Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

No, you have evidence for a genetic line. That Moses was a myth is unrelated to the genetic line. Your logic fallacy fails since your basis of it was faulty. Don't you know what it is thought that Moses was a myth?

The genetic line: the line of Levites is traced back 106 generations - that
is about 3,300 years the authors reckoned.
So about 1300 BC the line of the Levites "begins" (or all current DNA lines
today converge on that point.)
I am not happy with such a recent date, but....
there's evidence of the destruction of Canaanite cities about this time and
the appearance of (rather dull) Hebrew archaeology.
Levites come from Aaron, the brother of Moses. The Jews don't speak
much of Aaron. So Aaron isn't the father figure of the nation. But the
Jews speak of being in slavery, something many nations would not want
to admit. Slavery was common in Egypt. At one stage the Hyksos ruled
this nation and admitted many fellow Semites into the country. This is
plausibly how the Hebrews came to be in Egypt too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The genetic line: the line of Levites is traced back 106 generations - that
is about 3,300 years the authors reckoned.
So about 1300 BC the line of the Levites "begins" (or all current DNA lines
today converge on that point.)
I am not happy with such a recent date, but....
there's evidence of the destruction of Canaanite cities about this time and
the appearance of (rather dull) Hebrew archaeology.
Levites come from Aaron, the brother of Moses. The Jews don't speak
much of Aaron. So Aaron isn't the father figure of the nation. But the
Jews speak of being in slavery, something many nations would not want
to admit. Slavery was common in Egypt. At one stage the Hyksos ruled
this nation and admitted many fellow Semites into the country. This is
plausibly how the Hebrews came to be in Egypt too.

Why take the claims of generations literally? You are again merely trying to distort history and the Bible to get them to agree with rach other. Ask @sooda about this. She has studied it much more deeply than I have.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why take the claims of generations literally? You are again merely trying to distort history and the Bible to get them to agree with rach other. Ask @sooda about this. She has studied it much more deeply than I have.

yes, my reading of these "genetic clocks" suggests they aren't that accurate.
But if they are out 10% then that's fine - the principle stands: all those who
are related to the Levites can trace their line back to a single person in the
Bronze Age. And this person was credited with being Israel's first high
priest.
Frankly, I would like to "distort history" to show Israel came out of Egypt
during the cataclysm of the overthrow of Minoa ca 1600 BC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is evidence for micro evolution, and has no bearing on common descent.

That is incorrect of course and ignores the fact that we have directly observed macro evolution (though most creationists do not even know the difference between micro and macro). And this also demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Yep. And?

There have never been any obvious precursors found linking to the Cambrian biota.

But of course, you believe pakicetus is the forerunner of whales ....you have to believe some land mammal returned to the water, really....so I’m sure a few of you materialists, with your imaginations, will eventually arrive at a conclusion regarding some flimsy, fantastical evidence claiming it supports certain organisms’ evolution into the Cambrian organisms. But I doubt there’ll be consensus...there rarely is.

Why would obvious precursors be necessary or even expected? And we do have excellent fossil evidence on the evolution of whales. By complaining about a well observed event you show your inability to view the evidence without bias.

 

[leroy]

That is because the dating was done a long time ago. You may not know this, but one does not have to reinvent the wheel with every scientific discovery. It appears that you were not paying attention. The correlation has already been done. But if you want to you look at how it was done you can look into the history of dating of volcanic deposits around the world. Your explanation has been given to you. Presently you are either not understanding it or demanding that others do your homework for you.

Here is about a ninth grade level explanation for you:

Radiometric dating

To get the age of any one fossil various means are used, but they may use only one radiometric date. Not all fossils are doubly dated. Not all rocks are doubly dated. Perhaps people were a bit unclear as to that. But here is a question that you need to answer. How many times do you have to check your watch to know that it is reasonably reliable? Dating methods have been cross checked multiple times and found to be reliable. As I said at the start one does not need to constantly reinvent the wheel. A local fossil may be dated by a combination of a K/Ar date and sedimentation rates, or sedimentation rates and measured magnetic reversals. There are all sorts of "clocks" that have already been measured when it comes to fossils.


Why do you ask anyway? The Earth was known to be old long before radiometric dating came along. Some strata directly demonstrate that they are millions of years old with annual deposit variations. The Green River Formation is a varve deposit that has millions of annual layers. Are you looking for excuses to believe a debunked myth?

Once again interesting points, but also irrelevant.

1 it is wrong to lie, or exaggerate data to make YEC look bad..... Agree?


2 to say that every single fossil (or the rocks arround it) is dated by multiple independent methods is an exaggeration (to say the least)....... Agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, my reading of these "genetic clocks" suggests they aren't that accurate.
But if they are out 10% then that's fine - the principle stands: all those who
are related to the Levites can trace their line back to a single person in the
Bronze Age. And this person was credited with being Israel's first high
priest.
Frankly, I would like to "distort history" to show Israel came out of Egypt
during the cataclysm of the overthrow of Minoa ca 1600 BC.

The problem with the Exodus is that it is an event that would have left plain and obvious evidence and that is not to be found. The "priestly line" only shows that one tribe has existed as a tribe for a lengthy period of time. It does not even confirm that those people were priests.

 

[leroy]

Oh, people don't have to do that. YEC's always clearly demonstrate their scientific illiteracy. And technically since the dates rely on past work of multiple independent methods they are correct. They may not be able to show the tests for one particular fossil, but its age does rely on the work of countless earlier tests.

Ok so where is your evidence for the multiple independent methods used to corroborare dates?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again interesting points, but also irrelevant.

1 it is wrong to lie, or exaggerate data to make YEC look bad..... Agree?


2 to say that every single fossil (or the rocks arround it) is dated by multiple independent methods is an exaggeration (to say the least)....... Agree?

1 Yes.

2. No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so where is your evidence for the multiple independent methods used to corroborare dates?

i explained it to you. Go back and reread the posts. You are demanding that scientists reinvent the wheel again.

 

[leroy]

You are kidding, are you?

Look around, Leroy.

The only people lying and are ignorant, are the creationists. They are the ones making things up.

You don’t think so?

Do you really think only atheists and agnostics disagree with YEC creationists, like @dad, @PruePhillip and @Hockeycowboy ?

It isn’t about atheism vs theism, and it isn’t Christians vs atheists too. It is about science vs creationism.

Whether creationism be YEC or OEC, Christian Creationism, Jewish Creationism, Muslim Creationism, or Intelligent Design, there are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other theists who disagreed with these creationists more so than with atheists and agnostics, REGARDING THE SUBJECTS OF SCIENCE or OF HISTORY.

Who am I talking about, who are these theists but agree about science or history with atheists and agnostics?

The theists I am talking about (the ones who have posted in this thread) are @sooda and @Dan From Smithville both Christians, @shunyadragon who is Baha’i, are all theists, but are more educated and qualified/experienced in either science or history or both.

If have read their posts, you would often see them disagreeing with creationists, like Hockeycowboy, dad and PruePhillip, on the matters of science vs Creationism.

The reasons being, sooda and Dan, despite believing in God and accepting teaching, also don’t believe the Bible being science or history textbooks. The book or scriptures were written by men, not god, and they both know there are little in terms of scientific and historical evidence in Genesis Creation and Flood. Both sooda and Dan understand science and history better than dad, Hockeycowboy and PruePhillip.

I am agnostic, and yet I have the tendencies to agree with sooda, Dan From Smithville and shunyadragon and disagree with dad, PruePhillip and Hockeycowboy, all because the creationists here don’t have the education in science and in history.

It is the YEC creationists who are not being honest here.

It was never about theism vs atheism, but whether to accept facts from science or the anti-science of creationism.

Well, guess what, Leroy, I agreed with theists like shunyadragon, Dan and sooda about science and history.

But it is still a fact that you shouldnt make stuff up, just to make YEC look bad..... If you cant support the assertion that all fossils are dated and verified by multiple independent methods, then you shouldn't make that assertion.

 

[leroy]

i explained it to you. Go back and reread the posts. You are demanding that scientists reinvent the wheel again.

Well then stop claiming that the weel is being invented every time for verification.


There is a big difference between:
1 Fossils (say dinosaurs) are always dated by multiple independent methods and we always confirm dates of 65M+ years (a lie)

And

2 on a minority of cases fossils are dated by multiple independent methods, and ussually the methods confirm dates of 65M+ years (the truth)


And as I said before "2"is enough to justify and old earth and that dinosaurs lived 65M years ago. There is no need tonlie and oretend that" 1" is true.

 

[PruePhillip]

The problem with the Exodus is that it is an event that would have left plain and obvious evidence and that is not to be found. The "priestly line" only shows that one tribe has existed as a tribe for a lengthy period of time. It does not even confirm that those people were priests.

Be careful of saying no evidence equates with no reality.
Edom was considered a tiny, near vassal state to Israel,
yet during the days of Solomon it mined copper. It left
behind at Timna 100,000 tonnes of slag, and about ten
thousand separate mine pits. There was clearly a huge
undertaking involving enormous logistics (food, transport,
tools, security etc..) This didn't involve Egypt, so who was
doing this? Either a much bigger Edom than once thought
or a much larger Israel. This isn't shown in the archeology.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is evidence for micro evolution, and has no bearing on common descent.

There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution except for the time involved,

Yep. And?

Yep. And? meaningless

There have never been any obvious precursors found linking to the Cambrian biota.

Yes there is, and your selectively and dishonestly choosing to ignore the evidence, The following is only one of the research projects on the origins of life before the Cambrian.

From: Lighting the fuse for the Cambrian Explosion

In work that led to Australia and back, researchers believe that microfossils previously thought to be algae may actually be a specialized type of egg case, laid by an animal precursor for that explosion of life. The Cambrian Explosion was a watershed in the Earth’s biological history. Over a relatively brief span of geologic time, large-bodied, hard-shelled animals appear in the fossil record for the first time. The event is also known for the diversity of life it spawned, including almost all phyla of animals alive today. Phyla are broad classifications of life, such as Chordata (or vertebrates), which includes mammals, reptiles, and birds.

Scientists have long puzzled over the sudden appearance of these complex creatures because they must have evolved from precursors that appear to be missing from the pre-Cambrian fossil record.

Work led by Phoebe Cohen, a doctoral student in the lab of Andrew Knoll, Fisher Professor of Natural History and professor of Earth and planetary sciences, offers a reinterpretation of microfossils from the time just before the Cambrian, in the Ediacaran Period, which may solve the mystery. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this month, the work also included Knoll and Robin Kodner of the University of Washington.

“Phoebe’s work takes a previously enigmatic group of fossils and relates them directly to two major themes of Earth history: the emergence of animals and the expansion of oxygen-rich water masses in the oceans,” Knoll said.

Scientists have long known that pre-Cambrian rocks hold an abundance of unusual, microscopic fossils with hard shells, spines, hairs, and other protrusions. It has been thought that the fossils were merely different kinds of algae, known to be abundant in the pre-Cambrian seas and too different from animals to be the source of a sudden profusion of animal life.

“They were interpreted as an algal radiation, but they look like no known modern algae today,” Cohen said.

After examining hundreds of samples of these fossils, called acritarchs, and comparing them with both algae and the eggs of modern and fossil crustaceans — a group that includes shrimp — Cohen has come to a different conclusion. Rather than being algae, they most closely resemble a specialized egg created by modern crustaceans — called a resting stage — that is able to lie dormant for years waiting for favorable conditions before hatching.

If that is the case, the creatures that created those microfossil eggs would be tiny, but complex animal life, a potential precursor for the rapid diversification that followed.

The events occur at a time when the Earth’s atmosphere was growing richer in oxygen, which may have opened the door to larger-bodied creatures. Those first animals, Cohen said, may have predated the time of the Cambrian Explosion itself but be absent from the fossil record because their soft tissues weren’t preserved. Only later, when hard parts evolved, would they appear relatively suddenly as fossils.

Cohen had done some previous work with acritarchs, but had accepted the prevailing algae explanation until four years ago, when Knoll gave her a paper by marine biologists about recently discovered marine fossils of the resting eggs of small marine crustaceans called copepods. Intrigued, she began looking for more animal eggs to compare with the pre-Cambrian acritarchs.

“The more I found, the more I realized they look astonishingly similar to these Ediacaran fossils,” Cohen said.

After comparing their size, shape, and ornamentation, Cohen went further, examining their internal structure, finding that the pre-Cambrian microfossils more closely resembled the resting-stage egg of tiny animals than they do algae.

“Many invertebrate groups make resting stages similar to these Ediacaran fossils, and in a way that no other modern creature does,” Cohen said."

But of course, you believe pakicetus is the forerunner of whales ....you have to believe some land mammal returned to the water, really....so I’m sure a few of you materialists, with your imaginations, will eventually arrive at a conclusion regarding some flimsy, fantastical evidence claiming it supports certain organisms’ evolution into the Cambrian organisms. But I doubt there’ll be consensus...there rarely is.

Your jumping all over the place with meaningless incoherent disjoint comments on evolution concerning whales and sea mammals. The fact is there is abundant evidence for the evolution of early plants, animals and fungi from a common kingdom Protists.

The genetics has to do with the fact there exists
1 - a race of people who are Jews
2 - a tribe within this race who are Levites, of the line to Moses.

Fact.

The Genesis 1 points out stages in the earth's process that correlate
with scientific understanding. And I show how religious people do not
understand this anymore than non-religious people.

Fact.

If there are discrepancies then please point them out and I will amend
my POV.

This is all bogus attempts to argue from ignorance.' and yes there is consensus among scientists as to the basic processes over billions of years concerning the evolution of life on earth

 

[sooda]

The genetic line: the line of Levites is traced back 106 generations - that
is about 3,300 years the authors reckoned.
So about 1300 BC the line of the Levites "begins" (or all current DNA lines
today converge on that point.)
I am not happy with such a recent date, but....
there's evidence of the destruction of Canaanite cities about this time and
the appearance of (rather dull) Hebrew archaeology.
Levites come from Aaron, the brother of Moses. The Jews don't speak
much of Aaron. So Aaron isn't the father figure of the nation. But the
Jews speak of being in slavery, something many nations would not want
to admit. Slavery was common in Egypt. At one stage the Hyksos ruled
this nation and admitted many fellow Semites into the country. This is
plausibly how the Hebrews came to be in Egypt too.

There is NO evidence for any destruction of Canaanite cities. They prospered in Sinai and Canaan and paid tribute to Egypt.

Joshua is a myth. They had no huge armies nor any victories. This is narrative to create a national hero. Think Davey Crockett, Daniel Boone and Johnny Appleseed.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is all bogus attempts to argue from ignorance....

PruePhillip said: ↑
The Genesis 1 points out stages in the earth's process that correlate
with scientific understanding. And I show how religious people do not
understand this anymore than non-religious people.
Fact.
If there are discrepancies then please point them out and I will amend
my POV.


shunyadragon said:
This is all bogus attempts to argue from ignorance.' and yes there is consensus
among scientists as to the basic processes over billions of years concerning the
evolution of life on earth

Lack of specifics is a form of logic fallacy.
Does anyone know what it's called?
God commanded the earth to bring forth life - doesn't say how, just says that
life came out of the earth (fresh water, actually)
And God commanded the seas to bring forth life - doesn't say how.
For Millennia bible reading people thought these verses quite odd. How can
life just emerge of its own? Darwin and his "warm little pond" showed the way.
We don't know the mechanism yet - it's going to be super complicated. I read
of one tiny nano-motor, a rotating shaft, which took over 200 pages of chemistry
to explain.

 

[shunyadragon]

The genetics has to do with the fact there exists
1 - a race of people who are Jews
2 - a tribe within this race who are Levites, of the line to Moses.

Genetics is a fact that demonstrates the lineage of humans for hundreds of thousands and relationships to primates for millions of years, and no one cannot conclude the existence of one person thousands of years ago in history using genetics. The existence of an ethnic minority the Jews says nothing beyond the genetics of races and minorities through the history of humanity.

Fact.

The Genesis 1 points out stages in the earth's process that correlate
with scientific understanding. And I show how religious people do not
understand this anymore than non-religious people.

Not a fact at all. this is an extreme bizzaro stretch of the interpretation of Genesis that has no relationship to science. The fact is you do not accept the science of evolution and the natural history of the earth and humanity

Fact.

If there are discrepancies then please point them out and I will amend
my POV.

Fact?!?!!? Discrepancies abound with unethical selective use of science to justify a religious agenda.

Again absolutely no, you cannot justify the existence of one individual, Moses, thousands of years in the past based on genetics.

It is dishonest and unethical to justify a religious agenda with the misuse of science.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is NO evidence for any destruction of Canaanite cities. They prospered in Sinai and Canaan and paid tribute to Egypt.

