Posted by bistiza on 12/24/2012 9:21:00 AM (view original):
All you have to do is run a search for "young earth theory" or "young earth creationism" and read the information to find many scientists who support the hypothesis in whole or in part. I'm not going to bother listing all the names for you - you can go read them yourself if you want to take the time.
Keep in mind I truly am completely neutral on this one. I can see both sides.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Bistiza, could you give one - 1! - piece of "evidence" that the earth is NOT billions of years old? You claimed that there is evidence on both sides. And can you show me any evidence that any scientists believe that?
The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.
The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.
Adding to these and other evidence, there are MANY things older universe theory fails to explain, so there is every reason for me to be neutral on the issue and not simply accept one theory over another because it is the feeling of the majority. I make no apology for thinking for myself and making a determination that there isn't enough evidence on either side at this point in time, and both sides have many failings.
No - it simply means it is a majority opinion. Majority doesn't equal consensus. Just because some people fail to cite their sources doesn't mean everyone accepts them as facts. It just means those people don't cite as they should.
It is absolutely the scientific consensus. This is not a disputable point. Articles consistently refer to the age of the earth as ~4.6 billion years, at this point you haven't needed a citation on that for decades. If you don't have to cite a fact it's a good assumption that it's the general consensus of the scientific community.
By the way, Wikipedia isn't exactly the greatest source on scientific theory and ideas. Try looking up some information on "young earth theory" and read a bit and you'll find out you don't know what you think you do.
I find it absurd that I'm not even a proponent of a young earth theory and yet to even suggest that I have an open mind and take a neutral stance seems unacceptable to those who think they "know" what is a "fact". Apparently its some kind of crime to think for one's self and remain open-minded when the evidence suggests that is worthwhile.
I'm done with this argument. You are free to think as you would like.
I'm going to stay neutral on this issue because that's what the evidence suggests I should do given that there is not enough to come to a factual opinion. If you don't like the fact that I'm going to remain neutral, I don't care.
I'll repeat that so you understand: I do not care what you think of my opinion here. If you don't like it, too bad.
This is the problem with the gap in understanding between the scientific community and the non-scientific community. It's possible to use extremely outdated scientific issues, pass them off as unresolved, pretend everyone just forgot about it or tried to ignore it, and then act like it's still an issue. The age-old carbon-14 argument is a prime example. It is well understood that carbon 14 is continuously formed in the upper atmosphere by interaction nitrogen atoms (atomic weight 14) with the solar wind. You can make a neutron by adding a proton and an electron, this is "why" neutrons outweigh protons by about the mass of an electron. It is absolutely not true that there should be no carbon 14. In the rock a mile under the surface there is virtually no C14. How did that happen in a young earth model? The reality is that legitimate science sees the distribution as C14 as not only evidence of the old earth but one of the better dating mechanisms to make the most precise estimates of the age.
If your only young earth evidence is that some petrified trees managed to stick around and see rock form around them it's not much of an argument. Petrified trees in the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona are close to a quarter of a billion years old and are still quite intact. Other petrified forests in the world are even older. Over time without human intervention rock would form about them, in whatever position or angle they may happen to be in. Beyond this, just because one area of rock forms quickly doesn't mean it all does. During earthquakes or even slow continental movements rock is frequently uplifted and turned sideways. Just because in one small area something above something else isn't necessarily older doesn't mean that there isn't older rock.
There's not enough evidence to even remotely suggest that you shouldn't be able to form a factual opinion. You just choose to reject the scientific evidence and listen to the scientific equivalent of hardcore conspiracy theorists. Their information is intentionally misleading, for reasons like those I outlined above. Give me another piece of specific evidence and the odds are it can be just as easily explained away.