Mount Everest and the Age of the earth

[Canuckster1127]

Himan etc.
I said geology. Not haveing geologic evidence is my whole point. However you had a few.
The continents moving is not evidence of how they got to their present position. Creationism accepts and loves continental evidence of movement. We just say it was fast during the flood year. Your not witnessing the movement but only extrapolating back from perceived movement today. The movement today could be just a settling issue or a rocking back and forth or minor directional movement from the vestiges of the engine that broke the land up.
To me it is more obvious that the continents separated exactly as we see them. A sudden breakup.
You have no evidence here for a old earth but mere interpretation of data. No science method here going on.

The ice or any thing like this again was not witnessed and can be dismissed as evidence because other ideas for the varves etc can be thought up. This is not scientific evidence as it can not be tested. Any thing like this can have variables affecting in the unobserved past.

These are not killer points or even very good. Entry level too. Why should anyone be persuaded by these that there is geological evidence for a old earth. Its all untestable and premused to bits.

Do you think that "Creationism" as you're using it means only Young Earth Creationists?

[NewCreature2]

And you don't know if Genesis was just an abstract story of what REALLY happened. It sure doesn't sound like a detailed or intellectual account as it has few details and no explanations on how things got the way they are today. I ask you, how would God explain modern scientific processes to an ancient Man who knew nothing of anything besides that they lived in the Middle East (if they even called it that back then).

Nor do you know. I think that the things states in Genesis REALLY happened. I feel that the details needed are included and that it explains why we have intellectual endeavors. I have no desire to speak for God or explain how he might have done things if he were me. Isn't that anthropomorphizing God? Provide any rational and logical evidence that man knew nothing at that time, or has more capacity now than at some other time in history. It is irrefutable that the further we go back in history the newer systems and organisms were. It is further known that the second law of thermodynamics would have worked on these systems. Is it not logical and reasonable to propose that man could have been more intelligent in the past and been prone to fewer problems?

I don't place my faith in scietific theory, not my own feeble attempts at explanation, nor popular science.

so, all of the evidence means nothing to you? If God created us in his image and yet you have no faith whatsoever in the reasoning/thinking process of your fellow man, then you should have an equal lack of faith in Man's ability to interpret the Bible correctly.

Evidence is everything. It is really all we know. Explanation and theorizing are a direct result of reasoning/thinking processes. Where is it written that all men are created equal? While USA governing documents allude to equality in God's eyes, it is readily apparent that all people are not created equally with respect to a range of given abilities. It would seem this suggests that man's reasoning/thinking processes are not perfect, and perhaps he will develop flawed theories. My faith in the ability of man to interpret the Bible is not faith in man at all but faith in God and His Spirit.

But to reject it all out of hand is ignoring the mountains of evidence that point to an old Earth. The age of the Earth was not always the same. It started out being thousands, then millions, then billions, and we've finally set the limit at 4.6 billion (not 6). This value, and all the values in between, are supported by radiometric dating, rock composition, fossil composition, and also the rates of plate movement. Plate tectonics has been proven to occurr as we can see plates subducting and rifting right now. Extrapolation of those movements is perfectly OK because those rates have no, and could not have changed in the past. If you think they can, please tell me how they could have?

There isn't a shred of evidence that points to an old earth, and to even suggest that there is simply and clearly demonstrates your bias in interpretations of future “evidence”. The only things pointing to an old earth or a young earth are actions of reasoning and thinking that create structural models. There is a simple axiom within science, generated by great minds of the past that says, “The simplest explanation is most likely to be true”. I will leave that in response to your mountains of evidence those are reams from discussions of evidence. The age of the earth is not a function of generally accepted scientific theory of the day. The rest of your paragraph deserves your own answer.

very true... it is a common YEC fallacy to use current rates to assume past ages.

Please explain why individual plates have not and can not change speed
Also radiometric dating, rock composition, fossil composition, and drifting rates, are all interpretations and not really evidence of anything. Did you have some specific rediometric date, rock formation, fossil, or plate movement you would like to refer too?

I find it funny that you say "conclusions don't make evidence" and you are attempting to defend YEC! YEC is the poster-child for this fallacy. Science is forced to extrapolate into the past because we can't possible confirm the past in the present. This is perfecly logical to do because we base our extrapolations off of what we see right now. That's the best we can do. Scientists don't pull names/dates out of a hat, they are well supported by evidence.

