Evidence for a young Earth

[pancreasman]

There is also plenty of evidence that the Earth is younger than 'They' say it is.

Magellan

Great. List some please.

Response? ...

[rogue06]

Must be kinda tough to tap dance in clown shoes

[Cerebrum123]

No - it's not. To make the text 'consistent' with what we see today, you must first arbitrarily decide, based on what science teaches us, the relegate large portions of the text of 'metaphor' or 'unclear writing'. This is NOT what was happening in Galileo's day. In his day people simply read the text and took it to mean what it plainly said. These days, not only do we relegate much of what the text says about the cosmos to metaphor, we sometimes intentionally avoid translating the text into what it actually says. (specifically the text of Genesis that refers to raqia or firmament, that is often in modern translations rendered 'expanse' because the word can imply a large extended SURFACE which can be translated 'expanse' in english, whereas we modern folk with our common knowledge of the cosmos see this word as referring to a large open space - something the word most certainly does NOT mean).

Sorry, but the "raqiyah" was most certainly NOT a solid dome above their heads, and you don't have any proof that the AUTHOR of Genesis believed this, in fact we have evidence to the contrary. Namely the fact that the "raqiyah" was NAMED the shamayim, making the two INTERCHANGEABLE. When you take this into account you have birds flying IN the "raqiyah"(how is something supposed to fly in a solid object?). Sorry but you are taking the Bible and looking at it through a lens of modern science, and the pagan cultures surrounding Israel, not a good way to look at the Bible.

But consider how much of the text we force into metaphor based on what we know of science: The waters above the raqia, the earth fixed and unshakable, the sun and moon not really stopping on Joshua's long day, the windows of heaven not being real openings into the heavens, the sun not really traversing the underbelly of the Earth to return to the spot from which it rises, God not actually peering down form heaven or actually tossing hailstones or thunderbolts and so on and so on. All things the writers most certainly meant as literal, all things we modern readers relegate to metaphor based on science.

Most of these references are CLEARLY poetic, and the others fit into "phenomological" descriptions. It has to do with the point of reference of the observer.

No, I could go on quite a bit. But you have made the assumption that in spite of the FACT that people in 1500 BC and before:

Thought the Earth was flat or rounded
Thought the sky was a surface above which God or the 'gods' lived
Thought the sun actually rose and set and traversed the sky,
Thought that the rain in the clouds was filled from windows in heaven above which were vast resevoirs of water
Thought the Earth was fixed and did not move
Even likey though the vast sky dome was held up by pillars
Thought there were vast resevoirs of water under the Earth and even that the Earth floated on these waters

In spite of all these being exactly who the Biblical text describes the Earth and the visible cosmos

You have evidence of OTHER CULTURES believing these things, and you have taken their view and used it to interpret the Bible, and added in some modern science.

You think that somehow the text is not really consistent with these ideas, and that it was somehow not the authors intent to convey these ideas as the text was written.

Actually, it's consistent with BOTH. The language in Genesis is VERY equivocal, and you could get a lot of meanings out of them if you looked hard enough.

Although, In fact, the text transcends these ideas, it still most certainly and plainly and literally includes them. And as such, we can not learn about the true nature of the cosmos from these references.

I haven't seen much evidence that the text "transcends" these ideas, only evidence that people read these ideas INTO the Bible, which is eisgesis.

Which is irrelevant. The reasons the science of today is held in high esteem today is because it enables us to understand and control and predict the behavior of the cosmos. The so called 'science' that regarded Geocentrism was simply common sense notions that were consistent with the literal text of scripture.

Actually it's NOT irrelevant. There was a previous battle on heliocentrism verses geocentrism, but geocentrism won, because it's models could predict astrological measurements more accurately. http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...orbits-the-sun

Where they differ of course is that the former can be used to send probes to pluto or give us stereoscopic images of the sun, the latter is primarily only useful for finding cause to lock up people that disagree.

