Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

PlainSense Bible believer · Feb 26, 2005

Yes, post them please. I'll send them off to AiG for comment. After all, that is the whole point of this topic - to see what, if any, response comes back from AiG. As I said in my second post here, I am very encouraged with the response to this topic. It is not a case of either of us proving the other wrong - the whole point is to see and gauge Aig's response to critiscisms levied against them.

Craigbythesea · Feb 26, 2005

I need to spend some time with my grandson, so you will have to be patient, but, God willing, I shall begin to post them soon.

PlainSense Bible believer · Feb 26, 2005

That's OK, no problem. I also need some time to get back to looking at 'Salty Seas' and then the earth's magnetic field (it is so easy to get side-tracked). Thanks for all your input.

PlainSense

BobRyan · Feb 27, 2005

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx8e.htm

A Survey of Some Short-term Chronologies

The Age of the Oceans

The age of the oceans may be calculated from data concerning the total amount of salts present in the oceans, and the rate at which the salts are accumulating in the oceans.5 These salts are transported from land into the ocean by the river systems of the world.

Uranium salts are being carried into the oceans over 100 times as fast as they are being removed by salt spray and other means, in contrast to other salts such as those of sodium and aluminum which are now entering and leaving the ocean in more or less equal amounts.

Thus uranium content can be the basis for an estimate of the age of the oceans.6 The estimated total uranium dissolved in ocean water is about 4 billion tons. The amount carried into the oceans annually is about 21,200 tons. Of this some 85 percent is taken up by various sinks or absorbed by ocean sediments and rocks. This leaves about 3,180 tons to be added each year to the uranium dissolved in the ocean waters. Assuming that there was no uranium in the ocean waters at the time of their formation and that the rates involved were roughly constant, we can estimate the maximum age of the oceans. The present uranium content divided by the annual increase is 4,000,000,.000/3.180 = 1,260,000 years. This "age" is much smaller than the 4.5 billion years embraced by evolutionary scientists.

It has been assumed for the above estimate that the uranium "clock" has been running at a uniform rate. The assumption that geologic processes have been operating at constant rates is the basic assumption of uniformitarian historical geology. If it is true, however, that waters covered the earth some 5,000 years ago in a great Flood, then the rate at which uranium was leached out of the earth and into the oceans was greater in the past than at present. This would result in a shorter time needed to reach the present uranium content.

Furthermore, we assumed that our uranium "clock" was set at zero when the oceans began. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that the oceans were created with some uranium already present. That is to say, the uranium clock was not set at zero time when the oceans were formed. It would be reasonable to conclude, then, that the age of the oceans, and of the earth, if both were formed at the same time, is perhaps 10,000 years.

Other short-term chronologies for the oceans are based upon the oceanic content of various chemical elements and compounds relative to the annual inflow of these substances from all known sources. One of the most thorough studies of this kind of data revealed that of fifty-one chemical elements contained in ocean water, twenty could have accumulated to their present concentrations in one thousand years or less. An additional nine of the elements would have required no more than ten thousand years, and eight other elements no more than 100,000 years.7
Click to expand...

For those who like to see evidence in favor of God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 27, 2005

As much as I appreciate UTEOTW's need to use old outdated studies to base his beliefs upon - when confronted with the latest science findings ---

Here is an interesting point on Helium.

Two Helium Clocks: the Atmosphere and Hot Rocks

Just as many dissolved salts are building up in the oceans via drain-off of continental rivers, in a similar manner helium-4, the most abundant isotope of helium(atoms of the same element which differ from each other in atomic weight because of different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei are called isotopes), is flowing into the atmosphere from at least three sources: 1. principally helium-4 produced by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust and oceans; 2. from cosmic helium raining on earth, mainly from the sun's corona and in meteorites; and 3. from nuclear reactions in the earth's crust caused by cosmic rays. There is also evidence that the earth's original atmosphere contained helium.

Dr. Melvin Cook first pointed out the problem which atmospheric helium raises for a multibillion year age of the earth.8 At the present rate of flow of helium into the atmosphere, the content of helium in the atmosphere could have been built up in only a small fraction of a billion years. This difficulty has yet to be solved by secular science.

Dr. Larry Vardiman's technical monograph, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, published in 1990, is the most recent survey of the helium problem.9 The atmosphere now contains about 4.1 billion tons of He-4. It is estimated that about 2400 tons per year of He-4 is released from the crust into the atmosphere. The theoretically calculated rate of escape of He-4 from the atmosphere into space averaged over an eleven-year solar cycle is only about 70 tons per year.10 This is only 1/33rd of the rate of inflow from the crust. If we assume a zero content of He-4 in the original atmosphere, the maximum age of our atmosphere calculated from these figures is only about 1.8 million years. On the other hand, if the earth were 4.5 billion years, the atmosphere should contain 2,500 times its measured content of helium. Joseph Chamberlain and Donald Hunten at the close of a detailled examination of atmospheric helium concluded, "The problem will not go away and it is unsolved."11 They then briefly describe two possible solutions. Vardiman discusses three possible solutions considered by secular scientists for the missing helium problem. These are "polar wind" (the escape of ionized helium at the poles where the earth's magnetic field lines could guide ions out into space); "solar wind sweeping," (in which streams of charged atoms from the sun interact with the earth's exosphere); and "hot-ion exchange" (in which high energy ions give helium atoms a kick out into space). Vardiman's discussion shows that these concepts have not yet made the helium problem go away.12 Are we not justified in concluding that the atmospheric helium clock continues to report a young age for the earth?

Another helium clock is provided by radiogenic gas trapped in very hot rocks deep in the earth's crust. The rate of escape and diffusion upward of such trapped gas is greatly increased at high temperatures. These deep rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, yet much of the helium-4 produced in them has not escaped. This suggests that these rocks are not billions of years old or millions of years old.13
Click to expand...

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 27, 2005

When someone writes that the account of the earth destroyed by Water and man surviving in the ark as God tells us -- is not really true, it reminds me of 2Peter 3 and 1 Peter 3.

How about you?

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Feb 27, 2005

"Thus uranium content can be the basis for an estimate of the age..."

DID your "source" BOTHER to "tell" you THAT the UNCERTAINTY in the VALUE of the "efflux" is greater than THE "difference" between the EFFLUX and THE "equilibrium" AMOUNT? In "ENGLISH" this MEANS that "it" is "impossible" to DRAW "any" CONCLUSIONS "about" whether the SYSTEM is ACTUALLY "in" equilibrium OR NOT.

Did "your source" bother to GIVE you THIS "reference?"

"Some Preliminary Results on the Behaviour of Uranium Isotopes in the Gironde Estuary (France)," K. Smith, C. Organo, L. León Vintró and P.I. Mitchell

http://homepage.eircom.net/~radphys/biartz.pdf
or this?

"238U removal and accumulation in Concepción bay sediments, Chile," Farías et al, Revista geológica de Chile v.27 n.2 Santiago dic. 2000.

http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-02082000000200005&lng=es&nrm=i

It "TURNS OUT" that much of the Uranium "is" REMOVED as the RIVERS "enter" the OCEAN when the "fresh" and "salt" water MIXES producing a RANGE of "salinities" some OF WHICH are "ideal" for "flocculation" of the uranium SALTS.

UTEOTW · Feb 27, 2005

"Other short-term chronologies for the oceans are based upon the oceanic content of various chemical elements and compounds relative to the annual inflow of these substances from all known sources."

Did your source bother to tell you that if you go back to the original source that most of these are known to be in equilibrium and therefore cannot be used for dating? Those that are not known to be in equilibrium are not quantified accurately enough to know if they are in equilibrium or not.

Did they tell you that if you use aluminum off the chart that the earth can only be 100 years old! Do you believe in a 100 year old earth? Are you going to say that we should accept you source that would date the earth at 100 years? Except of course they will throw that one out. They'll ignore the flaws in their logic that this points out and cherry pick the ones that gives their predetermined date.

