Creationism

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Dec 31, 2001.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    FLYFREE432

    Just so all of you know I am a 6 day creationist. Yet I love playing "devil's advocate", so let me ask a few questions you may or may not have pondered before, many of which I am still working on myself:

    1) If we are to believe in the "young-earth theory" how do we explain how the light of stars millions of light years away have reached us?

    2) If we are to believe in a young earth how are we to explain dinosaurs (besides Job 40 or the cop out "satan put them here"). I mean, is it possible that we really walked around with 40 ton dinosaurs?

    I have yet to come up with solid scientific answers to either of those questions.


    THE BRIGUY

    Question 1 - God created the light that travels from the stars all at once. It did not take millions of years to get here he just created it and it was there.
    Question 2 - Not an easy one. I tend to believe that Noah only brought one species of Dinosaur on the ark as he brought only one of every other species of animal (except for the clean animals that he brought several of). That last Dinosaur may not have reproduced or if it did it died out in a short amount of time. As for pre-ark I believe that like most animals (OK Reptiles too) that they would have stayed away from humans and not posed and issue.
    It was a great big earth with very few people back then.


    BWSMITH

    If young-earth creationism is true, then we should be able to observe a limit to how far away things appear on the order of 4,004 light years. Because the universe is 15 billion years old, we see things that are much more distant.

    Isn't it interesting how geological strata clearly separate dinosaurs from humans? It is clear that the fossil record reflects a long process of biological change over time.

    Notice also that the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Greek Septuagint (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus) and the Samaritan Pentateuch all have different numbers for both the antediluvian and postdiluvian chronogenealogies.
    This is a reflection of the notion that the toledot genealogies are a late, post-exilic addition to the Torah, and that they were edited extensively in their separate textual traditions during the Second Temple Period.


    WORD DIGGER

    I disagree that there were any dinosaurs on the ark at all, or anytime between Adam and Noah. Now, I do agree with a literal six, 24 hours days of creation, but that creation 6,000 years ago was not of the first world created on the face of this earth. Nor is the heavens and earth we have now the first. Ours is the second generation of the heavens and earth:

    The dinosaurs were a part of the first heavens and earth, during the first generation. So question #2 is not a valid question. Question #1, however, was correctly answered by The Briguy. God spoke, and they started shining at the same time all across the universe. That, however, does not preclude the possibility that they had also shined previously and had gone dark (..and darkness was upon the face of the deep..(Gen 1:2) and that God made the sun, moon and stars shine again from the same sun, moon and stars (matter) that existed in the first generation.
    Young Earth Creationism is only a partial truth.


    JOHN WELLS

    “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
    (Exo 20:11 NIV) It says "all that is in them," not "raw ingredients!"

    When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?
    The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together? In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us “Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism.”
    Well, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well. Scientists in the former Soviet Union have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2,000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks “resembling human footprints.” Obviously, both types of footprints were made in mud or sand that has since hardened into rock. If they are human footprints, then man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Similar discoveries have been made in Arizona. If it were not for the theory of evolution, few would doubt that these were human footprints. Isn't it interesting how geological strata clearly DO NOT separate dinosaurs from humans?

    Another thing to consider is that before the flood we are told that people lived much longer, 8 to 9 hundred years was typical. This was likely due to the “greenhouse effect” from the canopy of water vapor shrouding the earth. It kept out the UV rays of the sun which contribute greatly to the aging process. After the flood the atmosphere of the earth rapidly became like what we have today. The Bible shows a steady decrease in the ages of post-flood characters, as the UV radiation began to take effect on lifespans of ALL creatures. Reptiles, unlike other animals, continue to grow throughout their lives. Some of the reptiles today may well be the dinosaurs of pre-flood days; they just don’t live and grow for as long a period of time, and thus do not attain the Jurrasic Park dimensions. Noah was no dummy and took baby reptiles on the ark. Many of these species could not cope with the post-flood atmosphere and died out within a few generations after the flood.

    How do we explain how the light of stars millions of light years away have reached us? The Bible says: He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8 NIV) In “big bang” fashion, God stretched out the heavens! Not all light billions of light years away has had to travel billions of light years to our eyeballs. It only had to travel the distance from when it was emitted as God stretched the stars out.

    Laws of Thermodynamics:
    A) Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed -- only changed from one form to another.
    B) Any such change causes an increase of entropy, that is, a decrease in complexity.

    Notice that the second law prohibits any sort of gradual evolutionary improvement in living things -- that would be an increase in complexity. These two fundamental laws of science are defined only for closed systems, but no one has ever been able to imagine any other system for which these laws are not true over a long time span, unless there is outside intelligent energy input. Raw energy input (sunlight etc.) is not enough. But evolutionists can't allow a theory requiring outside intelligence, for that would be supernatural intervention -- a Creator.

    NOTE: The Fossil Record shows that evolution has never occurred, so far as any evidence shows. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that, theoretically, it could never have occurred.

