Proof for 6000 year old earth

[Alpha Beta]

Proof for 6000 year old earth:
- Length of recorded history
- Mitochondrial Eve
- Population growth
- Decaying earth magnetic field
- Dino soft tissue
- Tree ring dating
- C14 in coal and diamonds
- Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
- No erosion marks in rock layers
- Salt in the oceans

If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.

[Robert Carnegie]

May I suggest that it's redundant to compile a response
explaining why none of your "proof" supports your claim,
since anyone curious (including yourself) can look it up,
mostly on TalkOrigins.org.

A further saving of people's time is possible if you'll
kindly include this response of mine with any future
submissions.

If this condensed response is also redundant due to an
existing page on TalkOrigins.org, perhaps someone will
kindly point me to it.

[RonO]

It should be hilarious for you to describe the 96% claim. Go for it.

Just take your "Salt in the oceans" and give your average estimate for
the residence times for various "Salts" in the ocean. Do you know what
the range would be and what the mean of the estimates is?

What does the number 1 "best" evidence for IDiot/creationism mean about
the value of all of your stupidity above? It is claimed to be one of
the 6 best pieces of evidence for creationism today, and none of your
bogus junk made the top 6 list. Why didn't any of your bogus claims
make the top 6?

Isn't it sad that there are scam artists that are still feeding the
rubes this junk?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/uuNt1A5zMGE/AJLbzwGfAgAJ

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Proof of Creationist PRATTs and willful stupidity:

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:26:30 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Proof for 6000 year old earth:
>- Length of recorded history
>- Mitochondrial Eve
>- Population growth
>- Decaying earth magnetic field
>- Dino soft tissue
>- Tree ring dating
>- C14 in coal and diamonds
>- Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
>- No erosion marks in rock layers
>- Salt in the oceans

<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html>

>If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.

According to this:

<https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/determining-the-ark-kinds/>

Noah's Ark carried only pairs (or sevens) of created kinds, or
baramin, a few thousands of types. For example, Noah didn't take
pairs of all cattle, but only the original created kind. After the
Flood, these baramin pairs became the ancestors of all the millions of
species known to exist on Earth today.

But in order to do that in the few thousand years between the Flood
and today, the descendants of the Flood baramin had to have been not
only far more fecund and mobile than are observed today, but also far
more varied than is observed today, a hyper-evolution of new species.
In other words, if the earth is young, then Evolution not only had to
have happened, but had to have happened with unimagined scale and
speed. Pick your poison.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:26:30 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Proof for 6000 year old earth:
>- Length of recorded history

Meaningless as "proof" of anything beyond the age of
writing.

>- Mitochondrial Eve

Proves the opposite.

>- Population growth

Irrelevant; population has both grown and declined over the
past 100k years.

>- Decaying earth magnetic field

Meaningless; measured reversals are part of the geological
record, and extend back *much* further than 6000 years. In
fact there have been none during that time. Try learning
something:

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html

>- Dino soft tissue

No dinos for the past 65My (except birds).

>- Tree ring dating

Proof only of the ages of individual trees. For further
education (see "clonal trees"):\

https://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-tree-in-world.html

>- C14 in coal and diamonds

What exactly do you think(?) that "proves"? I confess I'm at
a loss.

>- Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools

....dating back *at least* 3My.

>- No erosion marks in rock layers

You must live in a bubble; the rocks with which I'm familiar
show plenty of erosion.

>- Salt in the oceans

....which "proves"...what? That salts have leached from the
land over the past few billion years? Not very good "proof"
that the Earth is only 6ky old...

>If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.

That would follow *if* your "96%" were anything more than a
fantasy concocted by scientific illiterates and liars. It's
not, so it doesn't.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Absolutely none of the items you posit prove that the Earth is 6000
years old. Several of them, including the magnetic fields, dinosaurs,
carbon-14, salt, and mitochondrial Eve, prove that the Earth has been
around for at the very least several _million_ years. Isotopic
techniques using isotopes other than carbon-14 indicate that the Earth
has been around for at least several _hundred million_ years, more
likely several _billion_.

Please present some actual support for your position. If you can find any.

