Jump to content
IGNORED

“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Barbarian observes:

I'm pointing out you were fooled.   As you see, stalagtites from concrete form much, much faster than those from limestone, because the chemical reactions are not the same.   

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Oh..., thank you for pointing that out for me, ...apparently I wasn't the only one that was fooled!

Yep.   It's a common ploy used by creationists to fool others. 

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I guess the "experts" that did the dating didn't know the difference between concrete and limestone!!!

Apparently, they weren't experts, if they didn't know this, um?   It's not a secret, and it's been known for a very , very long time.

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That means their dating process incorrectly dated concrete as being 25 to 150 million years old, ...makes me wonder what other "mistakes" have they made in dating?

That's the part no one seems to be able to document.    The story has been peddled around for a long time, but no documentation.  Carbon dating wouldn't give those results in any case, and sedimentary rocks won't give you an accurate date since they aren't formed from melted rock.  No physical geologist would bother doing it.

Yes, I'd be very interested in some checkable sources for those "experts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Stalactites can also form on concrete, and on plumbing where there is a slow leak and calcium, magnesium or other ions in the water supply, although they form much more rapidly there than in the natural cave environment. These secondary deposits, such as stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone and others, which are derived from the lime, mortar or other calcareous material in concrete, outside of the "cave" environment, can not be classified as "speleothems" due to the definition of the term.[8] The term "calthemite" is used to encompass the secondary deposits which mimic the shapes and forms of speleothems outside the cave environment.[13]

The way stalactites form on concrete is due to different chemistry than those that form naturally in limestone caves and is due of the presence of calcium oxide in cement. Concrete is made from aggregate, sand and cement. When water is added to the mix, the calcium oxide in the cement reacts with water to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). The chemical formula for this is:[6]

CaO(s) + H2O(l)Ca(OH)2(aq)

Over time, any rainwater that penetrates cracks in set (hard) concrete will carry any free calcium hydroxide in solution to the edge of the concrete. Stalactites can form when the solution emerges on the underside of the concrete structure where it is suspended in the air, for example, on a ceiling or a beam. When the solution comes into contact with air on the underside of the concrete structure, another chemical reaction takes place. The solution reacts with carbon dioxide in the air and precipitates calcium carbonate.[6]

Ca(OH)2(aq) + CO2(g)CaCO3(s) + H2O(l)

When this solution drops down it leaves behind particles of calcium carbonate and over time these form into a stalactite. They are normally a few centimeters long and with a diameter of approximately 4 to 5 mm (0.16 to 0.20 inches).[6] The growth rate of stalactites is significantly influenced by supply continuity of Ca2+
saturated solution and the drip rate. A straw shaped stalactite which has formed under a concrete structure can grow as much as 2 mm per day in length, when the drip rate is approximately 11 minutes between drops.
[13] Changes in leachate solution pH can facilitate additional chemical reactions, which may also influence calthemite stalactite growth rates.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalactite

 

The most common stalactites are speleothems, which occur in limestone caves. They form through deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals, which is precipitated from mineralized water solutions. Limestone is the chief form of calcium carbonate rock which is dissolved by water that contains carbon dioxide, forming a calcium bicarbonate solution in caverns.[5] The chemical formula for this reaction is:[6]

CaCO(s)3 + H2O + CO(aq)2Ca(HCO3)(aq)2

This solution travels through the rock until it reaches an edge and if this is on the roof of a cave it will drip down. When the solution comes into contact with air the chemical reaction that created it is reversed and particles of calcium carbonate are deposited. The reversed reaction is:[6]

Ca(HCO3)(aq)2CaCO(s)3 + H2O(l) + CO(aq)2

An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by a constant supply of slow dripping water rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), which can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year.[7][8] The drip rate must be slow enough to allow the CO2 to degas from the solution into the cave atmosphere, resulting in deposition of CaCO3 on the stalactite. Too fast a drip rate and the solution, still carrying most of the CaCO3, falls to the cave floor where degassing occurs and CaCO3 is deposited as a stalagmite.

All limestone stalactites begin with a single mineral-laden drop of water. When the drop falls, it deposits the thinnest ring of calcite. Each subsequent drop that forms and falls deposits another calcite ring. Eventually, these rings form a very narrow (≈4 to 5 mm diameter), hollow tube commonly known as a "soda straw" stalactite. Soda straws can grow quite long, but are very fragile. If they become plugged by debris, water begins flowing over the outside, depositing more calcite and creating the more familiar cone-shaped stalactite. The same water drops that fall from the tip of a stalactite deposit more calcite on the floor below, eventually resulting in a rounded or cone-shaped stalagmite. Unlike stalactites, stalagmites never start out as hollow "soda straws". Given enough time, these formations can meet and fuse to create pillars of calcium carbonate known as a "column".

