Evidences given for a young-earth

[Dan From Smithville]

No, PruePhillip.

You are not providing any fact at all.

You are trying to piece together what the Bible (Genesis) says and what science say about the early earth, is nothing more than your personal interpretations. And that Phillip, (your interpretations) are merely your opinions, not facts, not science.

Like both @Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone said, trying to force your interpretations to make Genesis creation and science, is like trying to square blocks into circle holes.

Do you think, you are the only creationist who resorted to tactics?

I gave you reply that are very specifics and and these specifics disagree with your interpretations.

But it isn’t just interpretations of science that are wrong. You are also wrong about the way you interpret Genesis verses, like 1:1 for instance:


For one, it doesn’t say “UNIVERSE”, but I get will talk more later about universe later.

Genesis is just one sentence verse, saying God created both "heavens and earth", so at the same time.

Not "universe" first, then "earth".

Already you are trying to twist the context of Genesis' 1st verse.







(Source: Abegg Jr., Martin G.; Peter Flint; Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Bible Hub Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm)

I have even included both Hebrew transliteration and English translation from the Bible Hub, Interlinear Bible.

Now I don't read Hebrew, but judging by each English translations, it doesn't say God created "heaven" or "heavens", and then the "Earth".

So you are deliberately misinterpreting this verse.

Now back to YOUR usage that "heavens" mean "universe".

Well. You are wrong here too with your interpretations.

The word "heavens" or the singular "heaven", depending on which translations you are reading, are found elsewhere in Genesis 1, not just in the 1st verse - 1:1. Examples:

1:8 in the 2nd day, with creation of firmament, which is the sky or heaven(s).
1:9 in the 3rd day, with creation of the dry lands.
1:14, 15, 17 on the 4th day with creation of stars, sun and moon.
1:20 on the 5th day with creation of birds.​

Like I said before, I don't read Hebrew, and I also cannot read ancient Greek.

But in very instances, where words "heaven" or "heavens" being used in Genesis 1, it always connect the heaven with firmament and sky and that connection is to the Earth.

And the Earth's sky isn't the entire universe, only a very tiny portion that ancient people could see.

The word used for sky, heaven(s) used in Genesis 1, is šā·mā·yim (שָׁמָ֑יִם, “sky”, “heavens”), and sometimes used with the word haš (הַ) or "the", so haš·šā·ma·yim (הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם) means "the heaven" or "the heavens", or sky.

It is quite clear that sky and heaven(s) are used interchangeably with the Hebrew word šā·mā·yim.

And it is also very clear that šā·mā·yim include everything within the firmament (rā·qî·a‘, רָקִ֖יעַ) which is also translated as "dome" or "vault" or "the expanse".

(Note that the firmament or rā·qî·a‘, can be used with word "the" such as hā (הָ) or lā (לָ), eg so "the firmament" in Hebrew hā·rā·qî·a‘ (הָרָקִיעַ֒) or lā·rā·qî·a‘ (לָרָקִ֔יעַ).

Anyway, šā·mā·yim don't mean universe. The Hebrew words for universe are the following:

yekum (יְקוּם, “nature”; “universe”, “world”)​

tevél (תֵּבֵל, “world”, “universe”)​

So your interpreting 1:1 as heavens being the universe, is a matter of personal opinions, not fact.

Great post!

I just finished reading several versions of Genesis and none of them match what we know from science. Ignoring the parts that are directly in conflict with the evidence is no help. Some parts are better suited to be twisted and forced crudely to fit with scientific discoveries as we have witnessed here. However, even those attempts at contortions exceed the ability of human spinal evolution.

 

[PruePhillip]

Great post!

I just finished reading several versions of Genesis and none of them match what we know from science. Ignoring the parts that are directly in conflict with the evidence is no help. Some parts are better suited to be twisted and forced crudely to fit with scientific discoveries as we have witnessed here. However, even those attempts at contortions exceed the ability of human spinal evolution.

