Lets talk about a young earth

Bushido216 · Dec 11, 2004

Brother Charlie said:
What do non-creationists believe about the origin of life?

ca. 4.7 bya the earth was formed. ca. 3.5 bya the first life formed. Since then life has evolved to its present state. H. sapien is just a random and insignificant twig on a branch of earth's tree of life.

I think that the theory of abiogenesis is very promising in what it can show us about how life first started.

Brother Charlie · Dec 11, 2004

Do you believe that man is a descendant of a pile of goo?

Bushido216 · Dec 11, 2004

A pile of goo? Not really. I do, however, think that in the last 3.5 by we can trace our lineage back to a series of RNA strands, yes.

Matthan · Dec 11, 2004

Young Earth? Old Earth? Why not look at the facts, and let them prove God's magnificance, not to mention His glorious omnipotence!!! What are the facts? First, God is eternal. Time as we mere mortals might understand it has absolutely no significance to Him. None at all. He exists outside of time.

That fact also gives us a clear indication of a communication problem that He had when attempting to tell Moses the history of the Jewish people from the point of creation. Sure He created all and everything, possibly even using His own firecracker (the big bang) to start things off. It was His party; His plan for our creation being implimented by Him alone.

But, how does He communicate His truth relative to His creation of everything to Moses in terms that Moses could clearly understand? Without being blasphemous in my mind, that conversation could have gone something like... "Look Moses, six billion years ago or so I caused a giant block of matter to explode, and then I caused all life to begin after that big bang..." And Moses shakes his head and goes "Huh?"

At the same time, there was no "time" as we might know it. What is 6 billion years to God, Who does not even consider time as a factor? Could it be "the first day?" The Jews clearly understood history in its short-term description. they had come to Egypt four centuries and a bit earlier. Over time they had become slaves serving the Egyptions. Now (when Moses gave them Genesis) they were free from slavery. However, they were still an extremely ignorant people (not stupid, only ignorant because they did not know the true facts).

Now, lets put this into perspective, at least from the ancient Jews point of view. God created the earth 6 billion years ago was an inconceivable concept for them, but they understood what a "day" was. At the same time, what God did during that 6 billion year period could easily be considered a day's work for Him. Therefore, on the "first day" God created the heavens and the earth is the absolute God's truth! That also makes "creation" by God an acceptable scientific fact. He created the heavens and the earth in His day, not ours.

Now, if you take this reasoning one step further, then firmament could easily equate to Pangea. Therefore, in the same terms contained above, God's work on the second day is also understandable and compatable with modern science.

Same goes for the rest of the "first week" of creation. The Jews could not understand the Cretacious Period lasted for more than a million years, but we can. And, we do not have to let our faith in either God or His truth (the Bible) suffer as a result.

Did God create the elephant, giant panda, whitetail deer, or whitefooted field mouse? Oh yes, He most certainly did! Did He create dinosaurs too? You bet He did!! Well, did He finally mold everything into the world that we know from Scripture generally beginning with what we see in Genesis, Chapter 2. You can bet your immortal soul that He surely did!!!!!

Matthan <J>< (Who jumped over from the [dare I say it] Baptist/Anabaptist forum to participate in this discussion [thanks for the heads-up from one of your members].)

Rising_Suns · Dec 11, 2004

Everything we do everyday is based up against this yardstick so scientists, and everyone else, have accepted it.

But what I have a problem with, is when science observes a pattern on a milimeter space on the yardstick (i.e., the present time), and makes claims that the entire yardstick absolutely must follow the same pattern (the distant past).

Any method that concludes a rock is 1.5 million years old, or that a bone is 4 million years old, is based on the above logic; that today's scientintific laws have always been the same. As you said yoursefl, it is merely a theory based on the extremely limited resources we have, and what disturbs me is when the secular world is so taken up by it that now even highschool text books are teaching Old Earth and Big Bang as fact.

Dream · Dec 11, 2004

If you read Genesis, you'll see that God did not create man right away. He created sea creatures, land creatures, then man. That's the same pattern that evolution follows: life originated in the sea, came onto land, and then evolved into man.

kern · Dec 11, 2004

Rising_Suns said:
Any method that concludes a rock is 1.5 million years old, or that a bone is 4 million years old, is based on the above logic; that today's scientintific laws have always been the same. As you said yoursefl, it is merely a theory based on the extremely limited resources we have, and what disturbs me is when the secular world is so taken up by it that now even highschool text books are teaching Old Earth and Big Bang as fact.

