Evidence for a young Earth

[phank]

On a Christian website called Theologyweb I don't see discussing both political and religious issues and implications as being sidetracked into the weeds.

Yes, this is precisely what I feared and tried to caution against. I see this thread as being very strictly a matter of natural science. Yes, I know that it was introduced by someone whose agenda is narrowly ideological, and that the column providing all these interesting links did so to grind a strictly religious axe. But really, how hard is it to filter out the bonehead YEC dogma and appreciate the science? I don't see, as I tried to explain, how scripture has any relevance here. I still don't see it. Preservation of some aspects of some tissues for tens of millions of years is NOT a religious issue. Or at least, it had better not be.

And on careful re-reading, I can't find any religious implications here (unless the silly YEC dogma is regarded as such). Certainly no more reason to consult a bible, than to consult Shakespeare.

[phank]

It is interesting that Jorge will accept the science based on extrapolation and significantly greater levels of assumption that concluded these materials could not have survived in any form this long, he treats it as absolutely true in fact, capable of completely upending the much stronger evidence which supports that calculated age of the rocks from which the fossils were removed.

I find this intriguing because in this case Jorge becomes the 'scientist' whose 'faith' in science derived from a great deal of speculation and assumption denies the clear evidence at hand such assumptions were in fact flawed.

The real story here is that evidence does in fact upend dogma in science. A reality that is quite contrary to the YEC dogma concerning why scientists reject YEC 'evidence'.

Jim

Well, again from an outside perspective, what I see is Jorge starting with certain ineducable, intractable, flat false convictions. And these convictions don't derive from anything even slightly empirical. So we're treated to another illustration that convictions not based on evidence, cannot be altered by evidence.

So the interesting factor here, at least for me, is that Jorge is willing to confect "scientific" half-truths and extrapolate them beyond recognition, because doing so supports his convictions. But science really has nothing to do with it. When you start with the Truth, then whatever can be misrepresented as supporting it becomes "evidence", even if it's necessary to, uh, twist it into the opposite of the truth, or make it up from whole cloth. And if reality refutes you, then reality is not evidence. How CAN it be, if it denies Truth?

(And to the best of my knowledge, no scientist has ever stated as a matter of observation, the fact-claim Jorge's entire assertion rests on. He made that up.)

[Chrawnus]

Saying that in the end a person will 'follow their own evil desires' and saying that Peter is talking about the literal of the flood kind of implies that how literal you take the Bible goes into play with salvation. Sometimes are argument lead to things we may not like, but that has to be covered too. What makes one 'follow these desires' cause they do not believe the story of Noah is not 100% literal?

Actually, it does not imply that at all. You're simply continuing to misunderstand the argument.

No one has ever, I repeat, ever, claimed that not believing that the story of Noah is not 100% will make one 'follow these desires', you're either misunderstanding the argument Cerebrum made, or simply making stuff up.

And again, why does the events of Noah have to be word for word literal for what he says to be true? Where is concept of 'world wide' in the time of Noah? What is the primary purpose of the story of Noah? What is the lesson it has in mind? As Christians we can't simply ignore evidence we dislike, remember, we are told that creation speaks of the majesty of God and we can use them to tell us about the nature of God, why would God tell us this when the physical evidence is not there to support such things as a 6,000 year old earth or a literal global flood? If we can not provide an answer for these things beyond faith, then guess what, we have given the scoffers of the faith every reason to mock. Remember, we have to learn to answer everybody, that is what the Bible commands of us.

Word for word literal? Well, I personally believe that there has been a worldwide flood, but I've never claimed that the story has to be "word for word" true. What I said was simply that Peter uses the story in such a way that unless atleast it's true to a major degree his argument doesn't make sense.

Yet, humans were not around, according to the most literal views, for 6 days and we are not sure how much of a time would have passed between the creation of humans and their fall, so did scoffers of the faith always exist from the beginning or is Peter trying to make a larger point?

I fail to see how this deal with the argument in any way what so ever, but w/e.

And Peter didn't say that scoffers existed from the beginning, he's saying that there will come scoffers in the future. Whether or not they were there at the beginning makes absolutely no difference.

And think about what you are saying. I have not forgot God and I don't take the flood as word for word literal and neither has rogue or Jim. We have brought forth plenty of defense of the faith in the past and I do not know about them, but I do not accept the flood as being literal because I believe it leads to contradiction. On the one hand, we are told that creations speaks of God's majesty, but on the other, we have to ignore evidence against a literal flood. Is that very logical?

Which is all fine and dandy, but you haven't even begun to touch upon the argument that was presented.

And again, no one is claiming that not taking the flood story word for word literal means that you're forgetting God.

You can deliberately forget God and you can use a thing that may not be literal word for word history to make a larger point.

Well, of course you can.

And you seem to be misunderstanding the argument. You seem to be thinking that we're saying:

"Not taking the creation narrative and flood story literally will make one a scoffer and forget God."

When in reality, what is being claimed is:

"Some scoffers will ignore the creation narrative and flood story in order to be able to scorn God and his word." <-- This is one of the points that we believe that Peter is making in 2 Peter 3. And this claim does not lead to anything of what you claim.

Face it LPOT, you're misunderstanding the argument.

[phank]

When in reality, what is being claimed is:

"Some scoffers will ignore the creation narrative and flood story in order to be able to scorn God and his word."

Well, soft tissue preservation aside (WAY aside), I don't understand this claim. Are you distinguishing between ignoring this particular flood myth (there are many, in many cultures), and simply regarding it as a myth. (And I want to emphasize here that I'm not using "myth" in the sense of entertainment fiction, but rather as something symbolically meaningful within a culture).

Flood tales are common, and are preserved in many cultures, for multiple good reasons. One can, with some study, come to understand these tales, and the mythological roles they play within the various cultures, without "scorning" any of the various gods who are also parts of those cultures.

But I imagine I'm also missing the point of the argument. Sorry about that.

[Chrawnus]

Well, soft tissue preservation aside (WAY aside), I don't understand this claim. Are you distinguishing between ignoring this particular flood myth (there are many, in many cultures), and simply regarding it as a myth. (And I want to emphasize here that I'm not using "myth" in the sense of entertainment fiction, but rather as something symbolically meaningful within a culture).

Well, the NIV translates the relevant part as "deliberately ignoring", and that's the understanding that I'm going with. And it doesn't seem to me that he (Peter) is claiming that every single scoffer that will do this, but that there are a certain subset of them that will.

Flood tales are common, and are preserved in many cultures, for multiple good reasons. One can, with some study, come to understand these tales, and the mythological roles they play within the various cultures, without "scorning" any of the various gods who are also parts of those cultures.

Sure, but I've never claimed otherwise.

But I imagine I'm also missing the point of the argument. Sorry about that.

Well, yeah, you are. Let me try and explain it once more.

Peter seems to be saying (or atleast this is how I read the text ) in 2 Peter 3. that in the last days, there will come scoffers who mock the promise that Christ is returning, by alluding to the fact (or what they perceive to be fact) that " ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." I.e they're making a historical claim in order to justify their mocking. How exactly the two claims are interconnected I have no idea, but apparently these scoffers will see some kind of connection.

Peter then refutes this historical claim by alluding to the creation story and the flood narrative, as if they were actual historical events.

In other words, the argument Peter is making simply does not make sense, unless the narratives he's referring to are not historical events, since he's using them to refute historical claims. If Peter understood the creation and flood narratives to be myths in the sense of something "symbolically meaningful within a culture" as opposed to them being historically accurate atleast to the core parts the argument loses it's force.


Did this make the argument any more clear, or did I manage to muddle it up even further?

[phank]

I'm not sure. Do you suppose Peter might be mistaken? Or that he was using the beliefs of his audience to make his point, whether he believed it was historical or not?

After all, as I understand it, Peter had no more historical knowledge than we do, of times before written history started. His sources were the same as ours, yes? I'm by no means a biblical scholar, but I wonder about the timeframes. Didn't Jesus claim he would return within the lifetimes of much of his audience? If so, and if enough time has passed so that much of that audience is dying off, I would expect a certain amount of, you know, doubt to start creeping in. And I can understand that doubt would tend to undermine the unity of the faith that Peter was working to maintain.

But in any case, Peter himself is part of the Christian mythology, isn't he? So ALL of this is symbolicall meaningful within the culture.

[Chrawnus]

I'm not sure. Do you suppose Peter might be mistaken? Or that he was using the beliefs of his audience to make his point, whether he believed it was historical or not?

Well, theoretically Peter could have been mistaken, yes. However, I'm not so keen on on the other alternative, since that would, if I'm reading the passage correctly, imply that Peter was deliberately misleading his readers. I.e he knew that the creation and flood narratives weren't historical, or atleast he didn't believe they were, but still used them in a way that required them to be historical.

After all, as I understand it, Peter had no more historical knowledge than we do, of times before written history started. His sources were the same as ours, yes? I'm by no means a biblical scholar, but I wonder about the timeframes. Didn't Jesus claim he would return within the lifetimes of much of his audience? If so, and if enough time has passed so that much of that audience is dying off, I would expect a certain amount of, you know, doubt to start creeping in. And I can understand that doubt would tend to undermine the unity of the faith that Peter was working to maintain.

Well, if you believe that all Peter had access to were the same written sources that we have then you might have a point. However, if, like me, one believes that what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3 was inspired by God in some way, then Peter had access atleast in some way to a source that was directly involved in creation and the flood, namely God.

When it comes to the question of what exactly Jesus claimed about his return you'll have to ask someone else, I'm simply not very well read or studied when it comes to eschatology. I can note this though, that atleast Orthodox Preterists believe that Jesus wasn't talking about a literal coming during the lifetime of his audience, but of a spiritual coming in judgement, which was allegedly fulfilled during the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And the last statement you make above seems to have more to do with the motives of why Peter wrote as he did, rather than examining what he wrote meant.

But in any case, Peter himself is part of the Christian mythology, isn't he? So ALL of this is symbolicall meaningful within the culture.

I have to admit that whatever your point regarding the above statement was it flew straight over my head.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually, it does not imply that at all. You're simply continuing to misunderstand the argument.

No one has ever, I repeat, ever, claimed that not believing that the story of Noah is not 100% will make one 'follow these desires', you're either misunderstanding the argument Cerebrum made, or simply making stuff up.

Or I was being a little dramatic, but anyway, why does the story of Noah need to be literally true to get his message across?

Word for word literal? Well, I personally believe that there has been a worldwide flood, but I've never claimed that the story has to be "word for word" true. What I said was simply that Peter uses the story in such a way that unless atleast it's true to a major degree his argument doesn't make sense.

Sure it makes plenty of sense if Peter is simply making an observation about how scoffers existed in Noah's story and using them to say that scoffers are always going to exist. It really is no different then me talking about Elizabeth Bennett's preconceptions about Mr Darcy being wrong must therefore mean I think the story has to be literally true. We can still learn much, even if it is not literal.

I fail to see how this deal with the argument in any way what so ever, but w/e.

And Peter didn't say that scoffers existed from the beginning, he's saying that there will come scoffers in the future. Whether or not they were there at the beginning makes absolutely no difference.

It shows that Peter was not being extremely literal at all and as you pointed out in your second sentence, scoffers will come and will be around and he used a story in the Bible that illiterates that well.

Which is all fine and dandy, but you haven't even begun to touch upon the argument that was presented.

And again, no one is claiming that not taking the flood story word for word literal means that you're forgetting God.

And yet, why are you here arguing about it then? People do not stop being Christians because they feel the flood didn't happen, they stop becoming Christians for other reasons and may have excuses in line for that.

Well, of course you can.

And you seem to be misunderstanding the argument. You seem to be thinking that we're saying:

"Not taking the creation narrative and flood story literally will make one a scoffer and forget God."

When in reality, what is being claimed is:

"Some scoffers will ignore the creation narrative and flood story in order to be able to scorn God and his word." <-- This is one of the points that we believe that Peter is making in 2 Peter 3. And this claim does not lead to anything of what you claim.

Face it LPOT, you're misunderstanding the argument.

I understand it just fine, it is wrong. Sure, SOME will forget God's hand is in creation, but why does the creation story need to be literal true? Why did you and Cere feel the need to comment on here if you didn't believe that YECism had some part to play in salvation or at the very least, is the best way to view the Bible? I find YEC is very inconsistent and tells us to ignore evidence I simply have been unable to ignore. I do not believe that changes anything and nope, I am not misunderstanding anything at all, it seems you just don't want to apply what you are saying, now follow my logic along, you are saying that Peter believed the story of the flood is literal history, correct? Let's start there, what does that imply about those who do not?

[magellan004]

Probably for the same reason that we don't find whale bones mixed with human bones. One lives in oceans and the other on the land.

Mammoths, OTOH, lived on the land at the same time as humans and we find plenty of evidence of interaction between the two. Humans used their tusks and bones to construct shelters, the remains of which have been found. Humans carved decorations into the tusks and bones of mammoths. They made jewelry out of them. But we find nothing like that wrt dinosaur remains. No evidence whatsoever of any interaction between them and humans.




Baloney.

While we tend to speak of coelacanth as a single species of fish when in fact it is actually an entire order of lobe-finned fish. In fact there are two different species alive today, both of which live in deep water environments -- an area that tends to have a poor fossil record of all kinds of species.

Modern coelacanths are not the same as those we find fossilized in the geologic record. As Wikipedia notes, “the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.” And the modern coelacanth species, Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis, are not the same species or even the same genus -- and IIRC, a different family as well -- as the coelacanths in the fossil record.

Keep in mind that the two modern species resemble each other superficially (though there are color differences), and it took DNA testing to reveal the significant genetic differences between the two. DNA and color differences aren't preserved in the fossil record, so only the more obvious differences are usually seen.

So while there are currently at least 120 different species recorded in the fossil record, there could be many more that were unable to detect at this point.

The most obvious difference between extinct coelacanths and the modern ones is size. The former were usually only about 1’ long whereas the modern ones are roughly 5’ long. But that is only one difference. There are some internal differences but I don't remember what they are off-hand except to note that modern coelacanths give birth to live young where there is strong evidence that some of the extinct species laid eggs.

Both species of coelacanth alive today are relatively deep sea creatures (thriving about 500 to 1000' down) whereas the coelacanths in the fossil record were shallow water creatures, with roughly a third of them living in freshwater lakes and rivers. Further, they were distributed worldwide with some making their homes in cool waters while others lived in warm tropical waters.

You can look for yourselves at three different extinct coelacanths with the uppermost being from the Late Cretaceous, the middle one from the Late Carboniferous, and the bottom one is from the Early Carboniferous.

And btw, YECs thought they were extinct until their rediscovery as well.


Personal incredulity is not evidence nor very persuasive.

I am asking this because you have studied fossils. Many people use the argument 'We should expect to see Fossils of A together with Fossils of B in the same layer.' Is there any evidence of finding any two creatures in the same layer?
I am not asking this to attack you. I am asking because you have studied this stuff.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

I am asking this because you have studied fossils. Many people use the argument 'We should expect to see Fossils of A together with Fossils of B in the same layer.' Is there any evidence of finding any two creatures in the same layer?
I am not asking this to attack you. I am asking because you have studied this stuff.

Magellan

Not only are different fossils found in the same layer, we've even found fossils with one animal inside the other's stomach where it was a last meal.

First evidence that dinosaurs ate birds

The world was a dangerous place for the first birds. Palaeontologists have found a fossil bird preserved where the stomach of a dinosaur would have been – the first direct evidence that dinos preyed on their feathered relatives.

Palaeontologists have long suspected that birds made up part of the predatory dino diet, but proof has been lacking. No longer: Jingmai O'Connor and colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing found the near-intact skeleton of a primitive bird nestling suspiciously inside a fossilised predator.

The bird belonged to an extinct group called Enantiornithes and was lying in the ribcage of an early Cretaceous winged theropod called Microraptor gui. They were part of the prehistoric ecosystem known as the Jehol biota, which existed in what is now China and has also yielded numerous spectacular feathered dinosaurs.

link

Pretty sure rogue06 has a post about this in the Fossils thread.

- T

[Wally]

(And I want to emphasize here that I'm not using "myth" in the sense of entertainment fiction, but rather as something symbolically meaningful within a culture).

The respect for mythology is an unfortunate casualty of the modern fundamentalist movement. I firmly believe that when most of the Pentateuch was put into written form, the scribes knew and understood it was their groups mythology. That does not make it any less important than if it were literally true. After all the meanings and lessons of the stories are what's important, not the empirical accuracy. Forcing a literal interpretation on the stories is actually much more disrespectful to the authors than working to understand what they were really saying.