Right on the first part, but wrong on the second. I assume you are talking about locking up Galileo, but he wasn't locked up for his ideas, but for his arrogance, and for defying a direct order from the Pope of the time. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html
Basically Galileo was an arrogant jerk, and even mocked those who while disagreeing with him, had up to that time treated him rather fairly.

I understand. You conception of why you should believe in God rests on the Idea that Genesis ought to be able to be read literally and translated into a science text. To you, since we can't really do that if science is correct, the only choices that exist are that all of science is wrong, or all of the bible is wrong. It is impossible, even inconceivable to you that God might have inspired the text without first expunging all residual human weakness from the writer, down to every whit of cultural knowledge or background.

Um, NO that is completely false, I just realize that Genesis is written as historical narrative, and that it should be read as such. This means that it's history is going to be correct when it touches on things that science now studies, like astronomy, biology, and even geology. So far all the evidence I have seen points in favor of this, and only ad hoc excuses, and very stupid things that come from rejecting this view have been seen by me(an example of such crazy ideas are "Lucifer's Flood").

is of course, ludicrous, since anyone can see that the text reflects directly on in the style of language used and the education personality of the authors. There is no way to justify such an assumption, especially when the text is so plainly referring to ancient conceptions of the cosmos.

If you believe in Biblical inerrancy, and that all Scripture is "God breathed", then NO it is NOT an unjustified assumption, and since the rest of the Bible points to both of those ideas, then it is supported even more.

IOW, God has made it as plain as day that gifting the authors with modern Physics degrees was NOT in His plan. Why is that so hard for you to simply accept and submit to?


Jim

Since I don't believe the above, then it is simply a straw man. I simply believe that Genesis is historical narrative, and is therefore 100% trustworthy when it comes to history, and I have no reason to doubt that at this time.

[rogue06]

I simply believe that Genesis is historical narrative

While much of Genesis is essentially a form of history it is not necessarily the type of history as we today typically consider history. The concept of history is not a univocal one. The concept of history as we know it today (i.e., as it actually happened) was actually developed in the first part of the 19th century.

Mere chronology, so important in much of our Western writing, doesn't appear to have been such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found: even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51 and Psalm 105:24-37. The emphasis in the creation narrative (compare Gen 1:2) appears to be on form (days 1-3) followed by fullness (days 4-6) climaxed by day 7. There is a very logical order; whether it is also entirely chronological is disputed.

As I have mentioned before, I think that the principal values to be gained from reading Genesis aren’t scientific or historical in nature, but are rather religious in nature. The intent of the first couple chapters is to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. The creation account doesn’t maintain material of a scientific nature useful to biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, physics, zoology... nor was that ever the objective. Instead it discusses the ancient questions of mankind concerning things such as the cause of evil and the reason for death. If we turn to Genesis for a confirmation of science we miss the point of Scripture entirely.

That Scripture is more concerned with expressing great Truths rather than chronological exactitude can be seen throughout the Bible and even the creation account itself. Compare the chronology given for the appearance of Adam and Eve in chapters 1 and 2. They are contradictory only if you assume providing an exact chronological/historical account is what is being conveyed here.

Once you realize that something else is being discussed here, such issues are reduced to trivialities. Similarly, take a peek at the chronology of the Temptation accounts given in Matthew and Luke. Their different order is only contradictory if you insist that their respective authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than stressing the fact that they happened. The same for many differences in the Synoptic Gospels and John.

Likewise with Ps. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17.

If Genesis account was primarily interested in stressing the Fact of creation, and wasn’t overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

Thus we should only judge the history provided in Genesis and other parts of the Bible by the cultural standards of the day rather than by our own. And it seems (at least to me) that the biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail. Otherwise it would have provided such information as the name of Cain's wife.

[Cerebrum123]

While much of Genesis is essentially a form of history it is not necessarily the type of history as we today typically consider history. The concept of history is not a univocal one. The concept of history as we know it today (i.e., as it actually happened) was actually developed in the first part of the 19th century.

I realize that.

