[quote]pushharder wrote:
My grand studies have concluded that the Appearance of Age theory gives a plausible explanation for a younger universe. Is it the correct one? I don’t know.[/quote]
[quote] I never claimed to be an expert. I claimed that those who aren’t might want to open their minds a bit. For that matter a good expert is a person who opens his/her mind a bit.[/quote]
[quote] I’ve studied both sides for most of my adult life. Both sides. You’ve (maybe) studied one.[/quote]
Push, just for clarification (and authentication) purposes, where did you do all of your studying? Also, what degree(s) and experience do you have in/on these fields/subjects?[/quote]
Does it matter if I never claimed to be an expert?
You did claim to be one so it was incumbent on you to provide those answers.
BTW, did I miss it or did you answer the questions I posed earlier? I don’t care about the refutation of the UNC professor per se. Please don’t take this antagonistically.[/quote]
I think you’ve mistaken me for DrMatt591(sp?)? Looking at the similarities in our handles, I’m pretty sure this is the case.
From your above posts, it appeared to me that you were claiming to have a certain expertise on the subjects being discussed. So I thought it appropriate to ask where that expertise came from. Just following up on questions that I have push.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My grand studies have concluded that the Appearance of Age theory gives a plausible explanation for a younger universe. Is it the correct one? I don’t know.[/quote]
[quote] I never claimed to be an expert. I claimed that those who aren’t might want to open their minds a bit. For that matter a good expert is a person who opens his/her mind a bit.[/quote]
[quote] I’ve studied both sides for most of my adult life. Both sides. You’ve (maybe) studied one.[/quote]
Push, just for clarification (and authentication) purposes, where did you do all of your studying? Also, what degree(s) and experience do you have in/on these fields/subjects?[/quote]
Does it matter if I never claimed to be an expert?
You did claim to be one so it was incumbent on you to provide those answers.
BTW, did I miss it or did you answer the questions I posed earlier? I don’t care about the refutation of the UNC professor per se. Please don’t take this antagonistically.[/quote]
I think you may have him mixed up with me, but there was a link posted a few pages back that someone else posted that goes to an excellent paper by a colleague of mine. It addresses everything you have brought up, I believe. If you have any further questions or concerns feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to help in any way I can.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My grand studies have concluded that the Appearance of Age theory gives a plausible explanation for a younger universe. Is it the correct one? I don’t know.[/quote]
[quote] I never claimed to be an expert. I claimed that those who aren’t might want to open their minds a bit. For that matter a good expert is a person who opens his/her mind a bit.[/quote]
I’ll have to scroll back and look for it. Do you remember what page it was on?[/quote]
I think it was on page 13 or 14, but I can’t really be sure. I am going to bed now, but if you can’t find it by tomorrow night, just post a reminder on here and I will go back and find it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Did you google the Appearance of Age theory? You might as well. It could add perspective and will certainly help you to know your enemies - those stupid, “non-mainstream” idiots that your referred to via PM. That way next time you enter the battle of origins you’d have a clue where your opposition is coming from.[/quote]
Again, which is it, now? Are the dating methods incorrectly classifying all this shit as being much older than they actually are, or are they giving the correct readings based on the science but only because God manipulated reality to make it seem that way?
I must admit that intelligent creationists are very crafty at forming philosophical arguments to support the existence of God. Damn you Thomas Aquinas!!
Push even if I completely disagree with you I do admire your persistence in this thread. Respect.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Matt, not that I expect you to snap to like a Marine recruit in boot camp but I was hoping you’d answer this question that I posted awhile back:
Please show us how we can prove that the decay rate of potassium and uranium has remained constant throughout the course of the earth’s/universe’s history.
Maybe you just missed it or maybe you intentionally avoided it. I don’t know.
Do your best to present it in layman’s terms. Thanks.[/quote]
According to this Christian physicist, it is the telescope, among other things, that answers your question(s).
[/quote]
Thank you so much for posting this! You just saved me a bunch of time typing all that up myself. This addresses every topic I was going to cover and is an excellent answer to Dr. Plaisted’s article.[/quote]
Great article and great line at the end of that:
“He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God’s handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.”
Push, when you say “that there is evidence point(ing) to a young earth”, how young are you talking about?
I don’t know if you’re going full bore saying the earth is 6000 years old or not.
My biggest problem with this is where do all the fossils fit in? neolithic peoples?
As DrMatt581 has pointed out, radioactive decay has shown to be consistent and verified, and when you start saying that God manipulated things so that the bible is true, you come across as stretching truths and/or not providing evidence for your side of the argument.
I read about the appearance of age theory here
Does this information agree with what your call the appearance of age theory?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
How many people have changed their lives at some level in order to mitigate “man-made global warming”?[/quote]
I have to admit I have only done so recently and only through recycling as much plastic/paper as I can. I walk a lot also, to cut down on fuel consumption, but that’s about it. Sadly I never really concerned myself with recycling when I was younger.
note that I don’t actually consider either of these exactly life-changing practices, but we all gotta start somewhere.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
How many people have changed their lives at some level in order to mitigate “man-made global warming”?[/quote]
I have to admit I have only done so recently and only through recycling as much plastic/paper as I can. I walk a lot also, to cut down on fuel consumption, but that’s about it. Sadly I never really concerned myself with recycling when I was younger.
note that I don’t actually consider either of these exactly life-changing practices, but we all gotta start somewhere.
[/quote]
At the risk of sending this waaay of topic or into PWI…
I guess what I’m getting at is that the whole mm-global warming fiasco is the perfect example of impure and agenda driven “science”. There is misinformation abound from all sides. Most, I would even venture to say 9/10 or more of people’s understanding and beliefs of this phenomenon come from news/media reports.
In otherwords, any discussion of the science of climate change, natural or otherwise, is based on “faith” that what they’re being fed is absolute truth according to their belief. “Al Gore said it, it’s true”.
My advisor in grad school was fond of saying “They’ll give ANYONE a Ph.D. these days…”
I challenge folks to do some Googling about what the Earth’s climate is estimated to have been when the forest in the OP was alive (during the Permian). No SUV’s around then…