I would suggest that what we see right now is not a reliable predictor of what might be happening in a different environment or period in history. I wouldn't suggest dates are pulled out of a hat, but that they are created by structural models that determine how interpretations will be made. I don't reject evidence, or reason, or logic, but I do reject structural models based mostly on philosophy. Science has become less of the exacting and strict application of reason in a dualistic world that we would see in Aristotle, Descartes, and Newton, and more of an art form in best how to interpret all evidence presumming an age of 4.6 billion years. This is the ilk of the uniform geology, material monism, present is the key to the past, evolutionary structural model.

If you reject science for these reasons, then you must reject YEC for the same reason. If you accept YEC, then you can't criticize OEC or evolution for that same reason or you make yourself a hypocrit.

Which reasons? I don't accept or reject any theory. Theories are not an accept or reject question they are simple suppositions and explanations from an imperfect organism with no first hand knowledge of the actual truth of many things. Science is not a collection of theories, but a process of discovery. Reams of conclusions and supposition are not science, they are the art form of interpreting what science has provided.

YEC ALSO lacks the present-day evidence so they must make up even wilder stories (runaway subduction, canopy theory, hydroplate) with no evidence or even a feasible mechanism! Again, YEC is based on the unproven theories you speak of. If YEC and Old Earth are wrought by the same problems, then what do you suppose we do about learning about our past? Is there a better alternative that has provable evidence?

Every theory of the beginning, except one, lacks a feasible mechanism. God by his very Word created the earth and the heavens, and it has always been here from mans finite perspective. I simply question what direct observation requires the earth to be 4. Such and such billion years old? IT may be young, it may be old, but the feasible mechanism transcends science, so I would agree there is no reliable method to discern these things within science.

And the fossil thing is very good evidence. The Tethys Sea extended across several of the current continents and they had a distinctive shallow-water fauna. If Everest is capped by these fossils, it is logical to assume that the peak of Everest rose out of the Tethys Sea. Ignoring dates altogether, we know that this Tethys fauna was distinct from fossils found in the time of the dinosaurs and also distinct from fossils found in the current Indian Ocean. From levels of sea level rise and fall associated with Ice Ages we can place the Tethys in a certain timeframe. From the current rates of plate drift, we can extrapolate that movement back when India and Asia collided. Since the plate movment, fossil, and dating methods all agreed to a timeframe given, it is reasonable to conclude that it happened in that fashion.

Yes I see it is possible to explain things within this framework. Please provide more specifics about what you propose here. Are you saying that at some point several continents were submerged? Would it not also be correct to observe that at some point the region called the Tethy's sea was at some point as high as Everest? We do not know that Tethy's fauna is distinct from fossils found in the time of dinosaurs; that is an interpretation. We may be able to find out with more specific and wide spread information that we do not find that specific shallow water fauna in many places were we find large dinosaur fossils. As to what age we place on that particular rock formation, that is also an interpretation. Please explain how Levels of sea level rise and fall in association with Ice ages places a date on the region. It seems clear that sea level and ice content are related systems. If a purple baboon laid a golden egg sea level change and ice sheet content would be related. Please explain.

From the current rates of plate drift, we can extrapolate that movement back when India and Asia collided. Since the plate movment, fossil, and dating methods all agreed to a timeframe given, it is reasonable to conclude that it happened in that fashion.

Again answer yourself

very true... it is a common YEC fallacy to use current rates to assume past ages.

Please show how each: the plate movements, the fossil record, and the radiometric dating methods independently show the time and speed of Everest formation.

[Himantolophus]

Nor do you know. I think that the things states in Genesis REALLY happened. I feel that the details needed are included and that it explains why we have intellectual endeavors. I have no desire to speak for God or explain how he might have done things if he were me. Isn't that anthropomorphizing God?

fine, that's alright if you don't want to "play God" and I don't expect you to answer. That is my point however. Genesis may mean something OTHER than the interpretation you have.

Provide any rational and logical evidence that man knew nothing at that time, or has more capacity now than at some other time in history. It is irrefutable that the further we go back in history the newer systems and organisms were. It is further known that the second law of thermodynamics would have worked on these systems. Is it not logical and reasonable to propose that man could have been more intelligent in the past and been prone to fewer problems?

yes, we are the same "Homo sapiens" as we were back then with the same brains. But those people living from 2000 BC- 0 AD were nowhere near modern man in the sciences. These people had basic Bronze Age technology, practiced basic agriculture, and had ethnocentric ideologies.
They weren't stupid, they just hadnt learned yet. Yes, these cultures were developing over time and there were great minds that were around then, but they were not able to fully grasp scientific ideas. Even the most brilliant were unable to fully unravel our place in the Universe or evolution. Even if God wanted to tell His followers about the Universe's complexity and genetics, we wouldn't have bothered since it was way over their heads. It's like describing physics to a 2nd grader! Proof of this is the fact that it took hundreds of more years before science was learned (by trial and error). To put it simply, they accepted the Genesis story and YEC as literally true and the Church suppressed any "progress" (until the late 1700's and 1800's).

