45 replies to this topic

[JayShel]

Interesting - where can i read about this?

I wrote about it with sources cited here: http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=85791

[revelation]

I wrote about it with sources cited here: http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=85791

Brilliant stuff!

Would you agree - by proving that dating methods used by evolutionists are wrong doesn't prove that the earth is young?

[JayShel]

Brilliant stuff!

Would you agree - by proving that dating methods used by evolutionists are wrong doesn't prove that the earth is young?

It certainly does disrupt some big assumptions of uniformitarian geology, calling into question when exactly rocks and fossils were laid down, but yes I would agree that in order to prove the earth young, we would need additional data such as the data which jason777 pointed out here: http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=23507

[Fred Williams]

I accept totally the massive flaws in C14 - but how does that prove a young earth?

C14 half-life is 5700 years (after 5700 years, half of it turns into Nitrogen). After 100K years, it should be completely gone. Why do we find C14 everywhere, including coal that is supposed to be millions of years old? Why do we find it in diamonds that are supposed to be millions of years old? The evolutionists have no explanation for this. They can't blame it on contamination, since their own experiments under the greatest of care to prevent contamination still yields C14.

Perhaps a lot of carbon was buried in some global disaster in the distant past? More details are available in this thread on the topic.

Fred

[Fred Williams]

revelation, do you really think this dinosaur bone is millions of years old?



Much more here: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

[Fred Williams]

Genesis opens with the statement ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Many Bible scholars agree this verse describes an action separate from the creative days. Thus the Bible does not state the age of the earth. As for the length of each ‘creative day’ the Hebrew word translated ‘day’ can mean various lengths of time. At Genesis 2:4 Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. Also, on the first creative day God called light Day and the darkness night – only a portion of the period was called Day. There is no indication that the ‘creative days’ were 24 hours long.

Would you agree your position is a problem if the vast majority of Hebrew scholars, who have no stake in our squabble about the age of the earth, completely disagree with you? Here is a thread with many reasons why your position has serious problems with scripture. Jesus clearly is YEC.

[Salsa]

Genesis opens with the statement ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Many Bible scholars agree this verse describes an action separate from the creative days.

Based on what?

[revelation]

revelation, do you really think this dinosaur bone is millions of years old?



Much more here: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

I'm sorry mate - have you actually read what I've written...

[NewPath]

Genesis opens with the statement ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Many Bible scholars agree this verse describes an action separate from the creative days. Thus the Bible does not state the age of the earth. As for the length of each ‘creative day’ the Hebrew word translated ‘day’ can mean various lengths of time. At Genesis 2:4 Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. Also, on the first creative day God called light Day and the darkness night – only a portion of the period was called Day. There is no indication that the ‘creative days’ were 24 hours long.

On this point I agree with the YEC's , the bible is pretty clear that there was originally complete darkness. Then we have these cycles of evenings and mornings making up a day. Yes most scripture is completely open to interpretation because the bible is not written to be a legal document. Legal documents are written in such a way as to eliminate all possible misinterpretations. The bible is written in such a way that only those who are open to truth will see what's already obvious.

Most of the time we look at the bible through our preconceived notions and so we are not open to the obvious truth. But regarding this particular point I feel the wording is pretty obviously referring to a standard day of an evening and a morning and so I definitely disagree with you about non-literal days. No use arguing the point because the bible is symbolic and so you are open to read it however you want.

ps regarding Genesis 2:4 I believe this is referring to Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth and the universe that occurred at one moment before the six days of creation, before the earth's surface saw light. I don't believe Genesis 2:4 is referring to Genesis 1:4-10 , which is the creation of the visible sky and the land, created from the watery sky (mist) and the sea.

[JayShel]

Brilliant stuff!

Would you agree - by proving that dating methods used by evolutionists are wrong doesn't prove that the earth is young?

To piggy back on the lava dating, I believe either of two things may have happened to explain it. Either God created the world in the beginning, before the literal six days of creation, thus allowing for long ages of radiometric decay within the lava before life (although I don't know if we see layers containing lava before life began and there certainly would have been lava flows over the course of millions of years after earth was formed), or there is a natural occurrence, either catastrophic such as the hydroplate theory explained here: http://www.creations...ioactivity.html, or over the course of 6000 years that accelerated radiometric decay rates.

[revelation]

To piggy back on the lava dating, I believe either of two things may have happened to explain it. Either God created the world in the beginning, before the literal six days of creation, thus allowing for long ages of radiometric decay within the lava before life (although I don't know if we see layers containing lava before life began and there certainly would have been lava flows over the course of millions of years after earth was formed), or thed re is a natural occurrence, either catastrophic such as the hydroplate theory explained here: http://www.creations...ioactivity.html, or over the course of 6000 years that accelerated radiometric decay rates.

I've read the links you suggested. Just a couple of questions:

1) Why is it assumed here that if you don't accept a young earth you must accept humans have been around for millions of years? Obviously anyone who believes in creation must reject c14 dating, etc. But that doesn't prove the earth is young.

2) Why is it 'clear' that the Bible says the creative days are 24 hrs but the Bible clearly says the 7th day is thousands of years long?

I have to be honest mate, I've read nothing that changes my view:

The earth's age is unknown. The wording of Genesis (in the original Hebrew) allows for this. A liitle research shows that many Hebrew scholars view the first verse as a statement to mankind that it was God who created everything.
The age of the universe is unknown.
Mankind was created 6,000 years ago.

[JayShel]

I've read the links you suggested. Just a couple of questions:

1) Why is it assumed here that if you don't accept a young earth you must accept humans have been around for millions of years? Obviously anyone who believes in creation must reject c14 dating, etc. But that doesn't prove the earth is young.

2) Why is it 'clear' that the Bible says the creative days are 24 hrs but the Bible clearly says the 7th day is thousands of years long?

I have to be honest mate, I've read nothing that changes my view:

The earth's age is unknown. The wording of Genesis (in the original Hebrew) allows for this. A liitle research shows that many Hebrew scholars view the first verse as a statement to mankind that it was God who created everything.
The age of the universe is unknown.
Mankind was created 6,000 years ago.

I tend to agree with you. Dr Walt Brown believes in a young earth. He may be on to something, or you may be on to something. I think only Jesus really knows. I would tend to agree with you on this, but the more I look at evidence on both sides, the less certain I become about young or old earth. That is why my profile shows I am a creationist, I don't hold my beliefs in the age of the earth tightly. Old earth sources tend to compromise on geologic column, allowing progressive creation etc etc and regurgitating talk origins cleansed of its anti-God rhetoric, so I am wary of them. Young Earth sources usually make more sense, but hammer home their interpretation which I am not fully convinced of.

[Fred Williams]

The earth's age is unknown. The wording of Genesis (in the original Hebrew) allows for this. A liitle research shows that many Hebrew scholars view the first verse as a statement to mankind that it was God who created everything.

Many scholars? Sorry revelation, but I have to pull out the baloney detector. Show us your research that "many" Hebrew language scholars believe this! According to one of the foremost Hebrew language experts in the world (who passed not long ago), it is considered quackery in his field to believe that Genesis was not written as a historical account of 6 literal 24 hour days. This highly qualified person was not a Christian so he had no stake in the debate, and therefore essentially no bias on this subject. Why is it that everywhere else in the Bible, and in every other piece of literature we know of, that a day with an ordinal as a qualifier, with morning as a qualifier, and evening as a qualifier, always means a literal 24 hour day? But no, only in Genesis 1, in all of literature, can we dismiss it as not literal. Sounds like there is an agenda here, and the agenda is an attempt by compromising Christians to shoe-horn in man's fallible opinions about dating methods, so that he is acceptable to his fellow secular man, to fit in with the world, since the secularists have generally succeeded in making society think that believing in a young earth is stupid.

I invite you to comment on this thread.

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty." 1 Cor 1:27

Fred

[Fred Williams]

I'm sorry mate - have you actually read what I've written...

