Primeval Underwater Forest Discovered in Gulf of Mexico - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Primeval Underwater Forest Discovered in Gulf of Mexico (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 7/11/2013 5:18:28 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I'll say it, there's nothing wrong with them finding what they found but their atheistic interpretation applied to the evidence is wrong. It would be funny if this is rather evidence of the unpredictability of carbon dating, but not being a scientist that's for greater mind than me to consider. The Word of God gives me a geneology back to Adam from the Christ. God's Word is very clear and literal in Genesis about how God made everything in 6 days and it was evening and it was morning etc etc. I'm sorry you can't fit tens of thousands and millions and billions into it. If you don't believe in Genesis as it is written and understood literally by both Jesus who is God, and the Apostles, you have no foundation for the rest of biblical history and theology. All of a sudden there was no fall, death came long before Adam sinned, who was Adam, where did marriage come from, why do we need a savior, why is God's description and order so wrong? I personnaly trust the man who rose from the dead and affirmed himself to be God, and those men like Moses, king David, and Paul, over some atheist scientists who've already rejected truth. I don't expect any atheist millions/billions of years guys to agree with what I'm saying but you Christians need to face the fact that evolution, intelligent design, big bang, multiverse, steady-state, billions of years, 52,000 year old undersea forest theories are unbridgeable contradictions and thinly veiled attacks on the trustworthyness and historicity of Scripture. I know some of you guys were hoping for a post like this so I had to ablige you.

Proof please.

Posted: 7/11/2013 5:20:42 AM EDT

[#2]

This is great news, we've finally found a forest where I'm OK with a wolf reintroduction program...

Posted: 7/11/2013 6:11:30 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Here's a link to a video of someone swimming though the forest.

http://video-embed.al.com/services/player/bcpid2444926724001?bctid=1815174935001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAQBxUMrk~,0PvcDEZHzy_IuNN0o52DPq27tF5ZamzW

lol... Dude spends the entire vid jerking off over how magical and pristine the place is, and then spears one of the fish.

Posted: 7/11/2013 6:14:43 AM EDT

[#4]

There are places like that in southern VB and northern Outer Banks. Slippery ass clay bottom with old cypress stumps about 20 to 50 yards out past the tide line.

Even well drillers sometimes hit a big tree trunks a couple hundred feet down. The geological upheaval and erosion that occurs on the earth over the eons is very dramatic.

Posted: 7/11/2013 6:38:41 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

you can really tell those that practice the Atheist religion have never read the Bible and still think the earth is only six thousand years old.

Kaboom.

If, by kaboom, you mean blowing up in his face, sure.

There *are* Christians that assert that the world is less than 10,000* years old, science be damned.

* It used to be, "The world is 6,000 years old," but they've updated their model.

Posted: 7/11/2013 6:43:38 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

you can really tell those that practice the Atheist religion have never read the Bible and still think the earth is only six thousand years old.

Kaboom.

If, by kaboom, you mean blowing up in his face, sure.

There *are* Christians that assert that the world is less than 10,000* years old, science be damned.

* It used to be, "The world is 6,000 years old," but they've updated their model.

Count me as one of them. I go for the approximately 6,000 years represented by the bible.

Got a degree in phyics too.

Posted: 7/11/2013 7:31:23 AM EDT

[#7]

Hhhmmm...
Old growth forest

Further diving there will be banned in order to prserve the nesting habitat of the spotted owl, no doubt

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:24:06 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

you can really tell those that practice the Atheist religion have never read the Bible and still think the earth is only six thousand years old.

Kaboom.

If, by kaboom, you mean blowing up in his face, sure.

There *are* Christians that assert that the world is less than 10,000* years old, science be damned.

* It used to be, "The world is 6,000 years old," but they've updated their model.

Count me as one of them. I go for the approximately 6,000 years represented by the bible.

Got a degree in phyics too.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Deal_With_It.jpg

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:26:28 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?

I'm ready

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:32:14 AM EDT

[#10]

Clearly that forest was the victim of global-warming. What was once a thriving ecosystem on dry land is now under 60ft of water.

