Answers for Patty
Created | Updated May 9, 2005
As you requested, I will provide links which should answer all your questions regarding the age of the earth:
<<<However, I think you would also agree that the extended tree ring record (which goes back 10,000 years) points to an older-than-6,000-year Earth. That would be the simplest way to read the data, correct? I believe this record is established on the British isles, so I hope you are familiar with it.>>>
I was actually NOT familiar with this and I am not quite sure what you mean. So I hope some of the following are of some use:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/patriarch.asp
If these are of no use then please tell me.
<<<Antarctica: The ice forms layers, from one year to the next. The height from the American fighter squadron incident(can you provide a search string, please?) is meaningless unless it contains more than 50 layers. One layer = one year. Ice cores have been drilled that have 750,000 layers (750,000 years.) Google: Oldest ice core, and you will see an informative article and picture.
So if you can try to explain this one again, why it points to a 6,000 year old Earth (because the simple explanation to me is that it points to a very old Earth), I'd appreciate it.'>>>
Here is a link to the plane incident:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/plane.asp
As for these layers taking hundreds of thousands of years to form, you are basing that on the assumption that 1 layer is formed in one year. The following links deal with this:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactjuly03.html
<<<Red shift: What you are offering is a suggestion that the data needs to be interpreted in a less-than-straightforward manner. (If you are not, then I misunderstand.) The creationist refutations I have see regarding red shift lie along the lines of: "Even the scientists can't agree on the proper value for the Hubble constant." Again, this is not the same thing as saying that the red shift data points to a 6,000 year old Earth.>>>
First of all, starlight is actually a problem for the Big Bang as you can see here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
And second, Dr. Humphreys’ model is actually quite straightforward if you start with the assumption that the universe has a boundary rather than the usual assumption that the universe just goes on and on forever. I would invite you to read his theory at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.asp
As for your final points, I am not too sure how abiogenesis is relevant to the age of the earth. You seem to be saying that since life DID form by chance in a chemical soup, it must have taken more than 6000 years. I don’t see how that argument makes sense. I don’t think life can appear by chance (they have never shown that it can) so asking how long ago it happened is pointless.
<<<What I see you doing (please correct me if I am wrong), is looking at Genesis, concluding young Earth, and going to lengths to rationalise that the data must have to fit that account one way or another.>>>
No, I don’t think I am. I think that if you read some of the stuff above, you will see that there are two sides to every story and I just happen to agree with a different interpretation of the facts we see on the earth. So please read the above but also, please read them with an open mind.
I am sorry that I did not have the time to answer these myself but I only hope these can be of some use.
<<<However, I think you would also agree that the extended tree ring record (which goes back 10,000 years) points to an older-than-6,000-year Earth. That would be the simplest way to read the data, correct? I believe this record is established on the British isles, so I hope you are familiar with it.>>>
I was actually NOT familiar with this and I am not quite sure what you mean. So I hope some of the following are of some use:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/patriarch.asp
If these are of no use then please tell me.
<<<Antarctica: The ice forms layers, from one year to the next. The height from the American fighter squadron incident(can you provide a search string, please?) is meaningless unless it contains more than 50 layers. One layer = one year. Ice cores have been drilled that have 750,000 layers (750,000 years.) Google: Oldest ice core, and you will see an informative article and picture.
So if you can try to explain this one again, why it points to a 6,000 year old Earth (because the simple explanation to me is that it points to a very old Earth), I'd appreciate it.'>>>
Here is a link to the plane incident:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/plane.asp
As for these layers taking hundreds of thousands of years to form, you are basing that on the assumption that 1 layer is formed in one year. The following links deal with this:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactjuly03.html
<<<Red shift: What you are offering is a suggestion that the data needs to be interpreted in a less-than-straightforward manner. (If you are not, then I misunderstand.) The creationist refutations I have see regarding red shift lie along the lines of: "Even the scientists can't agree on the proper value for the Hubble constant." Again, this is not the same thing as saying that the red shift data points to a 6,000 year old Earth.>>>
First of all, starlight is actually a problem for the Big Bang as you can see here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
And second, Dr. Humphreys’ model is actually quite straightforward if you start with the assumption that the universe has a boundary rather than the usual assumption that the universe just goes on and on forever. I would invite you to read his theory at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.asp
As for your final points, I am not too sure how abiogenesis is relevant to the age of the earth. You seem to be saying that since life DID form by chance in a chemical soup, it must have taken more than 6000 years. I don’t see how that argument makes sense. I don’t think life can appear by chance (they have never shown that it can) so asking how long ago it happened is pointless.
<<<What I see you doing (please correct me if I am wrong), is looking at Genesis, concluding young Earth, and going to lengths to rationalise that the data must have to fit that account one way or another.>>>
No, I don’t think I am. I think that if you read some of the stuff above, you will see that there are two sides to every story and I just happen to agree with a different interpretation of the facts we see on the earth. So please read the above but also, please read them with an open mind.
I am sorry that I did not have the time to answer these myself but I only hope these can be of some use.