    If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we do not need a Savior. The Bible teaches that death is the direct result of sin: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Romans 5:12

    This is not a parable by Jesus, or some hypothetical, abstract postulation. It is what God inspired Paul to record as FACT in God’s revelation to man. It stands in direct conflict with the evolutionists’ claim that death is from the beginning, ages before the first human evolved. If “death” was not the by-product of sin, then a sinless sacrifice will not conquer death, as God’s Word claims Jesus did.


    HAL PARKER

    From Luke chapter 3:
    23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
    24. Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
    25. Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
    26. Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
    27. Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
    28. Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
    29. Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
    30. Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
    31. Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
    32. Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
    33. Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
    34. Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
    35. Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
    36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
    37. Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
    38. Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


    Notice that Luke treats the people found in Genesis 1-11 as historical people in his list. If you had to argue from the text alone, how would you decide where allegory ends and real history starts? It seems to me, that this argues for treating Gen. 1-11 as real history.



    REVKEVIN77

    Can this verse be saying that the Earth is round; Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth...."
    ? That is that the Bible says it's round before Chris Columbus demonstrated this?


    JOHN WELLS

    THANK YOU! I knew the reference to the "round earth" was there somewhere, but for the life of me could remember any of the key words.

    Maybe the "flat earth" argument will go away . . . but I'm not holding my breath.


    BWSMITH

    Circle doesn't mean sphere. The tree is in the center of the disk of the earth. The edges of the disk are where the hammered firmament (Heb raqia) of the heaven attaches.

    Von Rad writes: (Genesis, Rev. ed. 1972)
    "The second day brings the creation of the firmament, which the ancients imagined as a gigantic hemispherical and ponderous bell (Ps. 19:2, Job 37:18). Raqia means that which is firmly hammered, stamped (a word of the same root in Phoenician means "tin dish"). The meaning of the verb RQ' concerns the hammering of the vault of heaven into firmness (Isa 42:5, Ps. 136:6). The Vulgate translates raqia with firmamentum, and that remains the best rendering. This heavenly bell, which is brought into the waters of chaos, forms first of all a separating wall between the waters beneath and above."

    Are we allowed to use poetic passages? If so, how about Daniel 4:10-11:

    "I saw, and behold, a tree in the middle of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the earth."

    Isa 40:22 literally says:

    "It is He who sits above the VAULT of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

    The context is that the heavens are a large tent, vaulting over the disk of the flat earth. God stretches out the tent for us to dwell inside.

    JOHN WELLS

    Nice try, but this was a "vision" Daniel had, and I don't see the need to lecture you or anyone reading that visions in the Bible are full of symbolisms.


    BWSMITH

    How did all those round-earth believing Jews know what Daniel was talking about? At what point did flat-earthism corrupt mankind's shape of the earth to the extent that it had to be rediscovered by Galileo?

    JOHN WELLS

    Yes, "spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" is symbolic. "Like" usually does imply a comparison, symbolic or otherwise.
    I am defending science in the Bible. Now God could have divinely inspired men to write more about science than we will ever discover ourselves, but that was not the focus of His revelation. But, when the Bible does deal with a scientific subject, it is perfectly accurate, as we see here in Isaiah. Please avoid defocusing this debate by picking out visions and symbolisms to distort the "truth" of the Bible. I know you're smart enough to know when scripture is using these.


    BWSMITH

    Notice the footnotes of the NASB: chuwg is the word used for vault/circle in Isa 40:22. The same word is used in Job 22:14: "Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; And He walks on the vault of heaven."
    Hence, the chuwg deals with the vault of heaven and is not an allusion to a spherical earth.

    The Catholic Inquisition knew what they were talking about when they arrested Galileo. They may not have been right about the reality of the earth, but they knew their Bible. The Bible gives no mention of a spherical earth, but alludes in numerous places to a flat-earth cosmology.


    WILL

    Really. The Catholic Inquisition arrested Galileo. Not true. Galileo wasn't arrested for any scientific belief but for satirizing the Pope. The belief in a Geocentric universe came not from the Bible but Aristotle. Galileo wrote about Copernicus' theories. Copernicus died a patron of the Church 70 years prior to Galileo with his theories well known but unaccepted. This was due to an a priori commitment to Aristotelian cosmology. Galileo's great defender was the man who would become the next Pope. So much for conflict with the church.

    The popular account of Galileo is one of the great myths of history. It first appeared in a French Enlightenment book in the mid 1800s with little historical basis. In fact it appears in my daughter's textbook uncritically.


    JOHN WELLS

    Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
    Circle = Chug
    From H2328; a circle:—circle, circuit, compassive

    It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth . . . (Isa 40:22 KJV)

    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth . . . (Isa 40:22 NIV)

    It is God who sits above the circle of the earth . . . (Isa 40:22 NLT)

    What is so difficult about a truth and a symbolism in one sentence? Ever hear: "That car I just bought sure is a lemon?"


    BRO DAVE

    How about this: the firmament is the atmosphere which separates the water on the earth from the water inspace.


    MIKAYEHU

    First, BW, I have no problem with your saying that people of the ancient world believed the earth was flat and had 4 corners, but to say that the Bible teaches that as a scientific fact is utter nonsense. I use expressions like "the ends of the earth," and "the sun rises" yet I don't believe in a flat earth or the geocentric theory. Yet, you would come along and look at my writings and claim I taught the earth had corners. That would be the extreme of being unscientific. The Bible was written to communicate to the common man, so I don't find it surprising that such expressions are used.

    Secondly, I just wanted to make a general observation. Science, by its very nature cannot appeal to God for answers. What would science be if every time it encountered something it couldn't explain (like the origin of life) simply said "well God did it"? Science must deal with laws of nature. If science encounters a miraculous action by
    God (as Scripture unquestionably teaches), science will come to the wrong conclusion because miracles are necessarily outside of science.

    Finally, I wanted to address the first of the original questions in this thread -- why can we see light from stars that are millions of light years away? First, let me state that I am not comfortable with the explanation that God created the light so we could already see it on earth. I have no problem with "apparent age" (like full-grown trees or adult humans) but there is a problem with carrying this over to star light. For example, we can see a supernova that's several million light years away. That would mean that we have just seen an explosion of a star that never existed. In essence, God is making up a history that never happened. That presents philosophical problems for me.
    A full-grown tree is fine, but scarring from a fire that never happened would seem problematic. Adam being created as an adult man is fine, but his having a scar from an accident in his childhood would seem questionable.
    Having said all that, let me say that I am an intense reader of everything to do with space-time and the theory of relativity, and the bottom line is that we don't know enough to make dogmatic conclusions on space and time. It is very feasible that light from a star 12 million light years away could reach the earth in only 10,000 years on earth. We are just too limited in our knowledge of space-time.



    JOHN WELLS

    Adam said, "I know that God created everything in 6 days because He said so. I don't need scientific evidence. I have faith."

    Exactly! We can argue, for instance, about whether there is enough water (sub-terranian included, because the Bible says the fountains of the deep burst forth) to cover the mountains, like scripture says. I have read seemingly convincing scientific arguments pro and con on that, but then I think: A God who could speak "all that there is" into existance certainly could create (inject) more water to flood the earth, and remove it when He's done!

    Christian evolutionists (which is an oxymoron) believe God could speak an entire universe into existence, but laugh and scoff at the idea of God's work being accomplished some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and "confounding the wisdom of the wise" by making earth and the universe appear to be billions of years old. Evolutionists do not place the full weight of their faith in God. They still insist on being able to prove by scientific methods what He did. If they can't, they oppose what the Bible says concerning those things, and by necessity of their motives, must denounce inerrancy of the scriptures. I, like you Adam, choose faith over prideful human wisdom.
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    BWSMITH

    Supposedly, evolutionists are such because we don't have enough faith? Do you have enough faith to believe that God could bury some golden plates in upstate NY that contain the "fullest" revelation of God, the Book of Mormon?
    Are you not a Mormon because you don't have enough faith in God?

    Eventually, faith has its proper limits, because all faith and no reason leads us right into cults. (And biblioatry is certainly a cult, IMHO.)

    Mikayehu wrote: I have no problem with your saying that people of the ancient world believed the earth was flat and had 4 corners, but to say that the Bible teaches that as a scientific fact is utter nonsense.

    If we accept my premise that Gen 1-11 as a whole is symbolic, then it's not a problem, but those who claim it is literal science are bound to what the text really says.
    What does the Bible say, Mikayehu? Is the raqia not created on the second day, which is the hard, domed firmament vault of the heavens over the flat earth?

    Why is it that those who pick and choose what is literal and what is symbolic deny they are doing so and accuse everyone else of doing it? Either 1) Gen 1 is a purely literal account of a flat-earth creation, or 2) a purely symbolic account that does not conflict with evolutionary theory.


    FLYFREE432

    "I, like you Adam, choose faith over prideful human wisdom."

    Foolish humans God did say, if I recall right, that our wisdom is His foolishness, and at the rate the scientific community changes its mind about what is truth I'd prefer to just put my trust in something that hasn't changed since the close of the NT canon.

    Your right, we can argue and make convincing proofs of why the earth is 6 billion years old or why the earth is 6 thousand years old, yet when all is said and done and we stand before God on that great day I think the age of the earth will be one of the last things on our mind.

    And as far as the idea that we live on the "second" earth...um...no. That's like saying God didn't do it right the first time so He had to start over again.


    WORD DIGGER

    And as far as the idea that we live on the "second" earth...um...no. That's like saying God didn't do it right the first time so He had to start over again.

    No, that's saying Satan's fall caused the first one to be ruined. That is why a new generation of the heavens and earth was made 6,000 years ago. But you miss the point. This is NOT a "second earth"...it is a second world upon the same old earth.