We need more environmental laws to stop tragedies like this.

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:33:31 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

52,000 years old, part of a glacial period, water has risen 120 feet.....sounds like global warming is older than we think and not man made

Obviously it's global warming caused by ancient pre-historic corperations and republican dinsosaurs. If they only had the U.N. 52k years ago to inact carbon taxes those trees would not be underwater.

No, periods of glaciation are pretty well understood by climatologists.

None claim that all climate changes are the same as all others. This is some ridiculous strawman that you and others made up.

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:34:45 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
So, not to turn this into a debate (yes I am

), but if the wood will be gone within a few years because of marine life and being exposed, and the only thing that has preserved it is the fact that it was buried under sand and protected from the elements, life and oxygen.... what happened to it that it was so rapidly buried that it didn't have a chance to decompose?
I mean, they are saying themselves that it is a 52,000 y/o (the guy in the video said it was 12k y/o), and it is 60ft. down.
Well, if you look at the rate of sea level rise as it is believed by many to have taken place, 12k years ago that forest was above water, and 22k years ago it was 70' above sea level, when the most recent ice age was happening.
Additionally, they allegedly survived several cycles of being under water and then back above sea-level over the coarse of these thousands of years, all the while being protected from oxygen and decomposition. Wood that is buried under earth or sand, but above water is subject to decomposition. The only trees that people find on dry land that is preserved and not decomposed, is petrified wood, and this is not petrified wood, nor could it ever have been (two very difference things).

Either those trees were buried over a period of thousands of years (in which case they would have decomposed long before they were preserved) and survived intact despite impossible odds and circumstances, or they were preserved in a catastrophic event that buried them near-instantaneously and they have remained buried and submerged since then.

Hmmm... something doesn't add up.

Don't get that either . . . it survived for 52,000 years and suddenly we find it right before the thing disappears. Bad timing?

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:35:31 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

you can really tell those that practice the Atheist religion have never read the Bible and still think the earth is only six thousand years old.

Kaboom.

If, by kaboom, you mean blowing up in his face, sure.

There *are* Christians that assert that the world is less than 10,000* years old, science be damned.

* It used to be, "The world is 6,000 years old," but they've updated their model.

Count me as one of them. I go for the approximately 6,000 years represented by the bible.

Got a degree in phyics too.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Deal_With_It.jpg

Yeah, and I went to mars yesterday and had lunch!

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:37:32 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?
I'm ready

Why is there no scientific theory that has ever been presented that the earth is on the order of thousands of years old?
Why is there absolutely no data to support this idea?

Why does all data suggest that its billions of years old?

Why is the standard scientific model perfectly consistent, logical, and reasonable given what we do know?

Posted: 7/11/2013 8:44:16 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?

I'm ready

Why is there no scientific theory that has ever been presented that the earth is on the order of thousands of years old?

Why is there absolutely no data to support this idea?

Why does all data suggest that its billions of years old?

Why is the standard scientific model perfectly consistent, logical, and reasonable given what we do know?

Lets avoid the broad strokes, asserting that "science said so" and then being content with that.

What data suggests the earth is billions of years old? I will argue that dating methods are terribly limited and rely on some very big assumptions, which are the basis of the billions of years idea.

The "standard scientific model" you refer to...what is that? Are you talking about some theory of everything I haven't heard of, or are you merely saying that all scientists have perfect, consistent data and conclusions? Either way that is wrong.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:06:39 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?
I'm ready

Why is there no scientific theory that has ever been presented that the earth is on the order of thousands of years old?
Why is there absolutely no data to support this idea?
Why does all data suggest that its billions of years old?
Why is the standard scientific model perfectly consistent, logical, and reasonable given what we do know?

Lets avoid the broad strokes, asserting that "science said so" and then being content with that.
What data suggests the earth is billions of years old? I will argue that dating methods are terribly limited and rely on some very big assumptions, which are the basis of the billions of years idea.
The "standard scientific model" you refer to...what is that? Are you talking about some theory of everything I haven't heard of, or are you merely saying that all scientists have perfect, consistent data and conclusions? Either way that is wrong.