[Wally]

"Some scoffers will ignore the creation narrative and flood story in order to be able to scorn God and his word." <-- This is one of the points that we believe that Peter is making in 2 Peter 3. And this claim does not lead to anything of what you claim.

Actually, the number one issue that brings scorn on the Christian community, is the insistence on a literal interpretation of the creation, flood and other stories.

[rogue06]

I am asking this because you have studied fossils. Many people use the argument 'We should expect to see Fossils of A together with Fossils of B in the same layer.' Is there any evidence of finding any two creatures in the same layer?
I am not asking this to attack you. I am asking because you have studied this stuff.

Magellan

Yes. There are bonebeds with the remains of many creatures in the same layer at the same site. Recently a discovery outside of Snowmass, Colorado made the news when the remains of mastodons, mammoths, deer, ground sloth, bison and beaver have been found together. Notably lacking are the remains of dinosaurs or any other creature that conventional paleontology tells us went extinct before these creatures appeared. The same can be said for locations like the La Brea tar pits. When you do find bonebeds where dinosaur remains are found you won't find the remains of modern mammals or even the remains of mammals that went extinct relatively recently like the aforementioned mastodons and mammoths.

[Chrawnus]

Or I was being a little dramatic, but anyway, why does the story of Noah need to be literally true to get his message across?

If you're talking about Peter it's because he's using it to refute a historical claim.

Sure it makes plenty of sense if Peter is simply making an observation about how scoffers existed in Noah's story and using them to say that scoffers are always going to exist. It really is no different then me talking about Elizabeth Bennett's preconceptions about Mr Darcy being wrong must therefore mean I think the story has to be literally true. We can still learn much, even if it is not literal.

Actually, nothing in 2 Peter 3 is dependent on how scoffers existed in Noah's story. There's nothing in the text that would hint that that would play in even remotely in what Peter is trying to convey.

It shows that Peter was not being extremely literal at all and as you pointed out in your second sentence, scoffers will come and will be around and he used a story in the Bible that illiterates that well.

Except that he's not using the story in that way.

Peter was not using Noah's story to highlight the fact that there would be scoffers, he used Noah's story to refute a particular argument that he claimed the scoffers would make regarding the return of Jesus.

And yet, why are you here arguing about it then? People do not stop being Christians because they feel the flood didn't happen, they stop becoming Christians for other reasons and may have excuses in line for that.

Which I never have disputed.

I understand it just fine, it is wrong. Sure, SOME will forget God's hand is in creation, but why does the creation story need to be literal true? Why did you and Cere feel the need to comment on here if you didn't believe that YECism had some part to play in salvation or at the very least, is the best way to view the Bible? I find YEC is very inconsistent and tells us to ignore evidence I simply have been unable to ignore. I do not believe that changes anything and nope, I am not misunderstanding anything at all, it seems you just don't want to apply what you are saying, now follow my logic along, you are saying that Peter believed the story of the flood is literal history, correct? Let's start there, what does that imply about those who do not?

Perhaps you understand it. But everything you've written so far makes it seem like you have no clue about what the argument is. In fact, what you've written in your past few posts has barely scratched the argument me and Cerebrum has been making. In fact, most of what you've been saying so far has, while relevant to the YEC/OE/TE discussion in general, been almost completely irrelevant when it comes to the particular argument we're discussing right now.

Take your claim that "YEC is very inconsistent and tells us to ignore evidence I simply have been unable to ignore." Let's assume that this is true. So what? Even if it were true it doesn't change the meaning of 2 Peter 3.

But I'll play along with your little experiment and see where it goes. Assuming that Peter believed the flood story to be literal, all it implies, if we believe that the letters of Peter were inspired by God, is that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Nothing more, and nothing less. It certainly doesn't mean that such a person will automatically start mocking God, or leaving Christianity, or that they're second-class Christians, or anything of the sort. It simply means that they're wrong about this particular thing.

[Chrawnus]

Actually, the number one issue that brings scorn on the Christian community, is the insistence on a literal interpretation of the creation, flood and other stories.

I'm not particularly interested in what the number one reason why Christianity is scorned is. The issue is simply what exactly Peter is saying in 2 Peter 3. Nothing more, and nothing less.