Mere chronology, so important in much of our Western writing, doesn't appear to have been such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found: even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51 and Psalm 105:24-37. The emphasis in the creation narrative (compare Gen 1:2) appears to be on form (days 1-3) followed by fullness (days 4-6) climaxed by day 7. There is a very logical order; whether it is also entirely chronological is disputed.

You are again comparing poetic accounts with historical ones, and again certain parts of the order are VERY important, and some aren't, and the timeline is important as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think that the principal values to be gained from reading Genesis aren’t scientific or historical in nature, but are rather religious in nature.

Without a historical basis, then the theological implications lose most of their effectiveness.

The intent of the first couple chapters is to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created.

If that was the only thing of importance it could have simply ended with Genesis 1:1.

The creation account doesn’t maintain material of a scientific nature useful to biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, physics, zoology... nor was that ever the objective.

How God interacts with His creation is JUST as important as the WHY.

Instead it discusses the ancient questions of mankind concerning things such as the cause of evil and the reason for death. If we turn to Genesis for a confirmation of science we miss the point of Scripture entirely.

Good thing I don't do that, but then there is also the fact that if there is no historical basis then in this case the theological implications lose pretty much all effectiveness.

That Scripture is more concerned with expressing great Truths rather than chronological exactitude can be seen throughout the Bible and even the creation account itself. Compare the chronology given for the appearance of Adam and Eve in chapters 1 and 2. They are contradictory only if you assume providing an exact chronological/historical account is what is being conveyed here.

Chronological, no, historical yes. Why do you ALWAYS need to bring in 1 POETIC versions, and 2 these so called "contradictions", there is no problem with the account. People have been reading these accounts for thousands of years, and to claim that because we have better technology, we are somehow smarter, and have realized contradictions that they never would have noticed is very arrogant, especially sine these are within two chapters of each other.

Once you realize that something else is being discussed here, such issues are reduced to trivialities. Similarly, take a peek at the chronology of the Temptation accounts given in Matthew and Luke. Their different order is only contradictory if you insist that their respective authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than stressing the fact that they happened. The same for many differences in the Synoptic Gospels and John.

Like you said WHAT happened was the most important thing to them, while the order isn't nearly as important in the Gospels on these particular actions, the things in Genesis, and their order are a bit more important.

Likewise with Ps. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17.

More comparison of poetic accounts.

If Genesis account was primarily interested in stressing the Fact of creation, and wasn’t overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

The problem is that there are no difficulties to begin with.

Thus we should only judge the history provided in Genesis and other parts of the Bible by the cultural standards of the day rather than by our own. And it seems (at least to me) that the biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail. Otherwise it would have provided such information as the name of Cain's wife.

That's what I am trying to do rogue, and it leads me to believe that the things mentioned in Genesis 1-11 really happened, and that they happened relatively recently. Also, since Cain doesn't even appear to be the ancestor of any surviving nation, why would the name of his wife even be important? Everyone but Noah and his family were wpied out in the Flood, no real point into going into a detail that won't be needed in any way shape or form. Now Cain's descendants are a bit of a different story, because it shows how God created man as originally VERY intelligent, and that they were making bronze and iron tools within a few generations, even though these techniques were lost for a time, we know that they did have them very early on.

[Jorge]

It's nice of you to choose your words so carefully to give the impression that you have discussed the data. I'm sure that helps the much needed impression for your fellow YEC science supporters. I'm sure in your mind presentation of pmc values and the accompanying discussion of them is the exact same thing as applying generous amounts of hand-waving and unsupported claims where dirty diamonds and uniformity irregularities in other systems instantly overthrow it.

Your repetition is boring and simply incorrect. Perhaps it is beneath you to start the discussion "The pmc values of lake varves are explained thusly... that is why they do not match the anticipated decay curves and do not add up to longer than 50,000 years, but actually conform well to the YEC timeframe"?

Do you think it is at all surprising that when searching your posts, not one of them has returned a post that contains the words "pmc" and "lake" and "varves" or "suigetsu"? I could be getting it wrong and I'll happily retract when you or anyone can show me where this is contained in TWeb.

