The Earth is young

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

CitizenD said:
Is it ideological to refer to physical theories that have been borne out by the evidence in the rest of the scope? It is common in physics to extend the laws of physics to infer the things we have no direct evidence for, in circumstances where direct evidence for the laws of physics holding is tenuous or lacking.

A prime example of this is stellar lifecycles. We have numerous stars around us in (presumably) different stages of their lifecycles. We connect the dots by inferring a continuity and applying the laws of physics to give us a picture of stellar evolution. I wouldn't say that this is an ideological argument, since those laws of physics were established in a lab and in the field (elsewhere).

Just as I wouldn't say it's an ideological argument to extend evolution to cover the Cambrian explosion and link it to the precambrian era.

Science is useful when it has practical benefits for people and confirms or denies facts and myths. Experimental science sets clear limits to what can be said and allows us to improve the human understanding and condition. But inferred, speculative science which looks for the theory with the best explanatory power is dangerous in my view because ultimately it relies on the consensus of the scientific community for its authority. Thus authority becomes self referential and part of a closed system of peer review which does not allow its members to stray outside certain ideological limits. A scientist should be accountable to the facts that can be proven. This sets limits to what can be said but it also establishes a way to test and refute theories.

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
All we know about the creation of the universe and the earth is that it was in the beginning, no reference to time. It might have happened seconds before creation week, it might have happened billions of years previous. The creation of the sun and stars on day four is another fundamental error that is easily dismissed when you look at the actual language, it doesn't say God created but that he set the sun, moon and stars in the sky. This has nothing to do with cosmology or astronomy this is about the origin of life. The Scriptures are clear that God created life about 6000 years ago, that makes perfect sense and abiogenesis is an absurd rationalization that never had real empirical support.

I did not really want to argue the biblical stuff here and wanted to focus on the science. I understand that you hold a phenomenological experiential view of the those first 6 days of creation when the earth was formed and filled. In a sense the clouds parted to reveal stars and sun and moon on the fourth day. You assume that Genesis 1 allows for the heavens and earth to have been created early and then the 6 days of creation followed that after an indeterminate pause (that could have been 13 billion years).

The interpretation is overthrown for me by this verse:

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

CitizenD · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
But inferred, speculative science which looks for the theory with the best explanatory power ...

That's how all scientific laws are formed: They are the explanation that survived the evidence of a phenomena. They are, in Popper's view, the explanation that wasn't falsified.

And here's the clincher (to carry on with Popper): that's how all explanations are. They are only valid and useful so long as they have not been falsified.

mindlight said:
....is dangerous in my view because ultimately it relies on the consensus of the scientific community for its authority.

That part doesn't follow. Explanations become theories because they withstand the evidence. They are theories because they are are the explanations that are consistent with all the available evidence. That's how they become authoritative explanations within science. They don't themselves rely on the authority of the scientific community. They are the authority of the scientific community.

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

majj27 said:
1) Sediment subduction rates are only an issue if you ignore that a) organic sediments dissolve or are turned into biomass, b) sediment is not of a uniform and permanent volume but is compacted during subduction and c) some sediment winds up accreting on the continental layers as rocks. This is basically how British Columbia formed.

Subduction by itself does not account for the difference between the amounts of sediment flowing into the ocean and the amount being sorted by tectonic plates (1 billion tonnes) by a factor of 19 billion tonnes a year.

a) Given that the ocean is becoming more saline and has been strip mined for fish in the last 100 years I wonder if the amount of biomass in the ocean has actually increased to the required extent to absorb a significant amount of that total. The estimates are that the total amount of biomass in the ocean is some 5-10 billions tonnes (compared to 560 billion on land) of which animal biomass outnumbers plant biomass by a factor of 30 times as much. So even if all the biomass of the ocean completely replaced itself every year it would not be enough to account for all the organic sediment flowing into the ocean. If the amount is broadly constant then it is not a factor at all.
b) But the rate of 1 billion tonnes a year by subduction is not enough. The 19 billion tonnes that do not get subducted are the problem. At this rate of expansion of the amounts of sediment an old earth is simply not possible.
c) Land deposition could account for some of the volume. I do not know how a rate for this would be calculated

Halbhh · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
The day / night cycle started in the first verses already.
God called the light day and the dark night.
...and it had been evening, and it had been morning, the first day.
Also, the sun was put up there on day 4, so i'm not sure which texts you are using, but it can't be Genesis 1.