    The Greenland Ice sheet and other proxy paleo indicators indicate the time of Noah's flood. It also shows when the old world was destroyed. The scientific evidence does, indeed, support the Bible account and a LITERAL interpretation. You just have to know where to look...by faith.


    BWSMITH

    I have faith that God does not lie in nature. I also have faith that the Bible does not have to be error-free in everything it addresses for God to be real and for Jesus to be the Word of God.

    word_digger wrote: The Greenland Ice sheet and other proxy paleo indicators indicate the time of Noah's flood. It also shows when the old world was destroyed. The scientific evidence does, indeed, support the Bible account and a LITERAL interpretation. You just have to know where to look...by faith.

    So the Biblical (MT) genealogical dates are wrong (4004 BC creation, 2348 BC flood)? "God" was unable to inerrantly record the chronology after the flood?


    WORD DIGGER

    No, the genealogical dates are correct.


    PASTOR LARRY

    Originally posted by BWSmith: So the Biblical (MT) genealogical dates are wrong (4004 BC creation, 2348 BC flood)? "God" was unable to inerrantly record the chronology after the flood?

    You have confused Ussher, who was most likely wrong, with God. The MT never set a date of 4004 or 2348. It would have been impossible. The OT dates are relative to people's lives.


    BWSMITH

    word_digger wrote: No, the genealogical dates are correct.

    Oops! I confused the "BC" with the "ago" and didn't subtract 2,000. My mistake.


    Larry wrote: You have confused Ussher, who was most likely wrong, with God. The MT never set a date of 4004 or 2348. It would have been impossible.

    But word_digger just attempted to validate that very scheme. What's impossible about those dates? (The fact that the Egyptians lived right through the Biblical flood date without noticing anything?)


    The OT dates are relative to people's lives.

    So the numbers in the Gen 5 & 11 (MT) genealogies combined with the 430-year sojourn and the 480-year-period until the Temple are not meant to be read as literal 365-day solar years? Does Genesis not say that the flood came in the 600th year of Noah's life? Are these in 355-day Hebrew years instead? (Which would make the time period even shorter...)

    I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here. There was no global flood. History begins with the patriarchs at the earliest.
    There was no special creation, or Garden of Eden, or Cain and Abel, or Jabal or Jubal or Tubal-Cain, no drunk Noah, no sneaky Canaan and no Tower of Babel. All of Gen 1-11 is united thematically before the big break with Gen 12, which points to Joshua (and never points back to the primeval history).

    Read the flood story for its message of judgement and redemption in the nature of an all-powerful and forgiving God.

    JOHN WELLS
    BW said, "I have faith that God does not lie in nature" but does lie in His inspired Holy Word! You place "nature" above the Word of God? You've said you find the Bible less than reliable, and now you say nature is reliable.


    BWSMITH

    pure and simple wrote: the age of the earth will be the last thing on our mind when we have to account before God on how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ on the internet.

    Amen and amen!

    Fundamentalism is the greatest anti-Christian tool that Satan has ever devised. It keeps Christians' minds off of loving their brothers and forever obsessed with drawing and defending doctrinal lines in the sand against anyone who dares to cross them.



    PASTOR LARRY

    But word_digger just attempted to validate that very scheme. What's impossible about those dates? (The fact that the Egyptians lived right through the Biblical flood date without noticing anything?)

    Word digger and I do not agree. He is a gap theorist I believe. I am not.

    The Egyptians did not live right through a world wide flood which is patently obvious from the text and from history. Denying the historicity of Gen 1-11 is an invalid method of argumentation by your own standard. You are looking for proof. There is no proof that it is poetic, allegorical, or any such thing. It is the pure supposition of your mind. In fact, the NT author's considered it historical. Either they are right or you are. Whose side will you take?


    So the numbers in the Gen 5 & 11 (MT) genealogies combined with the 430-year sojourn and the 480-year-period until the Temple are not meant to be read as literal 365-day solar years? Does Genesis not say that the flood came in the 600th year of Noah's life? Are these in 355-day Hebrew years instead? (Which would make the time period even shorter...)

    Actually, they are probably 360 day years (another fact of historical knowledge, not 355 or 365). Furthermore, yes they are real years. They should likely not be read as complete genealogies. Hebrew genealogies are rarely complete (again a common fact of knowledge) and that is where Ussher (and you) make your mistakes on OT chronology. Cf Matt 1.

    The flood did come in the 600th year of Noah's life. But we are not told when the first year is. That is why Ussher's date (and your presumed one) is tenuous at best.


    I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here. There was no global flood. History begins with the patriarchs at the earliest.

    You have made this point several times, each time ex cathedra. As I said above, if it comes down to a credibility contest between Christ, Paul, and Peter, and you, you can guess which side I will take.


    Historical and scientific memory of actual events is NOT the purpose of either the J flood or the P flood or the toledot flood. Read the flood story for its message of judgement and redemption in the nature of an all-powerful and forgiving God.

