Talk:Evidence against a recent creation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

TL dating[edit]

I used TL to date several basaltic rocks between the ages of 11,000 (+-500) years and 140,000 (+-10,000) years, with the younger dates being corroborated by C14 dating. I am advised the older date has been recently corroborated by another dating technique. (I will hunt out the reference to my thesis someday.)
— Unsigned, by: Dawnhaven / talk / contribs

King Clone should be added to this list[edit]


Dating methodology[edit]

King Clone was identified and the 11,700 years old age documented by Frank Vasek, a professor at the University of California, Riverside. After Vasek hypothesized that the creosote ring was in fact one organism, Leonel Sternberg (then a graduate student working in Vasek's lab), was able to show that plants in a ring had some identical characteristics, but those shared characteristics differed from other plant clusters. Vasek then used two methods to determine the age of the ring. One method counted rings and measured the distance of annual growth, and the other used radiocarbon dating on chunks of wood found in the center of the ring, and measuring their distance from each other and the living bushes. Both dating methods yielded the same result.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000[edit]

First of all I would like to point out this dumb remark, unless the person thinks the universe was created at the same time as the earth (says it no where in the bible, and it even talks about other worlds) this is a very stupid remark to come back with.--King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 18:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The same for anything not having to do with the solar system but instead deals with everything distant.--King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 18:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
[EC]It isn't evidence against a recent creation of the earth, but it's evidence against the belief that a god created the whole universe recently, which is what lot of YECs believe. Christopher (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
... What? According to Genesis [1 vs 2], God created Earth on the first or second day. According to Genesis [1 vs 2], God created the stars on either the first or fourth day. ??? If you think these are literal days, then the difference is either 0 hours or 48 hours -- not enough to explain the fact that we can see billions of lightyears away. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
In other words the earth was already existent, BUT the creation of time for it began when he first made light for it.
Heb 11:3  Through faith we understand that the WORLDS were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
So it states there are other worlds out there, it states he did make earth, not that he made us first.--Řïmũŗû ŢèmpéŝţRimuru Slime.png 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How can you possibly read "In the beginning God created the heaven [literally: the stars] and the earth" as "it states he did make earth, not that he made us first"? It literally starts with "in the beginning", and the whole process apparently took one day. If God created other planets beforehand -- as you allege -- then these planets could have predated Earth by -- at most -- 24 hours.

And nowhere in Genesis does it say that "God creates time". 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you don't understand ,Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Heaven translates to sky, or air. can you say a vacuum has air? I think not. The beginning as we know it is starting. earth has its own separate beginning compared to the rest of the universe. Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. notice how it says he made stars, not that he made them at that time, but that he made them also. punctuation was not around during that time so it was a hit or miss on how you made the sentence. all it is stating is the fact he did make stars, it does not say that he made stars exactly at that time. Even if he did, wouldn't a creator boost how fast the light would go? Dont be dumb about it, if you were creating a program and you had the ability to make things go faster would you not do it?--King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 18:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I know many of y'all don't agree with her but this is one thin E.G White states. The science of redemption is the science of all sciences; the science that is the study of the angels and of all the intelligences of the unfallen worlds;
Here she doesn't deny the existence of other worlds. Another thing came to mind, didn't he make the angels before earth? Why would he not mention it in the beginning? Unless it was ours and had nothing to do with the creation of earth.--King TempestRimuru Slime.png 18:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Look. [Here's the text of Genesis 1:1-5:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So either:

  1. The ordering here is wrong. Instead, the entire universe was created before Earth -- but it had no light. If so, then this means that light from distant stars shouldn't have been able to reach us in the 6000 years the universe has had light.
  2. The ordering here is right. The earth was created, and then within 24 hours, the entire rest of the universe. If so, then this means that light from distant stars shouldn't have been able to reach us in the 6000 years the universe has had light.

As for the "why not just speed up light" line, check Anisotropic synchrony convention FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Another rebuttal[edit]

We are, supposedly, made in "the deity's/deities' image(s)", and we have created and perpetuated the generalisation 'Keep it simple' (Occam's Razor is a particular case).

Therefore 'the deity or deities' will keep it simple (especially as there are 'zillions of planets', on 'a fraction of which' life will emerge, and life sufficiently sentient to discuss theology will emerge on 'a fraction of a fraction' which will still be a large number (reworking the Drake equation) - and therefore 'letting the rules of physics and the laws of nature take their various courses' will be the most viable option (especially as there health and safety legislation/union rules on how much work the deity/deities can spend developing planets, and there are deadlines for the 'planet X reality TV shows' on the various Deity TV Channels).

And could the various temperatures in the Widmanstätten patterns section be made 'more reasonable to the casual observer' - '100-10,000 degrees Celsius per million years, from a starting point of about 500-700 degrees Celsius[6] to a temperature of about -73 Celsius' doesn't add up. Anna Livia (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I have read this rebuttal three times and I am afraid that I don't understand the point being made or even what is meant to be rebutted.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Are 'deity or deities' likely to spend much time creating elaborate backstories that disprove their existence for instantly created planets #or# allow the laws of physics 'to do all the hard work' for (singular or plural deity pronoun) so they can concentrate on the fun bits. And a reference to all the cookery/makeover/construct-it programs etc. Anna Livia (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone care to develop the Fun:Great Deity World+Sentient Species Construct-a-thon page? (Extra marks for added surrealism/the most bizarre theories developed by sentient species in question.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Transmissible dog cancer[edit]

There exists a transmissible dog cancer whose lifespan can be (somewhat weakly) estimated at 11,000 years. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Oldie but goodie[edit]

Lots of graphs FuzzyCatPotato of the Useless Numbers (talk/stalk) 06:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The English playwright Christopher Marlowe was under suspicion of atheism before his death in a supposed tavern brawl in 1593. An informer's report of things he was supposed to have said in conversation included Marlowe maintaining that the Indians documented the world being older than 20,000 years whereas the Bible said it was only about 6,000 years old.Philosophyfootball (talk)