12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzTo understand your problem with the Bible, I must have some clarification.
Okay, I still haven't recieved a satisfactory (or, in fact, any) response to why the bible states that land plants (first showed up in the fossil record ~400 million years ago) were created before the sun (c. 6 - 10 billion years, as a guess). Or that birds (150 million years old, the first being archaeopteryx) were created before land animals (again probably ~ 400 million years ago).
My understanding of your problems with the biblical story of creation are:
1) plants were created before the sun (1 day difference according to scripture).
2) birds were created before land animals (again, 1 day difference according to scripture).
I am inclined to believe that your conundrum is based upon this timeline not being in accordance with the commonly held estimations of when these items appeared (scientifically speaking). Have I understood you correctly? Please feel free to elaborate so I may address your points properly. My thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, I've heard the whole one day = x million years argument, but the order of creation still doesn't stack up with what we have got physical evidence for existing.
Gen 1:1 through 1:2, I have heard several people claim millions or
billions of years of time are between those two verses. I don't believe
it, but many do.
Kelly
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashOmnislash,
To understand your problem with the Bible, I must have some clarification.
My understanding of your problems with the biblical story of creation are:
1) plants were created before the sun (1 day difference according to scripture).
2) birds were created before land animals (again, 1 day difference according to scripture).
I am inclined to beli ...[text shortened]... rate so I may address your points properly. My thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Yes, you are correct. The biblical sequence does not line up with the evidence that we currently have. The sun came into being not only before land plants, but even before there was land - so you could say the difference is even more fundamental than that...
Likewise, the fossil record shows land animals a full 250 million years before birds. Our evidence for birds only extends back 150 million years (i.e. for more than half the time there have been land animals there have been no birds).
Not insignificant differences.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't believe you understood what I said.
Okay, I've heard the whole one day = x million years argument, but the order of creation still doesn't stack up with what we have got physical evidence for existing.
It isn't a day is million years argument.
It is that between verse one and two there were billions or millions
of years. Not the same thing as a day is worth a thousand years
junk that gets passed around. As far as what doesn't stack up,
what do you think is in error?
Kelly
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayRead back through the posts. You'll see that the bible has the sun created not only after the earth, but also after land plants. You'll also see that it claims that birds were created before land animals. I've rebutted that above and don't feel like doing it again, so just read that and ask if you want any further clarification.
I don't believe you understood what I said.
It isn't a day is million years argument.
It is that between verse one and two there were billions or millions
of years. Not the same thing as a day is worth a thousand years
junk that gets passed around. As far as what doesn't stack up,
what do you think is in error?
Kelly
Even if there were millions of years between days it shouldn't change the order of things, right?
Cheers
12 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzVery good then. Let us review how we have come to these conclusions.
Omnislash,
Yes, you are correct. The biblical sequence does not line up with the evidence that we currently have. The sun came into being not only before land plants, but even before there was land - so you could say the difference is even more fundamental than that...
Likewise, the fossil record shows land animals a full 250 million years befor ...[text shortened]... time there have been land animals there have been no birds).
Not insignificant differences.
The are a number of ways we have attempted to date our world and the universe.
1) Univere: assume the big bang theory, measure hubble constant.
The dating of the universe is performed based on the Big Bang assumption that the universe is expanding, or inflating from a single point. Hubble's law (velocity = Hubble constant X distance) combined with the Doppler effect (the velocity-dependent shift in receding light towards the red end of the spectrum) are used to estimate how long the inflation of the universe has been taking place. The difficulty is that both the velocity and distance of far away objects are hard to measure accurately since local motions of stars and galaxies must be accounted for.
2) Earth: radiometric dating- decay of one radioactive isotope to another at known rate.
and
These methods assume that the initial ratios of the two isotopes can be estimated, and that the sample being measured has been undisturbed so that none of either the parent or daughter isotope has been added to or subtracted from the sample. Dating of meteorites is assumed to give the age of our solar system (and therefore also the age of the formation of the Earth).
3) sedimentary rock, aka "fossil indexs"
Sedimentary rocks are dated by looking for the presence of so-called "index fossils" of organisms that supposedly lived only during a certain period of evolutionary time.
4) carbon 14
Carbon-14 dating is only valid for ages up to 30,000 years because of its short half-life, and is used to measure the age of once-living things, but not the age of the Earth.
This leads us to four possibilites:
1) The universe and Earth are actually old in agreement with commonly accepted scientific thinking, and as measured through radiometric dating techniques and astronomical observation.
2) The universe and Earth are actually young in agreement with a straightforward and literal reading of Genesis, but God created the universe and Earth in a state of functional maturity, resulting in a consistent, apparent age now measured (as 1).
3) The universe and Earth are actually young, and there are fundamental (but not yet entirely understood) reasons why current age estimates that appear to give an old age are wrong. Some advocate of this position point to known inconsistencies in radiometric dating results, for example.
4) The Earth is young in agreement with Genesis, but the universe is old, in agreement with modern astronomical observation. Recent cosmological theories propose that the universe and Earth emerged from a 'white hole', and that consistent with Einstein's general relativity theory, six 24-hour days could tick off on an Earth-bound clock while billions of years passed in the universe outside the white hole event horizon.
All of these have some decent logic behind them (though naturally some more than others). It is not my intent to advocate the one I believe in myself, but since your stance is in direct oppostion to the Genesis creation, I would offer some scientific counter points which help explain what we have found which support the Genesis creation/young earth. Again, it is not my intent to proselytize my position, I only wish to offer substantiated information which offers a different point of view more in alignment with a genesis creation/young Earth.
Fossilized trees that extend vertically through multiple ages of rock strata (called polystrate fossils)
All soils become populated with living things such as plants and worms, which leave a record. However, many strata layers do not show signs of this activity, implying they were not at the surface for very long.
In many cases there is lack of a layer of soil between adjacent strata layers
In an unconformity between adjacent rock formations, the lower rock layers have been tilted and eroded. By tracing unconformities laterally through information from outcrops or oil wells, they can be resolved into an area where the layers or formations were either not deposited or not tilted or eroded, indicating that the unconformity does not represent a significant time lapse. Application of this technique can be extended to show that "the majority of the fossiferous column resolves into a single, continuous depositional sequence" (Morris).
In some places entire rock layers can be seen bending, implying they were soft and not very old when uplifted.
In some places the contact between adjacent rock beds (of totally different rock types, such as shale and sandstone) is very sharp, which would not be expected if the lower surface had been exposed to the effects of erosion for a long period of time.
In many rock layers in many locations, surface features seen on the top surface of the lower bed must have been covered quickly to be preserved, such as animal tracks and ripple marks formed by water moving over the surface
How can it be that if man stopped evolving 100,000 years ago, he only learned how to form civilizations and write within the last 5-10,000 years? Also, the oldest civilizations appear around the world about the same time, and all were already very advanced, building marvelous structures (like the pyramids). There is no indication of a general evolution of civilization.
Realistic population growth formula, accounting for wars, etc., give several thousand years as needed to produce the current world population (not millions of years).
The rate at which the Moon is moving away from the Earth (due to tidal friction) places a limit on the age of the Moon of no more than 20-30,000 years.
Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere implies a maximum age of no more than 10,000 years. Buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would produce all of the world's radiocarbon in only several thousand years.
Calculations based on the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms indicate that life forms cannot be more than several thousand years old and still be as free from defects as they are today.
The measured decay rate of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that life would have been impossible on Earth more than about 20,000 years ago (due to the heat that would have been generated).
The spin of the Earth is gradually slowing down and indicates that the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
Polonium halos (ring patterns formed by radioactive decay) found in granite, the thick bedrock underlying all continents, seem to indicate that the granite came into existence in solid form in less than three minutes.
Stars are continually changing hydrogen into helium, and hydrogen cannot be produced in any appreciable quantity though the breakdown of the other elements, yet the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen, indicating a beginning of the universe not long ago.
If galaxies are billions of years old, ortibal mechanics requires that the arms in spiral galaxies should be greatly distorted, but they are not.
Measurements in the sun and other stars of the radioactive decay of thorium-232 into neodymium-142 (14 billion year half-life) show all the original thorium still there.
..............Anyway, I suppose I could dig more out of my library, but I am certain this is far more than enough to chew on for now (if not absurd in length, for which I apologize).
In the name of citing sources, much of what I have stated here I learned from the works of: Jason D. Browning, D. Russel Humphreys, Fred Hoyle, Walter Brown, Robert Gentry, M. Waldrop and Hugh Ross. I am certain there are a vast number of others, but these are the names I have handy with my materials. Oh, I should also cite "Creation ex nihilo" magazine June-Auguse of 1997 for a chart I have used, while not necessary directly for this post, as a general reference tool regarding supernovas in relation to the age of the universe. I recommend the works of these people for more on the topic. I have cited them as they are the sources of my knowledge, though much/most/all of what I have said is a summary of my understanding of their assertions, and nothing more.
I REALLY hope this post is of value to someone, as I have spent far more time on it than any other post in some time. I felt compelled to make it a work of quality though, as it has been a subject I have been studying lately and is of exceptional personal interest to me at the moment.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm not a gap person, one that believes in that huge amount of
Read back through the posts. You'll see that the bible has the sun created not only after the earth, but also after land plants. You'll also see that it claims that birds were created before land animals. I've rebutted that above and don't feel like doing it again, so just read that and ask if you want any further clarification.
Even if there were millions of years between days it shouldn't change the order of things, right?
Cheers
time; however, they believe the universe was recreated not created,
and that dino's and so on were part of the first creation. It is lenghty
and like I said, I reject that, but I can see how some things would
already be here if one did accept that.
As far as the order, I don 't see any issues. God created light
before he made stars, it isn't like he needed the stars for light.
I'm not sure what limits God had on himself that he would need
to have land animals before birds, and so on, He is after all, God.
Kelly
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJaySo basically because you cannot explain the reason for the lack of conformity between the bible and science you are choosing to not explain it?
I'm not a gap person, one that believes in that huge amount of
time; however, they believe the universe was recreated not created,
and that dino's and so on were part of the first creation. It is lenghty
and like I said, I reject that, but I can see how some things would
already be here if one did accept that.
As far as the order, I don 't see any ...[text shortened]... f that he would need
to have land animals before birds, and so on, He is after all, God.
Kelly
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashOkay well, there are a number of issues to do with fossil beds / formation etc. I'd need more time and inclination than I currently have to respond to each one. Regarding the 14C bit, yes, I know this - what's your point? I never mentioned 14C.
Very good then. Let us review how we have come to these conclusions.
The are a number of ways we have attempted to date our world and the universe.
1) Univere: assume the big bang theory, measure hubble constant.
The dating of the universe is performed based on the Big Bang assumption that the universe is expanding, or inflating from a single po ...[text shortened]... tely and is of exceptional personal interest to me at the moment.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
I agree that there are a number of assumptions made in any scientific calculation, but even so the evidence for an old universe, old earth idea is very strong. Unless you have conclusive proof that there is something wrong with the calculations then I suggest we disregard this argument. Rubidium / Strontium dating. If the ratios of Rb😕r were wrong it could only be that there is too much Sr, this would only force the estimated age of the earth up. We currently use the minimum plausible age.
fossil index.
Fossils are only formed under anaerobic conditions. The presence of oxygen would lead to the degradation of the organic matter. Thus typical environments where fossils form are; swamps, underwater, around geothermal activity, for instance hot springs, where things can be silicified rapidly. For example the geothermal pools around Rotorua NZ. If you want fossil beds formed in this way see the Rhynie chert in Scotland (the village of Rhynie, near Aberdeen). You point out that many strata layers do not show fossils of plant roots or worms, but these are not unknown. Both worms and plant roots are relatively hard to fossilize since they are quite soft. Hard material (bone, cartilage) tends to fossilize much easier.
Fossiliferous column resolves into a single, continuous depositional sequence. Yes, indeed. Many of these fossil beds occurred over many many years or thousand of years. See the Rhynie chert for example.
'In many places entire rick layers can be seen bending, implying they were very soft and not very old when uplifted.'
This, without more context is a nonsequiter. Another option would be that the pressures bending the rocks were high. Anyway, we know that sedimentary rocks are soft in comparison with, for example, ignious rocks....
There are a number of points that are poorly explained, so I'm unable to comment.
Man, did not 'stop evolving'. Where-ever did you hear that??? There is no evidence for that at all!
Civilisation actually pretty much started about 12,000 years ago. 7,000 full years before the pyramids, and it's only been 5,000 years since, so the building of the pyramids is actually temporally closer to now than the start of civilisations.
You talk about humans building marvelous structures from day one. This is not necessarily true. I would say that of the structures built before some of these marvelous structures relatively little evidence exists, whicch is not to say that it didn't happen. Read the book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' if you want more information on human civilisation.
'Realistic population growth forumla accounting for wars, etc, give several thousand years as needed to produce the current world population (not milions of years)'
I never said millions of years, in fact you've contradicted yourself by inferring that science has said that humans evolved 100,000 years ago and then throwing in that millions of years line. I propose that 12,000 years or so should work in your growth models. Likewise how do you explain the mitochondrial DNA evidence that the entire human race can be traced back to 7 women ('the seven daughters of eve'😉 living between 10,000 and 30,000 years ago (-ish) then? See the book 'the seven daughters of eve'.
I'll need to see your Moon moving away from the earth reference. Tidal forces will actually slow the moons travel down and have it crashing into earth not the other way about...
Again, He 'evidence' your reference please. I just don't believe this.
Calculations on mutation rates...
You assume that all mutations are negative and that there was some perfect starting point - both absurd assertions.
Earths magnetic field...
Ref please. Again I think this is not true.
Spin of earth. Show us this mathematically, or at least your (peer reviewed) refernce.
Likewise, stars - peer reviewed reference or original calculations please.
I shouldn't believe too much that Fred Hoyle said - much of his work has been disproved by Stephen Hawkins.
Regards,
Scottish
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy friend, you take much of what I stated out of context.
Okay well, there are a number of issues to do with fossil beds / formation etc. I'd need more time and inclination than I currently have to respond to each one. Regarding the 14C bit, yes, I know this - what's your point? I never mentioned 14C.
I agree that there are a number of assumptions made in any scientific calculation, but even so the evi ...[text shortened]... red Hoyle said - much of his work has been disproved by Stephen Hawkins.
Regards,
Scottish
Formost, I was quite clear in that I did not intend to assert anything at all. The notions I have listed are simply the summary of the findings of the individuals I referenced at the bottom of my post. I simply offered this research as a counter point for consideration. I find it interesting, if less than amusing, that you take each statement as an assault upon your position.
I gave the names of the researchers precisely so a person could evaluate their work if they were so inclined. All of this information is highly published and easily available through a simple online search. If I had the books and URLs handy I would happily give reference, but I do not, nor do I feel any obligation to in the context of this discussion. You did not give reference, nor would I expect you to for such highly available information.
Again, if you wish to take issue with the information I provided that is your choice and one I encourage, but the information was not presented as a counter arguement. I was quite clear in that it was simply research finding which can/do support the notion of a young earth/intelligent design akin to Genesis. I have not made any claims of my own, nor have I attempted to discredit yours. You made the assertion that the Bible contradicts science. While it is obvious, if only by inference, that I disagree with this, I have made no assertion of my own.
I'll tell you what though, I'll assert a position I do believe in here.
It is my belief that science has yet to provide enough data with proper analysis to ascertain the origins of the earth, universe or man kind. There are a vast number of questions left unanswered, and much of the conjecture has varying degrees of flaws. The history of evolutionary science is marred with misinterpreted data and unethical research which intentionally misinterpreted data and/or made wild assumptions (examples: the Nebraska man, the Java man). I am a big fan of science, and I am saddened that such is the history of things. If such were not the case, I think we would be having a much more congruent and productive discussion on the matter.
Such is simply my two cents of course and you are welcome to disagree (which I expect you to). I must confess that I think it sad that there exists such special interests in both the scientific and theist communites who feel the need to oppose each others assertions. The only real truth is that we are lost little children in a very big cosmos trying to make sense of things. As of yet, I believe we haven't got a clue.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashWell said.
My friend, you take much of what I stated out of context.
Formost, I was quite clear in that I did not intend to assert anything at all. The notions I have listed are simply the summary of the findings of the individuals I referenced at the bottom of my post. I simply offered this research as a counter point for consideration. I find it interesting, i ...[text shortened]... ake sense of things. As of yet, I believe we haven't got a clue.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
I did not take your points as an (deliberate, personal) attack. I appreciate that you are merely throwing up some points. I'm afraid that a point by point rebuttal is the only way to deal with these situations mostly...
I agree that we have more questions than answers, but I hope that within my lifetime we can know alot more truths of the universe. I'm young - I've got time.....
Anyhoo, on that note I'm off to bed, it's been a long day in the lab and another long day on this thread tonight, and my brain is starting to sieze up...
Regards,
Louis
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzVery good then sir. I thank you for the discussion and look forward to speaking about the tough questions again another day. 🙂
Well said.
I did not take your points as an (deliberate, personal) attack. I appreciate that you are merely throwing up some points. I'm afraid that a point by point rebuttal is the only way to deal with these situations mostly...
I agree that we have more questions than answers, but I hope that within my lifetime we can know alot more truths o ...[text shortened]... er long day on this thread tonight, and my brain is starting to sieze up...
Regards,
Louis
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashYou speak well, Omnislash. I'm really starting to like you and a few others in these forums, for whatever its worth. 🙂
My friend, you take much of what I stated out of context.
Formost, I was quite clear in that I did not intend to assert anything at all. The notions I have listed are simply the summary of the findings of the individuals I referenced at the bottom of my post. I simply offered this research as a counter point for consideration. I find it interesting, i ...[text shortened]... ake sense of things. As of yet, I believe we haven't got a clue.
Best Regards,
Omnislash