Stalactite formation generally begins over a large area, with multiple paths for the mineral rich water to flow. As minerals are dissolved in one channel slightly more than other competing channels, the dominant channel begins to draw more and more of the available water, which speeds its growth, ultimately resulting in all other channels being choked off. This is one reason why formations tend to have minimum distances from one another. The larger the formation, the greater the interformation distance.

ibid

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The time frames are under dispute due to the many reasons brought up in this thread and many more reasons. 

You say Ediacaran fossils are good candidates for the ancestors of Cambrian arthropods. My response is :

1) where's your phylogenic analysis. Can you refer me to any studies where they have confirmed links between any particular Ediacaran small Shelley and a particular early Cambrian athropod

2) Ediacaran small shellies also lack fossil precursors, that's the main problem

3) even if you find that one Cambrian organism has a fossil precursor in the Ediacaran, what about the other millions of organisms? You still have a huge problem. 

1. Since your argument is that the abundant evidence for common descent is negated by a lack of precursors, it's incumbent on you to show that the evidence demonstrates that these could not be precursors.   Given the numerous examples of animals with the characteristics of arthropods in the Precambrian, you'll have to show that they aren't transitional to arthropods.  

2. You don't even know what sort of animals left those shells, so your assumption is wrong.

3. If, for example, Parcorvina is a transitional to later Narioids; Narioia actually is a transitional to later Redlichiids.    As to others, what we haven't yet found isn't proof of anything.   When I was young, we lacked transitionals for humans, whales, ants, turtles, frogs, giraffes, (long list).   Now we have all of those.

Given the genetic and anatomical data linking annelids and arthropods, it's really pointless to deny the evidence.

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/ent425/text02/appendage.gif

Evidence to support the polyphyletic hypothesis can be found in the comparative anatomy of appendages and in the embryonic development of the head and mouthparts.   Sydney Manton, one of the founders of the polyphyletic hypothesis, suggested that there is a fundamental difference between the appendages of crustacea and those of other arthropods such as insects and myriapods (millipedes and centipedes).   Manton argued that crustacean appendages are biramous; that is, two apical units (rami) are attached to a single basal unit.   Appendages of other arthropods are uniramous:   a single apical segment is attached to a single basal segment.   Manton believed that crustaceans evolved from annelid worms similar to marine polychaetes of today, and that all other arthropods evolved from annelid worms that were more similar to the onychophora.   This hypothesis is also supported by D. T. Anderson whose studies of arthropod eggs has revealed that initial cell division in crustacean embryos is holoblastic (spiral cleavage), whereas the eggs of all other arthropods are meroblastic (superficial cleavage).   The eggs of all known annelids are holoblastic.

Embryological development of the head and mouthparts has also been offered as evidence to support the polyphyletic hypothesis.   In myriapods and insects, the head is a separate functional region.   But in the crustacea and the chelicerata, the head and thorax develop together as a single body region, the cephalothorax.   Furthermore, within the myriapods and insects there is evidence that additional segments are added to form mouthparts, suggesting that the mouthparts of chelicerates, crustaceans, and other arthropods are not homologous.

https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/ent425/text02/arthropods.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,979
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   2,112
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/23/2018
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Is there documentation of this mistake in stalactite dating that is not simply hearsay? I'd be interested to see it.

The "mistake" is they were trying to promote their agenda and got caught, ...our pastor found it on one of the TV shows of men of God like Dave Hunt, Roger Oakland, or maybe Hal Lindsay, Walter Martin, could of even been Chuck Missler, ...I don't remember who it was, but I do remember the picture of the brothers with their stalactite in front of the Washington Monument. 

Lord bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

5 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

The "mistake" is they were trying to promote their agenda and got caught, ...our pastor found it on one of the TV shows of men of God like Dave Hunt, Roger Oakland, or maybe Hal Lindsay, Walter Martin, could of even been Chuck Missler, ...I don't remember who it was, but I do remember the picture of the brothers with their stalactite in front of the Washington Monument. 

Lord bless

So to put it simply, it is hearsay. If you can find documentation, I would like to check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

As time goes on, we learn more and more.   Turns out, it's not just duplication and modification of functional genes that produce new genes:

 

Some cod species have a newly minted gene involved in preventing freezing.

 

In the depths of winter, water temperatures in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean can sink below zero. That’s cold enough to freeze many fish, but the conditions don’t trouble the cod. A protein in its blood and tissues binds to tiny ice crystals and stops them from growing.

Where codfish got this talent was a puzzle that evolutionary biologist Helle Tessand Baalsrud wanted to solve. She and her team at the University of Oslo searched the genomes of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and several of its closest relatives, thinking they would track down the cousins of the antifreeze gene. None showed up. Baalsrud, who at the time was a new parent, worried that her lack of sleep was causing her to miss something obvious.

But then she stumbled on studies suggesting that genes do not always evolve from existing ones, as biologists long supposed. Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules. When she looked back at the fish genomes, she saw hints this might be the case: the antifreeze protein — essential to the cod’s survival — had seemingly been built from scratch1.

The cod is in good company. In the past five years, researchers have found numerous signs of these newly minted ‘de novo’ genes in every lineage they have surveyed. These include model organisms such as fruit flies and mice, important crop plants and humans; some of the genes are expressed in brain and testicular tissue, others in various cancers.

De novo genes are even prompting a rethink of some portions of evolutionary theory. Conventional wisdom was that new genes tended to arise when existing ones are accidentally duplicated, blended with others or broken up, but some researchers now think that de novo genes could be quite common: some studies suggest at least one-tenth of genes could be made in this way; others estimate that more genes could emerge de novo than from gene duplication. Their existence blurs the boundaries of what constitutes a gene, revealing that the starting material for some new genes is non-coding DNA (see ‘Birth of a gene’).

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03061-x?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

The stalagtite story just falls apart when one realizes that stalagtites in concrete form faster, by a different chemical process, than limestone or other stalagtites.     The radioisotope testing part of the story seems to be a complete fabrication.   I can't image a scientist being dumb enough to use that kind of analysis on concrete, which would at best, tell him how old the rock was from which the concrete was made.

 

 

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Abdicate said:

If you do not believe the word of God on this matter, then nothing else does.

Why do you think there is a difference of opinion among YECS on the age of the earth? Opinions range from the 6000 year to roughly 10,000 years. The age of the earth, even for those that accept a 144-hour creation period, is not nearly as simple as you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Abdicate said:

From the age of each birth registered in the word of God, we are coming up on 6000 years. Before Adam, I still believe it was just five 24-days. Either way, humans have only been here on this planet as of today 10/19/2019 a total of 5995 years. It's simple math. If you do not believe the word of God on this matter, then nothing else does.

The problem is that there are all sorts of gaps and even contradictions if one tries to take these as a chronology.   Not to mention, we have the ruins of human settlements about 9,500 years old.   So there's bigger problems than the holes in geneologies in scripture.

Although Archbishop Ussher assumed the Genesis genealogies were complete, it is clear from the rest of the Bible that those genealogies were telescoped (some names were left out for the sake of brevity), which is common in biblical genealogies but rare in modern genealogies. Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as "son" and "father") have much broader meanings in Hebrew than their corresponding English words. The Hebrew word translated "son" can also have the meaning of "grandson," "great grandson," "descendant," etc.3 Likewise, the Hebrew word translated "father" can mean "grandfather," "great grandfather," "ancestor," etc.4 An accurate understanding of biblical genealogies is difficult, yet it is important for the understanding of Scripture. Having a proper understanding of biblical genealogies is a prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis genealogies. By cross referencing the biblical genealogies with other events dated in the Bible, one can find instances where numerous genealogies were telescoped, resulting in the exclusion of numerous generations of individuals. When examining individual genealogies, one can find examples where individuals are excluded or added to the lists found in Genesis. The fact that the genealogies of the Bible are given symmetrically (where the numbers of generations in each group are identical) lends credence to the argument that they are representative of generations found throughout human history. More information about the biblical genealogies can be found in our article, The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

 

It's very clear that the Bible was never intended to be a chronology of the Earth.

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Oy Vey! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,979
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   2,112
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/23/2018
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

So to put it simply, it is hearsay. If you can find documentation, I would like to check it out.

Friend, okay, ...let's say the stalactite story is just hearsay, ...what Bible believing, born again child of God can doubt God's Word in the Creation account, ...I mean, there is so much genealogical evidence, written by the Holy Spirit, that Adam was created 6,000 years ago, ...even God's chosen people's calendar supports it today, ...how could any Bible believing person even think that this earth is millions times millions of years old???

More important, ...why would an all sufficient/efficient God waste all of that time, ...before He created life on this planet, ...it's just not how God has worked in the lives of His children past, ...just read the historical stories and we see how He intervened at precisely the right moment, ...or in my life today, ...my Father is never early and He is never late, ...in the 32 years in walking with Him, He has always been on time, ...precisely to the exact moment when I needed Him!

Think about it, ...if God was not all sufficient/efficient in everything that would mean any wasted time, from when He started the work to when it was actually accomplished, ...would mean He was not Omniscient, ...there was a gap, a time lapse in His Omniscience, ...which would be a fault in His Character, ...which means we could not put our trust in a God that had faults,

...may I humbly suggest/propose, ...we can know who is the ultimate "author" behind all of these winds of doctrine that blow across the face of this planet...

The Holy Spirit warned us about this 2,000 years ago;

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  Eph 4:14 

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of Whom thou hast learned them;  2 Tim 3:13-14

I challenge anyone to show me verses from the Word, in their proper context, ...where the Holy Spirit has taught us evolution, global warming (excluding Revelation) or climate change!

We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God.    Worthy: Statement of Faith, p 10

This is a Bible based, Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed Word, ...believing forum,

...anyone want to try it?

Lord bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...