Works Cited
Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe
http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%201.htm
Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift
http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%2017.htm
A Whale of a Tale, Darby South
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
E-Sword v6.5. Electronic Bible 2000. World English Bible
Dinosaur Tree Behind the Bars
Creation Ex Nihilo 20-22 June-August 2001:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_dinosaur_tree.asp
Repp, Andrew S. The Nature of Redshifts and an argument by Gentry.
The Creation Research Quarterly Journal 39 (2003): 269-274
I only got a 98.
Edit: I'm not sure if you want critiques or not, so let me assume that you do.
I'm also assuming that this is a formal scientific research paper. You need to flesh out everything a bit more. The introduction in particular is especially weak. Also, don't start paragraphs with words such as "If, And, Or, So" etc. It's just bad style.
And uh, I hate to be a jerk here, but you state at the very beginning, as your thesis, that it's scientifically evident that the Earth and Universe are only 6,000 years old. What about those wacky fossils? And the other tons of research against it?
You can't make suggestions and pass it off as proof. That's just blatantly wrong. And also, you're not defending the length of humanity on Earth, you stated that the universe itself was only 6,000 years old.
Sorry chief, but this essay is seriously weak. It's blatantly wrong, it's got many scientific errors, and not only that, but it's also terrible in terms of structure.
I'm trying to tell if this is serious, or if it's satire or what. Liam fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 02:30 AM.
There, I didn't even need to make a very ugly, poorly paragraphed post to say it.
Seriously, your argument is just a very long strawman. Waisz fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 02:27 AM.
I don't mean to troll or anything, but the more I read, the more I'm noticing that things just aren't adding up here. I'm trying to be as objective as possible, so please don't assume I'm being biased, but it's just reading as a very poor essay that takes, ahem, a few liberties.
quote:
theravenofcu probably says this to all the girls:
There are two main views as to the age of the earth and the universe. One states that the universe is billions of years old. The other states that the Universe is only about six thousand years old. It is scientifically evident that the earth and universe are indeed only six thousand years old.
Evolutionists say that man evolved from ape-like creatures around 4,000,000 years ago. They go on to say that modern man has been around for 100,000 years. If humans have been around for that long, then there would have been a large number of deaths, and there would be many remnants from humans who have long since died.
Suppose that a generation passed only once every twenty-five years. If recognizable humans have been around for 100,000 of them that would be four thousand generations. Further suppose that the population of humans never went over 1 million. That would be 4 million humans that were born, buried and died. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
When someone was buried, they were buried with their jewelry and other possessions which would identify them as human. So even if a body were to decompose completely, their artifacts and such would still survive. Based on the assumptions of evolution one should be able to dig straight down into the ground anywhere on earth and find at least one grave from a prior generation. However, to this day, only three hundred Neanderthal skeletons, and more importantly only a couple thousand stone-age skeletons have been found. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
If the Stone Age were categorized by the number of finds they have discovered, it would equal about 500 years, which is consistent with the biblical record where after the flood people would be re-establishing themselves and learning to cope with completely different environments. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Evolutionists state that the earths ocean was formed 1 billion years ago. For that supposed 1,000,000,000 years the oceans are supposedly to have maintained a relatively constant salinity while life evolved from non-living material in it and, once formed by random chance, then life supposedly became more and more complex. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Salt enters the ocean through rivers, glaciers and volcanoes and vents both above and below the surface. A total of about 4% of that amount leaves the ocean every year through sea spray, and evaporation. That would be a 96% net gain of salt. If the oceans were a billion years old, the ocean would be much saltier than it is today.
ttp://www.eas.slu.edu/People/Students/MPyle/petrology/Petro_Project.html)
Shown above is a section of the mountain range that goes all along the earths bottom, beneath the surface of the ocean. Unique to this mountain range is that right through the middle is a rift that separates the continental plates. Also unique are the horizontal lines going through it that appearing to be stretch marks. Evolutionists explain that the continents separated over billions of years, however, in Genesis, we see another possible answer.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. (E-sword v6.5 WEB, Gen. 7:11)
The Bible says that all of the fountains of the deep burst open. Basically, what it said was that the water that was below the ground, pushed out of the ground to get to the surface. Would it not make sense that if the water was pushing up, it was also pushing the ground apart? In which case, all the continents that were once close together were suddenly shoved apart. Also note the horizontal cracks going through the vertical rift in the floor. These very closely resemble stretch marks, which happen to women after giving birth, due to their rapid change in shape. Stretch marks only occur when there is a rapid change.