[Bruce Stephens]

On 08/11/2018 09:26, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.

Out of curiosity, where does the "96%" come from? Seems oddly precise
and specific.

[Ernest Major]

On 08/11/2018 17:38, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> - C14 in coal and diamonds
> What exactly do you think(?) that "proves"? I confess I'm at
> a loss.
>

If you take the naive view that the only source of C-14 is cosmic ray
collisions with atoms in the atmosphere and that coal and diamonds have
not exchanged material with the atmosphere since they were formed and
that no contamination occurred during the handling of the samples then
there should be essentially no C-14 measured from samples of coal and
diamonds. But C-14 has been reported from such samples.

To address the first, there are other sources of C-14. Some actinides
have a cluster decay mode that emit C-14. Thermal neutrons from
spontaneous fission can react with C-13 to form C-14. Some excited
states of N-15 emit a proton to form C-14. The nuclear reactions
p(v',e+)n and p(e-,v)n convert N-14 present as a contaminant in coal and
diamond to C-14. One expects that the level of C-14 produced by these
processes to be very small, but the asymptotic C-14 level of a sample is
not zero, but some small value that depends on the
geochemical/geophysical situation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

Considering that his list of "proofs" includes evidence that the earth
is older than 6000 years, and things that ain't true, the 96% probably
comes from the same place.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Oxyaena]

On 11/8/2018 4:26 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Proof for 6000 year old earth:
> - Length of recorded history

That only shows that writing was invented within a 6000 year timespan.



> - Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve lived over 150kya, I'd hardly call that evidence for a
"young earth".

> - Population growth

How so?

> - Decaying earth magnetic field

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

> - Dino soft tissue


http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

> - Tree ring dating

Dendrochronology gives a minimum date of 12,000 years ago, twice the age
of the universe according to creationists.

> - C14 in coal and diamonds

CITE?

> - Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools

Have you ever considered that the reason that stone age archaeological
remains are so common is because geologically speaking humans are
newcomers on the geological scene, so the forces of time haven't gone to
work eliminating most of the archaeological record we have on hand yet.

> - No erosion marks in rock layers

Cite?

> - Salt in the oceans

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

(Courtesy of preeminent talk.origins poster Mark Isaak, one whom I have
the honor of calling a "friend" in Internet terms)

>
> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.
>

Let me guess, you pulled that figure literally right out of your behind
like the rest of this post? You always let your ass do the thinking and
talking for you, AB, it's becoming a bit of a problem.

--
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

[Oxyaena]

On 11/8/2018 4:51 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 November 2018 09:30:03 UTC, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Proof for 6000 year old earth:
>> - Length of recorded history
>> - Mitochondrial Eve
>> - Population growth
>> - Decaying earth magnetic field
>> - Dino soft tissue
>> - Tree ring dating
>> - C14 in coal and diamonds
>> - Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
>> - No erosion marks in rock layers
>> - Salt in the oceans
>>
>> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.
>
> May I suggest that it's redundant to compile a response
> explaining why none of your "proof" supports your claim,
> since anyone curious (including yourself) can look it up,
> mostly on TalkOrigins.org.
>
> A further saving of people's time is possible if you'll
> kindly include this response of mine with any future
> submissions.

AB is a drive-by poster, posting these "OPs" of his with barely any
thought put into them, and than rarely ever sticking around to feebly
attempt to defend his idiocy.

I can count the number of times on my hand I've actually seen him
contribute to a discussion without fleeing out of cowardice.

>
> If this condensed response is also redundant due to an
> existing page on TalkOrigins.org, perhaps someone will
> kindly point me to it.
>

[Ernest Major]

On 08/11/2018 23:48, Oxyaena wrote:
>
>> - Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
>
> Have you ever considered that the reason that stone age archaeological
> remains are so common is because geologically speaking humans are
> newcomers on the geological scene, so the forces of time haven't gone to
> work eliminating most of the archaeological record we have on hand yet.

