Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: 21) Home Schooling, Unschooling (Student-Directed Learning)  (Read 38768 times)

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Major Science Errors)
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2014, 10:38:02 am »

Proof against Dating of Continental Drift
This is one of the major errors from the previous message.

Continental drift very likely did occur, but it occurred very rapidly and very recently not gradually millions of years ago. See http://newgeology.us for details.

Coastal erosion and continental shelf sedimentation are proof against continental drift having occurred more than about 5,000 years ago.

This website, http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/coastalerosion.htm says: Average erosion rates are 6 feet per year along the Gulf and 2 to 3 feet per year along the Atlantic. [] Beatley, Brower, and Schwab (2002).

This video, http://youtube.com/watch?v=OCR6-nH3WMA , says coasts worldwide are eroding faster than the Atlantic coast is, so that would be more than 2 feet per year. It also says the continental shelves are gaining a few feet of sediment per year.

Conventional science claims that most continental drift occurred over 200 million years ago. But if erosion has been going on for all that time, the coasts would have eroded 380 miles in 1 million years and 3,800 miles in 10 million years. So the continents would have all eroded into the oceans within 20 million years and there would be no land above sea level.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 08:59:59 pm by Luck »
Logged

Terence

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
    • McGillespie.com
Re: Better Schooling (Major Science Errors)
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2014, 10:50:26 am »


Thanks for the resources in this thread, Luck. I especially like
The terse list of major science errors.

Terence
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2014, 04:20:36 pm »

See http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14844&start=120#p94169
I think Bible stories are largely symbolic rather than literal and that they're often greatly misinterpreted, but creationists seem to be much closer to the truth about geology, evolution etc than is conventional corporate science.

Evidence for Young Earth
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I posted more data here: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9754-11383-12775

The following are evidence of a Young Earth etc.

Civilization: Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago.
http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

Language: Similarities in languages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka).
http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics

Human Genome: The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with a recent human origin.
http://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis
http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible
http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdf

Y-Chromosome: Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world
http://creation.com/y-chromosome-adam

Racemization: Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
http://creation.com/shaking-hands-on-a-recent-creation

Fossils: Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. How could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example?
http://creation.com/correcting-the-headline-coelacanth-yes-ancient-no
http://creation.com/sensational-australian-tree-like-finding-a-live-dinosaur
http://creation.com/the-lazarus-effect-rodent-resurrection

Fossils: Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day.
http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days

Fossils: Polystrate fossils: tree trunks in coal. There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
http://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests
http://www.icr.org/pressing-on-for-creation
http://creation.com/forests-that-grew-on-water

Coal: Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. Long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
http://creation.com/coal-volcanism-and-noahs-flood

Oil: Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly.
http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form
Opals: and opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks.
http://creation.com/creating-opals

Petrified Wood: There is evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood.
http://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood

Rock Intrusions: Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when they formed.
http://creation.com/fluidisation-pipes-evidence-of-large-scale-watery-catastrophe

Strata: Para(pseudo)conformities, where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona.
http://creation.com/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time

Strata: The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one.
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth#paraconformities
and inter-tonguing of adjacent strata.
http://creation.com/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 04:48:54 pm by Luck »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2014, 04:49:28 pm »

More Evidence for Young Earth

Salt: The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake suggests an age of 4500 years.
http://creation.com/world-s-oldest-salt-lake-only-a-few-thousand-years-old

Rapid Sedimentation: The discovery that underwater landslides (‘turbidity currents’) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours.
http://creation.com/a-classic-tillite-reclassified-as-a-submarine-debris-flow

Canyons: Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form.
http://creation.com/canyon-creation
http://creation.com/a-canyon-in-six-days
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_45-46.pdf

Islands: Rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey.
http://creation.com/surtsey-the-young-island-that-looks-old
http://creation.com/tuluman-a-test-of-time

Coastal erosion: Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
http://creation.com/vanishing-coastlines
Highland Erosion: and the rate of erosion of continents vertically.
http://creation.com/eroding-ages

Mountain Gorges: Gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call ‘discordant drainage systems’.
http://creation.com/do-rivers-erode-through-mountains

River Valleys: River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly.
http://www.icr.org/quotes

Seafloor Magnetization: The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals.
Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).