In 1976, a fossilized whale was found standing on its tale inside of a bed of diatomaceous earth (finely milled fossilized shells of minuscule organisms called diatoms) along with other marine mammals. Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick. - Jeff Dejong (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
The only explanation for a whale standing on its tale is that some worldwide catastrophe, such as the flood actually occurred. A dead whale would not stay in the same position for 50 million years as layers of dead fossils settled around it. The oceans movements would have caused it to move away from that spot long before the layers finished gathering around it.
The Botanic Gardens in Australia have a Wollemi Pine tree on exhibit. Fossil records indicate that this tree died out millions of years ago. However, a specimen of this tree is sitting on display at the Botanic Gardens. (Dinosaur Tree Behind Bars)
How could a species of tree that was supposed to have died out millions of years ago still be around? Perhaps it is because the earth is actually much younger than that, and there are a few of these trees left.
When looking at the age of the universe, Evolutionists use the Hubble Constant. The only problem is that the Hubble Constant isnt constant. It gets changed every few years. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
The Hubble constant is supposed to measure redshift, as galaxies get farther away, their light pattern gets shifted into the red. Redshift is best explained as the Doppler Effect. Much as when an ambulance passes with its sirens blaring, as it gets farther away, the sound appears to fade away. However, the sound only sounds lower because the ambulance is getting farther away. (Repp, Andrew. 270)
However, the red shift is not necessarily cause by an expanding universe. There are many ways that can make it appear that there is a red shift without the universe expanding at all. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
One of the ways is that God could have created the sun, moon, and stars with all of the waves of light already interconnected. Another is Einsteins theory that space is curved, thus enabling light to travel a 15 billion light year difference in only a few thousand years. Yet another way is through use of the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that everything degrades over time. If this law applies to everything, then should it not also apply to the speed of light? The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
By looking at spiral galaxies, and the fact that they are still around today, we see that the Universe is indeed very young. While the center of a spiral galaxy spins at a constant speed, its arms are spinning at a slower rate, thus causing the spiral. After only two billion years, the spiral would have completely disappeared, yet we still see them today. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Works CitedConcerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe
http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%201.htmConcerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift
http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%2017.htmA Whale of a Tale, Darby South
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.htmlE-Sword v6.5. Electronic Bible 2000. World English Bible
Dinosaur Tree Behind the Bars
Creation Ex Nihilo 20-22 June-August 2001:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_dinosaur_tree.aspRepp, Andrew S. The Nature of Redshifts and an argument by Gentry.
The Creation Research Quarterly Journal 39 (2003): 269-274
Likely because I hate myself, I'm going to address this. Per your treat, I'm going to assume there was flood, but not that it has a single biblical connection with it. In more than one place, such a flood is recorded, but the existence of such a flood does not prove the Bible is right.
100,000 years * 4 generations per year = 400,000, not 4,000, by the way. To suppose any kind of population is tricky, but ok, 1 million it is. We can't assume that we can dig down anywhere because the scientific models state that humanity slowly moved over continents. Who's to say the first humans had jewelry? None of this has any scientific basis. Additionally, given a very large flood within a fairly "recent" time, all of this would be buried deeper/would be displaced. You'd have to check rivers no matter what since there's always localized floods. This is easier said than done. And it's not like everyone is going around looking for old skeletons.
Ok, so we agree on a flood. 
It's late so I'm going to ignore your link to a creation website. Sorry, but I'll just concede the point here. But it does seem fairly weak to assume that the ocean behaved in Early earth as it does now, so...
Stretch marks and women? That's a bit odd to be in such an argument. I'm not sure that's even relevant, and just because there's not presently an explanation for such a mark doesn't mean there won't ever be one.
Now we've got a vague reference from the bible. "fountains of the great deep"? Couldn't that be anything?
Ok, I agree with a worldwide flood, so this paragraph seems ok to me. This doesn't imply a god/christianity in the slightest, though.
The fossil part is tied in fairly odd. What is that supposed to mean? We've found fossilized dinosaurs so maybe there's some still around. 
A change in a constant isn't so bad. Accuracy increase, etc etc. Without checking the link I see nothing wrong here.
Now you're suggesting that light waves change depending on where you are in the universe? That's very farfetched. Why don't you just quote the bible "Yes. I exist, and I made the universe. -God". To say that God could have done it doesn't disprove any science at all.
And the speed of light is shifting noticibly over time. They've calculated it. It's a very small shift, though. Not a large one.
Galaxies still being around is sort of a strange argument. We say they're very far away and that we're seeing things after they happen, and you say "well, we can see some young universe out there!" Seems odd. And there's nothing I've heard that says galaxies can't reform necessarily.
Remember that by discounting science, you're not proving god. You're just discounting science. Waisz fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 02:57 AM.
quote:
theravenofcu wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
There are two main views as to the age of the earth and the universe. One states that the universe is billions of years old. The other states that the Universe is only about six thousand years old. It is scientifically evident that the earth and universe are indeed only six thousand years old.