No, answer my questions first.
You don't just get to say "there are problems with the current theory" you have to explain why there is no alternative theory, which is what I asked you for.
You know, the standard view, based on consensus of many lines in independent data, that the earth, solar system, galaxies, and the universe are all billions of years old. All of these lines of evidence that compliment each other and fit together in a logical, coherent, well supported theory.
Something that you don't have.
I'm asking why.
Why don't you have a competing theory?

Why is the current theory so well supported by literally everything we know?

I don't care what bullshit, cherry picked, long debunked limitations that you think you have that everyone doesn't already know about, and account for in their uncertainty and assessment of ages of things.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:14:04 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

No, answer my questions first.

You don't just get to say "there are problems with the current theory" you have to explain why there is no alternative theory, which is what I asked you for.

You know, the standard view, based on consensus of many lines in independent data, that the earth, solar system, galaxies, and the universe are all billions of years old. All of these lines of evidence that compliment each other and fit together in a logical, coherent, well supported theory.

Something that you don't have.

I'm asking why.

Why don't you have a competing theory?
Why is the current theory so well supported by literally everything we know?

I was trying to say that you are putting faith in a nonexistent 'current theory' - your words - that doesn't really exist. Unless I am missing some unifying theory for the age of the universe or earth.

The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions, which are essentially untestable and make some very extreme assertions about the environment that a specimen existed in for very long periods of time.

I am unaware that the burden of proof in a claim is on the person stating the evidence does not support the conclusion. You state that the age of the universe is known, through scientific testing, to a reasonable degree of certainty. I am saying that the evidence is based on untestable assumption. There is no burden to provide an alternate theory before we can decide whether the method in question is accurate or not.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:17:12 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
So...

How much to put 50,000 year old hardwoods in my house.

I'm in.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:19:44 AM EDT

[#19]

well this thread took a turn didn't it.

and here I thought all of arfcom would have been able to enjoy some nice wood

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:20:20 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
well this thread took a turn didn't it.

and here I thought all of arfcom would have been able to enjoy some nice wood

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:23:58 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
There's no way this story is true. The Earth isn't 52,000 years old.

Yep, those were put there by the devil to trick us.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:29:14 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, answer my questions first.

You don't just get to say "there are problems with the current theory" you have to explain why there is no alternative theory, which is what I asked you for.

You know, the standard view, based on consensus of many lines in independent data, that the earth, solar system, galaxies, and the universe are all billions of years old. All of these lines of evidence that compliment each other and fit together in a logical, coherent, well supported theory.

Something that you don't have.

I'm asking why.

Why don't you have a competing theory?

Why is the current theory so well supported by literally everything we know?

I was trying to say that you are putting faith in a nonexistent 'current theory' - your words - that doesn't really exist. Unless I am missing some unifying theory for the age of the universe or earth.

The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions, which are essentially untestable and make some very extreme assertions about the environment that a specimen existed in for very long periods of time.

I am unaware that the burden of proof in a claim is on the person stating the evidence does not support the conclusion. You state that the age of the universe is known, through scientific testing, to a reasonable degree of certainty. I am saying that the evidence is based on untestable assumption. There is no burden to provide an alternate theory before we can decide whether the method in question is accurate or not.

Its not the burden of proof of a scientific claim, its the request that I made to you in a discussion. I don't want to get into your failed assertions about the current theory, that is a whole discussion all together that has hashed out many times, and "your side" has lost. The age of the earth, sun, and universe are known by many sources, just not radiometric dating. Thus, your objections about a single method are irrelevant.

Here is the thing, even if I were to grant you that all of the independent lines of evidence that allow us to estimate the age of the earth were proven to be completely wrong or unfounded. What is the alternative?

What scientific alternative do you have?

That is my question.

I'll answer it for you, since you won't: you don't have one.

You don't have any single reason to believe that the earth is 6,000, or 10,000 year old, or whatever you claim to believe. Its just some thing you are picking because you like it.