C14: Carbon-14 in coal, oil, fossil wood and diamonds suggests ages of only thousands of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html
http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-in-conflict
http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend#objections

Isochrons: Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements.
http://creation.com/contra-rb-sr-dating
http://creation.com/the-failure-of-u-th-pb-dating-at-koongarra-australia

Zircons: Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘dates’.
http://creation.com/flaws-in-dating-the-earth-as-ancient

Zircons: Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons).
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs

Radiohalos: Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during rapid formation of the rocks.
http://creation.com/radiohalos-startling-evidence-of-catastrophic-geologic-processes-on-a-young-earth
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 04:51:36 pm by Luck »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2014, 05:21:30 pm »

Those articles aren't even internally consistent.  Just for an example, one claim that there is evidence in the Y chromosome to support the "Biblical account of a recent origin with a single pair of ancestors, Adam and Eve..."

Only problem, of course, is that such evidence would actually refute the Bible, since Genesis expressly states that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but rather were one particular pair of humans that Yahweh created as some sort of experiment or pets.  Apparently, the authors of the aticle, while claiming that it supports the Bible, have never actually read the Bible.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2014, 09:35:08 am »

OMG, poke my eyes out if I ever get it in my head to masochistically sift through all that tripe from creation.com but as a nuclear tech in the Navy, I had to study radiation fairly extensively so as soon as I saw mention of carbon-dating diamonds (*facepalm*), I had to wonder why the f**k would anyone talk about carbon dating something like a diamond? That makes NO sense. It's ONLY useful for dating things that we know were once alive. It tells us with incredible accuracy, up to 50,000 years (with current precision of measurement but it may increase with newer technology), how long ago the living cells in a material stopped continually replenishing their C14 content, i.e. when they DIED. Based strictly on the carbon dating of formerly living things and disregarding mounds of other evidence, we know factually that there were living things walking the Earth 50,000+ years ago.

Just watch a 1 minute video. These claims are relying on people to know only enough science to be dangerous. I guess we can thank our public schools for that.  ::) These poor folks desperately want to believe in something and they just want someone who appears professional and authoritative to reassure them. I clicked on just one of those C14 debunking links and it spews a bunch of confusing sciencey-sounding stuph that I couldn't even make sense out of followed by a "Conclusion". *facepalm* I don't know why they bother retyping the conclusion on each separate page as if it's going to be any different than the last one. They could just put "The Bible's right!" or "Exactly what you wanted to hear!".

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm
Quote
Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.

I hope it's encouraging to know that there are lots of people who manage to be Christians without clinging to ancient young-Earth creation myths in defiance of science.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 09:51:44 am by dalebert »
Logged

dalebert

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2014, 01:47:56 pm »

Study Concludes Oklahoma Biology Teachers Suck at Understanding Evolution

http://iacknowledge.net/study-concludes-oklahoma-biology-teachers-suck-at-understanding-evolution/

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2014, 08:48:40 am »

Read for Yourselves
Instead of taking Dalebert's words as truth, I encourage everyone to read the links above for yourselves. I've read them and I don't find fault with them the way he does. And I'm not prejudiced. I used to assume that conventional dating was correct until I studied the matter for myself. And I'm not a creationist. I don't believe the universe, or the Earth, or the biosphere were created 6 or 7,000 years ago. It's possible, but unlikely at this point. Earth's continents seem to be at least ten to twenty thousand years old since deposition (not creation).

Rock Strata Formed Rapidly
The evidence for this is in my previous post. Strata have been found scientifically to form quickly during simulated flooding. Flooding causes the strata to separate into layers. If each layer took thousands of years to accumulate and harden, the layer would erode greatly and the erosion would be visible between adjacent layers, where there would be many ditches. Instead, rock strata tend to be smooth and of fairly constant thickness over long distances.

