PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Age of the Earth



Pages : [1] 2

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 06:30 PM
Hello everyone,

I used to be a YEC (young Earth creationist) in my youth, but came to embrace an old Earth model because of the data that I daily confront as a geologist. I do not, however, believe in evolution. I know for some this is an emotional issue. I would like to discuss this issue sans the emotion. I want to stick to reason.

So, to any of of my YEC brothes and sisters here, would you care to discuss this issue? Please note that this discussion is not going to be creation vs. evolution. This is a YEC vs. OEC discussion.

itsokimadocter
Oct 20th 2008, 07:29 PM
In my opinion, God created an aged earth just as he created an aged man (Adam).

This verse could apply

1 CORINTHIANS 1:27-29 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Is it not possible that God created a 14 billion year old universe just 10000 years ago?

In Christ's love,
Todd

Luke34
Oct 20th 2008, 08:14 PM
Is it not possible that God created a 14 billion year old universe just 10000 years ago? Occam's Razor, etc.

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 08:37 PM
In my opinion, God created an aged earth just as he created an aged man (Adam).

So you believe that God has created the world to give the deceptive appearance of being very old? I have heard it all now.



Is it not possible that God created a 14 billion year old universe just 10000 years ago?



No, simply because 10,000 does not equal 14,000,000,000.

So, itsokimadocter, do you believe in a young Earth for any scientific reasons?

jeffweeder
Oct 20th 2008, 09:17 PM
I believe in yec - it seems that there cannot be millions of years in between days of creation because of symbiosis. Everything had to be here with a short period of time for everything to work properly.--Im no scientist though.

Athanasius
Oct 20th 2008, 09:51 PM
So you believe that God has created the world to give the deceptive appearance of being very old? I have heard it all now.


It's a thought that originates within Judaism, actually. The reasoning is that, just as God created Adam and Eve with age, so too did God 'age' creation in such a way that it not only appears older, but is actually older than the time it took God to create. If we take the literalist view of Adam and apply the aforementioned reasoning, then it took God a very short time to create a man who was probably in his 30's (the same with Eve). Would I call that deception? No, I don't think I would.

Kahtar
Oct 20th 2008, 10:12 PM
Jesus' first miracle was the turning water into wine. It was designated 'the best' wine. What is the best wine? Is it not aged wine? That is the common understanding of those who drink wine.
By the logic of some, Jesus must have been deceptive in His miracle by making it appear to be old, or rather, taste old. They, of course, will say there is no proof that it was 'aged' wine. Nevertheless, is God not able to create a universe that is 'aged'?
On the other hand, I think there is 'some' scriptural support for the possibility of a much older earth becoming destroyed at some point, and then 'refurbished' as it were.
And then there is the whole question of when 'time' was created. God is not limited by 'time'. Time, if there is even such a thing, may not have existed until day one. Time is nothing more than the observation and the dividing and counting of the rotation of the earth. A 'day' elsewhere is an entirely different thing. A day on Mercury is much shorter, and on Pluto it is much longer.
And the point of the 'time' thing is, the 'age' of the earth is a rather moot point if time as we know it exists only on this planet, or is determined solely by the rotation of this planet. Thus, how old IS the earth, really, and by who's reckoning? From the perspective of God, it is merely 6 days old, and 6thousand years, and probably 6 billion years. Really, the earth just 'is' since the 'instant' God created it.

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 10:13 PM
I believe in yec - it seems that there cannot be millions of years in between days of creation because of symbiosis. Everything had to be here with a short period of time for everything to work properly.--Im no scientist though.


I can't decipher your argument. What do you mean by "everything"? Why exactly are you saying that the Earth could not have been around for millions of years?

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 10:21 PM
The reasoning is that, just as God created Adam and Eve with age, so too did God 'age' creation in such a way that it not only appears older, but is actually older than the time it took God to create. If we take the literalist view of Adam and apply the aforementioned reasoning, then it took God a very short time to create a man who was probably in his 30's (the same with Eve). Would I call that deception? No, I don't think I would.


I would certainly call it deception, as it suggests that God has created a false history of events that never took place. Moreover, if the universe was created with a false history, it becomes difficult to claim that it took place at any particular time. It could even have been created last week. Even your memories could be false memories. Reductio ad absurdum.


It's a thought that originates within Judaism, actually.

Do you have any links on this?

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 10:30 PM
By the logic of some, Jesus must have been deceptive in His miracle by making it appear to be old, or rather, taste old. They, of course, will say there is no proof that it was 'aged' wine. Nevertheless, is God not able to create a universe that is 'aged'?


Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory, don't you think that the repercussions from Christ turning water to wine would be insignificant with respect to God creating the appearance of a false history of the universe?

jeffweeder
Oct 20th 2008, 11:04 PM
I can't decipher your argument. What do you mean by "everything"?

Well that may be a bit strong, but for plants ( day 3) to survive they need the sun(day 4) and you need creeping things and animals to add their bit for the well being of the forest--like digest and bury seeds , pollonate etc etc.

So if theres millions of years in between days then i cant see how it could of worked.
If they were 6 literal days, i dont see a problem.



Why exactly are you saying that the Earth could not have been around for millions of years?

What i said above and that man was present from the beginning of creation.
Reading the geneology from Adam we see that the beginning wasnt that long ago.

Couldnt God have made it clear that he took long ages to create the heaven and the earth?
Instead it is written , with evening and morning between each day and God saying at the end of each day that that particular system was good to go.
We then see these days as our own working week, further encouraging us to see them as literal.

Does God need any time period to do anything?

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 11:11 PM
So if theres millions of years in between days then i cant see how it could of worked.
If they were 6 literal days, i dont see a problem.

There is another option:
The creation narratives are not to be taken literally but rather metaphorically. If you take them literally, then you have to explain the contradictions between the first and second chapters of Genesis.

Kahtar
Oct 20th 2008, 11:12 PM
Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory

Ah, now there's an easy way to refute anything you want, just turn it into an allegory.
don't you think that the repercussions from Christ turning water to wine would be insignificant with respect to God creating the appearance of a false history of the universe?
Yeah, certainly it would be insignificant. Yet it's relative significance has no bearing whatever on God's ability to do it.

As far as geological evidence goes, much of what is purported to be sure evidence of an old earth can easily be refuted by a casual look at Mt. St. Helens.
Nevertheless, you are clearly firmly entrenched in your beliefs and nothing anyone will say on here will change that.
All that said, I am still not yet ready to throw out the 'possibility' of an old earth. So your arguments would probably be better directed toward those who are sure of a young earth.

Hmmm. No comment on the 'time' thing........................

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 11:15 PM
Ah, now there's an easy way to refute anything you want, just turn it into an allegory.


Or perhaps some people have good reason for viewing it as allegory? But let's not get off-topic. Back to the age of the earth.



As far as geological evidence goes, much of what is purported to be sure evidence of an old earth can easily be refuted by a casual look at Mt. St. Helens.


Can you specify what you mean?


Nevertheless, you are clearly firmly entrenched in your beliefs and nothing anyone will say on here will change that.



Are you kidding? I have what, like 5 posts on this board? What makes you think you are justified in leveling that sweeping accusation at me? I started this thread in order to have an honest discussion regarding the age of the Earth.

Old Earther
Oct 20th 2008, 11:16 PM
Hmmm. No comment on the 'time' thing........................


what did you want me to comment on? Sure, God transcends time, but how does that make this issue unimportant?

Athanasius
Oct 20th 2008, 11:47 PM
I would certainly call it deception, as it suggests that God has created a false history of events that never took place. Moreover, if the universe was created with a false history, it becomes difficult to claim that it took place at any particular time. It could even have been created last week. Even your memories could be false memories. Reductio ad absurdum.

Well, if God created Adam at 30 years of age, what would that do to the previous 29 years that never took place? I'm not advancing this position, just saying. Maybe I'm missing where you're coming from.



Do you have any links on this?

It's something my Jewish buddy brought up (Israeli national guard), so I'll have to look for links and I'll ask him as well.

livingword26
Oct 20th 2008, 11:49 PM
Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory......

Thats what happens when you attack the beginning of the bible, everything can be changed into an allegory. I believe what it says.

jponb
Oct 21st 2008, 12:02 AM
The point that was made about Adam and Eve is that God created a mature earth just as He did a matured man. If you were to utilize science in trying to determine the age of the earth , you would be basing it from carnal reality..mass, density, etc etc; not on God Himself. If you were to look at Adam and try to scientifically determine his age, you would have never guessed 1 hour old based on scientific techniques. The same is true with the earth. Science can only explain things within human reasoning which is erred; but even within that reasoning, science can't explain the origins of the laws in which they base all of their determinations on. Where did the law of gravity come from? Why did Jesus go up and did not come down? Science will try to explain it; but can't. Evolutionist believe that complex elements evolved from non living chemicals, complex forms of life from simple organism, and man evolved from apes. Is this what you truly believe? Here's my question to you, "where did the first come from?" You can't have it both ways. You either believe God or you don't. Trying to hold God in a box that coincided with science is creating your own God based on your own understanding. This is not the God I serve. My God is bigger than anything that we can possibly conceive.

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 12:11 AM
Thats what happens when you attack the beginning of the bible

Attack? I attacked the Bible? How do you figure?


everything can be changed into an allegory.


I disagree. A text must have certain traits that render it dedectable as allegory. Much of the Bible is, and isn't, allegory.



I believe what it says


Me too.

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 12:17 AM
If you were to look at Adam and try to scientifically determine his age, you would have never guessed 1 hour old based on scientific techniques.

Which is why it would be deceptive on God's part. Look, we make inferences every day and indeed we must to be able to function.


The same is true with the earth. Science can only explain things within human reasoning which is erred;

What do you mean when you say that uman reason is erred? Surely we must depend upon reason to draw conclusions.


but even within that reasoning, science can't explain the origins of the laws in which they base all of their determinations on.

I agree, but that is not the issue at all.


Evolutionist believe that complex elements evolved from non living chemicals, complex forms of life from simple organism, and man evolved from apes. Is this what you truly believe?

No, I'm a creationist, just like I said in the OP. Please pay attention.


You either believe God or you don't.

Oh, I believe Him.


Trying to hold God in a box that coincided with science is creating your own God based on your own understanding. This is not the God I serve. My God is bigger than anything that we can possibly conceive.

I agree with what you just said here. What makes you think I'm trying to place God in a box whose boundaries are determined by science?

jponb
Oct 21st 2008, 12:34 AM
No deception on God's part. God was not trying to explain science; but was trying show Moses how it all began. God is not a deceiver, that would be satan. In other words, God said let there be and there it appeared fully matured. This includes; but not limited to, the earth, the sun, the stars, the animals, man...etc..etc..

What I meant when I said that human reasoning is erred is that when it comes to trying to explain how God did something, science can only take you so far, if anywhere at all, but as Hebrews says," You must have faith in order to please God."

As for whether or not you were an evolutionist, I apologize. I was answer from reading all the post. I did not specify to whom I was referring as I answered.

Believe it or not, this question is one that most evolutionist try to insert to raise doubts in young believers or those who are considering believing the Gospel. I just wanted to try to thoroughly address it. Glad to hear you are a creationist.

Rookie78
Oct 21st 2008, 03:32 AM
Ecclesiastes 3:11

11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

jeffweeder
Oct 21st 2008, 07:06 AM
There is another option:
The creation narratives are not to be taken literally but rather metaphorically. If you take them literally, then you have to explain the contradictions between the first and second chapters of Genesis.


Where do we draw the line then, as to what is literal and what is not.

I dont see Gen 2 as being contradictory, but complementary, the focus being on added details left out of Gen 1----like the fall and eve.
The focus is on mans dealing with the God of Heaven, but Gen 1 is Gods creation poem.

daughter
Oct 21st 2008, 09:28 AM
Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory, don't you think that the repercussions from Christ turning water to wine would be insignificant with respect to God creating the appearance of a false history of the universe?
What makes you consider it at all probable that the story is merely allegory? I believe it both to have actually occured, and to have had "allegorical" significance.

The only reason, looking at the text (which is not poetic, it's simple straight forward prose) not to take it at face value would be if you believed Jesus didn't literally perform miracles.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 21st 2008, 10:20 AM
Assuming that the water to wine story was literal history and not allegory, don't you think that the repercussions from Christ turning water to wine would be insignificant with respect to God creating the appearance of a false history of the universe?See, that's where you're making an assumption of falsehood. After 6 years of study on the subject, I do not think the earth looks millions of years old. But because most of us have heard it over and over and over again, we have been programmed to believe it. All the testing is relative to itself, not having a control (an object we know is a million years old) tby which we can attempt to falsify it.

God Bless!

teddyv
Oct 21st 2008, 02:39 PM
See, that's where you're making an assumption of falsehood. After 6 years of study on the subject, I do not think the earth looks millions of years old. But because most of us have heard it over and over and over again, we have been programmed to believe it.

All opinion.


All the testing is relative to itself, not having a control (an object we know is a million years old) tby which we can attempt to falsify it.

God Bless!

S2S, I have made this comment several times before to others - if radiometric dating is as flawed as the creationists keep saying, why does the entire geological community continue to use it? Are we insane? If there was no reliability it would have been abandoned years ago.

Kahtar
Oct 21st 2008, 03:40 PM
They use it because its all they really have. For it to be considered accurate is to ASSUME that the planet has remained the same (ie the same rate of decay, etc.) for 'millions' of years. Clearly, anything based only on an assumption cannot be considered absolute.

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 04:10 PM
I dont see Gen 2 as being contradictory, but complementary, the focus being on added details left out of Gen 1----like the fall and eve.
The focus is on mans dealing with the God of Heaven, but Gen 1 is Gods creation poem.


Chapter 1 says that animals came before man. Chapter two reverses this order. how will you address this problem?

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 04:11 PM
What makes you consider it at all probable that the story is merely allegory? I believe it both to have actually occured, and to have had "allegorical" significance.

The only reason, looking at the text (which is not poetic, it's simple straight forward prose) not to take it at face value would be if you believed Jesus didn't literally perform miracles.


This is a subject for another thread. I really just wanted to discuss the evidence for either an old or young Earth.

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 04:13 PM
See, that's where you're making an assumption of falsehood.

What assumption are you referring to?


After 6 years of study on the subject, I do not think the earth looks millions of years old.

Why not? What did you learn in your studies that convinced yo the Earth is young?


But because most of us have heard it over and over and over again, we have been programmed to believe it.

I believe the Earth is old because of the data that I see as a geologist, not because somebody programmed me to belive it.


All the testing is relative to itself, not having a control (an object we know is a million years old) tby which we can attempt to falsify it.

It's called extrapolation and is essential to science.

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 04:16 PM
They use it because its all they really have. For it to be considered accurate is to ASSUME that the planet has remained the same (ie the same rate of decay, etc.) for 'millions' of years. Clearly, anything based only on an assumption cannot be considered absolute.


Your argument boils down to a denial of what we observe to be true through and through. I've even heard YECers argue that dendrochronology is unreliable because no one knows if there was a time when tree rings did not grow annually. C'mon, you can do better than appeal to ignorance.

RJ Mac
Oct 21st 2008, 04:23 PM
Deceive - to take unaware by craft or trickery, ensnare, mislead.
To cause to believe the false.
Deception - the act of deceiving, misleading, with or without calculated intent.

God said, He created the world in 6 days, Ex.20:11;
Anyone who teaches otherwise is the one misleading, with or without intent.

Don't argue the beginning, how about the end - do you believe that in
one day, one hour, the entire universe will melt away,
2Pe.3:10; Heb.1:10-12; Rev.21:1-3;

All men alive on that day will be transformed from mortal to immortal.
All the dead shall be judged and assigned their eternal destiny, on judgment day.

I believe this will happen, because God has said it will.
I also believe God created the world in 6 days, because He said He did.

It was the snake in Gen.3:1; who introduces sin into the world and he does
so by questioning the validity of God's word, "Indeed has God said?"

Indeed has God said He created the world in 6 days?
Indeed God has said, He created the world in 6 days!

All the arguments that go against the Truth of God's word are deceiving,
trying to mislead the elect from the truth, undermine Genesis and you
fundamentally undermine the rest of the Bible.

One can claim they beleive all they want, but to deny the Truth of the Word
denies the Truth of Christ Jesus.

Jn.5:46,47 For if you believed Moses you would believe Me, for he wrote
about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My Words?

RJ Mac

Old Earther
Oct 21st 2008, 04:42 PM
Well, we still haven't even begun discussing the actual physical evidence for either and old or young earth. Would any YECer like to present a piece of evidence?

daughter
Oct 21st 2008, 05:05 PM
Old Earther... my evidence is Exodus 20, in the Bible. It says that everything that was made was made in six days. I'm really sorry that this isn't academic, or scientific, but I've decided to accept it literally for what it says.

"in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

This could easily get derailed into a sabbatarian thread (for the record, I do keep a Saturday Sabbath, though not so strictly as a modern Orthodox Jew) but the point isn't that. The point is...

The ten commandments state that ALL was created in six days.

I know, counter intuitive, stupid, makes no sense.

But then, until the discovery of the "big bang" theory the idea that LIGHT could have been the first thing, before suns, and planets, was utterly ridiculous. Now we know there is no conflict.

I trust the word of God, which does not change over the theories of man, which are always changing.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 21st 2008, 05:14 PM
Your argument boils down to a denial of what we observe to be true through and through. I've even heard YECers argue that dendrochronology is unreliable because no one knows if there was a time when tree rings did not grow annually. C'mon, you can do better than appeal to ignorance.It's ironic that you say this because I see no reason why this would be an issue for a YEC who has researched this issue. :hmm: There are no known trees that have been aged old enough to be any sort of a problem for a young earth. The world's oldest tree is less than 5,000 years old according to most (see article here http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF). There is a newcomer that has been found by some Swedish researchers but it has not been dated using dendrochronology but rather carbon dating at less than 10,000 years. So, since there are no dendrochronologically dated trees that would pose ANY problems for a young earth, why would this YEC you mention need to 'argue' about tree rings? :confused It's a non-issue.

itsokimadocter
Oct 21st 2008, 05:18 PM
Chapter 1 says that animals came before man. Chapter two reverses this order. how will you address this problem?


Genesis Chapter 1 is a chronological order of events

Genesis Chapter 2:1-7 is a detail look at event of creation, not recorded in chronological order.

i take it you are saying Gen1=man on the 6th day & Gen2=man on the 1st day???

just as we have the book of 1kings/2kings which tell us a breif history we also have 1chronicles/2chronicles which go into detail as we have with Gen1 & Gen2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%202&version=50#fen-NKJV-35a)] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

daughter
Oct 21st 2008, 05:28 PM
Your argument boils down to a denial of what we observe to be true through and through. I've even heard YECers argue that dendrochronology is unreliable because no one knows if there was a time when tree rings did not grow annually. C'mon, you can do better than appeal to ignorance.
Old Earther... just out of interest...

If you were going to create a beautiful arboreal garden, full of trees, for two people who you absolutely loved, with only a week to organise it, how would you do it?

Would you plant little seedlings, so small nobody would notice them and they could be trampled underfoot, (or be able to pick fruit from if they were hungry) or would you create a garden that could be used by the people you loved?

A tree big enough to give shade, and fruit is not "deception", but a gift.

How many rings do you think the trees in the garden of Eden had, if Adam and Eve were in the habit of picking fruit from them? Surely, from the account, they must have been more than saplings?

It seems that you routinely reject the miraculous, because it "doesn't happen nowadays." You shouldn't base your entire science on an assumption.

itsokimadocter
Oct 21st 2008, 05:29 PM
EVIDENCE FOR YOUNG EARTH

Evidence 1.
Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.

Evidence 2.
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973).

Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. a) Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14.

Evidence 4.
There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1½ miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, any of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. a) Peter A. Steveson, "Meteoric Evidence or a Young Earth," Creation Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, June, 1975, pp. 23-25.

Evidence 5.
Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 yearsa. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much.b-c Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago. a)"Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September, 1979, pp. 17-19. b) David W. Dunham, et. al., "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, pp. 1243-1245. c) Irwin I. Shapiro, "Is the Sun Shrinking?", Science, Vol. 208, April 4, 1980, pp. 51-53.

JUST A FEW THAT I HAVE FOUND

teddyv
Oct 21st 2008, 07:32 PM
EVIDENCE FOR YOUNG EARTH

...snip....


JUST A FEW THAT I HAVE FOUND

I'll have a look into these unless someone beats me to the punch, but a review of all your sources show rather dated material, 1960's-1980's. A lot of work has been put toward this in the last 30+ years.

mrs-wad
Oct 21st 2008, 09:00 PM
I belive in a young earth. I don't think God decives, he would not create an old earth.

Also I think for most "evidence" of an old earth there is always a flaw with it, take for example fossils, animal dies and to become fossilised it has to happen immediatly, covered in mud water ect... Otherwise it would decay, be eaten ect... But there have been whole fossils found which is said to proove the earth is old, but surley this is all from the flood?

Also the different periods within the earth, jurrasic ect.... Millions of years old, only animals from that period will be found in those parts. But there have been reports of parts of the SAME animal in jurrasic and other periods of earth.

I do not really know much about this, all I know is the Bible says the earth was created in 7 days, created new! And I also think that a flood that flooded the whole earth would dramatically change the earth, even possibly making it "seem" older than it is.

livingword26
Oct 21st 2008, 09:19 PM
Old Earther... my evidence is Exodus 20, in the Bible. It says that everything that was made was made in six days. I'm really sorry that this isn't academic, or scientific, but I've decided to accept it literally for what it says.

"in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

This could easily get derailed into a sabbatarian thread (for the record, I do keep a Saturday Sabbath, though not so strictly as a modern Orthodox Jew) but the point isn't that. The point is...

The ten commandments state that ALL was created in six days.

I know, counter intuitive, stupid, makes no sense.