Regardless of how good or not you think the science is (and clearly most scientists wouldn't agree that your questioning of radiometric dating means its all invalid), at least its an attempt at using the evidence to ascertain the truth, which is much better than "I just picked a number that I read about in a random book about another, older religious book"

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:39:56 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
that is a whole discussion all together that has hashed out many times, and "your side" has lost. The age of the earth, sun, and universe are known by many sources, just not radiometric dating. Thus, your objections about a single method are irrelevant.

Here is the thing, even if I were to grant you that all of the independent lines of evidence that allow us to estimate the age of the earth were proven to be completely wrong or unfounded. What is the alternative?

What scientific alternative do you have?

I'll answer it for you, since you won't: you don't have one.

You don't have any single reason to believe that the earth is 6,000, or 10,000 year old, or whatever you claim to believe. Its just some thing you are picking because you like it.

Regardless of how good or not you think the science is (and clearly most scientists wouldn't agree that your questioning of radiometric dating means its all invalid), at least its an attempt at using the evidence to ascertain the truth, which is much better than "I just picked a number that I read about in a random book about another, older religious book"

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't care how old the earth is.

HOWEVER. You seem to be doing the exact same thing lots of "evolutionists" rag on "creationists" for:

Us against Them

Prove something you cannot

You need a complete theory to replace another one

I was under the impression that if you follow "Science" you should be open and willing to scientifically test hypothesis.

There's a serious lack of actual science here and is more focused on "well, you're wrong because you believe in a thousands of year old book har har". Book has nothing to do with it. Either radiometric dating works or it doesn't. Stick with that and we'll actually get some answers instead of 20+ pages of rambling and personal attacks and/or attacks on Christianity

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:40:25 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, answer my questions first.

You don't just get to say "there are problems with the current theory" you have to explain why there is no alternative theory, which is what I asked you for.

You know, the standard view, based on consensus of many lines in independent data, that the earth, solar system, galaxies, and the universe are all billions of years old. All of these lines of evidence that compliment each other and fit together in a logical, coherent, well supported theory.

Something that you don't have.

I'm asking why.

Why don't you have a competing theory?
Why is the current theory so well supported by literally everything we know?

I was trying to say that you are putting faith in a nonexistent 'current theory' - your words - that doesn't really exist. Unless I am missing some unifying theory for the age of the universe or earth.

The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is based on a number of assumptions, which are essentially untestable and make some very extreme assertions about the environment that a specimen existed in for very long periods of time.

I am unaware that the burden of proof in a claim is on the person stating the evidence does not support the conclusion. You state that the age of the universe is known, through scientific testing, to a reasonable degree of certainty. I am saying that the evidence is based on untestable assumption. There is no burden to provide an alternate theory before we can decide whether the method in question is accurate or not.

Its not the burden of proof of a scientific claim, its the request that I made to you in a discussion. I don't want to get into your failed assertions about the current theory, that is a whole discussion all together that has hashed out many times, and "your side" has lost. The age of the earth, sun, and universe are known by many sources, just not radiometric dating. Thus, your objections about a single method are irrelevant.

Here is the thing, even if I were to grant you that all of the independent lines of evidence that allow us to estimate the age of the earth were proven to be completely wrong or unfounded. What is the alternative?

What scientific alternative do you have?

That is my question.

I'll answer it for you, since you won't: you don't have one.

You don't have any single reason to believe that the earth is 6,000, or 10,000 year old, or whatever you claim to believe. Its just some thing you are picking because you like it.

Regardless of how good or not you think the science is (and clearly most scientists wouldn't agree that your questioning of radiometric dating means its all invalid), at least its an attempt at using the evidence to ascertain the truth, which is much better than "I just picked a number that I read about in a random book about another, older religious book"

I have a great scientific alternative; That we don't have a reliable way to test the age of the earth. Honesty is an important part of real science, especially when that means admitting there is something you know that you do not know.

I don't claim scientific proof for the 6,000 year age, that is related to the bible and another topic completely.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:46:24 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?

I'm ready

Ready for what?

You've just admitted to completely ignoring any framework in which we could argue.

