Evidences given for a young-earth

[gnostic]

It's interesting how we fit things together.
We ALL try to fit things into a coherent picture.
The Virgin Mary account, taken from Isaiah speaks
of a "young woman" according to one line and not
a virgin. But there's various interpretations of virgin
and when Isaiah says "Therefore the Lord himself will
give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth
to a son..." I take that as meaning chaste woman -
otherwise there's no "sign" to the story.

The problem with Matthew’s version of Isaiah’s sign, is that whoever wrote this gospel, had conveniently and selectively left out 3/4 quarter of the sign.

Isaiah’s sign may have begun on verse 7:14, but what of verses 15, 16 and 17. Did you even bother to read them?

The sign isn’t really about the birth of boy to unnamed woman, but when the boy reached a certain age, the Assyrians will intervene in Judah’s war with Israel and Aram.

To understand the sign, you must READ ALL 4 VERSES:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The “child” and “he” in verses 15 & 16 is about Immanuel reaching a certain age, when the king of Assyria will go to war against Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram, who are mentioned several times, not only in chapter 7, but also in chapter 8.

Jesus was never called Immanuel, but Immanuel does reappear in chapter 8, again in relation to both the king of Assyria and the two kings (Rezin and Pekah):

6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Chapter 8 made it quite clear that the sign relate to the earlier one in 7:14-17.

And verses 7:14-17 is very similar in vein as the sign given in 8:3-4, but I will quote it from the 1st verse:

8 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

They are not same, but they are certainly very similar, and both related to Ahaz’s war with Pekah and Rezin.

And it would seem that similarities between the two signs, that would imply “Immanuel” is really “Maher-shalah-hash-baz” who is really Isaiah’s son.

By what I can read from both chapters 7 & 8, Immanuel and the signs have nothing to do with Jesus or with the Messiah, and nothing to do with Mary being virgin or otherwise.

And how do we know that Isaiah’s son is one of the signs, then read 8:18, where Isaiah said:

18 “...See, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.”

Did you even bother to read the whole two chapters?

That you, the author of the gospel (of Matthew) and any other Christians, will only focus on a single verse (7:14) alone, without bothering to read the whole 2 chapters (7 & 8), is nothing more than shoddy biblical scholarship.

Isaiah 7:14 isn’t a messianic sign. You are simply ignoring to read the complete sign, so you and the gospel author have misinterpreted Isaiah by taking sign completely out-of-context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I suggest you start here: An Index to Creationist Claims

Specifically:

CC371: Tyrannosaurus blood

CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone

CE311: Faint young sun

CD011.6: C14 date of old oil

CD221.1: Amount of dissolved sodium in oceans

Then if you need further detail, you should read through the material cited in each of those responses.

Funny. Stubbled upon this thread just now, read the OP and first thought I had was "I bet every single one of these - including the other 6 that aren't mentioned - is addressed and explained on talkorigins in the index to creationist claims"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe in a few, but soft tissue is not found in all Dino fossils!

This evidence is not for a young Earth, but rather, that some dinosaurs lived relatively recently.

No, it's not evidence some T-rex lived recenlty either.

Some species’ existence no doubt spanned eons.

There are some that didn't change all that much over the years, like crockodiles for example. But T-rex wasn't one of them. Such dino's all have been extinct for +60 million years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

FYI, I believe the Scriptures....that being said, tell me, please: how would the Flood, covering the entire Earth, alter the salinity of the oceans? Do you think it might dilute their salt content?
Of course.

This, again, would not imply a young Earth.

No flood every covered the entire earth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I want to also impress upon you that some people don't believe dinosaur fossils are real in the first place.

The Atlantean Conspiracy

These people (along with their flat Earth stuff which is a separate article) make a case that found dinosaur bones are planted there with the attempt to defraud the public, and are usually patchwork parts of other animals or outright plaster casts, and the real bones are always locked away in a vault and never shown to the public. They go on to say that these bones conveniently showed up starting a little after Darwin and only archeologists, never any construction workers or people who dig for oil seem to ever find them.

If we want therefore to deny an old Earth, it wouldn't be unthinkable then to just decide dinosaur fossils themselves are fake.

Man, that site is absolutely HILARIOUS.

I laughed my behind off with this cartoon:

Note that I'm teling myself that this site isn't serious and instead just satire. I think the alternative is just too depressing.

 

[PruePhillip]

Funny. Stubbled upon this thread just now, read the OP and first thought I had was "I bet every single one of these - including the other 6 that aren't mentioned - is addressed and explained on talkorigins in the index to creationist claims"

There IS an issue with carbon dating. It's resolution shows that old dates
are actually much older than previously thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're right about me missing it. The closest I was able to see was this statement: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." This definitely doesn't sound like an outright denial of science, let alone the scientific method, regardless of whether or not their views stand against scientific scrutiny.

It is basically saying that science is fine as long as it doesn't conflict with their faith based (and thus unscientific) religious beliefs. Any science that disagrees with their religious beliefs, is to be dismissed.

So yes, that statement of faith is exactly what @Subduction Zone said it is: an outright denial of science.

It literally says that they already have their answers: it's in the bible. It doesn't matter what science says because whatever science says, they're going to go with the bible anyway.

It's even a distraction to also state that they "agree with science as long as it doesn't conflict with their interpretation of the bible". Because it is redundant. They go with their understanding of the bible, period. It matters not what science says. If science on some subject says something that agrees with the bible, is beyond obvious that on that point they'll agree with it too.

Here's the thing: they don't agree with it because of the science! They agree with it because of their bible beliefs. BIG difference.