Such is the intellectual honesty of those attempting to prop up YE.

UTEOTW · Feb 27, 2005

"Dr. Larry Vardiman's technical monograph, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere, published in 1990, is the most recent survey of the helium problem.9 The atmosphere now contains..."

Yes and if you had checked th thread you would have seen that this has already been covered.

Banks, P. M. and T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport; the polar wind" Geophysical Research Journal 74: 6317-6332

This was written 26 years before Vardiman wrote the article to which you linked. So there is no excuse for not knowing. Especially since Vardiman mentions polar wind near the end of the article.

According to Banks, the polar wind can account for 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm2-sec of He-4. The estimated flux of helium by Vardiman to be 2 x 10^6 atoms/cm2-sec and by Banks to be 2.5 x 10^6 atoms/cm2-sec. So the rate of escape from the atmosphere is as much as or greater than the production rate. It seems that helium is in equilibrium and cannot be used to build a case for a young earth.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087/4.html#000049

"Another helium clock is provided by radiogenic gas trapped in very hot rocks deep in the earth's crust."

Oh, your talking about where the RATE guys take the most inconsistent part of a dataset because they can extrpolate it to something that fits their needs and ignore that most reproducable part of the dataset becuase it contradicts them. Someone else analyzed it much better than I could. I have the text but not the link. Sorry. Try Google if you need to track down the source.

Are They Right?

No, even the creationists' own data undermines their claims. The
paper, titled HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
is by D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and
Andrew A. Snelling <http://www.icr.org/research/> (1.12 MB *.pdf)
All references in this post are to that paper.

The basic science involved is that fact that when a uranium atom
decays to lead, a lot of helium is produced, 8 helium atoms for every
atom of U-238 that decays to Pb-206 and 7 helium atoms for each atom
of U-235 decaying to Pb-207. The creationist claim to have found
some zircons (tiny crystals of ZrSiO4 in rocks) which have TOO MUCH
helium. The zircons were dated to 1.5 BY using the Pb-Pb method, but
according to the creationists, the helium produced by the decays
should have all leaked out of the zircons by now. The creationists
claim that the zircons could retain their helium for only about, you
guessed it, 6000 YEARS!

The zircons were found at various depths, and the deeper rocks were
hotter and had less helium, as you would expect since helium leaks out
faster at higher temperatures. Here are their numbers taken from
their TABLE 1

Number Depth (m) Temp C Helium (%)

1 960 105 58 +- 17
2 2,170 151 27 +- 8
3 2,900 197 17 +- 5
4 3,502 239 1.2 +- 0.4
5 3,930 277 ~0.1
6 4,310 313 ~0.1

The column "Helium %" gives the amount of helium found in the zircons
as a percentage of the amount of helium that would have been produced
in 1.5 BY of radioactive decay. In samples 4, 5, and 6 the amount
of helium is so low as to be almost unmeasurable (the "~" sign means
"approximately"), but the first three samples, which are all below 200
C, still have a substantial fraction of the expected amount of helium.

The creationists have a logical problem. If the zircons were only
6,000 years old, then the helium could not have been produced by 1.5
BY of radioactive decay, so we have no explanation for the presence of
the helium. Worse, we would have no idea of how much helium "ought"
to be present, so we couldn't tell how much helium has leaked out.
The solution is, of course, a miracle. The "creation" model assumes
that 1.5 BY worth of radioactive decay actually occurred in the
zircon, but God, or perhaps Billy Graham, miraculously "accelerated"
the decays so they all happened in an interval much less than 6,000
years.

