Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

[PennEd]

yeah you have to be correct. I'm sure the Monsanto people didn't bother learning how the fish evolved the gene they were looking for they just cut joe up and threw it into a strawberry patch!

This information does prove evolution. The stars are currently moving away from us, this does help prove the BBT. Until you have a serious rebuttal...

Tr, can't you get that THE MONSANTO PEOPLE are intelligent designers?

If the stars are moving a greater distance away from each other after the Bang, then how did they somehow come TOGETHER to form stars and planets? When a grenade goes off the shrapnel spreads APART not reforming back together.

 

[st_sebastian]

Terah Smiley's paper.

http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/9/9_p0186_p0190.pdf

Sorry, flipping through on my phone, I don't see the 200,000 figure in there. Would you point me to it? Can't search PDFs on this thing.

 

[Jhana]

To be fair, carbon-14 has a half life of 5,730 years so against its known rate of decay, the age of something can be measured extremely accurately.

Trees grow in certain ways (faster in summer than in winter), and this leaves 'year-rings' due to the sudden changes in growth rate, and so we can detect their age by the rings inside them, to the very year. There are trees much older than 6000 years.

We can use telescopes and astronomy to accurately measure the distance between earth and other planets and stars, and many of them are further than 6,000 light years away, some in the tens of millions of lightyears.

Basically, when you look at a star, the light coming from that star takes so long to travel towards earth that what you are actually seeing is light that is perhaps thousands of years old. And many of these stars shine light on Earth that is millions of years old.

While this in itself doesn't prove that the Earth wasn't 'fashioned' 6000 years ago, it certainly proves that the light that is hitting us is much, much older than 6000 years old, thus, the stars from where it is coming are much older than 6000 years old. Combined with dating, with the trees, with uranium dating (which is also very accurate), human chromosome studies, ice layering etc, the evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years is very slim.

Perhaps the most definitive evidence against it is manganese nodule growth. These have been intensively studied, and it can take, at least, a million years to grow barely a centimetre. Some of these are quite large, like fists.

 

[Jhana]

Originally posted by Penn Ed

Tr, can't you get that THE MONSANTO PEOPLE are intelligent designers?

If the stars are moving a greater distance away from each other after the Bang, then how did they somehow come TOGETHER to form stars and planets? When a grenade goes off the shrapnel spreads APART not reforming back together.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



In that case, why doesn't the moon fly away from the Earth?

 

[Tintin]

To be fair, carbon-14 has a half life of 5,730 years so against its known rate of decay, the age of something can be measured extremely accurately.

Trees grow in certain ways (faster in summer than in winter), and this leaves 'year-rings' due to the sudden changes in growth rate, and so we can detect their age by the rings inside them, to the very year. There are trees much older than 6000 years.

We can use telescopes and astronomy to accurately measure the distance between earth and other planets and stars, and many of them are further than 6,000 light years away, some in the tens of millions of lightyears.

Basically, when you look at a star, the light coming from that star takes so long to travel towards earth that what you are actually seeing is light that is perhaps thousands of years old. And many of these stars shine light on Earth that is millions of years old.

While this in itself doesn't prove that the Earth wasn't 'fashioned' 6000 years ago, it certainly proves that the light that is hitting us is much, much older than 6000 years old, thus, the stars from where it is coming are much older than 6000 years old. Combined with dating, with the trees, with uranium dating (which is also very accurate), human chromosome studies, ice layering etc, the evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years is very slim.

Perhaps the most definitive evidence against it is manganese nodule growth. These have been intensively studied, and it can take, at least, a million years to grow barely a centimetre. Some of these are quite large, like fists.

Doesn't sound very definitive to me. We haven't studied and observed manganese nodule growth for millions of years to see if this is true. It's a belief bias. Evolutionary theory is a belief bias, as is biblical creation. Our worldview determines how we think and view the world around us.

 

[PennEd]

To be fair, carbon-14 has a half life of 5,730 years so against its known rate of decay, the age of something can be measured extremely accurately.

Trees grow in certain ways (faster in summer than in winter), and this leaves 'year-rings' due to the sudden changes in growth rate, and so we can detect their age by the rings inside them, to the very year. There are trees much older than 6000 years.

We can use telescopes and astronomy to accurately measure the distance between earth and other planets and stars, and many of them are further than 6,000 light years away, some in the tens of millions of lightyears.

Basically, when you look at a star, the light coming from that star takes so long to travel towards earth that what you are actually seeing is light that is perhaps thousands of years old. And many of these stars shine light on Earth that is millions of years old.