Many rock strata, esp. in mountainous areas, have sharp bends without cracks, where the layers were all folded at the same time when the rock was still soft mud, sand, or lime. That could only happen at a rapid rate, not over thousands of years, because of erosion and hardening under pressure and cementing.

Dinosaur Bones
Several years ago it was found that dinosaur bone fossils contain intact proteins and other organic matter that should have disintegrated if they were millions of years old. Some dinosaur fossils (at least a dozen or so) have now been carbon dated between 20 and 30 thousand years.

Diamonds
Contrary to Dalebert's claims, I believe any material on Earth that contains carbon can be carbon-dated to show when the material hardened.
Logged

Sam Adams

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2014, 10:16:00 am »

         Science theory has always been changing, but Geology do try to use some time frame. The White Mountains have been studied through its Magma intrusions and possible North American plate moved westward. Then the evidence of glaciation forming the valleys and leaving the mountain peaks leave scientist to believe the area is 100 million years old. Maybe the oldest mountain range in the world because of its base size and evidence of massive erosion.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2014, 10:52:45 am »

Diamonds
Contrary to Dalebert's claims, I believe any material on Earth that contains carbon can be carbon-dated to show when the material hardened.

Dalebert's description is general, but accurate.  Radiocarbon dating doesn't date the age of carbon, or somesuch.  Radiocarbon dating is a very specific process that compares the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in a biological sample and compares it to the overall environmental ratio to determine how long the biological sample has been dead.

C-14 decays radioactively, but is constantly replenished in the atmosphere.  C-12 is stable, and does not decay.  Thus, the environmental ratio is fairly constant over time.

Any living plant or animal in the Earth's atmosphere constantly takes in fresh C-12 and C-14 from the atmosphere, so the ratio in a living entity is essentially identical to the environmental ratio.

Once that entity dies, it no longer brings in fresh carbon (as carbon dioxide in plants, or as carbon compounds in consumed plants, in animals).  Thus, the C-14 decays into nitrogen, with a half-life of 5730 years, constantly changing the ratio of C-12 to C-14.  By measuring the ratio in a dead sample and comparing it to the known environmental ratio, some extremely simple math results in the amount of time elapsed since the sample died.

It is literally impossible to use radiocarbon dating on something that was not once alive.  Nor can radiocarbon dating tell anything about how long something was alive before its death - all radiocarbon dating yields is the approximate date of death.  If some hypothetical tree lived for a million years, and died a thousand years ago, radiocarbon dating would give an age of a thousand years.  If someone makes a carving out of mammoth ivory, now, and someone two thousand years from now radiocarbon dates that carving, the answer will not be two thousand years, but would be something in excess (perhaps significantly in excess) or seven thousand years; the date that the mammoth died, not the date that the carving was made.  Use of fossil materials by craftsmen can make dating of archeological sites difficult.

If it was not once alive, it cannot be radiocarbon dated.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2014, 03:22:18 pm »

Diamonds
Since a sample of C14 decays by half every 5700 years, anything that contains measurable amounts of C14 cannot be more than about 60,000 years old. Therefore, diamonds which contain measurable C14 cannot be over that age (when they first formed from carbon), whereas conventional science claims they are a billion years old.

Mountains
Sam's claims that mountains are millions of years old ignores the facts against that which I just mentioned, i.e. no significant erosion evident between layers, experiments of rapid deposition of multiple layers in flooding, folding of strata without fracturing the rock in the folds (proving it was soft when it was folded, which included many layers all folded at once). Much of the evidence for former glaciation is actually better evidence for flooding instead. See my earlier main post for the list of evidence.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 03:28:06 pm by Luck »
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2014, 09:07:36 pm »

Diamonds
Since a sample of C14 decays by half every 5700 years, anything that contains measurable amounts of C14 cannot be more than about 60,000 years old. Therefore, diamonds which contain measurable C14 cannot be over that age (when they first formed from carbon), whereas conventional science claims they are a billion years old.

