Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

YEC and OEC Summary


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
103 replies to this topic

#1
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

Over the past month or so, we have traveled through the "Mysteries" of  "Divining" the Age of the Earth/Universe.  I will attempt, in this "Unbiased" :) review, to list each postulate from their respective camp and provide a brief snippet if you will and the "Status".  Bear in Mind, that we are looking @ the past so there is no "Scientific Evidence".....because it can not be tested; Heretofore, VALIDATED.

 

OEC:

 

1.)  Radiometric Dating:

 

All based on Assumptions:   1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.

 

Mt Ngauruhoe (et al) in New Zealand:  Rocks of KNOWN AGE.... 42 Years Old dated @ 3.5 Million!!

 

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.

 

Status: Debunked

 

2.)  Geologic Column:

 

Polystrate7_zps6a5db13b.jpg

 

 

What more really needs to be said.... unless you believe Trees can grow for Millions and Millions of years without decay all the while sediment is building about around them.  :huh:

 

Status: Debunked

 

3.)  Speed of Light  "Light Years"

 

The main premise is that the furthest "Stars" are Millions/Billions of "Light Years" away based on the CURRENT Speed of Light.  Using the current Speed of Light and extrapolating this back to Creation/past to justify/predict the Age of the Universe is a "begging the question" Fallacy and is stating unequivocally that the Speed of Light and other Constants or Laws have always been the same.

 

However, Our position is that during Creation Week the LAWS of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry weren't fixed as we know them today.  How can we make such a statement?  Is there Precedence?

The Whole First Chapter Of Genesis is the WITNESS!...one for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam).  Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES all Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others.

 

Furthermore:  GOD SAYS the LIGHT from The Stars was INSTANTANEOUS......

 

(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

"Give Light" .... "and it was so".  Why would GOD make those lights for signs and seasons, days, and years; if Adam and people following Adam COULDN'T SEE THEM??  It's absolute nonsense to conclude otherwise, IMHO.

 

Status:  Debunked

 

 

4.)  Local vs Global "World Wide" Flood

 

If you hold the position of an OLD Earth: You must have a "Local Flood" ..... one of their "proofs" is that all the rocks and fossils were laid down by slow gradual processes with an occasional local rapid deposition.  If there were a Global Flood, it's sayonara to that "a priori" assumption.

 

You then have to ask yourself these questions:

 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?
2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?
3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?
4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?
5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

Then What GOD SAID:

(Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."

 

See also Genesis: (6:7, 6:13, 6:17, 7:17, 7:18, 7:20, 7:21, 7:22, 7:23, 7:24)

 

Status: Debunked

 

 

5.)  Bristle-cone Pines "Tree Rings" and Ice Cores

 

I put these two together due to the impact of Weather/Climate on their respective "divination"...which render both a pure guess @ best.  If you believe that weather patterns and climate on the planet have remained the same for thousands of years then :huh:.  If you would like more information concerning specifics....don't hesitate to ask :)

 

Status:  Debunked

 

6.)  Day Age Theory and Gap Theory

 

The word "Theory" is all you really need to know with these two and:

 

For the Gap "Theory": 

 

(Genesis 1:1-5) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  {3}  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  {4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  {5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

 

?? And.....?

 

For the Day Age "Theory":

(Exodus 20:11) "For 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."

 

** Special Note **  GOD Wrote this with HIS FINGER......IN STONE!

 

Status: Debunked

 

===========================================================================

 

YEC:

 

1.) If there were Millions and Billions of years with Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) the Clear result of Sin before Adam Sinned, why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER?? (Jesus Christ) ....The Whole of SALVATION DOCTRINE!

 

AdamEveonmountainofbones_zps3d697aa6.jpg      Preposterous!!

 

Status: are ya Kidding Me?

 

 

2.) No Gap between Genesis 1:1 (or Before) and Genesis 1:2 or anywhere else in the First Chapter of Genesis.  (See Genesis 1:1-5 above, #6 OEC)

 

Status:  Affirmative

 

3.) Six Literal Days.  (See Exodus 20:11 above, #6 OEC). ** Special Note **  GOD Wrote this with HIS FINGER......IN STONE!

 

Status: Affirmative

 

4.) Global Flood  (See #4 OEC) Polystrate Fossils and ALL FOSSILS.

 

Status: Affirmative

 

5.) Speed of Light  "Light Years".  (See Genesis 1:14-19, OEC #3)

 

Status:  Affirmative

 

6.)  Geologic Column  (Young) ....(See Polystrate Fossils, OEC #2)

 

Status: Affirmative

 

7.)  Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossils Soft Tissue/Dino's and Humans

 

This is a Tripple Whammy.....Confirms YEC Invalidates Old Earth:

 

Dino Soft Tissue:

 

DinoSoftTissueT-Rex2_zpsdfeb1553.jpg

 

T-Rex Soft Tissue Above

 

Fossil Soft Tissue:

Source: http://www.kolbecent...estion-of-time/

 

Examples include:

    Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
    Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
    Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
    Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
    Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
    Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
    Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
    Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
    Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
    Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
    Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)'

 

Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink.....

 

"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."

 

"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."

 

"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking

at all the muscle fibres."

 

Source: http://www.archaeolo...from-its-i.html

 

 

 

Dino's and Humans:

 

Cambodia-Dinosaur-Closeup-300x286_zps9a4  acambaro-dino-hi-res-252x300_zps61b77c8bancient50_zpsb5ff6a66.jpgancient48_zpsb73eba39.jpgGryposaurus-and-Dogon-Bronze_zps12f6b849ancient27_zpsfd6ec8de.jpg

 

 

Status (All Three): Affirmative

 

 

Others of note:

 

* Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!!

 

* Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

 

* Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years Ago

 

* Helium in Zircons: http://creation.com/...onfound-critics

 

* The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Entire Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!!

 

* Young Spiral Galaxies

 

* Recorded History

 

* 101 More Reasons: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

 

 

Thank You for your patience and attention

 

Praise The LORD!!!!!!



#2
euroclydon

euroclydon
  • Members
  • 15 posts

PART 1

I like the way people throw the word "debunked" around. It's like seeing those vids on YouTube that say "The TRUTH about this..." and "The TRUTH about that..."

 

In most cases, they might have some good ideas, and partial truth, but they've got quite a bold statement about what they've accomplished.

 

Radiometric Dating

 

I haven't studied the Radiometric Dating angle. Nothing that I say about it would be valid.

 

Geologic Column

Insufficient sample size. Invalid.

Speed of Light  "Light Years"

From Genesis 1:3 onward, the primary word used is "asaw", which has a wide variety of applications (to do, make, or APPOINT) and not "bara" (create).

Is that conclusive? NO. Is it possible? YES.

 

Local vs Global "World Wide" Flood

 

Here is an article. "Facts & Fictions Regarding Noah's Flood"
http://www.orange-st.../noah-flood.htm
 

Firstly, The idea that the flood  of Noah's day was "global" is NOT Logically Conclusive, since the "face of the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) is also used of a localized plague (Exo 10:5, 14-15).

Second, since the Text specifies "ha Adam" (Gen 6:1-2), the targets of the Nephilim were the decedents of Eth ha Adam of Genesis 2:10-14, 18-19, and NOT the Sixth Day creation. This might limit the geography even further.

Third, eretz, rendered "earth", is also rendered "land" "country" "ground".

One would be hard-pressed, therefore, to PROVE that the flood was "global".
 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

 

Birds are animals. (Question #5 below) Therefore, this is actually a generalization of the 5th question, giving the illusion of a meaty, 5-point argument, when there are actually only 4 points.
 

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

 

Where would our "schoolmaster" of the flood of the end times be? How would people know that they can overcome the waters of peoples, nations, and tongues, instead of rupturing out?

 


3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?

 

To live in. Please elaborate why this is a problem.

 


4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

 

Uh, oh!

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

 

God sent a flood to destroy the earth. He hasn't since. But nature does, welcome to it.

 

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

You mean, the birds could have gone "someplace else"? (Question 1 above)

 

You already asked that!

A bird in the hand is worth two on the mountain. (I thought everybody knew that.)

What you are asking Noah to do, essentially, is to go scroounging around looking for animals and doves (e.g. for sacrifice, "seven clean", 7:2) instead of having some on hand.

This is efficient in what manner? I missed that part.


Edited by euroclydon, 16 February 2014 - 09:08 PM.


#3
euroclydon

euroclydon
  • Members
  • 15 posts

I went and did some reading on polystrate fossils.

 

The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.

http://www.talkorigi...rate/trees.html
 

PART 2

Bristle-cone Pines "Tree Rings" and Ice Cores

This is not something that I have studied either. I can not comment.

Day Age Theory and Gap Theory

I don't know what that other stuff is. I will concentrate on the verse.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them

made = to do or make, not bara or create.


Edited by euroclydon, 16 February 2014 - 09:23 PM.


#4
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

PART 1

I like the way people throw the word "debunked" around. It's like seeing those vids on YouTube that say "The TRUTH about this..." and "The TRUTH about that..."

 

In most cases, they might have some good ideas, and partial truth, but they've got quite a bold statement about what they've accomplished.

 

Radiometric Dating

 

I haven't studied the Radiometric Dating angle. Nothing that I say about it would be valid.

 

Geologic Column

Insufficient sample size. Invalid.

Speed of Light  "Light Years"

From Genesis 1:3 onward, the primary word used is "asaw", which has a wide variety of applications (to do, make, or APPOINT) and not "bara" (create).

Is that conclusive? NO. Is it possible? YES.

 

Local vs Global "World Wide" Flood

 

Here is an article. "Facts & Fictions Regarding Noah's Flood"
http://www.orange-st.../noah-flood.htm
 

Firstly, The idea that the flood  of Noah's day was "global" is NOT Logically Conclusive, since the "face of the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) is also used of a localized plague (Exo 10:5, 14-15).

Second, since the Text specifies "ha Adam" (Gen 6:1-2), the targets of the Nephilim were the decedents of Eth ha Adam of Genesis 2:10-14, 18-19, and NOT the Sixth Day creation. This might limit the geography even further.

Third, eretz, rendered "earth", is also rendered "land" "country" "ground".

One would be hard-pressed, therefore, to PROVE that the flood was "global".
 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

 

Birds are animals. (Question #5 below) Therefore, this is actually a generalization of the 5th question, giving the illusion of a meaty, 5-point argument, when there are actually only 4 points.
 

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

 

Where would our "schoolmaster" of the flood of the end times be? How would people know that they can overcome the waters of peoples, nations, and tongues, instead of rupturing out?

 


3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?

 

To live in. Please elaborate why this is a problem.

 


4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

 

Uh, oh!

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

 

God sent a flood to destroy the earth. He hasn't since. But nature does, welcome to it.

 

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

You mean, the birds could have gone "someplace else"? (Question 1 above)

 

You already asked that!

A bird in the hand is worth two on the mountain. (I thought everybody knew that.)

What you are asking Noah to do, essentially, is to go scroounging around looking for animals and doves (e.g. for sacrifice, "seven clean", 7:2) instead of having some on hand.

This is efficient in what manner? I missed that part.

 

 

========================================================================================

 

 

Thanks for the response.
 

Geologic Column: Insufficient sample size. Invalid.

 

I wanted to keep it somewhat short so I just posted one Photo.... and those strata in the picture are Millions of Years apart.  Polystrate fossils are found all over the Earth, here's some more....

 

Polystrate11_zpsccedba7f.jpg   Polystrate9_zps1aaee356.jpg  Polystrate8_zps4774c462.jpg  Polystrate6_zps2aa6540d.jpg

 

Polystrate4_zps3be671cc.jpg   Polystrate3_zpscf8ad155.jpg  Polystrate10_zpsb5c1ab05.jpg         

 

 

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea:

 

'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.
Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous'.
Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993.

