Evidence for God from Science

Anyone heard this guy speak before.
Always considered myself an Old Earth Creationist but this has certainly got me thinking. I'm not sold on the concept just yet, but it has raised some compelling questions.

Just watched Part 1 (Age of the Earth) of a series of six videos, and will be moving on to Part 3 next which deals with dinosaurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

There's a related topic on geological dating here:
http://crev.info/content/111117-discove ... cal_dating

Stu wrote:Anyone heard this guy speak before.
Always considered myself an Old Earth Creationist but this has certainly got me thinking. I'm not sold on the concept just yet, but it has raised some compelling questions.

Just watched Part 1 (Age of the Earth) of a series of six videos, and will be moving on to Part 3 next which deals with dinosaurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

There's a related topic on geological dating here:
http://crev.info/content/111117-discove ... cal_dating

Stu, do a search for Kent Hovind, here on this forum. And you'll see how many of us have heard him speak. Mr. Hovind, doesn't represent YEC. If you want to see him in action, search youtube for" Hugh Ross Kent Hovind debate". You'll see hours of Hovindspeak.

RickD wrote:Stu, do a search for Kent Hovind, here on this forum. And you'll see how many of us have heard him speak. Mr. Hovind, doesn't represent YEC. If you want to see him in action, search youtube for" Hugh Ross Kent Hovind debate". You'll see hours of Hovindspeak.

Thanks. Yeah I've referenced the Evidence for God library (not specifically for Hovind though) quite a bit and don't remember coming across his name, could just be bad memory on my part though.
From what I've gathered many of the folks on the Evidence for God forums are OEC so was just wondering what they might make of the YEC argument/viewpoint.

Not that it necessarily refutes the substance of his arguments, but if you want to communicate with Kent Hovind today I think the Warden allows mail, as long as it's x-rayed first ......

Canuckster1127 wrote:Not that it necessarily refutes the substance of his arguments, but if you want to communicate with Kent Hovind today I think the Warden allows mail, as long as it's x-rayed first ......

Don't tell me, what's the bad news...
does a google search

Canuckster1127 wrote:Not that it necessarily refutes the substance of his arguments, but if you want to communicate with Kent Hovind today I think the Warden allows mail, as long as it's x-rayed first ......

Ouch!!!

Stu wrote:There's a related topic on geological dating here:
http://crev.info/content/111117-discove ... cal_dating

"Discovery Upsets Geological Dating" has nothing to do with a young earth. The article referenced [Metamorphic replacement of mineral inclusions in detrital zircon from Jack Hills, Australia: Implications for the Hadean Earth by Birger Rasmussen, Ian R. Fletcher, Janet R. Muhling, Courtney J. Gregory, and Simon A. Wilde] does not suggest that the dates of billions of years obtained from zircon crystals are in any doubt. The article does say that dates of inclusions (other minerals found in the zircons) are related to the surrounding rocks rather than to those of the zircons; that is, secondary minerals formed in tiny cracks in the zircons. This finding does not contradict any of the basic physics behind radiometric dating.


Conclusions:
Mineral inclusions in Jack Hills zircons have previously been interpreted as primary; however, our data show that zircon is not always an impermeable capsule that preserves the primary inclusion mineralogy. Instead, zircon grains are readily infiltrated by fluids along fractures and metamict domains, as well as along cryptic pathways. Dated xenotime and monazite inclusions in 4.25–3.35 Ga zircons from Jack Hills formed during known regional metamorphic events, ca. 2.68 Ga and ca. 0.8 Ga. ...

sandy_mcd wrote:

Stu wrote:There's a related topic on geological dating here:
http://crev.info/content/111117-discove ... cal_dating

"Discovery Upsets Geological Dating" has nothing to do with a young earth. The article referenced [Metamorphic replacement of mineral inclusions in detrital zircon from Jack Hills, Australia: Implications for the Hadean Earth by Birger Rasmussen, Ian R. Fletcher, Janet R. Muhling, Courtney J. Gregory, and Simon A. Wilde] does not suggest that the dates of billions of years obtained from zircon crystals are in any doubt. The article does say that dates of inclusions (other minerals found in the zircons) are related to the surrounding rocks rather than to those of the zircons; that is, secondary minerals formed in tiny cracks in the zircons. This finding does not contradict any of the basic physics behind radiometric dating.


