Age of the Earth: Commentary on formal debate

[random_guy]

It is. And that's why I brought it back to geology with my last question.

However, since one can estimate the timing of a genetic bottleneck, this is another line of evidence which shows that the earth is older than a YEC framework allows. If the last human genetic bottleneck occurred 70,000 years ago, the earth and humanity are at least that old.

I just want to say excellent job. It's a shame that the idea of genetic bottleneck wasn't directly addressed. One thing I remember from a lecture was that our immune system is built from MHC genes, which have the most alleles for any genes. I think this is due to the fact that you must have variety in your immune system or else a bug might come up and no one in the population can handle it.

The MHC is highly polymorphic. There are a large number of genetic variants (alleles) at each genetic locus. Crucially many of these alleles are represented at significant frequency (> 1%) in the population, and in addition the alleles generally differ from one another by many (up to 30) amino acid substitutions. For example in humans there are more than 200 alleles described at some MHC loci. Such a remarkable degree of polymorphism implies a selective pressure to establish and maintain it.

I know this is too late to bring up, but for all the lurkers out there, basically, this says that it's near impossible for a Flood to occur unless some form of hyperevolution occurred afterwards to create the MHC alleles.

 

[gluadys]

I know this is too late to bring up, but for all the lurkers out there, basically, this says that it's near impossible for a Flood to occur unless some form of hyperevolution occurred afterwards to create the MHC alleles.

And then there is still the question of documenting hyperevolution and finding a mechanism for hyperevolution.

Did women routinely have quadruplets and quintuplets (fraternal, not identical)? Or was gestation reduced from nine months to three months? Did puberty occur much earlier than it does today?

Same for other species. Imagine rabbits having litters every week instead of every three-to-four months. What would it take to generate the allelic variability in the whole rabbit "kind". (Would that be the whole lagomorph order?)

How long did a hyperevolutionary period last and when did it stop?

 

[shernren]

However, since one can estimate the timing of a genetic bottleneck, this is another line of evidence which shows that the earth is older than a YEC framework allows. If the last human genetic bottleneck occurred 70,000 years ago, the earth and humanity are at least that old.

Technically, God could have created the human race with the appearance of having undergone a bottleneck 70,000 years ago, if not within the genome of Adam and Eve then at some other point within human history. After all, God messed up the languages of the humans at Babel: couldn't He have messed up their genes, too?

The Omphalos argument is still valid and important, except that you've already addressed it by asking whether or not creation reveals God's glory. And that is why the question of how interpretation affects science and Scripture is still relevant to a debate about the age of the earth - because of the need to address theological arguments like the Omphalos hypothesis.

 

[laptoppop]

How does a flood origin for the geologic record account for angular unconformities?

I don’t understand why you seem to think that angular unconformities pose any issue at all for YECs. If anything, they are often a strong argument in favor of a flood origin. A non-YEC must explain how each and every variation from the “expected” stratification has occurred. Out of order layers, layers on a slant, as well as layers that have obvious erosion between the layers all must be explained. Also, if one accepts a long timeframe for the formation of strata, one must explain how the layers survived over long timespans without being eroded away – over and over again – over large geographic regions.

First, the earth is an active place geologically. The mechanisms currently used to explain such formations are readily acceptable to young earth creationism. Especially where there are layers that appear to have grinding between the layers.

Second, it is quite reasonable to expect that there would be a large amount of geological activity during and after the flood. Billions (trillions?) of gallons of water would exert huge amounts of weight and stress. The movement of the water during and after the flood means these stresses would be unevenly distributed, resulting in large movements of the crust in various areas.

Third, Guy Berthault has shown that a couple of the assumptions used in geologic interpretation, superposition and horizontality, have serious flaws. I have demonstrated this in a simple experiment with my son in a 10 gallon aquarium. Strata can be formed at an angle, and multiple layers of strata can be formed simultaneously. In other words, some of the layers were formed at an angle originally, as opposed to being formed horizontally, and then moved into position at a later time.

Fourth, hydrologic deposition of layers of strata is not necessarily a calm quiet settling of contents. While it is reasonable that many layers would be similar, there are a large number of factors which affect the rate and type of sedimentation. Current, dissolved minerals, temperature and other factors all affect how strata would be formed. A small change in one of these factors can result in a huge change in sedimentation.
-lee-

 

[steen]

How does a flood origin for the geologic record account for angular unconformities?

I don’t understand why you seem to think that angular unconformities pose any issue at all for YECs. If anything, they are often a strong argument in favor of a flood origin.

Really? So where have YEC done this? Please direct us to the reference, thanks.

A non-YEC must explain how each and every variation from the “expected” stratification has occurred.

Why? Out of order layers, layers on a slant, as well as layers that have obvious erosion between the layers all must be explained.[/quote]And when the same explanation fits them all, then...?

Also, if one accepts a long timeframe for the formation of strata, one must explain how the layers survived over long timespans without being eroded away – over and over again – over large geographic regions.

By being protected by the layers above. And much was indeed eroded away. As regions rise, water starts eroding the edges, leaving only remnant of the entire strata

First, the earth is an active place geologically. The mechanisms currently used to explain such formations are readily acceptable to young earth creationism. Especially where there are layers that appear to have grinding between the layers.

Ah, so YEC accept plate tectonics? And they accept the yearly cycle of the varves? Well, then right there they admit the earth to be many millions of years old. The Green River varves of Utah alone has 20 mill yearly cycles that can be identified, with yearly cycles of pollen showing up and disappearing again, f.ex. See the discussion here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3086519-varves-only-discussion.html
We would love to see your explanation about the varves

Second, it is quite reasonable to expect that there would be a large amount of geological activity during and after the flood. Billions (trillions?) of gallons of water would exert huge amounts of weight and stress. The movement of the water during and after the flood means these stresses would be unevenly distributed, resulting in large movements of the crust in various areas.

And that is why we see patterns like the east African Plateau which incidentally have never been flooded?

Third, Guy Berthault has shown that a couple of the assumptions used in geologic interpretation, superposition and horizontality, have serious flaws.

Ah, a "couple" of things don't look right to him, ----> everything in the science is wrong ----> YEC is right? Rather serious leaps of logic there.

I have demonstrated this in a simple experiment with my son in a 10 gallon aquarium. Strata can be formed at an angle, and multiple layers of strata can be formed simultaneously.

With orderly distinct layers of pollen and not, showing yearly cycles? I would LOVE to see you publish those results in a scientific journal, then, as that would revolutionize geology and several other fields. That's almost worth a Nobel Price. When can we expect your published results?

In other words, some of the layers were formed at an angle originally, as opposed to being formed horizontally, and then moved into position at a later time.

In an aquarium with edges? Now, how does that apply to old flood plains, lakes or merely erosion zones? No?

Fourth, hydrologic deposition of layers of strata is not necessarily a calm quiet settling of contents. While it is reasonable that many layers would be similar, there are a large number of factors which affect the rate and type of sedimentation. Current, dissolved minerals, temperature and other factors all affect how strata would be formed. A small change in one of these factors can result in a huge change in sedimentation.

And would result in pollen being laid down in only some layers in a regular, predictable pattern mimicking yearly cycles?

You REALLY need to go to that link I gave and show us all where we are wrong.

 

[gluadys]

How does a flood origin for the geologic record account for angular unconformities?

A non-YEC must explain how each and every variation from the “expected” stratification has occurred.

So must a YEC. Just saying it was caused by the flood is insufficient. How does a flood cause the various geological features? Show the relation between what is known of hydrological forces and the resulting geological features.

Out of order layers, layers on a slant, as well as layers that have obvious erosion between the layers all must be explained.

Yes. And standard geology does. Do you have a more detailed explanation for erosional surfaces between layers than simply "the flood caused it"?

Also, if one accepts a long timeframe for the formation of strata, one must explain how the layers survived over long timespans without being eroded away – over and over again – over large geographic regions.

Erosion only occurs when surfaces are exposed to factors that cause erosion, like wave action or wind. Minus those factors, why would sediment layers be eroded?

First, the earth is an active place geologically. The mechanisms currently used to explain such formations are readily acceptable to young earth creationism. Especially where there are layers that appear to have grinding between the layers.

Does that include the process of lithification?

Second, it is quite reasonable to expect that there would be a large amount of geological activity during and after the flood. Billions (trillions?) of gallons of water would exert huge amounts of weight and stress. The movement of the water during and after the flood means these stresses would be unevenly distributed, resulting in large movements of the crust in various areas.

So you have a hypothesis and a vague prediction. Can you identify a specific large movement of the crust caused by the flood, predict the stress necessary to cause this movement and test for accuracy? Have you considered the heat factor? Have you considered the volume and weight of water necessary? Can you show where the water came from and where it went afterward?

Vague ad hoc notions of what could be are not scientific statements. Where is the geological evidence to support this notion?

Third, Guy Berthault has shown that a couple of the assumptions used in geologic interpretation, superposition and horizontality, have serious flaws. I have demonstrated this in a simple experiment with my son in a 10 gallon aquarium. Strata can be formed at an angle, and multiple layers of strata can be formed simultaneously. In other words, some of the layers were formed at an angle originally, as opposed to being formed horizontally, and then moved into position at a later time.

I see some laboratory experimentation here. Has this been applied to specific field work? Have any specific geological formations been identified as having originated under these circumstances? Is this the only way angular strata can be formed? And how does this relate to angular unconformities?

Fourth, hydrologic deposition of layers of strata is not necessarily a calm quiet settling of contents. While it is reasonable that many layers would be similar, there are a large number of factors which affect the rate and type of sedimentation. Current, dissolved minerals, temperature and other factors all affect how strata would be formed. A small change in one of these factors can result in a huge change in sedimentation.
-lee-

Granted. But some types of strata do require a calm quiet settling of contents, so a flood scenario must speak to these as well as to others. E.g. shale

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column

Shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place. This is one of the unrecognized difficulties of flood geology. Every shale, which is approximately 46% of the geologic column, is by its existence, evidence for tranquil waters.​

Emphasis added

 

[laptoppop]

I haven't looked into the pollen/varves argument, so I won't comment on it at this time, unitl I've been able to check it out. I'm continuing to study/grow/learn.

Again, however, there's no conflict between YEC and most of the conventional explanations such as overthrusting, underthrusting, etc.

What problem do you see for young earth creationism in lithification?

A local flood is not the same throughout its effective region, so why should we expect a global flood to be? It is quite reasonable to expect regions of extreme activity, and other regions of calm. Shale presents no problem to the model.

One of the prime difficulties with the young earth model is the sparcity of field research. It is normal for people to filter what they see based on their presuppositions -- even as we try to retain objectivity. In most cases, however, the young earth model is looked upon as not even worthy of consideration, so the field geologists are not looking for evidence in that direction. ICR is working to address this lack of field research.

Another prime area is in the area of detailed computer modeling. It is extremely difficult to model a global flood in detail. Again, ICR has a project (EPIPHANY) which will run on their 40 processor cluster and should help to model various mechanisms.

The amount of money available for YEC research is a pittance compared to that of conventional geology. Even so, many attempts are being made to improve the scholastic review, original research, computer modeling, etc. of the young earth researchers.
-lee-

 

[gluadys]

I haven't looked into the pollen/varves argument, so I won't comment on it at this time, unitl I've been able to check it out. I'm continuing to study/grow/learn.

Definitely a worthwhile endeavour.

Again, however, there's no conflict between YEC and most of the conventional explanations such as overthrusting, underthrusting, etc.

AFAIK, the YEC model requires superspeed plate tectonic movement, and this introduces a heat factor that I have not seen accounted for. If you know of a different model, please provide a link.

What problem do you see for young earth creationism in lithification?

Time basically. Yes it is true that under certain circumstances unconsolidated material can be turned into rock quickly. But now we run into one of my pet peeves with YEC. Because rock can sometimes be formed quickly, this is generalized, with no supporting evidence, into an assertion that all rock formed quickly. That is not science. Let's go back to shale.

A local flood is not the same throughout its effective region, so why should we expect a global flood to be? It is quite reasonable to expect regions of extreme activity, and other regions of calm. Shale presents no problem to the model.

First we need to establish that shale has formed in any flood at all. I need a geologist to tell me if this is the case. If shale is never formed in flood conditions that we know, YEC has to provide a scenario in which it can form in a global flood.

Then we need not only regions of calm, but regions which are calm enough for a sufficiently long time to account for actual shale deposits. How deep were the waters? How long does it take the particles which become shale to settle through that depth of water? Given the amount of shale deposited in location A, how much time was needed for this amount of shale to be deposited? What about location B, and location C and so forth?

Are you really sure shale provides no problem to the YEC model?

One of the prime difficulties with the young earth model is the sparcity of field research. It is normal for people to filter what they see based on their presuppositions -- even as we try to retain objectivity. In most cases, however, the young earth model is looked upon as not even worthy of consideration, so the field geologists are not looking for evidence in that direction. ICR is working to address this lack of field research.

True. Most scientists and sponsors of research have no inclination to investigate a hypothesis that was falsified 200 years ago. They know the evidence which convinced researchers then is still there and hasn't changed. Nor has new evidence turned up that warrants a re-appraisal.