While this in itself doesn't prove that the Earth wasn't 'fashioned' 6000 years ago, it certainly proves that the light that is hitting us is much, much older than 6000 years old, thus, the stars from where it is coming are much older than 6000 years old. Combined with dating, with the trees, with uranium dating (which is also very accurate), human chromosome studies, ice layering etc, the evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years is very slim.

Perhaps the most definitive evidence against it is manganese nodule growth. These have been intensively studied, and it can take, at least, a million years to grow barely a centimetre. Some of these are quite large, like fists.

You are assuming the speed of light has always been constant. You'd be surprised to learn just how few times it's actually been measured, with at least one scientist I've read believing that it continues to slow, and that it is possible it was many times faster than the current belief of 186,000 MPS. Again, ANOTHER unreliable, unverifiable dating method.

 

[Angela53510]

Just for you, Tr!

A whole page of articles to read that show the young age of the earth.

"Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.
Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!"
RATE

Articles include Polonium Radiohalos, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D in Geology
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D in Geology
Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

New Rate Data Support a Young World Russell Humphreys, Ph.D
New RATE Data Support a Young World

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages John Baumgardner Ph.D
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

Radiohalos - Significant and Exciting Research by Andrew A Snelling
Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results

Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World Russell Humphreys, Ph.D
Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D
Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon

Evidence for a Young World Russell Humphreys Ph.D
Evidence for a Young World


I dare you to click on the above links and start reading. I know you didn't read the article I produced on "Oil, Fracking and a Recent Global Flood" found above on this page, or you would have made some snide comment.

By the way, still waiting for you to produce your credentials. Do you have any university or post-grad work? The articles above are all by Ph.D's in case you missed it!

 

[Jhana]

While that's true in a lot of ways, particularly in religion, I don't feel that to look at evidence and understand its merit within the physics of the Earth, then draw a conclusion based on that evidence, is fuelled by an inner bias. If the evidence said something different, I'm certain I would accept that 'something different' as fact. But the evidence doesn't say something different, thus the facts are as they are, really.

Manganese growth can me measured microscopically, and since these structures are crystalline, they grow at very predictable rates. Even if the scientists were way off, and the manganse grew 155 times quicker than has been measured, that would still leave these things 15,000 years to grow one centimetre, and again, some are like fists.

I really, really doubt the people measuring these with the tools they have can be that far out.

even if they are, the evidence of the stars alone is enough to prove that some of the visible stars themselves are older than 6,000 years old, by millions.

 

[st_sebastian]

Terah Smiley's paper.

http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/9/9_p0186_p0190.pdf

I've done a lot more reading on this. A lot of people quote almost exactly what you wrote above, but rarely give a source. I finally tracked it down: Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple. This web page explains (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html):

Note that all 3 of the above lavas contain xenolyths - foreign stones that aren't part of the lava. These xenolyths contribute excess Argon to the analysis leading to an older than expected date. Also note that while these dating errors are significant for dating very recent rocks, an error of 1 million years is insignificant in rocks older than say 50 to 100 million years.

So sure, there was a volcanic event, but they were dating rocks that weren't part of it. The list ignores the 18 examples the author gives of when the method worked to indicate that the (pure) lava wasn't old at all.

It's not really overwhelming. Just a bad understanding of the experiment and a decision not to look at the good evidence, because it contradicts the result the creationist would like to see.

Why is it, when something is overwhelming, half an hour in Google usually shows that it's just lazy? Why is it, nine times out of ten, a list that somebody just found and didn't bother to investigate? Whatever happened to testing spirits? Nah. It sounds good. Let's just run with it.

 

[PennEd]

Also, since I know God created the universe, it's possible and likely, that the light shining on Earth today, that you think traveled for billions of years, WAS CREATED instantly to shine. Similar to the Adam analogy, whereby a fully grown, newly created Adam, would appear to be 20 to 40 yrs old to our eyes or age measuring techniques. Hope this helps you see possibilities, and moves you to more fully examine the Truth of the Bible.

 

[Tintin]

Ah! But you'll find time and time again that scientists etc. do find evidence that doesn't support evolutionary theory and because it doesn't line up with their beliefs, they don't consider the evidence and include it.

 

[Jhana]

Just for you, Tr!

A whole page of articles to read that show the young age of the earth.

"Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.
Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth here!"
RATE

Articles include Polonium Radiohalos, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D in Geology
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D in Geology
Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

New Rate Data Support a Young World Russell Humphreys, Ph.D
New RATE Data Support a Young World

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages John Baumgardner Ph.D
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

Radiohalos - Significant and Exciting Research by Andrew A Snelling
Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results

Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World Russell Humphreys, Ph.D
Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon, Andrew Snelling, Ph.D
Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon

Evidence for a Young World Russell Humphreys Ph.D
Evidence for a Young World


I dare you to click on the above links and start reading. I know you didn't read the article I produced on "Oil, Fracking and a Recent Global Flood" found above on this page, or you would have made some snide comment.

By the way, still waiting for you to produce your credentials. Do you have any university or post-grad work? The articles above are all by Ph.D's in case you missed it!

"The authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. ... Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of [their young-earth interpretation of] the Bible has been confirmed."



This is from the link. It means that in otherwords, they are making all of this up based on physics that don't actually exist and on theories that have no scientific value.

EDIT: so their PHD's just became invalid.

 

[Jhana]

You are assuming the speed of light has always been constant. You'd be surprised to learn just how few times it's actually been measured, with at least one scientist I've read believing that it continues to slow, and that it is possible it was many times faster than the current belief of 186,000 MPS. Again, ANOTHER unreliable, unverifiable dating method.

In a vacuum (which space is), the speed of light is ALWAYS constant. The distance travelled through the atmosphere is negligible compared to millions of years.

 

[Jhana]

Ah! But you'll find time and time again that scientists etc. do find evidence that doesn't support evolutionary theory and because it doesn't line up with their beliefs, they don't consider the evidence and include it.

But I'm not them.

 

[Tr]

If that info was real it would be headline news. Ken would have won the debate. The problem is no evidence exists for a YEC. I'm sorry its just not real.

 

[Jhana]

Also, since I know God created the universe, it's possible and likely, that the light shining on Earth today, that you think traveled for billions of years, WAS CREATED instantly to shine. Similar to the Adam analogy, whereby a fully grown, newly created Adam, would appear to be 20 to 40 yrs old to our eyes or age measuring techniques. Hope this helps you see possibilities, and moves you to more fully examine the Truth of the Bible.

Whether it was created instantly to shine or not, it still took millions of years to travel here.

 

[PennEd]

Whether it was created instantly to shine or not, it still took millions of years to travel here.

Alrighty then, gave it a shot. God bless and good night.

 

[megaman125]

If that info was real it would be headline news. Ken would have won the debate. The problem is no evidence exists for a YEC. I'm sorry its just not real.

This is just you stating more of your faith based beliefs. You keep claiming it's not real, but you cannot prove that any of your dating methods are accurate. We just have to believe they are accurate becasue some people believe they're accurate.

 

[Historicist]

It's to bad that the focus in this controversy has to be on evolution versus a young earth creation only. I can't think of anything that drives more young people from considering Biblical creation than Ken Ham's dogmatic assertions that it all happened in six twenty four hour days a mere 6000 years ago. Young earth creationists base this on a belief that Adam was the first human. If this is true, where did Cain find a wife? If this is true, who were the humans that Cain feared "...shall slay me" (Gen. 4:14) when he was driven into their land? Young earth advocates try to get around this by claiming that Cain's wife was a sister, but there is no scriptural evidence for this. They are reading it into the text.

And then there is the Genesis flood. Ken Ham's universal cover-the-planet interpretation also, drives away those with critical thinking skills. Yes, there was an ark, and a flood, but it could not have held dinosaurs and the thousands of other birds and animals necessary in a Ken Ham type interpretation. Neither could it this flood have covered a planet with its 30,000 foot mountain ranges. The Bible does not say this, it does not require us to believe that there were no humans before Adam, or that the flood of Noah's time covered 30,000 foot mountains. I had long suspected this but could not properly explain it until I read Biblical Antiquities: Book I by archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt. As Capt explains, the key to understanding the creation story is to know that, unlike the rest of Genesis, it was recorded much earlier, and not in Hebrew, but on clay tablets in ancient cuneiform. When reading Genesis you will notice this, you will notice a brevity, and a style in the first few chapters that are not in the rest. There is more, much more to this, and it is very fascinating.

 

[BananaPie]

Sorry, flipping through on my phone, I don't see the 200,000 figure in there. Would you point me to it? Can't search PDFs on this thing.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were referring to the year of eruption. Yes, the article came out in 1969 when most of the scientific community was going nuts "dating" rocks and meteorites. It's kind of funny to me now. I used to like reading this stuff.

Dalrymple, G.B., 1969, '40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows,' Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v. 6, p. 47-55.