    How do you know what the "actual purpose" is and by what authority do you make such a claim? Every indication in the text is that the "real purpose" was to convey information about history.


    WORD DIGGER

    The Pyramids and the temple of Karnak in Egypt were built before the flood. They were part of what is called the Old Kingdom. The Egyptions did not live through the Flood, Egypt was repopulated afterwards, and under changed environmental conditions. Here is an article you may find of interest. disaster that struck the Egyptian Old Kingdom http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1458000/1458327.stm

    Noah's flood caused the earth to shift on it's axis and the seasons changed. This is shown by something else learned from Egypt at the previously mentioned temple of Karnak. What happened in 2345 BC? http://science-frontiers.com/sf030/sf030p02.htm

    So why did Noah's flood not destroy the buildings of Egypt (and elsewhere)? The answer is in the very nature of the physics of the flood. Examine this. http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    CHET

    Evidence for the Young Earth

    EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS

    1 - Star clusters. One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them; and, within each one, are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly, that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

    2 - Large stars. Some stars are so large, and radiate energy so rapidly, that they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be too immense.

    3 - High-energy stars. Four types of stars radiate energy too rapidly to have existed longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

    4 - Binary stars. Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars (two stars revolving about one another); yet, frequently, one is classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be.

    5 - Hydrogen in the universe. Hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it; therefore, if the universe were as old as the theory requires, there would now be very little hydrogen in the universe.

    6 - Age of the universe. A sizeable amount of information on this is given in Origin of the Solar System.

    EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

    1 - Solar collapse. Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist.

    2 - Solar neutrinos. The sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This, coupled with the fact that the sun is shrinking, points to a recently created sun.

    3 - Comets. Comets circle the sun and are assumed to be as old as our solar system. Since they are continually disintegrating, and a number are known to have broken up, evidently all of them self-destruct within a relatively short time period. It is estimated that the comets cannot be over 10,000 years old.

    4 - Comet water. Comets are primarily composed of water. So many small comets strike the earth that, if our planet was billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.

    5 - Solar wind. The sun's radiation blows very small particles in space outward. All particles smaller than a certain size should, millions of years ago, have been blown out of the solar system. Yet these micro-particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.

    6 - Solar drag. Small and medium rocks circling the sun are gradually drawn by gravity into the sun. Careful analysis reveals that most would have been gone within 10,000 years, and all within 50,000 years. There is no known source of rock or particle replenishment.

    EVIDENCE FROM THE OTHER PLANETS

    1 - Temperature and erosion on Venus. High surface temperatures on Venus (900 degree F [482 degree C]), combined with other of its surface features, support a young age for Venus. If the planet was 4 billion years old, as taught by the theory, its dense atmosphere should long ago have worn away all the craters.

    2 - Erosion and water on Mars. Only a few thousand years of the type of harsh dust storm weather occurring on Mars should have seriously eroded its many craters and volcanoes. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences on the surface. The small amount of water on Mars should long ago have been split apart into hydrogen and oxygen by solar ultraviolet rays. The hydrogen should have escaped and the oxygen should be in the atmosphere, but this is not so.

    3 - Composition of Saturn's rings. Trillions of particles in Saturn's rings are mainly solid ammonia. Because of its high vapor pressure, it could not survive long without vaporizing into outer space.

    4 - Bombardment of Saturn's rings. Meteroids bombarding Saturn's rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

    5 - More ring problems. Rings found on Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune indicate that they too have a very young age.

    6 - Jupiter's moons. One of Jupiter's largest moons, Io, ejects large amounts of material through volcanoes. Although quite small, it has the most active volcanoes we know of, and must be quite youthful.

    EVIDENCE FROM OUR OWN MOON

    1 - Moon dust. Ultraviolet light changes moon rocks into dust. It had long been predicted that a thick layer of dust (20-60 miles [32-96.5 km], caused by ultraviolet radiation on the moon's 4-billion-year-old surface, must cover the moon's surface. But scientists were astonished to learn that there is not over 2-3 inches [5.08-7.62 cm] of dust-just the amount expected if the moon was only a few thousand years.

    2 - Lunar soil. The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount of soil mixing it should have, if the moon were very old.-p. 17. 3 - Lunar isotopes. Short-term radioactive isotopes (uranium 236 and thorium 230) have been found in the collected moon rocks. These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly turn into lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead. The moon cannot be older than several thousand years.

    4 - Lunar radioactive heat. Moon rocks have relatively high radioactivity, indicating a young moon, because of the large amount of heat generated.

    5 - Lunar gases. Small amounts of several inert gases have been found on the moon. At today's intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would reach their full amount in less than 10,000 years-and no longer.

    6 - Lunar phenomena. Transient lunar activity data (moonquakes, lava flows, gas emissions, etc.) reveals the moon is still remarkably active, showing it is quite young.

