[stvncstr0]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Um, so does the moon rule the day, or do the stars rule the day?

I apologize, I didn't make myself quite clear in my last post.
By the word, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"
greater light = sun
lesser light = moon
stars = stars

So our Lord wouldn't be powerful enough to make sure His Words are properly communicated to us. Friend, that's almost blasphemy!

It's not that the Lord wasn't powerful enough to make sure His Words were properly communicated, but rather that any human would have been unable to comprehend the ultimate glory that the Lord conveyed to them. Obviously, the writers did a very great job transcribing what happened, otherwise we'd have no clue as to what happened at the dawn of time.

[Wide-Open]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

This is the creation of the moon, and the stars.

Um, so does the moon rule the day, or do the stars rule the day?

It's not a sin to admit you were wrong, and I think you owe Pastor Billy-Reuben an apology.

You have to realize that this book was written some time after the events actually happened. Even though God dictated this book, the imperfection of man could still have caused some points of indistinction, simply due to unspecific details.

So our Lord wouldn't be powerful enough to make sure His Words are properly communicated to us. Friend, that's almost blasphemy!

[stvncstr0]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

If that verse from the first day marks the formation of the sun, then what does this verse from the fourth day mark?
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

This is the creation of the moon, and the stars.
You have to realize that this book was written some time after the events actually happened. Even though God dictated this book, the imperfection of man could still have caused some points of indistinction, simply due to unspecific details.

So you believe that flowering plants (fruit) evolved before there were insects to pollinate them?

Plants rely on much more than insects for pollination. Wind, birds, etc.. Plus, with such a small population at the beginning, it shouldn't have have been very hard for them to reproduce through those means.

Do you also believe that God also created the tiny mutations that cause Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, and Hodgkin's disease, or do you believe that God is only responsible for the "beneficial" mutations?

Yes, I believe that every living thing, including all beneficial and detrimental bacteria, all prey, and all predators, alike was created by God by this means.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

3Then God sad, "Let there be light"; and there was light
That's marks the formation of the sun.

If that verse from the first day marks the formation of the sun, then what does this verse from the fourth day mark?
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

I also believe that God created all life, in the EXACT order in which it is written in the Bible. "grass, herb, fruit, living creatures in the waters, birds, and finally land creatures.

I believe the way he did this, is through evolution.

So you believe that flowering plants (fruit) evolved before there were insects to pollinate them?

God created the tiny mutations of DNA precisely so that new animals, and eventually humans, would come about in the exact order in which he wanted.

Do you also believe that God also created the tiny mutations that cause Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, and Hodgkin's disease, or do you believe that God is only responsible for the "beneficial" mutations?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[stvncstr0]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

I believe that God created everything, from the parts of an atom, to the entire universe.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That right there is proof that God initiated the Big Bang, and even provided the material that it need in order to occur.

3Then God sad, "Let there be light"; and there was light
That's marks the formation of the sun.

9Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear" and it was so.
The formation of the Earth.

I also believe that God created all life, in the EXACT order in which it is written in the Bible. "grass, herb, fruit, living creatures in the waters, birds, and finally land creatures.
I believe the way he did this, is through evolution. Yes, evolution, but not completely random, scientific evolution. This evolution is guided by God, and only God. God created the tiny mutations of DNA precisely so that new animals, and eventually humans, would come about in the exact order in which he wanted. Scientific explanation actually agrees with this. They say life originated in water, then sprung to land.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

uh where is your proof for this??? and look up saprobes please.

to which post are you referring?

[DebateMe]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

uh where is your proof for this??? and look up saprobes please.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

As for C14, the process is that neutrons from the sun react in trace quantities with standard Nitrogen, with an atomic mass of 14 and an atomic number of 7 (that is, 7 protons, along with a further 7 neutrons). The extra neutron in the reaction combines in the nitrogen nucleus, splitting off 1 proton, then creating a new atom with the atomic mass of 14, but an atomic number of 6, hence the name carbon 14, due to the atomic number being the same as Carbon-12.

Now, accounting for the nitrogen which is used. C-14 is not a common part of the atmosphere, accounting for about 1 part per trillion. However, it decays fairly quickly relative to other isotopes, with, as mentioned, a half-life of just over 5000 years. The decay process is simply standard beta decay, where the extra neutron, due to the weak force interaction in the nucleus, converts into a proton with the emission of an electron and an antineutrino, changing C-14 back into standard N-14 with an atomic number of 7 and the same atomic mass of 14.

So a neutron knocks a proton out of the nucleus, like a cue ball knocking an 8 ball into a pocket, changing N-14 to C-14. Then later on that neutron decays into a proton, an electron, an antineutrino, turning C-14 back into N-14, meaning the total amount of N-14 and C-14 remains constant.

That's awful convenient for you, or it would be, except for one detail. This process would leave a whole bunch of extra protons and antineutrinos around accumulating somewhere, but where are they? We should be able to detect billions of years of accumulated protons and antineutrinos, but they aren't anywhere to be found. That's the missing link in your theory.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Are those the same "Malthusian constraints" that predicted human population could never grow above two billion?


How does adding a neutron to nitrogen make carbon? Adding a proton to boron would make carbon, and removing a proton from nitrogen would make carbon, but adding a neutron to nitrogen just makes a heavier nitrogen atom.

Even if what you say were true, you've only shifted the problem. If the carbon comes from nitrogen, then you still have to explain the absurd amounts of nitrogen that had to exist millions of years ago to make old-earth theory work. The argument still stands.