 

 

The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.

 

Yes, I heard that before.  They must not exist then :huh:

 

From Genesis 1:3 onward, the primary word used is "asaw", which has a wide variety of applications (to do, make, or APPOINT) and not "bara" (create).

Is that conclusive? NO. Is it possible? YES.

 

"Bara" and "Asah" can and are clearly used interchangeably.  And what's your point?

 

 

Here is an article. "Facts & Fictions Regarding Noah's Flood"
http://www.orange-st.../noah-flood.htm

Firstly, The idea that the flood  of Noah's day was "global" is NOT Logically Conclusive, since the "face of the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) is also used of a localized plague (Exo 10:5, 14-15).

 

You sidestepped this one....(Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." and these.....See also Genesis: (6:7, 6:13, 6:17, 7:17, 7:18, 7:20, 7:21, 7:22, 7:23, 7:24)  Sounds pretty "Logically Conclusive" to me. 

 

Second, since the Text specifies "ha Adam" (Gen 6:1-2), the targets of the Nephilim were the decedents of Eth ha Adam of Genesis 2:10-14, 18-19, and NOT the Sixth Day creation. This might limit the geography even further.  Third, eretz, rendered "earth", is also rendered "land" "country" "ground".

 

The Targets?

 

My Bible says this....(Genesis 6:7) "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

 

If the Nephilim "the fallen ones" were the sole target, Why didn't GOD mention them??  :rolleyes:

 

"eretz" = Land.  So?  Isn't that where man/beast/creeping thing live?

 

 

Birds are animals. (Question #5 below) Therefore, this is actually a generalization of the 5th question, giving the illusion of a meaty, 5-point argument, when there are actually only 4 points.

 

Now that was funny.  How do you know that was my intent.....Special Mind Powers??  This was my point.....If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

 

Please elaborate why this is a problem. (Why the Ark was 400 Ft Long)

 

Surely.  If it was a Local Mesopotamian Valley Flood why would he need a Barge that Large?  And, are there that many animals in the Mesopotamian Valley?

 

 

Uh, oh!

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

God sent a flood to destroy the earth. He hasn't since. But nature does, welcome to it.

 

"Uh Oh"  that's what I just said.  Firstly, if it was just a Local Flood, GOD would have broken HIS Promise.... the Mesopotamian Valley has been flooded many times since Noah.

 

GOD hasn't but "Nature" has?  Are you claiming "nature" has Sentience and Intelligence? Its also a Logical Fallacy "Reification".

 

 

You mean, the birds could have gone "someplace else"? (Question 1 above)

You already asked that!

 

Actually I didn't ask that....now, if Camels could "fly" or wing on over to the nearest mountain range then you would have a point.



#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

I went and did some reading on polystrate fossils.

 

The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.

http://www.talkorigi...rate/trees.html
 

PART 2

Bristle-cone Pines "Tree Rings" and Ice Cores

This is not something that I have studied either. I can not comment.

Day Age Theory and Gap Theory

I don't know what that other stuff is. I will concentrate on the verse.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them

made = to do or make, not bara or create.

 

 

http://www.talkorigi...rate/trees.html

 

If you wish to be taken seriously, please refrain from using Talk Origins as a source.  This site is worst than the National Inquirer.....

 

Talk Origins Culture:

'The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds".'

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Talk.origins

 

 

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them

made = to do or make, not bara or create.

 

I spoke to this issue in my previous post.



#6
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts

Thank You for your patience and attention
 
Praise The LORD!!!!!!


Thanks for the post. Its very difficult for evolutionists to answer and even face some of the evidence you have presented. Often creationists are seen as unscientific, yet the out of place artifacts/fossils are inexplicable from a mainstream point of view. Evolutionists often refer to "predictions", well the prediction that more and more evidence will favor a rapid geologic process rather than a slow one is coming true in an exponential fashion. More and more evidence favors the creationist scientific position over the mainstream scientific position and its becoming more and more difficult for a truth-seeking evolutionist to deny scientific fact in favor of the unproven theory of evolution. God bless science, its based on evidence and truth, not popularity and pride.

#7
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts

I went and did some reading on polystrate fossils.
 
The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.


I see you are good at semantics, but how do you explain the fossilized trees going through millions of years of geological strata? That was Enoch's point.

Maybe there was a round tree-shaped hole, and a later tree dropped into the hole and started growing roots? Any explanation would further the discussion from scientific point of view.

#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

Thank You for your patience and attention
 
Praise The LORD!!!!!!


Thanks for the post. Its very difficult for evolutionists to answer and even face some of the evidence you have presented. Often creationists are seen as unscientific, yet the out of place artifacts/fossils are inexplicable from a mainstream point of view. Evolutionists often refer to "predictions", well the prediction that more and more evidence will favor a rapid geologic process rather than a slow one is coming true in an exponential fashion. More and more evidence favors the creationist scientific position over the mainstream scientific position and its becoming more and more difficult for a truth-seeking evolutionist to deny scientific fact in favor of the unproven theory of evolution. God bless science, its based on evidence and truth, not popularity and pride.

 

 

This thread is not about evolutionists, the E in OEC stands for earth, not evolution and the C stands for creationists



#9
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 864 posts

Thank You for your patience and attention
 
Praise The LORD!!!!!!


Thanks for the post. Its very difficult for evolutionists to answer and even face some of the evidence you have presented. Often creationists are seen as unscientific, yet the out of place artifacts/fossils are inexplicable from a mainstream point of view. Evolutionists often refer to "predictions", well the prediction that more and more evidence will favor a rapid geologic process rather than a slow one is coming true in an exponential fashion. More and more evidence favors the creationist scientific position over the mainstream scientific position and its becoming more and more difficult for a truth-seeking evolutionist to deny scientific fact in favor of the unproven theory of evolution. God bless science, its based on evidence and truth, not popularity and pride.

