'Old Earth Scientists'... I've never heard that before ... You aren't suggesting that there are 'new earth scientists' are you ?
Well sort of, there are commonly two types of scientists - old earth (who believe that the earth is billions of years old) and then young earth who believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old.As far as Science is concerned the big bang occured between approx 14 - 18 billion years ago
As stated above, there are both old earth scientists and young earth scientists. Old earth scientists believe in the big bang theory and that the age of the earth is in the order of billions of years. Having said that perhaps the above statement should read "As far as old earth scientists believe, the big bang occurred between approx 14 - 18 billion years ago." Furthermore, when you say "concerned" it makes the assumption that the big bang actually did happen. The big bang is a theory and unless scientists can replicate it, it will forever remain a theory.thats not a theory formed by 'old earth scientists' that is calculated using every method we have at our disposal
Unfortunately your statement falls short from the beginning - remember, the big bang theory is just that, a theory.measuring the expansion rate of the universe, measuring light from distant stars etc..there are too many to mention.
The Bible also confirms that the universe is expanding. Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This verse was written thousands of years before secular scientists accepted an expanding universe. It was until more recently that scientists changed their mind from the universe being constant to actually expanding.
There are a few theories floating around with respect to the apparent red shift of stellar objects. old earth scientists believe it to be a result of bodies moving away from earth. As such, they have suggested that there should be no fully formed stellar bodies further away than about 8 billion light years. Astronomers have pointed telescopes into supposed redshift deserts (I.E. locations in space where there should be no fully formed bodies) and they found a sky full of fully formed galaxies.
Measuring light from distant stars relies on the assumption that light has always moved at a constant rate, which unfortunately has not been proven.1. The moon moves away from the earth at around 4cm per year. If the earth was billions of years old, the moon could not be as close to the earth as it is.
That suggests that the moon has always been in orbit around the earth for the 4.5 billion years...it hasn't
Unfortunately this is not what old earth scientists believe. They believe that the earth and moon have been around for over 4 billion years.2. Oil deposits in the earth are under extreme pressure. If the earth was billions of years old this pressure would have caused the oil to have seeped through the rock layers and eventually the pressure would all be gone - I.E. there would be no oil under pressure today
The oil deposits aren't 4.5 billion years old either... they are from rotting animal/vegetable sources from much later .. millions of years not billions
I should have written this statement differently I.E. millions of years. The problem still stands however that if oil has was around millions of years ago, then it could not be under pressure today.3. The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per hour. this means that the sun would have been touching the earth a mere 11million years ago (let alone billions of years ago)
No, that asssumes a constant state universe...the universe is very far from constant...its expanding and has been since the beginning. Nobody has ever suggested that the earth - moon - sun position has been in existance let alone constant since the big bang.
Don't old earth scientists make assumptions also? If you look above, old earth scientists make the assumption that the speed of light is constant. Furthermore they still hold to the assumption that the earth, moon and sun have been around for over 4 billion years.4. Helium is added to the atmosphere everyday. Basically there is not enough helium in the atmosphere to support billions of years.
Helium hasn't been added for 4.5 billion years ... again the earth wouldn't have had an atmosphere until recently ( recent related to its 4.5 billion age )
According to old earth scientists. The oxygen enriched atmosphere (basically as we know it today) was formed around 2.7 billion years ago. The amount of helium contained within our atmosphere today is only enough to support thousands of years, certainly not billions.5. Comets lose mass over time, there would be no comets left if the universe was billions of years old. (because comets were apparently a by product of the big bang)
Thats misleading. The origin and time of origin of comets is not claimed to be the big bang. Thats a straw man.
(I am guessing that a straw is another way of saying clutching at straws?)
Again with this one I should not have just skimmed over it but should have elaborated. Comets have long been a good evidence due to their fragile nature and life expectancy. Comets are commonly huge chunks of ice traveling at tremendous speeds through space, when they come close to a star, they begin to melt and so form a trail of moisture. This can't last forever and it will eventually disintegrate. Here in-lies a problem for old earth scientists because there should be no comets left - they should all have been disintegrated by now (giving the billions of years). And if we are talking about clutching at straws - here's a good one for you.
Old earth scientists have come up with another theory to try and explain why we still have comets today. So in comes the Oort Cloud. The Oort Cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 1 light year away from our sun. Apparently, these comets become dislodged from the Oort Cloud by the gravitational pull of passing stars and the milky way itself (due to it apparently being at the outer edges of our milky way) These comets are then free to move about and disintegrate (which is how we see comets today) Now this Oort Cloud has not been detected or seen it is another theory - it is just a hypothetical cloud to try and fit in with the mold of an old universe.6. The earths magnetic field decays by approximately 5% every century, this means that a mere 10,000 years ago, the earths magnetic field would have been so strong that the heat it would have produced would have made life on earth impossible.
No doubt taken from Barnes's magnetic field argument 1973. The decay rate he stated has been debunked and stated as flawed.
How has it been debunked?7. fossilized dinosaur bones - these bones have been found and it is impossible for them to have lasted for millions of years.
Why not ? They have
The evidence available suggests an asteroid hit the earth approx 65 million years ago leading to a catastrpohic global event. There is a layer of iridium in the earths stratography that supports this theory.
Speaking of clutching at straws - "Why not? they have" This goes against what old earth scientists have been telling us for years! Blood cells decay at a much faster rate than the rate at which bones can fossilize. How then can you have a fossilized dinosaur bone which contain blood cells?
If we are talking about debunking theories or practices - radio carbon dating techniques have terrible flaws and rely on many assumptions. Therefor how can you be sure that your 65 million years is accurate?8. Salt is added everyday to the dead sea by inflows. Since it has no outlet - the salt content continues to grow. The amount of salt contained within it is not enough to support billions of years.
The dead Sea didn't spring into existance billions of years ago. Its a result of millions of years of constant change on the earth by volcanic, tectonic, atmospheric activity. The dead sea is a baby compared the age of the earth
I would have thought that you would line up the forming of the seas as we know them now with the catastrophic global event that wiped out the dinosaurs. If not that, then what are you basing your idea that the dead sea is a baby compared to the age of the earth? are we talking thousands of years, hundreds of thousands, millions or perhaps billions?9. The earths population doubles every 50 years (approx) it would take around about 4,000 years to reach the number of people that are on earth today (Lines up nicely with the world wide flood of Noah's day) if we use this figure for millions of years - the earth could not contain the amount of people.
Also that matches for the evolution model. The expansion in the earths population is also linked to the expansion of civilisation .. .not just the existance of humans and their descendants.
Could you expand on which evolution model you're referring to?10. Spiral galaxies appear this way due to their 'rotation' this rotation would eventually cause them to straighten out I.E. lose their spiral. There should be no spiral galaxies if the universe was actually billions of years old.
That again is a straw man. The big bang theory doesn't suggest spiral galaxies popping into existance at the moment of the big bang. They are formed over many millions of years
Why not? The big bang suggests that everything else popped into existence at the moment of the big bang. If this is not the case - then how did they form?The earth, the universe and everything in it was brought about in creation week. It was a divine event brought about by a supernatural creator.
No it wasn't ( that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence )
We have just been discussing a page full of evidences!And faith .....
Would you build an electronic project based on faith ? would you cross the road by faith ?
But you yourself are obviously a man of great faith. You believe that the universe and all it contains was brought about by a supposed big bang. To put it lightly - 'Nothing became something and the something exploded'
Where did this matter come from in the first place? doesn't the big bang go against the law of conservation of mass and energy?
If you are dismissing faith, then you must have proof of the big bang. You obviously weren't there when the supposed big bang took place so therefor it would stand to reason that you can replicate the big bang - after all, we are dismissing faith here.If I am sick I see a Doctor, If I have trouble seeing I go to an optician etc etc. Faith would not heal me or make me see. Rather countless selfless individuals who over thousands of years have devoted their lives to bettering mankind.
Yes indeed! Isn't it interesting how even though we apparently all stemmed from a common singularity we are all unique and have our own special gifts and talents? If we look to God's word though, we find that we all have been given these unique gifts and talents - some to be doctors, some to be opticians, some to make super pong tables and some to be astronauts!
But back on topic, isn't there an underlying reason that you go to a doctor? You go specifically to a doctor because you have faith in him. If you didn't have faith in him and all his years of training then you would just go to anyone wouldn't you?Its just not the case at all. For a start evolution doesn't need a set of ready to be assembled parts lying around. Its a process beginning with the smallest building blocks at chemical level and taking millions and millions of years to progress.
Fair enough, Let's walk though this one step at a time starting from the beginning - how did the very first building block get here?
Also a 747 ( or an LED pong table ) isn't carrying about obselete parts of earlier less successful aircraft in its frame like we are.
Could you list these supposed obsolete parts and explain why they are not required (I think you'll find that every part of our body plays it's own important role)
You say that you have faith in fellow humans. Why is that? If we are just a result of random chemical reactions then why do you trust in them?
On that note, why does anyone have morals? why do we have laws and rules? if we are the by product of natural selection in that it is survival of the fittest, who is to say that I can't go out and kill someone - after all this is how we supposedly came to be!
Do you feel sorrow when a family member or close friend dies? I am guessing that you would, but hold on a second - why on earth would you get sad if this is simply what you are arguing for in motion? To expand, If we are brought about by the strongest cells living on and the weaker ones dying off, isn't it good that your family member or friend has died because it means that the strong have survived and the weak are now dead? you should be sitting there giving hi five's to everyone shouting "Way to go natural selection!"
And finally, Why on earth would scientists use evidence from the past to predict the future? If the universe came about by disorder and random chemical reactions then how on earth could we use this information to reliably predict the future. Uniformity does not make any sense in a universe created by random chance and disorder.
Of course this is not the case, we find that the universes history is very much ordered because God designed it that way.