Evidence for God from Science

So far, I haven't not read very many supportive posts in favor of mine. I have come to the conclusion that there aren't to many "young earth" people within this forum. I have also come to the conclusion that many here do not desire to change their views or except opossition to "old earth" teachings. That is simply my observation.

Now, let me once again stir the pot. ( I love doing that )

My mind is open to alternatives to my thinking. It is not life or death that I am right or wrong. However, I have seen evidences that would support why the earth is young and I think those factors should play a significant role in debats, not be simply tossed asside. I do not toss aside thearies of Old Earth. I enjoy the discussions.

That being said. Let's start by adressing ( this might be a surprise) the reasons why earth can not be "YOUNG". I would like comments on this.

Hi Tyler,

The reason that there are not many YECs here is that they either change their mind and become OECs, or they are unwilling or unable to deal with the evidence supporting an old age for the earth.

In answer to your question here are some of the common methods used to date the earth:
* Amino Acid Racimization
* Cosmic Ray Reactions (C136)
* Crustal Rocks
* Deep Sea Manganese Nodule Growth
* Dendritic Crystals
* Diffusion Processes
* Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy
* Faunal Tufts
* Fission Track Dating
* Geochronology
* Heavy Elements (samarium fission)
* Magma (deep sea magnetometers)
* Magnetic Stratigraphy (mammal beds)
* Magnetopolography
* Mineral Columns
* Oxygen Isotopes (deep polar core O18/O16)
* Paleomagnetism (volcanic rock)
* Paleontology
* Plate Tectonics
* Radioactive Processes
* Skeletal Layers (e.g. devonian corals)
* Spawning Bands (e.g. clam fossils)
* Tektite Distributions

Hope that helps.

August has taken care of your first comment quite well.
The second part is about people not being willing to change their minds or accept opposition.
You haven't really given anyone a chance. You flit from topic to topic and never discuss anything in detail. Rome wasn't built in a day. If you want to convince anyone of your views, you're going to have to put a little more effort into it.
I suggest going back and picking one or two topics you have raised and sticking with them for awhile, at least until you understand why others hold the views they do.
[Of course, often explaining the facts in detail to these people doesn't work either. ]

tyler_demerhcant wrote: Let's start by adressing ( this might be a surprise) the reasons why earth can not be "YOUNG".

That's an excellent choice. The science involved is much simpler than in the evolution disagreements. High school chemistry/physics should be enough to intelligently discuss the ideas involved.

August wrote:* Radioactive Processes

This method gives precise numbers. Do any of the others (some I have never heard of)?

My problem is I don't know enough about what I am discussing.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... metric.asp

I came across this, what should be thought about these statements?

Let's pause for a moment to reflect on rediometric dating from both view points.

Here are two references Kurieuo provided:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/po ... ml&t#20961

tyler_demerhcant wrote:My problem is I don't know enough about what I am discussing.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... metric.asp

I came across this, what should be thought about these statements?

The problem with this is that determining an estimate for a date is more a problem solving venture rather than just a device which magically displays a date.

Imagine your in a room with a dripping faucet and the sink is clogged. You can estimate the time the sink clogged by measuring the average amount of water per drip and dividing it into the amout of water in the sink.

This will work for this case, assuming there was no water in the sink to begin with.

But then you cannot go to someones glass of water,
and measure the amount of water and divide the drip volume into this volume,
and then exclaim that it took 4 hours to pour this persons glass of water.

This is exactly what RATE is doing. They are applying the methods without first determining if the method is applicable in a specific case.

For example carbon dating can only reliably date something back to 50,000 years. Something 4 million years old would look virtually identical to something 500,000 years old. You can't use this technique for something so old.

To go back to the analogy it would be like using the sink technique for a volume of water which would take months to accumulate. This calculation would not work due to evaporation.

Keep in mind that many of the dates estimated are due to multiple dating techniques, applied with the specific situation in mind. One cannot just apply dating techniques willy-nilly hoping for a reasonable estimate.

For more info check out this thread.

On a lighter note.
The best dating technique is to be honest...
Multiple dating is usually frowned upon.


and don't take her to cheap place like McDonalds on the first date.

When Jesus fed the four thousand, there appeared loaves of bread and fishes that were not there for more than a minute, but I would imagine that they had every appearance of being normal loaves and fishes. If you were to analyze one of those fishes with modern testing methods, what do you think you would conclude about the age of that fish?