Even assuming that the earth is itself only six thousand years old, that doesn't mean that the universe also is. Now let's look at this 'Scientific evidence'.
quote:
Based on the assumptions of evolution one should be able to dig straight down into the ground anywhere on earth and find at least one grave from a prior generation. However, to this day, only three hundred Neanderthal skeletons, and more importantly only a couple thousand stone-age skeletons have been found.[quote]Hey here's something for you: Bones are not indestructible rocks. They are fully capable of being crushed, shattered, dissolved, and all the other fun things that the elements decide to throw at them. It is rare for a living being to die in the specific conditions that require fossilization or mummification
[quote]If the Stone Age were categorized by the number of finds they have discovered, it would equal about 500 years, which is consistent with the biblical record where after the flood people would be re-establishing themselves and learning to cope with completely different environments.
If you went off the bodies found, possibly. But what about the stone tools and cave paintings that have been found dating back to almost 100,000 years ago? (Hint: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/axe/ )
quote:
Evolutionists state that the earths ocean was formed 1 billion years ago. For that supposed 1,000,000,000 years the oceans are supposedly to have maintained a relatively constant salinity while life evolved from non-living material in it and, once formed by random chance, then life supposedly became more and more complex.Salt enters the ocean through rivers, glaciers and volcanoes and vents both above and below the surface. A total of about 4% of that amount leaves the ocean every year through sea spray, and evaporation. That would be a 96% net gain of salt. If the oceans were a billion years old, the ocean would be much saltier than it is today.
If the ocean loses 4% of its salinity each year, where are you getting the 96% gain? If I spend 4 dollars from a hundred dollar bill, I don't magically get 96 more dollars.
quote:
The Bible says that all of the fountains of the deep burst open. Basically, what it said was that the water that was below the ground, pushed out of the ground to get to the surface. Would it not make sense that if the water was pushing up, it was also pushing the ground apart? In which case, all the continents that were once close together were suddenly shoved apart. Also note the horizontal cracks going through the vertical rift in the floor. These very closely resemble stretch marks, which happen to women after giving birth, due to their rapid change in shape. Stretch marks only occur when there is a rapid change.
Something can go through a space without overly affecting the container that it flows through. Yes, if I shove a firehose into a water bottle, that water bottle is fucked, but with a large outflux of water going against land? Any such vent would cause a huge erosion of the surronding soiul and rock, espcially considering that it would be super heated from being nearer to the earth's core. There isn't really any evidence of massive underground water jets that could even theroretically cause continental drift, and there would be if it happened, with things like different soil and mineral levels due to rock being fucking blasted.
quote:
In 1976, a fossilized whale was found standing on its tale inside of a bed of diatomaceous earth (finely milled fossilized shells of minuscule organisms called diatoms) along with other marine mammals. Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick. - Jeff Dejong (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
The only explanation for a whale standing on its tale is that some worldwide catastrophe, such as the flood actually occurred. A dead whale would not stay in the same position for 50 million years as layers of dead fossils settled around it. The oceans movements would have caused it to move away from that spot long before the layers finished gathering around it.
Let me introduce you to my friend The Red Tide. This is a naturally ocurring bacteria that appears every once in awhile, completely decimating ocean life in the process. It kills nearly everything that ingests it.
There's more than one way to kill a massive amount of ocean life, so don't say, 'Hey, all these things die, I say it's a flood, FUCK OFF MY MOM AGREES SO FUCK YOUR THEORY.'
quote:
The Botanic Gardens in Australia have a Wollemi Pine tree on exhibit. Fossil records indicate that this tree died out millions of years ago. However, a specimen of this tree is sitting on display at the Botanic Gardens.
Extinct is mostly used in relation to lands that humans can easily survey. For all we know, there can be a whole square mile of these things in the rain forest, we just don't have the means right now to go through and check every tree or burrow to say that we found one, take it off the list.
quote:
How could a species of tree that was supposed to have died out millions of years ago still be around? Perhaps it is because the earth is actually much younger than that, and there are a few of these trees left.
FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP DOING THIS. You cannot say, "Hey, look at his. Now look at this. And this. See it all? The earth's a young pup!" It is generalizing and jumping to conclusions. Nearly anyone can come up with another hypothesis, so unless you have solid proof that all the carbon dating that has been done since it was invented is false, stop.
quote:
When looking at the age of the universe, Evolutionists use the Hubble Constant. The only problem is that the Hubble Constant isnt constant. It gets changed every few years.
