Is Genesis history?

[Lost4words]

Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, I watched this a while back with my wife. It was descent. There is actually a lot of evidence for a young Earth. Even the Bible implies it strongly, as well.

In Luke chapter 3, we learn of one of Jesus' genealogies through the line of Mary. In that genealogy, it is traced all the way back to Adam and not cavemen.

When Jesus refers to the beginning, He refers to God making them male and female (Genesis 1), and then He refers to a statement of Genesis 2 in that they shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, etc..

For Jesus said:
“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, ... For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5).

Even the word “woman” is first given to us in Genesis 2 in that she was taken out of the man. So Genesis 1-2 is a tightly knit origin story. Genesis 1 does not naturally read like there are large gaps of time going on within it.

 

[Lost4words]

I been watching the other videos from that youtube channel.

Extremely interesting indeed.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I been watching the other videos from that youtube channel.

Extremely interesting indeed.

Here is a list of 101 evidences for a Young Earth.

Age of the earth - creation.com

For me, some good ones are seashells on top of really high mountains (Which would be weathered away by millions of years), fossilized trees going through the so called evolutionary layers in rocks, and the discovery of T-Rex blood (that has not been hardened to a rock). Of course, my favorite is that a young Earth is more consistent with a normal reading of the Bible.

A person only gets the idea of an old Earth
by cramming that idea into the Bible - IMO.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Lost4words

In fact, speaking of documentaries: If you are interested, here are two of my top favorite Christian documentaries. Granted, they are not related to the age of the Earth, but they offer awesome evidences in backing up the biblical account. I am not usually a person who gets into documentaries, but these two below were really exceptional - IMO.

#1. Exodus Revealed:

You can watch this documentary on YouTube here:

#2. Mountain of Fire:

You can watch this documentary here on YouTube:

 

[Job 33:6]

Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.

Are you interested in hearing the science in opposition to this video? Or just sharing?

 

[Lost4words]

Are you interested in hearing the science in opposition to this video? Or just sharing?

Discuss.

Not interested in atheist views, thats all. Christian forums. Belief in God paramount.

 

[Job 33:6]

Discuss.

Not interested in atheist views, thats all. Christian forums. Belief in God paramount.

There's a lot of omission of information in the video. And omission of important concepts. Along with deliberate efforts to attack geology.

The attacks on geology are good enough to sound convincing in a YouTube video, but not so good when their ideas are opened up for scientific critique.

I think a lot of people struggle with misinformation these days. In this case either because they aren't trained in geology, or in many cases people don't really want to critique their ideas. Because of course it's not just geology they're critiquing but further it's oftentimes ideas they've had since they were children. Ideas they've taught their children, ideas their parents or pastors taught them.

Christians, our lives are constructed around the Bible, and so for many, it's incredibly difficult for many Christians to critique that mental construct and interpretation of scripture that is the core of our world view.

And somewhere along the line I think there are definitely frauds in the young earth movement. But often times at least for me, it's difficult to distinguish between people who are intentionally lying, and people who are willing to leave out details and to state half truths for the sake of saving themselves and loved ones from hellfire. Maybe I can go through the video to explain.

 

[Lost4words]

There's a lot of omission of information in the video. And omission of important concepts. Along with deliberate efforts to attack geology.

The attacks on geology are good enough to sound convincing in a YouTube video, but not so good when their ideas are opened up for scientific critique.

I think a lot of people struggle with misinformation these days. In this case either because they aren't trained in geology, or in many cases people don't really want to critique their ideas. Because of course it's not just geology they're critiquing but further it's oftentimes ideas they've had since they were children. Ideas they've taught their children, ideas their parents or pastors taught them.

Christians, our lives are constructed around the Bible, and so for many, it's incredibly difficult for many Christians to critique that mental construct and interpretation of scripture that is the core of our world view.

And somewhere along the line I think there are definitely frauds in the young earth movement. But often times at least for me, it's difficult to distinguish between people who are intentionally lying, and people who are willing to leave out details and to state half truths for the sake of saving themselves and loved ones from hellfire. Maybe I can go through the video to explain.