This "solution" leads to another logical problem. Suppose the
creation are right. Then presumably these miraculously accelerated
decays would have occurred in all the world's rocks, not just in a few
zircons. There are rocks with radioactive dates of all ages, from the
geologically recent up to 3.8 billion years, so if the earth is
really only 6,000 years old, then different rocks must have been
"aged" by very different amounts. And the amount of "aging" was
deliberately chosen so that rocks near the top of the geologic column
were given young ages, while deeper rocks were made to look older. So
God first endowed the earth with many major features implying great
age (continental drift, vast layers of sedimentary rocks, long
vanished mountain ranges, enormous "batholiths" of solidified magma)
and then added in many subtle indicators of age such as radioactive
decay, magnetic field reversals, Milankovich cycles, etc. And ALL of
these feature are FAKES, the only sign of the true age of the earth is
given by the amounts of helium, which God apparently overlooked. So
unless earth's history was controlled by a "fakey-flakey" Creator,
there is no way the creationists can be right!

Apparently the 4 devout Christians authors would rather believe in a
Supreme Being who plays silly God tricks with the universe, instead of
admitting that their ploddingly literal minded interpretation of a few
phrases in Genesis is wrong. Hubris, anyone?

But enough about logic, let's get down to the "facts." To proceed we
need two numbers. The first is the diffusion coefficient D which
measures how fast helium diffuses through the zircons. This can only
be obtained by measurement. The second number comes from a
theoretical calculation which gives the relationship between D and the
actual age of the zircons.

The authors have made a real effort to make the paper look good.
There is a nice explanation of diffusion, and the theoretical
calculation is described in loving detail. They display the
equations used, give references to where they got the equations, and
say they used Mathematica to solve them. (The fact that all they did
with Mathematica was to sum a series of positive numbers suggests they
didn't know how to write even an elementary computer program, but they
mean it to be impressive.)

As for the measurements of D, the creationists didn't do the
measurements themselves, they got an expert to do the measurements for
them. The creationists contacted the expert through a front man who
didn't tell the expert who the measurements were for, or why they
wanted them. All very wise, and confidence building, precautions.

But then a problem arises and is promptly swept under the rug. The
creationists prominently display the result of their theoretical
calculations i.e. they explicitly say what D should be if the zircons
are either 6,000 years old (Table 2) or 1.5 BY old (Table 3). The
problem comes in the comparison of theory and measurement.

What the creationists do is hide behind a technical difficulty. The
diffusion coefficient D changes dramatically with temperature, and the
measurements of D were all done at temperatures of 300 - 500 C. But
the good (or at least "better") zircons were below 200 C so one has to
extrapolate down to these lower temperatures. (The measurement
procedure is to heat the zircons and see how much helium leaks out at
different temperatures. The reason for the heating is that helium
leaks out too slowly at low temperatures.)

So if you extrapolate down to 197, 151, and 105 C, what do you get?
As the creationists say, D depends on T as:

D = D0exp( -E0 / (RT) ) (Eq 2 in the creationist paper)

where R is the universal gas constant 1.986 calories / mole-degree, T
is temperature in degrees Kelvin (Kelvin equals Centigrade + 273) and
D0 and E0 are constants that are found by "fitting" Eq. 2 to the
measurements. Even though the creationists don't say what D is at the
relevant temperatures, they do give values of D0 and E0, so we can
calculate D for ourselves.

In fact there are TWO sets of values for D0 and E0, the first was
calculated using all the measurements and the second using only the
lower part of the temperature range (300 - 440 C). There are reasons
why the temperature curve may "flatten out" at lower temperature,
i.e. D doesn't change as fast with temperature when the temperature is
lower, so a calculation using only the lower temperatures may be more
accurate. (I suppose that's the reason for the two different results).
The results are:

For ALL temperatures :
E0 = 34,400 D0/a^2 = 3548 + 3100 - 1700 (Eq. 5a)

For 440-300 C
E0 = 29,400 D0/a^2 = 64.9 (Eq. 5b)

"a" is the radius of the zircons, the zircons were assumed to be
spheres with 30 micron radius. Since 30 microns is 0.003 cm, 1/a^2
= 111,111 = 1.1 x 10^5. Note the large (factor of 2) error bar on
D/a^2 from 5a, and the ABSENCE of errors on the other 3 parameters.