Are you aware that the pre-suppositions of those who falsified a global flood were Christian? Several geologists of the time were (or later became) clergy. They assumed the flood was a historical event of global reach and set out to find the geologic remnants of the flood. They changed their minds only when their own research demanded it. A prime example is Rev. Adam Sedgewick, for a time chair of the Geological Society. He was a strong propenent of a global flood, but in 1835 explained to the Geological Society that he had changed his mind, and why.

A good summary of how geology came to reject the global flood is here.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

An excerpt from Sedgwick's recantation is about half-way through.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is amazing how YECs do seem to think reading Genesis figuratively cheapens it, but they don't see that as an issue with the parables or the book of Revelation.

I too am a Bible literalist and a YEC. I have no trouble at all with interpreting Genesis literally, as Jesus Himself did, as well as Paul and others.

In addition, the Law of First Mention is a powerful tool of Bible interpretation, which would be ineffectual if Genesis was an allegory.

 

[Willtor]

I too am a Bible literalist and a YEC. I have no trouble at all with interpreting Genesis literally, as Jesus Himself did, as well as Paul and others.

It's an ongoing debate in this forum as to whether this is the case.

In addition, the Law of First Mention is a powerful tool of Bible interpretation, which would be ineffectual if Genesis was an allegory.

I am only minorly familiar with the Law of First Mention (my knowledge is pretty much limited to the results of a Google search). Could you describe this, and why a non-literal thing would negate it?

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am only minorly familiar with the Law of First Mention (my knowledge is pretty much limited to the results of a Google search). Could you describe this, and why a non-literal thing would negate it?

Hello, mighty Willtor!

I always get these "please explain to me" questions just before Judge Mathis comes on --- lol --- so I'll BBL with an explanation, and an example.

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

TYVM --- it's good to be here!

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi again, Willtor

In Hermeneutics 101, there are two major rules of thumb that one should go by when interpreting the Bible.

The 1st is that one should always interpret the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.

The 2nd is that whenever a word or phrase occurs in the Bible for the first time, always interpret that word or phrase as it was used then, unless the context dictates otherwise. This is called the Law of First Mention.

Take the word "day" as an example. The first time it appears, it means a solar day, a 24-hour period.

How do we know that? The context establishes the definition. What's the context in this case?

• Context = "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Note that the word "Day" actually appears capitalized before the word "day". I'm therefore talking about the un-capitalized word.

Now let's apply it to a technicality:

[quote="Genesis 2:17]But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[/quote]

He did eat of that tree, and he did not die that day.

That's because he died spiritually - not physically. In addition, he brought entropy into the universe, which started him on a course toward physical death many years later.

I hope this makes sense!

 

[Willtor]

I'm not sure it does. It's not clear to me why either rule 1 or rule 2 is valid:

Rule 1

Consider the Psalms. This would obfuscate them. Poetry doesn't necessarily work this way, and (upon further inspection) I have a hard time believeing that anything except a modern historical narrative does. Wouldn't it be better to ask what was meant by a particular author according to the form of literature and the historical and social context in which it was written?

Rule 2

Why not try to understand the way a particular author uses a word in particular contexts from all of the places he uses it and apply that to his uses? This sounds like a better way to understand anybody.

Also, the Law of First Mention seems to suggest that all authors used the same words in the same ways (in the same contexts), almost as if the Bible were a single book.

---

Where do these ideas come from?

 

[gluadys]

In Hermeneutics 101, there are two major rules of thumb that one should go by when interpreting the Bible.

The 1st is that one should always interpret the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Why?

The 2nd is that whenever a word or phrase occurs in the Bible for the first time, always interpret that word or phrase as it was used then, unless the context dictates otherwise. This is called the Law of First Mention.

Again, why?

And would that be first in the table of contents of a modern bible or first in terms of which document was first written? And why?

And should that not apply to each author individually rather than to the bible as a whole? If not, why not?

But then, why should it apply at all, even for one author?

It seems to me these are very artificial rules that require some substantial reason to accept.

Note that the word "Day" actually appears capitalized before the word "day". I'm therefore talking about the un-capitalized word.

Irrelevant. There was no distinction of capital and lower-case letters in the original manuscript. Indeed, IIRC, Hebrew still does not make this distinction today.

 

[shernren]

The 1st is that one should always interpret the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.

Define literally, and define context. If a literal interpretation would indicate a geocentric cosmogony, wouldn't that literal interpretation have to be modified by our current scientific knowledge to accommodate a heliocentric cosmogony? And doesn't that mean that extra-biblical knowledge forms a valid context from which to modify the interpretation of Scripture?