Please continue....

 

[Job 33:6]

Please continue....

00:00-10:00

Maybe I'll just go through the video in 10 minute chunks. And we can see how far I get.

For the first 10 minutes, the video doesn't really say a whole lot. There are a lot of open statements, but there's no real discussion of geology.

At one point in the video the speaker mentions that some rocks are dated to hundreds of thousands and millions of years old, And then follows by saying that the canyon formed in his own lifetime. He said that even the vegetation is younger than he is.

And I think that what that presents is the idea that maybe whatever dating method used to suggest that those rocks or millions of years old was wrong.

But in actuality the age of a canyon of course is never actually the age of the rocks that the canyon forms in.

I could bake a cake on Tuesday, then on Thursday I could dump chocolate syrup on that cake and could form a canyon in that cake. Thereby having cake dated 3 days old, but a canyon dated 1 day old.

So to say that because a canyon formed yesterday, that this thereby disproves the rock being hundreds of thousands to millions of years old, really is almost like a sleight of hand. It's like a bad card trick that if you aren't watching closely you might miss.

And the speaker never outright made this blunt argument, but rather it was an argument encompassed in a well-crafted sentence. Designed to sway an audience rather than it being an actual technical evidence-based argument.

So I think that right out the gate and at the very beginning of the video we're already setting the stage to be duped by crafty well formed sentences and fancy cinematics, rather than an actual discussion of geology.

This suggests to me that this video isn't designed necessarily to inform people of particular information, but rather it's more of a persuasive video designed to make a case for an idea with or without those details.

And that could be problematic (and I'm sure it will be) for people's understanding of science, because science mandates discussion of those particular details. Yes there is a persuasive aspect of science, but science is really about construction of ideas based oftentimes on very particular technical information.

So dumbing a topic down, or omitting details, it will help people making persuasive arguments, but it will not necessarily help us scientifically establish truth.

So I think those 10 minute intro sets the stage for what we might expect to come.

Maybe I'll hit another 10 minutes later today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There's a lot of omission of information in the video. And omission of important concepts. Along with deliberate efforts to attack geology.

The attacks on geology are good enough to sound convincing in a YouTube video, but not so good when their ideas are opened up for scientific critique.

I think a lot of people struggle with misinformation these days. In this case either because they aren't trained in geology, or in many cases people don't really want to critique their ideas. Because of course it's not just geology they're critiquing but further it's oftentimes ideas they've had since they were children. Ideas they've taught their children, ideas their parents or pastors taught them.

Christians, our lives are constructed around the Bible, and so for many, it's incredibly difficult for many Christians to critique that mental construct and interpretation of scripture that is the core of our world view.

And somewhere along the line I think there are definitely frauds in the young earth movement. But often times at least for me, it's difficult to distinguish between people who are intentionally lying, and people who are willing to leave out details and to state half truths for the sake of saving themselves and loved ones from hellfire. Maybe I can go through the video to explain.

The Christian documentary (called: “Is Genesis History?”) was by no means the best video I had seen on a defense of Young Earth Creationism. The best evidence for the Earth being young is the biblical account. There is no indication that the Earth is old with a normal reading of the Bible. If we are followers of God's Word, then the Bible should be the lens by which we use to interpret our worldview and not secular Science that attempts to push a worldview without God. Granted, sometimes Science can be right like the view of the Earth being round (instead of the false flat Earth view), but that is observational Science and not Historical Science. There is a difference.

Also, I would recommend in checking out Genesis Impact. It makes some great points of about the false agenda pushed by Evolutionists (Which is attached with an Old Earth worldview). Note: I will provide the video in my next post.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Lost4words

I would recommend checking out the following Christian video.
While it is more about refuting the lies in Evolution, it will help one to realize that there is a false worldview by secular people who want to elimitate God.

But keep in mind that Evolution is tied to an Old Earth worldview. God's Word does not make it clear that the Earth is old, but it implies that it is young by Jesus referring to the “beginning” with words that our Lord says that are mentioned in both Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. Now, to say that “the beginning” was happening in Genesis 2 (with God forming Eve for Adam), and yet “the beginning” was still happening for millions of years does not sound consistent; Especially when a normal child like reading of Genesis 1 sounds like a quick event of God creating everything in 6 literal 24 hour days.

Side Note:

Some may argue that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat, but this is not a good argument because the Bible actually teaches that the Earth is round.

Check out this short write up here:

https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/does-the-bible-teach-a-spherical-earth-eternal-196284.pdf

 

[Bible Highlighter]

00:00-10:00

Maybe I'll just go through the video in 10 minute chunks. And we can see how far I get.

For the first 10 minutes, the video doesn't really say a whole lot. There are a lot of open statements, but there's no real discussion of geology.

At one point in the video the speaker mentions that some rocks are dated to hundreds of thousands and millions of years old, And then follows by saying that the canyon formed in his own lifetime. He said that even the vegetation is younger than he is.

And I think that what that presents is the idea that maybe whatever dating method used to suggest that those rocks or millions of years old was wrong.

But in actuality the age of a canyon of course is never actually the age of the rocks that the canyon forms in.

I could bake a cake on Tuesday, then on Thursday I could dump chocolate syrup on that cake and could form a canyon in that cake. Thereby having cake dated 3 days old, but a canyon dated 1 day old.

So to say that because a canyon formed yesterday, that this thereby disproves the rock being hundreds of thousands to millions of years old, really is almost like a sleight of hand. It's like a bad card trick that if you aren't watching closely you might miss.

And the speaker never outright made this blunt argument, but rather it was an argument encompassed in a well-crafted sentence. Designed to sway an audience rather than it being an actual technical evidence-based argument.

So I think that right out the gate and at the very beginning of the video we're already setting the stage to be duped by crafty well formed sentences and fancy cinematics, rather than an actual discussion of geology.

This suggests to me that this video isn't designed necessarily to inform people of particular information, but rather it's more of a persuasive video designed to make a case for an idea with or without those details.

And that could be problematic (and I'm sure it will be) for people's understanding of science, because science mandates discussion of those particular details. Yes there is a persuasive aspect of science, but science is really about construction of ideas based oftentimes on very particular technical information.

So dumbing a topic down, or omitting details, it will help people making persuasive arguments, but it will not necessarily help us scientifically establish truth.

So I think those 10 minute intro sets the stage for what we might expect to come.

Maybe I'll hit another 10 minutes later today.

Again, most Evolutionists say that the different layers are millions of years, and yet we know this is a lie because we can see trees going through what the Evolutionists so called millions of years type layers. Things like the grand canyon were no doubt the result of the global flood. Yet, many in the Old Earth camp deny a global flood even though it is clearly told to us in Scripture.

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.” (Genesis 7:19-24).

 

[Job 33:6]

Rather than turning the discussion into and all out brawl over the biological theory of evolution, I'll just stick with the scientific field of geology And will examine the video for now. James Hutton, the father of geology knew that the earth was millions of years old before Darwin was even born. The conclusions of geology are made completely independently of biology. And what's that, I don't see any reason to even talk about evolution. Especially given that the video doesn't appear to have anything to do with evolution either.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Lost4words

Jesus said:

4 “... Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5).​

The words in blue in Matthew 19:4 is taken from Genesis 1.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27).​

The words in red in Matthew 19:5 is taken from Genesis 2.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).​

So Genesis 1 is the beginning.
Also, Genesis 2 is the beginning. For Jesus calls it the beginning in Matthew 19:4.
Jesus even says, have you not read and then he talks about how he made them male and female in the beginning. THESE THINGS are the beginning.
The beginning does not mention any Gap Theory Worldview and nor does the beginning mention the days of creation as being millions of years in Genesis 1. The days are defined as 24 hour periods in that the day was said to have an evening and a morning.
For there is no biblical support for a Gap Theory, and or Day Age Theory.
Such things cannot be found in Scripture.
For they are not clearly written.

Also, those who hold to an Old Earth viewpoint generally lead their kids to accept Evolution (Which is one step closer to the ways of the world's way of thinking with a life that does not include God).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Rather than turning the discussion into and all out brawl over the biological theory of evolution, I'll just stick with the scientific field of geology And will examine the video for now. James Hutton, the father of geology knew that the earth was millions of years old before Darwin was even born. The conclusions of geology are made completely independently of biology. And what's that, I don't see any reason to even talk about evolution. Especially given that the video doesn't appear to have anything to do with evolution either.

Actually, Evolutionary thought existed long before Darwin (Which means that Old Earth thinking was tied in with that idea).

Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Bible talks about how men are ignorant that the previous world was destroyed by a global flood. Many Old Earth proponents do not believe in a global flood (Which is a fulfillment of the warning in Scripture).

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (2 Peter 3:3-7).​

Again, history tells us that those who believe in Evolution (that is tied with an Old Earth view) will see the natural explanation of things without God. This is one of the reasons that Jeffey Dahmer killed because he thought life was pointless in that we all came from the slime.

For there is not much difference of the secular atheist explanation of the origins of the universe and the Old Earth / Evolutionist Creationist one. Both are singing the same tune with one that has a belief in God, and the other not having a belief in God. But the problem is that the Old Earth / Evolutionist viewpoint IS a reason to explain away God. For if one is just a single celled organism eliminating another single celled organism it is just the process of natural selection.

Anyways, most hold to the world's ideas because they are hard to let go of. This is the only reason why I believe Old Earth creationists exist. For they most certainly are not getting this idea from reading the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

10 minutes to 20 minutes.

A large block of this time doesn't really discuss science at all. They talk about how ancient Jews perceive the universe and creation. And they talk about different world views that people have and they attempt to suggest that science works in both paradigms.

I would say that this just isn't true, I would say that if we really look at the details of science, These details really only work in one paradigm and not the other. Science and math and physics and chemistry really only work in an old earth science, they don't work in a young earth position.

But again, the video is making a lot of open claims without really any clear justification, and we are about 20 minutes into the video and they haven't really offered any technical arguments.

But rather it seems more like they're just making an effort to draw equivalence between science and creationism.

 

[Lost4words]

I used to argue for, an old earth date but, the more i look into the young earth belief the more i am edging towards that idea.

So far, the evidence is extremely strong towards a young earth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

10 minutes to 20 minutes.

A large block of this time doesn't really discuss science at all. They talk about how ancient Jews perceive the universe and creation. And they talk about different world views that people have and they attempt to suggest that science works in both paradigms.

I would say that this just isn't true, I would say that if we really look at the details of science, These details really only work in one paradigm and not the other. Science and math and physics and chemistry really only work in an old earth science, they don't work in a young earth position.

But again, the video is making a lot of open claims without really any clear justification, and we are about 20 minutes into the video and they haven't really offered any technical arguments.

But rather it seems more like they're just making an effort to draw equivalence between science and creationism.

Again, while the video makes some good points, I don't think the video is the greatest defense on Young Earth Creationism. There are many other Young Earth videos and resources that are far better in my view. But the age of the Earth is not really all that important in relation to knowing Jesus Christ and in having a walk with Him. It is important in the fact that one will not lead their children to become an atheist or agnostic. The problem with an Old Earth / Evolutionary viewpoint is that it sets up one to be liberal with handling God's Word in how they read it. There is no denying that Evolution / Old Earth is the view of atheists and that is one step closer to being one. Young Earth is just implied with a normal reading of the Bible. Don't take my word for it. Read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and read the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:4-5.

 

[Job 33:6]

20 minutes to 30 minutes

So in this segment I see a couple of individuals talking about this idea that there are small volcanoes that erupt today, and that there were bigger volcanoes that erupted in the past (which is undoubtedly true) that deposited greater quantities of lava.

Then there was this conclusion that because events of today, such as volcanic eruptions, might be smaller than some events of the past, that we therefore cannot use events of today to judge this expanse of time of the past.

Personally I think that this is kind of a baseless conclusion.

Was there something different about how volcanoes erupted in the past? No.

And what does that mean with regards to layers that have nothing to do with volcanoes? What is our excuse for them?

What exactly is the real argument here that the individual is making? It's kind of this open-ended thought that doesn't really have a particular technical case to it, it's just more of a broad idea and thought that isn't necessarily justified in anything that he has said.

Moving on...

Then the two individuals talk about radiometric dating and the one says that radiometric dating is where geologists get their idea that the Earth is millions of years old.

But actually this isn't true, scientists have had a number of ways of establishing that the Earth was old long before radiometric dating was ever discovered.

James Hutton was writing about an ancient earth in the 1700s with his observations at siccar point, while radiometric dating really has only been around since perhaps the 1900s? The idea that geologists judge the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating just isn't true. While radiometric dating might be an additional line of evidence for an old earth, it is not the original concept or body of evidence that led geologists to accept that the earth was. It's just icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Kelvin also had his own estimates in the 1800s as well of an earth hundreds of millions of years old which also predated use of radioactive dating.
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin - Wikipedia

Many historical scientists recognized that the earth was ancient long before radioactive dating was ever discovered.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

Then the individual talks about collecting samples and sending them to different laboratories for analysis, and receiving results that are different.

What should be said about this is that it's easy to get false data, but how does this individual address situations where multiple laboratories are giving the same result?

Again, it's not a matter of getting different results and debunking a method of analysis, but rather it's a question how you address results when they are yielding the same result? And I'm not talking about numbers one through 10 that happened to be similar, I'm talking about things that are parts per million or parts per billion in precision with each other.

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

Data from independent labs worldwide using various analytical methods for various different isotopes on various samples collected from various locations around the world.

The odds of these laboratories receiving identical results is practically non-existent.

Anyone can go outside with dirt on their hands, pick up a rock and send it into the laboratory and that contamination will yield a false result. And then say "look my result is wrong therefore the method is flawed!". But this just isn't reasonable.

I work with a lot of soil, groundwater and rock dating myself (among other things, air, vapor, surface water, pore water, etc, I do a lot of lab related sampling, or have over the years) and anyone can contaminate samples. Anyone can collect samples that aren't representative of native soil or of a particular rock formation. And this is why we have things like quality assurance and quality control practices. practices where we run blank samples and duplicates and method and equipment blanks and spiked duplicates etc.

So again, it isn't about a bunch of samples giving different results and disproving a method, because anyone can collect bad samples. The question is when quality control and quality assurance is implemented, how do you address scenarios where the analytical results are identical?

The video doesn't talk about any of these quality assurance and quality control practices. And unfortunately these are more of the technical details that the general public doesn't really know about because they don't do the work. So the general public isn't really able to determine if what this individual is saying is true or not because they aren't familiar with the actual work that we do.

This video and the individuals in this video don't talk about any quality control related details, in fact if we were to actually search for this person's research, we would find that their research is in absence of all of these quality control and quality assurance procedures. I know this because I happen to have already looked into this topic, and if anyone is curious about more information, feel free to ask.

Again, it's just an omission of information on the part of those producing the video. Though we shouldnt necessarily expect super high quality information from a YouTube film.

And then they go into discussion about some conspiracy about scientists seeking to take down the Bible because of evolution or something like this.

This final couple minutes of the video segment doesn't involve any technical arguments nor does it address quality control shortcomings of the topics they just discussed nor does it discuss how understanding the age of the Earth was established long before radiometric dating ever existed.

It's more just open claims and people just thinking about philosophical challenges, but they aren't really addressing any technical science, rather they're just kind of openly talking and speaking their thoughts on a topic.

Onward to the next ten minutes!