A question for old earth believers

prewitt81 said:
Ok, two can play at this game.

Since 1979, global temperature has risen about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit. Using your "logic", that means that 6000 years ago, the globe must have been approximately 150 degrees cooler than it is now. That would make the hottest places on the planet about -30 degrees.

Funny that the Bible doesn't mention how cold it was everywhere.

Brilliant work, guys. Watch these skeptojerks weasel a way past this fortress of smartitude.
Click to expand...


I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.
 
TriangleMan said:
3 inches/yr x 4,500,000,000yrs x 1 foot/12 inches x 1 mile/5280 feet = 213,068 miles! Ergo the math in your example is blatantly wrong. 1.125 billion miles - where the heck did that come from??

AND it assumes that the 3 inches amount is correct whereas the usual figures I hear are 3-4 centimetres or around 1.5 inches. I'd like to see a reference for the 3 inches figure please.

AND it assumes that the rate of recession is constant throughout the 4.5 billion year period, which other posters have already addressed.


Next.
Click to expand...

Quoted so it's noted. ;)

Come on lads - this is one big weasel we've got here. Skin it while it's warm.

Athon
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Is it "Skepticism" you're defining here or narrow perceptions of the world? Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority? I've seen many that do.
Click to expand...

Not narrow perceptions of the world at all - quite the opposite. What I'm defining is the ability to have an objective, honest view of the world which is not narrowed or limited by preconceptions or dogma, but is rather tempered by an understanding of how the world works.

ETA: As for the second part of your argument, that creationist web sites can have well thought-out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority, please provide some that do - I've never seen any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
Last edited:
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

My point is that you just cannot extend a current trend back linearly like the OP tries to. There can be other factors at work.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Is it "Skepticism" you're defining here or narrow perceptions of the world? Why can't creationist websites have well thought out academic answers that don't rely on the Bible as an authority? I've seen many that do.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see them too. Care to post links?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Current global warming trends are probably anthropogenic in nature. Climates were probably a lot warmer 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

I never quite know whether you're playing dimwitted or whether you really do struggle to make connections.

Try looking at the connection here; both your claim and prewitt's analogy rely on the assumption of a linear relationship, something which doesn't fit with either the climate model (hence why his analogy demonstrates a nonsense conclusion) or with the physics of an orbiting satellite (why your conclusion is nonsense).

I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.

Athon
 
athon said:
I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.
Click to expand...
While this effect is somewhat unnerving, it does pass within an hour or two.

Not yet sure what the cumulative effect might be, though.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.(snip)
Click to expand...

That's exactly what we've been trying to get across to you. Here is the point:

The behaviour of the universe contains variables as well as constants. Just as we can demonstrate mechanisms whereby overall global temperatures can be variable, we can also demonstrate mechanisms whereby the recession of a celestial object such as the moon relative to earth can be variable.

Since we can demonstrate that the recession rate of the moon relative to the earth is variable, arguments based upon the assumption that it is a static rate should be dismissed as either ill-informed or dishonest.
 
athon said:
I never quite know whether you're playing dimwitted or whether you really do struggle to make connections.

Try looking at the connection here; both your claim and prewitt's analogy rely on the assumption of a linear relationship, something which doesn't fit with either the climate model (hence why his analogy demonstrates a nonsense conclusion) or with the physics of an orbiting satellite (why your conclusion is nonsense).

I sometimes feel like I'm slowing the hertz down on my brain just to explain these things to you.

Athon
Click to expand...

What claim did I make? I never made any claims.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
What claim did I make? I never made any claims.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I'll ask; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon
 
athon said:
My apologies. I'll ask; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon
Click to expand...

You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...
 
Get real. You implied that the only responses to the OP would be weaseling and require an invented solution. You're wearing an "I Support the OP" t-shirt for eff's sake.
 
jesus_freak said:
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?
Click to expand...
Where I by gas for my car, this week the price is $1.30 per litre (sorry, we use metric here). Last week it was $1.25. That's a rise in price of 5 cents in one week.

Using your reasoning, 25 weeks ago (about six months), gas would have been given away for free. And a year ago, they would have paid me to take it.

Agree?
 
athon said:
My apologies. I'll ask; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon
Click to expand...
Dustin's point seems to be to have a nasty dig wherever and however he can. He's far from serious, just being a *****-stirrer.
 
While we wait for jesus_freak to reply: Dustin, do you have any disagreement with the analysis that I posted that shows that JF's argument is incorrect?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...
Click to expand...

There were two questions in my post and you ignored both of them to wax some rhetoric about 'text not having a tone'.

So I'll try again and see if you ignore it a second time; do you agree with JF's claim that the moon moving away from the Earth demonstrates a flaw in the belief that our planet is billions of years old? From the tone of your responses, you agree with him.

If you don't, then what is your point in your above posts?

Athon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom