How old is the earth really?

  • 6000 years old

    Votes: 9 42.9%
  • 10.000 years old

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • 4.9 billion years old

    Votes: 11 52.4%

  • Total voters
    21

Archie Dupont

Active Member
Nov 25, 2017
80
25
39
Houston
✟10,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
"Unfortunately, the Bible tries to explain the origin and structure of our physical earth, and in doing so collides with science. In these cases, science should always win the argument."

Archie- "Wise wise words. If only every Christian would agree with them"

Then you really don't need the bible do you? Since science is now your God.
Jesus said " you are either for me or against me"

Again the assumption that science is (on par with) a religion. I might need the bible to find morality about loving my neighbour and science for understanding why water striders can walk on water. They are separate things and believing in one of them doesn't mean you cannot believe in the other. Do you jump of the cliff if you believe that God will make you fly? No you will not, as you believe in the scientific fact that the gravity will pull you to your death.

In theory religion is easy to defend, but if your life is on the line, you will adhere to the rules put in place by newtonian physics.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If science proves a point (with evidence) that would render a portion of scripture void, would that not shatter your view of your own religion? Or would in the case where the base of your religion is swiped from under its feet, that scientific finding we considered in error?
With regard to our origins, science does not prove, nor has evidence for what it asserts. As I indicated in post #90, no scientist even once has seen a universe or a planet go from nothing to being a completed, created thing. When one studies rocks, do they not learn about them by studying and contrasting against... other rocks, learning about their respective elements and properties?? In short, there is no point of reference, nothing to test the various hypotheses/assertions about our origins. These assertions are not science at all. Worse yet, these unsupported assertions are the basis for throwing out what God Himself has said about His creation - about us, the earth, and the universe.

This is all like opening a book (of the universe and history itself) somewhere in the middle (though probably closer toward the end as many believe we are in end times), and trying to fill in the story up to where we are at now in the current page of the current chapter; however, cannot turn back the pages to read what has already happened in the beginning of this book, and there are no other books of reference upon which to model how the story in this book might have gone up to this point. Many have attempted to tell the story as if the book itself had no author, inventing things like big bangs and evolution. Others accept these ideas, but also believe there is an author and so try to weave to the two together to tell another story. The author of this grand book; however, has given us another book that tells us about the reality of the book we are living: the Bible. In this book He tells us, among other things, a synopsis of the events, people, and timelines of the introduction and chapters leading up to now, His Son (the main theme throughout the entire book), and has even given us a sneak preview of how this book we're all living will end, has He not?

As @Ancient of Days has stated, when we subvert the truth of God's word with the unsupported conclusions from science, science becomes the new god (at a minimum, is being idolized).
 
Upvote 0

Archie Dupont

Active Member
Nov 25, 2017
80
25
39
Houston
✟10,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
no scientist even once has seen a universe or a planet go from nothing to being a completed, created thing. When one studies rocks, do they not learn about them by studying and contrasting against... other rocks, learning about their respective elements and properties?? In short, there is no point of reference, nothing to test the various hypotheses/assertions about our origins. These assertions are not science at all. Worse yet, these unsupported assertions are the basis for throwing out what God Himself has said about His creation - about us, the earth, and the universe..

Science has a lot of hypotheses and theories about things that cannot be tested according to the standards you propose. A lot of research is based on the effects of an event, not the observation of the event itself.

It is like a footprint of an undiscovered species. You know it existed, but you know very little about it. Based on the depth and shape of the footprint you can however estimate its size and properties. Based on the shape of the claws or toes you can see if it was a water dweller or carnivore. Even though that researcher has never seen the beast in real life.

This analogy applies to the something from nothing theory. It is not like this theory is based on nothing and simply put there for lack of a better alternative (something that religion is often blamed of doing). It is due to years of mathematical calculations, tens of thousands of scientists researching atoms, gravity, the movement of mass, the expansion of the universe itself. The beast of the big bang theory actually left a footprint we recently found. Gravitational waves that resonate still through the universe since the big bang happened. They can even calculate the place of origins of that event.

My point: A scientific theory is not 'a bad assertion' simply because we did not see the event or happening in person or right now. The analysis of the effects can be enough to come close to a theory.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be. There are those who literally believe the scriptures that the earth was created in a weeks time (and consequently no more than about 3000 years old). Other Christians believe that the world is about 10.000 years old. There are those who believe that the whole concept of evolution is true but designed by God.