But then, until the discovery of the "big bang" theory the idea that LIGHT could have been the first thing, before suns, and planets, was utterly ridiculous. Now we know there is no conflict.

I trust the word of God, which does not change over the theories of man, which are always changing.

This is the root of the issue right here. I believe that all we can see was created in 6 days. It is described in Genesis, and backed up in other places in the bible. You say you believe the bible, but do you really? Or do you believe what your science is telling you, and making the bible fit it? As I said before, when the very beginning of the bible is attacked, that opens the door for all kinds alterations and misunderstandings. Must we have evidence to prove the bible?

Jeffinator
Oct 22nd 2008, 05:25 AM
Young Earth has more overwhelming evidence in my studies..these are just a few I felt like putting down, have much more though:



1. Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This "results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1,2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless of course it was designed that way from the beginning.

See also: What does the Moon have to say about all this (http://www.earthage.org/intro/A%20Closer%20Look%20at%20the%20Age%20of%20the%20Ea rth.htm#And%20What%20Does%20the%20Moon%20Have%20to %20say%20about%20all%20this?) -- Creation going on...?
2. Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8 Here's More.
(http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm)
3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=165) at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12 Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years (http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=12426), but this is what the evidence suggests. See also: Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm) and The Young Faint Sun Paradox (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp).
See also: Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/focus.asp#speedy)

4. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years (http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html) ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle (http://www.creation-science.sk.ca/AgeOfEarth.html) says 1700. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.
See also Evidence from Living Things
(http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm#Living%20Things)5. Population Growth:
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97
See Population Statistics (http://www.creationdefense.org/74.htm) for more on this.

6.Minerals in the Oceans:By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are. When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years (http://209.10.202.163/graphical/literature/oceans/oceans.html). 98 See also The Sea's Missing Salt (http://www.cs.unc.edu/%7Eplaisted/ce/young.html), 99 by Dr. Steve Austin.

7. Rapid Mountain Uplift:
In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=98). In it he discovered that:


"An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale. In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago. This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several hundred million years." 100

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 10:41 AM
Okay guys, before anything gets negative I've got to put my moderator hat on now. What I do not want to happen here is an adversarial heated debate where someone is attempting to be the winner which by nature means someone will be the loser. Those don't tend to work out real well on this topic and definitely don't show the love of Christ we should be displaying. We are ALL followers of Messiah in this area of the forum. Share your ideas and those things that helped you come to the conclusions you have made. Respect others as they share their ideas and the conclusions they have made. We will all find out in due time the exact 'hows' that are not detailed in the Genesis account. ;)

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 22nd 2008, 11:57 AM
2. Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8 Here's More. (http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm)The rock surrounding oil deposits is impermeable, usually shale or something of this sort.


Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. You know what they say about people who assume.


4. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years (http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html) ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle (http://www.creation-science.sk.ca/AgeOfEarth.html) says 1700. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood. Wrong. 10,000 years for tree ring dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology


Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 Assuming so much! The population growth rate has been anything but constant.


6.Minerals in the Oceans:By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans areWe know the mineral composition of the ocean never changes.....


7. Rapid Mountain Uplift:
In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=98). In it he discovered that:Just because something is not well understood does not mean that the entire branch of evolution is not true. Scientists are frequently wrong about rates.

And you should quote those websites you copied from.

Old copy paster is old.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 12:19 PM
Wrong. 26,000 years for tree ring dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DendrochronologyI just wanted to point out that your link does not say there are any trees that have been dated to 26,000 years. What it actually says is this:
In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present) (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology#cite_note-4)Evidently they have now calibrated the criteria used to analyze that many rings should a specimen arise that has that many rings. To date there has been no such specimen found. Anchored chronologies have to be used to even get over 10,000 but that is not for specific trees.

Again, let me remind everyone posting here that we should be sharing ideas in a spirit that glorifies Messiah, not simply trying to 'one up' our brothers and sisters in Christ.

God Bless!

Athanasius
Oct 22nd 2008, 12:44 PM
I'll also point out that a lot of young earthers have theological leanings would incline them to believe in a youth earth, rather than scientific calculations. Don't read what I'm not saying...

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 22nd 2008, 12:49 PM
I just wanted to point out that your link does not say there are any trees that have been dated to 26,000 years. What it actually says is this:

You are right. A 26,000 year old tree would be pretty incredible. My bad. What I meant to quote was


Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_River) and Rhine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_River) rivers).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology#cite_note-1) Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_United_States) (White Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Mountains_%28California%29) of California).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology#cite_note-2)

Not to mention lake varve dating.

Williams et al. 1997 found around 5 million layers of varves in lake Baikal, in Russia alone. The Green River formation contains nearly 20 million. Even assuming each layer took a few days to form (which is reasonable considering the size of the sediment) it still would have taken hundreds of thousands of years.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 01:48 PM
Not to mention lake varve dating.

Williams et al. 1997 found around 5 million layers of varves in lake Baikal, in Russia alone. The Green River formation contains nearly 20 million. Even assuming each layer took a few days to form (which is reasonable considering the size of the sediment) it still would have taken hundreds of thousands of years.Remember what YOU said about assuming. :D Just kidding. We have to make certain assumptions when considering these things and that's fine. No one has a DVD to watch how certain things happened, like the varve layers being laid down. I enjoy discussing all the possibilties, without the unneccesary negative attitude that often comes along with this discussion.

God Bless!

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:21 PM
Old Earther... my evidence is Exodus 20, in the Bible. It says that everything that was made was made in six days. I'm really sorry that this isn't academic, or scientific, but I've decided to accept it literally for what it says.


Do you take all of the bible literally? Some people, even today, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Did you know that? It's true! Despite all of the scientific evidence for heliocentricism, these fools believe otherwise. Do you know why? Because they take the Bible literally when it speaks of the Earth being immovable. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:25 PM
It's ironic that you say this because I see no reason why this would be an issue for a YEC who has researched this issue. :hmm: There are no known trees that have been aged old enough to be any sort of a problem for a young earth. The world's oldest tree is less than 5,000 years old according to most (see article here http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQDF). There is a newcomer that has been found by some Swedish researchers but it has not been dated using dendrochronology but rather carbon dating at less than 10,000 years. So, since there are no dendrochronologically dated trees that would pose ANY problems for a young earth, why would this YEC you mention need to 'argue' about tree rings? :confused It's a non-issue.


You completely missed my point. The reason I mentioned dendrochronology is because both radiometric dating and dendrochronology are ased upon rates that we observe today. Today, we observe tree rings growing annually. From this we can infer how old a tree is by counting its annual rings (excluding false rings). Now, can you see the connection to radiometric dating?

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:28 PM
Genesis Chapter 2:1-7 is a detail look at event of creation, not recorded in chronological order.



What about vv. 18 and 19? Clearly, chapter 2 has God creating the animals after having created Adam. Deal with it.

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:31 PM
Also I think for most "evidence" of an old earth there is always a flaw with it, take for example fossils, animal dies and to become fossilised it has to happen immediatly, covered in mud water ect... Otherwise it would decay, be eaten ect... But there have been whole fossils found which is said to proove the earth is old, but surley this is all from the flood?

Also the different periods within the earth, jurrasic ect.... Millions of years old, only animals from that period will be found in those parts. But there have been reports of parts of the SAME animal in jurrasic and other periods of earth.

Not quite.


I do not really know much about this

That is strikingly evident. It's never too late to start learning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102.html

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:32 PM
This is the root of the issue right here. I believe that all we can see was created in 6 days. It is described in Genesis, and backed up in other places in the bible. You say you believe the bible, but do you really? Or do you believe what your science is telling you, and making the bible fit it? As I said before, when the very beginning of the bible is attacked, that opens the door for all kinds alterations and misunderstandings. Must we have evidence to prove the bible?


This is the same reasoning used by geocentricists. :lol:

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:35 PM
Williams et al. 1997 found around 5 million layers of varves in lake Baikal, in Russia alone


Any YECers want to address this?

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:46 PM
EVIDENCE FOR YOUNG EARTH

Evidence 1.
Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.

Evidence 2.
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973).

Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. a) Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14.

Evidence 4.
There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1½ miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, any of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently. a) Peter A. Steveson, "Meteoric Evidence or a Young Earth," Creation Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, June, 1975, pp. 23-25.

Evidence 5.
Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses infer that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 yearsa. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much.b-c Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago. a)"Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September, 1979, pp. 17-19. b) David W. Dunham, et. al., "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius Between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, December 12, 1980, pp. 1243-1245. c) Irwin I. Shapiro, "Is the Sun Shrinking?", Science, Vol. 208, April 4, 1980, pp. 51-53.

JUST A FEW THAT I HAVE FOUND


Good. Let's discuss each piece of evidence, one at a time.


Evidence 1.
Atomic clocks, which have for the last 22 years measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of a second, have consistently found that the earth is slowing down at a rate of almost one second a year. If the earth were billions of years old, its initial spin rate would have been fantastically rapid--so rapid that major distortion in the shape of the earth would have occurred. a) Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the leap Second," Popular Science, Vol. 202, March, 1973, pp. 110-113, 164-166. b) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, Earth Motions and Their Effect on Air Force Systems, November 1975, p. 6. c) Jack Fincher, "And Now, Atomic Clocks," Readers' Digest, Vol. III, November 1977, p. 34.


The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:55 PM
You completely missed my point. The reason I mentioned dendrochronology is because both radiometric dating and dendrochronology are ased upon rates that we observe today. Today, we observe tree rings growing annually. From this we can infer how old a tree is by counting its annual rings (excluding false rings). Now, can you see the connection to radiometric dating?Old Earther, it is not my intent to try to show you up. Merely to address what you actually said in the context of how you said it.
Your argument boils down to a denial of what we observe to be true through and through. I've even heard YECers argue that dendrochronology is unreliable because no one knows if there was a time when tree rings did not grow annually. C'mon, you can do better than appeal to ignorance.You see, you did not mention it in relation to radiometric dating, but merely to show (it seems) how silly some YEC you know is. :dunno: Correct me if I'm wrong but that does seem to be the context in which you brought up dendrochronology, right?

Let me once again say that there is no need for this discussion to feel like an us against them thing. Share your ideas and allow others to share their ideas. :)

itsokimadocter
Oct 22nd 2008, 04:09 PM
What about vv. 18 and 19? Clearly, chapter 2 has God creating the animals after having created Adam. Deal with it.

Again, not chronological.....

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

please explain why this is chronological. nearly all theologans who are much more learned in the hebrew than you and i, all come to the same conclusion that Gen1 is chronological and Gen2 is not.

the way i see it & probably 99% of bible theologans

v18 - God decides Adam needs a helper comprable to him.

v19 - tells HOW he made the animals and WHAT he made the animals do.

mind you this is a "civil" discussion board, the "deal with it" comments are not neccessary no matter how passionate we are about the subject.

Here is a link that explains the 'APPARENT" contradiction, please read

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp


in christ's love,
Todd

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 04:58 PM
You see, you did not mention it in relation to radiometric dating, but merely to show (it seems) how silly some YEC you know is. :dunno: Correct me if I'm wrong but that does seem to be the context in which you brought up dendrochronology, right?



I just explained to you why I mentioned dendrochronology. Once more, the reason I mentioned dendrochronology is because both radiometric dating and dendrochronology are ased upon rates that we observe today.
Do you understand?


Let me once again say that there is no need for this discussion to feel like an us against them thing. Share your ideas and allow others to share their ideas. :)

Amen. ;)

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 05:00 PM
Again, not chronological.....

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

please explain why this is chronological.

It's right before your eyes. The text relates how Adam was alone, so God made the animals and brought them to Adam.



mind you this is a "civil" discussion board, the "deal with it" comments are not neccessary no matter how passionate we are about the subject.


Let me rephrase then. Please deal with it.

God bless you, Todd.

fishbowlsoul
Oct 22nd 2008, 05:36 PM
Wading in here.

If you believe in a young earth/universe conclusion solely based your interpretation of the scripture, more power to ya. I happened to interpret
scripture differently but to each their own on the age of earth/universe point.

My advice on this point though for YECers is to not put forth scientific evidence for your argument. In the end, it makes your argument inherently weaker. Firstly, most YECers post evidence here that 30-40 years which has been answered and debunked by both Christian and non Christian scientists. Secondly, young earth/universe is a conclusion. It is a viewpoint that is set in stone so to speak. Science is always changing. New evidences and observations are constantly being discovered. Young earth/universe does not have a good predictability track record because of the new evidence and observation that has come along to refute all those outdated hypotheses from 30-40 years ago.

Presently all evidence and observation support the Big Bang Theory. However the Big Bang Theory is not a conclusion and is not set in stone. It will change in the future or may even be proven to be inadequate to explain the origin of the universe/earth but right now it is the best scientific explaination.

In a way YECers have something in common with the few scientists who still cling to the Steady State model. They are clinging to their conclusion not based on science but based on their philosophical or theological viewpoint. To reiterate if you believe that the earth/universe is only ~6000 years old based solely your biblical interpretation then good for you. Using science however to bolster that viewpoint just makes it look desperate for some sort of secular validation.

God bless

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:06 PM
I just explained to you why I mentioned dendrochronology. Once more, the reason I mentioned dendrochronology is because both radiometric dating and dendrochronology are ased upon rates that we observe today.
Do you understand?With respect, I understood the first time.;) It seems you are not understanding my point. A young earth is not challenged by dendrochronology. I see absolutely no reason why a yec would need to challenger tree rings. As for it's relation to radiometric dating, according to the biblical account, things change drastically after the flood and once again drastically after 'the land was divided'. Why would a yec need to accept a static system when it seems clear it was not? Ages have dropped more than 90% since before the flood. I have absolutely no problem reconciling science with the timeline laid out with the ages in Genesis. If someone else sees those ages as allegorical :dunno: so be it.

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:08 PM
To reiterate if you believe that the earth/universe is only ~6000 years old based solely your biblical interpretation then good for you.


Let's express this thought of yours by using another example.

If you believe that the earth is flat based solely your biblical interpretation then good for you.

:rolleyes:

Truth is good for us. Idiocy is of no value to us.

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:12 PM
A young earth is not challenged by dendrochronology.

I never said it was.


I see absolutely no reason why a yec would need to challenger tree rings.

Some YECs feel the need to attack dendrochronology because both radiometric dating and dendrochronology are based upon rates that we observe today. Some YECs will argue that because the conditions on Earth were different in the past, we cannot know whether or not atomic decay and tree rings are subject to rate changes.

<snip>

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:14 PM
fishbowlsoul, please try not to be condescending. There are PhDs with more degrees than you and I put together that have studied this issue and come in on the young earth side. Majority is not the measure of truth or falsehood. ;)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:20 PM
Studyintoshow,


I had to fix some typos in my last response to you, so please review it.

I'd like to add that you strike me as an exceptional moderator, and for that I give you some praise.

God bless.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:35 PM
Some YECs feel the need to attack dendrochronology because both radiometric dating and dendrochronology are ased upon rates that we observe today. Some YECs will argue that because the conditions on Earth were different in the past, we cannot know whether or not atomic decay and tree rings re not subject to rate changes.

<snip>That change in conditions would not affect tree rings as the oldest 'single tree' aged using the counting of rings is less than 4700 years old, after the flood. A yec may challenge that because so much changed from BEFORE the the flood, radiometric dating for 5000 years or older would become suspect. Just as there are old earthers who are not as well studied and scientific as others, such is the case for young earthers. With that said, there is no reason for believers on either side of this issue to be condescending to another believer. We don't have to agree on every point to remember we are all brothers and sisters in Messiah and should treat each other as such whether we agree or not. ;)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 06:50 PM
That change in conditions would not affect tree rings as the oldest 'single tree' aged using the counting of rings is less than 4700 years old, after the flood.

What about dead trees?


A yec may challenge that because so much changed from BEFORE the the flood, radiometric dating for 5000 years or older would become suspect.

But their challenges have been refuted time and time again. Do you agree?






With that said, there is no reason for believers on either side of this issue to be condescending to another believer. We don't have to agree on every point to remember we are all brothers and sisters in Messiah and should treat each other as such whether we agree or not.


Amen.

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 22nd 2008, 07:23 PM
A yec may challenge that because so much changed from BEFORE the the flood, radiometric dating for 5000 years or older would become suspect.

By what mechanism would a flood change the decay of radioactive isotopes?

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 07:41 PM
By what mechanism would a flood change the decay of radioactive isotopes?


I eagerly await a response to your question.

Jeffinator
Oct 22nd 2008, 08:00 PM
Can you explain old earthers why the bible shows proof of dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24?

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox.
16 Now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar (tree): the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

According to your time scale no animal exists now or in the past couple 1000 years fits this description unless you can admit that dinosaurs were existing at that time. Probably is describing some of type of bronchiosaurus. Even if you dont believe in the bible this is recorded documented proof of beasts that were supposedly killed of millions of years ago. Same thing happened with the "walking fish". A fish that was supposedly extinct whose fins were near the bottom of its body so evolutionists and old earthers said it was bc it was trying to evolve and walk. Problem was they werent extinct there were a few of these fresh water fish left, so they were wrong on that part and the few that were left they tried putting them on land, and they flopped and died, they tried slowly over time moving them closer to land and away from water. They died trying to do that to. Point being evolutionary scientists and old earthers make assumptions about A LOT of things that for the most part just arent true. If they can be wrong about a fish being extinct millions of years ago that isnt then i think they can be wrong about how old the animals are that are actually extinct.

Old Earther
Oct 22nd 2008, 08:06 PM
Can you explain old earthers why the bible shows proof of dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24?

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox.
16 Now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar (tree): the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.


This is supposed to be proof that dinosaurs coexisted with man? Yikes.

Folklore abounds with descriptions of fanciful beasts like dragons. Do you actually think that fire-breathing, fying dragons actually existed in human history?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 08:07 PM
What about dead trees?

But their challenges have been refuted time and time again. Do you agree?What about dead trees? :hmm:

The challenges have been counter-challenged but the word 'refute' means proven wrong so, no, I don't agree they have been refuted. What you accept as proof I may not and vice versa.

Kata,
What is the reason Methuselah was able to live 969 years? Why did Adam live over 900 years? Radiometric dating merely measures the amount of specific radioactive elements and uses those measurements based on the elements halflife to determine how long the test subject has been dead. While living matter is alive these elements replenish and only after death do they begin their decay. So, here's how a major change could affect how those radioactive isotopes could be affected. If, for example, a live human body existed on MUCH less of these radioactive elements it would skew the entire equation. We are begining with the assumption that the air it breathed, the water it drank and everything else contained the same levels which would thus transfer to the living organism. If that is not the case, :dunno: all bets are off.

Btw, that's the condensed version. There are those with more degrees than I that could get into much more detail for you. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 08:26 PM
Folklore abounds with descriptions of fanciful beasts like dragons. Do you actually think that fire-breathing, fying dragons actually existed in human history?That so many different cultures all over the world have accounts of these creatures lends credibility to their actual existence. Before the first dino bone was found naysayers said that there had never been such creatures. It's funny how science tends to eventually catch up to the Bible. :)

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 22nd 2008, 08:34 PM
What is the reason Methuselah was able to live 969 years? Why did Adam live over 900 years? Radiometric dating merely measures the amount of specific radioactive elements and uses those measurements based on the elements halflife to determine how long the test subject has been dead. While living matter is alive these elements replenish and only after death do they begin their decay. So, here's how a major change could affect how those radioactive isotopes could be affected.I was referring to radiometric dating of minerals, not life. I'm not arguing with you here, carbon dating is only accurate within a narrow timeframe with older specimens being more off in terms of dating.

I would refer to the crystals of zircon that were dated around 4.1 billion years old (book citation if you would like).


What is the reason Methuselah was able to live 969 years? Why did Adam live over 900 years?Assuming that they did live this long, it would be due to their cells undergoing less oxidation and whole host of biological factors like telomers that people with degrees in biology could elaborate on.

jeffweeder
Oct 22nd 2008, 08:46 PM
What about vv. 18 and 19? Clearly, chapter 2 has God creating the animals after having created Adam. Deal with it.

Hi old earther.


GEN 2
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.


I see what you are saying, but this all happened the same day. I see it as a reference to what he had done earlier in the day, even "every bird of the sky" is a reference to what he did the day before . Adam named all the animals before Eve came along and of course no suitable companion was found.
Was Adam a true reflection of Gods image with out Eve?

GEN 1
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

jeffweeder
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:15 PM
This is supposed to be proof that dinosaurs coexisted with man? Yikes.

Folklore abounds with descriptions of fanciful beasts like dragons. Do you actually think that fire-breathing, fying dragons actually existed in human history?

Job 41
"His sneezes flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.


19 "Out of his mouth go burning torches;
Sparks of fire leap forth.


20 "Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.


21 "His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes forth from his mouth.

Dinos and man must have co-existed as they were made on the same day---and from a distance he named this animal .

A T-Rex has been found that contains red blood cells....strongly suggesting that they were not wiped out 60 million years ago.

Here is a couple of links that suggest dinos were seen by man.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6015/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/133

crawfish
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:27 PM
Can you explain old earthers why the bible shows proof of dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24?

It's not a dinosaur. It's probably a hippo. The poetic metaphor fits quite well.


15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox.

Hippos do eat grass...


16 Now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.

Self-explanatory. Few creatures are stronger than a hippo.


17 He moveth his tail like a cedar (tree): the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Note this doesn't say "moveth like a cedar trunk". Look at a cedar branch and the leaves on it. Then look at a hippo's tail. Note the similarity.


18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.

I'm sure it seemed like this to anybody trying to take down a hippo with an ancient weapon.


19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].

Here's where it gets really interesting. How does a hippo attack? They have razor-sharp tusks, which they wield by swinging their heads back and forth. Just like a sword.


20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

Rivers all, ultimately, come from the mountains. Which is where they spend most of their time.


21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.

A pretty close description of where you'll find a hippo.


23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

This is probably the closest fit, drawing a very close comparison to the huge mouth of the hippo.


