Why don't christians trust the biblical timeline?

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why does the earth have a scar on its forehead? Why do tree rings describe differing seasons of growth before the world began? Shouldn't those rings be as smooth as Adam's forehead?

Adam on day 1 would present to any medical doctor as a "new" person because of his lack of scars, his lack of wear and tear, even though he was a "full grown" man.

In other words, Adam being a completely formed adult would not be trickery. Adam having a belly button would be.

Hi SE,

Well, first off, how do you that Adam's forehead was smooth?

This issue of dendrochronology could use a bit more clarification. The oldest tree that is living today has been measured to be 5,063 years old. Why do we believe that there were much older trees and based on what evidence? As to why there is a 'scar' on the earth, I don't know. Neither do I know why God created Adam with two ears. What I do know is that God created everything perfect in manner and form that it would fulfill its purpose for which God created it for. I don't know why God created the physical form of the earth to be as it appears to us today, I just know that He did.

However, God has told us that He did not start off with the earth as it is today. The earth started off as a planetary body covered entirely in water. God then, on another day caused the waters to recede and the dry ground beneath it to appear. Now, whether this covering water was 20' deep or 5 miles deep in the very first moment of the earth's existence, I don't know. But God has said that He caused the water to recede and dry ground to appear.

There have been some theories made concerning this event. One being that God, just as He did in the day of the flood, opened up chasms in the earth for the water to fill into. Thereby allowing the ultimate depth of the water to recede as it drained into these underground caverns so that the dry land beneath it would appear. These same caverns of water were broken open in the days of the flood to allow the captured water to return to the surface of the earth and putting the earth back into the exact same form that it was on the day of the earth's creation. So, we have a draining and then, at the time of the flood, the emptying of the places where the water had been drained to. Returning the whole of the earth to a mere planetary body covered in water just as it was in the day of its creation.

As regards any 'scarring' as you mentioned, it is very possible that such anomalies are the remnants of the great tearing open of the earth to return it to its covered water state. However, the ultimate truth is that we don't have any idea the forces and effects of what happened to the hard earth surface in the day that God opened the springs of the deep and the clouds of heaven to flood the earth. We weren't there and we can't even hardly imagine in our minds how such an impossible and improbable thing as the world wide flood could have occurred. But, what I know is that God said He did it and I believe Him.

As to Adam and his appearance to some medical professional on day 1. No! He would not have appeared as a brand new creation, but rather a man, who since his birth, had kept himself in tip-top physical shape. But no Dr. today would look at a fully grown male specimen, no matter how 'new' his parts might look, and tell you that that man was one day old.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi glaudys,

I'm confused as to why you bring up this issue of some scar above Adam's eyebrow and each time you mention it you say, "If God had..." As far as I know God didn't. If you have an issue about this scar that seeing eyes brought up you might wish to make clear that your questions regarding such are clearly directed to that poster.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi SE,

Well, first off, how do you that Adam's forehead was smooth?
I believe you already agreed that Adam would not have had a childhood scar.

This issue of dendrochronology could use a bit more clarification. The oldest tree that is living today has been measured to be 5,063 years old. Why do we believe that there were much older trees and based on what evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology


As to why there is a 'scar' on the earth, I don't know. Neither do I know why God created Adam with two ears. What I do know is that God created everything perfect in manner and form that it would fulfill its purpose for which God created it for. I don't know why God created the physical form of the earth to be as it appears to us today, I just know that He did.
What would be the purpose of making it look much more beat up then it ever was?


However, God has told us that He did not start off with the earth as it is today. The earth started off as a planetary body covered entirely in water. God then, on another day caused the waters to recede and the dry ground beneath it to appear. Now, whether this covering water was 20' deep or 5 miles deep in the very first moment of the earth's existence, I don't know. But God has said that He caused the water to recede and dry ground to appear.

