Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arguments for a recent creation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Not dates of the Earth, but dates compatible with a recent creation) |
PaulBurnett (talk | contribs) (Unsubstantiated claims are un-encyclopedic) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
33 and 34 those features would only have begun to form AFTER the flood. Any surface feature of that sort is not useful in dating the earth, because they didnt exist for the full duration. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | 33 and 34 those features would only have begun to form AFTER the flood. Any surface feature of that sort is not useful in dating the earth, because they didnt exist for the full duration. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
: First let me say that I think this article needs a lot of work, including making the point(s) of the list clearer. The purpose of such arguments is not to point out that various indicators give a date of 6,000 years (or thereabouts), but to point out that various indicators give dates that are incompatible with the secular dates. So when it says that the sodium in the sea would take 42 to 62 million years to accumulate, that doesn't mean that the oceans are 42 to 62 million years old; it means that there's likely something wrong with the secular date of 3,000 million years. So to the two you mention: true, they don't speak directly to the age of the Earth, but the secular claim would be that these things are ''much'' older than the biblical age of the Earth, and these arguments point out that there are real problems with the secular ages, so even in the case of these two examples, the ''evidence'' is consistent with a biblical view, not ''inconsistent'' with it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT) | : First let me say that I think this article needs a lot of work, including making the point(s) of the list clearer. The purpose of such arguments is not to point out that various indicators give a date of 6,000 years (or thereabouts), but to point out that various indicators give dates that are incompatible with the secular dates. So when it says that the sodium in the sea would take 42 to 62 million years to accumulate, that doesn't mean that the oceans are 42 to 62 million years old; it means that there's likely something wrong with the secular date of 3,000 million years. So to the two you mention: true, they don't speak directly to the age of the Earth, but the secular claim would be that these things are ''much'' older than the biblical age of the Earth, and these arguments point out that there are real problems with the secular ages, so even in the case of these two examples, the ''evidence'' is consistent with a biblical view, not ''inconsistent'' with it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some of the "gee whiz" claims are un-encyclopedic. For instance, Item 30, "Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly." - but what is the patent number? Slavishly copying unsubstantiated creationist claims from on-line creationist tracts without proper scholarly attribution is un-encyclopedic. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 23:28, 15 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 04:28, December 16, 2009
33 and 34 those features would only have begun to form AFTER the flood. Any surface feature of that sort is not useful in dating the earth, because they didnt exist for the full duration. Markr 23:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- First let me say that I think this article needs a lot of work, including making the point(s) of the list clearer. The purpose of such arguments is not to point out that various indicators give a date of 6,000 years (or thereabouts), but to point out that various indicators give dates that are incompatible with the secular dates. So when it says that the sodium in the sea would take 42 to 62 million years to accumulate, that doesn't mean that the oceans are 42 to 62 million years old; it means that there's likely something wrong with the secular date of 3,000 million years. So to the two you mention: true, they don't speak directly to the age of the Earth, but the secular claim would be that these things are much older than the biblical age of the Earth, and these arguments point out that there are real problems with the secular ages, so even in the case of these two examples, the evidence is consistent with a biblical view, not inconsistent with it. Philip J. Rayment 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
Some of the "gee whiz" claims are un-encyclopedic. For instance, Item 30, "Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly." - but what is the patent number? Slavishly copying unsubstantiated creationist claims from on-line creationist tracts without proper scholarly attribution is un-encyclopedic. PaulBurnett 23:28, 15 December 2009 (EST)