Using the two different values of D0 and E0 in equation 2 we get:

Temp (C) D(6,000 years) D(all temp) D(440-300 C)
105 3.2 x 10^(-18) 4.1 x 10^(-22) 5.7 x 10^(-21)
151 1.3 x 10^(-17) 5.8 x 10^(-20) 4.0 x 10^(-19)
197 2.2 x 10^(-17) 1.0 x 10^(-18) 1.2 x 10^(-17)
239 1.8 x 10^(-16) 6.5 x 10^(-17) 1.6 x 10^(-16)
277 9.7 x 10^(-16) 6.7 x 10^(-16) 1.2 x 10^(-15)

(The creationists decided to drop the zircon measurement at 313 C,
that's why it doesn't appear here.)

If we compare the two columns of measured values, i.e D(all temp) and
D(440-300 C) we see that they disagree by a factor of 2 at 277 C and a
factor of 14 for the sample at 105 C! We are not doing precision
science here. The measured values agree roughly (within a factor of
2) with the theory at 277 C but are far smaller at 105 C.

Let's accept the Creationists' claim that their theoretical
calculations really do correspond to an age of 6,000 years and see
what ages are implied by the MEASURED values. This is the table that
the Creationists SHOULD have put in their paper, but didn't.

Temp (C) Age (all temp) Age (440-300 C)
105 46,800,000 3,400,000
151 1,350,000 195,000
197 132,000 11,000
239 16,600 6,750
277 8,700 4,850

So what do the creationists show in their paper? In their Table 4
they quote THREE of the 10 ages given above. (They do a pointless
song and dance about a quantity "x" but what it boils down to is they
quote 3 of the ages.) Which three ages do they pick? The lower 3 from
the right hand column, i.e. 4,850, 6,750, and 11,000. (Their values
are 4,747, 6392, and 10,389, which are different from mine because
they were more fussy than I was about typing in all the decimal places
into the calculator. It doesn't matter since the error bars are about
a factor of two.) So the creationists show the ages they like and
don't show the ones they don't like. Yes, this is UNETHICAL.

If we choose to believe that the numbers in the paper are more honest
than the paper's authors, we can ask what these ages mean. Let's
focus on two questions. The first question is whether these data
actually provide any support for the claim that the earth is 6,000
years old. The second question is whether these data are any sort of
embarrassment to the standard view about the age of the earth. Note
that the second question is NOT just a restatement of the first. The
standard view is supported by vast amounts of high quality evidence of
many different sorts, none of this evidence is going to disappear just
because some zircons have too much helium. But unless these zircons
really do support 6,000 years, the creations claim has NO basis in
fact.

Do the zircons provide any evidence for 6,000 years? The high
temperature zircons give young ages, but their helium content is quite
low, which means the helium could easily be due to measurement error
or contamination. After all, if a zircon has no helium, then the only
age determination possible is a lower limit: i.e. all you can say is
that the zircons have to be old enough so that all the helium could
have leaked out. Lower limits on age don't do the creationists any
good.

The cold zircons have much more helium, so their helium measurements
are presumably more reliable, but they give ages that are much larger
than 6,000 years, and the colder, the older. What does this mean?
The best the creationists can do is suggest that at lower temperatures
the diffusion constant D doesn't decrease as rapidly as at high
temperatures so extrapolating down from high temperatures
underestimates D and therefore overestimates the age. That could be
true, but the creationists themselves admit they DON"T HAVE ANY DATA
below 300 C, so extrapolating down from high temperatures to low
temperatures is all they have to offer.

Faced with age estimates from their own data which differ by a factor
of 10,000 (4,850 to 46,800,000) the creationists need to get their
house in order before they can throw stones at anyone else's. In the
present paper, the creationists position boils down to saying:
"Please, please believe in the small ages that we like, and not the
big ages that we don't like."