 
This thread is not about evolutionists, the E in OEC stands for earth, not evolution and the C stands for creationists


thanks, I stand corrected. Those tree fossils do contradict the standard OEC model though. as well as evolutionist timeframes.

I don't fall under either category because my "recent biology" view puts me in the debate camp of the YEC's most of the time.

#10
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

I went and did some reading on polystrate fossils.
 
The word polystrate is not a standard geological term.


I see you are good at semantics, but how do you explain the fossilized trees going through millions of years of geological strata? That was Enoch's point.

Maybe there was a round tree-shaped hole, and a later tree dropped into the hole and started growing roots? Any explanation would further the discussion from scientific point of view.

 

 

You told me that in a different thread that until all possibilities have been proven wrong that we are just dealing with speculation (or something like that, sorry if I am butchering your words).   I will assume you hold that same view for this area.

 

The phenomena of the polystrate fossils has been addressed by those who view the earth as more than 6000 year old.

 

Speaking of the find in Yellowstone...(from Wikipedia) The upright fossil trees of the Gallatin Petrified Forest in the Gallatin Range and the Yellowstone Petrified Forest at Amethyst Mountain and Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park, occur buried within the lahars and other volcanic deposits comprising the Eocene Lamar River Formation as the result of periods of rapid sedimentation associated with explosive volcanism. This type of volcanism generates and deposits large quantities of loose volcanic material as a blanket over the slope of a volcano as happened during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Both during and for years after a period of volcanism occurs, lahars and normal stream activity wash this loose volcanic material downslope. These processes result in the rapid burial of large areas of the surrounding countryside beneath several meters of sediment as directly observed during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. As is the case of modern lahar deposits, the sedimentary layers containing upright trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest are discontinuous and very limited in areal extent. Individual layers containing upright trees and individual buried forests occupy only a very small fraction of the total area of Yellowstone National Park

 

One of the problems with using the flood to explain this phenomena rarity of these fossils. If they were the result of the flood then there should be more of them all over the place, in fact one would expect to find multiple trees in the same area. Yet this does not happen.



#11
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

 

Thank You for your patience and attention
 
Praise The LORD!!!!!!


Thanks for the post. Its very difficult for evolutionists to answer and even face some of the evidence you have presented. Often creationists are seen as unscientific, yet the out of place artifacts/fossils are inexplicable from a mainstream point of view. Evolutionists often refer to "predictions", well the prediction that more and more evidence will favor a rapid geologic process rather than a slow one is coming true in an exponential fashion. More and more evidence favors the creationist scientific position over the mainstream scientific position and its becoming more and more difficult for a truth-seeking evolutionist to deny scientific fact in favor of the unproven theory of evolution. God bless science, its based on evidence and truth, not popularity and pride.

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

Thanks Argosy

 

 

Evolutionists often refer to "predictions"

 

Yes, it's actually quite humorous.  99.9% are "Ad Hoc" observations that are spun Non-Sequitur into the "evolution" paradigm.  I guess they need to pay more attention to the Prefix (PRE-) as in before.

 

will favor a rapid geologic process rather than a slow one is coming true in an exponential fashion.

 

Glad you brought this up.  I've been wanting to "Hit the Punching Bag" so to speak.....

 

All this "Uniformitarianism" nonsense (That still pervades Geology Today!) came from Charles Darwin's friend.....Charles Lyell, 1797-1875 (Geologist and Lawyer)

 

 

Charles Lyell in a Letter written 14 June 1830 to George Poulett Scrope....

 

"I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses"

 

and.....

 

"P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 226–227, citing Lyell, Katherine (Lyell’s sister-in-law), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (London: Murray, 1881), I:p. 268–271.

Na, No Agenda Here!!!  :bored-1:

 

 

Referring to his voyage on the Beagle (1831–1836), Darwin wrote, “I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I studied attentively; and this book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read.”

Barlow, Nora (ed.), The autobiography of Charles Darwin, p. 77, Collins, St James’s Place, London, 1958

 

“… I cannot say how forcibly impressed I am with the infinite superiority of the Lyellian school of Geology over the Continental. I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell’s brains & that I never acknowledge this sufficiently, nor do I know how I can, without saying so in so many words—for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one’s mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes.”

Darwin, Charles, Letter to Leonard Horner, 29 August 1844

 

“I therefore conclude that a full understanding of the Lyellian concept of geological time, which was so crucially important for the later development of geology and for Darwin’s work in biology, must take into account its possible origin (at least in part) in the work of Scrope, who in turn may have derived it (at least in part) from his concern with the social problems of political economy.”

Rudwick, Martin J.S., Poulett Scrope on the volcanoes of Auvergne: Lyellian time and political economy, British Journal for the History of Science 7(27): p. 242, 1974.

 

Janet Browne, Professor in the History of Science at Harvard University, comments, “Lyell’s writings … became the hub of all his later biological thinking"  and "... without Lyell there would have been no Darwin.”

Browne, Janet, Charles Darwin: Voyaging, p. 294, p. 186, Pimlio, London, 2003.



#12
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Interesting how the strata on the left side of your picture does not correspond the strata on the right?  How is that explained?



#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

Interesting how the strata on the left side of your picture does not correspond the strata on the right?  How is that explained?

 

I Doctored the Photo via PhotoShop, Obviously.



#14
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

I don't believe that.  Can you give a non-flippant answer?



#15
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

I don't believe that.  Can you give a non-flippant answer?

 

I'll do my best, I'm not a Geologist and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Are you speaking of the 1st pic in the OP?  The other pics and this make the point Moot, IMHO......

 

Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea:

 

'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.
Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous'.
Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993.

 

 

Well it could be:

 

1.  The Camera Angle

2.  Sunlight/Shading

3.  It could have rained just before the picture

4.  1/2/3 above working in concert

 

Good?



