Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[ChristB4us]

55 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

It should say something they are mentioned in scripture.

How can a non Biblical source be mentioned in the Bible? Think about that for a moment.

The Bible is Israel's family tree in God dealings with her as the sons of God.

The Book of Jehu may just be a historical records of Jehu that the Bible referred to when wanting to know more of the historical account of Jehu.

I do not see any way to look at the Book of Jehu online to read it.

The Lost Books of the Bible

At that site above, the Book of jehu is not available if I read that correctly.

They claim the lost "complete" Book of Enoch is available but it is a fraud.

[BeyondET]

On 5/11/2023 at 5:09 PM, ChristB4us said:

The Bible is Israel's family tree in God dealings with her as the sons of God.

The Book of Jehu may just be a historical records of Jehu that the Bible referred to when wanting to know more of the historical account of Jehu.

I do not see any way to look at the Book of Jehu online to read it.

The Lost Books of the Bible

At that site above, the Book of jehu is not available if I read that correctly.

They claim the lost "complete" Book of Enoch is available but it is a fraud.

The Bible doesn't reference historical/secular records.

Regardless if they are available today. They are books inspired by God. How is that, because they are in the bible, the word of God.

The Enoch book is not the original.

Edited May 13, 2023 by BeyondET

[FreeGrace]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Dear Board Members,

It is genuinely fascinating, as a Christian, to study the history of science and how religious belief has played into it. Often in modern religion vs science debates, this history gets lost or forgotten.

. . . as evidence from the fossil record accumulated, it started to challenge the beliefs and assumptions of these faithful scientists. Most of all, it started to pose the following questions, that I'd love any YEC to try to answer in modern day:

1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?

2. Why are humans not found in the fossil record?

3. Why are the vast majority of fossils sea animals?

I can't recall if I have responded in this thread, but the answer to the above good questions can be answered by understanding the proper translation of Gen 1:2 rather than depend on the "traditional translation" hereafter referred to as the "TT".

TT says, "and the earth was formless and void".  However, when the key words are compared with how the translators rendered them in the rest of the OT, we see a clearly different idea.  As it is, the TT basically says that God created the earth (v.1) and the earth was formless/void.

However, the expert Hebrew translators around 400 BC translated "and" as "but", which is a conjunction of contrast, showing something different from the previous verse.  In the Hebrew, this is a disjunctive.  

a: relating to, being, or forming a logical disjunction

b: expressing an alternative or opposition between the meanings of the words connected

the disjunctive conjunction or

c: expressed by mutually exclusive alternatives joined by or

disjunctive pleading: marked by breaks or disunity

a disjunctive narrative sequence

This shows 2 separate conditions.  (of the earth).  v.1 is at original creation, and v.2 is WHEN the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland.

On 3/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

4. Why has the fossil record been precisely sorted?

Finally, as radiometric dating techniques started to gain traction, scientists were able to approximate the age of fossils. Even before this date however, they had noticed an unsettling fact: groups of species were found in the same layers or strata together, and didn't tend to appear in others.

As dating techniques started to be used, scientists discovered that creature ONLY appeared between certain dates of rock, and NEVER in others. Many YECs doubt radiometric dating techniques for various reasons, but event if radiometric dating is wrong, why are species only found between certain "dates"?

The interesting thing about radiometric dating (carbon 14 dating) is that everyone agrees that it is accurate out to about 10-15,000 years, and then begins to lose accuracy as the time lengthens.  And, most YECs place Adam somewhere between 6-10,000 years ago.  So, IF Gen 1 is all about a "creation week", then all radiometric readings by carbon 14 SHOULD show the earth to be that old.  But the measurements show the earth (rocks, etc) measure out to millions/billions of years.  Hm.  And YECs cannot explain that inconsistency.

On 3/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Conclusion

As a Christian, I would genuinely love to hear the views on YECs on all of this. However, there is a wider point.

Theories such as evolution by natural selection didn't come about in a vacuum. They were products of an age where the evidence being examined by devoutly Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. scientists was already revealing huge inconsistencies in the theory that the fossil record, and the changes in species and life it represented, could be explained by Noah's flood and the literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

I don't know your view, and I am not a YEC, but I wanted to share what I've learned from my studies from the Bible.  It seems rather clear that YECs are actually UNABLE (maybe UNWILLING) to dissociate an old earth from evolution.  There is NO connection whatsoever.  While evolution theory DEMANDS an old earth, an old earth has NO connection with evolution.

Since Gen 1:2 actually says, in spite of the TT"  But the earth BECAME an uninhabitable wasteland, it is obvious that something happened that changed the earth from its original creation.  God obviously didn't provide any details, but that is no reason to reject what is obvious.

By looking at how translators rendered the key words in v.2 in the other verses where they occur throughout the OT, we see that what I have presented is legitimate and reasonable.  I cannot think of any reason to reject it, other than wrongly assuming that anything suggesting an old earth means evolution is being defended.

Nonsense.  Evolution is just one of the many "doctrines of demons" that Paul referenced in 1 Tim 4:1.  Satan is the chief LIAR.  He takes the truth (Bible) and twists and perverts it so that it means something other than the truth.

I hope that satisfies the YECs who would otherwise label me as an evolutionist.

Unfortunately, it seems from all of Ken Ham's videos on creation/Genesis 1, he is unable or unwilling to dissociate an old earth from evolution.  He seems them as SYNONYOUS, unfortunately.  So it is imp0ssible to discuss with him, as his mind is already made up.

On 3/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Scientists genuinely believed, as the looked for fossils, that they would find overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood and biblical archaeology. But instead they found the opposite. Their predictions of what they would find based on their biblical or quranic beliefs didn't pan out at all. In many cases, they found the exact opposite. And these scientists, though devout, believed in the scientific method of making predictions and examining evidence based on these.

Perhaps any YECs on this forum could help out where these many great scientists failed?

And another good challenge is for YECs to explain how an old earth changes anything in the Bible.  What doctrines are changed, etc?  

Because the earth BECAME an uninhabited wasteland, shows that it IS way older than Adam.  So Gen 1:2ff is not "the creation story" but rather, the restoration story.

So, how does that impact anything in the Bible?

Thanks.

[teddyv]

Despite my disagreement with your interpretation of Genesis, I do agree than an old earth is not dependent on evolution. 

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

The interesting thing about radiometric dating (carbon 14 dating) is that everyone agrees that it is accurate out to about 10-15,000 years, and then begins to lose accuracy as the time lengthens.  And, most YECs place Adam somewhere between 6-10,000 years ago.  So, IF Gen 1 is all about a "creation week", then all radiometric readings by carbon 14 SHOULD show the earth to be that old.  But the measurements show the earth (rocks, etc) measure out to millions/billions of years.  Hm.  And YECs cannot explain that inconsistency.

Minor point, which may be unintentional, but the radiometric ages out to millions or billions of years would be based on methods such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, or several other methods.

[Sparks]

43 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Despite my disagreement with your interpretation of Genesis, I do agree than an old earth is not dependent on evolution. 

Minor point, which may be unintentional, but the radiometric ages out to millions or billions of years would be based on methods such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, or several other methods.

None of which work, and those methods are based on assumptions.

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

Despite my disagreement with your interpretation of Genesis, I do agree than an old earth is not dependent on evolution.

Thanks for your agreement.  :)

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

FreeGrace said: 

The interesting thing about radiometric dating (carbon 14 dating) is that everyone agrees that it is accurate out to about 10-15,000 years, and then begins to lose accuracy as the time lengthens.  And, most YECs place Adam somewhere between 6-10,000 years ago.  So, IF Gen 1 is all about a "creation week", then all radiometric readings by carbon 14 SHOULD show the earth to be that old.  But the measurements show the earth (rocks, etc) measure out to millions/billions of years.  Hm.  And YECs cannot explain that inconsistency.

Minor point, which may be unintentional, but the radiometric ages out to millions or billions of years would be based on methods such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, or several other methods.

Point being??

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Minor point, which may be unintentional, but the radiometric ages out to millions or billions of years would be based on methods such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, or several other methods.

 

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

None of which work, and those methods are based on assumptions.

You've been misled on that.   You see, we can actually calibrate some of those by known events:

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

Remarkably, we can actually use this method for material only a few thousand years old.

 

[Sparks]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

You've been misled on that.   You see, we can actually calibrate some of those by known events:

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

Remarkably, we can actually use this method for material only a few thousand years old.

They don't work at all precisely because they cannot be calibrated. 

You have probably already forgotten, but I posted some actual Ar Ar spectrometer readings and asked that they be converted from isotope to time, and no one could do it, including you. 

[The Barbarian]

 

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

You've been misled on that.   You see, we can actually calibrate some of those by known events:

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

Remarkably, we can actually use this method for material only a few thousand years old.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They don't work at all precisely because they cannot be calibrated.

See above.   Precisely what you had been told was impossible.   Doesn't matter at all whether you accept it.

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

See above.   Precisely what you had been told was impossible.   Doesn't matter at all whether you accept it.

Then find my post, and covert the sample readings of isotopes to time.