RE: YEC refutation

It has been done,or at least something like it.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.htm

It doesn't work

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Carol or John Burgeson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:37 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: YEC refutation
>
> I've been thinking (a painful process) more about the YEC claims in my
> last post.
>
> The problem is -- the typical person has no way to evaluate them. To him
> (or her) it comes down to two opposing "scientific" viewpoints. One has
> the appearance of being biblically supported. No contest.
>
> Is there ONE argument that can be used to show clearly and convincingly
> to a nonscientific person that the earth really really is much older than
> a few thousand years?
>
> Something that can be looked up -- verified?
>
> One such argument goes something like this:
>
> 1. Almanacs give data on coal and oil production over the past -- say --
> 100 years.
>
> 2. This is business data. It is verifiable. Factual. No arguments
> possible.
>
> 3. All coal and oil deposits ever found and analyzed show that they
> originate with organic (pre-living) plants and animals. No exceptions.
>
> 4. There is a way to measure the biomass that produced these deposits.
>
> 5. There is too much biomass to have been produced in only a few thousand
> years.
>
> 6. Therefore (1) either God produced the deposits and made them look like
> biomass had produced them, or (2) many more years than a few thousand
> took place to produce them.
>
> 7. Since (1) is sort of flaky (like the Gosse theory), (2) must be true.
>
> 8. Therefore the earth is much more than a few thousand years old.
>
> Comments? I tried once to quantify the above argument; it seemed
> reasonable at the time.
>
> Burgy
>
> 2.9979 x 10**8 m/s, is not just a good idea, it's the law.
Received on Tue Jun 14 20:04:47 2005