Science or history?

[theophilus40]

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didn’t know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process. The result would be that his estimate would be much higher than their actual age.

Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have always been going. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today. But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earth’s age are in the same position as the doctor who tried to estimate the age of Adam and Eve. Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.

Science can tell us a lot about the world we live in but when we try to find out about its past scientific methods alone can’t give us all the information we need. We need historical information as well. Did the earth come into existence as a result of natural processes or was it created by God? Was there ever a worldwide flood? We must know the answers to both of these questions in order to correctly interpret the data that we observe.

There is scientific evidence that the earth can’t be as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.

Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.&#8221
​

Soft tissue couldn’t have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous estimates of the age of the world must be wrong. Unfortunately belief that the world is old is so strong that most scientists ignore or try to explain away the evidence rather than changing their theories to conform to the evidence.

Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.
​

The existence of soft dinosaur tissue isn’t the only evidence that the earth is young. You can read about some of the other evidence here.

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth - Answers in Genesis

Everywhere in the world we find fossils of life forms that no longer exist. The Bible tells us that God sent a flood that covered the entire world; this would explain the existence of these fossils. Those who reject the idea of divine intervention claimed that the fossils were formed gradually over millions of years.

The fact that fossils contain soft tissue is evidence in favor of a flood. There is also historical evidence. Here is what Wikipedia says.

The Flood myths or deluge myths are, taken collectively, stories surviving from human prehistory, of a great flood which has generally been taken as mythical. These legends depict global flooding, usually sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. Flood stories are common across a wide range of cultures, extending back into prehistory.
​

The fact that flood stories are found in all cultures is evidence that the flood really happened.

Those who believe the earth is young are often accused of rejecting science. In fact those who claim the earth is old are using scientific methods to answer what is really a historical question.

The belief that earth is billions of years old has become such an integral part of our culture that even Christians who believe the Bible is true accept the prevailing beliefs and try to interpret the creation account in Genesis to make it conform to those beliefs.

The Bible says that the world was created in six days. The only way to reconcile the Bible with a belief that the earth is billions of years old is to claim that there aren’t literal days. The word day can mean something else besides a literal day; it is necessary to examine the context to see what it does mean. It sometimes means an indefinite period of time and it is used in that way in referring to the entire creation period.

These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4 ESV
​

But what about the individual days? Here is the description of the first one.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Genesis 1:3-5 ESV
​

Each day consisted of an evening and a morning and included a period of light and one of darkness. This could only be a literal day, the time during which the earth turns once on its axis.

(Some people insist these were 24 hour days. I think it is possible that the days were 21 minutes longs than our present days. You can see here why I think this:

How long were the days? | clydeherrin

Regardless of their length, they were literal days.)

When telling what would happen in the future Jesus said,

False christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Matthew 24:24 ESV
​

Those who believe the earth is old have accomplished something that Jesus said false christs and false prophets won’t be able to do. They have deceived the elect.

Here are sites where you can find more evidence that the generally accepted beliefs regarding the earth’s origins are wrong.

Creation - AllAboutCreation.org

Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

 

[Resha Caner]

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didn’t know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process. The result would be that his estimate would be much higher than their actual age.

Does Genesis suggest that Adam was created as a full-grown man and not an infant? It's an honest question. I've not niggled on that particular detail before.

 

[gluadys]

Did the earth come into existence as a result of natural processes or was it created by God?

Both. The question as it stands is a false dichotomy. It assumes an atheist (or at best Deist) perspective, that God is not active in sustaining and propelling natural processes. The most biblical answer is that God created and is creating (at least in part) through the use of natural processes. Natural processes are a mode of divine activity.

There is scientific evidence that the earth can’t be as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.

Soft tissue couldn’t have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous estimates of the age of the world must be wrong.​

Or it is evidence that previous estimates of how long soft tissue can survive must be wrong.

How do you, (or Answers) know that under the right conditions soft tissue couldn't have survived for 65+ millions of years.


You might also take into account that it was not soft when first found. It was put through chemical processes that softened it.