Nothing in science is every truly constant. A single proven and repeatable expirement that invalidates a theory does invalidate it. That's why all squares aren't just double the number, even though 2 squared is four.
quote:
One of the ways is that God could have created the sun, moon, and stars with all of the waves of light already interconnected. Another is Einsteins theory that space is curved, thus enabling light to travel a 15 billion light year difference in only a few thousand years. Yet another way is through use of the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that everything degrades over time. If this law applies to everything, then should it not also apply to the speed of light? The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today.
The second Law of Thermo Dynamics states that in a closed system, entropy occurs. So where's the big glass bubble over everything? And how do you know that light would slow down? Light has jack shit to do with entropy, besides being one of the things that the sun pounds out while it's beinging its foot back to kick the bucket.
Oh, and explain that interconnected comment. Because I see alot of dark patches between buzzwords like that.
quote:
By looking at spiral galaxies, and the fact that they are still around today, we see that the Universe is indeed very young. While the center of a spiral galaxy spins at a constant speed, its arms are spinning at a slower rate, thus causing the spiral. After only two billion years, the spiral would have completely disappeared, yet we still see them today.
How do you know they dissapear after two billion years? Have you sat around and watched one? And how do you know that it was in fact a spiral from the start? Maybe it was drifting along as a nice gas cloud before it said, "You know, Jimmy over in Andromeda looks really nice with those arms, I think I'll try it." Also, New stars are constantly being formed where conditions are appicable, so how do you know that there isn't a really big set of clusters or some other space thing that can pop out the spiral suckers?
Oh, and next time, try and get a source that isn't heavily biased. Creationist science is at its best laughable with its sources and expirements. Ferret fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 03:14 AM.
Total crap. 
Sometimes, I think some of them are stretching, desperately looking for a way to prove their religion is true because the harsh cold reality suggests it isn't. They figure if they can hash up some argument and get people to believe it, it must be right, so there's nothing to fear. 
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Everyone involved here fails.Total crap.
I got a few good laughs at it. How can you not laugh at light slowing down?
quote:
Ferret probably says this to all the girls:
I got a few good laughs at it. How can you not laugh at light slowing down?
Actually, light is slowing down. I'm not joking. It's not a constant, experiments are showing it has gradually slowed.
But it's at a very small scale and takes very precise data to prove. Waisz fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 03:19 AM.
quote:
Waisz Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Actually, light is slowing down. I'm not joking. It's not a constant, experiments are showing it has gradually slowed.But it's at a very small scale and takes very precise data to prove.
True, but "The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today." Just made me crack up and fall out of my chair.
Oh, maybe we should come up with a set of spoilers and body kits for light once it slows down enough so that we can catch it and race them. You know, for like 2004078647676401867 CE or whenever it will become noticiable. I mean 8000 AD. Ferret fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 03:23 AM.
quote:
So quoth Ferret:
True, but "The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today." Just made me crack up and fall out of my chair.Oh, maybe we should come up with a set of spoilers and body kits for light once it slows down enough so that we can catch it and race them. You know, for like 2004078647676401867 or whenever it will become noticiable. I mean 8000 AD.
Oh, yeah, that's flat out roffletastic.
For the most part, board members here believe in evolution. Most of us are rather literal minded, and no few of us are not Christian.
For example, I'm athiest. I believe in what I can see and prove without a doubt.
The whole "I'm going to take science, and take the parts that are vague, and then convolute them to match how I want to perceive the universe. Therefor, God exists." arguement makes me chuckle every time I'ce seen it. You are not the first one to put it forth.
Another thing that people are probably laughing about is the fact that a post like this came (yet again) from a rather unknown person. We have no background on you, no idea of your personality, and now it looks like you just dropped in to tell us that you're right and thats final.
Perhaps if you had prefaced your post with a statement saying, "According to such and such, this is how it happened. What do you think about this theory?" or somethng like that.
quote:
theravenofcu had this to say about Captain Planet:
well, as the main emphasis was to get discussion going, I think I achieved that, however, who actually looked at the links? This is where the information came from.
Sources have to be respected to have any credibility, Chuck.
quote:
theravenofcu painfully thought these words up:
well, as the main emphasis was to get discussion going, I think I achieved that
Yes, however you could have achieved that by sticking a flaming dog turd in each of your ears. The only difference being, if you had done that, you wouldn't look as silly to us.
A point that a few people here have already alluded to: You might want to wait on expounding on the real heavy subjects until you've built up a little 'street cred', as it were, on the boards.
quote:
The propaganda machine of theravenofcu's junta released this statement:
There are two main views as to the age of the earth and the universe. One states that the universe is billions of years old. The other states that the Universe is only about six thousand years old. It is scientifically evident that the earth and universe are indeed only six thousand years old.