Posted: 7/11/2013 9:53:36 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?

I'm ready

Ready for what?

You've just admitted to completely ignoring any framework in which we could argue.

I admitted to completely ignoring any framework? What?

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:04:24 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?

I'm ready

Ready for what?

You've just admitted to completely ignoring any framework in which we could argue.

I admitted to completely ignoring any framework? What?

You admitted to ignoring reality.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:09:36 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing to deal with, it's just usually liberals that are so comfortable operating under such profound denial.

Profound denial? How so?

I'm ready

Ready for what?

You've just admitted to completely ignoring any framework in which we could argue.

I admitted to completely ignoring any framework? What?

You admitted to ignoring reality.

When? Quote when I said that please.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:11:17 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In before somebody says no way can those trees be 52,000 years old as the Earth isn't that old

I dont know why people keep repeating this, but niether of the christians in my family or the ones i know believe the earth is 7K years old.

Because it makes them feel superior than a group of other people.

For the record, I have NEVER in my life met a christian who believed that, despite growing up in a heavily christian environment.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:18:17 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Its not the burden of proof of a scientific claim, its the request that I made to you in a discussion. I don't want to get into your failed assertions about the current theory, that is a whole discussion all together that has hashed out many times, and "your side" has lost. The age of the earth, sun, and universe are known by many sources, just not radiometric dating. Thus, your objections about a single method are irrelevant.
Here is the thing, even if I were to grant you that all of the independent lines of evidence that allow us to estimate the age of the earth were proven to be completely wrong or unfounded. What is the alternative?
What scientific alternative do you have?
That is my question.
I'll answer it for you, since you won't: you don't have one.
You don't have any single reason to believe that the earth is 6,000, or 10,000 year old, or whatever you claim to believe. Its just some thing you are picking because you like it.
Regardless of how good or not you think the science is (and clearly most scientists wouldn't agree that your questioning of radiometric dating means its all invalid), at least its an attempt at using the evidence to ascertain the truth, which is much better than "I just picked a number that I read about in a random book about another, older religious book"

I have a great scientific alternative; That we don't have a reliable way to test the age of the earth. Honesty is an important part of real science, especially when that means admitting there is something you know that you do not know.
I don't claim scientific proof for the 6,000 year age, that is related to the bible and another topic completely.

That would make sense, if it were true. But its not.
There are many reasons why we know the earth is older then 6,000-10,000 years (which you have stated, you have no reason to believe that date either other than mythology.)

I don't even have to date the actual age of the earth to know that its more then 10k

Even if the uncertainty of dating methods was 2 billion years, we still
know to a very high level of confidence that the <10K figure is
wrong.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:23:05 AM EDT

[#31]

That's really cool.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:23:38 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

that is a whole discussion all together that has hashed out many times, and "your side" has lost. The age of the earth, sun, and universe are known by many sources, just not radiometric dating. Thus, your objections about a single method are irrelevant.

Here is the thing, even if I were to grant you that all of the independent lines of evidence that allow us to estimate the age of the earth were proven to be completely wrong or unfounded. What is the alternative?

What scientific alternative do you have?

I'll answer it for you, since you won't: you don't have one.

You don't have any single reason to believe that the earth is 6,000, or 10,000 year old, or whatever you claim to believe. Its just some thing you are picking because you like it.

Regardless of how good or not you think the science is (and clearly most scientists wouldn't agree that your questioning of radiometric dating means its all invalid), at least its an attempt at using the evidence to ascertain the truth, which is much better than "I just picked a number that I read about in a random book about another, older religious book"

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't care how old the earth is.

HOWEVER. You seem to be doing the exact same thing lots of "evolutionists" rag on "creationists" for:

Us against Them

Prove something you cannot

You need a complete theory to replace another one

I was under the impression that if you follow "Science" you should be open and willing to scientifically test hypothesis.

There's a serious lack of actual science here and is more focused on "well, you're wrong because you believe in a thousands of year old book har har". Book has nothing to do with it. Either radiometric dating works or it doesn't. Stick with that and we'll actually get some answers instead of 20+ pages of rambling and personal attacks and/or attacks on Christianity

I didn't ask him to prove something he could not.