Yes I have, why are you being allusive? I'm interested in your opinion of the scientific arguments raised in this thread. How about the Helium problem, that not only refutes an old earth, but showed scientifically (via prediction, experiment, independent results), that the earth is roughly 6000 years old? You can read about it here (and comment if you like).

Fred

[Calypsis4]

Revelation, quote: "I'm sorry mate - have you actually read what I've written..."


Fred Williams quote: "Yes I have, why are you being allusive?..."

Well, mate, are you going to answer him?

[JayShel]

Revelation, quote: "I'm sorry mate - have you actually read what I've written..."


Fred Williams quote: "Yes I have, why are you being allusive?..."

Well, mate, are you going to answer him?

Life gets busy, I am sure we will hear back from him in due time. I know you're eager to see his thoughts on this but pestering people about responses (not so much if they ignore a response completely which can be tactfully pointed out, but mostly about the speed with which they respond) is against the forum rules brother. Not everyone visits the forum daily, and I am seeing in his profile that he was last active on this forum 3 hours before Fred made that post. If he were to strike up new conversations on the forum without ever responding, now that would be rather telling and might warrant you to urge him to respond.

[Calypsis4]

Life gets busy, I am sure we will hear back from him in due time. I know you're eager to see his thoughts on this but pestering people about responses (not so much if they ignore a response completely which can be tactfully pointed out, but mostly about the speed with which they respond) is against the forum rules brother. Not everyone visits the forum daily, and I am seeing in his profile that he was last active on this forum 3 hours before Fred made that post. If he were to strike up new conversations on the forum without ever responding, now that would be rather telling and might warrant you to urge him to respond.

O.K. we'll wait.

[usafjay1976]

I found this article and I think it explains the 'day dilemna' quite well. Take a look.

http://www.gotquesti...nesis-days.html

[Reptoman]

Throwing my two cent sin--I lean towards Y.E. but I have gotten less wrapped up into a strict postion of 6,000 years. Some believe a gap, others believe "room" for a longer period between animal creation and set in the biosphere from the beginning. Here are some links I have posted several times. Here are the interesting results of this C14 process of dating the actual bones that are not supposed to ahve an carbon 14 left in them???

1. The actual age of Mammals, Dinos, Mosasurus, Mammoths, and man all date to approximately the same of under 50,000 years.
2. The all lived concurrently at the same time, this backs up the creation narrative and what creationists have been saying for over 50 years.
3. The bones should have no, I repett no; Carbon 14 in them if they are 65 million years old?
4. The mas spectrometer at University of Arizona and others all concur with the same results when the bones are sequenced using this method.
5. Creationists author and scientist Dr. Carl Werner has documented over 432 mammal species in the fossil record that are found with Dinos. but not one of these are displayed with dinos in our museums...one must assume this is on purpose.....Also it is a known fact that the Chinese fossil record includes birds (modern,) Mammals, and others that are never shown to be in relation to each other by Evolutionary inferences using the phylogenetic tree which is a hoax....

This carbon 14 method as it improves "may" end up being the creationists most friendly and reliable way of proving our ideas.

Please read this and compare to our conversations above. I clearly lean towards a Young Earth, how young, I am not sure, given the Geneis narrative there is room of more than 6,000 years, there are some that are literlists that only have one possible reading of the Genesis scenario I am open to future explanations and discoveries that open the bible up. So I am not firm on 6,000 years, but I can see that working too. But I throw this out for you all to consider????

http://www.dinosaurc...arbondating.htm
http://www.newgeolog...y Carbon-14.pdf

[joman]

I think that the most obvious reason the cosmos is not old is given by looking as far out as we can visually and noting for ourselves that things distant look the same as things that are near.

That things at all distances that are huge exhibit structure as well as things that are tiny and near.

That nothing distant has lost significant energy. Noting as a tracker would, that the still warm campfire means the builder was there not long ago.

That the energy that has significantly dissipated in particular locations at all distances are seen to have done so by means of a explosive catastrophic event and not slowly.