Where do you get that idea?  At 60,000 years, there would be around 0.5% of the original C-14 left.  So, the math does not support your claim.  But half-lives are not strictly mathematical.  It's a statistical measurement, so it's no longer valid once the sample size is below the threshold of statistical validity.  If I count a million humans, odds are that half a million will be male, and half a million will be female.  If I take a sample of five humans, there's no way to predict how many will be male and how many female - if I happened to select from NFL players, the sample could contain five males and no females.

Atoms that are radioactively decaying in proximity to each other influence the rate at which their neighbors decay.  Once you get below a certain density, that no longer occurs, and the statistical half-life no longer applies.  Atoms may take longer and longer to decay.

Of course, the claims fall even flatter since no one has actually detected measurable C-14 in any diamond.  Oh, a geiger counter will click if near a diamond, but it will also click if near a glass window, a cup of tea, a plaster wall, your hand, or absolutely anything else, since there's this thing called "background radiation" that results from cosmic rays.  It's called background radiation because it's always present, everywhere on earth.  The levels of C-14 that folks are claiming to have detected are within the range of background radiation, which means that it's literally impossible to actually measure anything there.  Once you get down to that level, background radiation eliminates all possibility of getting an accurate result, because you cannot separate your result from the background.  So, anyone claiming to detect C-14 at those levels is being dishonest.

Additionally, Creationists will make claims regarding other materials (oil, etc.) containing C-14 levels indicating young age.  That ignores both the fact that C-14 is regularly produced by natural irradiation due to radioactive mineral deposits (uranium, etc.) and, perhaps even more importantly, that they are generally measuring K-40, not C-14.  K-40 has a half-life of well over a billion years, as opposed to C-14's 5730 years.  Doesn't take much K-40 to screw up the measurement when the levels under discussion are low.

Incidentally, much as the C-12 to C-14 ratio is useful for dating biological samples, the K-40 to Ar-40 ratio is useful for dating geological samples.  Argon does not naturally occur within minerals, so any argon that is present must necessarily be due to radioactive decay of K-40.  A "fresh" geological sample of a potassium-containing mineral would have some amount of K-40, and no argon of any sort.  Over time, some K-40 becomes Ar-40.  The amount of argon in the sample will yield its age.

Because of K-40's extremely long half-life, Potassium-argon dating does not even begin to be useful until the sample is more than a hundred thousand years old.  That's the minimum age that it can measure, and it's already older than the 60,000 you claim as a maximum.

The various isotope dating methods are useful in varying ranges and types of material, but the end result is that it can be proven that the planet is billions of years old, because rocks of that age have been dated.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Matter Is Made of Photons)
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2014, 08:35:24 am »

(Original Post for Young Earth links: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=16789.msg293761#msg293761 )
- First, re Carbon Dating: MS's info does not disprove the Young Earth findings. Of course, any scientist can make wrong conclusions if they use sloppy procedures. But it hasn't been proven that C14 scientists do that. Radioactive dating that shows long ages has been proven unreliable. One of the best evidence is coastal and continental erosion. At the current rates of erosion the continents would all erode completely below sea level within 20 million years and the seafloors would have deep deposits of sediment. The seafloors have very little sediment.
- Continental Drift. The most comprehensive theory of formation of Earth's surface is at http://NewGeology.us . The author is probably a creationist, but his theory doesn't rely on creationist belief. His evidence indicates that Earth was struck by an asteroid some 4 to 14 thousand years ago, which broke up the former supercontinent, pushing the Americas over 2,000 miles away from Eurasia and Africa in a matter of a day or so and building up the world's mountain ranges in the process, as well as causing the Great Flood and the formation of sedimentary and other rock strata with many fossils.

