Time", NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1994,
p101).
>SJ> 4. There is no positive evidence that the Earth is 10,000 years
> >old.
TJ>I disagree. There is LOTS of evidence for this figure. First of
>all, as I have said, the Bible itself seems to indicate this, and
>IF we are Christians, we certainly ought to take this information
>seriously.
No. "The Bible" does *not* "indicate this". Only if you make the
following assumptions:
1. The days of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days
2. The genealogies of Genesis 4-11 are intended to be understood
as father-son relationships.
TJ>Of course the Bible does not come out and tell us
>plainly these ages so we must rely on genealogies, etc. which of
>course could be wrong, but it does not seem reasonable to me that
>they could be off by so large a factor.
Agreed. But the "genealogies" at best could only give an age for
Adam. Adam could be young (ie. 10,000 - 100,000 years) and yet the
Earth be old. Ross believes this and so do I.
TJ>Science also provides us with much evidence to dispute the "old
>earth" idea. Examples:
>
>1. There's not enough helium in our atmosphere.
An interesting problem. This depends on *your* initial "assumptions"
and uniformitarian estimate of rate changes.
>2. Excessively high oil, gas, and water pressures existing within
> the relatively permeable rock. These pressures should have
> leaked down by now.
>3. There's not enough volcanic sediment, considering the known
> amount of material being ejected each year.
>4. There's not enough river sediment in the oceans to account for
> the known amount entering the oceans each year.
>5. The continents are eroding WAY to fast for them to be
> "millions" of years old. They should be flat by now.
>6. "The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead,
> silicon, mercury, uranium, and nickel are entering the oceans
> is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these
> elements already in the oceans. There is no known means by which
> large amounts of these elements can precipitate out of the
> oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than
> a million years." "In The Beginning..." by Walter T. Brown, Jr.
>7. Meteorite material is only found in the sediments near the
> earth's surface.
>8. Meteoritic Dust. (One of my personal favorites) Remember those
> big pads on the Apollo spacecraft???
>9. The decay of the earth's magnetic field. If indeed this field
> is caused by an electric current inside the earth, considering
> the rate of decrease, and extrapolating backwards, there would
> have been too much heat for the earth to be more than 20,000
> years old. (please don't remind me of "reversals". There is
> no direct evidence to support this, it is merely an assumption
> to explain away the obvious.
>10.The fact that there are still so many comets left.
>11.The fact of Galaxy clusters. (I know, I know. "Missing Mass".
> yea, right.)
>12. And on and on...
Most (if not all) of the above have been discredited. Read Ross H.,
"Creation and Time", NavPress, Colorado Springs CO, 1994, pp104-117,
which he prefaces with:
"In this claim of scientific support for their beliefs, these
young-universe creationists convince many whose science
education and biblical training are insufficient to evaluate
the evidence. All eighty of these "evidences" of a young age,
when investigated closely, involve one or more of these four
problems:
*Faulty assumptions
*Faulty data
*Misapplication of principles, laws, and equations
*Failure to consider opposing evidence
Ironically, these fallacious arguments, when corrected,
provide some of the strongest evidences available for an old
tlniverse and an ancient earth."
(Ross H., "Creation and Time", NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1994,
p103)
>SJ> I hope this has been of some help.
TJ>Well, uh, actually Steve, not yet. I'm hoping we can discuss it
>further. Until then, God bless.
No Tony. If what I wrote has "not yet" been of "some help", then I
assume that *nothing* I could write about YEC could be! :-) Based on
my experience with that YEC on fidonet, it would be a waste of time to
"discuss it further." Unless I see some evidence that you are
prepared to change your mind, I won't respond to your replies.
Besides, if abandoning your YEC position would cause you to abandon
the Bible, then I don't want to have your spiritual blood on my hands.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------