The archaeological evidence all shows a Bronze AGE culture with short lifespans, little technology, and basic housing/infrastructure. Can you show me evidence that these people were any more sophisticated than the history books tell us? The most sophisticated thinkers in the ancient world (<0 AD) were polytheists (Greeks, Romans) or Buddhists (Chinese). We are focusing on the ancient Christians who would have written the Bible.

It would seem this suggests that man's reasoning/thinking processes are not perfect, and perhaps he will develop flawed theories. My faith in the ability of man to interpret the Bible is not faith in man at all but faith in God and His Spirit.

yeah, if a handful of scientists came up with evolution/Old Earth then you could say that maybe their "reasoning/thinking processes" were flawed. But the fact that the majority of the scientific community, with a heck of a lot of experience and education, has accepted the idea takes away your argument. The YEC's are the ones with flawed theories because 1. they are based off of a sotry that cannot be proven as true and 2. one that lacks any evidence whatsoever. So, who more likely has the "reasoning/thinking" flaws? The YEC's. Faith in God/His spirit will make your faith improve but not your reasoning/thinking... sorry.

There isn't a shred of evidence that points to an old earth, and to even suggest that there is simply and clearly demonstrates your bias in interpretations of future “evidence”. The only things pointing to an old earth or a young earth are actions of reasoning and thinking that create structural models. There is a simple axiom within science, generated by great minds of the past that says, “The simplest explanation is most likely to be true”.

Uh, common sense points to an Old Earth. You did not provide any evidence for your position. I put all of those examples on the table supporting Old Earth. Please tell me what proves a Young one? If your idea had any plausibility whatsoever, you could find something on Earth that could only happen on a young Earth. And if you are a YEC, you have to shoehorn it all into the history of human civilization (most of which is recorded history). Good luck with that!

"Simplest explanation"? Yeah, so thunder is God bowling in Heaven and rain is God crying? lol You know very well that the Universe is far too complex to be explained by the simplest explanation. YEC's criticize evolution as not explaining this complexity good enough. How do you intend to explain it all using the simplest explanation when it really isn't simple at all? Case in point, the Noah Story. It sounds good on paper but if you try and explain what we see on Earth using this "simple explanation", the story just falls apart.

Also radiometric dating, rock composition, fossil composition, and drifting rates, are all interpretations and not really evidence of anything. Did you have some specific rediometric date, rock formation, fossil, or plate movement you would like to refer too?

I am not saying INTERPRETATIONS are EVIDENCE, I am saying the EVIDENCE points to this INTERPRETATION. Big difference.
Isn't the former a YEC tactic?

all of that points to one conclusion, OLD Earth. Just look in any journal or textbook that looks at dating, geochronology, plate tectonics. Do you really want me to post an example? The fact that all of the evidence points to the same conclusion is powerful evidence. It explains what we see today perfectly. On the other hand, YEC has not explained anything yet.

Please explain why individual plates have not and can not change speed

thermodynamics. If you sped up plates that much it would generate so much heat that the oceans would heat up so much as to kill all the life in it. Fast plate tectonics also fails to explain the apparent great age of the ocean basins: the magnetic reversals set in basalt, the sediment patterns on the abyssal plain, the position and age of the Hawaiian Islands, erosion patterns of continents, the distribution of current organisms, the correlation of the fossil records on separate continents, and the interactions of plates. Care to explain all of this assuming a young Earth? Where is the geologic record of such a catastropic plate movement?

I would suggest that what we see right now is not a reliable predictor of what might be happening in a different environment or period in history.

I accept this as I still haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

I don't reject evidence, or reason, or logic, but I do reject structural models based mostly on philosophy. Science has become less of the exacting and strict application of reason in a dualistic world that we would see in Aristotle, Descartes, and Newton, and more of an art form in best how to interpret all evidence presumming an age of 4.6 billion years. This is the ilk of the uniform geology, material monism, present is the key to the past, evolutionary structural model.