There have been some theories made concerning this event. One being that God, just as He did in the day of the flood, opened up chasms in the earth for the water to fill into. Thereby allowing the ultimate depth of the water to recede as it drained into these underground caverns so that the dry land beneath it would appear. These same caverns of water were broken open in the days of the flood to allow the captured water to return to the surface of the earth and putting the earth back into the exact same form that it was on the day of the earth's creation. So, we have a draining and then, at the time of the flood, the emptying of the places where the water had been drained to. Returning the whole of the earth to a mere planetary body covered in water just as it was in the day of its creation.

As regards any 'scarring' as you mentioned, it is very possible that such anomalies are the remnants of the great tearing open of the earth to return it to its covered water state. However, the ultimate truth is that we don't have any idea the forces and effects of what happened to the hard earth surface in the day that God opened the springs of the deep and the clouds of heaven to flood the earth. We weren't there and we can't even hardly imagine in our minds how such an impossible and improbable thing as the world wide flood could have occurred. But, what I know is that God said He did it and I believe Him.
None of this would make tree rings look like they had been through differing seasons before there were seasons.


As to Adam and his appearance to some medical professional on day 1. No! He would not have appeared as a brand new creation, but rather a man, who since his birth, had kept himself in tip-top physical shape. But no Dr. today would look at a fully grown male specimen, no matter how 'new' his parts might look, and tell you that that man was one day old.
No, a doctor would look at him and say, "where the heck is your belly button, man?!"
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What would be the purpose of making it look much more beat up then it ever was?

I suppose a lot depends on what you think it means to say that the earth looks much more 'beat up' than is ever was. If the theory, yes, it's only a theory, but if it is correct than the scar is merely what would be left after something as cataclysmic as the earth splitting open to release billions upon billions of gallons of stored water would look. The idea that this 'scar' would somehow make the earth look more 'beat up' than it really is, would only be a judgment decision made by someone looking at the evidence of this event. In truth, it would merely be the leftover effects of such an event. Not making anything look any more 'beat up', but merely making something look the way it would look under the circumstances of the event.

If a tractor trailer runs into a bridge abutment, does the place where a chunk of concrete was ripped out from the abutment by the event make it look much more 'beat up' than it really is? No! It merely makes it look like it should look after such an event.

None of this would make tree rings look like they had been through differing seasons before there were seasons.

Well, that's what I'm asking about. How, if the only living specimen that we have on record is only some 5,000 years old, are you determining that tree rings that we study are really of a time many more thousands of years old. It may well be that any tree rings that God caused to be already in fully mature trees at their creation were not so different from one another. Now, you posted a wiki site as your study lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

seeingeyes;66220906No said:
How do you know that Adam didn't have a belly button? You see, this is where our understanding of the natural causes comes into conflict with the how and why God made things as He did. You believe that belly buttons can only be caused by the joining of an umbilical cord to a fetus. I don't see any reason, however, other than this natural cause that we know of, that when God made the first man Adam that He didn't fashion an indentation in his lower abdomen.

However, all of this is pure speculation. You don't know, and neither do I, that God did or didn't fashion a belly button into Adam's abdomen. Why would God cause Adam to look any different than every other male that would then come from the act of pro-creation? God certainly knew that future babies would have belly buttons.

So, ultimately, all you have are speculations based on purely naturalistic supports. Are they correct? You don't know. You can only guess and make judgments based on those guesses. You can only support your claims by saying, "This is how it's always been." Well, that's exactly the problem with science. It neither accounts for, nor allows, that God created and that all the natural laws that we know and study and use for such evidences are 'rules' that were put into place after God created.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...Adam on day 1 would present to any medical doctor as a "new" person because of his lack of scars, his lack of wear and tear, even though he was a "full grown" man.

I'm not sure sure, in fact, I would bet that there is not a single medical doctor that would look at Adam, even though his scar tissue was strangely absent, and conclude he was a new person.

What they would do instead is conclude him to be a at mature age, and then come up with speculations on how he avoided scaring for so many years.

And thus, by your own standard, he would still be considered trickery on the part of God.

And BTW, young earth creationists point to lack of scars all the time. Humphreys points out that there are a myriad of dating methods, and most point to a young earth.

Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.


Crab Nebula
Photo: Courtesy of NASA
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.


Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.


Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.


Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31

14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.31​

All of these above are explained best by a young world. What you guys then do is speculate as to how these absent scars can be explained away. You do exactly as I suggested the hypothetical doctors would do upon examining Adam. We know he's old, so then how can we explain this?

I trust Genesis, so I don't' have to. In the context of scripture, these make perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
N

NannaNae

Guest
Hi calminian,

Well, I hadn't before I made the post but I did go and give it a quick scan. But still my question stands.

My first question, after reading the post is:

If the flood was as the biblical account attests, then who was left in Sumer to carry forward this historical account? I mean, God's word says that there were only 8 people left living upon the earth after the flood and all mankind today would somehow be genealogically related to those eight, right? So, what happened? Did one of the sons of Noah go back to Sumer and begin another account of kings and history after the flood? Why wouldn't the record of such accounts, the actual tablets that such accounts may have been written on, not buried under tons of sediment? (speaking of the accounts of the kings before the flood)Again I ask, how do we know that these dates that we have assigned to these historical documents are, in fact, correct?

Secondly, the accounts themselves seem quite unbelievable. God's word seems to account that the lives of men before the flood ran into nearly 1,000 years in some few cases. How then are we to believe that eight kings reigned in Sumer for a 'quarter of a million years'.

Jacobsen himself writes that he believes the pre-flood kings were a later addition made by men after the flood. Where did these people who supposedly knew the names and lengths of the reigns of these kings come from? If all human life (other than the eight) was extinguished in the flood, then the only possibility would be that it came from either Noah, Shem, Ham or Japheth. None of their children born after the flood would have had any personal knowledge of these kings or the civilizations over which they supposedly reigned.

To me, I find that the evidence more clearly points to the fanciful writings of a civilization after the flood to once again begin to come to grips with who they were and how they got where they were. That, of course, is only my opinion as I don't have any particular knowledge or research of the subject matter.

But I do believe God's testimony. I do believe that in His anger and wrath He did flood the whole of the earth and only Noah and his sons and their families lived through the flood. So, starting with that base, and asking the questions that that foundation naturally begs in this Sumerian Kings list, I can only come to one of two conclusions. We either have either not correctly understood or translated these ancient writings - or - these ancient writings are a fabrication in what they tell us. So, how do we, today some 5,000 years after the facts that these writings tell us, go back and confirm that they are true and historical accounts of mankind?

After all, we find today all kind of ancient writings about the gods that Egypt believed in and the history of Egypt in writing about and living under these beliefs, but we know that none of it is the truth in explaining how the earth came to be created or who the one true God is. We understand that these writings are merely the fables and imaginings of people trying to deal with the idea of deity among their civilizations.

Remember that Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal in telling them, "Yell louder. Perhaps your god is sleeping and you must wake him up." Elijah knew that even though these priests and prophets fervently believed in their god, that he just didn't exist in reality. That even though they had written about their god and the things that he had done among them, he didn't really exist. He was an imagining of a civilization. Could these writings also be some of those same imaginings of men and the reason that they are attributed such long lives is because, to them, that is part of what makes them god-like kings?

To those who believe the Scriptures, we don't have any evidence that anyone ever lived beyond one thousand years and we do have evidence that, according to God's word, no one was left alive to tell about the existence before the flood except Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Therefore, all truth that was written after the flood about the days before the flood, had to come from them. The only thing that I might be willing to ascribe as truth in these writings is that they also seem to confirm that there was a great flood.

