YEC and OEC Summary

[a-seeker]

I am astounded

uhhh...

 

astounded by what?  Can you be more clear?  You didn't quote anything.

[gray wolf]

A weakness in a discussion like this is that the other side of the story gets no access or air time. It would be very interesting and even entertaining

[a-seeker]

A weakness in a discussion like this is that the other side of the story gets no access or air time. It would be very interesting and even entertaining

I need a little more than that, gray wolf.

 

Weakness = what?

 

Other side = who?

 

Why are they getting no access or air time?  You posted something and I responded.

 

I am not at this point doubting that you have a point; I just don't know what it is.

[ARGOSY]

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.

Thanks for posting this. Looking into it , these fossils are very common. I hear you on the consensus position of both camps that there can be rapid deposition which can explain individual polystrate fossils. So I'm not making a strawman argument, I hear you that evolutionists do not always take the uniformitarianism position. But when those who believe in long-timeframes find that repeatedly rock formation and coal formation occur more rapidly than previously thought, this calls into question the entire assumption of long timeframes.

This link confirms the rapid deposition of coal when they were previously thought to be formed over millions of years. This is the predictability of the creationist position, all processes previously thought to take long timeframes will increasingly be exposed as having short timeframes. Fossils previously thought to be in a perfect stratigraphy sequence will increasingly be found out of order due to isolated ecosystems being discovered which show most species were already in early existence.

Coal polystrate fossils:

http://www.icr.org/article/445/

[ARGOSY]

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.

Lol .... you catching on..

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.

 

Lol .... you catching on..

 

No, the Bible clearly states they were "made" (built, constructed) on the fourth day.  Genesis 1 never uses "made" to mean, "made to appear."  That is an attempt pencil meaning into the text and is essentially "adding" to the Word of God.   The Bible is crystal clear on the fact that the stars were created on day 4, and not before.

[ARGOSY]

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.

Lol .... you catching on..

No, the Bible clearly states they were "made" (built, constructed) on the fourth day.  Genesis 1 never uses "made" to mean, "made to appear."  That is an attempt pencil meaning into the text and is essentially "adding" to the Word of God.   The Bible is crystal clear on the fact that the stars were created on day 4, and not before.

Shiloh...after looking into the Hebrew, and considering what you have said on this matter, I still beg to differ. There is no purpose in just repeating your position. That same word is often translated as "shown" in the bible, and is a word of action. Do, make ,show. I feel the context of Genesis 1 favors the showing/revealing/producing/observing of the stars and the sun on day 4, rather than them being created on day 4.

As I said before, we each believe differently, as long as we do so confidently before god then that's fine. All the best

[Sheniy]

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".

   Unbiased?  Really?  Your post was drowning in bias.

 

I'm all for you giving evidence of the bible, but at least be honest about where your opinions lie.

 

[Enoch2021]

 

I'm confused (and was nervous to reply since it seems I am disrupting you from reading the very thing that will answer one of your questions).  But I'll answer again.

 

 

Yes, I do think your rhetorical style is dismissive and therefore ungracious, as well (and even more so) Shiloh's.  The comment was really about Shiloh.  I don't like the quick "Quote" followed by a one liner.  I put a lot of thought into my responses.  I try to understand the other side; when I don't, I try to ask questions so as to better clarify what they are saying--otherwise, how can I disagree or agree with them?!  I don't see this occurring very often.  Typically people on this site start from the observation "this person disagrees with me" and then move immediately to the step "how can I refute them?"  The question "how does he disagree with me and why" is omitted from the process.  Thus the "refutations" are short and degrading.  I am not claiming innocence.  But I think we can all try better (again, a selfish incentive, but it will actually improve our ability to refute---look at Socrates!)

 

My new thread will point out the cultural elements.  You say "I study Scripture against Scripture" or something to that effect.  But Scripture is not written in a vacuum.  English translations depend upon studying not only how words are used in Scripture, but outside of Scripture.  Every commentary you pick up will make a reference to some document existing outside of Scripture.  If you study Milton's Paradise Lost with no knowledge of the 17th c. England, you will miss much and misinterpret much.  Think about it: do you presume to translate and comment on the earliest manuscripts of Beowulf as well as scholars?  Why is Scripture so different?

 

I answered above that the YEC/OEC debate doesn't interest me.  I said I supposed that for now the OEC has a stronger case--I mentioned my appreciation for yours and other's reminder of the Scientific Method which shows neither can be proved.  I'll stay in tune with the physical sciences (i.e. excluding history or textual criticism or archaeology or anthropology) only because it's fascinating (in other words, anything dealing with the age of the earth or the big  bang or evolution).

 

If you insist on putting me in a class, I can only ask, Why?

 

 

 

clb

 

 

 

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

 

 

Connor Sir..............................I am Extremely Confused

 

Let me Explain:

 

You say you don't believe in the "GAP Theory" or "The Day Age Theory" and you are neither YEC or OEC...  (it doesn't matter) or more specifically.... "I answered above that the YEC/OEC debate doesn't interest me."

 

OK,  I'll only post a few of many...............

 

On the "GEN 1:2" Thread Message # 188: You Said.................

 

"We OE plead in vain that we see it as Interpretations of Scripture made in light of scientific claims (not opposition, but cooperation)--or as I have said elsewhere (borrowing from Augustine) the exegesis of one of God's books (Scripture) read side by side with the exegesis of the other"

 

Do you see MY CONFUSION??

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 66:  You said...............

 

"Actually, I find it more amusing that when science corroborates Biblical narratives (i.e. studies of dinosaur bones suggests a flood), Shiloh (and others) hails science.........but when it doesn't (i.e. old earth theory), well science is constantly changing and should be dismissed...."

 

??

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 90:  You said...............

 

"In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth)"

 

??

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 90:  You said...............

 

"I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible, then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

This is the MOST TROUBLING.

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 93:  You said...............

 

"When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old"

 

??

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 99:  You said...............

 

"good many Christian scientist who affirm the Old Earth theory'

 

??

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 99:  You said...............

 

"These counter attacks made by YEarthers sound (to my ears) desperate and at times embarrassing: as when they claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!) so that photosynthesis was absolutely essential and required the Sun."

 

If you don't believe in the "DAY AGE Theory....then why?

 

 

"What Happened to the Dino's" Message # 101:  You said...............

 

Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight.....do you mean they can survive a few days after sunlight has already been given--i.e. if I have to move it is not detrimental to my orchid if it stays in a dark trailer for a day or two?  Or do you mean it can grow and even flourish without any sunlight to begin with?  In other words, If I plant a seed beyond the reach of sunlight on Monday, will it have sprouted by Tuesday?  More so, If I plant a fruit tree completely shielded from Sun light, will it, within 24 hours, have grown into a tree bearing fruit?  Of course one can say, "the light created at day one was sufficient for photosynthesis, and since it is God speaking, there is no problem with vegetation sprouting at an unusual rate (trees springing from the most inchoate stages of vegetable life to full grown fruit bearing trees within 24 hours!)".  But that brings me back to the problem "why would God allow nature to operate one way; then 24 hours operate another?"  Even you do not seem comfortable with the details of Genesis; for instead of saying "God can do what He wants" you attempt to rationalize (based on your scientific experience) a very puzzling phenomenon in Genesis (that of plants growing and flourishing within a 24 hour span without sunlight.

 

Day AGE Theory,  AGAIN

 

 

Can you Please explain this:

 

"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."

 

Are you saying GOD has taken over all the Ancient Flood Myths?  If so,.................WHAT????

[Enoch2021]

 

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".

   Unbiased?  Really?  Your post was drowning in bias.

 

I'm all for you giving evidence of the bible, but at least be honest about where your opinions lie.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Unbiased?  Really?

 

I was being Facetious    Did you notice the smiley face?

 

 

Your post was drowning in bias.

 

We all have Biases.  The key is to recognize them and evaluate each systematically on their respective foundations.  The OP was also "drowning" WITH SUPPORT OF EACH POSTULATE!

 

If you take issue with the merit or efficacy of any postulate.....Feel Free to Provide Rebuttal