That huge objects exhibit phenomenon that is coordinated across itself over vast distances as if time and distance was of no consequence.

That nothing seen is anything that is becoming anything structural and formative of a new thing.

The earth may have sat in the cold, cold deep for a long time. Who can know it if nothing energetic was occurring?

And, who can date the time when energetic things occurred?

All the stable atoms may have sat like a chunk of deep froken ice for who knows how long.
And all the unstable atoms are formed by some outside energy pulsed into them to excite them to unstable levels from which they then are determined to return to stability by any means possible. And, we don't know by physics means when the energetic events began. So, we can assume what materials existed, and assume when and how then obtained energies, and the rate at which those energies began to dissipate and how, and that many energies catastrophically self destructed or were triggered by an outside force, and on and on. But, a honest scientist will eventually be forced to admit, (being honest and all) that he doesn't know much about all the things that occurred in the past and when.

But, surprisingly that ancient book of Genesis written by non-scientists supposedly, and supposedly ignorant folk by today's measure of ourselves, did tell us when energies were ignited. For, it testifies that God said at some moment, Let there be light.
And, we note that that first light wasn't lumped light for no lumped masses were formed nor distributed around till later.
So, all the mass that existed warmed and glowed and all was diffused with light.
And that happened on the first day, which God knew was the first day, and how long a first day was since, all designers of anything necessarily know the parameters involved before the thing they fabricate is finished. It's not as if any clock maker doesn't already know the time of day and how accurate his clock will be and how long a second is.

So, from the Holy Bible are given the testimony of a beginning day and moment and subsequent days to follow. And we all know what a morning and an evening day is I would think.

After that week it is quite obvious as one of the first posters pointed out, that history of man on earth is not a long tale to tell. And, of course, if the population growth is understandable and the Jews genealogical history that has been well preserved is useful as a reference work about populating places, then arriving at today's earth population is proof that man hasn't been populating very long. That is obvious I would think.

And since the table of nations given in Genesis chapter ten is still a reference work depended upon by all serious students of migration and developement of nations, tribes, races, families etc...it is clear that no great events have disturbed the migration much over any long time.

And since there are still about 7,ooo languages that are each equal in ability to communicate all manner of notions, and since, we see that man has no natural propensity to create any of them, struggling as they do with the mechanical ones much less any such as the vastly more subtle and expressive spoken ones, then the dispertion of nations by languages wasn't long ago. And since there is no written nor oral history of language creation by all the diverse languaged people of the earth it is quite obvious that immense diversities of languages merely arrived suddenly one day, as Genesis states.
And since languages are all deteriorating and not becoming more subtle and expressive.
It is clear that the history of man is a short and sweet one.

And since all migrations of whatever living thing that can be determined to have migrated, did so from one location on earth, it is clear that getting off an ark is a good starting point to intuitively ponder.

No I see no evidence that the world is old or that the earth is determinedly old. But, it may be. But, energetic sources certainly aren't at the cosmic level. And on earth we can't say where the energies manifested in dense radioactive source materials came from. Since, we don't see any such weighty materials arriving from the great beyond. So, it appears that some event on earth occurred to excite materials to the unstable states they exhibit now. And who can tell when that event happened or how.

Who really knows what the mechanicl energy of a continent of mass driven frictionally over a basement of rock might produce and throw out on to the surface of the earth when cracks form? And with everything cooling at every conceivable rate over unspecified periods of time due to external forces of cooling etc...well again who knows? If a crystal is big it had to have grown in a hot melt allowing movement of the materials to supply it's formation. But, how hot, how much material was available, how long was it available, how rapidly did it cool, etc etc. again, who can tell for surely sure?
But, it couldn't have been a long time.

The destructive power of a global flood of water that could have been about 8,ooo feet deep over the whole earth which horizontal movement of sediments and continental shields driving massive amounts of rock into the air to the heights seen today with flood deposits on many of them, is incalculable except to admit it did the job of washing away and destroying all scientific factual evidences of what was before it.