Subject:
|
Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:04:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
104 times
|
| |
|
|
....that I wouldn't re-enter the creation/evolution debate but I've
changed my mind. Oh well.
(For reference sake and to clarify some definitions):
I believe that God created everything about 6000 years ago (possibly as
much as 10) and that about 4400 years ago there was a great flood (known
as "Noah's Flood") that essentially destroyed the earth. This is
generally what is thought of as the "Creationist" theory. This does not
mean that the creationist doesn't believe in adaptation within some
species, such as the possibility that salt water fish were once all
freshwater fish and some "adapted" to living in salt water. What it
does mean is that the creationist believes no relation between humans
and monkeys, not to mention humans and daffodils.
An Evolutionist believes that all life originated from a common ancestor
and evolved over a very large amount of time (at least several billion
years from what I understand). Without a very old earth Evolution
doesn't have a leg to stand on.
(Now on to the point):
Despite claims that all evidence points to a multi-billion year old
earth and that a 6000 year old one is impossible, that simply isn't
true. There is evidence to support a young earth that interestingly
enough "fits" perfectly with the creation record. Below are three
examples:
Slowing Earth Rotation:
The speed of the earth's rotation is slowing down. Approx every 1-1/2
years another second is added to "the clock" in order to match calendar
time. If the earth is only ~6000 years old, there is no problem.....it
means the earth is traveling only a fraction slower than it was
originally. If the earth is billions of years old, imagine how fast it
would have been originally spinning! We're talking night and day within
minutes of each other.
Moon drift:
The moon is slowly drifting away from the earth on each rotation (very
slowly). Again, in a young 6000 year old earth, this really has no
effect as the drift is minute over such a small amount of time. If the
earth, however, is billions of years old the drift problem becomes very
important as we have to assume that the moon was once much closer. On a
multi-billion year old earth, the tides would have been incredibly
immense, drowning the entire earth twice a day.
Oldest tree:
Although a relatively weak case for specific evidence I admit, I chose
this one for its simplicity and for its incredibly close fit with
Biblical evidence. The oldest tree in the world is about 4300 years
old. It's interesting that according to the Bible the oldest possible
tree should be less than 4400 years old (because of the Noachian
flood). If the earth is billions of years old, why don't we have an
older tree?
Anyone want to continue this endless debate :)?
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| Tim Culberson <t_c_c@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A7F69BB.27714E...hoo.com... (...) Check out (URL) these arguments and many more creationist arguments are refuted (with references). (...) Guess so 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| You know what I always wondered Tim? Have you ever seen the chromosome numbers on the DNA of different species? There is no (apparent) relationship of chromosome numbers to the complexity of make up of animals. That means that through evolution, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) This has been shot full of holes centuries ago when they found chinese genealogies going back further than 4004 BC. I've mentioned this before. Europeans were scratching their heads about this almost 400 years ago - why can't Creationists get (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Ooh, can I handle this? We just covered this in my astronomy class I am pretty psyched about the whole concept. Yes, you are right, the earth is slowing down. Furthermore, you are also right that in the very small amount of time that humans (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) I'll point to the talk.origins clearinghouse site, which is one of the best catch-all refutations of the Creationist argument (and exploration of misconceptions about Evolution that cause otherwise intelligent people to subscribe to Creation (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Welcome back Tim. Would you mind having a look at an earlier post of mine, questioning your basic assumptions? (URL) rather than getting bogged down again (in different interpretations of observed phenomena), could we examine the premises of (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