Could helium diffusion measurements be an embarrassment for the
conventional view of the age of the Earth? Potentially, yes. (That's
why the creationists are doing the measurements in the first place).
But to achieve their goal, the creationists need good (or at least
consistent) data, honestly analyzed. Until then, they embarrass no
one but themselves.
Click to expand...

Scott J · Feb 28, 2005

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Were you there?
Click to expand...

No, and neither were the penguins and the polar bears.

Why would you deny an eyewitness account from Someone who was?
Click to expand...

If we had such an account, I would not deny it.

[/QUOTE]We do have such an account. Jesus referred to a literal Noah as does Peter in 2 Peter 3 when he talkers about scoffers coming in the last days and denying the supernatural judgments of God in the past.

I won't rehash here but I have contended with UT before that common descent did occur... Animals speciated from a smaller beginning group using the genetic variability God gave them.

I don't think it would be necessary to include two of every "species" but rather representatives of each "kind" from which speciation could begin anew.

OTOH, Jesus feed 5000 with a few loaves and fish. Time and space don't seem to be tremendous limitations on what God has purposed to do.

Scott J · Feb 28, 2005

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Yes.
Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say that penguins can fly and that polar bears have wings or that God shipped them to the ark by Federal Express?

[/QUOTE]Oh, and BTW, we don't know how the land mass was configured before the flood. It was probably much different than now. There could have been land bridges between all major land masses- making the migration of distant animals to the ark while Noah was building no matter of concern.

Craigbythesea · Feb 28, 2005

I don't think it would be necessary to include two of every "species" but rather representatives of each "kind" from which speciation could begin anew.
Click to expand...

"Speciation" is a synonym for "macroevolution." The only difference between Scott’s theory of evolution and the theory of evolution taught by scientists is that Scott’s theory of evolution has been proven in the laboratory to be IMPOSSIBLE but the scientists’ theory of evolution has NOT been proven impossible but rather demonstrated to be probable.

The fact of the matter is that at the time of the flood, if we accept Scott’s interpretation of Genesis, there were more that 2,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that we still have with us today. In addition, there were thousands of other genetically discrete populations of animals alive at the time of the flood that are known for a fact to have been with us since the flood but which have since perished. What this means, in a nutshell, is that it would have been ABOLUTELY AND POSSITIVELY necessary for a pair of EVERY ONE OF THESE 2,000,000+ genetically discrete populations of animals to be aboard the ark.

Scott and every other Christian fundamentalist on this message board should know by now what a genetically discrete population is even if they didn’t get passed the 2nd grade because this term has been defined over and over again on this message board. I suppose, however, that they are choosing to ignore this term and what it means because it PROOVES that the story of Noah’s Ark in Genesis CAN NOT be a literal account of an historic event. However, for those who may be new to this discussion, here is the definition of a genetically discrete population:

A genetically discrete population of animals is a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but when any of them interbreed with an animal from a different group they produce non-fertile offspring.

Example: All horses belong to the same genetically discrete population and when interbred they produce fertile offspring. The same is true for donkeys. However, when a horse is interbred with a donkey, the progeny are non-fertile mules. Therefore, there MUST have been BOTH a pair of horses and a pair on donkeys on board the ark, and a pair from EVERY other genetically discrete population of animals. All 2,000,000+ of them. This is a fact that can not be denied!

Scott and his buddies like to point out that evolution depends upon chance mutations and that chance mutations result in the destruction of populations rather than the evolution of populations, but they change their story by 180 degrees when faced with 2,000,000+ genetically discrete populations of animals that necessarily would have been aboard the ark for these same genetically discrete populations of animals to be alive on the earth after the flood, and they say that these genetically discrete populations of animals “speciated” which is in reality macroevolution as the consequence of natural selection for favorable mutations. And it is an established fact that the amount of evolution required to produce from one pair of bears the many genetically discrete populations of bears that we have today would take tens of thousands of years. The same is also true of the other of animals that Scott would have us to believe evolved after the flood.

