Evidences given for a young-earth

[halbhh]

Protestants are bigger drunks than atheists.

Shocking.

Of course, since these are self-reported answers, I would be suspicious of the religious claiming not to drink - in my experience, they tend to over-state or under-state things in order to shine a positive light on their religion.

An amusing topic. Now, perhaps many noticed that neither 15 nor 21 are more than 26, so I wondered what you meant by "Protestants are bigger drunks than atheists." Was that joking? While I give no importance to such numbers anyway, I want to be able to understand your sense of meaning.

Regarding the much more serious problem of people being hypocritical pharisees types ala Matthew chapter 23 that "over-state or under-state things in order to shine a positive light on their religion" -- yes, that's quite right.

It's human nature, and it shows they aren't changed, those doing that.

Have you been ever to a church where they do the opposite of that? One instance is 'Lutheran' -- we say we are all sinners to the point it can be at times to an outsider perhaps to seem as if we are bragging about our shortcomings even, heh heh, though it's more just being honest and humorous.

So, from our point of view, we aren't that perfect, and neither is anyone else, not even the best musician or scientist or teacher, etc. (Even the older Lutherans who do seem often to be doing all Christ said to do, at least around us(!), we don't assume they are perfect fully, but only progressing)

Just thought this might be useful to be aware of -- those doing the opposite of what you've seen.

 

[tas8831]

An amusing topic. Now, perhaps many noticed that 21 isn't more than 26, so I wondered what you meant by "Protestants are bigger drunks than atheists." Was that joking? While I give no importance to such numbers anyway, I want to be able to understand your sense of meaning.

Or that 66 is bigger than 62, plus I was clearly being a bit facetious, given the implications of what I was responding to.

Regarding the much more serious problem of people being hypocritical pharisees types ala Matthew chapter 23 that "over-state or under-state things in order to shine a positive light on their religion" -- yes, that's quite right.

Thanks.

It's human nature, and it shows they aren't changed, those doing that.

Have you been ever to a church where they do the opposite of that? One instance is 'Lutheran' -- we say we are all sinners to the point it can be at times to an outsider perhaps to seem as if we are bragging about our shortcomings even, heh heh, though it's more just being honest and humorous.

The last time I was even in a church was for a friend's relative's funeral. Catholic church. The entire thing gave me the creeps - all of that ritual and cult-like activity, with the repetition of slogans and all that.

So, from our point of view, we aren't that hot, and neither is anyone else, not even the best musician or scientist or teacher, etc.

Just thought this might be useful to be aware of -- those doing the opposite of what you've seen.

I think it is a given in these discussions that statements are not intended to apply universally.

 

[halbhh]

I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth." I'm wondering about some of the following arguments:

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

#4 Faint Sun Paradox
Another argument AiG presents is the faint-sun paradox. Would the sun have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, preventing life from evolving?

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
Also, I've wondered about the carbon-14 found in ancient fossils, etc. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, how is it found in fossils dated to be millions of years old?

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
Finally, is the ocean only 1/70th as salty as we would expect if it came into existence naturally 3 billion years ago?

These are the four I wanted to look at. Thanks in advance for the input!

I think it's never too late for anyone that builds on sand like that to turn and instead build the very different way Christ instructs in Matthew 7:24-27, before it's too late. Theories about the age of Earth are of approximately 0% importance in the long run for the salvation of anyone. Genesis fits all sorts of a huge range of possible situations perfectly, as the text doesn't address such mundane things, but instead is about profound things like our relationship with God, the problem of evil, the birth of consciousness and the need to learn to trust, and much more -- things that actually matter for one's soul relationship with God are the real subject matter. So, zero in there about chemistry, astrophysics, geology, biochemistry, etc. If there was, then that would be very odd and incompatible with the rest of the bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

And yet... weird - you did not even make an attempt to do so.
.

Genesis 1 is written in theological language (ie the seven days of creation)
There plenty of evidence where the bible employs this at the expense of
historic accuracy (ie seven generations, stripped down from a much larger
number mentioned elsewhere, and "the seven churches," stripped down from
many churches which are mentioned elsewhere.)
God created the heavens, then the earth.
The reader is then taken to an early stage of the earth where it was dark,
oceanic and sterile.
Then the continents emerged
Life appeared on "land" first
and then the seas brought forth life
and finally man.

The accounts of the Patriarchs accord fairly well with archeology of the
Bronze Age. Gradually many cities, kings, customs etc have appeared.
We now have genetic evidence for there really being a Jewish people
and even strong indicators for one of the tribes dating back to Moses,
the Cohen genetic line (think Trump's former lawyer - related to Moses'
brother Aaron.)

No-one in their right mind is going to scale Mount Olympus in Greece
and find evidence for Zeus and Jupiter. Yet there's no great stir when
something new about the bible appears in the diggings.

 

[PruePhillip]

Correction: things *inside the universe* don't 'simply exist'. But when talking about the start of time, our notions of causality start to break down: causality requires time. And that means that causality only makes sense within the universe. So the universe itself (all of space and time) *cannot* be caused.

And, when you talk about a 'first even', you are assuming there *was* a first event. Remember the BB is NOT an event (no spacetime coordinates). Once again, causality only makes sense *within* the universe, where there is time.

The BB could be an event, we just don't know. There's this membrane theory, fer instance.
But a putative Event A had to have created time. Something "caused" time to begin. Other
wise, time was here forever. It's a futile exercise in working through this when we don't even
know what time is.
Like your point - it's interesting.

 

[tas8831]

Genesis 1 is written in theological language (ie the seven days of creation)
There plenty of evidence where the bible employs this at the expense of
historic accuracy (ie seven generations, stripped down from a much larger
number mentioned elsewhere, and "the seven churches," stripped down from
many churches which are mentioned elsewhere.)
God created the heavens, then the earth.
The reader is then taken to an early stage of the earth where it was dark,
oceanic and sterile.
Then the continents emerged
Life appeared on "land" first
and then the seas brought forth life
and finally man.

The accounts of the Patriarchs accord fairly well with archeology of the
Bronze Age. Gradually many cities, kings, customs etc have appeared.
We now have genetic evidence for there really being a Jewish people
and even strong indicators for one of the tribes dating back to Moses,
the Cohen genetic line (think Trump's former lawyer - related to Moses'
brother Aaron.)

No-one in their right mind is going to scale Mount Olympus in Greece
and find evidence for Zeus and Jupiter. Yet there's no great stir when
something new about the bible appears in the diggings.

That is one steaming pile or equine feces for you to have regurgitated for the sole purpose of avoiding having to admit that you cannot, in fact, demonstrate that this claim of yours:

"If you are here by accident then your life doesn't have innate meaning."

has merit.


Does it ever get tiring being a religionist, to have to carry on as you do in order to prop up a failing set of ancient numerologists' beliefs and stories?

 

[Polymath257]

The BB could be an event, we just don't know. There's this membrane theory, fer instance.
But a putative Event A had to have created time. Something "caused" time to begin. Other
wise, time was here forever. It's a futile exercise in working through this when we don't even
know what time is.
Like your point - it's interesting.

I'm going by the standard BB model when I say the BB is not an event.

For the more general case, if you have a membrane model, then the 'multiverse' plays the role of 'the universe' in my description. Time, causality, matter, and energy all are co-existent in any multiverse theory.

 

[gnostic]

The BB could be an event, we just don't know. There's this membrane theory, fer instance.

BB is scientific theory.

The “membrane theory” is a theoretical model, not a scientific theory; it isn’t even a hypothesis because it isn’t falsifiable.

 

[Wandering Monk]

BB is scientific theory...

it isn’t even a hypothesis because it isn’t falsifiable.

Neither was the existence of the atom though it was first suggested about 2400 years ago.

 

[gnostic]

Neither was the existence of the atom though it was first suggested about 2400 years ago.

Well, I was referring to the present status.

I don’t think it is called “membrane theory” anymore, but rather M-theory, and it isn’t “membrane”, rather “brane”.

The brane cosmology, as are all flavors of string and superstring theories, are “theoretical” models, all unfalsifiable and untestable.

Until the days they are they able to test any one of them, they will just proposed explanations, not scientific theory.

In the last 10 years, the focus on all string theories have been radio silent, and more focuses have been on standard model of particle physics (eg Higgs boson and Higgs mechanisms), and on quantum field theory.

The only times M-theory or brane theory and multiverse model work, when they are depicted in sci-fi novels, comic, movies or tv shows. They currently don’t work in the real world, and attempts to actually make them work, string and superstring initiatives have stalled.

 

[PruePhillip]

BB is scientific theory.

The “membrane theory” is a theoretical model, not a scientific theory; it isn’t even a hypothesis because it isn’t falsifiable.

I don't mean to doubt the BB, I just questioned the technicality of it being an "event."

 

[PruePhillip]

Neither was the existence of the atom though it was first suggested about 2400 years ago.

And string theory, too.

 

[PruePhillip]

That is one steaming pile or equine feces for you to have regurgitated for the sole purpose of avoiding having to admit that you cannot, in fact, demonstrate that this claim of yours:

"If you are here by accident then your life doesn't have innate meaning."

has merit.


Does it ever get tiring being a religionist, to have to carry on as you do in order to prop up a failing set of ancient numerologists' beliefs and stories?

Just take the first "day" of the earth.
Where does the bible put you, the "observer" to this story? Upon the earth itself.

It's dark - fact (the early Earth was a cloud planet, like Venus and Titan)
It's oceanic - fact (no continents, the oceans helped Subduction which created granite which formed continents)
It's sterile - fact (no life at this point)

NASA saw in Saturn's moon Titan an "analogue earth" for its cloud shrouded, pre-biotic liquid terrain.

I will continue if you like... gotta go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just take the first "day" of the earth.
Where does the bible put you, the "observer" to this story? Upon the earth itself.

It's dark - fact (the early Earth was a cloud planet, like Venus and Titan)
It's oceanic - fact (no continents, the oceans helped Subduction which created granite which formed continents)
It's sterile - fact (no life at this point)

NASA saw in Saturn's moon Titan an "analogue earth" for its cloud shrouded, pre-biotic liquid terrain.

I will continue if you like... gotta go.

Sorry, the Bible's account is pretty poor when one constantly has to try to fit square pegs into round holes.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, the Bible's account is pretty poor when one constantly has to try to fit square pegs into round holes.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Wrong! Said your average biblical skeptic ca 1980.
The earth was dry and the sun was shining brightly (actually, weakly at that stage)

But from studies done in Australia it was determined that as soon as the earth
cooled it had free standing water (plus a huge amount in the atmosphere)
And this atmosphere had a lot of early gasses and vast quantities of volcanic
emissions. I read somewhere this early pre-continental, global ocean could
have been 3-4 km deep. And "without form", you would be hard pressed to know
where you were as there was no real "land fall" anywhere. Just dark ocean.

That's my understand of this point in earth's history. The bible gives us some
points, symbolized as days - not the whole story (it's a theology book after all.)
(Even we in the 21st Century would not understand the whole story of the universe
and ourselves if some alien delivered it to us.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 35191

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Wrong! Said your average biblical skeptic ca 1980.
The earth was dry and the sun was shining brightly (actually, weakly at that stage)

But from studies done in Australia it was determined that as soon as the earth
cooled it had free standing water (plus a huge amount in the atmosphere)
And this atmosphere had a lot of early gasses and vast quantities of volcanic
emissions. I read somewhere this early pre-continental, global ocean could
have been 3-4 km deep. And "without form", you would be hard pressed to know
where you were as there was no real "land fall" anywhere. Just dark ocean.

That's my understand of this point in earth's history. The bible gives us some
points, symbolized as days - not the whole story (it's a theology book after all.)
(Even we in the 21st Century would not understand the whole story of the universe
and ourselves if some alien delivered it to us.)

The only sources you have posted said there was some water early on. Since the Earth appears to have formed with water within it the oceans would have taken time to form. And you are stil still ignoring the clear misses.

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 35191

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Wrong! Said your average biblical skeptic ca 1980.
The earth was dry and the sun was shining brightly (actually, weakly at that stage)

But from studies done in Australia it was determined that as soon as the earth
cooled it had free standing water (plus a huge amount in the atmosphere)
And this atmosphere had a lot of early gasses and vast quantities of volcanic
emissions. I read somewhere this early pre-continental, global ocean could
have been 3-4 km deep. And "without form", you would be hard pressed to know
where you were as there was no real "land fall" anywhere. Just dark ocean.

That's my understand of this point in earth's history. The bible gives us some
points, symbolized as days - not the whole story (it's a theology book after all.)
(Even we in the 21st Century would not understand the whole story of the universe
and ourselves if some alien delivered it to us.)

This citation is too vague to have a reference that is meaningful in comparison with the scientific knowledge of the history of the earth. Read somewhere 3-4 km deep?!?!? need references here. The earth was never without form, and void. The early history some believed to be covered with oceans cannot be compared to without form, and void.

 

[PruePhillip]

This citation is too vague to have a reference that is meaningful in comparison with the scientific knowledge of the history of the earth. Read somewhere 3-4 km deep?!?!? need references here. The earth was never without form, and void. It was a constantly evolving and changing planet throughout its history.

Hate it when people ask you for a reference to something you read in a magazine
or newspaper, or something you read 20 years ago.
Don't worry about the 3-4 km, even if it was an inch deep it doesn't change anything.

We simply don't understand the terminology here, ie void, form, firmament.

When Genesis says "day 1" we can take that as saying "at this point in the process"
And for many millions of years earth was EXACTLY LIKE GENESIS SAYS.

 

[PruePhillip]

The only sources you have posted said there was some water early on. Since the Earth appears to have formed with water within it the oceans would have taken time to form. And you are stil still ignoring the clear misses.

Not "some water" but ALL water.
That's what the literature says - lots of deep water and no continents in sight.
Maybe volcanoes as these were belching gases into the atmosphere - but
even here maybe there were venting from beneath the waves. We don't know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hate it when people ask you for a reference to something you read in a magazine
or newspaper, or something you read 20 years ago.

References to science should come with citations.

Don't worry about the 3-4 km, even if it was an inch deep it doesn't change anything.

We simply don't understand the terminology here, ie void, form, firmament.

When Genesis says "day 1" we can take that as saying "at this point in the process"
And for many millions of years earth was EXACTLY LIKE GENESIS SAYS.

Actually the description in the Bible best fits an old Aristotilian view of the history of the universe. Regardless the citation 'without form and void has not parallel in the scientific view of the early history of the earth.