#16
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Over the past month or so, we have traveled through the "Mysteries" of  "Divining" the Age of the Earth/Universe.  I will attempt, in this "Unbiased" :) review, to list each postulate from their respective camp and provide a brief snippet if you will and the "Status".  Bear in Mind, that we are looking @ the past so there is no "Scientific Evidence".....because it can not be tested; Heretofore, VALIDATED.


I was rather disappointed that my own view was not represented among the summarization, Enoch! But that is no doubt due to bruised vanity :) My proposal was removed; I am hoping to post it again, once I have purged it of its accused "teaching tone". But to summarize, all scientific questions are irrelevant to the question of Genesis. The author/AUTHOR cared nothing about the age of the earth when writing Genesis. HE had bigger fish to fry.


 
OEC:
 
1.)  Radiometric Dating:
 
All based on Assumptions:   1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.
3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
 
Mt Ngauruhoe (et al) in New Zealand:  Rocks of KNOWN AGE.... 42 Years Old dated @ 3.5 Million!!
 
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.
 
Status: Debunked
 
2.)  Geologic Column:
 
Polystrate7_zps6a5db13b.jpg
 
 
What more really needs to be said.... unless you believe Trees can grow for Millions and Millions of years without decay all the while sediment is building about around them.  :huh:
 
Status: Debunked
 
3.)  Speed of Light  "Light Years"
 
The main premise is that the furthest "Stars" are Millions/Billions of "Light Years" away based on the CURRENT Speed of Light.  Using the current Speed of Light and extrapolating this back to Creation/past to justify/predict the Age of the Universe is a "begging the question" Fallacy and is stating unequivocally that the Speed of Light and other Constants or Laws have always been the same.
 
However, Our position is that during Creation Week the LAWS of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry weren't fixed as we know them today.  How can we make such a statement?  Is there Precedence?

The Whole First Chapter Of Genesis is the WITNESS!...one for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam).  Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES all Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others.
 
Furthermore:  GOD SAYS the LIGHT from The Stars was INSTANTANEOUS......
 
(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

"Give Light" .... "and it was so"

Why would GOD make those lights for signs and seasons, days, and years; if Adam and people following Adam COULDN'T SEE THEM??  It's absolute nonsense to conclude otherwise, IMHO.
 
Status:  Debunked


 A great question. But it can be answered in more than one way. One of the first questions I ask when approaching any text is, "what kind of document am I looking at? To which of the many genres does it belong?" Only after this question is asked (and answered) on exegetical/historical grounds can the scientific questions be raised (or not raised!). As I have made clear elsewhere, there are too many a)poetic elements within the description itself and b) too many parallels with ancient writings elsewhere for me to regard it as prosaic narrative. Rather it is a liturgical piece celebrating God's creation as the first temple. I have shot this bolt elsewhere, but it was removed. I will post my "opinion" again once I have purged it of its accused "teaching tone". For now, I regard the Creation (and the flood narrative) as polemics against Ancient Near Eastern assumptions about the gods, man, and the world. In religious terms, the author/AUTHOR of Genesis has reappropriated a shared genre in such a way as to give glory to the ONE TRUE GOD. The various genres of the ancient world have, as it were, been "baptized" to give glory where glory is due.
 

4.)  Local vs Global "World Wide" Flood

 
If you hold the position of an OLD Earth: You must have a "Local Flood" ..... one of their "proofs" is that all the rocks and fossils were laid down by slow gradual processes with an occasional local rapid deposition.  If there were a Global Flood, it's sayonara to that "a priori" assumption.
 
You then have to ask yourself these questions:
 
1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?
2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?
3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?
4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?
5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
 
Then What GOD SAID:
(Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."
 
See also Genesis: (6:7, 6:13, 6:17, 7:17, 7:18, 7:20, 7:21, 7:22, 7:23, 7:24)
 
Status: Debunked

Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes.
 
 
5.)  Bristle-cone Pines "Tree Rings" and Ice Cores
 
I put these two together due to the impact of Weather/Climate on their respective "divination"...which render both a pure guess @ best.  If you believe that weather patterns and climate on the planet have remained the same for thousands of years then :huh:.  If you would like more information concerning specifics....don't hesitate to ask :)
 
Status:  Debunked
 

6.)  Day Age Theory and Gap Theory

 
The word "Theory" is all you really need to know with these two and:
 
For the Gap "Theory": 
 
(Genesis 1:1-5) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  {3}  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  {4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  {5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
 
?? And.....?
 
For the Day Age "Theory":
(Exodus 20:11) "For 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."


WE are in complete agreement. The Day/Age theory is an allegorizaiton of the text--I am not even sure that allegory as a genre existed or was even possible to the kind of mind prevalent among the ancient near east. But that is as far as I will go with you--again, the question remains "what genre, if not allegory, is the author/AUTHOR using?" It is not prosaic narrative.

Again, in agreement, I find no evidence of forcing an enormous gap between the first two verses. That is not the point of the text.
 

** Special Note **  GOD Wrote this with HIS FINGER......IN STONE!

 
Status: Debunked


I am not sure that this note will not get into deeper waters than you wish to tread in this thread. Does God have fingers? Is He made of matter? Is just an ancient near eastern Zeus? Or is this the preincarnate-yet-incarnate Jesus?
 
===========================================================================
 
YEC:
 

1.) If there were Millions and Billions of years with Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) the Clear result of Sin before Adam Sinned, why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER?? (Jesus Christ) ....The Whole of SALVATION DOCTRINE!
 
AdamEveonmountainofbones_zps3d697aa6.jpg      Preposterous!!
 
Status: are ya Kidding Me?


 I am not sure what the point is here. We are assuming that death in all its manifestations is a result from moral evil: but a flower dying is not a moral evil; and even to extend the same sentiments to sentient creatues as we suffer over human fatality is an instance of the pathetic fallacy.

As for thorns: they are only problematic when they poke us, or when they interfere with crops. If man lived in perfect union with God, it is not preposterous to suppose that physical pain will have appeared different to them than it does to us; and Genesis states that the problem of thorns arose only after they no longer were living off the fat of the land (i.e. the trees of the garden). The point about the ground being cursed is not that thorns are appearing, but that thorns now will spring up "for you" when "you eat by the sweat of your brow".