24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

...and still consistent.

Perhaps it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's very close. Closer than you'll find to any known species of dinosaur. And know that the hippo would have been a recognized creature in that part of the world at that time.

Hippos are the most aggressive and dangerous creatures known to man. They are responsible for more human deaths each year than any other animal. They are known to attack (and sink) any and all boats that dare enter their territory. They would represent formidable prey for an early hunter.

There is obviously certain poetic license taken with the text above - it's meant to communicate an idea more than to be a description. However, even if you believe in dinos and man living together, the assertion is certainly not out of the question by any stretch of the imagination.

crawfish
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:43 PM
Job 41
"His sneezes flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 "Out of his mouth go burning torches;
Sparks of fire leap forth.
20 "Out of his nostrils smoke goes forth
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 "His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes forth from his mouth.

Dinos and man must have co-existed as they were made on the same day---and from a distance he named this animal .

Here's the problem: no known dinosaur matches this description. Creationists have guesses but absolutely no evidence.

Probably the best guess I've heard to explain what this is is a whale. Certainly, spray coming from a blowhole might seem to be smoke to an imaginative observer. However, this description is far more elusive than the other.


A T-Rex has been found that contains red blood cells....strongly suggesting that they were not wiped out 60 million years ago.

Haven't heard of this one. I'll need a link.


Here is a couple of links that suggest dinos were seen by man.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6015/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/133

Never heard of the second one. The first, however, really only slightly resembles a stegasaur (the head, tail and shape are wrong). Not to mention, no stegosaurus fossils have been discovered in the area. What it does resemble extremely closely, if the "plates" on the back are not part of the creature but part of the background, is a chameleon.

All the "evidence" I see of dinos and man together are always highly questionable accounts. They kind of stand out - if they did exist with early man, it is quite confusing why they didn't make it into more accounts. Much like the fuzzy UFO pics from the 50's, something just doesn't seem to jibe.

Jeffinator
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:45 PM
It's not a dinosaur. It's probably a hippo. The poetic metaphor fits quite well.

Perhaps it's not a perfect metaphor, but it's very close. Closer than you'll find to any known species of dinosaur. And know that the hippo would have been a recognized creature in that part of the world at that time.

Hippos are the most aggressive and dangerous creatures known to man. They are responsible for more human deaths each year than any other animal. They are known to attack (and sink) any and all boats that dare enter their territory. They would represent formidable prey for an early hunter.

There is obviously certain poetic license taken with the text above - it's meant to communicate an idea more than to be a description. However, even if you believe in dinos and man living together, the assertion is certainly not out of the question by any stretch of the imagination.

I have heard it rationalized as hippos, alligators, and you name it but it still does not fit at all. Once again your trying to twist the bible to fit your perception and ideas. Not even on a spiritual sense but a scientific sense your rationalization is laughable I mean referring to his tail like a cedar is obviously the tree not a branch on the tree or else He would have said stick or something, not tree. Also notice the verse that says his strength is in his legs, case you didn't know hippos have quite small legs for their size. Also Job 41 also goes on to describe a beast called a leviathan which sounds even more like a dinosaur.

crawfish
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:56 PM
I have heard it rationalized as hippos, alligators, and you name it but it still does not fit at all. Once again your trying to twist the bible to fit your perception and ideas. Not even on a spiritual sense but a scientific sense your rationalization is laughable I mean referring to his tail like a cedar is obviously the tree not a branch on the tree or else He would have said stick or something, not tree. Also notice the verse that says his strength is in his legs, case you didn't know hippos have quite small legs for their size. Also Job 41 also goes on to describe a beast called a leviathan which sounds even more like a dinosaur.What am I trying to twist? I gave you a detailed explanation of the passage above that requires no "allegory". The bible uses a term whose exact meaning has been lost over time; it presents a description that fits quite well for an existing creature that would have been known in the area for some time. We will never "know" for sure until Christ comes back; but just because you accept that the description might be a hippo doesn't mean you're denying a young earth.

As far as "laughable"...the exact description is "swings like a cedar". How exactly does a cedar trunk swing? It's branches swing all the time in the wind, swaying back and forth with their needles, just like a hippo's tail. I think implying it's referring to the trunk is a bigger stretch than what I'm suggesting.

Hippos are also surprisingly quick for their size on land. They can't run far, but they can run very fast for a short period of time, and woe be anything that gets in their way.

Anyway, what about the part about the mouth? The dino's it resembles (Diplodocus) have less impressive mouths than what they would suggest. And the sword metaphor doesn't work at all for that type of creature. It might work for a stegosaur, or a t-rex, but then it wouldn't fit the other descriptions very well.

This is simply a desperate attempt to read something into the bible that isn't there, to prove a point. It weakens your case considerably.

For the record, I don't think the alligator really works here.

Jeffinator
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:56 PM
Here's the problem: no known dinosaur matches this description. Creationists have guesses but absolutely no evidence.

Probably the best guess I've heard to explain what this is is a whale. Certainly, spray coming from a blowhole might seem to be smoke to an imaginative observer. However, this description is far more elusive than the other.

Why? Were you around when dinosaurs lived how do you know they didn't spray some type of hot fiery gas as a defense? Ever heard of the bombardier beetle that spumes hot noxious fiery gas when it is attacked or damaged? You yourself are making assumptions about these animals and the best we got are drawings from the ancients and what texts like the bible say. You mock the pictures on the walls of the ancients cuz they arent accurate enough for you, what next you gonna say that humans didnt exist back then because the drawings of the humans on egypts wall dont exactly match what humans look like. You can pick apart anything and cast it away.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 22nd 2008, 09:58 PM
I was referring to radiometric dating of minerals, not life. I'm not arguing with you here, carbon dating is only accurate within a narrow timeframe with older specimens being more off in terms of dating.

I would refer to the crystals of zircon that were dated around 4.1 billion years old (book citation if you would like).Excess argon. Here's a link to an article written by geologist Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438

Hey crawfish! I figured you'd get into this sooner or later. ;) Just curiously, how can a whale be thought to have sparks of fire come from his mouth or having his breath kindling coals? Is it simply coincidence that so many culture all over the world, including the Hebrew Bible speak of a fire breathing creature? :hmm:

crawfish
Oct 22nd 2008, 10:04 PM
Why? Were you around when dinosaurs lived how do you know they didn't spray some type of hot fiery gas as a defense? Ever heard of the bombardier beetle that spumes hot noxious fiery gas when it is attacked or damaged? You yourself are making assumptions about these animals and the best we got are drawings from the ancients and what texts like the bible say. You mock the pictures on the walls of the ancients cuz they arent accurate enough for you, what next you gonna say that humans didnt exist back then because the drawings of the humans on egypts wall dont exactly match what humans look like. You can pick apart anything and cast it away.

Where is the evidence? There is none. You are making an assumption: "we know the bible talks about an animal here, and we know there were dinosaurs. The bible must be talking about a dinosaur!". That is reading into, not taking out of, scripture.

I think the picture on the wall IS a pretty accurate depiction. Of a chameleon. I don't expect photorealistic cave drawings, or scale drawings, or accurate anatomy; what I do see is that drawings tend to stress or exaggerate the obvious features of the animal that is being presented. Here, the obvious features - the spikes on the tail, the small head - have been ignored. Creationists like to invoke Occam's Razor, let's invoke it here - the creature most resembles a chameleon, a chameleon is known to have existed in that area at that time, so the drawing is most likely that of a chameleon. It is hardly proof, or even evidence, of anything.

jeffweeder
Oct 22nd 2008, 10:09 PM
Haven't heard of this one. I'll need a link.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

Jeffinator
Oct 22nd 2008, 10:10 PM
As far as "laughable"...the exact description is "swings like a cedar". How exactly does a cedar trunk swing? It's branches swing all the time in the wind, swaying back and forth with their needles, just like a hippo's tail.

Actually a newer translation puts it "It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The ligaments of its thighs are intertwined." Job 40:17 Version GWT

I checked many translations none mention swinging like a cedar. Its really implying that when the beast moves his tail because straight and strength like that of a cedar.

crawfish
Oct 22nd 2008, 10:13 PM
Hey crawfish! I figured you'd get into this sooner or later. ;) Just curiously, how can a whale be thought to have sparks of fire come from his mouth or having his breath kindling coals? Is it simply coincidence that so many culture all over the world, including the Hebrew Bible speak of a fire breathing creature? :hmm:

Yeah, I avoided it at first because the OP requested a specific audience which did not include me. It's veered off-topic enough now for me to step in. :D

I don't think a whale does have fire come from his mouth. What I do think is that this is a poetic account, and the early man could have very well thought that the vapor out of a whale's blowhole was steam coming from some internal fire. God is playing with this mystery.

Now, as far as other cultures; I admit I do not know. It's one of those mysteries that has no answer yet. I'm not going to jump on the dino bandwagon just because of something we don't know yet, because a) there is no reason to believe so from the text; it's referring to some unknown beast, and b) there is no fossil evidence of such a creature.

crawfish
Oct 22nd 2008, 10:24 PM
Actually a newer translation puts it "It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The ligaments of its thighs are intertwined." Job 40:17 Version GWT

I checked many translations none mention swinging like a cedar. Its really implying that when the beast moves his tail because straight and strength like that of a cedar.

NIV, TNIV. Most translations say it "moves". A few say it bends. From the original Hebrew, I can't see how it would imply "stiff like a cedar", but then again I'm no Hebrew scholar.

The only reason anybody thinks it's a dino is because nothing fits perfectly. No dino has been found that fits it any better than a hippo does. I guess it's just a choice of which metaphors to take more seriously. I choose the simplest explanation - one that fits with both scripture and what we know. Again, it's hardly proof.

itsokimadocter
Oct 22nd 2008, 11:28 PM
It's right before your eyes. The text relates how Adam was alone, so God made the animals and brought them to Adam.




Let me rephrase then. Please deal with it.

God bless you, Todd.

again...no contradiction. people can make the bible say whatever they want. "judas went out and hung himself...therefore go ye and do likewise"
see ;)

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN%2B1:23-25&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on)). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.
The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.
Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

fishbowlsoul
Oct 23rd 2008, 12:53 AM
Let's express this thought of yours by using another example.

If you believe that the earth is flat based solely your biblical interpretation then good for you.

:rolleyes:

Truth is good for us. Idiocy is of no value to us.

I am not trying to validate their YEC view but I believe they have the right to believe their interpretation. If a person does believe that the earth is a flat round disk, I will debate them on it but not try to dictate that they must abandon that view to get to heaven or call their belief idiocy.


Studyin'2Show
fishbowlsoul, please try not to be condescending. There are PhDs with more degrees than you and I put together that have studied this issue and come in on the young earth side. Majority is not the measure of truth or falsehood. ;)


Pardon me if I sounded condescending but I happen to be smarter than you.;) Just kidding! I just know how to read write and cipher my numbers. I have to be barefooted though.

Having lots of PhDs does not make one right on either side. A theory is not valid because of how well studied its proponents are. It is valid based the evidence and observations that support it plus how well that theory predicts future evidence and observations. Predictability is something YEC/ID folks ignore alot but it is very important to how well a hypothesis/theory stands up.

God bless

Jeffinator
Oct 23rd 2008, 01:52 AM
Where is the evidence? There is none. You are making an assumption: "we know the bible talks about an animal here, and we know there were dinosaurs. The bible must be talking about a dinosaur!". That is reading into, not taking out of, scripture.

I think the picture on the wall IS a pretty accurate depiction. Of a chameleon. I don't expect photorealistic cave drawings, or scale drawings, or accurate anatomy; what I do see is that drawings tend to stress or exaggerate the obvious features of the animal that is being presented. Here, the obvious features - the spikes on the tail, the small head - have been ignored. Creationists like to invoke Occam's Razor, let's invoke it here - the creature most resembles a chameleon, a chameleon is known to have existed in that area at that time, so the drawing is most likely that of a chameleon. It is hardly proof, or even evidence, of anything.

Heres your evidence right here http://gospelofsteve.blogspot.com/2007/06/dragons-dinosaurs-and-young-earth.html

Even the most basic traditions of cultures like the chinese use dragons which look like dinosaurs it all came from their ancestors who probably saw beasts who look similar, its not a coincidence the bible mentions similar animals.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 23rd 2008, 02:29 AM
Pardon me if I sounded condescending but I happen to be smarter than you.;) Just kidding! I just know how to read write and cipher my numbers. I have to be barefooted though.

Having lots of PhDs does not make one right on either side. A theory is not valid because of how well studied its proponents are. It is valid based the evidence and observations that support it plus how well that theory predicts future evidence and observations. Predictability is something YEC/ID folks ignore alot but it is very important to how well a hypothesis/theory stands up.

God blessYou don't have to take yer shoes off. Just line up all yer younguns and you'll be able to cipher real high. :D

See, here's where there's much confusion. As far as being a yec, I see creation as a historical event not a scientific theory. There is no need for predictability because it is history. Being a Christian, it has been laid out chronologically for me so it has been recorded, and there is evidence and observation supporting its accuracy though that is not a requirement for faith to operate effectively.

Now, as an IDer, I see ID as a scientific theory based on evidence and observation as well as predicting future events. One of the things that ID proposes is that the reason living systems have the appearance of being designed for a purpose is that they have indeed been designed with a purpose. The theory predicts that living systems that have previously been thought to be vestigial will eventually be shown to have been designed with a purpose. The appendix has long been thought useless but has recently been linked to the immune system. There are more things but I'm tired. :) 5am comes really quick so I'm off to bed.

God Bless!

crawfish
Oct 23rd 2008, 01:56 PM
Heres your evidence right here http://gospelofsteve.blogspot.com/2007/06/dragons-dinosaurs-and-young-earth.html

Even the most basic traditions of cultures like the chinese use dragons which look like dinosaurs it all came from their ancestors who probably saw beasts who look similar, its not a coincidence the bible mentions similar animals.

Did you actually read that article?

Rookie78
Oct 23rd 2008, 03:47 PM
There is some middle ground for the age of the earth....

There is a theory that attempts to explain the age of the earth as being relative to God for the first few days of creation before the sun existed giving us our 24 hour day. When something as large as the universe is compacted in such a small volume (Big Bang), time slows way down to the observer (God). So a day as observed by God would equate to billions of years of age to the universe. The aging of the universe would get slower and slower as it expanded out. Time would then begin as normal when we have the earth and sun to define a 24 hour period as we know it.

Jeffinator
Oct 23rd 2008, 04:31 PM
Did you actually read that article?

The article's writer's personal belief is not the point, what the article does show is that many different cultures who have had no contact with each other all have similar depictions of animals that look like dinosaurs, not a coincidence. And the only argument he has is that the ancients saw the bones of the dinosaurs and thought they were still alive...come on...lets give the ancients more credit than that. Plus there really were no fully preserved dinosaur skeletons around at that time visible to the naked eye just by looking around. Also dont you think its kinda coincidental that all the cultures depict these animals as reptiles?

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:19 PM
Excess argon. Here's a link to an article written by geologist Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=438 (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438)

Potassium Argon dating hasn't been used since the 1970s.

The crystals I referred to were zircon, and were dated using lead and other isotopes. Here is the actual study.

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/%7Evalley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf

crawfish
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:34 PM
There is some middle ground for the age of the earth....

There is a theory that attempts to explain the age of the earth as being relative to God for the first few days of creation before the sun existed giving us our 24 hour day. When something as large as the universe is compacted in such a small volume (Big Bang), time slows way down to the observer (God). So a day as observed by God would equate to billions of years of age to the universe. The aging of the universe would get slower and slower as it expanded out. Time would then begin as normal when we have the earth and sun to define a 24 hour period as we know it.

If that was the intent, then I suspect the text would use different terms for each. To me, the only logical assumptions to make are a) a day means 24 hours, or b) the term "day" is a motif used to allegorically compare God's work in creation to man's 7-day work week. Anything else makes the text inconsistent.

Obviously, I believe in the second one. The actual time and method of creation doesn't matter at all to the account; no theory of evolution or biogenesis or big bang or age of earth will shake my faith in the truth of the account's underlying messages, or that God is the absolute creator of all things.

Old Earther
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:35 PM
Let's get back to discussing the age of the Earth, shall we? Who as it that presented the slowing of the Earth' spin rate as proof of a young earth? I addressed this and await a response.

itsokimadocter
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:43 PM
Good. Let's discuss each piece of evidence, one at a time.




The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

If we see a 14 billion year universe...a 14hr/day 4.6 billion years ago would be around a 7hr/day 14 billion years ago...correct? if the earth spins at that rate it would be catostrophic. i could be wrong though, God knows :D

i decided to do the math using the same equation in the link you provided:

Let's do the calculation for 14 billion years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (14 billion yr))/Year = (70,000,000 sec)/Year
= (810.1 days)/Year
Thus, at 14 billion years ago, the earth had 810.1 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 810.1)days/Year = 1175.35 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(1175.35 days/Year) = 7.458 hrs/day

crawfish
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:47 PM
The article's writer's personal belief is not the point, what the article does show is that many different cultures who have had no contact with each other all have similar depictions of animals that look like dinosaurs, not a coincidence. And the only argument he has is that the ancients saw the bones of the dinosaurs and thought they were still alive...come on...lets give the ancients more credit than that. Plus there really were no fully preserved dinosaur skeletons around at that time visible to the naked eye just by looking around. Also dont you think its kinda coincidental that all the cultures depict these animals as reptiles?

Well...they're somewhat similar. Some appear very snake-like, some dino-like, and some combine attributes of many animals (lions, eagles, etc.). I don't think the dino bone theory is out of the question...they probably didn't need an entire fossil to engage their imagination about what kind of creature had such a huge tooth, jawbone or leg bone. Before they began to be dug up regularly, they did tend to exist closer to the surface and in visible rock formations.

Either way you believe, you believe that man has common ancestry. Thus, the older legends of a culture will have fragments passed down through the many cultures that spawned from it.

I think something that is missed in today's culture is the sheer mystery of the unknown that surrounded the ancient people at all points. They didn't have museums to visit, books to read, scientific methodology to follow. The ancient mindset didn't think that nature was a process to be discovered; they felt it was a truth to be revealed. What seems illogical or silly to us today would seem anything but 3-4,000 years ago. I give them full credit for being as wise and capable as we are today (even moreso in some things)...but they did not have the thousands of years of research and data that we have built our current understanding from.

crawfish
Oct 23rd 2008, 05:51 PM
If we see a 14 billion year universe...a 14hr/day 4.6 billion years ago would be around a 3hr/day 14 billion years ago...correct? if the earth spins at that rate it would be catostophic. i could be wrong though, God knows :D

True. No way the earth could have been life-supporting back then. ;)

Rookie78
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:01 PM
If that was the intent, then I suspect the text would use different terms for each. To me, the only logical assumptions to make are a) a day means 24 hours, or b) the term "day" is a motif used to allegorically compare God's work in creation to man's 7-day work week. Anything else makes the text inconsistent.

Obviously, I believe in the second one. The actual time and method of creation doesn't matter at all to the account; no theory of evolution or biogenesis or big bang or age of earth will shake my faith in the truth of the account's underlying messages, or that God is the absolute creator of all things.

The one who is relaying this account of creation to Moses is God, so from His point of view, it would have been at or around 24 hr. days for creation, but not from the universe's perspective.

teddyv
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:24 PM
If we see a 14 billion year universe...a 14hr/day 4.6 billion years ago would be around a 7hr/day 14 billion years ago...correct? if the earth spins at that rate it would be catostrophic. i could be wrong though, God knows :D

i decided to do the math using the same equation in the link you provided:

Let's do the calculation for 14 billion years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (14 billion yr))/Year = (70,000,000,000 sec)/Year
= (810.1 days)/Year
Thus, at 14 billion years ago, the earth had 810.1 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 810.1)days/Year = 1175.35 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(1175.35 days/Year) = 7.458 hrs/day
I hope this post is meant tongue-in-cheek.

itsokimadocter
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:34 PM
I hope this post is meant tongue-in-cheek.

Here is the link provided as proof that the evidence i explained was false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof20

all i did was insert 14 billion(age of universe*) in place of 370 million to show the rotation of the earth at the "beginning"

Studyin'2Show
Oct 23rd 2008, 06:53 PM
Potassium Argon dating hasn't been used since the 1970s.

The crystals I referred to were zircon, and were dated using lead and other isotopes. Here is the actual study.

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/%7Evalley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdfI think you should read the article again. It speaks to the older potassium argon testing but also to the argon argon method which is considered superior. Btw, who told you they no longer use the more cost effective potassium-argon testing? Here's a lab at Dartmouth that has a department specifically for that purpose. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~earthsci/labs/KArlab.html (http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eearthsci/labs/KArlab.html) However, I'd hoped you can see that the principles remain the same. There is a certain assumption made concerning what was once there based on what's still there and what has been left behind. Here is an article that details some issues creationists scientists have with uranium-lead testing. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp Dr. Robert Gentry has done some interesting research on polonium halos that ties in with this.

But here's the thing. You will research and find sources that you believe 'refute' my sources and I will post sources I believe 'refute' your sources but what's really the point? We disagree on our conclusions, is that really such a big conflict? If the earth is less than 6,000 years old will that change how you serve God? If the earth were billions of years old would that change how I love God or my neighbor? The answer to both should be a resounding 'NO'! I usually just jump in when people come on with the attitude that yec's are ignoring reality or ignorant or something like that because that truly is not the case for me and for many, many others. If you show respect you will find most young earth creationists will respect you too. For those who don't, just bless 'em and pray for 'em as I do those who assume I'm ignorant. :D I enjoy this discussion when it's about you sharing what you believe and why and me sharing what I believe and why without the whole competitive 'I'm right, you're wrong' thing. ;)

God Bless!

teddyv
Oct 23rd 2008, 07:10 PM
Here is the link provided as proof that the evidence i explained was false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof20

all i did was insert 14 billion(age of universe*) in place of 370 million to show the rotation of the earth at the "beginning"

The problem is that the Earth is not 14 billion years old.

itsokimadocter
Oct 23rd 2008, 08:31 PM
The problem is that the Earth is not 14 billion years old.