 

[Assyrian]

In Hermeneutics 101, there are two major rules of thumb that one should go by when interpreting the Bible.

The 1st is that one should always interpret the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.

The 2nd is that whenever a word or phrase occurs in the Bible for the first time, always interpret that word or phrase as it was used then, unless the context dictates otherwise. This is called the Law of First Mention.

Take the word "day" as an example. The first time it appears, it means a solar day, a 24-hour period.

How do we know that? The context establishes the definition. What's the context in this case?

• Context = "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Note that the word "Day" actually appears capitalized before the word "day". I'm therefore talking about the un-capitalized word.

I am not sure the bible teaches a hermeneutic Law of First Mention. The approach does bring up some interesting insights, but context is much more important, as well as understanding the range of meanings a word can have throughout the bible.

It is interesting that you exclude the first occurrence of day, which is actually God giving a definition of the word. Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. In the first mention of day, God actually defines it as 12 hour of daylight. The second occurrence, seems to cover the hours of darkness from evening to morning, if we take it literally, it is a 24 hour day. So we have a contradiction between the first and the second mention of the word, even in the same verse. This does not give us a good basis for saying the second use is meant literally, or for a Law of First Mention.



We find a third completely different meaning to day in Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Which seems to refer to the entire creation period.

Now let's apply it to a technicality:

He did eat of that tree, and he did not die that day.

That's because he died spiritually - not physically. In addition, he brought entropy into the universe, which started him on a course toward physical death many years later.

I hope this makes sense!

If the death God warned about was spiritual, and I agree with you that it was, what is the basis for saying it brought about physical death and decay into the universe?

 

[chaoschristian]

What this 'Law' doesn't take into account, and Willtor alluded to it, is that scriptures as they are presented to us today in the form of the Bible do not reflect the actual written order of the stories that comprise the scrolls that went on to become what we call books.

In other words, looking at the first Genesis account in 'The Bible' and saying, "Well here we have the first mention of day, so all interpretations of day after this must comform to what day means in this context" completely ignores the fact that the Book of Job is older than Genesis and that even within Genesis the second creation account is most likely older than the first.

The order of scripture is completely artificial, so basing a 'Law of First Mention' on the order of the appearance of words within it texts is not only artificial but non-sensical.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the death God warned about was spiritual, and I agree with you that it was, what is the basis for saying it brought about physical death and decay into the universe?

it's a good question. the short answer is that the consequences of sin is decay and destruction. the aphorism is that sin is it's own reward.

1-that is why Adam and Eve did not die the very same day that the curse was pronounced. They died spiritually in their separation from God, from each other, alienation from self and from the creation. But it took time, and is still taking time for all these consequences to work themselves out.

2-it common grace God sustains the creation, through providence people are not as bad as they ought to be, nor does sin have the immediate consequences that it ought to. God is longsuffering, patience and it the meantime sustains the creation for His own purposes.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The 2nd is that whenever a word or phrase occurs in the Bible for the first time, always interpret that word or phrase as it was used then, unless the context dictates otherwise. This is called the Law of First Mention.

i have literally (sic) never heard of this "principle". do you have a decent reference that we can use to read up on its history?
tia.


i only found 25 hits on google for:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hermeneutics+"principle+of+first+mention"&btnG=Google+Search
none of which are very good.

the best of the lot is:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Interpretation/interpret_22.htm
Pink's Interpretation of the Scripture.

there are 206 hits on:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="law+of+first+mention"&btnG=Google+Search
but they are all over the place as far as depth of writing, theological insight and which groups.
At this point i don't see any reason for being persuaded that this is a legitimate hermeneutical principle rather than a simple phrase getting a little bit of press.

 

[Willtor]

If the death God warned about was spiritual, and I agree with you that it was, what is the basis for saying it brought about physical death and decay into the universe?

it's a good question. the short answer is that the consequences of sin is decay and destruction. the aphorism is that sin is it's own reward.

1-that is why Adam and Eve did not die the very same day that the curse was pronounced. They died spiritually in their separation from God, from each other, alienation from self and from the creation. But it took time, and is still taking time for all these consequences to work themselves out.

2-it common grace God sustains the creation, through providence people are not as bad as they ought to be, nor does sin have the immediate consequences that it ought to. God is longsuffering, patience and it the meantime sustains the creation for His own purposes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the view being advocated by AV1611VET is the one that says that there was no death in the universe, not merely no death among men. I am uncertain as to whether Adam would have died, physically, if he had never fallen, but I don't think either of us are uncertain as to whether the other animals and plants would have died and decayed.