So, that brings us back to the original question: How do we know the dates that are ascribed to these ancient writings are correct?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted


Ted there was more than one catastrophic event in this world and NO one can tell us what happened during them and NO can tell the difference between them now . and no one is asking and no one is answering and no one wants to know..
I guess it will have to be answered in the next life...
because no one wants to answer those questions now.

for a clue choctaw / chickasaw were once the same tribe.. they have a history which they called " the return of the waters" so there was more then one such flood type event, there was many . though probably not world wide exactly like Noahs world wide flood.

AKA Noahs compound mockingly called garden of eden by
scientism .... they tell us mankind took dirt and then buried GoBekli Tepe... man didn't .. the return waters did bury it. so which waters was their flood ? the event that cover Gokeli tepe of course.. which one was that ? no one can answer that . obviously not those fools.



.. it was not Noahs flood . but scientism being able to play stupid to lie and create time where there is no time ,means they get to have their way with the Bible and Israel existence in the holy land and what ever else someone wants to do with it. because God isn't holding their feet to the fire yet.. yet..


no one needs look to scientism for answers to anything.. they are clueless and arrogant about it .


gobekli tepe - Google Search
 
Upvote 0
N

NannaNae

Guest
just FYI

the first waters story is about a family all the animals were saved and the family was saved ..

then the story of "the returning waters "only one man saved in one clan and all the big animals like mammoth were lost and washed away except a few small animals like wolves and deer .
just FYI!
I will show you the bones of mammoths and where they washed to next.
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I suppose a lot depends on what you think it means to say that the earth looks much more 'beat up' than is ever was. If the theory, yes, it's only a theory, but if it is correct than the scar is merely what would be left after something as cataclysmic as the earth splitting open to release billions upon billions of gallons of stored water would look. The idea that this 'scar' would somehow make the earth look more 'beat up' than it really is, would only be a judgment decision made by someone looking at the evidence of this event. In truth, it would merely be the leftover effects of such an event. Not making anything look any more 'beat up', but merely making something look the way it would look under the circumstances of the event.

If a tractor trailer runs into a bridge abutment, does the place where a chunk of concrete was ripped out from the abutment by the event make it look much more 'beat up' than it really is? No! It merely makes it look like it should look after such an event.



Well, that's what I'm asking about. How, if the only living specimen that we have on record is only some 5,000 years old, are you determining that tree rings that we study are really of a time many more thousands of years old. It may well be that any tree rings that God caused to be already in fully mature trees at their creation were not so different from one another. Now, you posted a wiki site as your study lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology



How do you know that Adam didn't have a belly button? You see, this is where our understanding of the natural causes comes into conflict with the how and why God made things as He did. You believe that belly buttons can only be caused by the joining of an umbilical cord to a fetus. I don't see any reason, however, other than this natural cause that we know of, that when God made the first man Adam that He didn't fashion an indentation in his lower abdomen.

However, all of this is pure speculation. You don't know, and neither do I, that God did or didn't fashion a belly button into Adam's abdomen. Why would God cause Adam to look any different than every other male that would then come from the act of pro-creation? God certainly knew that future babies would have belly buttons.

So, ultimately, all you have are speculations based on purely naturalistic supports. Are they correct? You don't know. You can only guess and make judgments based on those guesses. You can only support your claims by saying, "This is how it's always been." Well, that's exactly the problem with science. It neither accounts for, nor allows, that God created and that all the natural laws that we know and study and use for such evidences are 'rules' that were put into place after God created.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

A bellybutton is a scar from childhood.
 
Upvote 0
N

NannaNae

Guest
The watery grave of Europe's monsters - Science - News - The Independent
and the list of missing animals from america that clovis culture is supposed to have murdered to extinction are ?

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Late Pleistocene extinction event saw the extinction of many mammals weighing more than 40 kg.

In North America around 33 of 45 genera of large mammals became extinct.
In South America 46 of 58
In Australia 15 of 16
In Europe 7 of 23
In Subsaharan Africa only 2 of 44
of course it wasn't 10,000 or 15,000 years ago they are crazy.


NO this extinction was " the returning waters" and it was NOT 10,000 0r 15000 years ago. but they get to make time with that kind of ignorance fof real history..
so sure they are dating this event with

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but this was all after Noah..
and of course they don't acknowledge Noah at all or just make it a tiny little local event .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Hi glaudys,

I'm confused as to why you bring up this issue of some scar above Adam's eyebrow and each time you mention it you say, "If God had..." As far as I know God didn't. If you have an issue about this scar that seeing eyes brought up you might wish to make clear that your questions regarding such are clearly directed to that poster.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

As far as I know God didn't either. So, it is "if" because it is speculative. None of us knows what Adam actually looked like. The point is to explain the difference between mature appearance and history.

So try this thought experiment.

Let's take two possible views of what Adam looked like at the moment he was created.

Image A: a healthy man of about 30, all systems functioning well, no disfigurements of any kind.
Image B: basically the same as A, but with a scar on his face just above his eyebrow

Both of these images show mature appearance. Yes, a doctor not knowing the origin of this man might peg him at 20-30 years of age, but since God can create such a being without putting him through 20-30 years of living, that mature appearance is not inconsistent with this being the first day of his life.

Image B, however, has an additional characteristic, one that doesn't make sense if this is the first day of his life. A scar is not just an imperfection. It is the consequence of a datable event in the past. The doctor would not only peg his age in the 20-30 year bracket, but also peg the event which gave him the scar as happening 10-15 years ago. IOW, unlike mature appearance which is consistent with an illusion of age in spite of recent creation, the scar tells us this person had to be alive to have had an accident 10-15 years ago which left him with this scar, and therefore cannot be less than 10-15 years old (actually a bit older, as he had to be old enough to ride his bike).

To get image B, God would have had to create him long enough ago for him to learn to ride a bike and have the accident which gave him the scar. Or else the history of his life is fictitious. But why would God create a fictitious history?

Finally, remember this is an analogy. We are not really talking about Adam at all, because none of us has any information on his appearance. But what applies in this analogy also applies to the real things of this world which do have characteristics which could only come from events that occurred long ago in the past. That is where we really do have history and we need to consider whether our theology turns that history into a fairy tale told by God.
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure sure, in fact, I would bet that there is not a single medical doctor that would look at Adam, even though his scar tissue was strangely absent, and conclude he was a new person.

What they would do instead is conclude him to be a at mature age, and then come up with speculations on how he avoided scaring for so many years.

And thus, by your own standard, he would still be considered trickery on the part of God.
No, that would be a miracle. Like water into wine. But what your suggesting is like Jesus poofing a wine bottle into existence that says "SoCal" on the label.

Is it possible? Sure. But what would the purpose be other than deception?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A bellybutton is a scar from childhood.

Hi SE,

Yes, by all natural and known scientific and medical evidence that we have, the only reason a person has a belly button is because that is where the fetus received its food from the host. However, if God, in his great wisdom wanted Adam to look just like every other person that would follow after him, He could very easily have crafted a belly button into Adam's abdomen.

This is exactly my point. Some want to say that the causes of things that occurred centuries ago before any recorded evidence can only be explained by the natural of the here and now that we know. My position is that, no, the things that God does cannot be explained by such limited parameters. My position is that God may well have wanted Adam to look like any other adult person and put a belly button on his body. The bible doesn't get down to such minuscule details and so all that you or I can do is develop theories about it, but ultimately your theories are based on the known natural causes of a belly button. My theory is based on the wisdom of God and how He might have crafted Adam's body. If God wanted Adam to look like all the other's who came after Him, then God could well have crafted him with a belly button.

So, you are correct, we know that every person born today has a belly button and we know what it comes from, but we don't know how God crafted Adam's body so we can only guess as to whether or not God did craft Adam's body with a belly button.

It cannot be proven either one way or the other and, therefore, cannot be used as any evidence for or against the creation. We don't have Adam's body to examine. We can only surmise that since Adam didn't go through the natural process of fetal growth, that he wouldn't have had a belly button. But we don't actually have any way of proving that he didn't. God works outside of the laws of natural causes. He makes water to stand as a sentinel towering dozens of feet tall by no other support than just He said so. He makes a virgin to be pregnant with a fetus by no other means than just He says so. He makes stars to appear in the heavens in a day only by His say so. He makes the earth to appear alone and desolate in what may well have been a mere moment only by His say so. He makes the sun to stand still in the sky or to even go backwards in its course across the sky merely by His say so. He causes plagues to touch upon a whole city of people and yet someone standing 10 feet away in Goshen has not a single plague to touch him. He causes a death angel to pass through an entire city and only if someone has set the blood of a lamb on his doorposts are the firstborn in that family not affected only by His say so. He causes fire to fall from heaven and burn up completely an altar that has been doused repeatedly with water only by His say so. He could certainly have formed Adam with a belly button, if that was his design, only by His say so. No umbilical cord needed to cause the scar of a belly button. God can do that and there is no evidence that He either did or didn't, so we can only guess.

People who believe in only the natural to explain the here and now, get tied up in the argument of which came first the chicken or the egg. Now, if we deal only with the natural causes that we know, then the truth is that neither of them could have ever existed, but God did it, didn't He? He made the chicken just as He made Adam. Fully formed and capable of reproducing on its first day of life. So, the chicken came first, but of course that's impossible because we know that the only way you can get a chicken is that an egg has to hatch.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0
N

NannaNae

Guest
Regarding the flood, we know from the Bible there was only 1 global. God set his bow in the sky and assured us it would never happen again.
wrong.. it was fire ,and ice and water followed .. not just water. and NO the whole world wasn't completely destroyed. just lot of it.

Noahs flood (approx >4300 years ago )
Think Joshua long day( bronze age collapse >3200 years ago ) what does it take to stop the world from turning ? something is going to move !
and Hezekiah's 10 steps 2800> years ago ) what would that take ?
and events at Jesus death and events at his resurrection approx >2100 years ago
... these events and many more which have never been explained by anyone ever . if they can't explain them why do they earn the right to tell anyone what happened more than 6000 years ago ?

so maybe it looks a bit periodic ? and maybe why people are building like Stonehenges ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, that would be a miracle. Like water into wine. But what your suggesting is like Jesus poofing a wine bottle into existence that says "SoCal" on the label.

Is it possible? Sure. But what would the purpose be other than deception?

Scientists simply don't think like that. They don't just concluded, "hey miracle" and then shelf all their beacons and test tubes. Instead they look for natural explanations. In the case you describe, they would look for natural ways to explain the lack of scar tissue.

That said, you completely ignored my post. It's was a good one. Please go back and read it. I showed specific examples of missing scars that YEC's point to, and that naturalists like yourself try to explain away.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
wrong.. it was fire ,and ice and water followed .. not just water. and NO the whole world wasn't completely destroyed. just lot of it.

No all of it.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.​

I know modern scientific theories are tempting you to doubt this, but let God be true, and every man a liar.

And God promised he would never do it again. Why do you place so much faith in men's theories, and so little on God's word?
 
Upvote 0
N

NannaNae

Guest
No all of it.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.​
I know modern scientific theories are tempting you to doubt this, but let God be true, and every man a liar.

And God promised he would never do it again. Why do you place so much faith in men's theories, and so little on God's word?
NO you did not understand what I was saying.

what I am saying is that

GOD said

Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”


it doesn't not say there won't be floods in various places up to the whole world or just shy of the whole world..as long as it doesn't kill all life again.
and it does not say there won't be other destructions other ways!
it doesn't say no one else will ever die again.





what ? I am saying even after Noah's world wide flood came many many destructions that science has NOT had the balls to question or much less answer!

starting with Joshua long day and the world stop turning for 24 hours ..which was from 3200 to 3600 years ago . 600 to 1200 after Noahs flood..

how much billions of tons of force does it take to stop the world from turning for 24 hours , and where is the proof of that much force on the face of the earth? because if there is an action there is a equal and opposite reaction . so where is proof of the reaction of the forces that stop the world from turning ? so where is that proof of what happened.. because it is eye witnessed and recorded all over the world.
then there is the bronze age collapse at about 3200 years ago .
then
there there is Hezekiahs 10 steps.. about 2800 years ago . where is the proof of the at least the earth moving sides ways very quickly... where is the physical proof of such events, it is eye witnessed and recorded all over the world.. but we don't know which story is which events. .. physical proof has to be here someplace.. because events are recorded everywhere. and in so many stories.
what happened at jesus death? 2000+ years ago?
what happened at his resurrection , the sky doesn't go black and the stones grind for no reason, something huge happened but what?
God is not a genie!
He uses natural forces to do his will, and he set those natural forces in motion before time started! and they are signs in the heavens and why the ancients had things like Stonehenges and things like medicine wheels to mark the seasons and the times and bodies in the heavens to find what is odd up there .

so maybe the questions should be why don't you believe all the the bible records ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scientists simply don't think like that. They don't just concluded, "hey miracle" and then shelf all their beacons and test tubes. Instead they look for natural explanations. In the case you describe, they would look for natural ways to explain the lack of scar tissue.

That said, you completely ignored my post. It's was a good one. Please go back and read it. I showed specific examples of missing scars that YEC's point to, and that naturalists like yourself try to explain away.

I don't think anyone said that scientists would say it was a miracle...you seem to be conflating two different points.

Yes, I saw your post. I'm not haggling this evidence or that. Other people are more interested in that anyway.

Here's the question: Why would God create trees with rings that showed evidence of differing seasons that had never happened?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think anyone said that scientists would say it was a miracle...you seem to be conflating two different points.

Yes, I saw your post. I'm not haggling this evidence or that. Other people are more interested in that anyway.

Here's the question: Why would God create trees with rings that showed evidence of differing seasons that had never happened?

Hi SE,

I'm hopeful that cal won't mind me butting in here. First, let's see the evidence.

You make the claim that we have provable evidence that there are trees older than what a tree could possibly be when laying that evidence against the biblical timeline. Where is that evidence so that we can all investigate and ask the questions while being on the same page. Yes, I realize that I can just do a google search of such information, and I have, but that doesn't assure that we are on the same page.

For example: I mentioned before that the oldest living specimen that we have is claimed to be some 5,300 years old. However, while investigating that claim I learned that sometimes trees make more than one ring in a single year of growth. If this were at all true, then how can we trust that even the measure of this single specimen is correct?

Here's one site that explains the phenomenon:

Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com

This site explains that it has done measured laboratory specimen tests and have actually produced mature trees, that especially when they started as immature trees often grew a second ring just because there was a two week drought. This is a tested and proven claim. The oldest trees known on the earth happen to be in areas that are highly susceptible to regular such drougts. Yet mature trees of the same species grown in areas of fairly regular weather patterns do not show these multiple ring year growths. So, the question must be asked: Is it possible that both specimens are roughly the same age, but because of the particular growing conditions, the one appears older than it actually is?

Depending on the answer to that question we must then ask the next: How then can we assign any provable assurance to such a dating method for trees?

If we don't know the conditions over the last few hundred years of the weather patterns of each year, then how do we know that none of the rings are these multiples caused by various conditions? According to this claim, while we are having a fairly severe drought in the western US, we may have many, many trees that are growing more than one ring this year alone. Multiply that by the possible drought conditions over the last few hundred years and we really can't have any assurance whatsoever that tree ring dating is as exact as we might want to make it appear.

Also according to this article, many claim that this phenomenon disappears after a tree reaches a certain maturity. Although no set dates are given for when exactly a particular species of tree is considered mature or not. Further, while these detractors make this claim, they haven't offered one shred of proof that their claim is true. We just have to take their word for it.

If you do choose to read the article, you will find that there are actually quite a few questions about the reliability of cross-dating, which is where multiple samples of wood are laid against each other to try and match the years from one tree to another by similar ring growth.

I just thought we should all be on the same page concerning the evidences that are available and the possible problems with the accuracy of such evidences. So, my initial question to you is: Have you actually seen these specimens that are cross-dated to expose years of history beyond the biblical timeline?

Unfortunately, and of course I don't expect you to accept this, but wise men have tried for centuries to provide evidence that God's timeline cannot be trusted, but God is already on record that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi SE,

I'm hopeful that cal won't mind me butting in here. First, let's see the evidence.

You make the claim that we have provable evidence that there are trees older than what a tree could possibly be when laying that evidence against the biblical timeline. Where is that evidence so that we can all investigate and ask the questions while being on the same page. Yes, I realize that I can just do a google search of such information, and I have, but that doesn't assure that we are on the same page.

For example: I mentioned before that the oldest living specimen that we have is claimed to be some 5,300 years old. However, while investigating that claim I learned that sometimes trees make more than one ring in a single year of growth. If this were at all true, then how can we trust that even the measure of this single specimen is correct?

Here's one site that explains the phenomenon:

Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com

This site explains that it has done measured laboratory specimen tests and have actually produced mature trees, that especially when they started as immature trees often grew a second ring just because there was a two week drought. This is a tested and proven claim. The oldest trees known on the earth happen to be in areas that are highly susceptible to regular such drougts. Yet mature trees of the same species grown in areas of fairly regular weather patterns do not show these multiple ring year growths. So, the question must be asked: Is it possible that both specimens are roughly the same age, but because of the particular growing conditions, the one appears older than it actually is?

Depending on the answer to that question we must then ask the next: How then can we assign any provable assurance to such a dating method for trees?

If we don't know the conditions over the last few hundred years of the weather patterns of each year, then how do we know that none of the rings are these multiples caused by various conditions? According to this claim, while we are having a fairly severe drought in the western US, we may have many, many trees that are growing more than one ring this year alone. Multiply that by the possible drought conditions over the last few hundred years and we really can't have any assurance whatsoever that tree ring dating is as exact as we might want to make it appear.

Also according to this article, many claim that this phenomenon disappears after a tree reaches a certain maturity. Although no set dates are given for when exactly a particular species of tree is considered mature or not. Further, while these detractors make this claim, they haven't offered one shred of proof that their claim is true. We just have to take their word for it.

If you do choose to read the article, you will find that there are actually quite a few questions about the reliability of cross-dating, which is where multiple samples of wood are laid against each other to try and match the years from one tree to another by similar ring growth.

I just thought we should all be on the same page concerning the evidences that are available and the possible problems with the accuracy of such evidences. So, my initial question to you is: Have you actually seen these specimens that are cross-dated to expose years of history beyond the biblical timeline?

Unfortunately, and of course I don't expect you to accept this, but wise men have tried for centuries to provide evidence that God's timeline cannot be trusted, but God is already on record that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?:
Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.


How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.


In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.

As to your question, I don't feel the need, personally, to go and count tree rings myself, or to become an expert in any or all of the sciences in order to accept data that I am told about. The system is flawed, but it works well enough due to self-correction. That's what happens when you have scientists climbing over one another to prove each other wrong.

My interest is more in the implications of what we believe. What you are saying here is that not only is the world not old, but that it doesn't even look old. The implications of that are that the majority of millions of scientists from the majority of dozens of fields have been falsifying evidence for hundreds of years.

That's a conspiracy that even the tin-hatters would scoff at. Occam's razor is useful here.
 
Upvote 0