Evidence for a young Earth

[seanD]

Man ... I just explained the comparison I was making in the post you replied to! I'm much too tired to continue explaining and re-explaining to someone who doesn't seem to want to understand what I'm writing. Good night, seanD.

--Sam

Well, if you're not just modifying it along the way, it's a really silly comparison, I got tell you. You don't want to include all the creationists as the Judaizers in your analogy, just the ones that teach it to others (or that personally irk you) lol. Come on.

[Xru]

Well this OP generated a lot of interest. Even lpot posted some.

Then there are those of us that that don't care . . .

BTW, I brought this soft-tissue bit up several months ago . . . and didn't get this much action. I remember .. . Lao Tzu explained it to me.

I still think there is something fishy about the whole thing though. But then I always think there is a conspiracy about everything . . . almost.

Well then I just can't suppress a laugh when YEC try and support that position. Sorry. It's just so funny, choke choke.

[oxmixmudd]

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that the "fall of mankind" dates from some evolutionary ancestor. Now, currently we don't know exactly what species ours branched from - we are unable to reconstruct the clade from common ancestor with chimps all the way to current humans. Presumably ONE of these intermediate species suffered "the fall", or maybe the fall was gradual and cumulative, falling further with each speciation? Are these the sort of unanswered questions you're talking about?

More or less. If there ever was a topic that lends itself to accommodation, this would be it. The complexities of a long process where individual moral choices ultimately produced the inevitable choice to sin in all members of that species is far more effectively communicated to a primarily illiterate culture in a story like what we find in genesis than the kind of technical expose that would make YEC's concede their position.

Of course that is just one potential mapping of the text that is consistent with Christian theology of the fall of man. And my point is not to promote a specific solution as much as to point out there are solutions consistent with Paul's statements in Romans and what science reveals concerning the history of life.

Jim

[lao tzu]

Christians that interpret Genesis literally just like Paul did

See, Sam. If you're a bemused by Sean's willingness to tell you what you write, and what you mean by it, be reassured that you're in good company. Assuming you consider Paul good company that is. Well, highly regarded company, let's say, and sing our kum bah yah's.

[Jorge]

Then you should agree that Jesus must have been speaking figuratively
since mankind was not present at the beginning (the first day).
Though we may disagree what exactly the first day constitutes there is
no disagreement that Adam wasn't around yet.

**************************************************************

Good heavens !!! You have GOT to be kidding !!!

I'll grant you the benefit of doubt and say that you're just joking here.
Because if you're not, then you have far surpassed Tiggy in a disgraceful
category that would get me banned should I mention it.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that the "fall of mankind" dates from some evolutionary ancestor. Now, currently we don't know exactly what species ours branched from - we are unable to reconstruct the clade from common ancestor with chimps all the way to current humans. Presumably ONE of these intermediate species suffered "the fall", or maybe the fall was gradual and cumulative, falling further with each speciation? Are these the sort of unanswered questions you're talking about?

****************************************************************

Hey, phank, if you - as an Atheist - are perplexed by O-Mudd's beliefs, don't
feel bad or dumb. Richard Dawkins - a comrade Atheist of yours - feels
exactly the same way.

"I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way,
in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say,
sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think
they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there
is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think
I realized that about the age of sixteen." Richard Dawkins

Even militant Atheists realize what certain "Christians" willingly refuse to see.

Biblical Creationists like myself are equally baffled.
Everyone is puzzled (except 'them', of course) and that's because they make
it up as they go along, constantly changing their stories as needed.



The reason for us all to be dizzy over O-Mudd's position is simple : you can't
get it from the Bible and you can't get it from natural science, so, where the
heck do these people come up with their cow-excrement nonsense?


So again, phank, don't feel bad in any way about not grasping the babblings
of Theistic Evolutionists. Anyone with an IQ above that of a carrot would
also be scratching his(her) head on the mumbo-jumbo of these people.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I have to admit as a non-Christian I find the bile and nastiness exchanged between Christians on this topic confusing. There are many things that Christians of good faith and integrity have disagreed about with regards to interpretation of the Bible. My observation at least on this board is that YEC Christians do seem to err on the side of assigning nefarious motives to non-YECers more often than the reverse. It may just be due to the personalities of those involved. It is certainly not a good look. I am repelled by the Christianity exemplified by Jorge. I admire and respect the Christianity exemplified by Rogue, Lucaspa and Ansgar quite apart from any particular position they hold. If I was ever going to be attracted to Christianity again, it would be people like these who would be instrumental.

Prediction: Jorge is going to claim my admiration for those I have named PROVES just how wrong and compromising they are.

*****************************************************

Your prediction is hardly a prediction - sort of like "predicting" that if you
toss a bucket of water on a car, that this action will make the car wet.

For over three decades I have observed how Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists
get along so much better than Atheists and Biblical Creationists. That is no
accident or coincidence, there are obvious reasons for this.

But I shan't waste my time trying to explain the obvious to you.

Jorge

[Wally]

But I shan't waste my time trying to explain the obvious to you.

You just did.

[rogue06]

**************************************************************

Good heavens !!! You have GOT to be kidding !!!

I'll grant you the benefit of doubt and say that you're just joking here.
Because if you're not, then you have far surpassed Tiggy in a disgraceful
category that would get me banned should I mention it.

Jorge

It's kind of amusing how those who insist that the creation account must, Must, MUST be read literally and that Jesus' statement that humans were around since the beginning is literal then turn around and don't take it literally at all.

It should be kept in mind that Jesus was speaking on the topic of divorce when he said "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" He was not teaching about creation.

Further, and this will really get under your skin, that statement makes perfect sense from an evolutionary stand point. Of course they were male and female from the beginning. This is a bit clearer in the parallel passage Matthew 19:4: “Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning ‘made them male and female’?" They were male and female from the beginning.

Obviously, Jesus knew Adam and Eve appeared at the end of the creation process meaning that the “beginning” he is speaking of here isn't the beginning of the history of the universe. Instead it refers to the beginning of human history with Adam and Eve.

[rogue06]

From post #561:

****************************************************************

Hey, phank, if you - as an Atheist - are perplexed by O-Mudd's beliefs, don't
feel bad or dumb. Richard Dawkins - a comrade Atheist of yours - feels
exactly the same way.

"I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way,
in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say,
sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think
they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there
is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think
I realized that about the age of sixteen." Richard Dawkins

Even militant Atheists realize what certain "Christians" willingly refuse to see.

Immediately below it at post #562:

*****************************************************


For over three decades I have observed how Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists
get along so much better than Atheists and Biblical Creationists. That is no
accident or coincidence, there are obvious reasons for this.

[Cerebrum123]

But we aren't looking at scale of history according to today's science (sorry to see that the word science forces you to use scare quotes), we are looking at whether man was around at the beginning. It doesn't matter whether that beginning was billions of years ago or a few thousand years ago. The fact remains that all can agree that man was not around since the beginning. The only way to say otherwise is to mean it figuratively.

I would like you to take a look at Marshall Janzen's post. He shows how the word "creation" in that passage, depending on how it was meant, can easily fit in with either of our views, and can indeed put man at "the beginning of creation". I am going to take a look at the Greek, and find out which Greek word was used, and see what it implies. Also, as for the "scare quotes" around science, whenever I put science like that, I am specifically referring to ToE, and the kind of things like Lyell's interpretation of the geologic record. You see, I see the problem as being that we are not interpreting the evidence correctly(I know how you guys hate that one, but evidence is interpreted, whether or not you will admit it).

[oxmixmudd]

I would like you to take a look at Marshall Janzen's post. He shows how the word "creation" in that passage, depending on how it was meant, can easily fit in with either of our views, and can indeed put man at "the beginning of creation". I am going to take a look at the Greek, and find out which Greek word was used, and see what it implies. Also, as for the "scare quotes" around science, whenever I put science like that, I am specifically referring to ToE, and the kind of things like Lyell's interpretation of the geologic record. You see, I see the problem as being that we are not interpreting the evidence correctly(I know how you guys hate that one, but evidence is interpreted, whether or not you will admit it).

Is is possible, Cerebrum, that we could discuss that evidence? It IS good to see you admit this passage fits either 'interpretation' of the evidence. That means, at least as far as this passage is concerned, it's just a matter of understanding what the evidence points to, as opposed to some assertion there is one and only one thing the scriptures could possibly mean on this matter.

The issue is not so much that I can't admit the evidence is 'interpreted', it is the assertion there are many possible legitimate interpretations. As I see it, concerning the age of the Earth, one could draw an analogy between the data we have and the set of legitimate interpretations and a puzzle of thousands of pieces that is being constructed that has a picture of a nature scene on it. In reality, each puzzle piece has one or very few places it can legitimately be placed. Sure it is possible that in the early phases of constructing the puzzle a few pieces may appear to fit where they do not belong, but as the puzzle is constructed, fairly early on the picture on the front begins to take form. And after a while, it may become quite obvious this is a mountain scene and not a seashore, and then more and more details emerge.

As those details emerge, the few pieces that were out of place stand out, and the reality it, for the most part, the fact they were out of place has very, very little to say about whether this is a mountain scene or a seashore.

Old Universe/Young Universe is like a Mountain scene vs. a Seashore. The big picture emerged quickly. The differences between the two possibilities can be discerned in the majority of the substructures that are constructed, and by the time just a small portion of the picture is constructed, we know we are NOT dealing with Young Earth anymore. This happened very early on in the science of geology. Then of course there is astronomy where the simple vastness of the universe and the fundamental limitations associated with the speed of light scream out for millions and billions of years of functional history.

But chose your topic Cerebrum as relates simply to how OLD the universe is, or the Earth is, lets forget the history of life for now. Start a thread or continue in this one - but lets look at what the reasonable set of possible pictures are. Lets not be obscure - let's hit some aspect of the major players. The geological state of the Earth and the solar system, the distances to the stars and galaxies, the history implied by the state of the local stars and dust clouds or the state of the geology of the Earth.

I contend that given the very generalized choices of a universe <100,000 years in age and the universe >1,000,000,000 years in age, there is only ONE option that can accommodate >95% of the data, with no other option able to accommodate more that a very small percentage of the data in any consistent fashion. Likewise the geological state of the Earth: given <100,000 years vs >100,000,000 years, there is only ONE option that can accommodate >95% of the data, with no other option able to accommodate more than a small percentage of that data.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

****************************************************************

Hey, phank, if you - as an Atheist - are perplexed by O-Mudd's beliefs, don't
feel bad or dumb. Richard Dawkins - a comrade Atheist of yours - feels
exactly the same way.

"I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way,
in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say,
sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think
they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there
is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think
I realized that about the age of sixteen." Richard Dawkins

Even militant Atheists realize what certain "Christians" willingly refuse to see.

Biblical Creationists like myself are equally baffled.
Everyone is puzzled (except 'them', of course) and that's because they make
it up as they go along, constantly changing their stories as needed.



The reason for us all to be dizzy over O-Mudd's position is simple : you can't
get it from the Bible and you can't get it from natural science, so, where the
heck do these people come up with their cow-excrement nonsense?


So again, phank, don't feel bad in any way about not grasping the babblings
of Theistic Evolutionists. Anyone with an IQ above that of a carrot would
also be scratching his(her) head on the mumbo-jumbo of these people.

Jorge

Given your mention of me here to Phank and your general trend lately to simply ignore my posts, I think it is funny Jorge that you have gotten to the point you are no longer capable of any coherent argument directly with me on any subject. Indeed, the last few times you tried to engage me you so lacked self-control that you got yourself banned essentially every time!

That is a significant statement as to the viability of your position Jorge. You must pretend those that seriously challenge your position as Christians don't exist, and you simply do not have the self-control to engage me/them on those issues without violating those most basic of principles as enforced on this site.

I feel for those like Cerebrum who attempt to present a reasoned front for the YEC position against the backdrop of total lack of self-control and inane and useless insults one after the other that you offer as a 'leader' in YECdom.



Jim

[Kristian Joense]

"I contend that given the very generalized choices of a universe <100,000 years in age and the universe >1,000,000,000 years in age, there is only ONE option that can accommodate >95% of the data, with no other option able to accommodate more that a very small percentage of the data in any consistent fashion. Likewise the geological state of the Earth: given <100,000 years vs >100,000,000 years, there is only ONE option that can accommodate >95% of the data, with no other option able to accommodate more than a small percentage of that data."

oxmidmudd, lets say I concede this for the sake of argument. Should I give up up on YECism? I don't see why. It could be the case that there are new scientific discoveries waiting to happen that bridge the gap. This could either be new scientific theories, hypothesis and conjectures that are compatible both with the observed data and YECism or these could be in the forms of new data being discovered that is compatible with a young earth/universe but not an old earth/universe.

Imagine a hypothetical alternative universe to ours where 100% of all observations made for the first 12,000 years support a old universe but 100% of all observations made for the next 5 billion years support a young universe(obviously it won't continue to be young at that point, but I trust you know what I mean).

Who is to say that we don't live in such a universe or one similar to it?

IMO the biblical evidence trumps all scientific evidence, past, present or future.

[lucaspa]

As per all known chemistry and physics, soft tissue and DNA
cannot and should not be around for millions of years - period!

What chemistry and physics are you referring to? Soft tissue and DNA are degraded by 1) microbes, 2) water and oxygen. If you have fossilization such that both of those are excluded, there is nothing inherent in the molecules to completely degrade them. What you are going to get are breaks in the polymers (both proteins and DNA are polymers, one of amino acids and the other of nucleic acids), but not complete degradation. And this is indeed what was found in the first paper by Schwietzer and Horner with the T. Rex fossil: "MOR 1125 cortical and medullary wholebone extracts showed reactivity to antibodies raised against chicken collagen I (11) when measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA), although the degree of binding varied widely"

Antibodies only look at parts of proteins -- what are called the "epitopes". They are peptides. And again the paper said this explicitly: "The hypothesis that molecular fragments of original proteins are preserved in the mineralized matrix of bony elements of MOR 1125 is supported by peptide sequences recovered
from dinosaur extracts, some of which align uniquely with chicken collagen a1 type"


Now, there is very little protein left: "The amount of protein or protein-like components in MOR 1125 is minimal. The percent yield after extraction and lyophilization was ~0.62% for cortical bone and 1.3% for medullary
bone."

If you wish to invoke unknown laws of physics and chemistry
then be my guest. However, I wouldn't call that 'science'.

I never invoked any 'unknown' process. Neither did the authors:
"We hypothesize that these molecular fragments are preserved because reactive sites on the original protein molecules became irreversibly cross-linked, both to similar molecules and to mineral or exogenous organic components. These
cross-linking reactions may have been initiated by unstable metal ions that formed free radicals (30, 31), which in turn reacted with organic molecules
to form polymers (6, 7, 9, 32)" Notice those 6 references (the numbers in the parentheses. They refer to other scientific studies where the phenomona have been observed. So, once the collagen had taken part in these reactions:

"We propose
that the unstable metal ions were derived from the
post mortem degradation of iron-containing dinosaur biomolecules such as hemoglobin, myoglobin, and possibly cytochromes (9, 31). Once stabilized by these cross-linking reactions, the molecules were no longer available as substrates for further degradative reactions."

As I said, a protein, left to itself, will last nearly forever. There has to be a specific process to degrade it. Otherwise, the covalent bonds holding the amino acids together are stable. If those bonds are protected, then chemistry tells us the proteins will last tens of millions of years.

There is one thing about the Evo-Faithful that is infuriating!
They will fervently maintain a position that the ToE says should
be true.

How about we stick to the data and leave character assassination out of it?

As soon as evidence surfaces that invalidates that position,
they simply move the goalposts so that the ToE now "agrees" with
the newly-discovered evidence.

Please stop psychologically projecting weaknesses of creationists onto scientists. Remember, creationism used to be the accepted scientific theory. If scientists could admit it was wrong in the face of contrary data, we can admit that evolution is wrong if the data is really contrary. Ironically, the Schweitzer and Horner paper caused such a stir because it showed a well accepted theory to be wrong. The theory that proteins will not be present in fossils 80 million years old was well established. Yet it has been dumped by the data presented by Schweitzer and Horner.

What you seem to want is that we use the data to dump the ages of the fossils themselves. That we cannnot do because the fossils are dated by independent methods to that age. There isn't justification for deciding the age is wrong.

A good example of this was the Punctuated Equilibrium fiasco
of Gould & Eldredge (G&E). Ever since Darwin, it was predicted
and accepted by essentially every Evolutionist that change had
to be "gradual, occurring over many, many generations".

And PE doesn't change that. PE still has change being gradual in that it takes many, many generations. Here, let Gould himself explain your misconception:
>"Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate changes. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enourmously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved woudl seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime." Stephen J. Gould, Science and Creationism, A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, pg 29, 1999. www.nap.edu

This was regarded as a basic "law / principle" in the ToE.
This is one of the reasons why they MUST have millions of years.

The millions and millions of years were there by 1831. Darwin was still on the Beagle and hadn't even thought of evolution yet. By that time scientists (ALL of whom were Christians and most were ministers) had given up on a "creation week" and the theory was of "successive creations" separated by tens of millions of years.

So, G&E concocted Punctuated Equilibrium and with that the ToE
"agreed" with the fossil evidence! That has to be one of the
vilest displays of intellectual dishonesty in the history of science.
Why was it accepted? Simple - because it saved the day for the ToE.

Wow. You might want to watch your false witness, that is a violation of a Commandment, you know.
"Many species once formed never undergo any further change, but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 4th and later editions, pg. 408-409

Compare that to what Gould said above. Gould wasn't "saving" evolution, since evolution had always held that there were different rates of change. Allopatric speciation had been observed in the period 1940-1960 several times. What is more, there were a few series of gradual changes of individuals to new species and higher taxa in the fossil record. What Gould and Eldredge realized was that the fossil record was really showing a record of allopatric speciation: small populations geographically isolated and transforming to a new species while the large parent populationn remaind stable. It was a great contribution, but it was hardly "dishonest". BTW, my avatar is of one of those rare gradual transformations in the fossil record in a paper by Gould.

Anyway, I hope you learned something here.

Jorge[/QUOTE]