    7 - Lunar recession. The moon is already far too close to the earth. It is now know that, due to tidal friction, it is gradually moving farther away from us. Based on the rate of recession, the moon cannot be very old. If it were even 20,000 to 30,000 years old, it would at some earlier time have been so close-it would have fallen into our planet!

    EVIDENCE FROM EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE

    1 - Atmospheric helium. Our helium comes from three sources: Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. Helium spewed out by the sun, is pulled in by earth's gravity. Helium is also produced in the upper atmosphere. All of that helium is accumulating, since helium is not able to reach escape velocity and go into outer space. But the amount of helium we have is too small if our world has existed for long ages. Based on all three helium producers, earth's atmospheric age cannot be over 10,000 years.

    2 - Carbon 14 disintegration. The present worldwide buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would have produced all the world's radiocarbon in only several thousand years. Based on this, earth's age is estimated at 8,000 years.

    EVIDENCE FROM METEORITES

    1 - Meteor dust. Micrometeors, composed of iron, nickel, and silicate compounds that are continually entering our atmosphere, adds 25 tons [22.7 mt] to the earth daily. Based on the amount here, earth's age should be in the thousands, not millions of years. Regarding nickel content, the amount in the oceans could have been carried there from land in 9,000 years (or half that time, if nickel had already been there).

    2 - Meteor craters. Meteor craters are never found in the rock strata! Yet they would be found there, if millions of years were required to lay down that sedimentary strata. Meteor craters always lie close to or on the earth's surface. Thus, all the meteors which have struck the earth-have hit it within the last few thousand years.

    3 - Meteor rocks. When meteors strike the earth, they are called meteorites. Supposedly, this has happened for millions of years, yet the meteorites are only found at, or close to, the earth's surface. None are ever found in the deeper sedimentary strata. Therefore, the earth is young and the strata was quickly laid down not too long ago.

    4 - Tektites. Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. They are especially found in large areas, called strewn fields. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were billions of years old, they should be found in all the strata. They never show more than a few thousand years of weathering. Carbon-14 tests show them to be no older than 6,500 years.

    EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE

    1 - Earth rotation. Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kmph]) is gradually slowing down. If our world was billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast-it would have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

    2 - Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years.

    EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH

    1 - Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escapement has been found to be far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.

    2 - Oil pressure. When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a "gusher." This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be older than 7,000 to 10,000 years.

    3 - Oil seepage. If much oil seepage had occurred from out of the ocean floors, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone if the earth were 20,000 years old.

    4 - Lack of anciently destroyed reservoirs. All the oil in the world must have been placed there in relatively recent times. If long ages had elapsed, the oil reservoirs would be gone, and we would only find the cavities where they had been. But such locations are never found.

    5 - Molten earth. Deep within the earth, the rock is molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.

    6 - Volcanic eruptions. There are many extinct volcanoes, but evidence indicates that volcanic activity has only continued a relatively short time since the world began. Otherwise, there would be far more lava than now exists.

    7 - Zircon / lead ratios. Lead gradually leaks out of radioactive zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly at high temperatures. Yet very little lead has escaped from zircon found deep in the earth at temperatures above 313oC [595.4oF]. This points strongly to a young earth.

    8 - Zircon / helium ratios. Helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, there should be no helium left in the zircon in that same deep hole. Yet amazingly little helium has escaped. Therefore the world must be very young.

    9 - Soil-water ratio. The earth is still in the partially soaked condition it became at the time of the Flood. This indicates that the Flood occurred only a few thousand years ago.

    EVIDENCE FROM ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH

    1 - Topsoil. It has been calculated that 300 to 1,000 years is required to build one inch [2.54 cm] of topsoil. Yet the average depth of topsoil is about eight inches. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

    2 - Niagara Falls. Erosion of Niagara Falls is about 3.5 feet [106.68 cm] per year. Since the length of the gorge is about 7 miles, the age of the falls would normally be about 5,000 to 10,000 years at the most. However, the Flood would have greatly accelerated that erosion.

    EVIDENCE FROM THE OCEANS

    1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year-continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world was 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole.

    2 - Sea ooze. Soft mud from dead plants and animal life form on the floor of the oceans, at the rate of about one inch (2.54 cm) every 1,000 to 5,000 years. The depth of ooze indicates the earth is quite young.

    3 - Erosion in the ocean. We do not find the erosion in the ocean floors which ought to be there if the world were millions or billions of years old. There are ragged cliffs and steep mountains. Indeed, the continents should have eroded into the oceans by now.

    4 - Thickness of ocean sediments. If the earth was billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land, measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. Instead, we only find a few thousand feet of sediment. Based on known yearly sediment deposition, calculations yield only a few thousand years for our planet.

    5 - Ocean concentrations. We have a good estimate of the amount of various elements and salts in the ocean, and the amount being added each year. On this basis, our world is fairly young. For example, the age of the earth, based on nitrate analysis, would be 13,000 years.

    6 - Growth of coral. Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.

    EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS

    1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., was erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.