Tim S wrote:When Jesus fed the four thousand, there appeared loaves of bread and fishes that were not there for more than a minute, but I would imagine that they had every appearance of being normal loaves and fishes. If you were to analyze one of those fishes with modern testing methods, what do you think you would conclude about the age of that fish?

They definitely would not look a minute old.
=D

Tim S wrote:When Jesus fed the four thousand, there appeared loaves of bread and fishes that were not there for more than a minute, but I would imagine that they had every appearance of being normal loaves and fishes. If you were to analyze one of those fishes with modern testing methods, what do you think you would conclude about the age of that fish?

Help me understand, is it your contention that God made the earth to appear old when it fact it isn't?

Can we please stay on topic here please.

So let's say that Radiometric dating is correct (this being an ssumption as all things are assumptions.)

THis would prove that the earth is very old.

One more question, can radiometrics be watched and observed, or is the process based on theary that is proven consistant. FOr example, the theary of 4 billion loaves of bread minus 3 billion loaves of bread would equal 1 billion loaves of bread. While we could not observe this process, science of math shows us that this would be correct. That is an example. Can the process be observed within a short time or is it a consistantly proven theary( like the fact that the sun contains hydrogen)

August wrote:

Tim S wrote:When Jesus fed the four thousand, there appeared loaves of bread and fishes that were not there for more than a minute, but I would imagine that they had every appearance of being normal loaves and fishes. If you were to analyze one of those fishes with modern testing methods, what do you think you would conclude about the age of that fish?

Help me understand, is it your contention that God made the earth to appear old when it fact it isn't?

Well, I do believe this is "on topic", but I think it is foolish to think that God could not, and presumptuous to think that God would not.
At the same time, I reside in neither "young earth" or "old earth" camps. 1Corinthians 1:20 compels me to proceed with caution.

My hobby is astronomy. It is understandable that a secular scientist would conclude a +15 billion year old universe given that the light from the most distant visible luminous object would require that long to reach us. If it was God's pleasure to create the stars and galaxies and have their light pinging earth simultaneously, then the use of "C" as a means of dating the age of the universe becomes irrelevant.

In the same vein, if God decide to create the earth with Carbon isotopes already in an advanced state of decay, then, although technically valid, radiometric dating becomes irrelevant.

I simply don't know which way it happened. My God is a a lot more than just a bit clever.

Tim S wrote:

August wrote:

Tim S wrote:When Jesus fed the four thousand, there appeared loaves of bread and fishes that were not there for more than a minute, but I would imagine that they had every appearance of being normal loaves and fishes. If you were to analyze one of those fishes with modern testing methods, what do you think you would conclude about the age of that fish?

Help me understand, is it your contention that God made the earth to appear old when it fact it isn't?

Well, I do believe this is "on topic", but I think it is foolish to think that God could not, and presumptuous to think that God would not.
At the same time, I reside in neither "young earth" or "old earth" camps. 1Corinthians 1:20 compels me to proceed with caution.

My hobby is astronomy. It is understandable that a secular scientist would conclude a +15 billion year old universe given that the light from the most distant visible luminous object would require that long to reach us. If it was God's pleasure to create the stars and galaxies and have their light pinging earth simultaneously, then the use of "C" as a means of dating the age of the universe becomes irrelevant.

In the same vein, if God decide to create the earth with Carbon isotopes already in an advanced state of decay, then, although technically valid, radiometric dating becomes irrelevant.

I simply don't know which way it happened. My God is a a lot more than just a bit clever.

I can accept what you are saying and respect it.

The question, however, is not what God is capable of doing. The question is what is consistent with his nature.

I do not believe God purposely designed nature to deceive us. In fact, while natural revelation is not sufficient to salvation, it is part of the premise that God established to show forth His power and His glory.

I do maintain some caveat in my own thinking to remember that God's nature and wisdom is greater than mine and that I do not have it all figured out.

However, the evidence of the age of the universe is such that I don't belive that question is in doubt. God is not a deceiver. I have wide open questions in the areas of evolution, which I believe are nowhere near as clear. Frankly, I think there are very many unanswered questions and room for mysteries in many areas related to this.

The simple age of the universe though, I am as close to settling in my mind as anything. God is not a deceiver.