If the old earth "theory" was that easy to defeat, it would have been discarded long ago. I don't have the scientific knowledge to argue specifics, but you can't hope to defeat a scientific principle that has been refined and tested for decades with a few sentences of logical thinking. It's true that dating methods are based on the principle that certain scientific laws held true in the past as well. But this is not merely a baseless assumption; it too has been experimented, tested, and theorized about as well.

Scientists consider every aspect of the theories, including your objection. I'm sure that if you look into Old Earth you'll find something to address those concerns.

Old Earth is taught as fact in schools because it is essentially a fact. It is as well tested and proven as gravity, heliocentrism, and other scientific ideas.

Brother Charlie · Dec 11, 2004

A pile of goo? Not really. I do, however, think that in the last 3.5 by we can trace our lineage back to a series of RNA strands, yes.

Whats the chance of RNA just randomly forming?

kern · Dec 11, 2004

Responding to Rising_Suns again, the problem with your disagreement is that it's not based on any sort of facts -- it's just a hypothetical possibility. You have no proof that the laws are not constant, and scientists *do* have proof that the laws are constant throughout time.

If you say that Old Earth should not be taught because we don't know if laws have always been constant, you can raise that sort of objection to *every* scientific principle in existence. Gravity shouldn't be taught because you can't prove that invisible gremlins aren't causing things to fall to the ground. Germ theory shouldn't be accepted as fact or taught in schools because you can't prove that the germs aren't really little demons that use magic spells to make them appear as viruses or bacteria. And so on.

kern · Dec 11, 2004

Brother Charlie said:
Whats the chance of RNA just randomly forming?

Not very high. This doesn't bother non-religious scientists much because with the age of the universe and the huge number of planets that exist in the universe, the chance doesn't have to be very high for it to have occurred once. (It doesn't bother religious scientists either since the "chance" of something happening is irrelevant if God caused it to happen.)

Remember that abiogenesis does not make any claims about a God or lack of one. It simply provides a scientific explanation for the development of life from non-living matter.

It may be pretty improbable that 100 coin flips all come up heads, but if you have 10 trillion people flipping coins for 4.5 billion years, it might very well happen.

Rising_Suns · Dec 11, 2004

You have no proof that the laws are not constant, and scientists *do* have proof that the laws are constant throughout time.

Proof is verified through observation, so unless mankind existed 2 millions years ago to observe the nature of the universe, there will never be proof. That is all I am saying. I am not arguing for YE theory. I am simply making the point that OE Theory is just that; theory.

isshinwhat · Dec 11, 2004

Bushido,

Anyway, show some positive evidence for why the vapour canopy existed. Then show that it would have done all of the things that you specified, and I'll listen.

Perhaps the discussion would prove more fruitful if you began listening to those with whom you are conversing from the beginning, especially when you claim near ignorance of the sciences related to the topic at hand.

Scientists believe that the Earth's early atmosphere consisted of a greater number of gases than we now have, as well as vaporized water due to higher temperatures than we currently experience. The greater number of gases existant at increased temperatures would have led to an increase in atmospheric pressure, as the Ideal Gas Law states. Hence Michelina's stating that the "relevant word is: hyperbaric."

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/5b.html
http://solospirit.wustl.edu/education/Science%20Side/pvt.html

God Bless,

Neal

Carrye · Dec 11, 2004

Bushido216 said:
H. sapien is just a random and insignificant twig on a branch of earth's tree of life.

Random and insignificant? What scientific model are you using to reinforce this, Bushido?

Michelina · Dec 11, 2004

Thanks, Neal, for those links. They are very good. The temperatures in such an ecosystem would not vary much (@65-75) nor would there be high winds.

Bushido said:
Anyway, show some positive evidence for why the vapour canopy existed.

Bushido, if you put an ice cube in a glass of water and came back 3 weeks later, could you prove that there had been a ice cube in the water?

You mention the evidence of the meteor. That's exactly what YE people theorize.

kern said:
If the old earth "theory" was that easy to defeat, it would have been discarded long ago. I don't have the scientific knowledge to argue specifics, but you can't hope to defeat a
scientific principle that has been refined and tested for decades with a few sentences of logical thinking.

Good to see ya, Chris :wave:

, the fact is that many 'scientific certainties' of the 19th century are considered absurd today. A lot of OE theory is based on Darwin's statement that evolution would have required many millions of years.

I would hope that EVERYONE would put their objections on a shelf and really entertain the observations made by YE theorists in all their particulars. That's why I am posting to this thread.

Are you really looking at these things with an OPEN mind?

I did and I found the facts compelling.

Michelina · Dec 11, 2004

Bushido216 said:
H. sapien is just a random and insignificant twig on a branch of earth's tree of life.

clskinner said:
Random and insignificant? What scientific model are you using to reinforce this, Bushido?

I find your statement repugnant to Christian ears, Bushido. I'm really surprised that you would go that far.

Carrye · Dec 11, 2004

Michelina said:
... entertain the observations made by YE theorists in all their particulars. That's why I am posting to this thread.

...

I did and I found the facts compelling.

I've looked at both sides Michelina, and I agree. I find nothing in the scientific corpus that solves all of macroevolution's problems. ... and as you know, I have the training to deal with problems like this. I have an even more difficult time reconciling it with what we know philosophically, but I suppose that's another thread.

Michelina · Dec 11, 2004

clskinner said:
I've looked at both sides Michelina, and I agree. I find nothing in the scientific corpus that solves all of macroevolution's problems. ... and as you know, I have the training to deal with problems like this. I have an even more difficult time reconciling it with what we know philosophically, but I suppose that's another thread.

It is another thread and it would be an interesting thread. For one thing, Criteriology would find the certainty of the consclusions to be completely unfounded, the logic circular, and a great deal of assuming conclusions (the correct meaning of the term 'begging the question').

But I would rather just reflect on the data on this thread. I am not here to prove that Genesis is literally true. In fact, I don't believe that literally. But the story it tells is true and the more we pursue these scientific studies, the more we see how "on the money" it actually is.

CCC#110: In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression." (Dei Verbum 12.2)

Asimis · Dec 11, 2004

Michelina said:
I would hope that EVERYONE would put their objections on a shelf and really entertain the observations made by YE theorists in all their particulars. That's why I am posting to this thread.

Are you really looking at these things with an OPEN mind?

I agree, there is a lot of prejudgice between both sides and it would be quite refreshing to see a "clean" discussion for a change.

I have my doubts about Evolution so I don't accept it but this doesn't means that I deny it..I more of agnostic towards it. But I am the same way towards YEC.

In any case it would be good to see where this discussion leads.

Anyway a question Michellina, if the Flood was indeed global, it would mean that all vegetation just like animal life was destroyed and died, I assume this would make the earth rather inhabitable for humans at least in the long run. How do YEC explain this?

And a question for Bushido since he accepts Evolution: Isn't sex or simply having both female and male in the species a disadventage under Evolutionary terms? I think that this presupposes in advance that there is a male/female to mate with and reproduce, how is this possible if Evolution is simply a random, blind biological process?

Thanks in advance,
Asimis

Brother Charlie · Dec 11, 2004

Anyway a question Michellina, if the Flood was indeed global, it would mean that all vegetation just like animal life was destroyed and died, I assume this would make the earth rather inhabitable for humans at least in the long run. How do YEC explain this?

Im not Michelina, but what happens when you submerge a plant in water?

Carrye · Dec 11, 2004

Michelina said:
But I would rather just reflect on the data on this thread. I am not here to prove that Genesis is literally true. In fact, I don't believe that literally. But the story it tells is true and the more we pursue these scientific studies, the more we see how "on the money" it actually is.

Nor do I. But you're exactly right, it's the story that is important. The Bible is a text book of sorts, but it is not the kind that many make it out to be. But just because we can't reduce the Inspired Word of God down to a few convenient numbers or formulas doesn't mean that what it tells is false.

Lets talk about a young earth

Well-Known Member

Brother Charlie

Guest

Well-Known Member

Veteran

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Well-Known Member

Miserere Nobis

Brother Charlie

Guest

Miserere Nobis

Miserere Nobis

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Pro Deo et Patria

Weisenheimer

.

.

Weisenheimer

.

Veteran

Brother Charlie

Guest

Weisenheimer

Similar threads