- Matter from Photons. Miles Mathis shows well how matter is made of photons at http://MilesMathis.com . He also shows how conventional Math and Physics have made many errors and he corrects many of the errors. His explanation of gravity is likely incorrect, since he says it's an acceleration of matter due to expansion. Expansion would require internal matter being constantly created at an accelerating rate in order to push the expansion and space would have to expand at the same rate in order for the expansion not to be detectable. Except for that and a few other likely errors in his papers, he does a good job of explaining how photons likely form subatomic particles, which form atoms that mostly spin and must be balanced in order to remain stable. Instead of electrons orbiting atomic nuclei, they orbit the poles of protons, but, since the atom spins, all of the subatomic particles rotate around the center of the atom as it spins.
- Photon Spin. He considers that a photon can rotate around a point on its surface, but I think that's unlikely, unless it pairs up with a second photon, so they both rotate around the point of contact, kind of like a propeller. He also says photons have mass and radius, which I agree with, because otherwise they surely couldn't exist and could not react with electrons etc.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 10:43:40 am by Luck »
Logged

Bazil

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • not the spice and not the country
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2014, 10:50:43 am »

Anyone who sides with the "young earth" group is doing more harm than good to their own cause.  Because they will be disproved and that will only damage people's faith.  Let me explain:

[Flaming rant]
I don't know what's with all these young earth theories.  Especially when people try to use them to back up religious ideas of the age of the Earth.  I'm quite a religious person and I think other religious people who try to prove the earth is young are wasting their time and are very short sighted.  Do you know why God put us here?  So He would have beings that truly wanted to be with Him.  If scientists had started looking at the age of the earth and the universe and saw "yep made 6k years ago exactly as the Bible describes" there would be no atheists and very few people would reject God.  There would be no choice in the matter we'd have to accept God whether we liked it or not.  That would not be a true test and would moot the whole point.

Furthermore these people who try to simplify the universe because "God didn't need to make the universe as big or as old as people think it is just for us."  Why do some people think the universe isn't really what it looks like, that it's just some illusion?  They forget, God is omniscient and omnipotent, it's just as easy for Him to make a proton as it is for Him to make a universe so vast and complex we can not understand it.  So even if God wanted to create just one gnat why wouldn't He create the universe we see now around it for that bug to live in?  A universe that was self sustaining, billions of light years across and worked in every detail, no smoke and mirrors... It makes no sense that He wouldn't!  It's just as easy for Him to make that universe as any.

People shouldn't see the grandeur of time and the universe as evidence that God doesn't exist, but as a testament to the power and love of God.  That He would make a place more vast than we could imagine just for us.
[/Flaming rant]
Logged
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" -  a friend

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Better Schooling (Evidence for Young Earth)
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2014, 01:25:47 pm »

Anyone who sides with the "young earth" group is doing more harm than good to their own cause.  Because they will be disproved and that will only damage people's faith. 
Anyone who sides with propaganda over open-minded objectivity is doing more harm than good. I mentioned that I'm not a creationist, but their evidence is much better than conventional "science". I've stated what the major evidence is that I know of, but the disagreers don't state such evidence, but merely ignore it. I also don't believe the whole Earth is young. I believe the Earth's surface is young. As for the rest of the Earth below the surface crust, it may be considerably older. I don't know of any way to determine that as yet, but the surface age can be determined as explained earlier.

Interesting Mathis Quote
I just read one of Mathis' latest papers at http://milesmathis.com/poll.pdf in which he says at the end:
From the amount of absurdity in the polywater [controversy], including the involvement of military, any sensible person quickly comes to the conclusion that there was a cover-up. In this way, it is likely Feynman was simply hired by the Pentagon to supply misdirection. I have no idea what use the military is putting polywater—and don't much care—but surely they have figured out by now that charge channeling is involved. Perhaps this is just one more reason that physics is claiming ignorance of charge. It may be that the entire charge field has become a military secret. It won't be long before all knowledge becomes a military secret, and you are left holding nothing but a bag of lies [a.k.a. mainstream science].
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7   Go Up