The fact that flood stories are found in all cultures is evidence that the flood really happened.​

First, it is not true that flood stories are found in all cultures. They are found in approximately half of indigenous cultures. Second, it is evidence that:

a) floods happened---not necessarily a single global flood, and
b) stories travel and get retold by people who may have never experienced a flood.

The Bible says that the world was created in six days. The only way to reconcile the Bible with a belief that the earth is billions of years old is to claim that there aren’t literal days.

Not necessarily. Unless you are confusing "literal" with "historical" or "real" or "actual" or "true". None of those are synonyms of "literal".

"Literal" simply means that the word is to be understood in its basic, common meaning and not as a symbol, metaphor or allegory. However, a word so understood can still be part of a larger story which is not historical. It can even be part of a poem or parable.

I understand the days of Genesis to be "literal" in the sense the author was referring to the measure of time which we ordinarily call a day; but I think he was also using the days as a literary device or framework, not as a reference to historical days.

 

[theophilus40]

Does Genesis suggest that Adam was created as a full-grown man and not an infant? It's an honest question. I've not niggled on that particular detail before.

If he had been created as an infant he would have needed someone to take care of him and there wasn't anyone else to do the job. In addition to this he was immediately given the jobs of taking care of the garden and naming the animals.

 

[miamited]

If he had been created as an infant he would have needed someone to take care of him and there wasn't anyone else to do the job. In addition to this he was immediately given the jobs of taking care of the garden and naming the animals.

Hi T,

Also to add to that, Adam seems to have immediately recognized that Eve was made for him. I can't imagine a day old baby having that awareness.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Resha Caner]

If he had been created as an infant he would have needed someone to take care of him and there wasn't anyone else to do the job.

I think God could have handled that.

In addition to this he was immediately given the jobs of taking care of the garden and naming the animals.

Does the text actually say this? Again, an honest question. If it does, then it does.

 

[Calminian]

....Does the text actually say this? Again, an honest question. If it does, then it does.

Yes, the text actually says it. Adam is called a man and Eve a woman. The hebrew words are ish and ishah. Immediately after Eve was created Adam said,

Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”​

There is no question Adam was created as a man. The text is explicit. You really just have to read the account once to realize it.

 

[Calminian]

The question as it stands is a false dichotomy. It assumes an atheist (or at best Deist) perspective, that God is not active in sustaining and propelling natural processes......

Atheists believe that God is active in sustaining and propelling natural processes? Surely you didn't mean tot say that.

Also, of course deists believe God sustains natural processes. That's not what is meant by deism. Deism means God does not act in special ways after creation (i.e. perform miracles).

The OP's point is a very valid one.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is no question Adam was created as a man. The text is explicit. You really just have to read the account once to realize it.

I've read it many times. It may very well be that God created Adam full-grown. I'm sure He could have done it that way. But people are always pointing out "obvious" things about Scripture that aren't really there.

So he was mature at the time Eve was created. That makes perfect sense. That still says nothing about whether he was originally created mature. So ... how old was he when Eve was created? I mean, if God created him as a mature man, did he create him as a mature 14-year-old (i.e. just past puberty) or as a 60-year-old, or ... ?

 

[Resha Caner]

My apologies if I was a bit gruff.

My wife and I read through Genesis 1:26-31, and in that context it seems most fitting that Adam was created as a mature man.

 

[gluadys]

Atheists believe that God is active in sustaining and propelling natural processes? Surely you didn't mean tot say that.

I think you missed the negative in my sentence. The atheist position is that God (since he does not exist) is not active in sustaining and propelling natural processes.

Also, of course deists believe God sustains natural processes. That's not what is meant by deism. Deism means God does not act in special ways after creation (i.e. perform miracles).

No, Deism means more than that. It means that God does not act in any way in "secondary" (i.e. natural) processes. Secondary or natural processes, once initiated, operate automatically on their own with no concomitant action by God. God is reduced to the Being who set the world in motion, like an amateur railway enthusiast who only needs to turn on one switch to make his train run through the system he has set up and thereafter is merely a spectator. Indeed, a hard Deism suggests that once natural processes have been initiated, God might not even bother to be a spectator.

The OP's point is a very valid one.

No, not valid biblically. Biblically, that which is a "result of natural processes" is also "created by God". So the question of whether it is one or the other is not valid, because it is both. Biblically, no natural process exists in which God is not continually active.

That is why it is a theological error to assume that a natural explanation of any natural phenomenon "rules out God" or exists as an alternative to creation. That is committing the error of atheism or at best Deism.

 

[Smidlee]

There is scientific evidence that the earth can’t be as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.http://scienceagainstevolution.info/

Soft tissue as well as land erosion rates bring serious doubts about the age of dinosaurs but that has nothing to do with the age of the planet. We are told in scripture the life we live now will be forgotten and the earth will be renewed. (the surface of the earth will be new yet the planet itself will be ancient) Now I do agree the earth is probably a few thousands as we know it today.
I do believe it's very possible that man and dinosaurs live together.

 

[gluadys]

I do believe it's very possible that man and dinosaurs live together.

Would you agree, however, that there is no fossil evidence that this is so? That is, there is no discovery, as yet, of dinosaur and human skeletons in the same rock formation or even in rock formations of the same apparent age.

 

[Smidlee]

Would you agree, however, that there is no fossil evidence that this is so? That is, there is no discovery, as yet, of dinosaur and human skeletons in the same rock formation or even in rock formations of the same apparent age.

Some claimed they have seen them. I would not dogmatic claim there is no fossil evidence.

 

[gluadys]

Some claimed they have seen them. I would not dogmatic claim there is no fossil evidence.

I think it would be front-page news if it was more than uncorroborated anecdotes.

 

[Calminian]

...No, not valid biblically. ....

Yes, the OP's point was very biblical. What you've done is make every event in creation a miracle, simply by citing God's upholding of the universe. Thus walking on water is no different then sinking in water. All are miracles in your view, but what you've done is merely to redefine miracles.

Deists have no problem saying that God is active in upholding the universe, they just deny any special nonuniform actions of God after the creation—no miracles. They of course do not hold to your new definition of miracles. Im pretty sure you are the only person on this thread that believes all events in creation are miracles.

 

[Smidlee]

I think it would be front-page news if it was more than uncorroborated anecdotes.

I'm not so sure since we all have been taught since we were children that dinosaurs live long before man. It's the same that mammals buried with dinosaurs doesn't make news as one scientist admit he's more interested in dinosaurs than mammals. (it 's seems Bill Nye didn't know this)
I find the news often doesn't cover the whole picture when it comes to science.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, the OP's point was very biblical. What you've done is make every event in creation a miracle, simply by citing God's upholding of the universe. Thus walking on water is no different then sinking in water. All are miracles in your view, but what you've done is merely to redefine miracles.

No, I am specifically not making every event in creation a miracle. I think, however, that creationists have redefined miracle to mean "every event in which God is active"-- a definition which does not square with scriptural testimony about the activity of God.

What I am saying is that not every act of God is a miracle. Walking or even floating on water is a miracle if the object would ordinarily sink (Jesus, Peter, Elisha's ax head) and by the same token sinking in water would be a miracle if the object would ordinarily float (no biblical example that I recall). And we readily acknowledge these as acts of God.

But when iron sinks in water or oil floats on water, that is not a miracle. However, it is still God's action. Just as it is God's action which the Psalmist describes when he says "You knit me together in my mother's womb" although he is describing an ordinary and not a miraculous gestation. Just as it is God's action which Jesus describes when he says of the planted seed " and [the sower] would sleep and rise night and day and the seed would sprout and grow he knows not how."


It is this constant action of God maintaining the integrity of natural phenomena (as promised in the Noahic covenant) that Paul refers to when he says of Christ "in him all things consist [or "hold together"].

This constant action is not miraculous but it is just as real as the action denoted in miracles. That is why natural processes are not a sign of God's absence or inactivity.


Typically, however, creationists vilify the natural explanations of science as hostile to theism, as excluding God. If we truly understood the biblical teaching of how God and nature relate to each other, we would understand that it is a false conclusion--one that has been promoted and nurtured by atheists and unfortunately adopted by Christians without the criticism it deserves.