Scott is telling us that evolution is a lie popularized by atheists when writing of the time BEFORE the flood, but when he writes about the time AFTER the flood, he not only admits the truth of evolution, he strenuously argues that it actually occurred in million of cases! At least he admits that in order for Genesis to be a literal account of historic events, the theory of evolution must be true.

Craigbythesea · Feb 28, 2005

Oh, and BTW, we don't know how the land mass was configured before the flood. It was probably much different than now. There could have been land bridges between all major land masses- making the migration of distant animals to the ark while Noah was building no matter of concern.
Click to expand...

We do, however, know for a fact how the land mass was configured for the past 20,000 years! We also know that penguins can't walk 10,000 miles and that polar bears would have died of heat stroke!

rlvaughn · Feb 28, 2005

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
...I believe, along with many—if not most—Baptist scholars of the Old Testament, that Genesis is a redacted compilation of the works of many different individuals as God inspired them to write.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with this theory, but without much attention to whether those holding it were Baptists, Methodists, or whatever denomination. I don't doubt there are many Baptists who take this position, but to save the rest of us a lot of time researching who they are, would you post the names of some of those to whom you refer, along with any data that supports their percentage within the totality of Baptist Old Testament scholarship?

Also would you demostrate how you reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements?

I know for an absolute fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event, and I know that from my many years of university studies in the sciences—chiefly the biological sciences.
Click to expand...

I do not base this belief on anything having to do with evolution, the age of the earth, or any of the natural sciences, but exclusively upon the text of Genesis itself.
Click to expand...

Both of these quotes are from your first post on page three, and the next from your second post on that page.

...my interpretation of Genesis is based upon the text of Genesis itself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some of these statements are intended to have a limited meaning only, but I think you can see how they could cause confusion. Also, since you say your interpretation of Genesis is based exclusively on the text of Genesis itself, could you explain how, if at all, the New Testament should inform us on these "Genesis issues" (e.g. Creation, Noah's ark)? Thanks.

PlainSense Bible believer · Feb 28, 2005

If man's wisdom contradicts the Bible, then man's wisdom is wrong, however improbable we may think that to be.

"...with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37)

Scott J · Feb 28, 2005

"Speciation" is a synonym for "macroevolution."

No it isn't. In fact, no speciation has ever been proven by means of "macroevolution". We are not seeing the rise of species from simpler ancestors. We see, and the fossil record supports, variations within kinds of animals. Even evolutionists note that the animals of the Cambrian era arose quickly without clear lines to any simpler ancestor. The animals we have now are no more complex than those that arose suddenly at some point in the past.

You say billions of years ago. I say a few thousand years ago. You require many years because the genome was simple and had to be built up by (an unobserved) process of accummulating genetic complexity. I require a rich genome at creation because the Bible indicates a short period of time since life was created. You say that all animals ascended by a process that is not directly observed in nature. I say that all animals descended from original types that had greater genetic variability and that the species are a result of adaptation, isolation, and reinforcement. You say that the simple built up by a speculative process of acquired complexity. I say that the complex has tended toward the more simple by a process of deletion/trait reinforcement that does have proofs in nature.

Scott J · Feb 28, 2005

Scott is telling us that evolution is a lie popularized by atheists when writing of the time BEFORE the flood, but when he writes about the time AFTER the flood, he not only admits the truth of evolution, he strenuously argues that it actually occurred in million of cases! At least he admits that in order for Genesis to be a literal account of historic events, the theory of evolution must be true.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that descendents of a breeding pair can lose genetic information due to environmental constraints. Last time I checked, evolution teaches that a gain takes place by some magic that cannot be directly observed nor recreated in a lab simulation of natural processes.

Scott J · Feb 28, 2005

The fact of the matter is that at the time of the flood, if we accept Scott’s interpretation of Genesis, there were more that 2,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that we still have with us today. In addition, there were thousands of other genetically discrete populations of animals alive at the time of the flood that are known for a fact to have been with us since the flood but which have since perished. What this means, in a nutshell, is that it would have been ABOLUTELY AND POSSITIVELY necessary for a pair of EVERY ONE OF THESE 2,000,000+ genetically discrete populations of animals to be aboard the ark.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly Craig, I don't believe the God of the Bible would have trouble fitting 4 trillion "genetically discrete species" on the Ark if He so chose.