Philosophy? Evolution/Old Earth emerged by the same processes of "strict application of reason" as were used by Aristotle, Archimedes, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin. I think Darwin's reasoning was reasoning in it's purest form. Evolution didn't even exist on paper and this man had the insight to use the evidence to explain what we see today on Earth. In the final years of the 19th century this reasoning continued in all different fields as the fallacy of YEC was exposed. The fact that YEC has been left behind by reason is your problem, not mine... Evolution/Old Earth is not a scientific conspiracy and if it is, I'd love to see the proof (start from Darwin's day and go from there).

P.S., the age of "4.6 billion years" is a fairly recent estimate. The age of the Earth has increased as we learned more over time so it makes no sesne to say that we started with an assumption of 4.6 by and made the evidence fit it.

You still have to face the fact that you start with a conclusion and fit evidence after. That's the worst thing you can do in science.

Theories are not an accept or reject question they are simple suppositions and explanations from an imperfect organism with no first hand knowledge of the actual truth of many things. Science is not a collection of theories, but a process of discovery.

Yes, it is a process of discovery but why do you assume that Man has not learned one thing in the last 2000 years in the field of science. If sciecne using the scientific method is obviously useless to you, then how do you suppose we find out about our past, present, and future. These same "theories" that Man has come up with are happening as we speak. Plate Tectonics, evolution, it's all happening right now!

You said you will not accept or reject science's theories on the premise that "no one was there". Then, by logic, you can't accept YEC either because it has the same exact problem. Where do we go now?

Every theory of the beginning, except one, lacks a feasible mechanism. God by his very Word created the earth and the heavens, and it has always been here from mans finite perspective.

All of the mechanism of Old Earth are realistic and based on current processes. So unless you think today's mechanisms are not actually existent, then they are perfectly acceptable mechanisms for the past.

So this same God placed all of this evidence around us just to keep us busy? Did He create an apparent Old Earth recently? For all we know, God didn't tell us jack and he's enjoying watching us come to the correct conclusion regarding our origins!

Please provide more specifics about what you propose here. Are you saying that at some point several continents were submerged?

I didn't say several. The Indian subcontinent was once further wouth and a sea existed between India and Asia (two masses on two plates. The Asian plate comprised a huge area and the Indo-Australian Plate contained India and other land masses. As India approached Asia, the continental rocks interacted with each other. As the areas got closer together, the deep ocean basin filled in with sediment from the two landmasses (river runoff) and also uplifted as the two masses collided slowly. The two granite masses were of equal mass so instead of subducting, the masses buckled and folded. The slow rate is evident by the transition from a deeper whater fauna to a shallow, bottom-dwelling fauna. The continents closed on each other over long periods of time and finally the old Tethys seafloor was lifted above sealevel. Some pockets and lakes existed until the whole landmass had fused. The Himalayas rose over the next several million years. The plates have done this at a constant slow rate and this continues to this day where My Everest continues to grow slowly. I'd need to see evidence in the rock of fast change to accept an alternate theory. A fast change would leave a footprint!

Would it not also be correct to observe that at some point the region called the Tethy's sea was at some point as high as Everest?

if Everest was once at sea level and below, as in not yet uplifted as a "mountain" then yes it was.

We do not know that Tethy's fauna is distinct from fossils found in the time of dinosaurs; that is an interpretation.

We do know. The Tethys fauna is more closely related to today's fauna than it is to the dinosaur's. You also do not find dinosaur fossils in the same strata (and there were many marine dinos). You'd need to find me a Tethys fossil and a dinosaur era fossil that are identical to each other to confirm contemporary status. They are different so that means different time.

We may be able to find out with more specific and wide spread information that we do not find that specific shallow water fauna in many places were we find large dinosaur fossils.

yes, we cannot find land dinosaur fossils with shallow sea fossils just by the habitat difference. But, we do know what dinosaur-era sea creatures looked like as they have been taken in Triassic-Cretaceous strata.

Please explain how Levels of sea level rise and fall in association with Ice ages places a date on the region. It seems clear that sea level and ice content are related systems. If a purple baboon laid a golden egg sea level change and ice sheet content would be related. Please explain.