Indeed, it follows that if you exclude God's role in ordinary natural happenings, then the only role you can give to God is that of special, contrary-to-nature activity, i.e. miracles. But in doing so, you make over 99% of nature into a mere machine and God into a sometimes tinkerer in the machinery. That is not a biblical conception of either creation or Creator.

Deists have no problem saying that God is active in upholding the universe, they just deny any special nonuniform actions of God after the creation—no miracles.

No, they deny all actions of God after the creation; indeed the notion of the universe as machine originated with the Deists.

From the Wikipedia article on Deism:

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature.

Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.
​

Emphasis added.

Note too that the theist who maintains that God "remains actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made" does not limit that activity and operation to miracles. Biblically, God's active operations in the world include the non-miraculous events of sending the rains at the proper seasons, looking after wild donkeys and the eggs of the foolish ostrich and seeing to it that young ravens and lions are fed. We can logically extend that, of course, to all the normal activities of nature from protons bonding to neutrons, oxygen bonding to hydrogen to make water, plant leaves drawing energy from the sun in photosynthesis and so on. None of these are those special events we call miracles, but all of them are indications of God's active interest and operation in the world he has made.

To the deist, however, they are automatic self-acting processes to which God abandoned his creation. And to the atheist they are simply automatic self-acting processes which did not need God even to come into existence.

Just where does the creationist stand?

They of course do not hold to your new definition of miracles.

Im pretty sure you are the only person on this thread that believes all events in creation are miracles.

Well, since I did not actually redefine miracles to include all events in creation, that leaves no one to believe so.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not so sure since we all have been taught since we were children that dinosaurs live long before man. It's the same that mammals buried with dinosaurs doesn't make news as one scientist admit he's more interested in dinosaurs than mammals. (it 's seems Bill Nye didn't know this)
I find the news often doesn't cover the whole picture when it comes to science.

Actually mammals buried with dinosaurs do make news.
Dinosaur Found in Mammal's Belly

It is true news doesn't cover all of science. Not every discovery of mammal and dinosaur remains together gets noted in the news because that is too common. Mammals actually originated before dinosaurs, and both types of bones are often found together. This one was noted because it substantiated that mammals sometimes preyed on small dinosaurs. That had not been found before. (Usually, it would be the mammal who is the dinosaur's dinner.)

Human remains with dinosaur remains would be huge news. If it proved to be a genuine find and not a hoax, it would not fail to hit the headlines everywhere.

 

[Lopez 15721]

Schweitzer didn't find red blood cells. I'd check your information by way of corroboration to other sources. How about from works by herself? I think that'd suffice, wouldn't you? evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone itself is preserved just fine and just so fine it could contain organic material coming from the original dinosaur! Also, the tissues were not soft originally. They were rehydrated using a process which removes all the surrounding material of the bone. More so, it is uncertain as to the discernment that the soft tissues are the original ones.

As to the dating method, this bone's age was calculated by the age of the rock it was found in - the Hell Creek Formation. It has independently been dated by several reliable methods. The thing about science is it accepts a change in theory when supporting evidence suggests it to change. Though, this fabricated, ill informed, account and explanation of Schweizer's findings and research is anything but that. DNA has simply never been found in dinosaurs. There has been no such finding. Scientists do not bet there will be such a discovery. DNA has been recovered from more recent samples such as 10,000 years old.

"The fact that flood stories are found in all cultures is evidence that the flood really happened." I'd have to disagree with this statement completely. If you notice there various differences in the ancient flood myth accounts. Some involve world destruction and others creation. Very seldom is a huge boat mentioned. Some myths say people hid in trees and others in caves and lived through it, and yet other myths say the whole world and everyone is destroyed. Yet the Bible describes none of that and instead claims everyone but Noah and the listed animals died. Some others say the flood was stopped before anyone died or any destruction occurred. So, if there was one flood and all the myths are evidence of that one flood as you claim, more logical consistency between the stories should occur. What's even more is that these later stories would be from the descendants of Noah, which would mean they should have a similar story. That said, if the Bible flood account is literal and true, then all other flood myths are false. How then, would said flood myths be evidence that the Bible flood is right!?