Not necessarily the predictive constraints of Malthusian theory, but the simple truth that populations which grow overly large tend to overuse their resources to the point of dying off because of a lack of basic necessities of life. It's something which can be observed in a number of species which become overly abundant.

As for C14, the process is that neutrons from the sun react in trace quantities with standard Nitrogen, with an atomic mass of 14 and an atomic number of 7 (that is, 7 protons, along with a further 7 neutrons). The extra neutron in the reaction combines in the nitrogen nucleus, splitting off 1 proton, then creating a new atom with the atomic mass of 14, but an atomic number of 6, hence the name carbon 14, due to the atomic number being the same as Carbon-12.

Now, accounting for the nitrogen which is used. C-14 is not a common part of the atmosphere, accounting for about 1 part per trillion. However, it decays fairly quickly relative to other isotopes, with, as mentioned, a half-life of just over 5000 years. The decay process is simply standard beta decay, where the extra neutron, due to the weak force interaction in the nucleus, converts into a proton with the emission of an electron and an antineutrino, changing C-14 back into standard N-14 with an atomic number of 7 and the same atomic mass of 14.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

[...]There is a much higher yield of food that is being created today than back then. So, the curve of the graph keeps increasing since our availability of food continues to increase.

[...] Just wanted to give an explanation why the figure of supportable human life on the planet continues to increase in general.

From your own post it seems you are both knowledgeable in that you give the answer and suffer from Alzheimer's in that you then ask the question.

Knock and the door will be opened, ask and it shall be given, etc. Christian prayer and praise causes God to be even more bountiful.

[jessev]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

If I may add something, in terms of population support for the planet, it's true that it was believed a good while back that the earth could only support 2 billion people. But it's been many many years since that prediction. And specifically, agricultural practices and manufacturing of food products has changed dramatically. There is a much higher yield of food that is being created today than back then. So, the curve of the graph keeps increasing since our availability of food continues to increase.

I expect that there will come a time when the supply and methods of food production will eventually not be able to catch up to population growth, and there will become massive food shortages. But I think the more prevalent and immediate concern is water shortages. Good clean water is more likely to run out sooner than we would with food. There are already many places that are running short of water supplies or at least access to clean water to drink.

Just my thoughts on this subject. I don't have direct numbers and I'm not going to pretend to know when we may or may not run out of food or water. Just wanted to give an explanation why the figure of supportable human life on the planet continues to increase in general.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Are those the same "Malthusian constraints" that predicted human population could never grow above two billion?

Godly point Pastor. The Darwinists foolishly limit themselves in their naturalistic box that restricts them to their arrogant prediction that the population would limit itself at two billion. We TRUE Christians know threw the Bible God created the world for us so when the natural resources begin to run out God simply creates more for us. GLORY!

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

I don't think this is an entirely accurate extrapolation, since it assumes consistent positive growth and neglects die offs due to factors other than age. Bacteria are subject to many of the same Malthusian constraints other species have, from exhausted food supplies, to disease and predation. It's inaccurate to assume that a single mathematical formula can predict growth over all periods of history, especially since not all bacteria undergo mitosis at the same rate, such as extremophiles, which tend to do so exceptionally slowly, or disease causing bacterium which tend to multiply rapidly over the course of a pandemic, but die off in large quantities once all suitable hosts have been utilized.

Are those the same "Malthusian constraints" that predicted human population could never grow above two billion?

As a small side note to Brother V, who mentioned Carbon-14. You are correct in the half-life calculation, however, extrapolating it to the current amount is somewhat inaccurate. C14 is somewhat rare amongst radioactive isotopes in that it is actually created via cosmic radiation interacting with the nitrogen in the atmosphere. Neutrons originating in the sun undergo a nuclear reaction with Nitrogen to produce carbon-14.

How does adding a neutron to nitrogen make carbon? Adding a proton to boron would make carbon, and removing a proton from nitrogen would make carbon, but adding a neutron to nitrogen just makes a heavier nitrogen atom.

Even if what you say were true, you've only shifted the problem. If the carbon comes from nitrogen, then you still have to explain the absurd amounts of nitrogen that had to exist millions of years ago to make old-earth theory work. The argument still stands.

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

I don't think this is an entirely accurate extrapolation, since it assumes consistent positive growth and neglects die offs due to factors other than age. Bacteria are subject to many of the same Malthusian constraints other species have, from exhausted food supplies, to disease and predation. It's inaccurate to assume that a single mathematical formula can predict growth over all periods of history, especially since not all bacteria undergo mitosis at the same rate, such as extremophiles, which tend to do so exceptionally slowly, or disease causing bacterium which tend to multiply rapidly over the course of a pandemic, but die off in large quantities once all suitable hosts have been utilized.

As a small side note to Brother V, who mentioned Carbon-14. You are correct in the half-life calculation, however, extrapolating it to the current amount is somewhat inaccurate. C14 is somewhat rare amongst radioactive isotopes in that it is actually created via cosmic radiation interacting with the nitrogen in the atmosphere. Neutrons originating in the sun undergo a nuclear reaction with Nitrogen to produce carbon-14.

[Hieronymous Bosch]

Re: Proof of a Young Earth

Liberals don't understand cooking and cleaning.
Ever been to a liberals house? Crap is everywhere, especially if they have a dog. Nothin' but a big mess, just like their brains. Cooking, why when they eat they wouldn't dream of eating at home. They go to the fancy french restaurant when they eat. So they don't need a woman to clean and they don't need a woman to cook. So that leaves raising kids, but they'd rather have a beemer than a kid so they just don't know what to do with a woman. No wonder liberal women are worried about how to make a living.