I don't get the question about a Kinsman Redeemer--ADam and Eve did sin, so that is why we need a redeemer.



 

2.) No Gap between Genesis 1:1 (or Before) and Genesis 1:2 or anywhere else in the First Chapter of Genesis.  (See Genesis 1:1-5 above, #6 OEC)
 
Status:  Affirmative
 
3.) Six Literal Days.  (See Exodus 20:11 above, #6 OEC). ** Special Note **  GOD Wrote this with HIS FINGER......IN STONE!
 
Status: Affirmative
 
4.) Global Flood  (See #4 OEC) Polystrate Fossils and ALL FOSSILS.
 
Status: Affirmative
 
5.) Speed of Light  "Light Years".  (See Genesis 1:14-19, OEC #3)
 
Status:  Affirmative
 
6.)  Geologic Column  (Young) ....(See Polystrate Fossils, OEC #2)
 
Status: Affirmative
 
7.)  Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossils Soft Tissue/Dino's and Humans
 
This is a Tripple Whammy.....Confirms YEC Invalidates Old Earth:
 
Dino Soft Tissue:
 
DinoSoftTissueT-Rex2_zpsdfeb1553.jpg
 
T-Rex Soft Tissue Above
 
Fossil Soft Tissue:
Source: http://www.kolbecent...estion-of-time/
 
Examples include:
    Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
    Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
    Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
    Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
    Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
    Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
    Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
    Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
    Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
    Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
    Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)'
 
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink.....
 
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
 
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
 
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking
at all the muscle fibres."
 
Source: http://www.archaeolo...from-its-i.html
 
 
 
Dino's and Humans:
 
Cambodia-Dinosaur-Closeup-300x286_zps9a4  acambaro-dino-hi-res-252x300_zps61b77c8bancient50_zpsb5ff6a66.jpgancient48_zpsb73eba39.jpgGryposaurus-and-Dogon-Bronze_zps12f6b849ancient27_zpsfd6ec8de.jpg
 
 
Status (All Three): Affirmative
 
 
Others of note:
 
* Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!!
 
* Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.
 
* Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years Ago
 
* Helium in Zircons: http://creation.com/...onfound-critics
 
* The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Entire Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!!
 
* Young Spiral Galaxies
 
* Recorded History
 
* 101 More Reasons: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


I don't quite follow all of the science stuff--but then the answer to my posed question, "what kind of genre is this?" doesn't require me to. It is irrelevant. However I would like to clarify one thing--in none of this are you claiming that the Scientific method can verify a Young Earth, correct? For that would commit the same error as common to OECs! It seems to me that you ought to omit scientific claims altogether and stick to exegesis. Science will neither confirm nor refute your position.
 
 clb

Thank You for your patience and attention
 

Praise The LORD!!!!!!


For what in particular? That the case is now closed? Both sides can praise the Lord equally well.

I will say this, praise the Lord that I FINALLY figured out the quoting mechanism! Thanks to all of you for your help!


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 17 February 2014 - 02:36 PM.


#17
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years.

I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means.

There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner?

Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded?

Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite.

clb

#18
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years.

I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means.

There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner?

Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded?

Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite.

clb

 

Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. 



#19
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

 

 

Over the past month or so, we have traveled through the "Mysteries" of  "Divining" the Age of the Earth/Universe.  I will attempt, in this "Unbiased" :) review, to list each postulate from their respective camp and provide a brief snippet if you will and the "Status".  Bear in Mind, that we are looking @ the past so there is no "Scientific Evidence".....because it can not be tested; Heretofore, VALIDATED.


I was rather disappointed that my own view was not represented among the summarization, Enoch! But that is no doubt due to bruised vanity :) My proposal was removed; I am hoping to post it again, once I have purged it of its accused "teaching tone". But to summarize, all scientific questions are irrelevant to the question of Genesis. The author/AUTHOR cared nothing about the age of the earth when writing Genesis. HE had bigger fish to fry.


 
OEC:
 
1.)  Radiometric Dating:
 
All based on Assumptions:   1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.
3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
 
Mt Ngauruhoe (et al) in New Zealand:  Rocks of KNOWN AGE.... 42 Years Old dated @ 3.5 Million!!
 
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.
 
Status: Debunked
 
2.)  Geologic Column:
 
Polystrate7_zps6a5db13b.jpg
 
 
What more really needs to be said.... unless you believe Trees can grow for Millions and Millions of years without decay all the while sediment is building about around them.  :huh:
 
Status: Debunked
 
3.)  Speed of Light  "Light Years"
 
The main premise is that the furthest "Stars" are Millions/Billions of "Light Years" away based on the CURRENT Speed of Light.  Using the current Speed of Light and extrapolating this back to Creation/past to justify/predict the Age of the Universe is a "begging the question" Fallacy and is stating unequivocally that the Speed of Light and other Constants or Laws have always been the same.
 
However, Our position is that during Creation Week the LAWS of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry weren't fixed as we know them today.  How can we make such a statement?  Is there Precedence?

The Whole First Chapter Of Genesis is the WITNESS!...one for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam).  Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES all Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others.
 
Furthermore:  GOD SAYS the LIGHT from The Stars was INSTANTANEOUS......
 
(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

"Give Light" .... "and it was so"

Why would GOD make those lights for signs and seasons, days, and years; if Adam and people following Adam COULDN'T SEE THEM??  It's absolute nonsense to conclude otherwise, IMHO.
 
Status:  Debunked


 A great question. But it can be answered in more than one way. One of the first questions I ask when approaching any text is, "what kind of document am I looking at? To which of the many genres does it belong?" Only after this question is asked (and answered) on exegetical/historical grounds can the scientific questions be raised (or not raised!). As I have made clear elsewhere, there are too many a)poetic elements within the description itself and b) too many parallels with ancient writings elsewhere for me to regard it as prosaic narrative. Rather it is a liturgical piece celebrating God's creation as the first temple. I have shot this bolt elsewhere, but it was removed. I will post my "opinion" again once I have purged it of its accused "teaching tone". For now, I regard the Creation (and the flood narrative) as polemics against Ancient Near Eastern assumptions about the gods, man, and the world. In religious terms, the author/AUTHOR of Genesis has reappropriated a shared genre in such a way as to give glory to the ONE TRUE GOD. The various genres of the ancient world have, as it were, been "baptized" to give glory where glory is due.
 

4.)  Local vs Global "World Wide" Flood

 
If you hold the position of an OLD Earth: You must have a "Local Flood" ..... one of their "proofs" is that all the rocks and fossils were laid down by slow gradual processes with an occasional local rapid deposition.  If there were a Global Flood, it's sayonara to that "a priori" assumption.
 
You then have to ask yourself these questions:
 
1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?
2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?
3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?
4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?
5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
 
Then What GOD SAID:
(Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."
 
See also Genesis: (6:7, 6:13, 6:17, 7:17, 7:18, 7:20, 7:21, 7:22, 7:23, 7:24)
 
Status: Debunked

Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths. The theological differences are deafening. Ancient flood myths have been taken over by God and reshaped for theological purposes.
 
 
5.)  Bristle-cone Pines "Tree Rings" and Ice Cores
 
I put these two together due to the impact of Weather/Climate on their respective "divination"...which render both a pure guess @ best.  If you believe that weather patterns and climate on the planet have remained the same for thousands of years then :huh:.  If you would like more information concerning specifics....don't hesitate to ask :)
 
Status:  Debunked
 

6.)  Day Age Theory and Gap Theory

 
The word "Theory" is all you really need to know with these two and:
 
For the Gap "Theory": 
 
(Genesis 1:1-5) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  {2} And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  {3}  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  {4} And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  {5} And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
 
?? And.....?
 
For the Day Age "Theory":
(Exodus 20:11) "For 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."


WE are in complete agreement. The Day/Age theory is an allegorizaiton of the text--I am not even sure that allegory as a genre existed or was even possible to the kind of mind prevalent among the ancient near east. But that is as far as I will go with you--again, the question remains "what genre, if not allegory, is the author/AUTHOR using?" It is not prosaic narrative.

Again, in agreement, I find no evidence of forcing an enormous gap between the first two verses. That is not the point of the text.
 

** Special Note **  GOD Wrote this with HIS FINGER......IN STONE!

 
Status: Debunked


I am not sure that this note will not get into deeper waters than you wish to tread in this thread. Does God have fingers? Is He made of matter? Is just an ancient near eastern Zeus? Or is this the preincarnate-yet-incarnate Jesus?
 
===========================================================================
 
YEC:
 

1.) If there were Millions and Billions of years with Death/Disease/Thorns (Fossils) the Clear result of Sin before Adam Sinned, why the need for a KINSMEN REDEEMER?? (Jesus Christ) ....The Whole of SALVATION DOCTRINE!
 
AdamEveonmountainofbones_zps3d697aa6.jpg      Preposterous!!
 
Status: are ya Kidding Me?


 I am not sure what the point is here. We are assuming that death in all its manifestations is a result from moral evil: but a flower dying is not a moral evil; and even to extend the same sentiments to sentient creatues as we suffer over human fatality is an instance of the pathetic fallacy.

As for thorns: they are only problematic when they poke us, or when they interfere with crops. If man lived in perfect union with God, it is not preposterous to suppose that physical pain will have appeared different to them than it does to us; and Genesis states that the problem of thorns arose only after they no longer were living off the fat of the land (i.e. the trees of the garden). The point about the ground being cursed is not that thorns are appearing, but that thorns now will spring up "for you" when "you eat by the sweat of your brow".

I don't get the question about a Kinsman Redeemer--ADam and Eve did sin, so that is why we need a redeemer.



 

2.) No Gap between Genesis 1:1 (or Before) and Genesis 1:2 or anywhere else in the First Chapter of Genesis.  (See Genesis 1:1-5 above, #6 OEC)
 
Status:  Affirmative
 
3.) Six Literal Days.  (See Exodus 20:11 above, #6 OEC). ** Special Note **  GOD Wrote this with HIS FINGER......IN STONE!
 
Status: Affirmative
 
4.) Global Flood  (See #4 OEC) Polystrate Fossils and ALL FOSSILS.
 
Status: Affirmative
 
5.) Speed of Light  "Light Years".  (See Genesis 1:14-19, OEC #3)
 
Status:  Affirmative
 
6.)  Geologic Column  (Young) ....(See Polystrate Fossils, OEC #2)
 
Status: Affirmative
 
7.)  Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossils Soft Tissue/Dino's and Humans
 
This is a Tripple Whammy.....Confirms YEC Invalidates Old Earth:
 
Dino Soft Tissue:
 
DinoSoftTissueT-Rex2_zpsdfeb1553.jpg
 
T-Rex Soft Tissue Above
 
Fossil Soft Tissue:
Source: http://www.kolbecent...estion-of-time/
 
Examples include:
    Exoskeleton remnants discovered in 417 million year old eurypterid and 310 million year old scorpion (February 2011)[17]
    Dark colored, soft tissue melanocytes found in 120 million year old dinosaurs[18] (May 2010)
    Preserved ink sac from 150 million year old squid[19] (August 2009)
    Original shell preserved from 189-199 million year old lobster[20] (September 2010)
    Organic molecules preserved in 66 million year old hadrosaur[21] (July 2009)
    Preservation of scaly soft tissue in 36 million year old penguin[22] (September 2010)
    Remains of 50 million year old insects found preserved in amber[23] (November 2010)
    Blood and eye tissues, skin and cartilage preserved in two 80 million year old mosasaurs[24],[25] (March, October 2010) and one 70 million year-old mosasaur[26](May 2011)
    Bone marrow found in 10 million year old frog[27] (July 2006)
    Muscle tissue found in 18 million year old salamander[28] (November 2009)
    Original feather material found in 150 million year old archaeopteryx[29] (May 2010)'
 
Of Particular Note was the 150 Million Year Old squid ink.....
 
"It's fossilized so beautifully well that you can actually still write with it. It still looks as if it is modern squid ink."
 
"We felt that drawing the animal with it would be the ultimate self-portrait."
 
"I can dissect them as if they are living animals. You can even tell whether it was a fast or slow swimmer, by looking
at all the muscle fibres."
 
Source: http://www.archaeolo...from-its-i.html
 
 
 
Dino's and Humans:
 
Cambodia-Dinosaur-Closeup-300x286_zps9a4  acambaro-dino-hi-res-252x300_zps61b77c8bancient50_zpsb5ff6a66.jpgancient48_zpsb73eba39.jpgGryposaurus-and-Dogon-Bronze_zps12f6b849ancient27_zpsfd6ec8de.jpg
 
 
Status (All Three): Affirmative
 
 
Others of note:
 
* Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!!
 
* Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.
 
* Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years Ago
 
* Helium in Zircons: http://creation.com/...onfound-critics
 
* The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity.  The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F).  The Entire Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!!
 
* Young Spiral Galaxies
 
* Recorded History
 
* 101 More Reasons: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


I don't quite follow all of the science stuff--but then the answer to my posed question, "what kind of genre is this?" doesn't require me to. It is irrelevant. However I would like to clarify one thing--in none of this are you claiming that the Scientific method can verify a Young Earth, correct? For that would commit the same error as common to OECs! It seems to me that you ought to omit scientific claims altogether and stick to exegesis. Science will neither confirm nor refute your position.
 
 clb

Thank You for your patience and attention
 

Praise The LORD!!!!!!


For what in particular? That the case is now closed? Both sides can praise the Lord equally well.

I will say this, praise the Lord that I FINALLY figured out the quoting mechanism! Thanks to all of you for your help!

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================================================

 

 

I was rather disappointed that my own view was not represented among the summarization, Enoch! But that is no doubt due to bruised vanity [:)] My proposal was removed; I am hoping to post it again, once I have purged it of its accused "teaching tone". But to summarize, all scientific questions are irrelevant to the question of Genesis. The author/AUTHOR cared nothing about the age of the earth when writing Genesis. HE had bigger fish to fry.

 

Don't be disappointed I thought of as many as I could.... I may have missed a couple.

 

The AUTHOR of GENESIS along with the WHOLE of Scripture is GOD...That's where we differ sir.  HE Cared nothing about the AGE?  Are you presuming to know the Mind of GOD exactly?  Do you think HE would have cared if it was being used to Undermine HIS WORD.  Do you think that HE knew before the Foundation of the WORLD That's Exactly What was Going To Happen?

 

 

A great question. But it can be answered in more than one way. One of the first questions I ask when approaching any text is, "what kind of document am I looking at?

 

It's quite simply a Historic Narrative! It has nothing to do with: Genre's, Baptism, other god's/cultures....NOTHING!

 

Again, there is the question of genre. The flood narrative in Genesis bears too many similarities to other flood myths.

 

No, there is no question of Genre.  You meant to say other flood myth's bear too many similarities to GOD'S Flood. 

 

 

I am not sure what the point is here. {Regarding death and Disease before Adam Sinned}

 

Sir, I can't explain it or Illustrate any simpler than I have
 

I don't quite follow all of the science stuff--but then the answer to my posed question, "what kind of genre is this?"

 

It's an evidence Genre

 

 

However I would like to clarify one thing--in none of this are you claiming that the Scientific method can verify a Young Earth, correct?

 

Correct....it's just "Evidence".  However, I will have to consider the Helium in Zircons a bit closer

 

 

For what in particular? That the case is now closed?

 

No, I was thanking the readers for their patience in reading through the Entire presentation....it was quite long.

 

 

* Your last 2 Quotes in Green....Reached my Quote Limit :)



#20
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

ABove Enoch claimed that God made the lights instantaneously, on the grounds that the light appeared on earth on the 4th day, for they could not serve the purpose of dating seasons for man if it would take their waves/particles to reach earth in a billion years.

I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis; but I would like us to think clearly about what that means--I don't have very much science under my belt, so I am open to correction. Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us. God created both the source of light (stars), and the light waves at the same time--and these light waves/particles extended uniformly from earth to their distant sources. That is what instantaneous means.

There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner?

Again, after that split nano-second, light assumed the behavior we are all accustomed to....would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years? Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded?

Again, questions, but perhaps questions with a bite.

clb

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

I am not going to argue against this because I think it is irrelevant to the purpose of Genesis;

 

If it was Irrelevant then why did GOD put it there?

 

 

Technically, for that split second (0.00000000000000000000001) light did not "travel" from their sources to us.

 

Don't no exactly how long it took...but it was the same Day, Day 4

 

 

There is something....almost contradictory? about this scene. Can waves behave in such a manner?

 

It's not "contradictory" @ All.  Your question in this Genre's is (and is actually the only argument)..... were the Laws/Constants during Creation Week different than the Current Laws as we know them NOW??......  That's why I provided the specific example of ADAM being formed but the WHOLE 1st Chapter of Genesis ANSWERS that Question for you, The ANSWER is a Resounding....................YES, The Laws/Constants Were DIFFERENT!

 

would that not mean that absolute darkness would follow for a billion years?

 

No, why and how so?

 

 

Or did the speed of light slow down at such a rate that light always reached us even while reaching its current speed, which scientists say cannot be exceeded?

 

Did you know that "scientists" have sped up the Speed of Light to like 3 times as Fast and have slowed it to a complete Stop!!?  Don't hold me to those exact "3 times"...but it's something near the vicinity, maybe more.

 

Check this....

 

Source:  http://www.livescien...peed-light.html






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network