I asked him as to what was his alternative to the current understanding, an understanding that is supported by independent lines of data.

If you are going to say "the science sucks" that's one thing. Its a whole different thing when you say "I think the earth is 6,000 years old", which is what he said in the first post I quoted by him.

He doesn't get to then hide behind science and pretend that he didn't make a positive claim, because he most certainly did.

If you think the science is wrong AND its 6,000 years old, its not enough just to try to poke holes in the current understanding, you've also got to support the latter.

As he admitted, he has no reason to believe it is 6,000 years old, other than some emotional religious reasons. Reasons which, IMHO, are vastly inferior to honest attempts at scientific inquiry, even if those attempts do make errors.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:25:49 AM EDT

[#33]

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:30:35 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
that is a whole discussion all together that has hashed out many times, and "your side" has lost. The age of the earth, sun, and universe are known by many sources, just not radiometric dating. Thus, your objections about a single method are irrelevant.

Here is the thing, even if I were to grant you that all of the independent lines of evidence that allow us to estimate the age of the earth were proven to be completely wrong or unfounded. What is the alternative?

What scientific alternative do you have?

I'll answer it for you, since you won't: you don't have one.

You don't have any single reason to believe that the earth is 6,000, or 10,000 year old, or whatever you claim to believe. Its just some thing you are picking because you like it.

Regardless of how good or not you think the science is (and clearly most scientists wouldn't agree that your questioning of radiometric dating means its all invalid), at least its an attempt at using the evidence to ascertain the truth, which is much better than "I just picked a number that I read about in a random book about another, older religious book"

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't care how old the earth is.

HOWEVER. You seem to be doing the exact same thing lots of "evolutionists" rag on "creationists" for:

Us against Them

Prove something you cannot

You need a complete theory to replace another one

I was under the impression that if you follow "Science" you should be open and willing to scientifically test hypothesis.

There's a serious lack of actual science here and is more focused on "well, you're wrong because you believe in a thousands of year old book har har". Book has nothing to do with it. Either radiometric dating works or it doesn't. Stick with that and we'll actually get some answers instead of 20+ pages of rambling and personal attacks and/or attacks on Christianity

I didn't ask him to prove something he could not.

I asked him as to what was his alternative to the current understanding, an understanding that is supported by independent lines of data.

If you are going to say "the science sucks" that's one thing. Its a whole different thing when you say "I think the earth is 6,000 years old", which is what he said in the first post I quoted by him.

He doesn't get to then hide behind science and pretend that he didn't make a positive claim, because he most certainly did.

If you think the science is wrong AND its 6,000 years old, its not enough just to try to poke holes in the current understanding, you've also got to support the latter.

As he admitted, he has no reason to believe it is 6,000 years old, other than some emotional religious reasons. Reasons which, IMHO, are vastly inferior to honest attempts at scientific inquiry, even if those attempts do make errors.

My biblical belief in the 6,000 year number has no bearing on the fact that methods used to date the earth at billions of years old have serious problems. You are blurring the two issues together, when they are separate.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:31:42 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In before somebody says no way can those trees be 52,000 years old as the Earth isn't that old

I dont know why people keep repeating this, but niether of the christians in my family or the ones i know believe the earth is 7K years old.

It's the mouth breathers favorite hammer to beat on Christians with....they actually think they're being funny.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:31:46 AM EDT

[#36]

fascinating

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:41:35 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

I didn't ask him to prove something he could not.

I asked him as to what was his alternative to the current understanding, an understanding that is supported by independent lines of data.

If you are going to say "the science sucks" that's one thing. Its a whole different thing when you say "I think the earth is 6,000 years old", which is what he said in the first post I quoted by him.

He doesn't get to then hide behind science and pretend that he didn't make a positive claim, because he most certainly did.

If you think the science is wrong AND its 6,000 years old, its not enough just to try to poke holes in the current understanding, you've also got to support the latter.