Joshua is a myth. They had no huge armies nor any victories. This is narrative to create a national hero. Think Davey Crockett, Daniel Boone and Johnny Appleseed.

And there was probably no Hannibal, either. Imagine, an African invading
Rome across the Alps with elephants. Just two people recorded Hannibal
- their accounts differ.

I love how you say Joshua is a myth.
You are brave. People said King David was a myth.
And now we know of the law of Moses practiced 200 years before David.
And we can see the Jews as a genetic race, and the Levite tribe in there too.
We are now finding civic works of Solomon, and mining in Edom, and there's
an Isaiah the prophet, and King Ahab and even evidence for the Ark of the
Covenant. So a general like Joshua shouldn't be too hard to believe.

 

[sooda]

Be careful of saying no evidence equates with no reality.
Edom was considered a tiny, near vassal state to Israel,
yet during the days of Solomon it mined copper. It left
behind at Timna 100,000 tonnes of slag, and about ten
thousand separate mine pits. There was clearly a huge
undertaking involving enormous logistics (food, transport,
tools, security etc..) This didn't involve Egypt, so who was
doing this? Either a much bigger Edom than once thought
or a much larger Israel. This isn't shown in the archeology.

1. TAU Unprecedented Archaeological Study Shows Egyptians ...
   https://www.jewishpress.com/news/on-campus/tau-unprecedented-archaeological-study...
   Archaeology. TAU Unprecedented Archaeological Study Shows Egyptians Made Edom a Copper Superpower ... analyzed hundreds of findings from the ancient copper mines in …
   
   
2. Egyptians Provided Technological Leap For Edomite Kingdom ...
   Ooops! Something is wrong here ...archaeology/edomites-0012601
   Sep 19, 2019 · At a 10th century BC copper production site known as Slaves' Hill located in the Timna Valley in Israel, in what is now known as the area of Arabah, the archaeologists found layers of slag from which they reconstructed the technological changes in the region.
   

 

[PruePhillip]

Genetics is a fact that demonstrates the lineage of humans for hundreds of thousands and relationships to primates for millions of years, and no one cannot conclude the existence of one person thousands of years ago in history using genetics. The existence of an ethnic minority the Jews says nothing beyond the genetics of races and minorities through the history of humanity.
Not a fact at all. this is an extreme bizzaro stretch of the interpretation of Genesis that has no relationship to science. The fact is you do not accept the science of evolution and the natural history of the earth and humanity
Fact?!?!!? Discrepancies abound with unethical selective use of science to justify a religious agenda.
Again absolutely no, you cannot justify the existence of one individual, Moses, thousands of years in the past based on genetics.
It is dishonest and unethical to justify a religious agenda with the misuse of science.

Yes, you can pinpoint a single individual using genetics. You might have a single nucleotide mutation
and this can be tracked essentially forever.
The existence of racial Jews was denied by the cognoscenti for a long time.
We haven't got Moses' DNA, we have his brother - it's technical but I am okay with saying we have Moses too.

The MISUSE of science is when we claim something never happened because we have yet to find evidence
for it.

Genesis gives up viewpoints of stages in the development of earth.
Please identify any false ones and I will amend my Genesis.docx file.

God made the heavens and the earth.
The earth was dark, oceanic and sterile
Land emerged from the water
Life appeared on land
Lift appeared in the seas
Man appeared last

 

[PruePhillip]

1. TAU Unprecedented Archaeological Study Shows Egyptians ...
   https://www.jewishpress.com/news/on-campus/tau-unprecedented-archaeological-study...
   Archaeology. TAU Unprecedented Archaeological Study Shows Egyptians Made Edom a Copper Superpower ... analyzed hundreds of findings from the ancient copper mines in …
   
   
2. Egyptians Provided Technological Leap For Edomite Kingdom ...
   Ooops! Something is wrong here ...archaeology/edomites-0012601
   Sep 19, 2019 · At a 10th century BC copper production site known as Slaves' Hill located in the Timna Valley in Israel, in what is now known as the area of Arabah, the archaeologists found layers of slag from which they reconstructed the technological changes in the region.

At the time of Solomon Egypt had declined. It's presence is not found during
this period in Edom. However, a major customer for this copper was Israel's
appetite for bronze. The bible states this clearly. What reason do you suppose
people have for challenging the idea?