Subject:
|
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:18:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
142 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> ....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 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 the message?
> 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.
I've listed the transition of apes to humans twice. No response. :-)
>
> 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).
They lean to that theory, but it isn't a definite thing.
> Without a very old earth Evolution
> doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Lucky for evolution that it's extremely well-established that the earth is a
very old place.
>
> (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.
And? I won't even bother with arguing your numbers. You have no point, in
case you haven't noticed.
>
> 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.
Again, you don't seem to realize you have absolutely no point, beyond you
clearly don't understand tidal forces.
>
>
> 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?
Because they are in the White Mountains in California where the poor things
are almost in eternal hibernation. It's a miracle that there are any left
that old. Drive down the Owens valley and look at the cinder cones, the
ancient lava flows just being uncovered by erosional forces, the lake shore
lines thousands of feet up on a mountain. Observe the glaciation of
Yosemite, the magma flows that cooled far underground slowly to develop the
Devil's Postpile. These things haven't happened in 6000 years.
>
>
> Anyone want to continue this endless debate :)?
That depends on how far Creationists want to bury their heads in the sand
and shout, "I'm not listening!"
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Well it's nice that you bring that up....what is it about evolution that you DO believe exactly? (...) Jeepers Bruce! At least Ross showed me where I could find counter-arguments! Not only do you not cite a source you just throw a couple (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| ....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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