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

Well, then you may consider yourself W-R-O-N-G.

But, as previously stated, I am not going to waste my time searching
through nearly 12,000 posts to find those where I discussed this topic.

Besides, the fact of the matter is that this is one of those topics where
at the end there can be no definitive conclusion - I hate that. I prefer
topics where no "squiggle" room remains since the Evo-Faithful are
Absolute Masters at squiggling through even the smallest crack.

So, if you're truly interested then ... Happy Hunting!

Jorge

[Jorge]

The two I'm familiar with is the laughable argument based upon the amount of salt in the seas and your claim that there is no indisputable writings dating before 4000BC. Now how the age of writing is supposed to date the planet isn't something that I've ever understood (the Incas, who existed in historic times and were an advanced culture never came up with it). And "indisputable" was they key since by definition YECs dispute just about everything that's thought to be older than 6000 years old.

Those were examples of the quality of the "evidences" in support of a young earth that you've presented.

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

THAT'S your recollection???

May I suggest some Viagra ... no, wait, Viagra is for something else ... oops...
Take some Green Tea - I hear it does wonders for aging memories.

In one post alone (going on memory) I linked to an article by Humphreys (if my
memory is accurate) in which he listed a dozen or so "evidences for a young Earth".

Recently I posted s a link about a Humphreys prediction from the 1980's
that has recently been confirmed - said prediction supports thousands
of years but not billions.

Meh ... as always you people exhibit a highly selective memory always
slanted towards your Evo-Faith. Truth-seeking at its worst.

Jorge

[phank]

rogue06,

While this makes sense, it raises a bit of difficulty. How are we to assess the validity, accuracy, or reliability of some particular text? One common approach is to judge the accuracy of what can NOT be tested, by the accuracy of what can. Even today, it's very common for those who actually were present for some newsworthy event (or even get mentioned) to dispute the accounts. The science fiction author and editor Algis Budrys wrote that he applied the "Budrys Test" to accounts he read about the general field, and about conventions he attended. He said if they got the parts where he was mentioned all wrong, he had little confidence in the account of those parts he was otherwise unfamiliar with.

So OK, those cultures placed little emphasis on getting things straight, or of producing accurate accounts of what happened, or of paying much attention to the details - insofar as all such things can be determined today. But despite all this, we choose to ASSUME that they get the non-testable religious parts down without any sign of the slapdash, who-cares, whatever-style approach they applied to everything else. Which leaves us perhaps wondering whether it was their history or their religious lessons that were out of character. ONE of them HAD to be.

[Jorge]

... anyone can see that the text reflects directly on in the style of language used and the education personality of the authors. There is no way to justify such an assumption, especially when the text is so plainly referring to ancient conceptions of the cosmos.

The above statement is so utterly preposterous, so arrogantly disingenuous,
so blatantly blasphemous that, other than this brief comment to express my
repugnance, I won't say anything else.

IOW, God has made it as plain as day that gifting the authors with modern Physics degrees was NOT in His plan. Why is that so hard for you to simply accept and submit to?

Jim

It is "hard to simply accept and submit to" because doing so involves
(in the long run) undermining the entire Gospel of Christ. That people
like you cannot see nor understand this is quite another matter.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

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

Well, then you may consider yourself W-R-O-N-G.

But, as previously stated, I am not going to waste my time searching
through nearly 12,000 posts to find those where I discussed this topic.

Besides, the fact of the matter is that this is one of those topics where
at the end there can be no definitive conclusion - I hate that. I prefer
topics where no "squiggle" room remains since the Evo-Faithful are
Absolute Masters at squiggling through even the smallest crack.

So, if you're truly interested then ... Happy Hunting!

Jorge

Given that you claim that you have written here on Tweb a post that includes pmc values of lake varves/Suigetsu in a discussion of them, then you can pull your finger out and find it before declaring that I am wrong. The closest I came across was your vacuous dismissal of papers that referred to the data, but you have NOT presented that data and discussed why it is incorrect or can be ratified as functional design.