No, it's not, but that doesn't stop YEC's from talking.
quote:
Evolutionists say that man evolved from ape-like creatures around 4,000,000 years ago. They go on to say that modern man has been around for 100,000 years. If humans have been around for that long, then there would have been a large number of deaths, and there would be many remnants from humans who have long since died.
Approximately 77 billion, and no, there wouldn't be a lot of remains. Have you ever seen what a wolf does to a bone when it's hungry? It's incredibly difficult for any remains to survive. Specific conditions must be met, and if they're not met, skeltal remains vanish in short order.
quote:
Suppose that a generation passed only once every twenty-five years. If recognizable humans have been around for 100,000 of them that would be four thousand generations. Further suppose that the population of humans never went over 1 million. That would be 4 million humans that were born, buried and died. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Wait, I thought the earth was only 6,000 years old. Why are you harping on this 100,000 year figure?
quote:
When someone was buried, they were buried with their jewelry and other possessions which would identify them as human. So even if a body were to decompose completely, their artifacts and such would still survive. Based on the assumptions of evolution one should be able to dig straight down into the ground anywhere on earth and find at least one grave from a prior generation.
Lie. The land surface area of the earth is 57.5 million square miles. Even if every single one of the approximately 77 billion humans who have lived and died was buried under the conditions you described(they're not), you would wind up with some 1340 people per square mile. May sound like a lot, but your assumption is grossly flawed, because you assume those things with which they were buried would survive any longer than their carcasses, as if every single ancient man or woman wore precious stones or something.
quote:
However, to this day, only three hundred Neanderthal skeletons, and more importantly only a couple thousand stone-age skeletons have been found. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
So? The mere fact that we've found neanderthals completely destroys your claim about the young age of the earth. And again, you seem to think that everyone who dies gets fossilized, which is simply not true.
quote:
If the Stone Age were categorized by the number of finds they have discovered, it would equal about 500 years, which is consistent with the biblical record where after the flood people would be re-establishing themselves and learning to cope with completely different environments. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Again, working from a flawed assumption, bub. It's incredibly difficult for bones to fossilize, so assuming that the only remains found are the only people living is just plain idiotic.
quote:
Evolutionists state that the earths ocean was formed 1 billion years ago. For that supposed 1,000,000,000 years the oceans are supposedly to have maintained a relatively constant salinity while life evolved from non-living material in it and, once formed by random chance, then life supposedly became more and more complex. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Lie. Oceans formed much earlier, almost four billion years ago.
quote:
Salt enters the ocean through rivers, glaciers and volcanoes and vents both above and below the surface. A total of about 4% of that amount leaves the ocean every year through sea spray, and evaporation. That would be a 96% net gain of salt. If the oceans were a billion years old, the ocean would be much saltier than it is today.
Lie again. Salt can and is removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. The salt content of the oceans is a completely useless measuring stick.
quote:
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/Students/MPyle/petrology/Petro_Project.html)
Shown above is a section of the mountain range that goes all along the earths bottom, beneath the surface of the ocean. Unique to this mountain range is that right through the middle is a rift that separates the continental plates. Also unique are the horizontal lines going through it that appearing to be stretch marks. Evolutionists explain that the continents separated over billions of years, however, in Genesis, we see another possible answer.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. (E-sword v6.5 WEB, Gen. 7:11)
The upper limit on human life is 180 years. After that, you run out telomerase and your cells cannot reproduce in any meaningful way. Noah would have long since been dead.
quote:
The Bible says that all of the fountains of the deep burst open. Basically, what it said was that the water that was below the ground, pushed out of the ground to get to the surface. Would it not make sense that if the water was pushing up, it was also pushing the ground apart? In which case, all the continents that were once close together were suddenly shoved apart. Also note the horizontal cracks going through the vertical rift in the floor. These very closely resemble stretch marks, which happen to women after giving birth, due to their rapid change in shape. Stretch marks only occur when there is a rapid change.
That has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Are you honestly saying that rock behaves like human skin? Look, pal, your catastrophic plate tectonic theory is absolute bunk. Let's look at some of the things it can't explain:
1. The Hawaiian islands. They are created by a slow moving ocean floor sliding over erupting hot-spots. For them to have been created in such a catastrophic, rapid fashion, they would be approximately 1 year older than their newer islands. Radiometric shows this not to be the case.
2. The ocean floor itself. It should be essentially the same age. Dating the sediment, and observing the amount of sediment, however, shows it to be anywhere from brand new to tens of millions years old.
3. Guyouts, or flat-topped underwater mountains. Their tops were originally above the surface, which eroded them, and then they sank with the ocean floor. Catastrophic tectonics cannot explain how this occured in a short time.