Conclusions:
Mineral inclusions in Jack Hills zircons have previously been interpreted as primary; however, our data show that zircon is not always an impermeable capsule that preserves the primary inclusion mineralogy. Instead, zircon grains are readily infiltrated by fluids along fractures and metamict domains, as well as along cryptic pathways. Dated xenotime and monazite inclusions in 4.25–3.35 Ga zircons from Jack Hills formed during known regional metamorphic events, ca. 2.68 Ga and ca. 0.8 Ga. ...

Yeah my comment meant to include the link within the article which takes one here http://www.icr.org/rate/

How is geology related to forestry? I'm applying for a local town bursary to help pay for the costs of my post-secondary education. The bursary says, "Preferably for a student pursuing a study related to forestry." I know that no other students are going into any sort of forestry-related career and I feel that geology is probably the closest. I have a few ideas, but does any one have any suggestions or input on what i could say as to why/ how geology is related to forestry ? Help would be appreciated.

I remember like two years ago I stumbled into the world of young earth creationism. I was so excited and ate up everything. Little did I realize it would lead to two years of differing worldviews entering my life. At the very least, it got me thinking about God and how to defend my faith. I'm thankful for all the transformations I've made because of different ideas I grew attached to.

Looking back, I only remember him quoting some other creationist's book or something that supported his opinion and then moving on, rather than actually proving anything. He didn't give examples.. he would state his idea... then quote a book that supported it.

ameliaxy wrote:How is geology related to forestry? I'm applying for a local town bursary to help pay for the costs of my post-secondary education. The bursary says, "Preferably for a student pursuing a study related to forestry." I know that no other students are going into any sort of forestry-related career and I feel that geology is probably the closest. I have a few ideas, but does any one have any suggestions or input on what i could say as to why/ how geology is related to forestry ? Help would be appreciated.

Sorry you didn't get any quick response to it. I am not an expert in Geology or Forestry although I have a cousin who has a degree in Geology and I worked for the Forestry Service once. But, I think the tie to geology and forestry would have to do with the correlation between predominant rock formations and qualities of soil composition, water tables and consistency of soil depths etc. Might be a bit of a stretch but that's what comes to my mind.

Stu wrote:Yeah my comment meant to include the link within the article which takes one here http://www.icr.org/rate/

Ah, that's a different kettle of fish. One thing missing from these papers is an alternate theory of decay constants. If the earth is young and decay constants changed, it should be possible to write down the values of decay constants over time, preferably as a simple function of time. Also, there will always be a few anomalies (such as dating living animals very old). Are there explanations for these anomalies (as in the too-old date for animals)? In the case of non-zero C14 measurements, all that is needed is nitrogen in the sample and another source of thermal neutrons. Radioactive elements in the earth can replace the cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere.

More importantly, do these papers account for all the other consistent methods on different samples?

Where does it say in the Bible the Earth is young?
YEC base the age of the Earth on the estimated age of the human race, however the human race was only created at the end of creation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

He messed up badly on minute 52. First he called Carl Sagan Carl Pagan and then he called National Geographic National... well I will let you look it up. LOL but it's probably bad to laugh about...

wrain62 wrote:He messed up badly on minute 52. First he called Carl Sagan Carl Pagan and then he called National Geographic National... well I will let you look it up. LOL but it's probably bad to laugh about...

Did he mess up or did he do them on purpose? It's pretty common in these heated topic areas to disparage anything about those you disagree with.