You are correct and i was incorrect. good thing i stated i could be wrong :lol:. the earth is indeed beleived to be around 4.5 billion years old.

crawfish
Oct 23rd 2008, 09:16 PM
Here is the link provided as proof that the evidence i explained was false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof20

all i did was insert 14 billion(age of universe*) in place of 370 million to show the rotation of the earth at the "beginning"

The earth formed as dust and matter combined into the planet we now know due to gravitational forces. It didn't exist when the universe was created, and likely existed for a quite a while before it settled for an orbit around our sun.

Old Earther
Oct 23rd 2008, 11:44 PM
What about dead trees? :hmm:


Yes, what about them? Petrified trees, for instance, have been dated way beyond 6000 years. We can know how old they were when they died by counting their tree rings. Agreed?

Old Earther
Oct 23rd 2008, 11:47 PM
That so many different cultures all over the world have accounts of these creatures lends credibility to their actual existence.

So do you believe in unicorns?


Before the first dino bone was found naysayers said that there had never been such creatures.

Many christians dismissed the bones as hoaxes. Some even went so far as to say that the devil planted them there just to deceive us.

Old Earther
Oct 23rd 2008, 11:54 PM
I see what you are saying, but this all happened the same day. I see it as a reference to what he had done earlier in the day, even "every bird of the sky" is a reference to what he did the day before . Adam named all the animals before Eve came along and of course no suitable companion was found.

Jeff, I must advise you to take off your theological blinders and let the text speak for itself.

Read closely:

Gen 2:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Gen 2:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Clearly, v. 16 follows v. 15 chronologically. Agreed?

Gen 2:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Clearly, v. 18 follows v. 17 chronologically, agreed?

Gen 2:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

Clearly, v. 19 follows v.18 chronologically, agreed?

Gen 2:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The chronological sequence continues, agreed?

Gen 2:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; Gen 2:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Gen 2:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
I think a pattern is emerging, yes?

jeffweeder
Oct 24th 2008, 12:49 AM
Good morning everyone.


Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

your saying that this is an act of creation, that God formed and made all the animals and the birds as he sat there with Adam. The problem with that is that God did not create the birds on the 6th day.So it must be a ref to the fact that God had made beasts and birds out of the ground

All the text is saying to me is that God , who had formed all the animals and birds, as Gen 1 makes clear that birds were good on day 5, brings them to the man. Notice that it was a reference to them being formed out of the ground, like Adam ,and remember about man needing a suitable companion.
Out of the ground the lord God created beasts and birds, so he bought them to the man, but the man found no suitable companion, so God took his flesh and mde a woman, and Adam lept for joy.--bone of my bone flesh of my flesh.


Hope this makes sense.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 24th 2008, 01:45 AM
Yes, what about them? Petrified trees, for instance, have been dated way beyond 6000 years. We can know how old they were when they died by counting their tree rings. Agreed?What we can do is count the rings to know how old they were when they died. What we can not do is know how long ago they died. What was once thought to take thousands of years to happen (petrification) we now know can happen in a relatively short period of time as laid out in this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/wood.asp.

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Oct 24th 2008, 02:04 AM
So do you believe in unicorns?

Many christians dismissed the bones as hoaxes. Some even went so far as to say that the devil planted them there just to deceive us.The term 'unicorn' simply speaks of a creature with a single horn. Have you ever seen an animal with only one horn?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Indian_Rhino2_%28Rhinoceros_unicornis%292_-_Relic38.jpg/752px-Indian_Rhino2_%28Rhinoceros_unicornis%292_-_Relic38.jpg

I know I have. :P The Indian Rhino is sometimes called the great one-horned rhino. As for white horses with pink manes that play with forest fairies....no. :lol:

Now, how did we get on what some Christians used to (fill in the blank) believe. :rolleyes: Please, let's stick to sharing what you and I believe. ;)

God Bless!

itsokimadocter
Oct 24th 2008, 03:58 PM
Jeff, I must advise you to take off your theological blinders and let the text speak for itself.

Read closely:

Gen 2:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Gen 2:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Clearly, v. 16 follows v. 15 chronologically. Agreed?

Gen 2:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Clearly, v. 18 follows v. 17 chronologically, agreed?

Gen 2:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

Clearly, v. 19 follows v.18 chronologically, agreed?

Gen 2:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The chronological sequence continues, agreed?

Gen 2:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; Gen 2:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Gen 2:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gen&c=2&t=KJV&x=3&y=8#) And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
I think a pattern is emerging, yes?

lets take a really close look at the two accounts.....

The first 5 verses of Genesis discussing the first day of creation. The remainder of creation follows:
Day 2 verses 6-8, God created the firmament (or expanse).
Day 3 God created the dry land and separated from the seas, and the plants. 9-13
Day 4 God created light, stars, moon and sun. 14-19
Day 5 God created life in the waters, birds 20-23
Day 6 God created animals on the land and the beasts of the field 24-25
Also on day 6, God created the crown of His creation. Man was created in the image of God.
Day 7 God rested to give man a day of rest.
Now look at the accused contradiction found in Genesis 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
...
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. (For the NIV, see notes at the end of this message.)
20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him

now compare vs. 7 & 8 of chapter two. IF this were a chronological order of events in chapter two. chapter two states that God formed man before He made the Garden.

if the word of God is fallable which you are suggesting by stating there is a contradiction, then every single word of the scriptures can be discredited. To say that there is a contradiction is to say that God made a mistake when we consider
2 Timoth 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Was Moses in error? no, look at Moses's upbringing by the Egyptians, i think it would be safe to say that Moses was very educated. I say we give God & Moses a little more credit in there understanding of how these two chapters were written. Moses made no mistake in his recording of the events. chapter 1 is chronological and chapter 2 goes into detail of the creation account.

crawfish
Oct 24th 2008, 05:25 PM
if the word of God is fallable which you are suggesting by stating there is a contradiction, then every single word of the scriptures can be discredited. To say that there is a contradiction is to say that God made a mistake when we consider
2 Timoth 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Was Moses in error? no, look at Moses's upbringing by the Egyptians, i think it would be safe to say that Moses was very educated. I say we give God & Moses a little more credit in there understanding of how these two chapters were written. Moses made no mistake in his recording of the events. chapter 1 is chronological and chapter 2 goes into detail of the creation account.


I don't think he's implying it is fallible at all.

Look at 2 Timothy 3:16 - what is it saying in context? A verse earlier you'll read "which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Paul's not claiming it's useful for science, or history or anything other than our understanding of Christ. To say this verse implies a literal Genesis 1-3 is a very liberal (and non-literal) reading of Timothy.

itsokimadocter
Oct 24th 2008, 08:03 PM
I don't think he's implying it is fallible at all.

Look at 2 Timothy 3:16 - what is it saying in context? A verse earlier you'll read "which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Paul's not claiming it's useful for science, or history or anything other than our understanding of Christ. To say this verse implies a literal Genesis 1-3 is a very liberal (and non-literal) reading of Timothy.

The thing is, is that Genesis IS scripture no matter how we look at it, and therefore it is God-breathed. To say that the first two chapter contradict themselves is to say that what Moses wrote was wrong, plain and simple. Moses wrote alot of thing. Moses prophesied of "a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear....And the Lord said to me: I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19)
Could he have also been wrong about this? when you consider ANY scripture contradictory, and Genesis is scripture, you give room for your own ideas and opinions (carnal wisdom). the bible is 100% inerrant and that is why it has stood the test of time, because all of it is true.

crawfish
Oct 24th 2008, 09:13 PM
The thing is, is that Genesis IS scripture no matter how we look at it, and therefore it is God-breathed. To say that the first two chapter contradict themselves is to say that what Moses wrote was wrong, plain and simple. Moses wrote alot of thing. Moses prophesied of "a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear....And the Lord said to me: I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19)
Could he have also been wrong about this? when you consider ANY scripture contradictory, and Genesis is scripture, you give room for your own ideas and opinions (carnal wisdom). the bible is 100% inerrant and that is why it has stood the test of time, because all of it is true.

What does "God-breathed" mean? Does it mean that God used the author (Moses) as a conduit for each and every word written down? Or does it mean that the words are those of Moses', inspired by God through life experiences?

If the stories were not meant to be literal, then YEC'sare "adding" to the scriptures and putting in their own ideas and opinions to support their own internal bias towards that literal reading.

The only reason a "contradiction" appears in ch. 1 and 2 is if we're trying to read them as absolute literal accounts of events. As allegory they do not contradict. They present a coherent story, a depiction of man's place in creation. Ancient writing was not scientific or accurate by our standards; they believed that the importance of any story was its message; there was no concept of "history" or "science" as we see it. They took more liberty with their stories than we, in our 21st-century mindset, are comfortable with; they would regard them as "true" if they imparted the message they were meant to impart. We dishonor the writing by trying to read them with a modern eye.

jeffweeder
Oct 24th 2008, 10:38 PM
The only reason a contradiction is seen is because they misunderstand what is being said.
God chose Moses to communicate Gods truth. He had a responsability to accurately tell of God the way he is. Moses is not leaving it to your understanding of what he might be saying.
Old earthers are maybe looking for a way to find a contradiction so they can believe what somebody else has taught them about the beginnings of the world?

I see Moses being Gods choice for getting the truth out in those days and he wanted it written properly. God is renown for statements like--"write what i tell you" "write what you see" and even--"do not write it down"--God was in complete control of the revelation of himself , and had the right people writing what he wanted.

Jesus said that if they dont listen to Moses and the Prophets, they wont even listen to someone risen from the dead--someone greater than Moses, who Moses even wrote about .

Paul, in his ministry ,goes so far as to say that he is only proclaiming what Moses and the Psalms and the Prophets have already said-acts 26.

Jesus gifted the disciples, after his ressurection, with an opening of the mind of what The OT had said about him and it empowered them for their ministry to the unbelieving Jew. 3000 Jews on pentecost, saw Jesus as the promised one, as Peter showed them from the scriptures, what Jesus had showed him...and they believed.

All NT writers, and Jesus himself, hold the scrptures in high regard--something to be understood and believed..using the light of Christ.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 25th 2008, 12:48 PM
If the stories were not meant to be literal, then YEC'sare "adding" to the scriptures and putting in their own ideas and opinions to support their own internal bias towards that literal reading.
Hey crawfish! Let me jump in here on a tangent. In light of Genesis 5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%205;&version=50;), why would Genesis 1 & 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201-2;&version=50;) need to be allegorical? Other than being a historical account of Adam's genealogy (as stated in the text), what allegorical value is there from saying how old Adam was when he had a certain child, how many years he lived after, and how long his life was in total? That practice goes on for ten generations to his descendant Noah. Why if not historical? And if allegorical, why say the very specific detail? I believe the geneologies in chapter 5 and again in chapter 10 reinforce the young earth position from TE. However, I believe old earthers accept the timeline from the garden to Abram but Old Earther can correct me if I'm wrong. :hmm:

God Bless!

crawfish
Oct 27th 2008, 04:35 PM
Hey crawfish! Let me jump in here on a tangent. In light of Genesis 5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%205;&version=50;), why would Genesis 1 & 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201-2;&version=50;) need to be allegorical? Other than being a historical account of Adam's genealogy (as stated in the text), what allegorical value is there from saying how old Adam was when he had a certain child, how many years he lived after, and how long his life was in total? That practice goes on for ten generations to his descendant Noah. Why if not historical? And if allegorical, why say the very specific detail? I believe the geneologies in chapter 5 and again in chapter 10 reinforce the young earth position from TE. However, I believe old earthers accept the timeline from the garden to Abram but Old Earther can correct me if I'm wrong. :hmm:

God Bless!

Concerning Genesis 5: I think it was daughter who made a post a few months back showing a reading of the name-meanings of every person in that list, from Adam to Noah, that together produced a sentence that predicted the messiah. After some research it appeared to be a pretty credible claim (although some of the names have multiple possible meanings). I certainly wouldn't have put it past the early writers to include this message in the allegorical account of humanity. It is very possible that it is metaphor in a grand sense.

Also remember that numbers did not necessarily carry their literal meaning to the ancient Israelites. This is why in 1 Samuel 18:6-9 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/18.html#6) they could claim "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands", when David had killed precisely one guy. The numbers were meant as a sign of respect, that David's victory was more worth of respect than Saul's. No, I don't know what the ages/birth numbers actually mean, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that they have meaning beyond simple mathematics.

I really don't think that Genesis 10 is metaphorical, although I suspect that the first part of Ch. 11 is.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 27th 2008, 05:03 PM
Concerning Genesis 5: I think it was daughter who made a post a few months back showing a reading of the name-meanings of every person in that list, from Adam to Noah, that together produced a sentence that predicted the messiah. After some research it appeared to be a pretty credible claim (although some of the names have multiple possible meanings). I certainly wouldn't have put it past the early writers to include this message in the allegorical account of humanity. It is very possible that it is metaphor in a grand sense.

Also remember that numbers did not necessarily carry their literal meaning to the ancient Israelites. This is why in 1 Samuel 18:6-9 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/18.html#6) they could claim "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands", when David had killed precisely one guy. The numbers were meant as a sign of respect, that David's victory was more worth of respect than Saul's. No, I don't know what the ages/birth numbers actually mean, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that they have meaning beyond simple mathematics.

I really don't think that Genesis 10 is metaphorical, although I suspect that the first part of Ch. 11 is.I absolutely believe that the names have meaning, as do the names of those that follow even Yeshua which means 'salvation'. That does not take anything away from the clearly historical nature in how the passages are written. At least it seems clear to me. :) You see, whether the names or the numbers have other meaning, the text would have to still be truth as God's word would not lie to us, right?

crawfish
Oct 27th 2008, 06:50 PM
I absolutely believe that the names have meaning, as do the names of those that follow even Yeshua which means 'salvation'. That does not take anything away from the clearly historical nature in how the passages are written. At least it seems clear to me. :) You see, whether the names or the numbers have other meaning, the text would have to still be truth as God's word would not lie to us, right?

Define "lie". I told my wife I was hungry enough to eat a horse the other night, but quite honestly neither could I have eaten a whole horse nor was I particularly interested in that choice of meat.

Someone hears me saying that now and knows what I mean. Somebody reads it 4000 years from now in a fragment of this conversation, they might assume that horse was a common meal for our time. The true meaning is the meaning the author intended, not the meaning we place on it.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 27th 2008, 07:02 PM
Define "lie". I told my wife I was hungry enough to eat a horse the other night, but quite honestly neither could I have eaten a whole horse nor was I particularly interested in that choice of meat.

Someone hears me saying that now and knows what I mean. Somebody reads it 4000 years from now in a fragment of this conversation, they might assume that horse was a common meal for our time. The true meaning is the meaning the author intended, not the meaning we place on it.If the text was written as a possible figure of speech, sure. But let's say you tell your friend that you were 25 when you had your first child who is now 7 yrs old, should he not assume you are around 32? Should he consider that maybe you were just saying you were an average adult age and your child was an average childs' age? It's not only what you say but 'how' you say it. The genealogies are written in a historical fashion that purposely ties Adam (the first man) to eventually Abram who I don't think anyone claims is just an allegory. When exactly should we start seeing it historically and why do we start seeing it historically at whatever point?

crawfish
Oct 27th 2008, 09:38 PM
If the text was written as a possible figure of speech, sure. But let's say you tell your friend that you were 25 when you had your first child who is now 7 yrs old, should he not assume you are around 32? Should he consider that maybe you were just saying you were an average adult age and your child was an average childs' age? It's not only what you say but 'how' you say it. The genealogies are written in a historical fashion that purposely ties Adam (the first man) to eventually Abram who I don't think anyone claims is just an allegory. When exactly should we start seeing it historically and why do we start seeing it historically at whatever point?

He should assume I was 32...because our culture is number-literal. You might make a mistake assuming that about a guy back in 2000 B.C, though.

Here is a story I heard from a professor of Jewish studies, about his father who was an archaeologist back in the 30's. He was working on a dig in Iraq and happened to notice a local boy who was particularly hard-working. That evening at dinner, he told the boy's father how impressed he was with the young man and asked how old the boy was. The man replied: "Perhaps 20, perhaps 30, perhaps 40; but I tell you this: he was born the year after the war". The archaeologist realized the man was talking about a war that had ended 13 years earlier; the boy was 12-13 years old. Why did the man lie to him?

The answer was, he didn't. Remember that, back in the 30's, that part of the world, particularly the poor, rural areas, was much the same culturally as it had been for thousands of years; hardly any Western influence had permeated it. The man gave an answer that reflected the truth of his culture. It would have been counter-intuitive to him to think that a literal count of years would be the more proper answer.

I believe we make a mistake when we try and inject our 21st-century mentality into the scriptures. It is our job to understand the scriptures from their cultural context, NOT their job to write them to ours.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 27th 2008, 10:07 PM
You've told me that story before but I thought you said it was 'your' father? :hmm: Oh well. Hebrew text is very specific about ages and years. Read Chronicles and Kings. Why would they suddenly learn how to count a year's time after Abram? No. I didn't buy that when you said it before and it still makes no sense. It's funny that so many point to other cultures who have generations they say go back more than 6,000 years as proof that civilization is older than that. What? Their year counts as a year but the Hebrew's year does not? :rolleyes: I'm sure Noah knew what a year was. Anyway, that's my take on it.

God Bless!

doug3
Oct 27th 2008, 11:46 PM
........................... A theory is not valid because of how well studied its proponents are. It is valid based the evidence and observations that support it plus how well that theory predicts future evidence and observations. Predictability is something YEC/ID folks ignore alot but it is very important to how well a hypothesis/theory stands up.

God bless

And that is where we all fall down.

Isaiah 55:8-9 (KJV) For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

We try to get God to fit into our scientific theories rather than developing scientific theories that fit His Word.

Heb 11:3, (Moffatt)
It is by faith we understand that the world was fashioned by the word of God, and thus the visible was made out of the invisible.

Hebrews 11:3 (KJV) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.




God bless

Doug3 (geologist)

Partaker of Christ
Oct 28th 2008, 02:16 AM
Let's get back to discussing the age of the Earth, shall we? Who as it that presented the slowing of the Earth' spin rate as proof of a young earth? I addressed this and await a response.

Hi Todd!

Do you believe in Jesus very own words?
I guess that since He was around, and involved at the time, then who better to ask?

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

So, how many generations from Jesus to Adam?

If you are also saying that there was life billions of years before Adam, then again you would be calling God a liar.

Death and decay came into the world because of sin. If there was death before Adam, then sin was also before Adam.

ShardikSon
Oct 28th 2008, 02:45 AM
I have to agree with Rev. Ken Collins, who said:


If God created the universe and pronounced it good, physical evidence cannot lie to us. If there is a Satan, he cannot plant false evidence unless he had the power to do it (which would mean that God did not create all things) or unless he had God’s permission to do it (which would mean that God is not truly good).

Studyin'2Show
Oct 28th 2008, 10:03 AM
I have to agree with Rev. Ken Collins, who said:
If God created the universe and pronounced it good, physical evidence cannot lie to us. If there is a Satan, he cannot plant false evidence unless he had the power to do it (which would mean that God did not create all things) or unless he had God’s permission to do it (which would mean that God is not truly good).Who has stated that a young earth means God planted false evidence? Definitely not young earthers. I feel man is misunderstanding the evidence. It is our lack of understanding that causes any 'perceived' falseness, NOT God. Besides, it could only be a lie if He did not tell us the truth...but He did.

Here's an example. A furniture dealer takes a new piece of wooden furniture and distresses it. They then allow you to believe it is an amtique so they can sell it for more. THAT is deception. Now, let's say that they tell you they just made the piece last month. Is the fact that it is distressed and 'looks' old, deception? Or is it style? :hmm: Looks can be deceiving. ;)

God Bless!

crawfish
Oct 28th 2008, 02:54 PM
You've told me that story before but I thought you said it was 'your' father? :hmm: Oh well. Hebrew text is very specific about ages and years. Read Chronicles and Kings. Why would they suddenly learn how to count a year's time after Abram? No. I didn't buy that when you said it before and it still makes no sense. It's funny that so many point to other cultures who have generations they say go back more than 6,000 years as proof that civilization is older than that. What? Their year counts as a year but the Hebrew's year does not? :rolleyes: I'm sure Noah knew what a year was. Anyway, that's my take on it.

God Bless!

Well - it was never my father, sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

I'm not implying that they didn't know how to count. I'm not implying that they didn't know how to track the seasons or the passing of the sun. What I'm saying is that, to them, numbers had mystical qualities beyond their literal meaning. This really isn't in question - we all know that numbers like 13, 7, 40, etc. carried meanings. The suggestion here is that in the absence of hard data - and remember that these accounts were written over a thousand years after the events they are documenting - symbolic data was used instead.

ShardikSon
Oct 28th 2008, 04:53 PM
Who has stated that a young earth means God planted false evidence? Definitely not young earthers. I feel man is misunderstanding the evidence. It is our lack of understanding that causes any 'perceived' falseness, NOT God. Besides, it could only be a lie if He did not tell us the truth...but He did.

Here's an example. A furniture dealer takes a new piece of wooden furniture and distresses it. They then allow you to believe it is an amtique so they can sell it for more. THAT is deception. Now, let's say that they tell you they just made the piece last month. Is the fact that it is distressed and 'looks' old, deception? Or is it style? :hmm: Looks can be deceiving. ;)

God Bless!