Same with archaeology and the bible. Archaeologists now agree
on two points about the bible
1 - the bible isn't history
2 - the bible isn't myth

Nothing is one to one. Deciphering old texts, ie pottery, scrolls,
petroglyphs and old books like the bible is never going to yield
perfect alignment.
I don't ignore parts that don't fit - I try to figure out why they don't
fit, ie replications, like in other parts of the bible and other books.

But at this moment I am focused upon verse 2 to prevent people
changing the subject. And no-one can show me how it doesn't
accord with science.

The human spine, even the mammalian spine, is an amazing thing.
But nothing in the universe, absolutely nothing, is more profoundly
complex than the eukaryote cell. It bewilders me. That's a testament
to a long, long period of evolution - and how it appeared defies
explanation after 60 or 70 years since the Miller experiments. It will
be figured out for sure, but what a feat.

 

[Astrophile]

So... you saying there's no evidence for
1 - ocean earth
2 - pre-biotic earth
3 - cloud planet
4 - rise of the continents
5 - clearing of the cloud deck
6 - emergence of life on land
7 - emergence of life in the ocean
8 - advent of man

Yes, there's evidence for all the above.
Cheers.

The available evidence, based on oxygen isotope ratios in Hadean zircons, implies that the first oceans appeared between 4300 million and 4200 million years ago, that is, between 250 and 350 million years after the formation of the Earth.

According to http://serc,carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlyearth/questions/formation_ocean,html , 'the oxygen isotope ratios (delta18O) in in the oldest detrital igneous zircons record mantle-equilibrated values from 4400 to ~4325 Ma (e.g. ~0.53 to 0.54%). From 4325 to ~4200 Ma the delta18O values of zircons are slightly elevated up to 0.63% (Note: the upper end of this range ~0.63% is higher than what is capable of being produced in a mantle melt, however the uncertainty in these analyses overlaps with the mantle). Just after 4200 Ma the story changes. Values of delta18O in the igneous zircons reach values as high as 0.73% with uncertainties that exclude a mantle source. We infer that to produce these 'high delta18O zircons' required that the igneous protolith of the zircon must have assimilated or re-melted crustal materials that were altered by low-temperature processes at or near Earth's surface. In other words, surface waters were present by at least 4200 Ma.'

This evidence shows that the first oceans did not appear until at least 250 million years after the Earth's formation. By this time, the Sun had begun to generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium, and it was approximately as luminous as it is now. There is no evidence for a completely dark oceanic primordial Earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Same with archaeology and the bible. Archaeologists now agree
on two points about the bible
1 - the bible isn't history
2 - the bible isn't myth

Nothing is one to one. Deciphering old texts, ie pottery, scrolls,
petroglyphs and old books like the bible is never going to yield
perfect alignment.
I don't ignore parts that don't fit - I try to figure out why they don't
fit, ie replications, like in other parts of the bible and other books.

But at this moment I am focused upon verse 2 to prevent people
changing the subject. And no-one can show me how it doesn't
accord with science.

The human spine, even the mammalian spine, is an amazing thing.
But nothing in the universe, absolutely nothing, is more profoundly
complex than the eukaryote cell. It bewilders me. That's a testament
to a long, long period of evolution - and how it appeared defies
explanation after 60 or 70 years since the Miller experiments. It will
be figured out for sure, but what a feat.

This is not confusing at all. What exactly are you arguing for?

Are you saying Genesis is not scientifically accurate? I agree. It is not.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is not confusing at all. What exactly are you arguing for?

Are you saying Genesis is not scientifically accurate? I agree. It is not.

Well, we are on verse 2 and that verse is scientifically accurate.
The question is - did the authors of Genesis, or those who long
predated them, get it right? The chances of getting these stages
correct can be judged by two things
1 - do the math on probability.
2 - compare Genesis to all other creation stories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we are on verse 2 and that verse is scientifically accurate.
The question is - did the authors of Genesis, or those who long
predated them, get it right? The chances of getting these stages
correct can be judged by two things
1 - do the math on probability.
2 - compare Genesis to all other creation stories.

It is not scientifically accurate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we are on verse 2 and that verse is scientifically accurate.
The question is - did the authors of Genesis, or those who long
predated them, get it right? The chances of getting these stages
correct can be judged by two things
1 - do the math on probability.
2 - compare Genesis to all other creation stories.

You present the math and how you came up with it.

 

[PruePhillip]

The available evidence, based on oxygen isotope ratios in Hadean zircons, implies that the first oceans appeared between 4300 million and 4200 million years ago, that is, between 250 and 350 million years after the formation of the Earth.

According to http://serc,carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlyearth/questions/formation_ocean,html , 'the oxygen isotope ratios (delta18O) in in the oldest detrital igneous zircons record mantle-equilibrated values from 4400 to ~4325 Ma (e.g. ~0.53 to 0.54%). From 4325 to ~4200 Ma the delta18O values of zircons are slightly elevated up to 0.63% (Note: the upper end of this range ~0.63% is higher than what is capable of being produced in a mantle melt, however the uncertainty in these analyses overlaps with the mantle). Just after 4200 Ma the story changes. Values of delta18O in the igneous zircons reach values as high as 0.73% with uncertainties that exclude a mantle source. We infer that to produce these 'high delta18O zircons' required that the igneous protolith of the zircon must have assimilated or re-melted crustal materials that were altered by low-temperature processes at or near Earth's surface. In other words, surface waters were present by at least 4200 Ma.'

This evidence shows that the first oceans did not appear until at least 250 million years after the Earth's formation. By this time, the Sun had begun to generate energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium, and it was approximately as luminous as it is now. There is no evidence for a completely dark oceanic primordial Earth.

This painting was based upon existing evidence for the ocean before the first continents.
I suggest the sky here is too light - into this atmosphere was pumped trillions of tons of
aerosols and water vapor by submarine volcanos. I think it's only showing methane here,
probably inspired by Titan images.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we are on verse 2 and that verse is scientifically accurate.
The question is - did the authors of Genesis, or those who long
predated them, get it right? The chances of getting these stages
correct can be judged by two things
1 - do the math on probability.
2 - compare Genesis to all other creation stories.

There is no evidence that humans were created complete out of dust. Humans did not originate before all other living things. Freshwater streams formed before rain existed. Hogwash.

Isn't it interesting that you must turn to science to justify your belief. Unfortunately, it does not help you here, since it contradicts your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This painting was based upon existing evidence for the ocean before the first continents.
I suggest the sky here is too light - into this atmosphere was pumped trillions of tons of
aerosols and water vapor by submarine volcanos. I think it's only showing methane here,
probably inspired by Titan images.

View attachment 35330

So what. An artist's interpretation and your speculation is not supporting evidence for your claims.

 

[PruePhillip]

You present the math and how you came up with it.

I did it here once and don't want to repeat it, but it goes something like this
the early earth was oceanic
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 10.
the early earth was dark
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 10 - so that's 10x10 = 1 in 100.
the sun shone through
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 10 - so that's 10x10x10 = 1 in 1000
the continents, as solid rock, emerged from the oceans
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 100 -- so that's 10x10x10x100 = 1 in 10,000

get the idea? And it's got to be In the correct order.

In Genesis there are two creation stories. I think the second one (the snake, Eden etc) and
too highly symbolic. But man comes from the dust, formed of the clay etc.. Church people
could not accept that unlike the development of "organic chemistry" and the synthesis of
urea.

 

[PruePhillip]

So what. An artist's interpretation and your speculation is not supporting evidence for your claims.

It's not just a painting, it's a science image, done in collaboration with science folk.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did it here once and don't want to repeat it, but it goes something like this the early earth was oceanic
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 10.

Are you seriously suggesting that people who lived back then never noticed that there were oceans?

the early earth was dark
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 10 - so that's 10x10 = 1 in 100.

Again, this is utterly ridiculous.

For starters, what are the options when considering presence of absence of light? I'll give you a chance to deduce the number of options yourself, but here's a clue: it's less than three and more than one.

the sun shone through
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 10 - so that's 10x10x10 = 1 in 1000

Again, are you serious?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that people getting right the fact that at some point the sun started shining on the earth is one in ten?

Did you think they were all blind?

the continents, as solid rock, emerged from the oceans
chances of getting this correct? Let's say 1 in 100 -- so that's 10x10x10x100 = 1 in 10,000

Now this is just funny.

Again, they saw that continents were made of rock and came out of the sea. So the odds of them getting correct this thing that they could PLAINLY OBSERVE is 1 in 100?

I have to ask: are you serious??

 

[PruePhillip]

Are you seriously suggesting that people who lived back then never noticed that there were oceans?


Again, this is utterly ridiculous.

For starters, what are the options when considering presence of absence of light? I'll give you a chance to deduce the number of options yourself, but here's a clue: it's less than three and more than one.


Again, are you serious?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that people getting right the fact that at some point the sun started shining on the earth is one in ten?

Did you think they were all blind?


Now this is just funny.

Again, they saw that continents were made of rock and came out of the sea. So the odds of them getting correct this thing that they could PLAINLY OBSERVE is 1 in 100?

I have to ask: are you serious??

Don't know where you are coming from here, other than blanket skepticism.
I didn't say people saw oceans - this was before people, and there was no land.
Absence of light meant the sun did not shine on the earth for millions of years
And continents ROSE out of the sea - continents are made of granite which is
lighter and less dense than basalt. Subduction and sea-floor spreading created
granite by driving rock deep into the crust where heat, pressure, water and other
chemistry produced these light highlands we call continents today. The time
scale for all this was staggering.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't know where you are coming from here, other than blanket skepticism.
I didn't say people saw oceans - this was before people, and there was no land.
Absence of light meant the sun did not shine on the earth for millions of years

Except that's not what the Bible says. It just says that the sun, at some point, started shining.

It's hardly an unlikely prediction, is it? Especially considering it's something that they witnessed every day. To say that there is a 1 in 10 chance of them getting that right is like saying my prediction that, at some point, Julius Caesar was born, is a 1 in 10 chance of being right.

And continents ROSE out of the sea

Again, this is also not a 1 in 10 prediction. You can literally see that islands are coming out of the sea.

- continents are made of granite which is
lighter and less dense than basalt. Subduction and sea-floor spreading created
granite by driving rock deep into the crust where heat, pressure, water and other
chemistry produced these light highlands we call continents today.

If only the Bible were anywhere close to being that accurate.

The time
scale for all this was staggering.

And also not mentioned in the Bible, making your analysis of it even more absurd.

 

[gnostic]

Good reply, excellent.
Yes, shysters use multiple interpretations of words, ie heaven, hell, virgin, law etc..
But we can't argue, ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE HEAVENS INCLUDES ALL
THE ASTRO BODIES ABOVE US. Skeptics might try one interpretation, believers
might employ another.
Yes it does repeat this heaven thing later, and like the seven days business, it's
irritating - but not a show stopper.
Show stoppers for me up until the 1980's included
1 - there was no early ocean, the earth was bone dry and hot
2 - life came from the sea first, not the land
3 - how could the earth be dark after the heavens were made?

This year, 2019, had resolved the last of these issues with the land life issue.

From the repeated use of šā·mā·yim in Genesis 1, it is quite clear to me that the heavens is talking about, only referred to what people of ancient times can view when they looked up in the sky, and NOT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.

The average number of stars a person could see in his or her location can range anywhere from 2000 to 3000 stars...and that without a telescope.

And no one then, or even now know how many stars and galaxies are really out there. Even with our current technology, we may see so much more than Galileo or Hubble, we are not even close to getting accurate numbers of stars and galaxies.

For you to even think the Bible is talking about the universe that we know of, is just staggering arrogant and ignorant.

 

[PruePhillip]

From the repeated use of šā·mā·yim in Genesis 1, it is quite clear to me that the heavens is talking about, only referred to what people of ancient times can view when they looked up in the sky, and NOT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.

The average number of stars a person could see in his or her location can range anywhere from 2000 to 3000 stars...and that without a telescope.

And no one then, or even now know how many stars and galaxies are really out there. Even with our current technology, we may see so much more than Galileo or Hubble, we are not even close to getting accurate numbers of stars and galaxies.

For you to even think the Bible is talking about the universe that we know of, is just staggering arrogant and ignorant.

Well, when people say the "heavens" they could mean all sorts of things.
Same back then. But generally it meant all those thing "up there."
You don't need to need know how many stars there are to use the word
"heavens."
But when it says that "God created the heavens and the earth" I have am
confident that the verse means what most people read it to mean - the
universe and the earth.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that's not what the Bible says. It just says that the sun, at some point, started shining.

It's hardly an unlikely prediction, is it? Especially considering it's something that they witnessed every day. To say that there is a 1 in 10 chance of them getting that right is like saying my prediction that, at some point, Julius Caesar was born, is a 1 in 10 chance of being right.


Again, this is also not a 1 in 10 prediction. You can literally see that islands are coming out of the sea.


If only the Bible were anywhere close to being that accurate.


And also not mentioned in the Bible, making your analysis of it even more absurd.

You can witness islands coming out of the sea. I doubt the ancients of Sumer
saw that though. But to get this sequence of improbable events correct would
be one a few million.
When it says the sun shines it is speaking from the OBSERVER'S POINT OF
VIEW. If there's a break in clouds you can say "the sun shone" or in the morning
"the sun rose." Genesis is from the observer's POV - he is not in orbit giving an
account from that vantage point. So, where he is, it's dark, and then it's light.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can witness islands coming out of the sea. I doubt the ancients of Sumer
saw that though. But to get this sequence of improbable events correct would
be one a few million.

I've already explained how that's nonsense. Nothing they predicted was improbable - it was all easily observable. And the parts that aren't don't take a wild guess to get right.

Your argument is nonsense.

When it says the sun shines it is speaking from the OBSERVER'S POINT OF
VIEW. If there's a break in clouds you can say "the sun shone" or in the morning
"the sun rose." Genesis is from the observer's POV - he is not in orbit giving an
account from that vantage point. So, where he is, it's dark, and then it's light.

Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the claim being unlikely.

Again: the sun starting to shine at some point is not a 1 in 10 claim. It's plain and obvious to any normal human, even those living at the time, that the sun may have NOT been around at some point in the past. That's literally all it claims.

Again, your ridiculous probability estimate is based on nothing, and the predictions of the Bible are just based on very plain observations that ANYBODY could have made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same with archaeology and the bible. Archaeologists now agree
on two points about the bible
1 - the bible isn't history
2 - the bible isn't myth

Nothing is one to one. Deciphering old texts, ie pottery, scrolls,
petroglyphs and old books like the bible is never going to yield
perfect alignment.
I don't ignore parts that don't fit - I try to figure out why they don't
fit, ie replications, like in other parts of the bible and other books.

But at this moment I am focused upon verse 2 to prevent people
changing the subject. And no-one can show me how it doesn't
accord with science.

The human spine, even the mammalian spine, is an amazing thing.
But nothing in the universe, absolutely nothing, is more profoundly
complex than the eukaryote cell. It bewilders me. That's a testament
to a long, long period of evolution - and how it appeared defies
explanation after 60 or 70 years since the Miller experiments. It will
be figured out for sure, but what a feat.

That is not true. Archaeologists look at the Bible as a mixture of history and myth. So it is myth, Genesis, Exodus, Job, Jonah, and other tales. There are also aspects that are historically correct.

And yes, you do ignore the parts that do not fit. If you did not do so you would realize that Genesis is myth. You keep grasping at straws and try to fill the gaps caused by your square pegs and round holes. Meanwhile ignoring the gross errors of Genesis.