Moreover, your theory has no mechanism. Necessary assumptions such as a greatly lowered mantle viscosity, rapid reversals of the magnetic field, and the rapid cooling of the oceans cannot be explained with conventional physics.
quote:
In 1976, a fossilized whale was found standing on its tale inside of a bed of diatomaceous earth (finely milled fossilized shells of minuscule organisms called diatoms) along with other marine mammals. Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick. - Jeff Dejong
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
Your own source provides the rebuttal. How sad. Rather than repeat the whole thing, I will post the key facts that you neglected:
quote:
First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982).
Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989).
But really, thanks for playing.
quote:
The only explanation for a whale standing on its tale is that some worldwide catastrophe, such as the flood actually occurred. A dead whale would not stay in the same position for 50 million years as layers of dead fossils settled around it. The oceans movements would have caused it to move away from that spot long before the layers finished gathering around it.
Well, if a global flood occured, then why don't we find metallic objects on the very bottom? After all, a bronze arrowhead doesn't try to swim.
quote:
The Botanic Gardens in Australia have a Wollemi Pine tree on exhibit. Fossil records indicate that this tree died out millions of years ago. However, a specimen of this tree is sitting on display at the Botanic Gardens. (Dinosaur Tree Behind Bars)
How could a species of tree that was supposed to have died out millions of years ago still be around? Perhaps it is because the earth is actually much younger than that, and there are a few of these trees left.
Or, we humans were wrong in assuming that the species was extinct. It's not the first time this has happened; see the ceolocanth(sp?).
quote:
When looking at the age of the universe, Evolutionists use the Hubble Constant. The only problem is that the Hubble Constant isnt constant. It gets changed every few years. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
Strawman. There IS a hubble constant, it's we who are not sure what it is. As we learn more about the universe, we refine the number we use. It doesn't magically or randomly change, forcing us to print new science textbooks.
quote:
....
One of the ways is that God could have created the sun, moon, and stars with all of the waves of light already interconnected.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That makes absolutely no sense.
quote:
Another is Einsteins theory that space is curved, thus enabling light to travel a 15 billion light year difference in only a few thousand years.
Apparently, you think space is quite drastically curved. The topography, as best we can explain it, is not quite so dramatic. Failed again.
quote:
Yet another way is through use of the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that everything degrades over time.
No, it doesn't. It states, among other things, that a cyclic(closed) system's entropy will increase or remain the same over time, but nothing even close to "everything degrades over time."
quote:
If this law applies to everything, then should it not also apply to the speed of light? The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
No, it doesn't, because the speed of light is a consequence of other physical constants, such as the permittivity and permeability of free space. These, too, are dependent upon other constants, such as the charge on an electron, Planck's constant, and the fine structure constant. To change the speed of light would mean that those constants are no longer constant, and this would show up in just about every single physical and chemical experiment conducted today.
And guess what? If you observe ratios of spectral lines coming from distant quasars, you see that their measurements are consistant with a Planck's constant, speed of light, and electron charge and mass as measured on earth. If the light was coming from a time when those constants were not as we know them to be today, we would observe the difference.
And no, I'm not going to explain how one derives the speed of light. Open a physics book some time.
quote:
By looking at spiral galaxies, and the fact that they are still around today, we see that the Universe is indeed very young. While the center of a spiral galaxy spins at a constant speed, its arms are spinning at a slower rate, thus causing the spiral. After only two billion years, the spiral would have completely disappeared, yet we still see them today. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Bullshit. The spiral arms in galaxies is not a spiral of stars, but a spiral pattern that moves through the stars, like a density wave. Also, no one ever said that spiral galaxies never lose their spiral; there exist very old galaxies which have.
Sorry bub, your invisible man in the sky theory fails on all counts. But really, thanks for playing. It's been loads of fun.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
From the book of Karnaj, chapter 3, verse 16:
snip
Why'd you bother? 
quote:
theravenofcu was naked while typing this:
well, as the main emphasis was to get discussion going, I think I achieved that, however, who actually looked at the links? This is where the information came from.
You are the reason why I'm ashamed to be a practicing Catholic at times. For shame.
Want to know why? Look at your sources. You just cited young Earth creationist babble. Young Earth creationists are a fringe group now. Nobody takes them seriously, except themselves and the Bible thumpers. Any normal person, normal priest, or theological scholar will laugh at their antiquated ideas. Young Earth creationism is just not a sound theory anymore.
Do some research on Christianity. Do some research on religion in general. Do some research on your sources. Then come back here and make a religion post. You're way out of your league here right now. And this is coming from someone who has attempted to go head to head with folks here. You're just making those of us who aren't atheists look bad.
quote:
A sleep deprived Callalron stammered:
A point that a few people here have already alluded to: You might want to wait on expounding on the real heavy subjects until you've built up a little 'street cred', as it were, on the boards.
I disagree. Field any hard boiled topic you like whenever you like. Just, try to make a goddamn bit of sense when you do it.
quote:
theravenofcu stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
It is scientifically evident that the earth and universe are indeed only six thousand years old.
Only to religious zealots and cultists.
quote:
Evolutionists say that man evolved from ape-like creatures around 4,000,000 years ago. They go on to say that modern man has been around for 100,000 years. If humans have been around for that long, then there would have been a large number of deaths, and there would be many remnants from humans who have long since died.
Except for this little thing called "decomposition" and a minor universal constant called "entropy". Together they do a damn good job of removing evidence of lots of things. Not every bone that falls on the ground fossilizes, the process by which a bone fossilizes is extremely uncommon. Additionally, ancient man had a habit of using wooden, clay and stone tools that tended to turn to dust over the course of a hundred years or so.
quote:
So even if a body were to decompose completely, their artifacts and such would still survive.
Uh, no? For starters, humanity has not been making metal for a large portion of it's existence. When it did start making metal, only the very elite had it (and we have found a lot of those, btw). Second, it's incredibly rare for even metal artifacts to withstand corrosion over the centuries and still be in a recognizable form. Why do you think it's such an amazing find when archeologists discover a tool-shaped rock from a 100,000 years ago? Because the natural processes that preserve such things almost never happen.
quote:
Based on the assumptions of evolution...
Evolution is a theory. Creation is an assumption.
quote:
one should be able to dig straight down into the ground anywhere on earth and find at least one grave from a prior generation.
One might think that if one were an idiot and had no idea how the processes of decomposition actually worked. Even if you assume bodies never decompose, as you seem to be, tectonic movement is constantly destroying and renewing the earth's crust anyway. The land we're standing on was, in many cases, either underwater or floating around the earth's mantle 100,000 years ago. Preserved fishing villages are found in the himalayas miles away from any ocean.
quote:
If the Stone Age were categorized by the number of finds they have discovered, it would equal about 500 years...
It would equal about 500 years, if you grossly overestimate the survivability of archeologically signifigant material.
quote:
For that supposed 1,000,000,000 years the oceans are supposedly to have maintained a relatively constant salinity while life evolved from non-living material in it and, once formed by random chance, then life supposedly became more and more complex.
Incidentally, that "random chance" formation of amino acids has been duplicated in labratory conditions and may have happened over the course of a few days once the earth started developing atmospheric electrical discharges.
quote:
Salt enters the ocean through rivers, glaciers and volcanoes and vents both above and below the surface. A total of about 4% of that amount leaves the ocean every year through sea spray, and evaporation. That would be a 96% net gain of salt. If the oceans were a billion years old, the ocean would be much saltier than it is today.
If you ignore the tremendous amount of salt that is assimilated by chemosynthetic bacteria and other aquatic flora and fauna, that is.
quote:
Shown above is a section of the mountain range that goes all along the earths bottom, beneath the surface of the ocean. Unique to this mountain range is that right through the middle is a rift that separates the continental plates. Also unique are the horizontal lines going through it that appearing to be stretch marks. Evolutionists explain that the continents separated over billions of years, however, in Genesis, we see another possible answer.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. (E-sword v6.5 WEB, Gen. 7:11)
The Bible says that all of the fountains of the deep burst open. Basically, what it said was that the water that was below the ground, pushed out of the ground to get to the surface. Would it not make sense that if the water was pushing up, it was also pushing the ground apart? In which case, all the continents that were once close together were suddenly shoved apart. Also note the horizontal cracks going through the vertical rift in the floor. These very closely resemble stretch marks, which happen to women after giving birth, due to their rapid change in shape. Stretch marks only occur when there is a rapid change.
This is possibly the most idiotic excuse for an argument you've stated so far.
So science says it's tectonic plates separating, but the bible says it's something else. And we're to believe the bible...why? The scientific explanation has things like evidence, whereas the bible has an invisible bearded father figure floating around in the sky causing water to squirt out of a volcano. That's almost as stupid as saying "they look like stretch marks so they must be stretch marks". Oh yeah, by the way, I guess I should point out that ROCKS DO NOT STRETCH.
quote:
In 1976, a fossilized whale was found standing on its tale inside of a bed of diatomaceous earth (finely milled fossilized shells of minuscule organisms called diatoms) along with other marine mammals. Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick. - Jeff Dejong (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
The only explanation for a whale standing on its tale is that some worldwide catastrophe, such as the flood actually occurred. A dead whale would not stay in the same position for 50 million years as layers of dead fossils settled around it. The oceans movements would have caused it to move away from that spot long before the layers finished gathering around it.
If you look up "diatomaceous" you'll find that the only possible way for it to form is through millions of years of subaquatic settlement. If that whale had anything to do with a flood, it could not possibly be in diatomaceous earth. Incidentally, the existence of floods isn't contested by anyone, so the point is moot to begin with.
quote:
The Botanic Gardens in Australia have a Wollemi Pine tree on exhibit. Fossil records indicate that this tree died out millions of years ago. However, a specimen of this tree is sitting on display at the Botanic Gardens. (Dinosaur Tree Behind Bars)
How could a species of tree that was supposed to have died out millions of years ago still be around? Perhaps it is because the earth is actually much younger than that, and there are a few of these trees left.
Or perhaps the earth is actually millions of years old and there are a few of these trees left. The fact that a tree didn't die out when we thought it did doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the age of the world.
quote:
However, the red shift is not necessarily cause by an expanding universe. There are many ways that can make it appear that there is a red shift without the universe expanding at all.
There are many ways that can make it appear that there is a red shift and absolutely no reason to believe any of them over the big bang theory, since they're all incredibly unlikely. No, the red shift isn't even, it's not supposed to be since the earth was not in the center of the big bang.
quote:
One of the ways is that God could have created the sun, moon, and stars with all of the waves of light already interconnected. Another is Einsteins theory that space is curved, thus enabling light to travel a 15 billion light year difference in only a few thousand years.
What the fuck are you talking about?
quote:
Yet another way is through use of the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that everything degrades over time. If this law applies to everything, then should it not also apply to the speed of light? The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today.
Wouldn't explain the uneven redshift that you yourself used as an argument a couple paragraphs back. Self-contradiction ahoy!
quote:
By looking at spiral galaxies, and the fact that they are still around today, we see that the Universe is indeed very young. While the center of a spiral galaxy spins at a constant speed, its arms are spinning at a slower rate, thus causing the spiral.
Flat out WRONG. The arms of spiral galaxies spin at exactly the same rate as the rest of the galaxy, as if the galaxy were painted on a disc. Science cannot yet explain why this is, and it the subject of the unrelated "dark matter" debate, but it is observable fact.
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Pvednes all over myself!
Why'd you bother?
Because telling someone he's humiliating himself isn't as funny as showing him why he's humiliating himself. 
Besides, it's a good mental exercise, and I usually wind up learning something, myself.
quote:
Incidently, the maximum human life span is approximately 120 years. Which hammers the point home further, but oh well...
Oh, is that when you run out of telomerase? Or is that due to some other problem?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Oh, is that when you run out of telomerase? Or is that due to some other problem?
Telomerase is the enzyme. We effectively run out of that at about 45 years of age, when the thymus has mostly degraded. The issue is the telomeres, which, without our lovely immortality granting Human Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase shorten upon any division, and our cells reach their Hayflick limit and we die. Then there's the problem of buildup of free radicals, etc... I'll be able to give you a MUCH more detailed and educated description this time next year, heh. For the moment just general knowledge.. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 11:50 AM.
quote:
theravenofcu had this to say about Duck Tales:
you people take things waay to seriously. for one thing, I never actually stated whether I believed it or not, I just posted it to do exactly what it did, generate discussion. the quickest way to do so is to post something that most people disagree with, whether you yourself agree with it or not.
Dude! Bullshit comes out of his mouth! I've never seen that before.
quote:
theravenofcu had this to say about Robocop:
you people take things waay to seriously. for one thing, I never actually stated whether I believed it or not, I just posted it to do exactly what it did, generate discussion. the quickest way to do so is to post something that most people disagree with, whether you yourself agree with it or not.
This is a rookie mistake. Evasive maneuvers don't work here.
If you had not believed what you wrote, you would have said so. If I say, "Pie is good." Then you can assume that I like pie. If you read this, we can assume that you believe it.
Now, you're just trying to wriggle out of taking your licks.
quote:
Pvednes wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Telomerase is the enzyme. We effectively run out of that at about 45 years of age, when the thymus has mostly degraded. The issue is the telomeres, which, without our lovely immortality granting Human Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase shorten upon any division, and our cells reach their Hayflick limit and we die. Then there's the problem of buildup of free radicals, etc...I'll be able to give you a MUCH more detailed and educated description this time next year, heh. For the moment just general knowledge..
I'm certain that's wrong...okay time to look it up.
quote:
theravenofcu was naked while typing this:
you people take things waay to seriously. for one thing, I never actually stated whether I believed it or not, I just posted it to do exactly what it did, generate discussion. the quickest way to do so is to post something that most people disagree with, whether you yourself agree with it or not.
Ding ding ding ding!
Well look at that, someone went and triggered the 'Lame Copout' alert.
