Jump to content
IGNORED

YEC and OEC Summary


Enoch2021

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

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.kolbecenter.org/question-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.archaeologydaily.com/news/200908181954/The-150-million-year-old-squid-fossil-so-perfectly-preserved-that-scientists-can-make-ink-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/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-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
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  589
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/06/2014
  • Status:  Offline

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

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.kolbecenter.org/question-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.archaeologydaily.com/news/200908181954/The-150-million-year-old-squid-fossil-so-perfectly-preserved-that-scientists-can-make-ink-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/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

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.livescience.com/396-scientists-mess-speed-light.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...