Simply read the text carefully, then if you wish to talk about what I'm thinking, read what I wrote carefully (post #21 is not that long), and this response you will need to alter.

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

majj27 said:
2) There is no requirement for strata to be globally uniform, as Hamm seems to think. Gaps and bends in strata are actually expected, as erosion, drought, and other natural processes can effect strata formation. Further, evidence from across the planet correlates across multiple measurements. This is basically a "the geological column doesn't exist" argument worded differently. And that argument fails as well.

Not sure you read this one properly. For a creationist the fact that the strata are quite uniform across the globe is evidence of a global flood. There is a pattern in the rocks which evolutionists and creationists can agree on so this is not an argument that suggests there is no geological column. We obviously disagree about what these layers of rock mean. But when a uniform strata bends without losing its basic shape or fracturing in anyway this is an evidence of catastrophically formed ,initially soft rocks, bending in the conditions following the flood and before they hardened. Arguments about erosion, drought etc do not apply here.

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
I did not really want to argue the biblical stuff here and wanted to focus on the science. I understand that you hold a phenomenological experiential view of the those first 6 days of creation when the earth was formed and filled. In a sense the clouds parted to reveal stars and sun and moon on the fourth day.

What clouds?
(edit) You mean the waters above the expanse probably.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
I did not really want to argue the biblical stuff here and wanted to focus on the science. I understand that you hold a phenomenological experiential view of the those first 6 days of creation when the earth was formed and filled. In a sense the clouds parted to reveal stars and sun and moon on the fourth day. You assume that Genesis 1 allows for the heavens and earth to have been created early and then the 6 days of creation followed that after an indeterminate pause (that could have been 13 billion years).

The interpretation is overthrown for me by this verse:

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

But the days are not applied to the creation of the heavens of the earth, only what is in them. The heavens and the earth were not created in six days, they were complete before creation week began. In fact if you consult your KJV, the term creation is only used five times, once with regards to the creation of the heavens and the earth, once with regards to the creation of life in general and three times with regards to the creation of Adam and Eve. Go ahead and count, it's in there. The first verse is a separate account, there are actually ten such accounts in Genesis. Creation week and the original account of creation are separate events, even if creation week immediately followed. One thing is clear, the doctrine of creation is unaffected by the age of the earth or the cosmos. The creation of life on the other hand was 6000 years ago and there can be no real question about that.

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

Halbhh said:
Simply read the text carefully, then if you wish to talk about what I'm thinking, read what I wrote carefully (post #21 is not that long), and this response you will need to alter.

Yeah, you're right.
Even though day 1 starts with darkness and ends with light, the division between day and night is made by the lights in the expanse on day 4.
But then the waters above the expanse would not be clouds between sun and earth, because the sun and moon are said to be IN the expanse..
Later on in Scripture (can't remember where) it is said that the waters of the flood came from one of the heavens above, the expanse.
And if you want to have a global flood, the water had to have come from what we would call either outer space or some supernatural location.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
What clouds?
(edit) You mean the waters above the expanse probably.

“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’ (Job 38:8-11)

The earth was originally covered in clouds and water:

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
But the days are not applied to the creation of the heavens of the earth, only what is in them. The heavens and the earth were not created in six days, they were complete before creation week began.

But wouldn't "in the beginning" be when day 1 starts then?

Genesis 1:1 said:
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Reads like 1 day to me.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
But wouldn't "in the beginning" be when day 1 starts then?

No, it says God created the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning. Then the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep. There was no night and day, it was all darkness, we just don't know how long that darkness was before God started creation week.

Reads like 1 day to me.

Not how it reads at all to me, there is a transition of a couple of verses to consider.

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

majj27 said:
3) Is a stretching of the truth and some falsehoods. The soft tissue was not flexible and soft when found. It softened when accidentally hydrated during the cleaning of the fossil. DNA has been found and dated from samples that are between 10,000 and 300,000 years old, which is FAR older than a YEC view would allow. And the scientist who made the discovery, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a Christian herself, agrees on the age of the find. Basically, Hamm is distorting facts here.

Schweitzer would lose all credibility and not get published in scientific American if she disagreed with the age of the find. The main point about this find was that protein fragments and even cells could be observed. At a distance of 68 million years this at very least a major surprise and really seems impossible in fact. But it is not an issue in creationist timescales. Dating DNA is not something done from its intrinsic properties but rather from the context in which it is found. You have not shared the case or assumptions made in the dating of these other samples.

Marvin Knox · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
The YEC view is that basically the earth is 6-10000 years old. Answers in Genesis list 10 strong evidences for this ..................If the arguments are valid then a YEC position has some scientific credibility, if not then an Old Earth or TE position or day age theory may be better. But I would prefer to discuss the biblical evidences and positions elsewhere. This is focused on the scientific evidences listed. I hope the list is not too long but it gives people the opportunity to pick and mix the ones they are interested in.

Like most of us I suppose, I'm no scientist.

But I can read. What the plain words of the scriptures seem to tell us is that the earth is young and that man has been on that earth for around 6,000 years.

So long as there are credible arguments for a young earth and arguments which seem to refute the absolute necessity of believing in an old earth and millions of years for the existence of mankind - I will go with the basic reading of the scriptures.

I believe that to me, a non scientist, these and other arguments for a young earth seem compelling and I believe there are ways of explaining what the world tells us about an old world, evolution, and all the rest.

Therefore, being a simple, Bible believing, non scientist man of faith, I believe in a young earth, Adam and Eve, and a literal 6,000 years for the age of mankind.

I'm well into my 70's now and I don't have a great many years until I can ask the Lord directly about these things. I plan to do exactly that - after looking around Heaven a bit and likely asking other questions before getting to this one.

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
. . . . But if the amount of the trace element is still significant and readable after 60000 years then the probability is that it cannot be more than 60000 years old.

This ignores ways trace amounts of c14 can be generated in situ from nearby radioactive minerals. Such trace amounts of c14 does NOT mean the material is 60,000 years or less in age.

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
Schweitzer would lose all credibility and not get published in scientific American if she disagreed with the age of the find. . . . .

As she should, if she did that. She is brave enough to stick to the truth in spite of her loss of reputation in your eyes for doing that.

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

majj27 said:
4) This is just bad science. Or bad math. A 25% drop in solar output isn't a 25% drop in surface temp. Thanks to the out-heating effect of being, well, a planet, it's 7%. And that is in a closed system with no feedback mechanisms, like greenhouse effects. The Earth's atmosphere was FULL of heavy greenhouse gasses for a long time, like methane.

If you assume greenhouse gases account for the earth not being below freezing 3.5 billion years ago then we would need some evidence that the level of these gases has declined since then.

For instance, more greenhouse gases early in earth’s history would retain more heat, but this means that the greenhouse gases had to decrease gradually to compensate for the brightening sun.
None of these proposals can be proved, for there is no evidence. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that a mechanism totally unrelated to the sun’s brightness could compensate for the sun’s changing emission so precisely for billions of years.

mindlight · Nov 18, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
This ignores ways trace amounts of c14 can be generated in situ from nearby radioactive minerals. Such trace amounts of c14 does NOT mean the material is 60,000 years or less in age.

Yes but add in such contaminating variables which after all cannot be meaningfully measured or accounted for and the whole dating method becomes a farce. So evolutionists have a paradox here. If they affirm the method there are things they cannot account for. If they use it then its conclusions may all be suspect.

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
Not sure you read this one properly. For a creationist the fact that the strata are quite uniform across the globe is evidence of a global flood. There is a pattern in the rocks which evolutionists and creationists can agree on so this is not an argument that suggests there is no geological column. We obviously disagree about what these layers of rock mean. But when a uniform strata bends without losing its basic shape or fracturing in anyway this is an evidence of catastrophically formed ,initially soft rocks, bending in the conditions following the flood and before they hardened. Arguments about erosion, drought etc do not apply here.

Solid rocks can bend without breaking over eons of time.

CHAPTER 10 (Folds, Faults and Rock Deformation)
"(a) Fig. 10.6a: Compressive forces generate folding and faulting as a consequence of shortening. Compressive forces are common along convergent plate boundaries resulting in mountain ranges."

"4. Fig. 10.7c: At higher confining pressures, a similarly directed external force will cause the deeply buried rock to actually flow and deform without fracturing. This is known as ductile deformation and the rock is said to behave plastically."

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
Yes but add in such contaminating variables which after all cannot be meaningfully measured or accounted for and the whole dating method becomes a farce. So evolutionists have a paradox here. If they affirm the method there are things they cannot account for. If they use it then its conclusions may all be suspect.

Trace amounts add so little that the dating of things in the ranges normally cited are not affected. Bottom line: You are looking for problems and finding them where they aren't real.

The Earth is young

See in the dark

See in the dark

Well-Known Member

See in the dark

Everything You say is Life to me

See in the dark

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

See in the dark

Senior Veteran

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

See in the dark

See in the dark

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency