Early earth question

1. If the earth's axis has NOT tilted then we have some very strange architecture of the ancients... but I know nothing is going to move your position, so I'm not going to argue with you. Once again, I prefer the actual evidence to your pronouncements.

2. The earth's place is in orbit around the sun. It has been maintained in that orbit at the proper distance for life. It will not be moved from its place until the Lord wraps up this creation. The fact that you are making the remarks you are making only shows me that you are not serious about this subject either, but only want to play some kind of word games.

3. Please note Romans 8:19-21 regarding creation. It is NOT in its original form, and its 'clues' must be understood that way. In addition, there ARE plenty of 'clues' indicating that the speed of light was faster in the past, as were all atomic processes, thus indicating that our dating is way off when we try to determine it via atomic means. So what you are getting stuck with is interpretation of the evidence done by evolutionists, not with the evidence itself. Divest yourself of interpretations, and take a fresh look at the actual data.

4. Regarding bombardment of the earth. The late heavy bombardment came shortly after the fall from what Barry has been able to determine. There were few people on the earth at that time. The earth has an atmosphere, which none of the other inner planets or moons have, and this would have acted as a partial shielding force. We have very little evidence of this bombardment because most of the impactors came from the outer part of the solar system -- the cometary material then was mostly icy and fragmented and thus disintegrated rapidly in our atmosphere for the most part. New Scientist had an article a few years ago about this. The title was "Neptune Strikes Again", or something like that.

5. Barry's theory needs no adjusting regarding the explosions of the hot waters. I am very sure now you have not read his material here:
http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html
So please don't try to argue what you have not yet read. Thanks.

6. You are right you are not a geologist. Barry is.

7. I didn't call you or label you a humanist. I said you prefer humanist explanations, and you do.

[ May 14, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

Actually, the distance of the Earth to the sun varies from time to time. In a single year, it varies about 3 million miles, being closest to the Sun in January.

 

Yes, Galatian, I know.

 

I just found this essay from Richard Dawkins, which sums up a travesity of the YEC 'science'.

Here it is: Sadly, an Honest Creationist.

Granted Dawkins is an atheist, I think he illustrates a problem facing creation science, by focusing on Kurt Wise:

 

Meatros, most of us have known about that for a long time. I also know that Dawkins is RABIDLY against religion and will stop at nothing to try to stamp it out. However, for kicks, here is a bit he wrote in the introduction to "Blind Watchmaker" which cracked me up:

This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for awhile yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!

The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes…. The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don’t give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

In other words, his system has absolutely nothing to do with observation, but with his commitment to his point of view despite what he sees and what logic says.

I know that the popularization of the YEC pov (Young Earth Creation point of view) is riddled with nonsense. It really is. I am sick and tired of hearing about the Paluxy footprints and the trilobite in the heel of a sandal and other things. But the fact remains that there is legitimate evidence for YEC and NO actual data for the long-ages, evolutionist pov which does not depend entirely on a previous commitment to evolution and the interpretation of the data in that light.

As far as Dawkins goes, I discredit most of what he says entirely as being ranting and raving (or terrible poetry!).

I have met Kurt Wise and talked to him and listened to him. He tends to bluster a bit, but in his approach to science is extraordinarily cautious. This is why he has said what he has about some things. He also trained under Gould and had a great deal of respect for the man. If Dawkins likes what Wise says, fine, but that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of real creation science.

 

So are you saying that Dawkins committed libel when he qoutes Wise as saying:

Personally I think Dawkins made a good point, no matter what you might think of the man, in summary:

If this is the case, then truly what is the case in arguing? (I'm actually thinking about opening another thread so if you want to answer that, please address it there).

 

No, Dawkins is not libeling. Please, please read what I actually said, OK?

And if you turn Dawkins' words in your second quote on himself and evolutionists, you will have a pretty good picture of what a lot of us are thinking about evolutionists. Facts make no difference at all to you folks. You are totally committed to your belief system.

And so I will use these forums to present to the others who are reading, knowing full well that the fact that two evolutionists that I know of have turned to creation after reading some of the materials presented was a downright miracle and not to be expected.

But presenting what I do has helped other Christians know they can trust the God of the Bible not only to tell them the truth, but they can trust Him fully with their entire lives, and that is the reason I am here. Genesis is true. God is true. Creation presents the truth of both.

 

How much of your "evidence" refers merely to the well known precession of the equinoxes, which I have already acknowledged?

This is but another example of your ability to retain the right to reinterpret the literal meaning of scripture to your own choosing while denying that same right to others. Moving in a circle 186 million miles wide is not staying in one place! And there are other motions to account for, including the wobbling caused by the moon orbiting the earth, the whole solar system orbiting the galaxy, the whole galaxy moving in space towards something known only to God!

Feel free to give a cogent reply to my objection in the thread about Setterfield theory. I'll promise to take a fresh look at that. As for Romans 18:20, it's perfectly feasible to consider Paul's words as applying to the situation on our planet only, at least as feasible as your reinterpretation above.

The stark devestation revealed on the moon cannot be so lightly set aside. Your "New Scientist" article probably had nothing to do with the craters on the moon. Here's an interesting article on the Siberian 1908 impact:

http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberia.html

The protection give by earth's atmosphere is good only for the smaller objects. It remains obvious: if the devestation we see on the moon were to occur again in this neigborhood, we also would be devestated, even wiped out.

I did read that, and found this to quote:

Setterfield thinks we might survive an impact that was sufficiently energetic to cause the earth's axis to tilt 5 degrees. I remain astonished that this kind of statement is ever considered seriously by anyone.

Barry made that incredible quote above. No one need say much more about his qualifications.

IF a humanist tells me 2 plus 2 is 4, I will agree with him regardless of the cost to my reputation in your eyes.

 

Paul of Eugene and others: thought this article might be of interest in light of this subject being discussed earlier on this thread:

 

Thanks Helen, for the interesting post.

I located the following description of the major extinctions in past earth history. The meteorites in your referenced article seem to come suspiciously close to the first of these major extinction periods!

First major extinction (c. 440 mya): Climate change (relatively severe and sudden global cooling) seems to have been at work at the first of these-the end-Ordovician mass extinction that caused such pronounced change in marine life (little or no life existed on land at that time). 25% of families lost (a family may consist of a few to thousands of species).

Second major extinction (c. 370 mya): The next such event, near the end of the Devonian Period, may or may not have been the result of global climate change. 19% of families lost.

Third major Extinction (c. 245 mya): Scenarios explaining what happened at the greatest mass extinction event of them all (so far, at least!) at the end of the Permian Period have been complex amalgams of climate change perhaps rooted in plate tectonics movements. Very recently, however, evidence suggests that a bolide impact similar to the end-Cretaceous event may have been the cause. 54% of families lost.

Fourth major extinction (c. 210 mya): The event at the end of the Triassic Period, shortly after dinosaurs and mammals had first evolved, also remains difficult to pin down in terms of precise causes. 23% of families lost.

Fifth major extinction (c. 65 mya): Most famous, perhaps, was the most recent of these events at the end-Cretaceous. It wiped out the remaining terrestrial dinosaurs and marine ammonites, as well as many other species across the phylogenetic spectrum, in all habitats sampled from the fossil record. Consensus has emerged in the past decade that this event was caused by one (possibly multiple) collisions between Earth and an extraterrestrial bolide (probably cometary). Some geologists, however, point to the great volcanic event that produced the Deccan traps of India as part of the chain of physical events that disrupted ecosystems so severely that many species on land and sea rapidly succumbed to extinction. 17% of families lost.


For those who want to check my reference, here's the site:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

 

All posts not relating to the subject of the thread have been deleted. There was no other way to clean up this thread because several people posting refuse to accept PMs. Normally people would be privately contacted and asked to remove irrelevant subject matter from their responses. This is not possible when those contributing cannot be contacted.

 

A geologist who is not a current member of this BB, Earl Detra, sent me the following information about "carbonate layers":