Lets talk about a young earth

[Dominus Fidelis]

For Catholics that believe in a young-earth, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I am particularly interested in hearing from Michelina, as she seems to know a lot about the subject.

 

[Brother Charlie]

I believe in literal creationism. Why believe in anything different?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I believe in literal creationism. Why believe in anything different?

Because the best scientific, archeological and anthropological information we have suggests otherwise ?

Because Genesis speaks more to our humanity, the best angels of our nature and speaks to who we are better as an allegory then a historical document ?

 

[frettr00]

^Yea what he said. Believing other than Creationism doesn't suggest we dont believe God created man in his image, but that he did so using natural processes. I think creationism is legit since it's pretty much saying the same thing, but backing it up based solely on a literal intepretation of the word and not taking it symbolically.

 

[Dream]

God has given us many pieces of the puzzle. We should not just take one piece and run with it, but see if we can fit them all together. Only when the puzzle is complete will we be able to sit back and fully understand God's creation.

 

[Bushido216]

I believe in literal creationism. Why believe in anything different?

It'd be to deny the truths of God's Creation revealed to us through science.

 

[Michelina]

I will try to contribute to this tomorrow.

 

[Rising_Suns]

For Catholics that believe in a young-earth, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I am particularly interested in hearing from Michelina, as she seems to know a lot about the subject.

I don't really have very much input on this topic, but I'd like to briefly mention one thing that has always confused me regarding Old Earth Theory. If we place oursevles on the time-line of the earths history, we are a single instant in time, one photgraph. I don't understand how science can look at that photograph and conclude exactly what led up to that instant in time from millions of years past. In my opinion, any theory regarding the age of the earth is a stretch because it is based on many assumptions, including the broad assumption that the structure and form of the universe has always been constant. It relies on the assumption that the variables that apply to scientific laws today, apply to how the universe was millions of years ago.

All these methods like carbon dating are nice and pratical for a reasonable amount of time, but the further in the past you go, the greater the uncertainty becomes, and the means of verification likewise dimish.

 

[Bushido216]

To everyone here, I apologize in advance for when I go into full debate mode. Please just kindly remind me that I'm in OBOB and not the Crevo forum and I'll go back into Bushido216 mode, not Creationist Castigator mode.

Anyway, as to Rising Suns.

You are making a reference to what is known as the historical sciences. You are correct in saying that we cannot be sure that what is real now was real then. However, we have no good reason why we oughtn't conclude that the laws of the universe are uniformitarian in nature. Every person every day makes that assumption in everything they do, and it is a necessary un-backed up claim for us to do just about everything.

Let's apply your ideas to an every day situation. Perhaps, as you say, the universe didn't work the way it has. Perhaps, even, time used to be accelerated. The universe may well have been made only five of our minutes ago! No, wait, we were all created last tuesday! Do you see the implications? Everything we do everyday is based up against this yardstick so scientists, and everyone else, have accepted it.

As well, we can make predictions about how things will act in the future and they are accurate, so that is a good piece of positive evidence in favour of uniformatarianism.

So, how can we tell what happened? We can't see it, that is correct, but we can see the effects that any given situation left on its surroundings. This is how forensic science works. We can tell that species have been evolving over the millenia because we can see their remains. We know that they are old because the layers they are found in are old. This is the same way with tree rings, ice cores, and all sorts of other things geological about which I am not knowledgeable.

You are right that carbon dating is very unreliable. After about 30,000 years it can't be trusted and other sources of carbon can give a false age. However, that is why God made radiometric dating. There are several isotopes with constant half-lives that are 100% accurate. That is how we have dated the earth at ca. 4.7 byo. That is how we can tell that the death of the dinosaurs occured ca. 65 mya, and so on.

It's all a rather tight ship.

 

[Michelina]

Bushido, I understand what you are saying but we are working from a premise that includes the possibility that things may now be circumstantially different from the way they were originally were.

What factor would differentiate the two? One is the Noahic Flood.

There is a tremendous amount of scientific research going on:

Taken from this site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

The Genesis Flood should be regarded as the main mechanism for laying down the fossil record. While there may have been some localised post-Flood disasters, the sedimentary deposits of a continental scale can only have been deposited by the Flood because of the huge global effect of Flood hydrodynamic activity. Biblically, there is little warrant for insisting that “blot out” means complete removal without trace. Rather, the natural meaning of Genesis 6–8 is the sudden death of many creatures in the Flood. To progress our understanding of some of the apparent anomalies in the fossil record, the various scientific disciplines need to interact far more. Only then can we properly model the complex fluid dynamics of heterogeneous flows and the consequent pattern of sedimentary layering that took place in the Flood year.

The account of Noah’s Flood very graphically describes the world-encircling cataclysm that affected the earth. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in understanding rock formation as a result of the Flood and to a certain extent, after the Flood.

Nevertheless a debate has begun between geologists, all of whom reject billions of years, but who take different positions concerning where the Flood ends in the rock strata. Some have argued that considerable sedimentation occurred after the Flood, as the earth adjusted to a new equilibrium. What has led geologists, such as Garner, Garton, and others to this view, is that many dinosaur and bird tracks have been found in the rocks which (they maintain) can only be interpreted as post-Flood. Some go further and suggest all fossils of air-breathing land creatures are post-Flood.f7f9 The traditional view advocated by Morris and other workers has been that rising flood waters engulfed creatures at different stages during the Flood—first the 40 days of the deluge from above and below, and then the persistence of the waters for about 5 months. This view, though sometimes referred to by its opponents as the “tranquil Flood” model, in fact regards the waters as vast surging tidal waves, with water coming from beneath the earth as well as from above (possibly from a pre-Flood ). In a companion paper we consider a far stronger alternative view of the origins of the water from beneath. How any post-Flood activity occurred is not easy to prove since we have no way of doing a full-scale experiment!

The various theories are not within the purpose of this brief article—the debate on this continues. But all involved in the debate accept that we must always come back to Scripture to test all our thinking. What then are the key points that can be established?

The Flood was cataclysmic and worldwide in scale. Whatever post-Flood disasters may have taken place, one must never marginalise the Flood itself..............

Much scientific data here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Loads of data here:

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=Noah+/+Flood

 

[Bushido216]

Michelina,

I have a few things to do and then I have Church, so there's a good chance I won't be able to post a lengthy response. However, I do have two things to say briefly.

1. Do you actually understand geology to the point where you can argue both your side and the other side? Beyond the words sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic I haven't the faintest understanding of geology which is why I tend to stay away from those debates. I wonder if you understand what is being said or if you are just copy / pasting. Given my experience in the Crevo forums I'd assume the worst but I cannot say with you.

2. Even if the Noachian flood occured it has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You never addressed radiometric dating. Unless the half-lives of isotopes changed drastically after the flood AND corresponding ratios of isotopes and their stable counterparts were put into the various sedimentary layers then the flood could not have had an impact on those dating techniques.

As well, your assumptions are just as metaphysical as mine. I assume a uniformitarian view of the universe because I have no good reason not to. You assume that the flood radically changed how things work because you want to. That's called special pleading, and once you start invoking untestable explainations all scientific inquiry comes to a halt.

 

[Bushido216]

Just a quick question, Michelina,

If we continue on this track I'm going to have to start posting your arguements in the Crevo forum and getting responses back as I lack sufficient knowledge on my own to do so. Would this violate forum rules about non-Catholics debating in this forum? I wouldn't think so as I'm the poster but before I'm warned I figured I would ask.

Thank you!

 

[Michelina]

Here is a brief outline of the theory:

When God created the Earth, it had one main land mass, Pangea, and a vapor canopy.

The vapor canopy, similar to that on Venus, would have created an air pressure on earth that would be more than twice our post-deluvian 14.7psi. This would explain:


-the existence of dinosaurs, which cannot prosper at 14.7 (blood plasma would not extend to full tissue mass),

-the existence of the ferns and other items in their diet in an abundance sufficient to sustain the large numbers of dinos we know existed,

-the longevity of ante-deluvian humans (e.g. Methusalah). God specifically connects the Flood to shorter life spans

-the Rainbow, a covenant sign with Noah, would not have existed before the Flood because the light would have been diffused and refracted by the canopy

-the evidence of the Great Yucatan Comet

-the shifting of the Poles to where they are now

-the questions about the reversal of the Earth's axis

-the changes in the geomagnetic field

-the evidence which contradicts ancient earth theories

-the sudden (virtual) extinction of the dinosaurs

-the swift deposition of large masses of fossil materials (now used as fuel)

-et alia.

 

[Michelina]

Do you actually understand geology to the point where you can argue both your side and the other side? Beyond the words sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic I haven't the faintest understanding of geology which is why I tend to stay away from those debates. I wonder if you understand what is being said or if you are just copy / pasting. Given my experience in the Crevo forums I'd assume the worst but I cannot say with you.

Yes, Bushido, I have been studying all the relevant Sciences for many years, beginning with a course in Geodesy more years ago than I care to specify.

Even if the Noachian flood occured it has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You never addressed radiometric dating. Unless the half-lives of isotopes changed drastically after the flood AND corresponding ratios of isotopes and their stable counterparts were put into the various sedimentary layers then the flood could not have had an impact on those dating techniques.

There is much literature that addresses this question:

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=Radiometric+dating

As well, your assumptions are just as metaphysical as mine. I assume a uniformitarian view of the universe because I have no good reason not to. You assume that the flood radically changed how things work because you want to.

False assumption, Bushido. I once thought what you now think. I changed my mind after many years of study.

That's called special pleading, and once you start invoking untestable explanations all scientific inquiry comes to a halt.

What I am suggesting is that people examine their "scientific assumptions", open their minds completely and examine the evidence.

 

[Bushido216]

Where is the evidence for the vapour canopy? It appears as though AiG (as usual) had an idea they wanted to defend and started making up things to fit that idea. The dissappearance of dinosaurs, for instance, can be explained by a meteor making a sudden stop on earth. Infact, there are craters and a KT Boundary that support this.

Well, off to Church, ttyl folks.

 

[Michelina]

If we continue on this track I'm going to have to start posting your arguements in the Crevo forum and getting responses back as I lack sufficient knowledge on my own to do so. Would this violate forum rules about non-Catholics debating in this forum? I wouldn't think so as I'm the poster but before I'm warned I figured I would ask. Thank you!

We are not debating a theological question, buddy. This is a discussion of the evidence produced by the physical sciences about the Origin of the Earth, the Flood as it pertains to that, and the insights and questions which research has produced.

On OBOB, non-Catholics may not debate Catholic doctrine. But in this case, if you want to report what others say elsewhere vis-a-vis what we are discussing, it might be very educational. This is not a debate on Catholic Doctrine, which allows for a very wide range of opinions about Genesis.

 

[Michelina]

Where is the evidence for the vapour canopy? It appears as though AiG (as usual) had an idea they wanted to defend and started making up things to fit that idea. The dissappearance of dinosaurs, for instance, can be explained by a meteor making a sudden stop on earth. Infact, there are craters and a KT Boundary that support this.

The "evidence" is contained in the questions that biologists have raised about the blood plasma problem with dinosaurs, the amount of food available to them before the flood and reports in ancient literature of the sky being a coral-color, and the swift deposition of large amounts of carbon fossil material in various places, (the things we now call petroleum and coal).

The relevant word is: hyperbaric.

(Hint: What does Michael Jackson have to do with this?)

 

[Brother Charlie]

What do non-creationists believe about the origin of life?

 

[Bushido216]

The "evidence" is contained in the questions that biologists have raised about the blood plasma problem with dinosaurs, the amount of food available to them before the flood and reports in ancient literature of the sky being a coral-color, and the swift deposition of large amounts of carbon fossil material in various places, (the things we now call petroleum and coal).

The relevant word is: hyperbaric.

(Hint: What does Michael Jackson have to do with this?)

Michelina, do you see the problem though with that? You have an answer that may well solve those problems, but you have no positive evidence that it was a vapour canopy. Before you can invoke the canopy you have to have some positive evidence in its favour. You don't. I could come up with a million explainations just as viable and just as supported as your canopy.

 

[Bushido216]

Yes, Bushido, I have been studying all the relevant Sciences for many years, beginning with a course in Geodesy more years ago than I care to specify.

There is much literature that addresses this question:

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=Radiometric+dating

False assumption, Bushido. I once thought what you now think. I changed my mind after many years of study.

What I am suggesting is that people examine their "scientific assumptions", open their minds completely and examine the evidence.

What is geodesy first off?

Anyway, your link gave me a search engine. None of the links appeared to contain anything that you would find useful. There were plenty of links, though, that confirmed the validity of radiometric dating.

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.