Home » Forums » The Sciences » Science

Need help with Young Earth rubbish!

Posted on: November 28, 2007 - 6:47am
matthewtole
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Need help with Young Earth rubbish!

Hi guys,

Someone I know has just posted this link on Facebook, and I was hoping I could get some help from some smart people here on the RRS forums in responding to what is obviously just Young Earth bullshit.

Some of it is easy enough to just laugh at; I mean who uses this as evidence:

"The first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica in 1771 gives the age of the earth as thousands of years, and describes the global Flood of Noah as a real historical event. "

And everything after that is just the usual Christian literalist nonsense about creation and the Fall and sin. But the first half of the document gives a lot of evidence of failings with dating methods that I don't know how or where to start looking up.

The article also seems to fail to actually mention any evidence for Young Earth theories, just claiming that "Believe it or not, there is a lot of geological evidence that suggests the rocks formed rapidly and that the world is young, as the Bible says."

 

So, can you wonderful people give me any help with this BS?

 

Matthew Tole

Matthew Tole

‹ CreationWiki... (Not for the faint of heart) See-through frogs! ›

Posted on: November 28, 2007 - 9:55am #1
zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
dumbass site wrote:

dumbass site wrote:
For example, wood from sandstone near Sydney, Australia, supposedly 230 million years old, gave an age of 34,000 years using carbon dating.

Idiots used the wrong type of dating. carbon dating goes back only to about 50000 years iirc

 

dumbass site wrote:
Wood from Jurassic rocks in the UK, said to be 190 million years old, gave an age of 24,000 years using carbon dating.

Same as above

 

Quote:
When Mount St Helens exploded on 12 June 1980 it buried parts of the surrounding countryside under six metres of ash. The sediment contained fine laminations and looked like it had been deposited over thousands of years.1
 

Yea sure it did, the fact is that volcanic eruptions fucking look different then regular rock.

 

Quote:
A company in the USA will use the ashes from the cremation of your loved one and transform them into a diamond in weeks.
 

As my geology teacher has sad this is a huge scam, when they burn you they burn off all the carbon as carbon dioxide. I don't see how this is relevent

 

Quote:
The idea that the world is billions of years old is not a modern scientific ‘discovery’. Scientists cannot measure the age of the earth directly but base their estimate on how they imagine the world formed.
 

What a load of fucking shit. We base it on things like meterorites andteh ages of the oldest rock we have dumfucks

 

Quote:
he global Flood in Noah’s day, 1700 years after Adam and Eve, explains the fossils in the geological strata—so those billions of dead creatures died after the first man sinned (not millions of years before).
 

No it doesn't, it doesn't explain how the hell it sorted the fossils in the order it did.

 

Quote:
Ten-year-old rock from a volcanic lava flow on Mount St Helens, USA, gave a radiometric age of 350,000 years. Minerals from the same samples gave an age of 2.8 million years. So which date do you choose?

Um what fucking dating method did they use? 

 

Ok enough YEC for me for right now  


Posted on: November 29, 2007 - 12:10am #2
triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
http://talkorigins.org/

http://talkorigins.org/

The explainations aren't always as thorough as one might like, but they cite sources for further investigation.

Also, human knowledge has come a long way since 1771. These are the same people quoting a 2000 year old document as fact, sheesh. 

-Triften

 


Posted on: November 29, 2007 - 4:02am #3
D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
"The first edition of

"The first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica in 1771 gives the age of the earth as thousands of years, and describes the global Flood of Noah as a real historical event. "

 Seriously, is it even necessary to respond to a knuckle dragger who makes these sorts of comments?  That same edition makes no reference to the U.S. Constitution so I guess he'd conclude that America is still a British colony.

The guy is clearly a fanatic so you can probably find more useful things to do with your time than conversing with him.  No matter what evidence you present he'll ignore it and just move onto a different point.