I don't know what the purple baboon thing is but Ice core data allows us to see precipitation levels, CO2 levels, and atmospheric data and that allows us to interpret sea level changes. We can track the number and intensity of Ice Ages over the last few million years. While this might not be good for something 60 million years ago, this method of dating is reliable for things 100's of thousands of years in the past. This correlates very well with sea level data preserved in rock layers. Is there any other way to explain sea level rises and falls? Ice formation and melting is the only way to significantly change sea level in geologic time.
Look at a normal coastal stratum. Explain in ANY other way besides normal repetitive sea level falls and rises that you would get said stratum?

Again answer yourself

answer what? It all agrees and points to one conclusion.

Please show how each: the plate movements, the fossil record, and the radiometric dating methods independently show the time and speed of Everest formation.

it all does... it is common knowledge in the scientific community. Tectonics is happening, radiometric dating works and is used in a wide field of sciences, and the fossil record is set in stone (cannot be altered). Show me how all of this shows a Young Earth. The burden of proof is on you to prove your own theory.

[David Blacklock]

Hi NC2,

It appears to me you may have limited your investigations to literature that is put out by a YEC organization. I suggest you peruse an introductory geology text (or evolution, paleontology, etc.) and see what you find. You might be impressed with the intensity of the scientific investigations that have gone into data such as what Hman has presented to you. Every single clue in every subcategory of science has been scraped out with untold hours of gruntwork over a period of centuries. The idea of plate techtonics was fiercely opposed at first, until the US Navy found ultrasound evidence on the ocean floor during WWII that they weren't even looking for - that supported the theory of a rather brilliant scientist. He was more brilliant than diplomatic and that's what took his theory so long to gain acceptance. The techniques of radioactive dating are incredibly clever but require significant background in chemistry and physics for thorough understanding. Even some chemists and physicists will admit it's so weird they don't really understand it. To understand the magnetic stripes Hman mentioned requires background information about the "conveyor belt" mechanisms of the ocean floor. The majority or your own YEC friends, if they took a good introductory geology class, would gradually abandon their old theories by the end of the semester, IMHO. The thing is, the learning curves are somewhat steep. Common sense that will suffice in many of the humanities doesn't consistently work in the sciences. That's why the Bronze Agers couldn't figure out how things work in just a generation or two. People without much background in science (like most of our politicians, btw) are easy to mislead - but texts are available and easy to get. Easier to understand are books on the history of science and have easier to understand and less mathematical explanations - like Bill Bryson's "A Brief History of Everything."

Sorry to lecture, but I would recommend you widen your educational sources. You might like it.

DB

[Himantolophus]

I fully expect him to simply say "this is all based on the evolutionary/Old Earth bias that thew scientists have"

I wish one YEC would attempt to defend his own position with actual physical evidence. if their position was even a viable alternative, they should be able to throw tons of evidence on the table to back their argument up. Instead they go after radiometric dating, tectonics, rates of evolution, geochronology like scientists just pulled the numbers out of their head to fit Old Earth ideas.

Here's some questions:
1. Doesn't it say something that radiometric dating methods all agree with Old Earth? Even if you claimed 99% of them were flawed, that remaining 1% still shows that the Earth is older than 6000 years. We know how to date things and we know their decay rates, so wouldn't that lead to an age? How do you date a young Earth?
2. Plate tectonics are based on so many lines of evidence from actual measurements to seismic data, to fossil data, to the volcanic data, to the historical data. New discoveries always seem to fit perfectly into existing plate tectonics. Why should we believe otherwise? How does any Catastropic PT or hydroplate explain anything?
3. We know microevolution is occurring but where does microevolution end and macroevolution start? Isn't an accumulation of "microevolution" called macroevolution after a while? And what mechanism of evolution created all of those species after the Flood in 4000 years of history? And no human noticed this (they were living at the same time right?). What protected the humans from this rapid speciation? Why aren't there 100 species of humans like there are 100 species of antelope? Even if Darwinian-style evolution is found to be bogus, we know things have evolved and so there must be a mechanism we have yet to discover.
4. Geochronology is based simply on the order and position of fossils in the stratum. It was introduced by creationists who were trying to make sense of the rock layers. From the different faunas found in each rock and the often very different rock compositions, it was obvious that they were laid down in sequential order over time. Long time periods since we don't see rocks forming quickly in nature. The organisms also are arranged in order of complexity with some forms remaining in stasis. Is there any other valid conclusion from this evidence? A flood deposited strata would leave a completely different formation at odds with reality!

Newcreature2: you keep asking me to give you "data" supporting the stuff above. I could waste time Googling and posting common scientific knowledge but I ask you: "What is my alternative and what evidence do you have?" If you use the same evidence as I do, please explain how they support your position, please.