Questions about YEC v OEC...

[TheSacredSecrets]

Hello all,

I have been away from the Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism debate for a long time and am wondering if there has been any progress on the following questions. In the interest of full disclosure I am an OEC. (Also, I'm looking for more recent ideas/theories, say within the last 5 to 10 years....just to get up to speed before fully refreshing my understanding.)

1) What has become of the Ocean and Lake varve issue?

2) What is the latest on the 3000 mile long Hawaiian Island chain explanation?

3) And, has there been another offering for the explanation of why there isn't a 6000 light year limit to the size of the observable universe?

(These questions a posted in very simple terms as I do not recall them very well - it's been about 20 years - and I'm hoping you can understand what I'm trying to say.)

I understand that volumes could be said on each of these subjects, so I'm not really looking for explanation here (but won't object to it!), so if you could point me someplace else.

Thank you!

TSS

 

[juvenissun]

Hello all,

I have been away from the Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism debate for a long time and am wondering if there has been any progress on the following questions. In the interest of full disclosure I am an OEC. (Also, I'm looking for more recent ideas/theories, say within the last 5 to 10 years....just to get up to speed before fully refreshing my understanding.)

1) What has become of the Ocean and Lake varve issue?

2) What is the latest on the 3000 mile long Hawaiian Island chain explanation?

3) And, has there been another offering for the explanation of why there isn't a 6000 light year limit to the size of the observable universe?

(These questions a posted in very simple terms as I do not recall them very well - it's been about 20 years - and I'm hoping you can understand what I'm trying to say.)

I understand that volumes could be said on each of these subjects, so I'm not really looking for explanation here (but won't object to it!), so if you could point me someplace else.

Thank you!

TSS

Before answering the questions, one assumption should be set first:

Do you assume the earth worked the same way before as she works today?
If not, how much could be the difference? e.g. is a 100-day year possible?

 

[Mallon]

Before answering the questions, one assumption should be set first:

Do you assume the earth worked the same way before as she works today?
If not, how much could be the difference? e.g. is a 100-day year possible?

For what it's worth, we can actually determine the length of years as they were in the past based on growth rings in corrals and bivalves. For example, during the Silurian and Devonian periods, years lasted on the order of 400+ days.

More here:
Length of the Year during the Silurian and Devonian Periods: New Values -- MAZZULLO 82 (4): 1085 -- GSA Bulletin

 

[TheSacredSecrets]

Before answering the questions, one assumption should be set first:

Do you assume the earth worked the same way before as she works today?
If not, how much could be the difference? e.g. is a 100-day year possible?

In as much as the physical laws, yes they/it works the same today as yesterday or however far back in time one would want to go. I do not think God would be randomly changing the laws willy nilly - that is not to say that at the very very very beginning they didn't work very strangely (but still the same set laws for the vast majority of created time).

If they earth had a 100 day year, she would be much closer to the sun and therefore probably couldn't support life as we know it. In other words, yes it is possible that the earth could have a 100 day year, but not likely under the current set of physical laws.

TSS

 

[juvenissun]

For what it's worth, we can actually determine the length of years as they were in the past based on growth rings in corrals and bivalves. For example, during the Silurian and Devonian periods, years lasted on the order of 400+ days.

More here:
Length of the Year during the Silurian and Devonian Periods: New Values -- MAZZULLO 82 (4): 1085 -- GSA Bulletin

Thanks for the reference. A little bit old, but should still be good. I don't know about biology. So I will leave the technique alone.

Assume we know why does the earth spin slower (less days in an year), but do we know why does the orbiting time of the earth also become shorter? If we found an equation to describe it, is the equation believable (in other words, should the changing be constant or proportional)? My hunch is that it is not.

 

[Papias]

I’ve mentioned before the sheer hubris and proud ignorance of creationists who ignore entire fields of science or scholarship while making bold statements that nearly anyone actually knowledgeable in the field would be embarrassed of – things that are among the first things learned by new students.

Recently, a person posted that they had “never heard” that Genesis 2 was likely written at a different time than Genesis 1, which caused me to be surprised the same way. Then, it was pointed out to me that the person was young, and I realized that I was likely no more knowledgeable at his age either.

But in this case it appears to be completely different. Here Juvi states:

Assume we know why does the earth spin slower (less days in an year), but do we know why does the orbiting time of the earth also become shorter? If we found an equation to describe it, is the equation believable (in other words, should the changing be constant or proportional)? My hunch is that it is not.

Wow Juvi, really? You know that there are people who work through different models, with tons of calculations, based on actual data, who devote most of or all their careers to this issue, who are extremely knowledgeable on this, and you, in your ignorance, dismiss all that with a handwave and a “My hunch is that it is not.” Did it ever occur to you that your problem with recognizing where extensive work has been done, and going to learn from that, is likely a significant source of your ignorance problem? That other person who posted is young, and could well learn to educate themselves before making bold statements. You Juvie, are 58 – that makes your situation very different from his.

And we wonder why some observers equate Christianity with intentional, obstinate ignorance.

Papias

 

[ivebeenshown]

And we wonder why some observers equate Christianity with intentional, obstinate ignorance.

Christ isn't about conforming to what unbelievers want to hear about it. He came not to send peace but a sword, a sharp, dividing sword. And to show us how to be kind.

Scientists can mock me all they want but Adam was a real man.

 

[Papias]

It would be helpful for you to first understand the position of the other person before becoming defensive.

It turns out that a major (perhaps the most prominent) TE position is that Adam was indeed a real man, the ancestor of us all. I describe that in this post (http://www.christianforums.com/t7485039-2/#post55314674), which I didn't cut and paste here because this is the creationist subforum.

After reading that, IB, do you understand how a real Adam still works with Pauline theology in a TE framework?

Papias

 

[ivebeenshown]

I believe wholeheartedly that man has rightful dominion over all creatures including apes, because God created Adam apart from the creatures. Jesus was there from the beginning (John 1) and we were created in his likeness.

 

[Papias]

OK, but, did you read that post explaining how many TEs see Adam as the literal first human?

 

[ivebeenshown]

OK, but, did you read that post explaining how many TEs see Adam as the literal first human?

Yes, I read the post you linked to. Adam is the literal first human indeed, and God formed him from the dust of the earth, not from a creature of the earth.

 

[Papias]

It's cool that we can at least find a small patch of common ground/earth.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It's cool that we can at least find a small patch of common ground/earth.

It sure is, we have that common ground in the blood of Christ.

 

[Papias]

Yep!

 

[SkyWriting]

Hello all,
I have been away from the Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism debate for a long time and am wondering if there has been any progress on the following questions. In the interest of full disclosure I am an OEC. (Also, I'm looking for more recent ideas/theories, say within the last 5 to 10 years....just to get up to speed before fully refreshing my understanding.)
1) What has become of the Ocean and Lake varve issue?
2) What is the latest on the 3000 mile long Hawaiian Island chain explanation?
3) And, has there been another offering for the explanation of why there isn't a 6000 light year limit to the size of the observable universe?
(These questions a posted in very simple terms as I do not recall them very well - it's been about 20 years - and I'm hoping you can understand what I'm trying to say.)
I understand that volumes could be said on each of these subjects, so I'm not really looking for explanation here (but won't object to it!), so if you could point me someplace else.
Thank you!
TSS

Every miracle in the scriptures suggest that the miracle did not
take:
-days to make wine
-months to heal
-years before Adam could walk or talk.

So the Earth and heavens look old as well.
Not a big surprise. Science has always made assumptions that get corrected later. It's what defines science....being wrong until corrected.