I certainly don'y say that God has planted false evidence.
I think what is said here - and to this I subscribe - The evidence indicates that Earth has been around a lot longer than many of us want to think.
The evidence is correct. The Earth is millions of years old.
And this does not cause a discrepancy in the scripture, as I can see.

thepenitent
Oct 28th 2008, 06:41 PM
You can't say science contradicts the Bible until you know all the science there is to know. 175 years ago the it was settled "science" the using leeches to bleed people of their bad bodily humors was a top medical treatment. Anyone who disagreed was laughed at. I have no doubt that 175 years from now we will be laughing at things consdered solid "scientific" facts now. We really know little about "time" right now. Einstein's theories on general relativity and current discoveries on how strong gravitational forces effect "time" show that time is not fixed but relative - we have yet to really get our scientific hands around that concept and its implications.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 28th 2008, 06:54 PM
I certainly don'y say that God has planted false evidence.
I think what is said here - and to this I subscribe - The evidence indicates that Earth has been around a lot longer than many of us want to think.
The evidence is correct. The Earth is millions of years old.
And this does not cause a discrepancy in the scripture, as I can see.My point is simply that the data does not have a timestamp. Data must be interpreted. We are flawed human beings. Our ways are not God's ways. Our understanding is not God's understanding. I was responding to you posting the quote that said that physical evidence cannot lie. I wholeheartedly agree. However, that evidence can be misinterpreted. That does not disagree with scripture. ;)

And crawfish, I luv yah dude! We have long ago decided to agree to disagree. :) You're actually one of my favorite TE's. We can discuss topics like this rationally and it never gets personal. We may not agree on this but we agree on what's most important. :hug:

God Bless!

itsokimadocter
Oct 29th 2008, 05:20 PM
Hi Todd!

Do you believe in Jesus very own words?
I guess that since He was around, and involved at the time, then who better to ask?

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

So, how many generations from Jesus to Adam?

If you are also saying that there was life billions of years before Adam, then again you would be calling God a liar.

Death and decay came into the world because of sin. If there was death before Adam, then sin was also before Adam.

I agree! i beleive in a literal 6 day creation and that the world is only around 6k/yrs old according to a scriptural timeline.

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 29th 2008, 05:54 PM
But here's the thing. You will research and find sources that you believe 'refute' my sources and I will post sources I believe 'refute' your sources but what's really the point? We disagree on our conclusions, is that really such a big conflict? If the earth is less than 6,000 years old will that change how you serve God? If the earth were billions of years old would that change how I love God or my neighbor? The answer to both should be a resounding 'NO'! I usually just jump in when people come on with the attitude that yec's are ignoring reality or ignorant or something like that because that truly is not the case for me and for many, many others. If you show respect you will find most young earth creationists will respect you too. For those who don't, just bless 'em and pray for 'em as I do those who assume I'm ignorant. :D I enjoy this discussion when it's about you sharing what you believe and why and me sharing what I believe and why without the whole competitive 'I'm right, you're wrong' thing. ;)

It is not that I disrespect some YECers, but the YEC ideas simply do not have academic acceptance. This is not my opinion, because scientists would be foolish to use methods that were not accurate, just as doctors do not use blood-letting anymore.

If we are to accept that the world IS 6000ish years old, then we would be required to make some major changes to our outlook that would revolutionize science. If there was more doubt regarding evolution, then why aren't more scientists (including some very brilliant Christians) making history and overthrowing an outdated scientific system? Every scientist wants to be the next Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, or Einstein. Yet we see >99% of scientists in academic circles accepting old earth evolution.

The articles you quote (and I am not disputing content in them) are quoted by people who have an obvious agenda. Yet we see brilliant atheists and Christians promoting radiometric dating.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but do you see evolution as a conspiracy?

Old Earther
Oct 29th 2008, 07:13 PM
What we can do is count the rings to know how old they were when they died. What we can not do is know how long ago they died.


We cannot know how long ago they died if we rely on dendrochronology alone, that is true. But we can get a good idea of its age through calibration of dating techniques and stratigraphy.


That change in conditions would not affect tree rings as the oldest 'single tree' aged using the counting of rings is less than 4700 years old, after the flood.


By what mechanism would a flood change the rate of tree ring growth?

Old Earther
Oct 29th 2008, 07:15 PM
The term 'unicorn' simply speaks of a creature with a single horn. Have you ever seen an animal with only one horn?



I think you know that I was referring to the mythical horse-like creature with wings and a horn. This is a widespread myth, so by your logic it likely existed at some point.

Old Earther
Oct 29th 2008, 07:19 PM
if the word of God is fallable which you are suggesting by stating there is a contradiction


No, the word of God is infallible. I am simply pointing out that not all of it can be taken literally.

I take note that you nowhere addressed the fact that the second chapter of Genesis states that Adam was created before the animals. Are you not an honest student of the bible?

Old Earther
Oct 29th 2008, 07:23 PM
We try to get God to fit into our scientific theories rather than developing scientific theories that fit His Word.


A geocentricist or flat-earther couldn't have said it any better!


Doug3 (geologist)

I'm a geologist too! Pleased to meet you. Are you a YEC?

Old Earther
Oct 29th 2008, 07:28 PM
If you are also saying that there was life billions of years before Adam, then again you would be calling God a liar.


How so?


Death and decay came into the world because of sin. If there was death before Adam, then sin was also before Adam.

Context, context, context. The sort of death that Adam brought into the world is spiritual death, just as the sort of life Christ brings is spiritual life. Read Romans 5.

Rookie78
Oct 29th 2008, 08:27 PM
Old Earther,

How do you reconcile the creation story with what you know about geology? Is it some sort of gap theory?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 29th 2008, 09:10 PM
We cannot know how long ago they died if we rely on dendrochronology alone, that is true. But we can get a good idea of its age through calibration of dating techniques and stratigraphy.

By what mechanism would a flood change the rate of tree ring growth? When exactly did I say that the flood changed the rate of tree ring growth? :confused

Studyin'2Show
Oct 29th 2008, 09:12 PM
I think you know that I was referring to the mythical horse-like creature with wings and a horn. This is a widespread myth, so by your logic it likely existed at some point.No, I clearly was referring to an animal with one horn, hence 'unicorn'. I thought I explained that. :confused

itsokimadocter
Oct 29th 2008, 10:29 PM
No, the word of God is infallible. I am simply pointing out that not all of it can be taken literally.

I take note that you nowhere addressed the fact that the second chapter of Genesis states that Adam was created before the animals. Are you not an honest student of the bible?

please refer back to post #88

in Christ's love,
Todd

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 12:23 AM
Old Earther,

How do you reconcile the creation story with what you know about geology? Is it some sort of gap theory?


Since I believe that the creation stories are allegory, I see no conflict to resolve.

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 12:26 AM
When exactly did I say that the flood changed the rate of tree ring growth?

Didn't you suggest it here:




That change in conditions would not affect tree rings as the oldest 'single tree' aged using the counting of rings is less than 4700 years old, after the flood


Why mention "after the flood"?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 30th 2008, 12:40 AM
Didn't you suggest it here:

Why mention "after the flood"?
That change in conditions would not affect tree rings as the oldest 'single tree' aged using the counting of rings is less than 4700 years old, after the flood. A yec may challenge that because so much changed from BEFORE the the flood, radiometric dating for 5000 years or older would become suspect. Just as there are old earthers who are not as well studied and scientific as others, such is the case for young earthers. With that said, there is no reason for believers on either side of this issue to be condescending to another believer. We don't have to agree on every point to remember we are all brothers and sisters in Messiah and should treat each other as such whether we agree or not. ;)

God Bless!I can't believe you made me go all the way back to find what I ACTUALLY said. :lol: Goodness gracious. What I SAID was that tree rings should be a non issue because the oldest 'living' trees where tree rings have been used to calculate age are less than 4700 years old. See! They were seeded AFTER the flood! Which is, of course, WHY I said 'after the flood'. :D I hope that helps you get what I was saying.

God Bless! :)

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 02:55 AM
I can't believe you made me go all the way back to find what I ACTUALLY said. :lol: Goodness gracious. What I SAID was that tree rings should be a non issue because the oldest 'living' trees where tree rings have been used to calculate age are less than 4700 years old. See! They were seeded AFTER the flood! Which is, of course, WHY I said 'after the flood'. :D I hope that helps you get what I was saying.

God Bless! :)


Sister,

It would be helpful were to consider the reason I initially brought up dendrochronology. You will recall that the argument was made by a poster(s) here that radiometric dating is unreliable because we cannot know if the rate of radioactive decay has always remained constant. I pointed out that this argument extends in principle to dendrochronology in that both are based upon the assumption (a verifiably true assumption) that radioactive decay/tree ring growth is subject to constant rates.

You see, both radiometric dating and dendrochronology have been vindicated time and time again, with a predictability power that one would expect from good theories. What you and others are doing by attacking radometric dating is denying something that is observed to be true day in and day out.

God bless you Sister.

And God bless the Philadelphia Phillies!:monkeyd:

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 03:00 AM
No, I clearly was referring to an animal with one horn, hence 'unicorn'. I thought I explained that


Recall that I brought up unicorns because they are an example of a worldwide mythical creature. I then explained that by "unicorn" I was referring to the mythical horse-like creature with wings and a horn.

Now, you had previously argued that the fact that dragons are a universal myth is best explained by positing that people once knew of real living creatures (dinosaurs). By your logic, unicorns (in the sense of the word that I have clarified for you) were also once real and seen by humans. See?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 30th 2008, 10:44 AM
Recall that I brought up unicorns because they are an example of a worldwide mythical creature. I then explained that by "unicorn" I was referring to the mythical horse-like creature with wings and a horn.

Now, you had previously argued that the fact that dragons are a universal myth is best explained by positing that people once knew of real living creatures (dinosaurs). By your logic, unicorns (in the sense of the word that I have clarified for you) were also once real and seen by humans. See?No, you are misinformed. The pretty pony pink unicorn is not some ancient myth. It is a fairly recent fantasy. There are no cave drawings of pink unicorns. There are no ancient carvings of pretty unicorns. :D The folklore began in 14th century Asia, so it was very regional not all over the world like dragons, and the figures looked less like a pretty pony and more like some sort of smaller dragon (reptilian) than what we think of now when we hear the word. So, not every fantasy figure qualifies as something all ancient cultures have pictured and drawn similar figures of for thousands of years. :)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 12:11 PM
The folklore began in 14th century Asia


Where did you read that? I read that the myth goes bak to circa 2700 BC.



so it was very regional not all over the world like dragons


Actually, the unicorn myth was widespread throughout Europe and Asian for thousands of years.


and the figures looked less like a pretty pony and more like some sort of smaller dragon (reptilian) than what we think of now when we hear the word.

As with all myths, there was alot of variety in the way the unicorn was depicted in Asia.

But the unicorn is really just oen of a number of examples of universal myths that are based in the imagination of men.

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 12:12 PM
Studyingtoshow, it seems that I am unable to receive reputation. It says " Rep Off". :confused

Studyin'2Show
Oct 30th 2008, 01:40 PM
Studyingtoshow, it seems that I am unable to receive reputation. It says " Rep Off". :confusedJust go to your User CP page and click 'Edit Options' and turn your reputation on. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Oct 30th 2008, 02:23 PM
Where did you read that? I read that the myth goes bak to circa 2700 BC.

Actually, the unicorn myth was widespread throughout Europe and Asian for thousands of years.

As with all myths, there was alot of variety in the way the unicorn was depicted in Asia.

But the unicorn is really just oen of a number of examples of universal myths that are based in the imagination of men.What we consider a unicorn is indeed a very recent thing in the scope of history. If you look into what are sometimes referred to unicorn-like in more ancient times you'll find yourself looking at goats or bulls in profile, not horses with a horn in the center. In Greek mythology Zeus was nursed by an animal with one horn but a little digging and you'll find that it was actually a she-goat that had had one horn broken off. The biblical reference to a 'unicorn' is, I believe, a powerful one-horned rhino which is why I posted the picture.

Now, the dragon, unlike the unicorn has drawing and sculptures of similar creatures, all over the globe. Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America. Always reptilian, always with references to fire and/or smoke. There have been fossils found of large reptilian creatures, and also, amazingly described in the Bible as a powerful beast with fire and smoke which, for me at least, gives validity to the dragon as a real creature. ;)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 07:54 PM
Just go to your User CP page and click 'Edit Options' and turn your reputation on. ;)

Thank you, Sister! :hug:

Old Earther
Oct 30th 2008, 08:18 PM
What we consider a unicorn is indeed a very recent thing in the scope of history. If you look into what are sometimes referred to unicorn-like in more ancient times you'll find yourself looking at goats or bulls in profile, not horses with a horn in the center.

As interested as I am in unicorns (I admit it), I think we should move on. My main point here is that there are a number of universal mythical beings other than the dragon. Do you then believe that these beings once existed?


Now, the dragon, unlike the unicorn has drawing and sculptures of similar creatures, all over the globe. Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America.

Yes, but there has been variety in the ways dragons are depicted just as there has been variety in the way that unicorns have been depicted.

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 30th 2008, 08:29 PM
There have been fossils found of large reptilian creatures

Dinosaurs?


amazingly described in the Bible as a powerful beast with fire and smoke which, for me at least, gives validity to the dragon as a real creature. ;)

Is this the reference in Job, or there others also?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 30th 2008, 09:53 PM
Dinosaurs?

Is this the reference in Job, or there others also?What is in a name? :D Dinosaur is simply the name given to them in 1841. It means 'terrible lizard'. And yes, the Job reference.

Job 41:18-21
18 His sneezings flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lights;
Sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils,
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes out of his mouth.

God Bless!

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 03:29 AM
This is my opinion on the subject of the age of the Universe.

The Bible lists the generations of Adam and their ages after Adam falls into sin and is cast from the garden. When you do the math from these generations and their listed ages from Adam to Christ, you come up with around 4000 years. It's been around 2000 years since Christ was born, so the age of the Universe after Adam sinned is around 6000 years.

Now here comes the theoretical part on the age of the Universe. We have no idea how long Adam lived in the Universe as a sinless man. The Bible does not tell us how old Adam was before he sinned. Was he a billion years old? A million years old? 10 years old? The Bible does not tell us. All it tells us is how long Adam lived after he sinned, and the ages of his generations up to Christ, 4000 years. It's been 2000 years since Christ. 6000 years total in a sin filled world.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 31st 2008, 10:52 AM
Hello Lamplighter!

Welcome to the discussion. I had wondered about that factor too. How long had Adam lived in the garden before sin came? However, that factor wouldn't really affect the timeline.

Genesis 5:3-5
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

That doesn't differentiate between before or after sin. It just says he lived a total of 930 years. :dunno:

God Bless!

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 10:07 PM
Hello Lamplighter!

Welcome to the discussion. I had wondered about that factor too. How long had Adam lived in the garden before sin came? However, that factor wouldn't really affect the timeline.


But it would my friend.

The Bible only names the children Adam and Eve had after they sinned. Cane, Ablel, and Seth.

The Bible never mentions the names of the hundreds or more children they had before they sinned.

The Earth was already populated with Nations of people by the time Cane was born, which is why he went to a foreign nation to get a wife. As soon as God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply(they were told this way before they sinned) and they got busy on this Earth population assignment from God. We only know the names of 3 of Adam and Eve's children, but they had many more children then this, for who knows how many before they sinned. They may have had billions of years to procreate before they sinned?

jeffweeder
Nov 1st 2008, 01:08 AM
The Bible only names the children Adam and Eve had after they sinned. Cane, Ablel, and Seth.The Bible never mentions the names of the hundreds or more children they had before they sinned.


Hi
Adam and Eve's firstborn son was cain.
It wasnt until after the fall that he called the woman Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. If she had children before the fall, she would of been called eve before the fall...


Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain[I.e. gotten one], and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."
Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. (Twins?)


Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."


When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters

Studyin'2Show
Nov 1st 2008, 02:29 PM
But it would my friend.

The Bible only names the children Adam and Eve had after they sinned. Cane, Ablel, and Seth.

The Bible never mentions the names of the hundreds or more children they had before they sinned.

The Earth was already populated with Nations of people by the time Cane was born, which is why he went to a foreign nation to get a wife. As soon as God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply(they were told this way before they sinned) and they got busy on this Earth population assignment from God. We only know the names of 3 of Adam and Eve's children, but they had many more children then this, for who knows how many before they sinned. They may have had billions of years to procreate before they sinned?I have no problem with Adam having many, many unnamed children. That is, those that were not mentioned in the pages of the Bible. However, what you spoke of was how long Adam had lived before the fall. My point is simply that it doesn't matter. Say Adam lived for 50 years in the garden before the fall. How does that affect the scripture that says Adam had lived 130 years before having Seth and then lived another 800 and lived a total of 930 years? :hmm: It really doesn't, which was my point.

God Bless!

Lamplighter
Nov 1st 2008, 11:57 PM
Hi
Adam and Eve's firstborn son was cain.
It wasnt until after the fall that he called the woman Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. If she had children before the fall, she would of been called eve before the fall...


Why does she have to have a name before the fall?

Satan called her Woman, just like Adam did before the fall.

In Genesis 3, Eve is given the name mother of all living, yet Cain is not born until after Adam and Eve are driven out of the Garden in Genesis 4, and Adam gave his wife a name before they were driven from the Garden in Genesis 3. Adam called his wife Eve before Cain was ever conceived according to scripture. And Eve did not have to have the name Eve to bear children in the first place. She was called woman before she sinned, and Eve after she sinned, but she had children before she sinned, hence why she was called mother of all living in Genesis chapter 3, before Cain was conceived in Genesis chapter 4.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:35 PM
Well, there have been very few scientific arguments for a young earth made here. Would any YECs like to step up and present one?

Lamplighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:02 PM
Well, there have been very few scientific arguments for a young earth made here. Would any YECs like to step up and present one?



The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon.
If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone.
However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions.

Lamplighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:03 PM
There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.
Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.
Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:02 PM
Lamplighter,

Those snippets from ICR are cute, but not at all scientifically sound. Please take some time to educate yourself on the matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Here is the abstract:


<H3 class=plus1>ABSTRACT

Dr. D. R. Humphreys and other young-Earth creationists (YECs) believe that zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores, New Mexico, USA, contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old (Humphreys et al., 2003a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2003a),b, 2004; Humphreys, 2003 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2003)). In my original essay (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html), I extensively criticized and documented some of the numerous problems in Dr. Humphreys' work. Rather than dealing with most of his mistakes, it's obvious that Humphreys (2005 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2005)) did not even read and comprehend the vast majority of my criticisms. This essay contains additional evidence and discussions that demonstrate that Dr. Humphreys' work is fatally flawed and never achieves its YEC objectives.
Throughout Humphreys (2005 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2005)), Dr. Humphreys stresses that his YEC conclusions must be correct because his Figure 2 shows a supposedly strong correlation between his "creation model" and vacuum helium diffusion measurements from Humphreys (2003a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2003), 2004). However, Dr. Humphreys' diagram has little scientific merit. First of all, his helium diffusion experiments were performed under a vacuum rather than at realistic pressures that model the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill (about 200 to 1,200 bars; Winkler, 1979 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Winkler1979), p. 5). McDougall and Harrison (1999 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#McDougallHarrison1999)), Dalrymple and Lanphere (1969 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#DalrympleLanphere1969)) and many other researchers have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum. Secondly, because substantial extraneous helium currently exists in the subsurface of the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers away from the Fenton Hill site, Dr. Humphreys needs to analyze his zircons for 3He, and quartz and other low-uranium minerals in the Fenton Hill cores for extraneous 4He. Thirdly, chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#GentryEtal1982b)) and Zartman (1979 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Zartman1979)) indicate that Humphreys et al. and Gentry et al. (1982a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#GentryEtal1982a)) may have significantly underestimated the amount of uranium in the Fenton Hill zircons, which could reduce many of their Q/Q0 values by at least an order of magnitude and substantially increase Humphreys et al.'s "creation dates." Dr. Humphreys needs to perform spot analyses for 3He, 4He, lead, and uranium on numerous zircons from all of his and R. Gentry's samples so that realistic Q/Q0 values may be obtained.
The "dating" equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2003a)) are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. Using the best available chemical data on the Fenton Hill zircons from Gentry et al. (1982b (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#GentryEtal1982b)) and Zartman (1979 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Zartman1979)), the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2003a)) provide ridiculous "dates" that range from hundreds to millions of "years" old (average: 60,000 ± 400,000 "years" old [one significant digit and two standard deviations] and not 6,000 ± 2,000 years as claim by Humphreys et al., 2004 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2004)). Contrary to Humphreys (2005 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2005)), his mistakes are not petty or peripheral, but completely discredit the reliability of his work.
Humphreys (2005 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2005)) repeatedly challenges me to publish my criticisms of his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, when compared with Talkorigins, few individuals read science journals. Besides, YEC publications have earned no respect in the scientific community and, whether justified or not, authentic science journals are no more likely to accept a critique of his Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article (Humphreys et al., 2004 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2004)) than a rebuttal of the astrology columns and Big Foot articles in the National Enquirer.
It's obvious from Dr. Humphreys. publication record on this topic (i.e., Humphreys et al., 2003a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2003a),b; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2004 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#HumphreysEtal2004)) that he has no real interest in fully presenting his ideas for critical scrutiny from some of the world.s authorities on zircon and helium chemistry. So, before Dr. Humphreys screams about the importance of peer-review, he needs to follow his own advice. He needs to openly and completely publish his work and conclusions as a full article in a legitimate peer-reviewed science journal (such as Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta or American Mineralogist). Suitably peer-reviewed documents don't include a brief abstract in EOS and YEC proselytizing materials edited by his friends and/or fellow RATE members. If Dr. Humphreys is really sincere about his devotion to peer-review, let him wean himself off the reliance on miracles for his .accelerated radioactive decay. claims, honestly recognize and correct his numerous mistakes, and submit what's left as a detailed article in a real science journal.
</H3>
Lamplighter, I'd love to discuss this issue as well as the second argument you raised concerning salt and mud on the seafloor. However, I have not desire to exchange links. I am here to discuss the evidence, and you have given me no reason to believe that you understand the snippets that you quoted.