Science is irrelevant. That is exactly what that statement of faith says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There IS an issue with carbon dating. It's resolution shows that old dates
are actually much older than previously thought.

Carbon dating can only be used on samples that are geologically very young. And care must be taken since depending on the local environment a false old date or a false young date can arise from using it. A false young date arises from contamination with new C14. A false old date arises if the organism consumes old sources of carbon.

 

[tas8831]

Man, that site is absolutely HILARIOUS.

I laughed my behind off with this cartoon:

View attachment 34571

Note that I'm teling myself that this site isn't serious and instead just satire. I think the alternative is just too depressing.

Surely you have seen the numerous videos on YouTube "documenting" the "fact" that the moon AND the sun are actually within the earth's atmosphere?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that debate tactics in which you flood a list of arguments are not reliable. However, there are debates where participants stick to a few (e.g., three) arguments each, each side developing rebuttals. It's unfortunate if this hasn't happened to your knowledge, but if you know any that debates (or discussions) not involving floods of arguments, I'd like to see them.

Does anyone know of any other creation-evolution debates/discussions?

Specifically on the topic of the flood, this might interest you....

You know "geology" right? It's a scientific field of study. The study of the earth. Composition, rocks, plate tectonics, vulcano's, earth quakes, deposit layers, sediments, ... and all that jazz.
Do you know how this field got kickstarted?

Christians set out to gather scientific evidence that the biblical flood happened. In a very real sense, this helped in developing the methods of geology. Eventually, geologists concluded that there is no such evidence, to the point of the evidence actually pointing to such a flood never having happened at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Surely you have seen the numerous videos on YouTube "documenting" the "fact" that the moon AND the sun are actually within the earth's atmosphere?

Yes, I love satire!









...who am i kidding right....

 

[Polymath257]

Man, that site is absolutely HILARIOUS.

I laughed my behind off with this cartoon:

View attachment 34571

Note that I'm teling myself that this site isn't serious and instead just satire. I think the alternative is just too depressing.

Even as satire, someone has *way* too much time on their hands.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, it's not evidence some T-rex lived recenlty either.

There are some that didn't change all that much over the years, like crockodiles for example. But T-rex wasn't one of them. Such dino's all have been extinct for +60 million years.

I'm not arguing from a YEC position. I'm not saying that all dinosaurs are relatively young. (Very few, in fact.)

But the evidence (soft tissue found) does indicate that some species' existence spanned millions of years, until relatively recent times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not saying that all dinosaurs are relatively young. (Very few, in fact.)

None are, except birds, which strictly speaking are dinosaurs.

But the evidence (soft tissue found) does indicate that some species' existence spanned millions of years, until relatively recent times.

No. This is a PRATT.
Please inform yourself on the actual explanation.
You can find it on talkorigins in the index to creationist claims, which was linked in previous posts.

 

[PruePhillip]

But the evidence (soft tissue found) does indicate that some species' existence spanned millions of years, until relatively recent times.

This "soft tissue" has little to do with time, oddly enough.
This tissue could survive as "soft" tissue for billions of years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This "soft tissue" has little to do with time, oddly enough.
This tissue could survive as "soft" tissue for billions of years.

Why are you quoting a sentence written by @Hockeycowboy as if it was something that I said?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why are you quoting a sentence written by @Hockeycowboy as if it was something that I said?

My apologies.

 

[leroy]

Have you ever heard of potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating and uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating methods. These two are the most commonly used to date rocks and rock minerals over 100,000 years. Their half-life differed depending on which isotopes being used to measure radio decays.

.

And how is someone suppose to know if the rock is over 100,000 years old?

 

[leroy]

@Kilk1

None of the claims made by AiG are “evidence” for creationism.

They just show the high levels of ignorance to science, as well as dishonest practices of propaganda, by Ken Ham and his toadies.

The one about faint sun paradox, with sun being below freezing, just only demonstrated how little they understand astronomy and astrophysics.

They are making claims, but there are no evidence for each and every one of those claims they have made.

The faint sun paradox is a true problem that has not been solved, some solutions have been proposed but nobody has found a clean way to solve this problem. (this problem was proposed by Carl Sagan and has not been solved, so it is not even a “creationist thing-“

In my opinion it is dishonest to simply ignore the problem a call it a “lie” I agree on that the vast majority of evidence points to an old earth, but there are still tiny bits of evidence that cannot be explained in the context of an old earth and that would be easily explained with a young earth.

 

[gnostic]

And how is someone suppose to know if the rock is over 100,000 years old?

You wouldn’t use radiocarbon (C14) to date anything older than 55,000 years old.

You are ignoring other radioactive isotopes, such as -

• lead (eg Pb-206 and Pb-207);
• uranium-lead (U-Pb) eg U-238 decays to Pb-206, or U-235 to Pb-207;
• potassium-argon (K-Ar), eg K-40 decays to Ar-40.

The dating of these rocks, are dependence on the composition of rock minerals, for instance, if these minerals contain lead, or potassium, or argon, etc.

K-40 are more useful dating any minerals that contains potassium, for instances,

• weathering feldspars (more specifically KAlSi3O4), which are most often found in clay minerals (hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates);
• weathering of micas (eg Biotite Lepidolite Phlogopite Zinnwaldite, Muscovite, etc) all contained potassium.

For example, U-Pb are the only known radiometric dating that can date zircon. Zircon (zirconium silicate, or ZrSiO4.), that contained trace amounts of uranium and thorium. It is zircon that can be used to date (billions of years) rock of Precambrian crust, using U-Pb dating method.

The question is why creationists argued against the known limitations of c-14 dating, when there several other methods, that creationists continue to ignore?