I thought that the creationist argument was that there should be more
(not fewer) stone age skeletons and tools if the world was older than
their preferred 6,000 years.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Oxyaena]

That shows how ignorant creationists are on how reality *actually*
works. The farther back in time we go the fewer artifacts we find, until
eventually we find none, ie the vast majority of the history of life on
earth prior to 3.2 Ma when the oldest stone tools are found.

Really what we find is what one would expect if the earth is old rather
than young, if you go back, say, 1.5 Ma the only artifacts we find are
Acheulean hand axes and some skeletal remains, we only start having
artifacts *not* made out of stone from some 400 Ma with the discovery of
the Copenhagen spears, and the only reason those were preserved is
because of the fact that they were preserved in a bog.

The closer in time we go to the present day the more artifacts we find,
and then writing was invented, allowing for the preservation of things
that would've previously been lost to the mists of time, before the
invention of writing everything was oral, which is why even in epic
poems put to writing do we find repetition, because they were previously
oral traditions, the repetition helps the speaker remember his or her lines.

[Bruce Stephens]

On 08/11/2018 22:13, Ernest Major wrote:
> Considering that his list of "proofs" includes evidence that the earth
> is older than 6000 years, and things that ain't true, the 96% probably
> comes from the same place.

Probably, though 24/25 is 96%, and I could imagine there being 25
claims. I can't think of a valid way from "at most one could be false"
to 96% but that doesn't mean AB couldn't have come up with the figure on
his own.

[jillery]

Yes, it's easy to imagine 25 Creationist claims. The hard part is to
imagine 24 of them being correct.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 20:04:01 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Bruce Stephens
<bruce.r....@gmail.com>:

It's also brown and smelly. Does that answer your question?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 21:26:03 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

OK, thanks. Any bets regarding whether AB could have
explained *any* of that, even if he chose to lie about (or
ignore) the listed alternate paths to C14?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 18:53:16 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@error.does.not.compute>:

>On 11/8/2018 4:51 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Thursday, 8 November 2018 09:30:03 UTC, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> Proof for 6000 year old earth:
>>> - Length of recorded history
>>> - Mitochondrial Eve
>>> - Population growth
>>> - Decaying earth magnetic field
>>> - Dino soft tissue
>>> - Tree ring dating
>>> - C14 in coal and diamonds
>>> - Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
>>> - No erosion marks in rock layers
>>> - Salt in the oceans
>>>
>>> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.
>>
>> May I suggest that it's redundant to compile a response
>> explaining why none of your "proof" supports your claim,
>> since anyone curious (including yourself) can look it up,
>> mostly on TalkOrigins.org.
>>
>> A further saving of people's time is possible if you'll
>> kindly include this response of mine with any future
>> submissions.
>
>
>AB is a drive-by poster, posting these "OPs" of his with barely any
>thought put into them

....for values of "barely any" indistinguishable from "no"...

>, and than rarely ever sticking around to feebly
>attempt to defend his idiocy.
>
>I can count the number of times on my hand I've actually seen him
>contribute to a discussion without fleeing out of cowardice.
>
>
>>
>> If this condensed response is also redundant due to an
>> existing page on TalkOrigins.org, perhaps someone will
>> kindly point me to it.
>>
--

[Oxyaena]

I predict a .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that AB is
going to try to defend his assertions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:15:37 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@error.does.not.compute>:

Safe prediction.

[Oxyaena]

I feel like I should've added another hundred zeros just to even it out.

[Robert Carnegie]

At some point, it's worth taking the bet, hunting him down
and forcing him at gunpoint to reply. Although it's more likely
that I'd just shoot him anyway. And then post the reply from
his computer.

[Oxyaena]

I'd take a cannon, solely for emphasis of course.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:58:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

Sounds like a plan...

But please use a baseball bat.

[Robert Carnegie]

To type with, as him?

Won't that come over as suspiciously articulate?

[Oxyaena]

A cannon would work just as well.

--
"Evolution only makes sense in the light of evolution." - Theodosius
Doubzhansky

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:00:05 -0500, the following appeared

But a baseball bat would preclude any comments about
"control".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:37:25 -0800 (PST), the following

No, instead of shooting him.

>Won't that come over as suspiciously articulate?

[Robert Carnegie]

As in "pest"?

[Oxyaena]

True, a cannon being fired at a computer would be invariably more
articulate than the drivel AB spouts on a regular basis, so it would
only serve to arouse suspicion.

[Pro Plyd]

Oxyaena wrote:
> On 11/8/2018 4:26 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:

>> - Mitochondrial Eve
>
> Mitochondrial Eve lived over 150kya, I'd hardly call that evidence for a
> "young earth".

young-ish? "Don't look a day over 75k..."

[Pro Plyd]

jillery wrote:
> Proof of Creationist PRATTs and willful stupidity:

>
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:26:30 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
> <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Proof for 6000 year old earth:
>> - Length of recorded history
>> - Mitochondrial Eve
>> - Population growth
>> - Decaying earth magnetic field
>> - Dino soft tissue
>> - Tree ring dating

>> - C14 in coal and diamonds

>> - Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
>> - No erosion marks in rock layers
>> - Salt in the oceans
>
>

> <http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html>

>
>
>> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.
>
>

> According to this:
>
> <https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/determining-the-ark-kinds/>
>
> Noah's Ark carried only pairs (or sevens) of created kinds, or
> baramin, a few thousands of types. For example, Noah didn't take
> pairs of all cattle, but only the original created kind. After the
> Flood, these baramin pairs became the ancestors of all the millions of
> species known to exist on Earth today.
>
> But in order to do that in the few thousand years between the Flood
> and today, the descendants of the Flood baramin had to have been not
> only far more fecund and mobile than are observed today, but also far
> more varied than is observed today, a hyper-evolution of new species.

Interesting, is it not, that their scheme requires evolution to disprove
evolution?

> In other words, if the earth is young, then Evolution not only had to
> have happened, but had to have happened with unimagined scale and
> speed. Pick your poison.

So, considering felines as an example, there's, what, one breeding pair of
felines, and each litter would be multi species? Something like a house cat
gives birth to a lion and tiger cub?

Notice we're giving them a pass on how these critters then traveled across
the world to get to their current homes...

[Pro Plyd]

Bruce Stephens wrote:
> On 08/11/2018 09:26, Alpha Beta wrote:

>> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never
>> happened.
>

> Out of curiosity, where does the "96%" come from? Seems oddly precise and
> specific.
>

From:

1. ass

2. air

3. voices in head

[Pro Plyd]

Silly. They, um, got destroyed by, uh, a flood. Yeah, that's it, a flood.

[Oxyaena]

It's even worse for Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived over 300kya, that's at
least *twice* the age of Mitochondrial Eve, so therefore it's far beyond
ludicrous for creationists to use these two long dead people as "proof"
for creationism, even worse to use it as "proof" for a "young earth".

--
"Debating creationists is like playing chess with pigeons." - Troy Britain

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 22:27:13 -0700, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

That's a strategic decision. Once Biblical fundies recognize their
own line of reasoning forces them to assume biological evolution to a
degree far beyond anything scientists claim, that undermines their
material argument for a literal interpretation of the Biblical Flood,
or the rest of Genesis, or any part of the Bible.

A similar case happens when Fundies argue that Noah's family could
have repopulated the Earth in the 4500 years since the Flood. They
argue that doubling the human population every 150 years or so is more
than enough to get to the number of people today. This is technically
correct, but that means there were at most only a few dozen Hebrews to
build the Pyramids and to leave Egypt to wander in the wilderness and
slaughter the Canaanites. Conversely, when the Fundies change the
doubling rate so there are enough souls to fill the world of Exodus,
then the number of people today would exceed the number of stars in
the universe.

This is more evidence that Creationists don't know how to do math.

[John Stockwell]

On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 2:30:03 AM UTC-7, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Proof for 6000 year old earth:
> - Length of recorded history
> - Mitochondrial Eve
> - Population growth
> - Decaying earth magnetic field
> - Dino soft tissue
> - Tree ring dating
> - C14 in coal and diamonds
> - Quantity of stone age burials, skeletons and stone tools
> - No erosion marks in rock layers
> - Salt in the oceans
>

> If the earth is young (96% likely to be true) then Evolution never happened.

Yawn.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/