It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Our Moon PROVES that Earth CAN'T be Billion (or millions) of Years Old!
page: 3share:
Odds And Ends by me. I'll try to make sure I note what parts of the thread I'm commenting on as I go along...
I have a few problems with the initial post. Now, maybe I am just not finding it in my searches, but I was trying to find out what the initial report was actually saying, and couldn't find the original source. What I mean is that the OP based his/her opinion on one specific webpage (www.creationmoments.com...). But that specific webpage itself bases it's opinion on an article I can't find anything about. More to the point, I can't find any reference to a Brad Dye except when different people all mention an article he did as a source (Dye, Brad. 1988. "The moon revisited." Creation Science Dialogue, Spring. p. 4.). The article itself doesn't seem to exist (online). Additionally, the guy himself almost doesn't seem to exist at all. I found 2 more articles he supposedly wrote, but couldn't find the actual articles. Just their being in a table of contents.
Further, absolutely every page uses the exact same phrasing in it's citations:
Dye, Brad. 1988. "The moon revisited." Creation Science Dialogue, Spring. p. 4. Kerr, Richard A. "Where was the moon eons ago?" Science, v. 221. p. 1166.
In other words, every reference to this whole situation is cut and pasted from some original source. Appears the cutter 'n paster is probably the same creationmoments.com website the OP quoted. The Science article does exist, but I can't find a free version, so I don't know what it says. But I get the impression the only thing it was used for was theories on the distance from earth that the moon (Off-topic admission: Caught it right before I hit reply, but I originally put "Mars" and not "moon." Would have looked pretty stupid.) is and possibly it's related speed of movement.
In summary: The OP cites a single website (which then has been cut and pasted to death across the web) that itself seems to cite an article (that can't be found) by an author who is nearly non-existent online in any fashion.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the OP was trying to be deceptive at all. Just that there are some problems with the background of the subject.
This is what got me curious in the first place as to what the original article was about. At no place, except the introduction, do they ever bring up what the bible says the age of the Earth is in years.; Even then, they generically say "only thousands of years ago". So, they say that the bible says the world is only thousands of years old (and as most people know, the "thousands of years" are usually 6 to 7,000 years ago), but never do they actually state that they feel this is true (it is just what the bible says). Realistically, I have never heard of anyone who wasn't associated with Family Radio say that it was not millions of years old. Even (most) creationists admit that it is millions of years old, they just disagree with the billions numbers that are thrown around. My point is that most creationists freely admit that the world is older than "recorded history," no matter how you define it.
Addendum: I think someone else brought this up, but I'm feeling too lazy to go look, so...
Another belief that would fit both the "millions of years" ideas and the "thousands of years" or "6 day idea" is that it's measured in metaphorical years/days, not literal years.
That is the thing with the creationist argument, though. If everything is created by *insert whatever you want*, then timeframes all go out the window. The science really is irrelevant to their opinion on the issue (Note: I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong in this instance. Though by me saying "their opinion," it's a giveaway on which side I stand).
I have a few problems with the initial post. Now, maybe I am just not finding it in my searches, but I was trying to find out what the initial report was actually saying, and couldn't find the original source. What I mean is that the OP based his/her opinion on one specific webpage (www.creationmoments.com...). But that specific webpage itself bases it's opinion on an article I can't find anything about. More to the point, I can't find any reference to a Brad Dye except when different people all mention an article he did as a source (Dye, Brad. 1988. "The moon revisited." Creation Science Dialogue, Spring. p. 4.). The article itself doesn't seem to exist (online). Additionally, the guy himself almost doesn't seem to exist at all. I found 2 more articles he supposedly wrote, but couldn't find the actual articles. Just their being in a table of contents.
Further, absolutely every page uses the exact same phrasing in it's citations:
Dye, Brad. 1988. "The moon revisited." Creation Science Dialogue, Spring. p. 4. Kerr, Richard A. "Where was the moon eons ago?" Science, v. 221. p. 1166.
In other words, every reference to this whole situation is cut and pasted from some original source. Appears the cutter 'n paster is probably the same creationmoments.com website the OP quoted. The Science article does exist, but I can't find a free version, so I don't know what it says. But I get the impression the only thing it was used for was theories on the distance from earth that the moon (Off-topic admission: Caught it right before I hit reply, but I originally put "Mars" and not "moon." Would have looked pretty stupid.) is and possibly it's related speed of movement.
In summary: The OP cites a single website (which then has been cut and pasted to death across the web) that itself seems to cite an article (that can't be found) by an author who is nearly non-existent online in any fashion.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the OP was trying to be deceptive at all. Just that there are some problems with the background of the subject.
Originally posted by JennaDarling
Is there any recorded history or something that show there was once a time with NO moon?
This is what got me curious in the first place as to what the original article was about. At no place, except the introduction, do they ever bring up what the bible says the age of the Earth is in years.; Even then, they generically say "only thousands of years ago". So, they say that the bible says the world is only thousands of years old (and as most people know, the "thousands of years" are usually 6 to 7,000 years ago), but never do they actually state that they feel this is true (it is just what the bible says). Realistically, I have never heard of anyone who wasn't associated with Family Radio say that it was not millions of years old. Even (most) creationists admit that it is millions of years old, they just disagree with the billions numbers that are thrown around. My point is that most creationists freely admit that the world is older than "recorded history," no matter how you define it.
Addendum: I think someone else brought this up, but I'm feeling too lazy to go look, so...
Another belief that would fit both the "millions of years" ideas and the "thousands of years" or "6 day idea" is that it's measured in metaphorical years/days, not literal years.
Originally posted by kansas
reply to post by anon72
I suggest you research how planets are formed in the first place before talking about the moon. It takes a little longer than 6000 years.
That is the thing with the creationist argument, though. If everything is created by *insert whatever you want*, then timeframes all go out the window. The science really is irrelevant to their opinion on the issue (Note: I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong in this instance. Though by me saying "their opinion," it's a giveaway on which side I stand).
new topics
-
My personal experiences and understanding of orbs
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago -
Matt Gaetz ready to go global thermonuclear
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago