The debate "The Earth is younger than 10000 years" was started by
July 10, 2019, 3:32 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 42 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Light posted 22 arguments, Allirix posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 9 arguments, Nemiroff posted 11 arguments, Light posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Light, Allirix, Kiowa, The_Pyschoone1 and 13 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, historybuff, TRUELOVE, ototoxic, fry, jennalyse, Nemiroff, sk25, mwest0097, mtbtheboss, Joelm and 31 visitors disagree.
I would suggest searching on non-apologetic sites, too
I first heard of it at a Christian retreat and found that several apologetic sites used it as evidence.
It was a reference in this
It's such an outdated idea I'm actually more interested in where Light heard about it than why he believes it
I think this does a good breakdown of where his moon dust idea came from.
I googled the term "moon too much dust". and found an article from space.com titled "moon dust mystery solved."
apparently the moon had MORE dust then scientists expected and it really got in the way of movement and equipment.
this seems contrary to your problem of it having too little dust.
I've never heard of this claim. can you elaborate? maybe a link?
No when NASA landed on the moon they expected their ships to sink into the dust what we really had was about an inch.
I'm not sure where your "far too little" or what amount is just enough values come from, but there arent that many meteor strikes anymore. I havent noticed any big ones lately. this is for 2 reasons. the number of objects is decreasing since none are being produced, and Jupiter with its massive gravity acts as a shield and knocks many away from us.
thus as time moved on, we had less and less strikes. plate tectonics destroyed they old earth that was covered in dust, while less and less hit the newly created surface. thus very little dust.
as for the moon, isnt it covered in dust? how much dust are you expecting, and why? and with its weak gravity, wouldnt most of the dust be blasted into space by the impact and not come back down? or go towards the earth?
there is still far to little
Geological rotation. Rocks move
The accumulation of moon dust is far too small for it to be billions of years old.
No I just wanted to put that put there. I will give you more evidence but first I'm going to fact check the credibility of my own evidence rather than just wholeheartedly accept it like I have for so long.
So your excuse is to just give no evidence? The whole point of this platform is to be open-minded. If your claim is true, it will stand up to any and all scrutiny with ease.
The problem with some of this evidence is that we all have colored glasses we put on when we view the world that our made of what we believe. These are the basis for the assumptions we make and conclusions we draw. This is what allows us to look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. So no matter how much evidence I give you that I believe proves it you will likely draw a different conclusion from me.
Okay, then provide it
I agree I cannot do that but I also believe there is sufficient evidence.
Though I am sure that there are at least hypotheses, I will admit that I do not personally know. This, however, does not mean that you can assert that it is your God without sufficient scientific evidence, the likes of which I have not seen.
It does move slowly at only a few cm per year but it would have moved away faster when the Earth and moon were closer and it doesn't fit the billions of years timeline.
I am not personally a scientist and haven't done more than cursory research, but my understanding is that it moves away very, VERY little at a time and it simply hasn't been enough time.
Then why have scientists found that the moons orbit is moving further away so that if it was billions of years old it would have flown out of its orbit around Earth by now.
So would you also argue that the moon is also along the lines of at least millions of years old.
I understand I will try and summarize in the future rather than just outsource
You're making a claim and outsourcing the arguments to the links. That's against the spirit of this platform. You should be articulating your arguments yourself. If you believe and understand what's in the links then summarise their points here link them in as a bibliography if you feel you need to. But you can find links to support anything on the internet
Also, Evidence is very different to linking another person's argument. I've only read one of your links (on the Cambrian Explosion) and it was a creationist blog distorting an outdated magazine opinion article made in 1992 by an evolutionary scientist with a very nuanced evolutionary perspective who asked questions that have mostly been answered since. I didn't reply to you there because it would have taken too long to dissect the nuance and distortion and you'd probably reply with another link to a blog post as a rebuttal without summarising it and the cycle would repeat.
My claim is that radioactive dating is inaccurate and I am using the links to back it up.
Links should be used as evidence to back up YOUR claims. You're just outsourcing the entire side of your argument to someone else. This is a discussion platform, not a link war.
Here's another: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Can you give any scientifically acclaimed, non apologetic sources?
Here's another website that contains reasons why radioactive dating is inaccurate. It also contains example of the different dating measurements disagreeing on the age.
according to the article, radioactive decay rates change depending on seasons... but if every year has an equal.number of summers and winters, overall theyl yearly measurement should be stable, yes? and over millions of years, any fluctuation becomes irrelevant. this was very important for their goal of generating random numbers today, but in dating million year old things, steady seasonal variability is insignificant.
there may be more nuance in the theory of radioactive decay seasonally, but the overall age measurements are still accurate. again, the number/length of the seasons is pretty stable from year to year, millenia to millenia. any variation is only seen on a month to month basis, and equals out when comparing whole years.
have repeated dating of the same fossil given vastly different dates? if not, then its stable.
Here is an article that shows how radioactive decay may not be constant and if it isn't then we would need to fix our methods of dating.
I dont think physical events can change radioactive decay dates. it would have to be a chemical change to affect the chemical composition. all a flood would do is erode the rock into a smaller rock with the same amount of uranium per cubic meter
this article is confusing. its goes on an exhaustive list of reasons why the dating works. then mentions how some of the byproducts can become helium (not a steady process to my knowledge) and then tries to measure this unsteady process of helium creation to show random dates. ive never heard of anyone measuring the helium byproduct, if we ignore the helium part and just focus on the decay of the uranium, the dates are consistent.
Here's an article that deals with Uranium dating:
No type of radioactive dating is very accurate though do to the fact that any kind of large natural event (such as a world wide flood) Can mess with the half life and thus the dating.
oh yes, I specifically said radiographic dating to not limit myself to carbon. carbon is only good up to 50,000 years. it's great for early human archeology. other elements are used for dating fossils or even older rocks.
uranium dating is good for 2.5billion years
Here is an article that contains several examples and may help with finding the original studies. I have not found the studies myself only been presented the data in presentations.
live animals are chemically active, they may not function the same as rocks. I have not heard of this study, can you reference it.
Radioactive dating has been disproven when we use live animals and find them over thousands of years old.
radiactive dating is the best direct evidence we have.
Let's flip the argument. What would you argue proves that the Earth is billions of years old.
the earth is active with plate tectonics. old earth is destroyed and new earth is formed in the mid ocean trenches. that keeps our surface relatively new.
If the Earth were older the buildup would be much greater same applies to the moons buildup of space dust.
how does the buildup of dust prove that?
The buildup of dust on the Earth from meteors points to a young Earth.
assuming this idea is based on a religion, and considering all of the evidence to the contrary, you must believe in a very deceptive god.
Do you have any evidence of this other than the Bible? Because using the Bible to prove what the Bible says is, like, the definition of a circular argument.