The question of whether I will trust a pompous, condescending higher critic's account of what God did or trust what Moses wrote and Jesus and Peter affirmed is pretty easy to answer.

BTW, I had no trouble passing the 2nd grade... of course you could still assume that I am a liar or just plain stupid since you seem intent on categorizing anyone who differs with you on evolution as ignorant, deceptive, or stupid. OTOH, I could share my IQ scores with you and leave you with no other option than to call me a liar.

UTEOTW · Feb 28, 2005

"We see, and the fossil record supports, variations within kinds of animals."

Yes, if by "kind" you mean "life." The fossil record is completely incompatible with most YEers concepts of "kinds" however. The fossil record is actually most detailed in transitions among higher taxomic classifications which is just the opposite of what YEers allow under the "kinds" concept. The rise of the amphibians from the lobe finned fish. The evolution of the reptiles from the amphibians. The evolution of the mammals from the reptiles. YEers must arbitrarily and capriciously throw these out for no other reason than they canno accept them.

"Even evolutionists note that the animals of the Cambrian era arose quickly without clear lines to any simpler ancestor."

I do believe you have been misled. Not surprising as it is a common tactic by the leaders of the YE movement. You might want to read up of some of the actual data about the Cambrian. THis paper is available online.

Knoll, A. H. and Carroll, S. B. (1999). "Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology." Science, 284(5423): 2129 - 2137.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm

If that is not enough for you, then walk down to your local library and read the following book.

Conway Morris, S. (1998). The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. New York, Oxford University Press.

Maybe you prefer to read online. A fellow Christian wrote this.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

Spoiler alert! I am going to quote his concluding paragraph.

Finally, there is a question of whether the rapid diversification of metazoans in the Late Precambrian and Early Cambrian reflects an equally rapid increase in complexity. An interesting study by Valentine and others uses the number of cell types as a useful measure of morphological complexity. They plot the estimated times of origin of major body plans against their cell type numbers. The resulting plot shows that the upper bound of complexity has increased steadily and nearly linearly from the origin of the metazoa to the present. Furthermore, they conclude that "...the metazoan `explosion' near the Precambrian/Cambrian transition was not associated with any important increase in complexity of body plans...This suggests that the appearance of new higher taxa in the Cambrian did not involve the sudden appearance of major new levels of complexity.
Click to expand...

"The animals we have now are no more complex than those that arose suddenly at some point in the past."

I think the paragraph above covers this statement quite well.

UTEOTW · Feb 28, 2005

"You require many years because the genome was simple and had to be built up by (an unobserved) process of accummulating genetic complexity."

Billions of years because that is what the geology says. Let's not confuse the different areas here.

The process of gaining new genes is also observed. There are many cases of new genes and new functions and new pathways that heve been observed to evolve. Just because you continue to assert that it is unobserved and to hand wave away everything shown to you that is contrary does not make it go away.

"I require a rich genome at creation..."

There is no evidence for a rich genome. Or maybe you can point to some evidence of a rich genome that can accomplish what you claim.

"You say that all animals ascended by a process that is not directly observed in nature."

It is not just one process, it is many. And many are observed. Mutation...observed. Selection...observed. Migration...observed. ANd so on.

" Last time I checked, evolution teaches that a gain takes place by some magic that cannot be directly observed nor recreated in a lab simulation of natural processes.

No magic needed. Duplication and mutation, for example, is a powerful way of giving new genetic material.

Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

PlainSense Bible believer Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

PlainSense Bible believer Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Craigbythesea Active Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

PlainSense Bible believer Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

Useful Searches

Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

PlainSense Bible believer Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

PlainSense Bible believer Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

Craigbythesea Active Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member Site Supporter

PlainSense Bible believer Member

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter