Scientists misinterpreting the data w/regards to YEC

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's their BOOKS that are wrong! - they are not kept up to date. We are getting new discoveries regularly that discount their teachings but the experts do not alter their books to suit so we have a lot of historians, scientists and geologists living in the past.
Part of their trouble is PRIDE because to admit their books are wrong means that the qualifications from their study don't really count now! To keep their qualifications they should go back to college regularly and alter their knowledge to suit - just like hairdressers etc have to do. But to keep their pride (man's greatest sin from which every other one is formed) they might decide to be atheists etc and discount God altogether as more and more evidence of Bible Truth is unearthed

How is science being updated bad? It shows that they learn something new.
All scientific books get updated. Discounting God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They never looked for soft tissue until one woman found it because
it is impossible for any living tissue to last that long without being
fossilized.

Under ideal conditions, which means never in nature, DNA could
last up to a million years. This by the rate at which it decays.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49366487/...w-long-can-dna-last-million-years-maybe-more/

More recent articles are not science. They got caught with their
pants down and had to make up some fairy story to make the
impossible seem possible.

'Ideal conditions' basically means for the animal to be perfectly preserved. We don't see that in fossilization because the soft-tissue is calcified. But we do see that in animals like the mammoths in Siberia which were frozen.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There seems to be something that is regularly overlooked in these conversations in determining the age of the universe. I do not affirm a stance one way or the other because I am uninterested in the mere fact of how old the universe is and more interested in what the universe was created for. That said, it is often stated that the universe has to be a certain age given the collection of factors that can be used to measure certain spans of time (such as expansion) culminating into a picture that portrays a very old universe. However, this would also be properly expected by any Christian who believes Genesis 1 to be saying that the universe was literally created in 6 days. It should be expected because it would be obvious from these Scriptures with that interpretation that the initial conditions of the universe were created mature. Adam, for example, would have appeared as a 25-35 year old man when he was literally seconds old, and the garden he resided in would have been a fully formed environment with full grown animals only a day old. So you have to presume the Big Bang event for its own sake, not based on the apparent age of the universe since an old universe would appear old as well as a relatively young universe in this context. You could say this is God lying, but that would be hilarious considering it would be more obvious that He meant to portray a universe created in maturity (which entails the appearance of age) from the relevant Scriptures than a progressive creationism. So the only person being deceived would be the ones not taking Him at His explicit word.

I would remind that this isn't an argument for young earth creation being necessarily the case (though I'm much more inclined to believe that, myself), but rather a demonstration that the universe would appear as old as it does now even if it was a relatively recent creation, and with no obscurity on the part of God.

But here's the thing: if God created the universe 6000 years ago, but made it so it appeared to be billions of years older, then that would be lying. Plain and simple.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It does not have to be one year. It could be ten years or hundred years.
And, the erosion on the sides AFTER the flood would rough it up to what it looks like today.

No. You're not getting this: a violent flood as described in the Noahic Flood, which lasted ONE YEAR, would not produce something smooth. I said it would look like mirrored glass, yes, but the rocks would look like someone's taken a shotgun to it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Genesis flood was in the Ancient World. Noah's flood came later If you study Genesis it is clear the writer(s) are talking about the creation of 2 worlds The first was destroyed by The Fall of satan. The second was caused by the fall of man who became so corrupt (in ways similar to ours now) the Lord's only choice was to to wipe the slate clean and begin again by including Jesus who is able to cleanse man from his sins.

That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one. You're saying that there IS evidence for the Flood, but it's on a different world that had to be destroyed. That's just daft.

 

[malvina]

That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one. You're saying that there IS evidence for the Flood, but it's on a different world that had to be destroyed. That's just daft.

I said there was 2 floods friend and there is plenty of evidence of this

 

[malvina]

What's daft about that? The bible speaks of TWO worlds created and 2 floods With the second flood (Noah) the world wasn't completely destroyed as there were trees still. The Ancient world was completely destroyed partly by flood and something else that created a catastrophe So first there was the fall of Satan then the fall of man because of corruption that is on the world today

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said there was 2 floods friend and there is plenty of evidence of this

No, there isn't. There isn't evidence for one flood, let alone two.

 

[Armoured]

That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one. You're saying that there IS evidence for the Flood, but it's on a different world that had to be destroyed. That's just daft.

You're discounting the satanic transexual CERN robots that sneak around destroying the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's daft about that? The bible speaks of TWO worlds created and 2 floods With the second flood (Noah) the world wasn't completely destroyed as there were trees still. The Ancient world was completely destroyed partly by flood and something else that created a catastrophe So first there was the fall of Satan then the fall of man because of corruption that is on the world today

This is a classic example of people taking the word of Man, the Bible, over the reality of God's creation.

 

[Armoured]

This is a classic example of people taking the word of Man, the Bible, over the reality of God's creation.

Or unadulterated batcrap lunacy. Either/or.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're discounting the satanic transexual CERN robots that sneak around destroying the evidence.

I have not heard that one before.

 

[Armoured]

I have not heard that one before.

It's in the Bible. Right after the bit about the two floods on other planets.

 

[fargonic]

But, Fargonic, how can this make Genesis literally true when genesis gives two highly contradictory accounts of creation, two contradictory chronologies written by different authors in very different periods?

Oh, don't ask me! I'm merely defending AV's right to have the idea of God's ability to "embed age". If I recall, AV says that only God can do this (which makes sense, God can do anything He wants). But it still means that once the age is embedded the rock is, literally, 4.5 billion years old.

As for the doubles of the "flood" and even the "creation" stories in Genesis, this doesn't cause me any problems because I do not believe them to be literal. I could certainly be wrong, but to me they seem more like two different authors writing in two different milleius and an editor slamming them together at a later date. If I recall that is part of one method of interpreting the writing of the Bible.

BUT, if one wishes to make Genesis "literally true" in that the earth was created 6-10,000 years ago in 6 days and then all the data collected on the earth indicates MUCH older time (like 4.5 billion years) then AV's suggestion of "Embedded Age" is very interesting. It doesn't make YEC correct, in fact it makes YEC quite the opposite. Because when God made the earth 6,000 years ago with embedded age of 4.5billion years He made a 4.5 billion year old earth.

But it helps some folks. It's kind of a logic problem overall, but it helps them square the circle.

 

[fargonic]

How many of them observed 4.5 billion years of time go by?
If none, then they can infer or deduce or wish or make up fairy tales, but they can't PROVE anything.

This is a bad argument overall. Are you familiar with David Hume and "Empiricism"? In the extreme the empiricist says that we can only determine cause and effect if we experience the event. So if I flip a switch in my home and the lights across the room go off you are only inferring that there is a connection between the two. Even if I do it a billion times and each time the light goes off or on, there is a possibility it could be pure random chance. Like flipping a billion heads on a coin in a row. Statisitcally unlikely but not perfectly impossible.

So when people say "Have you seen 4.5 billion years pass?" They are hoping to leverage this type of "empistemological doubt". It fails.

Now let us see how YOU likely abuse your own edict: do you believe that God created the earth 10000 years ago? WERE YOU THERE? Did you SEE GOD GUIDE THE HANDS OF THE WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE TO WRITE THE BOOK OF GENESIS? No? Well, then you are hoisted on your own petard. It is unfortunate, but indeed it cuts both ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

But here's the thing: if God created the universe 6000 years ago, but made it so it appeared to be billions of years older, then that would be lying. Plain and simple.

But what if He didn't make it to just appear old?

What if He actually made it old?

Would He still be lying?

 

[malvina]

Well I read my bible and it is all there. God created the 2nd (OUR) world AND man -
from the dust of the FIRST created world that was destroyed completely by flood etc.

Things are being unearthed all the time to confirm this. There was definitely an Ancient World a world of highly intelligent highly spiritual beings that built and created things that men of today couldn't possibly have made or understood. We are ignorant compared to them but God destroyed them because Satan tried to usurp God so He cast him down to a chaotic world that was destroyed.

Our world was created and was fine until man became corrupt again as of today doing the same things. Therefore He brought the flood it rained for 40 days and nights and man got going again, only to begin his same corrupted ways so He brought Jesus as a sacrifice to save us - but even with Jesus man has become corrupt again! They are casting Him out so we are in the End Times where the corrupt will be destroyed and His Own will remain.

 

[fargonic]

But what if He didn't make it to just appear old?

What if He actually made it old?

Would He still be lying?

If God made the universe 6000 years ago but actually "made it 4.5 billion years old", then it would, by definition, be 4.5 billion years old. End of story.

When God embeds age it literally becomes that age, meaning that the earth is literally 4.5 billion years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I recall, AV says that only God can do this ...

Have we talked before?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But what if He didn't make it to just appear old?

What if He actually made it old?

Would He still be lying?

But your claim is that God made the Earth 6000 years ago with 4.5 billion years worth of embedded history. That's not true history, that's fake history.
That is lying.
But as I've said, I don't want this thread derailed by your cockamamie idea, so please kindly take it to another thread. I want this thread to be a discussion of what this subforum is supposed to be about: science.