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 12:30 AM
Lamplighter,

Those snippets from ICR are cute, but not at all scientifically sound. Please take some time to educate yourself on the matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Here is the abstract:

[b]</H3>
Lamplighter, I'd love to discuss this issue as well as the second argument you raised concerning salt and mud on the seafloor. However, I have not desire to exchange links. I am here to discuss the evidence, and you have given me no reason to believe that you understand the snippets that you quoted.

The poster asked for scientific arguments for a young Earth, so I posted a few young earth arguments. Never said I agreed with them, just posted a few.

GitRDunn
Nov 4th 2008, 04:26 AM
There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.
Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.
Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.
This would be considering conditions exactly as they are now, but the amount of coastline has changed multiple times over the history of the Earth (i.e.- Pangea) so this would affect the amount of mud entering the sea. Also, there have been multiple ice ages on the Earth and these would again affect the mud levels, but also the salt levels as there is fresh water freezing and thawing and affecting salinity in the oceans. Also, not all of that mud would stay mud. As more got on top of it, it would get compressed into rock, which is what has happened in many areas, which is why they find dinosaur bones way down in rocks, they were originally buried in mud and this then was compressed to form rock. These layers are so deep in areas, it would actually point to extremely deep "layers" of mud, it's just that they've been compressed into rock.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 10:12 PM
It seems that whenever I ask a YEC to present a scientific argument for a young earth, they either parrot of plagiarize something from AIG or ICR or the like. When you press them to put the argument in their own words, orwhen you press them to display an understanding of the relevant data, they seem to always abandon the "discussion". I really would love to have an honest discussion with aYEC.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 5th 2008, 01:07 PM
It seems that whenever I ask a YEC to present a scientific argument for a young earth, they either parrot of plagiarize something from AIG or ICR or the like. When you press them to put the argument in their own words, orwhen you press them to display an understanding of the relevant data, they seem to always abandon the "discussion". I really would love to have an honest discussion with aYEC.I was seriously considering deleting this as it is clearly not edifying but I decided to respond instead. You obviously have not had a good discussion with me yet. :D I've actually grown a bit tired of the argumentative style that seems to go along with this discussion. :rolleyes: So, anyway let me answer for the yec's that unlike me still seem to care what you believe concerning the age of the earth. Just as many evolutionists are not scientist and tend to do google searches and present links to evolution resources, so yec's may not be scientists so they too google information that supports their position. :dunno: Big deal. If they are presenting information with sources, that should be enough to continue a discussion without attempting to belittle someone because of the conclusion they've made on this issue. How can anyone think that is in any way edifying to the body of believers? :hmm:

I used to spend literally hours to research before a post. I'd go to the library to research every little detail, and guess what? People would still insinuate that I was less than intelligent for believing as I do. Divide and conquer is a trick used by the enemy and I decided long ago not to allow that spirit to fuel me in this. I have studied long and hard and have come to my conclusion. I respect that you have done the same. I refuse to let a spirit of division enter into this. As a mother of 3 and wife of 1, I have dicided that it is not the best use of my time to spend hours researching so I can try to convince someone of my position who in all likelihood has already made a firm decision no matter what I present. Now, I love learning so I still hover around these topics but not to prove anything. Only to share information and to learn from others. That IS edifying and that IS worth the time to read your posts. Unless of course if the post I'm reading are not edifying in which case I usually delete them. Try not to make this an 'us' against 'them' thing. You may find that you enjoy the time you spend reading and sharing to learn much more productive than spending time just trying to prove you are right and others are wrong. ;)

God Bless!

Old Earther
Nov 5th 2008, 04:52 PM
I was seriously considering deleting this as it is clearly not edifying

I disagree. I shared my experience in order to motivate the YECs here to have an authentic discussion with me on the scientific evidence.



If they are presenting information with sources, that should be enough to continue a discussion without attempting to belittle someone because of the conclusion they've made on this issue.

When did I belittle anyone for believing in a young earth? What I did was invite the YEcs here to do more than simply post links. I have invited the YECs to rather engage me in a genuine discussion.

God bless.

markedward
Nov 5th 2008, 05:14 PM
Just reading through this thread... I would hardly call this "Apologetics and Evangelism" as much as I'd say it's just someone trying to debate the majority for the sole sake of debating the majority.

But, just to put in my say, I think the arguments proposed on the first page were sufficient enough for the YE theory. It is entirely a double-standard for an OE believer to call God "deceptive" for creating an "aged" universe yet to fully believe He created an "aged" human. Somehow the former is deceitful of God to do, yet the latter isn't? Why? They're the exact same thing. It's the simplest explanation, it coincides with the relative time-frame the Bible places upon creation, and is fully within God's power to do.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 5th 2008, 07:24 PM
I disagree. I shared my experience in order to motivate the YECs here to have an authentic discussion with me on the scientific evidence.

When did I belittle anyone for believing in a young earth? What I did was invite the YEcs here to do more than simply post links. I have invited the YECs to rather engage me in a genuine discussion.

God bless.OE, this is not a science forum. Posting links should be sufficient when used to back up someone's position whether YE or OE. This is an apologetics and evangelism forum. This discussion needs to focus on how this information will and can lead others to Messiah, not merely to try to 'prove' a position one way or the other. The fact is that neither position can be 'proven' and belief in either position requires some level of 'faith', either in dating methods or the literal nature of Genesis 1-11.

So, let's move past an attempt to prove a point and move on to sharing how you use your conclusions on this matter to lead others to the saving grace of Christ. It's merely a change of attitude. ;) I've heard people say that seeing yec presented intelligently helped lead them to Christ and I've heard people say that having Genesis explained allegorically helped them to do the same. Different people react to different things but the bottom line is leading the lost to Him!

God Bless!

Old Earther
Nov 5th 2008, 11:10 PM
But, just to put in my say, I think the arguments proposed on the first page were sufficient enough for the YE theory.

Let's start with one argument and discuss it a bit. Sound good? Present one argument and we'll discuss it.


It is entirely a double-standard for an OE believer to call God "deceptive" for creating an "aged" universe yet to fully believe He created an "aged" human.

I don't believe that God created an aged human.

Old Earther
Nov 5th 2008, 11:16 PM
Posting links should be sufficient when used to back up someone's position whether YE or OE.

But this is a discussion forum. Merely throwing links at one another is not tantamount to discussion. I have tried to discuss specific points brought up in various links given to me in support of a young earth, but my attempts at discussing these points in any depth have not been reciprocated.


This is an apologetics and evangelism forum. This discussion needs to focus on how this information will and can lead others to Messiah, not merely to try to 'prove' a position one way or the other.

Should I have posted this thread in another forum, then?


The fact is that neither position can be 'proven' and belief in either position requires some level of 'faith', either in dating methods or the literal nature of Genesis 1-11.



I understand this, but one position may be backed by substantial evidence, no? I can't prove that a giant troll is holding the universe in its hand, but does that mean that it is reasonable to believe in such a troll?



So, let's move past an attempt to prove a point and move on to sharing how you use your conclusions on this matter to lead others to the saving grace of Christ. It's merely a change of attitude. ;) I've heard people say that seeing yec presented intelligently helped lead them to Christ and I've heard people say that having Genesis explained allegorically helped them to do the same. Different people react to different things but the bottom line is leading the lost to Him!



My concern with young earth creationism is that it is shoddy science that will dissuade any thinking person from seeing creationism and even Christianity in a positve light.

Yankee Candle
Nov 5th 2008, 11:19 PM
It's a young earth. It cannot be millions of years old otherwise Moses chronology of the ante-diluvian ancestors is in error. Jesus affirmed everything Moses said.

God's Word is infallible. It cannot be in error.

God bless all of you.

Yankee Candle.:)

markedward
Nov 5th 2008, 11:26 PM
Let's start with one argument and discuss it a bit. Sound good? Present one argument and we'll discuss it.I have to say, the manner in which you are presenting yourself is slightly offending. Of course, I may be reading a tone into the text that is not there, but from post 1 of this thread (and how you present yourself in other threads), you come across as overbearing, and as someone said before, belittling. For example.

"Present one argument and we'll discuss it." Just by reading this post, and your other ones, and the manner in which you act and react to others, this immediately gives me the impression of an underlying tonality of "You have not, and neither has anyone else, presented a real argument. Present a real one and I'll discuss it."


I don't believe that God created an aged human.So... what was the "nature" of Adam when God created him? Likewise about Eve. Were they adults, with fully-functional mental faculties, including the abilities to walk, talk, reason, obey, disobey?

Or what?

GitRDunn
Nov 5th 2008, 11:37 PM
OE, this is not a science forum. Posting links should be sufficient when used to back up someone's position whether YE or OE. This is an apologetics and evangelism forum. This discussion needs to focus on how this information will and can lead others to Messiah, not merely to try to 'prove' a position one way or the other. The fact is that neither position can be 'proven' and belief in either position requires some level of 'faith', either in dating methods or the literal nature of Genesis 1-11.

So, let's move past an attempt to prove a point and move on to sharing how you use your conclusions on this matter to lead others to the saving grace of Christ. It's merely a change of attitude. ;) I've heard people say that seeing yec presented intelligently helped lead them to Christ and I've heard people say that having Genesis explained allegorically helped them to do the same. Different people react to different things but the bottom line is leading the lost to Him!

God Bless!
While I lean more to the theistic evolution side of things, I have to agree with what S2S said here OldEarther because internet links can actually contain a lot of factual and good information, and if they don't then you can say why and discuss it.

Now as for how this can be applied to bringing to people to God, here are my views on the subject.
I believe those people who say that evolution is completely unbiblical and contradicts the Bible when you can provide plenty of evidence for it (you can for both sides for that matter) hurt their own and others' evangelism because it is so closed minded and discriminatory against a possible valid theory that they deter people (especially scientists or other highly intelligent people (not saying that ID believers are unintelligent, so don't take this the wrong way)) from coming to faith because they hear what these people say and classify that all Christians are this closed-minded to even logical interpretation of "their own" Bible. No matter what side you believe in this issue I think you have to concede that there are valid arguments for either side (we do have to all agree that whatever happened it was God controlled however) and by doing so you make the Christian faith seem much more welcoming and open to those who don't believe, rather than making it sound like a cult (not saying it does, just saying what others may say) that is closed to even other possible and logical interpretations of God's holy word. If we go around telling people that evolution is wrong when there are valid arguments for it you are going to turn many possible Christians away from salvation before they ever even begin to accept it. There are even Christians who might be turned away from faith because of the closed-mindedness of some. I think the best way we can bring people to God is to not leave it to chance whether this person will like this theory, if we say that both are possible we can appeal to everyone.

crawfish
Nov 6th 2008, 03:39 AM
So... what was the "nature" of Adam when God created him? Likewise about Eve. Were they adults, with fully-functional mental faculties, including the abilities to walk, talk, reason, obey, disobey?

Or what?

Perhaps they were created as babies and then force-grown quickly into adults. The bible is remarkably silent on the particulars. :)

Lamplighter
Nov 6th 2008, 04:05 AM
I believe those people who say that evolution is completely unbiblical and contradicts the Bible, when you can provide plenty of evidence for it

Evolution is Biblical. Micro evolution is Biblical, but Macro evolution is not.

Macro evolution is based on Darwin's origin of the species garbage.

Micro evolution is proven by science(differences within the same species like different skin color, fur length, etc...), but Macro evolution(one species transforming into a completely different species) is not.

Depends on what you mean by "evolution"?

Darwin did not write a book called the differences in characteristics between the same species(micro evolution).

Darwin wrote a book called the "ORIGIN" of the species(macro evolution).

markedward
Nov 6th 2008, 04:10 AM
Perhaps they were created as babies and then force-grown quickly into adults. The bible is remarkably silent on the particulars. :)In that case, "force-grown" still implies that it all took place in a short amount of time. In which case, the same could still be said of the universe as a whole.

crawfish
Nov 6th 2008, 02:55 PM
In that case, "force-grown" still implies that it all took place in a short amount of time. In which case, the same could still be said of the universe as a whole.

My only point is, even from a purely YEC point of view you still can't say for certain that Adam was built with age. The text is too ambiguous.

RJ Mac
Nov 6th 2008, 03:33 PM
You can't say for certain Adam was created with age? Yes you can!
Adam names the animals and none was found suitable. So God says I will
make him a helper suitable for him. Adam is full grown, he just named all
the animals which shows he has vocabulary sense and reason to be able to name the animals.

Same day woman is fashioned from Adam's rib, and Adam calls her woman,
what does woman mean full grown, or is this where we get the phrase 'baby!"
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

And God commands them to go forth and multiply and fill the earth, day 6.

They were not created as babies, Adam just named the animals, from his
man sized rib God fashioned woman. Not God fashioned a baby and Adam
watched her grow fast into woman.

RJ

Old Earther
Nov 6th 2008, 05:10 PM
While I lean more to the theistic evolution side of things, I have to agree with what S2S said here OldEarther because internet links can actually contain a lot of factual and good information, and if they don't then you can say why and discuss it.


I have no problem with posting links. My problem is with posting links and refusing to discuss the points therein. Throwing links at each other is not discussion, and I am here to discuss.

GitRDunn
Nov 6th 2008, 11:00 PM
Evolution is Biblical. Micro evolution is Biblical, but Macro evolution is not.

Macro evolution is based on Darwin's origin of the species garbage.

Micro evolution is proven by science(differences within the same species like different skin color, fur length, etc...), but Macro evolution(one species transforming into a completely different species) is not.

Depends on what you mean by "evolution"?

Darwin did not write a book called the differences in characteristics between the same species(micro evolution).

Darwin wrote a book called the "ORIGIN" of the species(macro evolution).
All macro evolution is is lots and lots of micro-evolutions put together, so if you believe in micro-evolution you would contradict yourself to say macro-evolution was false. Really there is no "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution", there's just evolution. Once you have enough small changes to one species it can no longer be considered the same species, it is a new one. It's not like this would happen in one generation, it took thousands and millions of years.


You can't say for certain Adam was created with age? Yes you can!
Adam names the animals and none was found suitable. So God says I will
make him a helper suitable for him. Adam is full grown, he just named all
the animals which shows he has vocabulary sense and reason to be able to name the animals.

Same day woman is fashioned from Adam's rib, and Adam calls her woman,
what does woman mean full grown, or is this where we get the phrase 'baby!"
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

And God commands them to go forth and multiply and fill the earth, day 6.

They were not created as babies, Adam just named the animals, from his
man sized rib God fashioned woman. Not God fashioned a baby and Adam
watched her grow fast into woman.

RJ
Genesis 2:15-20 (New International Version)


15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Ok, so this took place after man was created obviously, but where does it say how long passed in-between then? It could have been years for all we know and thus Adam could have begun as a baby. The seventh day is talked about at the end of Genesis, so this means it is ambiguous as to how soon Adam named the animals.

Lamplighter
Nov 6th 2008, 11:11 PM
All macro evolution is is lots and lots of micro-evolutions put together, so if you believe in micro-evolution you would contradict yourself to say macro-evolution was false. Really there is no "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution", there's just evolution. Once you have enough small changes to one species it can no longer be considered the same species, it is a new one. It's not like this would happen in one generation, it took thousands and millions of years.


There are no transitional species in the fossil record to make macro evolution possible. Also, the Bible is quite clear that God created every living thing after it's own kind. Macro evolution is not scientific, or Biblical.

teddyv
Nov 6th 2008, 11:37 PM
There are no transitional species in the fossil record to make macro evolution possible. Also, the Bible is quite clear that God created every living thing after it's own kind. Macro evolution is not scientific, or Biblical.
Just Google "transitional fossils" and you find plenty of information.

Athanasius
Nov 6th 2008, 11:47 PM
All macro evolution is is lots and lots of micro-evolutions put together, so if you believe in micro-evolution you would contradict yourself to say macro-evolution was false. Really there is no "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution", there's just evolution. Once you have enough small changes to one species it can no longer be considered the same species, it is a new one. It's not like this would happen in one generation, it took thousands and millions of years.

Macroevolution is not reducible to many microevolutionary changes.



Genesis 2:15-20 (New International Version)

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Ok, so this took place after man was created obviously, but where does it say how long passed in-between then? It could have been years for all we know and thus Adam could have begun as a baby. The seventh day is talked about at the end of Genesis, so this means it is ambiguous as to how soon Adam named the animals.

How many babies are told not to eat of trees lest they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Well for that matter how many babies are able to work and take care of a garden... It's not ambiguous at all.

Lamplighter
Nov 7th 2008, 01:35 AM
Just Google "transitional fossils" and you find plenty of information.

So, do you believe in ape to man evolution?

Here is a list, and it's laughable at best.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Evolution_of_whales

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 02:02 AM
So, do you believe in ape to man evolution?

Here is a list, and it's laughable at best.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Evolution_of_whales

This is why we'll never find a transitional fossil that satisfies creationists. Because they'll deny any transitional fossil they find.

Lamplighter
Nov 7th 2008, 02:40 AM
This is why we'll never find a transitional fossil that satisfies creationists. Because they'll deny any transitional fossil they find.

No. it's because every fossil ever found is a unique species created by God, not some evolutionary monster.

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 02:48 AM
No. it's because every fossil ever found is a unique species created by God

This is true even with evolution.

But it doesn't mean that He didn't transition with them.

Lamplighter
Nov 7th 2008, 03:15 AM
But it doesn't mean that He didn't transition with them.

Scripture says otherwise.

GitRDunn
Nov 7th 2008, 04:15 AM
No. it's because every fossil ever found is a unique species created by God, not some evolutionary monster.
Why couldn't an evolved species be created by God? He could just as easily control this as create everything at once and it makes it no less miraculous. And why if something was created is it ok, but if it evolved it is a monster? They're the same species either way.


Macroevolution is not reducible to many microevolutionary changes.
Then would you please explain what this is? Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by observing slight variations in species on the Galapagos Islands that each only had a few micro-evolutionary differences in them. How would macro-evolution occur without micro-evolution? Evolution takes thousands and millions of years because it is a combination of micro-evolutionary changes.

Athanasius
Nov 7th 2008, 04:27 AM
Then would you please explain what this is? Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by observing slight variations in species on the Galapagos Islands that each only had a few micro-evolutionary differences in them. How would macro-evolution occur without micro-evolution? Evolution takes thousands and millions of years because it is a combination of micro-evolutionary changes.

If you mean Darwin developed the theory in the sense that he advanced it, I'll agree with you hitherto. If you developed as in he conceived of and substantiated it, then I'll disagree - but that might just be some preliminary nitpicking.

As for your question, I don't quite see what you're trying to get at? I understand Darwin observed speciation (which no one will disagree with), but how does his observation of that and his subsequent hypothesis that 'X' changes into 'Y' over time speak for anything? Just because he thought saw it ("it made sense") doesn't mean it actually happens... What I would be getting at is this: micro evolution occurs; macro evolution doesn't occur.

GitRDunn
Nov 7th 2008, 04:44 AM
If you mean Darwin developed the theory in the sense that he advanced it, I'll agree with you hitherto. If you developed as in he conceived of and substantiated it, then I'll disagree - but that might just be some preliminary nitpicking.

As for your question, I don't quite see what you're trying to get at? I understand Darwin observed speciation (which no one will disagree with), but how does his observation of that and his subsequent hypothesis that 'X' changes into 'Y' over time speak for anything? Just because he thought saw it ("it made sense") doesn't mean it actually happens... What I would be getting at is this: micro evolution occurs; macro evolution doesn't occur.

I was using that as an example in reference to micro and macro evolution. Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree here because I feel that if you agree with micro-evolution you are contradicting yourself to then say macro-evolution doesn't occur because one is just the accumulation of multiple accounts of the other one, simply adaptations that eventually lead to enough difference to qualify as a new species.

Athanasius
Nov 7th 2008, 04:47 AM
I was using that as an example in reference to micro and macro evolution. Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree here because I feel that if you agree with micro-evolution you are contradicting yourself to then say macro-evolution doesn't occur because one is just the accumulation of multiple accounts of the other one, simply adaptations that eventually lead to enough difference to qualify as a new species.

On the contrary; microevolutionary changes can occur without the need for them to thus proceed to macroevolutionary changes.

Lamplighter
Nov 7th 2008, 05:00 AM
On the contrary; microevolutionary changes can occur without the need for them to thus proceed to macroevolutionary changes.

Exactly Xel'Naga.

Changes in size and colors are a few examples of micro evolution.

Changes from a man to an ape is macro evolution. This has nothing to do with micro evolution.

kevinvr
Nov 14th 2008, 05:28 AM
Hi all
I think that God made adult people, animals and an "adult" earth because otherwise he would have had to make lots of different kinds of eggs which would hatch and then how could they find food? Would He have to make fetuses or at which stage were the babies made and where did they get milk to drink? So it is difficult for me to think of all those bird and reptile eggs and animal and human babies being able to nurture themselves into adulthood. That's why I tend to side more with the mature earth 6 day theory. After all it is all theories isn't it :). he he!
Anyway thats what I think :bounce:

Yukerboy
Nov 14th 2008, 09:22 AM
I've been on both sides of this one.

I will say there is no doubt in my mind that Adam was created approximately 6,000 years ago.

kenrank
Nov 19th 2008, 07:00 PM
I spent some time dealing with this. In he end, it comes down to one issue only, do you believe the scriptures are the inspired Word of God? If you don't, if you view them as a good basis to rule your life by and nothing more, or don't see them as inspired at all, this shouldn't be an issue for you. If however, you see Scripture as inspired, then earth is "about" 6000 years old.

Man uses his knowledge to determine the age of things. Where on one hand he seems accurate, on others foolish. I can probably argue both sides of this issue as well as anyone, but in the end, when you cut all the extraneous stuff out of the way, it really comes down to the question of inspiration.

Here is when I turned back to scripture. I began to realize that when Adam was born he wasn't a baby but a man. The earth was new but there were mountains, rivers, oceans, large animals, things that would have taken millions of years by "man's" reckoning, happened in an instant when YHWH spoke them into existence. So the earth, though new, had the appearance of age. Thus, it became to me a young earth as scripture indicates.

Peace.
Ken

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 07:23 PM
Which takes greater faith?

To believe that God made a rock 3 billions years ago, or to believe that God made a rock 6000 years ago that looks 3 billion years old?

Answer: Neither. Both take the same amount and quality of faith.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 19th 2008, 08:16 PM
Which takes greater faith?

To believe that God made a rock 3 billions years ago, or to believe that God made a rock 6000 years ago that looks 3 billion years old?

Answer: Neither. Both take the same amount and quality of faith.So someone would accept either by faith, correct?

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 08:18 PM
Since no one has ever seen God or was there at creation, then yes, both would require faith.

GitRDunn
Nov 19th 2008, 10:36 PM
I spent some time dealing with this. In he end, it comes down to one issue only, do you believe the scriptures are the inspired Word of God? If you don't, if you view them as a good basis to rule your life by and nothing more, or don't see them as inspired at all, this shouldn't be an issue for you. If however, you see Scripture as inspired, then earth is "about" 6000 years old.Why couldn't the scriptures be the inspired word of God and us still have evolution and an Earth that is about 4.5 billions years old? God uses metaphors elsewhere in scripture, so why does the beginning of Genesis have to be literal? It doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't, but we don't know which way God had that written as.

Man uses his knowledge to determine the age of things. Where on one hand he seems accurate, on others foolish. I can probably argue both sides of this issue as well as anyone, but in the end, when you cut all the extraneous stuff out of the way, it really comes down to the question of inspiration.

Here is when I turned back to scripture. I began to realize that when Adam was born he wasn't a baby but a man. The earth was new but there were mountains, rivers, oceans, large animals, things that would have taken millions of years by "man's" reckoning, happened in an instant when YHWH spoke them into existence. So the earth, though new, had the appearance of age. Thus, it became to me a young earth as scripture indicates.

Peace.
Ken

Which takes greater faith?

To believe that God made a rock 3 billions years ago, or to believe that God made a rock 6000 years ago that looks 3 billion years old?

Answer: Neither. Both take the same amount and quality of faith.
I agree 100%

So someone would accept either by faith, correct?
Definitely because either way is just as miraculous for God to have caused and controlled.

fishbowlsoul
Nov 20th 2008, 03:07 AM
Which takes greater faith?

To believe that God made a rock 3 billions years ago, or to believe that God made a rock 6000 years ago that looks 3 billion years old?

Answer: Neither. Both take the same amount and quality of faith.

So God created a rock 6000 thousand years ago to look 3 billion years old to . . . what? To fool us into believing that the rock is 3 billion years old?
That doesn't take faith. That takes a suspension of logic.


by Yukerboy
I've been on both sides of this one.

I will say there is no doubt in my mind that Adam was created approximately 6,000 years ago.


Can anyone point out the verse in the Bible where it literally says the earth/universe is ~6000 years old?

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 10:57 AM
Why couldn't the scriptures be the inspired word of God and us still have evolution and an Earth that is about 4.5 billions years old? God uses metaphors elsewhere in scripture, so why does the beginning of Genesis have to be literal? It doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't, but we don't know which way God had that written as.

>>The Jewish year which starts at creation is at 5769, though most accept that it is short by a couple of hundred years. Running back the geneology from Yahushua(Jesus) to Adam gives us about 6000 years. That much we know isn't metaphor. Now, did Adam walk in the garden for 10,000,000 years before his sin sent him packing? The scripture is silent on that. Where metaphor can come into play is the 6 days. Where they literally 6- 24 hours days? I think so and here is why:

Each day is listed as an evening and morning. To specifically narrow it to that seems to discount the idea that one of these "days" was longer than 24 hours. The verse, 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," is not saying that a day is "literally" one thousand years, it is simply telling us that God is eternal. Time is meaningless to the one who created time.

We then have the 7th day, when YHWH rested from His works. Was he tired, did he REALLY need the rest? No, He was giving humanity an example to follow. So when we read in context in Hebrews 4, and it says,

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Many think this is speaking of a rest in Messiah, or Christ. But if you look at the words in verse 10, it is clearly speaking of a day of the week where we cease from our work "as God did his." So again, this points to a literal 24 hour period of time.

There are many more examples, in the end you just have to weight it all out and make your own call. I had held to a literal interpretation of scripture but believed that the earth was as old as science said it was. In the end though, I realized, nobody was here to film the big bang, so it will always remain theory. And while one artifact carbon dates to a million years old, another from a similar site might only date to 10,000. There is a consistency problem there.

So in the end brother, it came down to this for me...and this is ME...you do what you feel is right for you....if I was going to believe that Messiah came and lived a sinless life, died, rose from the grave defeating death for me....then how can I with any consistency believe that but not believe the account of creation that Messiah Himself would have taught on in the Temple on Sabbath as He read from the scrolls? He never claimed in any Apostolic writing that there was doubt, the issue never was raised. So if he didn't raise it....maybe it isn't worth raising? But again...that's just one man's opinion.

Peace to you.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 11:09 AM
Why couldn't the scriptures be the inspired word of God and us still have evolution

>>Sorry, I meant to address this. <grin> But my answer is somewhat the same. If I am going to believe that Messiah is what we believe him to be, then how can I discount Genesis 1 which has God creating Adam from the dust of the ground? The only evidence I have for Yahushua (Jesus) doing all we believe him to have done is scripture. So if I pull Genesis apart because it doesn't satisfy my intellectual curiosity, it will only be a matter of time before I begin to question other portions as well. In the end, that road leads to questioning Messiah's existence...then where are we? Not that there isn't anything wrong with questioning things...some make it sound like you can't question God. How do we get answers without questions? My only advice, unsolicited...this is my approach and again...your a smart guy, do what is right for you....but when science provides an answer that in the end is really well spoken theory, and scripture doesn't answer the how but does provide the what...I take God's view.

Let me put it another way....God said he made Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him. Ok, I can picture that but I don't REALLY understand it. On the other hand science says that man lived as a hunched over cave dwelling proto-man, who over time became more and more upright in appearance until we have modern man. They even have the pretty pictures to prove it...you have probably seen them in science books. The trouble is, they are only pretty pictures. Drawings, of what they "think" happened. It makes more sense to me, in a way, but that is because I am a man relating to a man. God's way might make less sense, but that's because I am a man trying to comprehend my creator.

Peace to you.
Ken

Studyin'2Show
Nov 20th 2008, 01:49 PM
So God created a rock 6000 thousand years ago to look 3 billion years old to . . . what? To fool us into believing that the rock is 3 billion years old?
That doesn't take faith. That takes a suspension of logic.

Can anyone point out the verse in the Bible where it literally says the earth/universe is ~6000 years old?It says God made Adam (translated - man), not a baby. Anyone looking at Adam on that first day might assume (incorrectly) that he was more than one day old. For me the rock does not look any particular age. :rolleyes: God is not deceptive but man is often just plain wrong. Since I was in school the earth has aged several billion years from what was accepted as fact then to now and hey, I ain't THAT old! :lol:

Just as there's no sticker on the rock that says made in 3 billion BC, there's not one verse that says the earth was created in 3700 BC. However, the Israelites did consider the original 6/7 days of creation and then the ages given from Genesis 5 through Isaac and then the years that had been documented from Jacob/Israel on through and have come up with this being the year 5769 since creation. It's not just some number of the heads of a few but has come through years of diligent study and consideration. If you choose to give more weight to the test tubes and calculations in a laboratory, that's fine. But at least understand where those of us who see it differently are coming from. ;)

God Bless!

kevinvr
Nov 21st 2008, 02:35 AM
It says God made Adam (translated - man), not a baby. Anyone looking at Adam on that first day might assume (incorrectly) that he was more than one day old. For me the rock does not look any particular age. :rolleyes: God is not deceptive but man is often just plain wrong. Since I was in school the earth has aged several billion years from what was accepted as fact then to now and hey, I ain't THAT old! :lol:

Just as there's no sticker on the rock that says made in 3 billion BC, there's not one verse that says the earth was created in 3700 BC. However, the Israelites did consider the original 6/7 days of creation and then the ages given from Genesis 5 through Isaac and then the years that had been documented from Jacob/Israel on through and have come up with this being the year 5769 since creation. It's not just some number of the heads of a few but has come through years of diligent study and consideration. If you choose to give more weight to the test tubes and calculations in a laboratory, that's fine. But at least understand where those of us who see it differently are coming from. ;)

God Bless!
very nicely stated studyin2show, I for one agree with this point of view. However, I have no trouble respecting or listening/reading the other points of view as most of them have pretty interesting arguments. God bless

fishbowlsoul
Nov 21st 2008, 03:44 AM
It says God made Adam (translated - man), not a baby. Anyone looking at Adam on that first day might assume (incorrectly) that he was more than one day old. For me the rock does not look any particular age. :rolleyes: God is not deceptive but man is often just plain wrong. Since I was in school the earth has aged several billion years from what was accepted as fact then to now and hey, I ain't THAT old! :lol:

Just as there's no sticker on the rock that says made in 3 billion BC, there's not one verse that says the earth was created in 3700 BC. However, the Israelites did consider the original 6/7 days of creation and then the ages given from Genesis 5 through Isaac and then the years that had been documented from Jacob/Israel on through and have come up with this being the year 5769 since creation. It's not just some number of the heads of a few but has come through years of diligent study and consideration. If you choose to give more weight to the test tubes and calculations in a laboratory, that's fine. But at least understand where those of us who see it differently are coming from. ;)

God Bless!

Well there is a sticker on the rock. It is called radiometric dating. A proven scientific testing method to test for age. Now Study I know you don't accept radiometric dating because it conflicts with the Young Earth creationist view. And I am sure you have examples of a few anomalies to pull from AIG or other YEC sites. But to date no reputable science has proven radiometric dating to be consistently inaccurate.

There is no sticker in the Bible that I can find where it states the earth is ~6000 years old. How much time elapses between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3? How long are "days" 1 and 2 of creation? The text says that the sun was not created until the third "day." Since we humans mark time by how fast the earth rotates on its axis in relation to the sun, how long were those first two "days"? How many generations is Enoch from Adam? 6 or 7? (Genesis 5 or Jude verse 14)

In matters of science I do give more weight to field testing and observation and predictability. In matters of my faith in Christ I give all the weight to the Bible. The difference is I don't try to use the Bible as a science textbook.

God Bless

jeffweeder
Nov 21st 2008, 09:32 AM
Originally Posted by fishbowlsoul

So God created a rock 6000 thousand years ago to look 3 billion years old to . . . what? To fool us into believing that the rock is 3 billion years old?
That doesn't take faith. That takes a suspension of logic.

QUOTE]

It looks old?????
Dony undertand this.
Only by human logic does it look old. You maybe interpreting the flood catastrohe, and its affect on the world , to seem older than what only you people think it is.

[quote]Can anyone point out the verse in the Bible where it literally says the earth/universe is ~6000 years old?[/

What the bible does provide is a geneology, that suggests that from the time of Adam and the foundation of the world is around 6000 years.

Can you point out where in the bible , that suggests that its over this amount of time..?.. or should we rely on the infomation given , that is supported by the geneology within the very text of explanation of these things?

GitRDunn
Nov 21st 2008, 12:42 PM
[quote]Originally Posted by fishbowlsoul

So God created a rock 6000 thousand years ago to look 3 billion years old to . . . what? To fool us into believing that the rock is 3 billion years old?
That doesn't take faith. That takes a suspension of logic.

QUOTE]

It looks old?????
Dony undertand this.
Only by human logic does it look old. You maybe interpreting the flood catastrohe, and its affect on the world , to seem older than what only you people think it is.



What the bible does provide is a geneology, that suggests that from the time of Adam and the foundation of the world is around 6000 years.

Can you point out where in the bible , that suggests that its over this amount of time..?.. or should we rely on the infomation given , that is supported by the geneology within the very text of explanation of these things?
All the genealogy does is tell us how long (approximately) it has been since Adam, and very few people debate that. What is debatable is the amount of time before Adam, and while the Bible says it is 6 days, no where does it say that this is a literal account of days, it could easily be longer. God's time is not necessarily our time.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 21st 2008, 01:20 PM
Well there is a sticker on the rock. It is called radiometric dating. A proven scientific testing method to test for age. Now Study I know you don't accept radiometric dating because it conflicts with the Young Earth creationist view. And I am sure you have examples of a few anomalies to pull from AIG or other YEC sites. But to date no reputable science has proven radiometric dating to be consistently inaccurate.

There is no sticker in the Bible that I can find where it states the earth is ~6000 years old. How much time elapses between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3? How long are "days" 1 and 2 of creation? The text says that the sun was not created until the third "day." Since we humans mark time by how fast the earth rotates on its axis in relation to the sun, how long were those first two "days"? How many generations is Enoch from Adam? 6 or 7? (Genesis 5 or Jude verse 14)

In matters of science I do give more weight to field testing and observation and predictability. In matters of my faith in Christ I give all the weight to the Bible. The difference is I don't try to use the Bible as a science textbook.

God BlessSee, here's the thing. Radiometric dating does not equate to a sticker on a rock. I'm sure you believe all YEC's are born Bible-thumpers that reject science. That is not the case. I am Ivy League educated in a physical science field, though not biology or geology I completely understand those fields as well. I completely accepted darwinian evolution until about 7 years ago. There are so many assumptions being made within radiometric dating that simply cannot be confirmed. If even one of those assumptions is wrong (which I do believe it is) it skews absolutely everything.

Science is the knowledge of what is observable and repeatable. What we are discussing is more philosphical. If rock sample 'a' has 'x' amount of 'y' element, I posit that we can extrapolate that rock sample 'a' has been in existence for 'z' number of years. Nothing within the formula is either observable or repeatable. Hence it falls within the category of a philosophy not true science. Btw, I have absolutely no problem with you using your own intelligence and coming to the philosophy that you have come to in this matter. Where I have a problem is with those who imply that I have not also used my intelligence to establish my philosophy on this. Respect is a two-way street. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Nov 21st 2008, 01:23 PM
All the genealogy does is tell us how long (approximately) it has been since Adam, and very few people debate that. What is debatable is the amount of time before Adam, and while the Bible says it is 6 days, no where does it say that this is a literal account of days, it could easily be longer. God's time is not necessarily our time.That's what you would think, right? And I completely understand those who, like you, accept the clear genealogical timeline from Adam to the present but may question whether the creation week is a literal six day period of time. However, most TE's do not accept Adam to the present as a literal period of time. That I have a more difficult time rationalizing though I still respect their pov.

God Bless!

fishbowlsoul
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:16 PM
See, here's the thing. Radiometric dating does not equate to a sticker on a rock. I'm sure you believe all YEC's are born Bible-thumpers that reject science. That is not the case. I am Ivy League educated in a physical science field, though not biology or geology I completely understand those fields as well. I completely accepted darwinian evolution until about 7 years ago. There are so many assumptions being made within radiometric dating that simply cannot be confirmed. If even one of those assumptions is wrong (which I do believe it is) it skews absolutely everything.

Science is the knowledge of what is observable and repeatable. What we are discussing is more philosphical. If rock sample 'a' has 'x' amount of 'y' element, I posit that we can extrapolate that rock sample 'a' has been in existence for 'z' number of years. Nothing within the formula is either observable or repeatable. Hence it falls within the category of a philosophy not true science. Btw, I have absolutely no problem with you using your own intelligence and coming to the philosophy that you have come to in this matter. Where I have a problem is with those who imply that I have not also used my intelligence to establish my philosophy on this. Respect is a two-way street. ;)

God Bless!

Study I am impressed by your educational background but not by your conclusions. Yes all science has assumptions in it especially in the early stages of studying a particular problem. At some point though science gets past assumptions (i.e. hypotheses) with enough physical evidence and observation and predictability. Then those assumptions become theories then maybe even a law eventually. Radiometric dating, ice cores, dendrochronology, lake varve samples, etc. show that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. The age of the earth is past the assumption stage as far as science is concerned.

The YEC position makes assumptions also in using the Bible as a timeline for the age of the earth/universe. It assumes Genesis 1:1-2 is only less than a day even though the text does not state this. It assumes that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days from the human perspective. Even though "days" 1 and 2 had no sun to mark time. It assumes the geneaologies are in the OT are complete and accurate. Just a comparative study of the Books of Kings and Chronicles shows that transcriptive differences are in the OT. Some of the ages and reigns of the Kings of Israel and Judah are not consistent.

The point being is that one the Bible is meant to show how we can restore the broken relationship with God through Christ and witness to others about that restoration. I don't think it is meant to be a science textbook or any other textbook outside what I just stated. Secondly after studying the Bible and seeing differences in the narrative and timelines espcially in the OT, I believe God intended those sections to be allegory or symbolic. Even most literalists accept that there is allegory and symbolism in other areas of the Bible.

God bless

modanufu
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:38 PM
Hi Old Earther,

For a change one who agrees with you. :) I don't see any problems for this view in the Scriptures. God has chosen to express himself in everyday language, not in the language of modern science. Personally I find a related question more interesting: how can one in geology or archaeology find a trace of the Flood - which I think has been a historical event. Have you any idea about that?

Kind regards,
Dik

GitRDunn
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:37 PM
Hi Old Earther,

For a change one who agrees with you. :) I don't see any problems for this view in the Scriptures. God has chosen to express himself in everyday language, not in the language of modern science. Personally I find a related question more interesting: how can one in geology or archaeology find a trace of the Flood - which I think has been a historical event. Have you any idea about that?

Kind regards,
Dik
Actually there is a lot of scientific evidence that there was a large natural disaster (perhaps the flood) around 10,000 BC and this is not far off from how long ago many Christians say it should have been.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 22nd 2008, 10:00 PM
Study I am impressed by your educational background but not by your conclusions. Yes all science has assumptions in it especially in the early stages of studying a particular problem. At some point though science gets past assumptions (i.e. hypotheses) with enough physical evidence and observation and predictability. Then those assumptions become theories then maybe even a law eventually. Radiometric dating, ice cores, dendrochronology, lake varve samples, etc. show that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. The age of the earth is past the assumption stage as far as science is concerned.

The YEC position makes assumptions also in using the Bible as a timeline for the age of the earth/universe. It assumes Genesis 1:1-2 is only less than a day even though the text does not state this. It assumes that the days of creation are literal 24 hour days from the human perspective. Even though "days" 1 and 2 had no sun to mark time. It assumes the geneaologies are in the OT are complete and accurate. Just a comparative study of the Books of Kings and Chronicles shows that transcriptive differences are in the OT. Some of the ages and reigns of the Kings of Israel and Judah are not consistent.

The point being is that one the Bible is meant to show how we can restore the broken relationship with God through Christ and witness to others about that restoration. I don't think it is meant to be a science textbook or any other textbook outside what I just stated. Secondly after studying the Bible and seeing differences in the narrative and timelines espcially in the OT, I believe God intended those sections to be allegory or symbolic. Even most literalists accept that there is allegory and symbolism in other areas of the Bible.

God blessNo need to be impressed by my conclusions. :D Respect will do just fine. My point is simply that though I do not agree with your position, I respect you and your right to hold it. Unfortunately, many do not offer the same level of respect to those like myself who hold to a yec position. :dunno:

GitRDunn
Nov 22nd 2008, 11:08 PM
No need to be impressed by my conclusions. :D Respect will do just fine. My point is simply that though I do not agree with your position, I respect you and your right to hold it. Unfortunately, many do not offer the same level of respect to those like myself who hold to a yec position. :dunno:
Many also do show YECs respect, though, and you have to admit that there are many YECs who show just as little respect for theistic evolutionists, going so far as to say they need to really think about their faith and basically accusing them of being false Christians. This is one of the things that comes up most often when I discuss my Christian faith with atheists. One of their main arguements is how intolerable many Christians are about the idea of evolution when science supports it. There is fault on both sides of the aisle in this and any debate.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 23rd 2008, 01:07 AM
Many also do show YECs respect, though, and you have to admit that there are many YECs who show just as little respect for theistic evolutionists, going so far as to say they need to really think about their faith and basically accusing them of being false Christians. This is one of the things that comes up most often when I discuss my Christian faith with atheists. One of their main arguements is how intolerable many Christians are about the idea of evolution when science supports it. There is fault on both sides of the aisle in this and any debate.True, but I only speak for myself, not for all YEC's. The problem I have in many of these discussions is that people tend to talk AT each other based on preconceived notions rather than really conversing WITH each other. It would be nice if it could ever move past the debate where everyone seems to be just trying to one-up the next guy and onto a simple discussion and sharing of ideas. :dunno:

modanufu
Nov 23rd 2008, 04:36 PM
Actually there is a lot of scientific evidence that there was a large natural disaster (perhaps the flood) around 10,000 BC and this is not far off from how long ago many Christians say it should have been.

What evidence is that???
Dik

fishbowlsoul
Nov 28th 2008, 11:32 PM
No need to be impressed by my conclusions. :D Respect will do just fine. My point is simply that though I do not agree with your position, I respect you and your right to hold it. Unfortunately, many do not offer the same level of respect to those like myself who hold to a yec position. :dunno:

I respect your position. I don't understand it but I respect it.
My issue is when someone tries to use science to support a very
unscientific idea. Or use the Bible as a science textbook. What can
I say. It gets under my skin sometimes. For me to use the Bible for
non faith purposes is somewhat sacrilegious.

faroutinmt
Nov 29th 2008, 12:00 AM
If there was truly a global flood, we would expect to see lots of dead plants and animals buried in layers of soil all over the earth. That's exactly what we find.

Just because radiometric dating is consistent in that it consistently dates things in millions of years, it cannot be scientifically proven because no one can go back millions of years to observe if it was so.

Philemon9
Nov 29th 2008, 12:19 AM
Just because radiometric dating is consistent in that it consistently dates things in millions of years, it cannot be scientifically proven because no one can go back millions of years to observe if it was so.

With that logic we also can never convict somebody of murder based on evidence. Sure we found the suspect's DNA on the victim, the murder weapon in his possession, and had 3 accomplices testify against him. But we weren't at the scene, didn't witness it happen, and can't go back to observe it was so. Consequently all of this evidence should be thrown out.

fishbowlsoul
Nov 29th 2008, 03:39 PM
If there was truly a global flood, we would expect to see lots of dead plants and animals buried in layers of soil all over the earth. That's exactly what we find.

Just because radiometric dating is consistent in that it consistently dates things in millions of years, it cannot be scientifically proven because no one can go back millions of years to observe if it was so.

Actually we do not find a lot of dead plants and animals buried in layers of soil all over the earth. Most dead organisms decay before they can be fossilized. And what fossils we have found are not found uniformly across the globe. Fossilization is not a particularly common event because it requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes decayed. Only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits meet these conditions.

About radiometric dating, ditto what Philemon9 said.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 1st 2008, 11:53 AM
With that logic we also can never convict somebody of murder based on evidence. Sure we found the suspect's DNA on the victim, the murder weapon in his possession, and had 3 accomplices testify against him. But we weren't at the scene, didn't witness it happen, and can't go back to observe it was so. Consequently all of this evidence should be thrown out.And yet still we find that innocent people are convicted. By your logic, that should not happen. :hmm: Because physical evidence may point to a particular set of circumstances does not mean those circumstances are infallibly true. Either way, faith is required. Here's an example for you. Let's say Bob's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, Bob's dna is found in the bloody mess, Bob has no alibi because he was alone in the next room and had every opportunity to commit the crime. But the one witness who was actually there, the victim, was alive long enough to write a note that says that it was by some supernatural force and that it was not Bob. Do you discount the eyewitness account because you cannot back it up scientifically, and convict Bob?

And btw, radiometric dating is all over the place even within the same test specimen. Routinely dates within a set of testing are thrown out and assumed flawed because they don't line up with other dates from the same set of samples.

God Bless!

teddyv
Dec 1st 2008, 06:14 PM
And yet still we find that innocent people are convicted. By your logic, that should not happen. :hmm: Because physical evidence may point to a particular set of circumstances does not mean those circumstances are infallibly true. Either way, faith is required. Here's an example for you. Let's say Bob's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, Bob's dna is found in the bloody mess, Bob has no alibi because he was alone in the next room and had every opportunity to commit the crime. But the one witness who was actually there, the victim, was alive long enough to write a note that says that it was by some supernatural force and that it was not Bob. Do you discount the eyewitness account because you cannot back it up scientifically, and convict Bob?

Eyewitness testimony is probably the least valid evidence in a legal scenario since our memories tend not to record the correct details in a highly traumatic event. Physical evidence will always trump witness testimony. In your hypothetical case I'm afraid Bob's going to more than likely be convicted.


And btw, radiometric dating is all over the place even within the same test specimen. Routinely dates within a set of testing are thrown out and assumed flawed because they don't line up with other dates from the same set of samples.

God Bless!

Then why do we continue to use it? I agree that great care is needed in selecting samples due to the effects of alteration events and the like. Further, radiometric dates are rarely used in isolation. Other geological evidence (structural relationships, fossils) will also be used to correctly date a particular formation.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 1st 2008, 08:19 PM
Eyewitness testimony is probably the least valid evidence in a legal scenario since our memories tend not to record the correct details in a highly traumatic event. Physical evidence will always trump witness testimony. In your hypothetical case I'm afraid Bob's going to more than likely be convicted.

Then why do we continue to use it? I agree that great care is needed in selecting samples due to the effects of alteration events and the like. Further, radiometric dates are rarely used in isolation. Other geological evidence (structural relationships, fossils) will also be used to correctly date a particular formation.Too bad for Bob, huh? :rolleyes: The truth doesn't matter, only the evidence, though evidence has been shown in many cases to be wrong. Yeah, too bad for poor Bob.

Circular reasoning is often used when dating the structures, and the fossils, and the rocks. If there are flaws in our reasoning it will taint it all. The bottom line is that in either case a measure of faith is required, even the faith in our reasoning in how we analyze the data.

God Bless!

teddyv
Dec 2nd 2008, 06:22 AM
Too bad for Bob, huh? :rolleyes: The truth doesn't matter, only the evidence, though evidence has been shown in many cases to be wrong. Yeah, too bad for poor Bob.

Based on your hypothetical, I don't see any actual choice. If you are expecting the legal system to account for the supernatural, then a lot of criminals can start to claim "(insert deity/alien) did it" (see a lot of Star Trek episodes for examples :lol:).



Circular reasoning is often used when dating the structures, and the fossils, and the rocks. If there are flaws in our reasoning it will taint it all. The bottom line is that in either case a measure of faith is required, even the faith in our reasoning in how we analyze the data.

God Bless!
Please explain the circular reasoning - although I think you are going to throw out the canard that rocks are dated by fossils which are dated by isotopes, or however around it goes.

Geological principles of structural positioning is effective at determining relative ages (i.e. superposition, cross-cutting relationships). Age dating is limited to dateable rocks, preferably relatively unaltered igneous rocks. When combining the age we can therefore make logical deduction of what units are older and which are younger than the dated rocks. If any fossil-bearing strata is present then it too can be placed to a position with respect to the "absolute" date. Over the years, which has returned thousands and thousands (if not millions) of datapoints we start to see clear trends. There is a huge body of consistent data that supports the continued use of radiometric dating.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - if radiometric dating is as bad as the detractors say then why does the geological and anthroplogical communities still use it. And why aren't the detractors out there actually trying to falsify it as a legitimate method. Here's a link to a good article on radiometric dating that deals with the usual complaints (it's not TalkOrigins either) but writted by a Christian physicist I believe http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf
(credit for the link to another poster, PaleoJoe, who I haven't seen around for awhile)

The geological community has plenty of disagreements in certain theories or interpretations of the evidence, but the viability of radiometric dating is not one of them.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 2nd 2008, 01:29 PM
Based on your hypothetical, I don't see any actual choice. If you are expecting the legal system to account for the supernatural, then a lot of criminals can start to claim "(insert deity/alien) did it" (see a lot of Star Trek episodes for examples :lol:).

Please explain the circular reasoning - although I think you are going to throw out the canard that rocks are dated by fossils which are dated by isotopes, or however around it goes.
The point of the hypothetical is that the 'evidence' can be and many times has been WRONG! I don't believe in literal 6/7 day creation because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a courtroom setting. If you expect that then it's not going to happen.

Here's my take on circular reasoning. Everything is based on what is unable to be confirmed. The accuracy of the dating methods are based on the accuracy of other dating methods but none of them can be confirmed beyond doubt. If someone has a document that is 200 years old and they know it is 200 years old they can then test the accuracy of a particular dating method to 200 years. We can test the accuracy of dating methods up to about 4-6,000 years. Beyond that because we cannot be certain of things from climate to atmosphere, there is much room for inaccuracies. How would we know? In a lab data is analyzed primarily based on what the world was believed to be more than 6,000 years ago. However, if the atmosphere had more oxygen or argon or nitrogen or whatever, that would affect the makeup of the object being tested. The Bible tells us that men lived many hundreds of years longer 6,000 years ago than they do now. What caused that change and how does that change that isn't being accounted for by scientists affect the data?

God Bless!

teddyv
Dec 2nd 2008, 04:03 PM
The point of the hypothetical is that the 'evidence' can be and many times has been WRONG! I don't believe in literal 6/7 day creation because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a courtroom setting. If you expect that then it's not going to happen.

Here's my take on circular reasoning. Everything is based on what is unable to be confirmed. The accuracy of the dating methods are based on the accuracy of other dating methods but none of them can be confirmed beyond doubt. If someone has a document that is 200 years old and they know it is 200 years old they can then test the accuracy of a particular dating method to 200 years. We can test the accuracy of dating methods up to about 4-6,000 years. Beyond that because we cannot be certain of things from climate to atmosphere, there is much room for inaccuracies. How would we know? In a lab data is analyzed primarily based on what the world was believed to be more than 6,000 years ago. However, if the atmosphere had more oxygen or argon or nitrogen or whatever, that would affect the makeup of the object being tested. The Bible tells us that men lived many hundreds of years longer 6,000 years ago than they do now. What caused that change and how does that change that isn't being accounted for by scientists affect the data?

God Bless!
So what are we to do then? Abandon all scientific enquiry because we don't know what the conditions may have been? I guess we can stop doing physics, chemistry, biology. Yes, that is rhetorical, but sometimes I get the feeling that's what a lot of YEC'ers want (though not you personally S2S:)).

I would like to know how I and my geological colleagues should do our job/research based on a 6 day creation model.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 2nd 2008, 06:37 PM
So what are we to do then? Abandon all scientific enquiry because we don't know what the conditions may have been? I guess we can stop doing physics, chemistry, biology. Yes, that is rhetorical, but sometimes I get the feeling that's what a lot of YEC'ers want (though not you personally S2S:)).

I would like to know how I and my geological colleagues should do our job/research based on a 6 day creation model.Why would it be required to stop doing scientific inquiry? :confused I love science! :pp Just stop mixing a philosophical view into it. How does the actual age of the earth affect science? :hmm: Whether the earth is actually 5769 years old, 100 million years old, or 14 billion years old does not change the biological makeup of you, me, or any organism. It does not change how chemicals react to a stimulus or the acceleration speed required for a jet to take flight. Nor does it affect the geological makeup of a mountain or the ground on which we may build a building or anything that may be studied by you and your geology colleagues. The speculation as to how that geological makeup came about is what we're discussing. That is the philosophy of science and there are people who get advanced degrees studying that subject. Your job should not change one bit whether an old earther or a young earther is in charge.

God Bless!

teddyv
Dec 2nd 2008, 09:47 PM
Why would it be required to stop doing scientific inquiry? :confused I love science! :pp
I know you love science. This is not intended personally, but I want to make the point that just cause someone loves science doesn't mean that person can fully understand every aspect of every discipline. Case in point, I originally wanted to go into physics, but I got completely lost in university to the point they kicked me out for a year for really bad grades (now that's humbling:lol:). I still think physics is very fascinating and love to watch the Nova's and the like to see what's new. But I really don't understand the nitty-gritty of it.


Just stop mixing a philosophical view into it.



How does the actual age of the earth affect science? :hmm: Whether the earth is actually 5769 years old, 100 million years old, or 14 billion years old does not change the biological makeup of you, me, or any organism. It does not change how chemicals react to a stimulus or the acceleration speed required for a jet to take flight. Nor does it affect the geological makeup of a mountain or the ground on which we may build a building or anything that may be studied by you and your geology colleagues. The speculation as to how that geological makeup came about is what we're discussing. That is the philosophy of science and there are people who get advanced degrees studying that subject. Your job should not change one bit whether an old earther or a young earther is in charge.

God Bless!

I do want to respond to this but it's taking a while to organize the thoughts. Later...:)

Romber
Dec 7th 2008, 02:41 AM
I believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There has yet to be a shred of evidence suggesting anything other than plus or minus a few thousand years. Nothing presents itself that fits the evolutionary ages.

GitRDunn
Dec 7th 2008, 02:56 AM
I believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There has yet to be a shred of evidence suggesting anything other than plus or minus a few thousand years. Nothing presents itself that fits the evolutionary ages.
Except for what we get for the ages of all the stones and fossils ever dated. I'm not saying you can't believe in a 6000 year-old Earth, but there is evidence out there for an older one.

RANGER65
Dec 7th 2008, 03:38 AM
#1) Carbon 14 Dating - The process of dating most if not all evidence supporting Darwin's evolution theory, in a blind test trial dated a 1 year old mullusk over 200,000 years old. :hmm: -Creationism vs Evolution

#2) The Earth and the Moon are in the same fixed orbitable rotation so the same amount of Meteoritic Dust falls on the Earth as the Moon by volume. The Moon however has no surface winds to displace this dust so the Eagle 1 Lunar Modual was fitted with large round landing pads expecting the amount of lunar dust, based on 500 million years x volume should be over a foot deep. When Armstrong stepped off the ladder his boot sank only 2 and 1/4 inches into dust, concurrent with the amount that should be collected in around 6 to 8000 years. :hmm: - Creationism vs Evolution.

#3) Adam and Eve were created to "replenish" the Earth. :hmm: - Genisis

#4) It is scripturally understood that Satan ruled the Earth prior to Adam from the city of Tyre. The condition of the Earth under his rule became so chaotic that God destroyed all living creatures and planet life in a Pre -Adamic flood that could be known as Satan's Flood. The first world wide flood. The second flood "Noah's did not kill all vegetation or animals (saved by ark). - Dake anotated bible.

If the Earth is as old as science says then a Pre-Adam existence may prove that science and the bible are not as far apart as first believed in relationship to the age of Earth itself but not on the age of man in relationship to it. Meaning there could have been life on Earth many years prior to Satan's rule (That could include Dinosaurs) and then destroyed in Satan's flood.:hmm: - speculation

GitRDunn
Dec 7th 2008, 06:00 AM
#1) Carbon 14 Dating - The process of dating most if not all evidence supporting Darwin's evolution theory, in a blind test trial dated a 1 year old mullusk over 200,000 years old. :hmm: -Creationism vs Evolution
More than just carbon 14 dating is used and could you provide a source for this test?
#2) The Earth and the Moon are in the same fixed orbitable rotation so the same amount of Meteoritic Dust falls on the Earth as the Moon by volume. The Moon however has no surface winds to displace this dust so the Eagle 1 Lunar Modual was fitted with large round landing pads expecting the amount of lunar dust, based on 500 million years x volume should be over a foot deep. When Armstrong stepped off the ladder his boot sank only 2 and 1/4 inches into dust, concurrent with the amount that should be collected in around 6 to 8000 years. :hmm: - Creationism vs Evolution.
If 500 million years+ would be about a foot deep then wouldn't a little over 2 inches mean at least 100 million years? Also, you would have to take into account the constant bombardment of the surface of the moon by meteors and I would expect that a meteor hitting the surface of the moon would dislodge a lot of dust.
#3) Adam and Eve were created to "replenish" the Earth. :hmm: - Genisis
Not sure what this has to do with evolution or the age of the Earth.
#4) It is scripturally understood that Satan ruled the Earth prior to Adam from the city of Tyre. The condition of the Earth under his rule became so chaotic that God destroyed all living creatures and planet life in a Pre -Adamic flood that could be known as Satan's Flood. The first world wide flood. The second flood "Noah's did not kill all vegetation or animals (saved by ark). - Dake anotated bible.
Where in scripture does it say all of this?
If the Earth is as old as science says then a Pre-Adam existence may prove that science and the bible are not as far apart as first believed in relationship to the age of Earth itself but not on the age of man in relationship to it. Meaning there could have been life on Earth many years prior to Satan's rule (That could include Dinosaurs) and then destroyed in Satan's flood.:hmm: - speculation
So which side are you arguing for? Your first few comments seemed like you were arguing for a young Earth but here you sound like you are arguing for an old Earth.

Romber
Dec 7th 2008, 02:22 PM
Except for what we get for the ages of all the stones and fossils ever dated. I'm not saying you can't believe in a 6000 year-old Earth, but there is evidence out there for an older one.

And by evidence for older earth you are using the fossil record, which goes by the geological records which is put in order by the fossil records which....wait, this doesn't work.

But wait! You have carbon dating, radiometric and the likes. However, what you don't know is how much you must assume before you can even get results:

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.

2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.

3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

As you can see there is a lot that can go wrong, especially if the rock formations are millions of years old.

All you evidence has been published through a secular bias, and any evidence suggesting young earth is almost always omitted. Don't compromise the bible.

crawfish
Dec 7th 2008, 03:13 PM
#1) Carbon 14 Dating - The process of dating most if not all evidence supporting Darwin's evolution theory, in a blind test trial dated a 1 year old mullusk over 200,000 years old. :hmm: -Creationism vs Evolution

Any carbon dating of something one year old would be invalid no matter what the results (and I assume the subject was dead, testing a living being would be quite silly). It takes quite a bit more time for the body to break down enough for the readings to make sense.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 8th 2008, 12:22 PM
Any carbon dating of something one year old would be invalid no matter what the results (and I assume the subject was dead, testing a living being would be quite silly). It takes quite a bit more time for the body to break down enough for the readings to make sense.Whenever tests come up obviously wrong there is an excuse. If results are wrong in cases where ages are known, and in many cases ages vary wildly or have huge margins of error, what is the problem with acknowledging that dating methods have some huge flaws? Nothing comes with a 'made in' date on it. It's all about analyzing data and if any portion of the assumptions are wrong, everything else will be tainted.

Romber
Dec 8th 2008, 02:31 PM
Whenever tests come up obviously wrong there is an excuse. If results are wrong in cases where ages are known, and in many cases ages vary wildly or have huge margins of error, what is the problem with acknowledging that dating methods have some huge flaws? Nothing comes with a 'made in' date on it. It's all about analyzing data and if any portion of the assumptions are wrong, everything else will be tainted.

Better yet when Science comes up with results that are clearly biblical, but chooses to omit it. Nothing is looked at with an open mind that science should always maintain.

crawfish
Dec 8th 2008, 06:30 PM
Whenever tests come up obviously wrong there is an excuse. If results are wrong in cases where ages are known, and in many cases ages vary wildly or have huge margins of error, what is the problem with acknowledging that dating methods have some huge flaws? Nothing comes with a 'made in' date on it. It's all about analyzing data and if any portion of the assumptions are wrong, everything else will be tainted.

In this case, the "excuse" is scientifically sound (look up the reservoir effect in the case of the mollusk).

There are a wide variety of dating methods for a variety of situations. Scientists have freely and honestly admitted that some dating methods are not appropriate for some situations (which seems to be the ultimate source for the mollusk data, fwiw).

Argon-argon dating was used to date the destruction of Pompeii within 7 years. That's some pretty incredible accuracy.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2008, 12:23 PM
In this case, the "excuse" is scientifically sound (look up the reservoir effect in the case of the mollusk).

There are a wide variety of dating methods for a variety of situations. Scientists have freely and honestly admitted that some dating methods are not appropriate for some situations (which seems to be the ultimate source for the mollusk data, fwiw).

Argon-argon dating was used to date the destruction of Pompeii within 7 years. That's some pretty incredible accuracy.I have no issue with dating objects up to about 4500 years. In cases like Pompeii where we can verify dating there is absolutely no dispute from me. Beyond 4500 or so, however we do not have proper 'controls'. We are, it could be said, assuming facts not in evidence. If the makeup of the atmosphere and even the land masses and oceans changed drastically at some point, our assumptions would be wrong and thus our conclusions would be wrong. Without proper 'controls' to test the method beyond the time where there are known ages, the science is flawed.

Biblically speaking, something major happened about 4500 years ago that caused life expectancy to drop extremely! What caused this? Why the sudden drop in ages that became more and more profound over a 400-500 year period? How do those changes change how we should interpret the scientific data we analyze?

Philemon9
Dec 10th 2008, 01:30 PM
I have no issue with dating objects up to about 4500 years. In cases like Pompeii where we can verify dating there is absolutely no dispute from me. Beyond 4500 or so, however we do not have proper 'controls'. We are, it could be said, assuming facts not in evidence. If the makeup of the atmosphere and even the land masses and oceans changed drastically at some point, our assumptions would be wrong and thus our conclusions would be wrong. Without proper 'controls' to test the method beyond the time where there are known ages, the science is flawed.

Biblically speaking, something major happened about 4500 years ago that caused life expectancy to drop extremely! What caused this? Why the sudden drop in ages that became more and more profound over a 400-500 year period? How do those changes change how we should interpret the scientific data we analyze?

What are your thoughts on Hubble's law, which applied Einstein's general relativity to accurately determine the distances of remote galaxies? Hubble's law also found these galaxies are expanding and can be traced back to a singularity of approximately 14 billion years ago. These findings were also supported by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which basically measured the remnant radiant heat of the universe to a degree which substantiated Hubble's estimations. Thoughts?

Ascender
Dec 10th 2008, 02:46 PM
I have read this thread with interest but it seems that both OEC and YEC as well as most evolutionalists are behind the times and the science by 10 to 20 years.

There are several new paradigms that deal with perception and observation of sub-particulate matter as well as black holes that leave most of the current working theories broken and of no account.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2008, 03:45 PM
What are your thoughts on Hubble's law, which applied Einstein's general relativity to accurately determine the distances of remote galaxies? Hubble's law also found these galaxies are expanding and can be traced back to a singularity of approximately 14 billion years ago. These findings were also supported by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which basically measured the remnant radiant heat of the universe to a degree which substantiated Hubble's estimations. Thoughts?I absolutely agree with the expansion. What I don't agree with is the conclusion. The Hubble constant is something that is based on the perceived velocity due to the red shift that may be observed. Once again we are dealing with MAJOR assumptions that have absolutely no controls to judge accuracy or lack thereof. Even a simple bathroom scale must be calibrated based on a 'control' to be accurate. We can just barely confirm distances within our own galaxy to some degree. Yet we do not have the capability of going to other galaxies to test if our assumptions are correct. Maybe someday but not today. This is another 'assuming facts not in evidence' issue. This issue is infinitely more complex than what is going to be addressed on a discussion board but that is the basics of my position. You will not see me deny FACTS that are in evidence, but I often disagree with the conclusions. Here's an interesting article that looks at the Hubble Law. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/hubble.asp

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2008, 03:48 PM
I have read this thread with interest but it seems that both OEC and YEC as well as most evolutionalists are behind the times and the science by 10 to 20 years.

There are several new paradigms that deal with perception and observation of sub-particulate matter as well as black holes that leave most of the current working theories broken and of no account.Well, this is a discussion forum. Do you have anything you'd like to share? Please include links so we all can be educationally edified. ;)

God Bless!