99.9+% pro-YEC science evidence has huge amounts of squiggle room. That you don't want to discuss the data is fine; you could have spared me your debate tactics and said that a long time ago. It just leaves me to keep on searching for someone who is honest enough to present and discuss the counter arguments to the lake varve/Suigetsu data; it obviously isn't you. It also leaves your claims as unsupported, repetitive nonsense; not that you ever seem to care. So we are at an impasse, which I'm sure you are happy to have achieved after being cornered.

Don't forget the insults and smilies in your response...

[rogue06]

rogue06,

While this makes sense, it raises a bit of difficulty. How are we to assess the validity, accuracy, or reliability of some particular text? One common approach is to judge the accuracy of what can NOT be tested, by the accuracy of what can. Even today, it's very common for those who actually were present for some newsworthy event (or even get mentioned) to dispute the accounts. The science fiction author and editor Algis Budrys wrote that he applied the "Budrys Test" to accounts he read about the general field, and about conventions he attended. He said if they got the parts where he was mentioned all wrong, he had little confidence in the account of those parts he was otherwise unfamiliar with.

So OK, those cultures placed little emphasis on getting things straight, or of producing accurate accounts of what happened, or of paying much attention to the details - insofar as all such things can be determined today. But despite all this, we choose to ASSUME that they get the non-testable religious parts down without any sign of the slapdash, who-cares, whatever-style approach they applied to everything else. Which leaves us perhaps wondering whether it was their history or their religious lessons that were out of character. ONE of them HAD to be.

I realize it raises some difficulties one of which it makes contentedly reading the text in a woodenly literal simplistic manner next to impossible. It forces one to apply a bit of exegesis. And you are grossly overstating things by saying that they "placed little emphasis on getting things straight, or of producing accurate accounts of what happened." It's just that chronological exactitude wasn't necessarily what was being emphasized when a larger point was being made. I provided several examples that serve to support that position.

[phank]

I And you are grossly overstating things by saying that they "placed little emphasis on getting things straight, or of producing accurate accounts of what happened." It's just that chronological exactitude wasn't necessarily what was being emphasized

??? Okaaay...

[Jorge]

Given that you claim that you have written here on Tweb a post that includes pmc values of lake varves/Suigetsu in a discussion of them, then you can pull your finger out and find it before declaring that I am wrong. The closest I came across was your vacuous dismissal of papers that referred to the data, but you have NOT presented that data and discussed why it is incorrect or can be ratified as functional design.

99.9+% pro-YEC science evidence has huge amounts of squiggle room. That you don't want to discuss the data is fine; you could have spared me your debate tactics and said that a long time ago. It just leaves me to keep on searching for someone who is honest enough to present and discuss the counter arguments to the lake varve/Suigetsu data; it obviously isn't you. It also leaves your claims as unsupported, repetitive nonsense; not that you ever seem to care. So we are at an impasse, which I'm sure you are happy to have achieved after being cornered.

Don't forget the insults and smilies in your response...

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

I'm just wondering what word it is that you don't understand ?

Jorge

[rogue06]

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

I'm just wondering what word it is that you don't understand ?

Jorge

It's okay Jorge everyone knows that you don't have anything.

[OmniSkeptical]

I think its the passages that state that the earth is fixed and immobile such as I Chron. 16:30; Ps. 93:1; 96:10 and that it's the Sun that moves and/or can be stopped in it's course like in Josh. 10:12-13; Job 9:7; Ps 19:4-6; Eccl. 1:5; Hab. 3:11 are where geocentristic views primarily arose from.

Actually it came from someone called Ptomely. Most of the ancients knew the world was a round tube. The planet is also not named in Hebrew. It is in Greek where is translated universe in 1 Clement though.

How do you explain the flat earth concept being transferred into English without the bible? Ptomely's writings were the more likely source of the concept, because the bible doesn't even lay claim to the existence of a planet in geometric terms.