    2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,-and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)

    EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION

    1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.-

    2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C. Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.

    3 - Astronomical records. Prior to 2250 B.C., we have not one record of a solar eclipse ever having been seen by people! Because it is totally accurate, that earliest recorded astronomical event is a significant date. It comes only about a hundred years after the Flood. We have reason to believe the sky was darkened with volcanic eruptions for years after the Flood ended.

    4 - Writing. The oldest writing (pictographic Sumerian) is dated at about 3500 B.C. The earliest Western script (Proto-Sinaitic) somewhat before 1550 B.C.

    5 - Civilizations. No really verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. More ancient dates come from radiocarbon dating, which, prior to about 600 B.C., is known to be much more inaccurate. In every instance, our earliest aspects of civilization (crops, animal husbandry, metallurgy, building, cities, etc.) go back to the Near East. This agrees with the Bible record (Genesis 8:4).

    6 - Languages. Records of ancient languages never go back beyond 3000 B.C.; yet, beginning in the Near East, there are language families which have spread all over the world since then.

    7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes, indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.

    8 - Facts vs. theories. Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 years ago. Some may see it as 7,000 to 10,000 years, but the evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an early earth is not only solid, it is scientific


    SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE? A few of the scientific facts found within the Bible long before man discoved them:

    Earth is a sphere Isa 40:22

    The water cycle keeps the land watered Job 37:27-28 Eccles 1:7

    The earth is suspended in space Job 26:7

    The universe is running down Isa 51:6 Ps 102:26

    Ocean currents flow through the sea Ps 8:8

    Blood sustains life Lev 17:11

    The universe is made of invisible things Heb 11:3

    The earth's crust rest upon a foundation Job 38:4,6 Ps 104:5

    Stars produce sounds Job 38:7

    The Stars cannot be numbered Gen 15:5,22:17 Jer 31:37

    The stars are increadibly distant from the earth Job 22:12

    Stars differ in magnitude 1Cor. 15:41

    The winds form a circulation system Eccles 1:6

    The earth rotates on its axis Job 38:12,14 Luke 17:31,34

    Mans body is composed of the same materials as the earth. Gen. 2:8, 3:19 Ps 103:14

    The universe suddenly appeared out of nothing Gen 1:1 Ps 33:6,9.
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HAL PARKER

    Creation scientists have for the most part given up on the Moon dust argument. The basic reason is that the average rate of dust influx is not really known. The original measurements by Hans Petterson were higher than measurements made since then. The Moon dust argument depends strongly on the Petterson data. Since Petterson did the measurements, others have tried to measure the rate of dust influx. The numbers are literally all over the place and don't fall into any discernable pattern. At the moment, neither Creationists, like me, nor Evolutionists really know what is going on with the moon dust influx issue.
    The article which deals with this from a Creation standpoint is 'Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System' by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7(1):2-42, 1993. The article can be read online at:
    (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp)
    The article is for the serious reader. It is about 30 pages when printed out.
    If you want a good astronomical argument for a solar system that is younger than evolutionary theory requires try 'Comets and the Age of the Solar System by Danny R. Faulkner in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal11(3):264-273,1997. It can be read online at:
    (www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4108.asp)
    or
    'The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System' by Danny Faulkner in Impact No. 300, June 1998. It can be read online at:
    (www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-300.htm)
    I want to point out again that any real evidence for evolution must be found in the fossils. Major evolutionist authorities admit that transitional forms are a problem for them.
    As far as the starlight and time problem, well Creation scientists are working on that. The White Hole Cosmology of D. Russ Humphreys is one example. (He has been working at Sandia National Labs until just recently. How many quacks work there?)
    Some relevant links are:
    'Seven Years of Starlight and Time'
    by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. in Impact No. 338 can be read online at: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338.htm
    'How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?'from The Answers Book — Revised & Expanded, chapter 5. This can be read online at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
    'How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible claims is only thousands of years old?' This can be read online at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
    These are probably the best sources for this issue online at the present time.

    WORD DIGGER
    Whoo There! You post a listing of 59 "Evidences" for a Young Earth, and then expect to get away unscathed? I don't think so, especially when some of them are outright fabrications and half-truths.
    However, to spare thread participants the drudgery of hearing all the counter arguments called for, I will only outline a few:
    1 - Solar collapse. Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist.
    It is well documented that the Sun expands and contracts in a known cycle pattern.

    - Atmospheric helium. Our helium comes from three sources: Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium produces helium. Helium spewed out by the sun, is pulled in by earth's gravity. Helium is also produced in the upper atmosphere. All of that helium is accumulating, since helium is not able to reach escape velocity and go into outer space. But the amount of helium we have is too small if our world has existed for long ages. Based on all three helium producers, earth's atmospheric age cannot be over 10,000 years.

    The loss of Helium can be accounted for by the physics of Noah's flood.
    http://www.kjvbible.org/windows_of_heaven.html


    - Tektites. Tektites are a special type of glassy meteorite. They are especially found in large areas, called strewn fields. Each shower lies on the surface or in the topmost layers of soil; they are never found in the sedimentary fossil-bearing strata. If the earth were billions of years old, they should be found in all the strata. They never show more than a few thousand years of weathering. Carbon-14 tests show them to be no older than 6,500 years.

    Another no brainer, as "glassy" Tektites, from meteorite impacts are silicate melts. You can't measure the age of glass with carbon 14. It just don't happen, as we say in West Virginia.


    - Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years.

    The earth's magnetic field reverses, and there is paleomagnetic data to show that it has flipped many times in earth's geologic history. The fact that the strength of the field is decreasing indicates that it is approaching another reversal episode, soon. Better watch out, though, because when the field does collapse there will be nothing to protect the earth from cosmic rays, which can mutate DNA.


    - Molten earth. Deep within the earth, the rock is molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.

    The earth's underground heat is driven by radioactivity produced by natural radioactive decay. And because of the long half-life of the Uranium you previously mentioned, it don't happen that quick.


    HAL PARKER

    A good bit of Chet's material is out of date, especially when it comes to the astronomy evidences. Yes, I am talking about true young earth Creation, global Flood kind of Creationists, too. I am one of them.


    'THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY'
    DANNY R. FAULKNER, Ph. D.

    Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism
    Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998
    Copyright 1998 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
    It can be read online at: http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm

    If you want to know the best in Creation research as far as the Global Flood and science read the papers relating to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics at http://www.icr.org/research/research.htm

    'Is The Sun An Age Indicator?' by Don B. DeYoung and David E. Rush CRSQ Volume 26(2) September 1989. This paper can be read online at: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_2/sun.html

    'Toward A Creationist Astronomy' by Danny R. Faulkner and Don B. DeYoung CRSQ Volume 28 Number 3 December, 1991.
    This paper can be read online at: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html


    PHILLIP
    Okay, folks, I know you have heard it all by now, but please hear a few remarks and thoughts from a scientist/engineer Christian. I do NOT believe that Genesis 1 through 11 is in conflict with science in any form or fashion, but I DO disagree with many of what I call "new age" creationists who seem to believe that you believe in 6 twenty four hour days or you are going to hell.
    First of all, most of the list of creationists (6 day only) people pass around information such as dust on the moon, tektites on earth and all sorts of weak information without a lot of substantial backing. There are legitimate explanations for all of these that do not relate to a young earth. Second of all, we are human and we think within a "time-frame" that was created by God, but we forget that time, space and speed and the theory of relativity shows that only the speed of light is constant (or is it?) and time is relative to the observer.
    I believe when God created this universe that he is "outside of the box" so to speak and he is continuously looking at the creation, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Jesus dying on the cross, our corrupted society today and our future ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It has been made very clear that the word "yom" in the old testament is also treated as "age" in many instances in the king james version. In other words, in the "age of the Patriarchs", or "in the age of Ezekial" (these are not literal quotes, but the KJV translates the same word used in Genesis one into the "age of" --- including as close as Genesis Chapter two. Without a sun and moon, then God can make a day as long or short as he wishes (it is relative). Let me ask one question for the new agers and I want a REAL scientific response not some shot in the dark theory about how time has changed or the speed of light changed during the creation or God simulated stars going nova millions of years ago. How do we see the light from stars which are millions of light-years from earth? Did God "fake" this light, or did is it real. Now, let me take another argument away, don't tell me we don't have the capability to measure stars 10 million light years away, because my year old universe. Let's not even go into sightings which are Billions of light years away discovered by the Hubble (Hubble believed in God by the way because of the awesome universe he created) telescope.
    Let's face it, most scientists who get the attention today were like Carl Sagan who had a "preaching sermon" they had to make to prove a point. The news media just loves to be liberal and show the "strange and unusual". You would be amazed at how many scientists believe in God simply because of something as simple as the complexity of the DNA code which is a "blue-print" from some intelligence to replicate human beings. Oh yeah, it must be an alien that left it when earth was visited by the flying saucers. (tongue in cheek).
    I do NOT believe in evolution. I believe in the literal description of Genesis, but when studied in the original Hebrew (let alone English) there are MANY ways that God could have been describing the creation without a fairy tale.
    I also believe in the big-bang -- in other words our universe came from the scientific term "singularity" which means infinitely small spot and exploded outwards. The big-bang was so well coordinated that without getting into the mathematics, it could NOT have occurred WITHOUT GOD. What better way to create a universe than "Fling the stars across the heavens".
    Science does fit with the Bible, but folks let us quit fighting because to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. My guess is that he still sees his Only Begotten Son hanging on a cross bearing our sins. If we would spend more time talking with our neighbors about Christ and keeping them out of hell we wouldn't have time to debate issues that we will find out soon enough anyway. Still I would like an answer to the starlight from ages past from a new age creationist.
     

Share This Page

Loading...