As he admitted, he has no reason to believe it is 6,000 years old, other than some emotional religious reasons. Reasons which, IMHO, are vastly inferior to honest attempts at scientific inquiry, even if those attempts do make errors.

My biblical belief in the 6,000 year number has no bearing on the fact that methods used to date the earth at billions of years old have serious problems. You are blurring the two issues together, when they are separate.

You were the one that blurred them together when you said "I believe the earth is 6k years old, and I am a physics major".

If they weren't connected, why the hell did you pretend that they were?

And I simply don't agree with your assessment of "major problems", because even with the "major problems" we know, for as close to certainty as almost anything we know in science, that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, regardless of what problems one or two of the many independent lines of evidence may have.

What about geology?

What about genetics?

What about the standard model of cosmology?

What about pretty much every observation in astronomy?

What about anthropology?

Oh, all assumptions made in those areas of study are wrong too I guess.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:42:12 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

In before somebody says no way can those trees be 52,000 years old as the Earth isn't that old

I dont know why people keep repeating this, but niether of the christians in my family or the ones i know believe the earth is 7K years old.

It's the mouth breathers favorite hammer to beat on Christians with....they actually think they're being funny.

You should have posted this earlier, before someone started to seriously advocate that position in this thread.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:48:58 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Count me as one of them. I go for the approximately 6,000 years represented by the bible.

Got a degree in phyics too.
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Deal_With_It.jpg

What school? Was it a AA or a full BS?

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:53:41 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

I didn't ask him to prove something he could not.

I asked him as to what was his alternative to the current understanding, an understanding that is supported by independent lines of data.

If you are going to say "the science sucks" that's one thing. Its a whole different thing when you say "I think the earth is 6,000 years old", which is what he said in the first post I quoted by him.

He doesn't get to then hide behind science and pretend that he didn't make a positive claim, because he most certainly did.

If you think the science is wrong AND its 6,000 years old, its not enough just to try to poke holes in the current understanding, you've also got to support the latter.

As he admitted, he has no reason to believe it is 6,000 years old, other than some emotional religious reasons. Reasons which, IMHO, are vastly inferior to honest attempts at scientific inquiry, even if those attempts do make errors.

My biblical belief in the 6,000 year number has no bearing on the fact that methods used to date the earth at billions of years old have serious problems. You are blurring the two issues together, when they are separate.

You were the one that blurred them together when you said "I believe the earth is 6k years old, and I am a physics major".

If they weren't connected, why the hell did you pretend that they were?

And I simply don't agree with your assessment of "major problems", because even with the "major problems" we know, for as close to certainty as almost anything we know in science, that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, regardless of what problems one or two of the many independent lines of evidence may have.

What about geology?
What about genetics?
What about the standard model of cosmology?
What about pretty much every observation in astronomy?
What about anthropology?

Oh, all assumptions made in those areas of study are wrong too I guess.

You ever worked in research before bud? It isn't as cut and dry as the PBS specials present it. Geology has nothing to say about time, only physical composition. Same with genetics. Cosmology is a paper discipline that involves so much extrapolation to untestable things it may as well be fantasy. Astronomic observations are very limited, with lots of big interpretations made on small amounts of data. I would be happy to discuss specifics in detail if you want clarification on why I think a particular subject has problems.

I think the biggest thing people need to separate is observable phenomenon versus speculative interpretation of the past. The physical mechanisms that lead to carbon dating, for existence, are observable today. The interpretation of C14 levels found in objects lying around, however, is speculation based on lofty assumptions.

I was pointing out that I too think the earth is 6,000 years old. I was pointing out also that I am slightly more educated than your average bear on the subject, because the inevitable response is that science has disproven a young earth.

I guess I should clarify my position further. I don't think the interpretations of our world, when extrapolated backwards through time, are a reasonable picture of a planet that is billions of years old. In fact, it would appear that much more of the physical features we can observe are readily explained by a younger earth that had a massive global flood event.

I say that my choice of a 6,000 year age is biblical because I don't look to radiometrics or some other testing mechanism to arrive at that particular number. Rather, I look to the history laid out in the bible.

My alternative theory, so to speak, is that we do not have a reasonable way to accurately measure ages.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:54:59 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Count me as one of them. I go for the approximately 6,000 years represented by the bible.

Got a degree in phyics too.
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Deal_With_It.jpg

What school? Was it a AA or a full BS?

Bachelor of Science in Physics, University of Houston, Minor in Mathematics.

Posted: 7/11/2013 10:57:40 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In before somebody says no way can those trees be 52,000 years old as the Earth isn't that old

I dont know why people keep repeating this, but niether of the christians in my family or the ones i know believe the earth is 7K years old.

It's the mouth breathers favorite hammer to beat on Christians with....they actually think they're being funny.

You should have posted this earlier, before someone started to seriously advocate that position in this thread.

Is it..or is it not, a minority position? Should I take the position that ALL engineers are socially inept pimple farmers?

Posted: 7/11/2013 11:12:19 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Is it..or is it not, a minority position? Should I take the position that ALL engineers are socially inept pimple farmers?

You and I always seem to end up in these threads together. What is your stance on this topic?

Posted: 7/11/2013 11:18:01 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Is it..or is it not, a minority position? Should I take the position that ALL engineers are socially inept pimple farmers?

You and I always seem to end up in these threads together. What is your stance on this topic?

What...on the age of the earth?..As far as my faith goes..the age of the earth is irrelevant and the "age" that some glean from the Bible is based on a genetic lineage that is there simply to establish the lineage of Jesus. As far as sciences dating of the earth.....I hold the same position as you....Their methods are not complete enough to establish beyond any reasonable doubt as to the age of the earth....despite their "don't you dare question our assertions on this subject"

Posted: 7/11/2013 11:19:13 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Is it..or is it not, a minority position? Should I take the position that ALL engineers are socially inept pimple farmers?

You and I always seem to end up in these threads together. What is your stance on this topic?

What...on the age of the earth?..As far as my faith goes..the age of the earth is irrelevant and the "age" that some glean from the Bible is based on a genetic lineage that is there simply to establish the lineage of Jesus. As far as sciences dating of the earth.....I hold the same position as you....Their methods are not complete enough to establish beyond any reasonable doubt as to the age of the earth....despite their "don't you dare question our assertions on this subject"

Thats what I figured. We pretty much agree then

Posted: 7/11/2013 1:44:43 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
If, by kaboom, you mean blowing up in his face, sure.

There *are* Christians that assert that the world is less than 10,000* years old, science be damned.

* It used to be, "The world is 6,000 years old," but they've updated their model.

No... I was snickering at his reference to the Atheist "religion."

Because like it or not, he's dead-nuts on. There are atheists who are just as devout in their "unbelief" as the Fundamentalist snake-handlers they love to hate. The difference between the two, IMHO, is that at least the devout Christian believer actually wants to help you, and is concerned about the state of your soul.

Militant atheists all seem to be abrasive assh*les.

Whatever... carry on with your discussion.

Posted: 7/11/2013 1:56:43 PM EDT

[#47]

Meh...Cyprus isn't a Guitar wood

Posted: 7/11/2013 2:04:34 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So Shelby found the Bogalusa log raft.

Am I the only one that don't get this?

Posted: 7/11/2013 2:06:27 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

you can really tell those that practice the Atheist religion have never read the Bible and still think the earth is only six thousand years old.

Kaboom.

If, by kaboom, you mean blowing up in his face, sure.

There *are* Christians that assert that the world is less than 10,000* years old, science be damned.

* It used to be, "The world is 6,000 years old," but they've updated their model.

Count me as one of them. I go for the approximately 6,000 years represented by the bible.

Got a degree in phyics too.
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Deal_With_It.jpg

From Ranken?

Posted: 7/11/2013 2:09:48 PM EDT

[#50]

As someone that has dealt with timbers like that I wouldn't want to do anything with that stuff but sell it. That old growth stuff is a pain in the ass to mill and nails usually bounce off of it.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Primeval Underwater Forest Discovered in Gulf of Mexico (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us