How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint. Unity on this subject is a long way away and therefore paints the perfect bullseye for atheists and skeptics on one of the must controversial aspects of religion.

I have tried to to find a good answer to this problem but absolutely everyone thinks something else. I hope people can give insight on this subject, both for me and for a lot of other people who struggle with the same question.

Blessings and peace

You need to first understand why there's such a division. We humans divide on matters like this simply because humans are creatures of the present. We don't know the future and we don't know the past. Unless you insist on the human should know the past and should know the future, then it's expected that they don't know either. That's where the division is from.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Science has a lot of hypotheses and theories about things that cannot be tested according to the standards you propose. A lot of research is based on the effects of an event, not the observation of the event itself.

It is like a footprint of an undiscovered species. You know it existed, but you know very little about it. Based on the depth and shape of the footprint you can however estimate its size and properties. Based on the shape of the claws or toes you can see if it was a water dweller or carnivore. Even though that researcher has never seen the beast in real life.
Agree (in part), and you know why the footprint/claw mark analogy works? Because we can repeat it and say, "Yep! This looks just like the footprint / claw mark I saw over here, so that is what happened." When scientists can recreate the alleged big bang, recreate a planet from alleged protoplanetary space/star dust, and recreate alleged evolution of a molecule becoming a man, then there will be evidence and supported models. No such thing has happened to date and so it is nothing more than speculation propped up as fact for the non-scientific community to respond in awe.

This analogy applies to the something from nothing theory. It is not like this theory is based on nothing and simply put there for lack of a better alternative (something that religion is often blamed of doing).
Not sure what would be a better theory than a model built within the framework of God saying He directly created the universe, did so in six days, and created everything in the order He said He did. If someone has a problem with God's way of creation, then it sounds like they have a problem with God and need to take their issue up prayerfully with Him. I understand why the Atheist/unbeliever does not see an issue, but am curious about the Christian who does have an issue with God's word.

It is due to years of mathematical calculations, tens of thousands of scientists researching atoms, gravity, the movement of mass, the expansion of the universe itself. The beast of the big bang theory actually left a footprint we recently found. Gravitational waves that resonate still through the universe since the big bang happened. They can even calculate the place of origins of that event.
I don't doubt the amount of time and effort poured into the theories. The gravitational waves you reference actually create challenges for the original big bang model and are 'inflated' as far as proof goes:
'Smoking Gun' Evidence of Inflation? | The Institute for Creation Research

Let me add some perspective here. Now this is a different field of study, but hang with me on this. Let's look at research done in the field of cancer. We have cancer that is happening in the present (is observable) so this is advantage #1 over what supposedly happened billions of years ago. We also (unfortunately) have many cases of cancer; however, this is advantage # 2 because the creation of the earth and the universe has so far been a one-time event - until God creates a new heavens and a new earth. Also, we can detect and observe cancer from very early stages all the way through to the time it is either eradicated or when the person dies - this is advantage # 3 as we re not able to directly observe a full cycle from beginning to end for allegations of big bang, protoplanetary dust, and evolution. I believe a few years ago marked having spent over $100 billion in the fight against cancer - no doubt the cost of 40+ years of research and tens of thousands of researchers working countless hours on a disease that personally affects almost everyone on the planet. Good progress has been made, but we still don't know all the causes of cancer, the the conditions that make it favorable for it to start... and we certainly don't have a cure, let alone a way to prevent this disease in the first place. With all that is still unknown about cancer, is it then believed that more progress has been made in understanding our origin (where there is no direct observation of the past, was only a one-time event, and can only be observed in the current-state)... so much such that we should go so far as to dismiss and redefine what God, who created everything, is perfect, holy, and true, has told us in His word?

My point: A scientific theory is not 'a bad assertion' simply because we did not see the event or happening in person or right now. The analysis of the effects can be enough to come close to a theory.
Not sure how an assertion would fall into the category of a 'good assertion' given there is no context/model to measure its reasonability. Again, no proof/evidence present. First hint that the assertion/theory may be wrong is when it requires a framework, a timeline, and a lengthy series of assumptions built on top of each other that are all inconsistent with what is known to be true from God's word; that is how I would think this would be approached under a Christian worldview.

Some have adhered to scripture as the source of ultimate authority and truth - others have shifted to a view that compromises certain aspects scripture, going along with the current popular view of the world - hence the divide. We are warned in scripture not to add to or take away from scripture, but that seems to be what is happening. Perhaps there is political pressures within the scientific community that insist certain views be upheld while others are marginalized, I don't know. In our culture today where we are over-sensitive to other belief systems and have removed prayer and many Christian symbols from public places (lest we offend anyone), perhaps that has in some way contributed to not permitting/promoting alternative views that are tied to a religion not universally held by all people. I also consider Ephesians 6:12, and so my argument is not directly with anyone where, but to challenge this way of thinking that is not God-centered, and as we'll see time and again, is not very fact-centered either.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you for the replies! I've read both even though my reply is directly to just this one. The conclusion of a 6-ft skeleton being older than 1 year is reasonable, but we've seen skeletons (countless times in the entire process of development from an embryo to 100+ years old). How many times have we seen planets and universes and planets being created? Seems an apples to rocks comparison. One thing scientists will never be able to move past is the fact that they are accepting a version of truth (over the word of God of all things!) that has never even once been seen. To the skeleton example, if you had never seen a human being born or growing up and told me that a 6-ft skeleton was clearly over a year old, I'd naturally respond: "How do you know??" Especially if the creator of all skeletons told me to the contrary in a special book he gave to us.

Tiktaalik looks like a fish, and is a fish. There's also a stone fish, looks like it may have directly evolved from... a stone, but that's not true. God created a wide array of marine life and there are a great variety of fish, including 'flying' fish though I'm not expecting them to take to the skies with the sparrows anytime soon. The proposed idea of evolution falls flat IMO because there is suggested a continual process of progression, yet are the alleged 'transitional' fossils you brought up the standard of what is typically found or are these loose attempts to connect to a common ancestor more the exception? According to scientific findings and what is being reported, it is the very rare exception... almost always we hear about more fossils of what has already been identified. Look everybody, another T-rex, another trilobite, another human, another fish, ape, etc... My goodness, with all the transitions that would be needed from the first molecule to every form of life ever found today, we should have mountains and mountains of transitional forms... in fact, they should be the norm with it being rare to find groupings of fossils that happen to closely resemble one another. What is physically observed in the fossil record does not support this though, does it?

I think your views on physical laws are completely reasonable - we can see a landslide happen and observe all kinds of physical laws in action. I'd even say we can see a road covered with uprooted trees, boulders and dirt - look up a steep hillside that runs adjacent to the road and see freshly exposed earth and reasonably conclude yes, a landslide occurred here. I think you had made a comment a number of posts back regarding natural/supernatural that you believe in the miracles as mentioned surrounding Jesus, etc... but otherwise natural physical laws were in action. I think along the same lines where physical laws are accurate and dependable, unless scripture tells us that supernatural events are taking place. We already both agree that physical law does not reign supreme throughout 100% of history (ex. Jesus being born of a virgin). So, in keeping consistent with this understanding, I also read the creation and flood accounts found in Genesis and it is very apparent that this is not describing natural, physical laws (ex. God spoke and...). When God, who is spirit, speaks and physical matter appears, and God speaks - then life appears, and He tells us this happened in 6 days, one would logically conclude these were supernatural events.

You really didnt respond to my tiktaalik post at all. I guess ill just let you go, we arent able to have a conversation if you consider tiktaalik "just a fish".

It has a flat head and snout with large eyes on top like a crocodile. It has wrist bones, neck bones allowing for it to turn its head, shoulder bones that arent fused to its skull and robust pelvic bones unseen in any fish.

"A major challenge in understanding the origin of terrestrial vertebrates has been knowledge of the pelvis and hind appendage of their closest fish relatives. The pelvic girdle and appendage of tetrapods is dramatically larger and more robust than that of fish and contains a number of structures that provide greater musculoskeletal support for posture and locomotion. The discovery of pelvic material of the finned elpistostegalian, Tiktaalik roseae, bridges some of these differences. Multiple isolated pelves have been recovered, each of which has been prepared in three dimensions. Likewise, a complete pelvis and partial pelvic fin have been recovered in association with the type specimen. The pelves of Tiktaalik are paired and have broad iliac processes, flat and elongate pubes, and acetabulae that form a deep socket rimmed by a robust lip of bone. The pelvis is greatly enlarged relative to other finned tetrapodomorphs. Despite the enlargement and robusticity of the pelvis of Tiktaalik, it retains primitive features such as the lack of both an attachment for the sacral rib and an ischium. The pelvic fin of Tiktaalik (NUFV 108) is represented by fin rays and three endochondral elements: other elements are not preserved. The mosaic of primitive and derived features in Tiktaalik reveals that the enhancement of the pelvic appendage of tetrapods and, indeed, a trend toward hind limb-based propulsion have antecedents in the fins of their closest relatives."

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/3/893.full.pdf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archie Dupont

Active Member
Nov 25, 2017
80
25
39
Houston
✟10,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Agree (in part), and you know why the footprint/claw mark analogy works? Because we can repeat it and say, "Yep! This looks just like the footprint / claw mark I saw over here, so that is what happened." When scientists can recreate the alleged big bang, recreate a planet from alleged protoplanetary space/star dust, and recreate alleged evolution of a molecule becoming a man, then there will be evidence and supported models. No such thing has happened to date and so it is nothing more than speculation propped up as fact for the non-scientific community to respond in awe.

A simple google search could have sufficed at least in part your standard of proof. Scientists have actually recreated (or very close to it) the big bang in a laboratory setting.

'Start of the Universe': mini Big Bang recreated

I know this is a shallow news article, I couldn't be bothered to delve into the internet for the reseach paper itself, but its definitely there, so is this experiment, and so are the parameters of the big bang right here right now under our control. That should satisfy your first condition of recreating the big bang, they have. As for the other two: Planets are created as we speak, solar systems explode, collide, implode and change all the time. Planets are formed in the proces. Just as Earth, Mars, Venus and the moon where formed in the same kind of proces. With your above mentioned statement you again state that scientific evidence in your mind is scientist recreating the experiment. That is in essence true, but recreating doesn't mean actually constructing something. It can also be by observing. Of course scientists can't create a planet. That would be ludicrous, we are not in a Sar Wars universe. They can however point at other planets that go through the same process that earth has gone through.
 
Upvote 0

Archie Dupont

Active Member
Nov 25, 2017
80
25
39
Houston
✟10,319.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
@NobleMouse

I dont understand why you would even suggest its a fish when you dont know about it. Who told you that tiktaalik is a fish?

I think you should let this go. So often I see people debating fiercely, but not responding to the things they know will weaken their position. You'll just get frustrated my man
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think you should let this go. So often I see people debating fiercely, but not responding to the things they know will weaken their position. You'll just get frustrated my man

Yea, you're probably right.
 
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

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be. There are those who literally believe the scriptures that the earth was created in a weeks time (and consequently no more than about 3000 years old). Other Christians believe that the world is about 10.000 years old. There are those who believe that the whole concept of evolution is true but designed by God.

How and where can we possibly find the true answer and how can we as a religion rally behind that single viewpoint. Unity on this subject is a long way away and therefore paints the perfect bullseye for atheists and skeptics on one of the must controversial aspects of religion.

I have tried to to find a good answer to this problem but absolutely everyone thinks something else. I hope people can give insight on this subject, both for me and for a lot of other people who struggle with the same question.

Blessings and peace

Why is universal church divided ? Roman denomination was invented late in 3rd century. They left !
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

You should be careful with who you take your word from. Take a look at my post above,

"It has a flat head and snout with large eyes on top like a crocodile. It has wrist bones, neck bones allowing for it to turn its head, shoulder bones that arent fused to its skull and robust pelvic bones unseen in any fish."

The article you cited, notes ceolacanth being alive, and therefore attempts to make the point that, if ceolacanth is alive and is a lobe finned fish, tiktaalik could be a lobe finned fish as well that just happened to be dead.

But, it really isnt so simple.

fin-limb_2006-1.gif

finbones.jpg


If you look at the fin of ceolacanth, and the fin of tiktaalik, you can see that the bones in their respective fins are completely different.

Tiktaalik has a clear and broad, dominating humerus, along with the pairing of a radius and ulna. It has bones that can rotate and twist, more like an amphibian, than a fish.

fossil2.gif


14-012TiktaalikModel.jpg

Tiktaalik also has a shoulder bone. Fish do not have shoulders like reptiles and amphibians.

Tiktaalik has a flat head, like an alligator. Fish have their eyes, typically on the sides of their heads, or toward the front. Tiktaalik is up top and toward the back.

tiktaalik_fossil.jpg

11658648466_5ab4848f1d_b.jpg


And some might say, well fossils get smashed and maybe tiktaaliks head was just smashed in a flat way, but there are collections of tiktaaliks, its not just one specimen, and their heads arent broken along the center. This animal had eyes on top with a flat head, like modern animals today that are not fish, like lizards and salamanders.

And ceolecanth doesnt have a neck, it cant adjust its head in a different direction from its body. tiktaalik could because its broad shoulder is not fused to its skull.

evolutionbys.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But beyond all of this^ still, is my original statement. Tiktaalik was found in devonian rock. It could have been found, literally anywhere on earth, at any depth, in any rock. It could have been in mesozoic rock, triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, it could have been in paleozoic rocks such as the permian, ordovician, carboniferous, cambrian, or silurian, it could have been in tertiary, or quaternary rock. It could have been in precambrian rock, or ediacaran rock. It could have been in any country, in any location.

But where was it?

It was precisely where it was predicted to be. In mid to late devonian rock, in rock of a shallow marine environment. Its founders, took a map, purely dependent on the faunal succession, made a prediction that a fishapod would be found after fish (late silurian and early devonian) and before amphibians and tetrapods (late devonian), and flew to a remote location in canada, to mid to late devonian rock, dug down to shallow marine rock, and dug it up.

It isnt purely a fish, and it isnt purely a tetrapod, it is a fishapod, and it was found right where it was anticipated to be.

And young earthers really have no way to respond to this, other than by calling tiktaalik "just a fish" even though clearly it is not just a fish, or by saying that it was just pure luck and chance that tiktaalik was found in that remote location of canada where it was.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I just want to add that, @NobleMouse

I have not worked directly with neil shubin or ted daeschler (the lead founders of tiktaalik), but I have worked with their colleagues, and I have looked at a lot of the same rocks that they have looked at, and ive participated in paleontology based related research of the same rocks that they research (we all live near the same rocks, so it is convenient for us to look at the same rocks).

And this stuff isnt made up. Tetrapods dominate the late devonian, and tiktaalik is and was truly, right where you would think that it would be, based on the faunal succession and old earth geology. And I have no reason to lie about that fact, on a random internet forum.

But you get these bible thumping young earthers traveling up from texas with their degrees in mathematics and sociology (in this case, the author had a bs in biology, which is nice, but he still isnt a credible source on this), thinking they can just ignore our findings, and call tiktaalik "just a fish". And they just ignore the succession and its entire predictive nature.

They have an agenda, and cannot be trusted.

Anyone who knows about devonian rock, knows that it is dominated by early tetrapods (you will see this if you go out and look at them), and tiktaalik, is not just a fish. Its a tetrapod and a fish. It is truly, morphologically, both, and it is in the devonian where you would think it would be.
 
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

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A simple google search could have sufficed at least in part your standard of proof. Scientists have actually recreated (or very close to it) the big bang in a laboratory setting.

'Start of the Universe': mini Big Bang recreated
Your link led to a server error - good thing servers did not exist on day 1 or maybe we wouldn't be here today. That aside the LHC is not a PoC to the big bang theory. Was a mini universe with little stars and tiny planets created within the LHC? No. The LHC is a significant achievement in the area of theoretical physics, but does it prove billions of years nor the big bang theory itself - smashing lead atoms together is not the same as God creating the universe from nothing.

The Higgs Boson and the Big Bang | The Institute for Creation Research

As for the other two: Planets are created as we speak, solar systems explode, collide, implode and change all the time. Planets are formed in the proces. Just as Earth, Mars, Venus and the moon where formed in the same kind of proces. With your above mentioned statement you again state that scientific evidence in your mind is scientist recreating the experiment. That is in essence true, but recreating doesn't mean actually constructing something. It can also be by observing. Of course scientists can't create a planet. That would be ludicrous, we are not in a Sar Wars universe. They can however point at other planets that go through the same process that earth has gone through.
I agree there was a process. Earth, was created by God, through the process he describes in Genesis 1 - this is not something Moses just invented in his mind. Scientists have also never seen a planet form. They have seen stars with no planets, stars with planets (small and large) , stars with planets and a lot of debris, stars with planets and very little debris. Scientists have also seen galaxies and solar systems colliding with others. None of this is conclusive evidence that galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and moons form through natural processes, or that planets form through some protoplanetary disk orbiting around a young star (another non-working model: Protoplanetary Disc Model Falls Flat | The Institute for Creation Research).

Believe me, I understand these debates can be frustrating. Some here will think, how can these seemingly intelligent Christians not understand the evidence right in front of their faces that the universe is old, the earth is clearly old, life clearly evolved - the evidence is overwhelming and multiple disciplines of science corroborate the same story(!) Myself and some others here may think, how can these seemingly intelligent Christians go along with what clearly is an anti-God framework interpretation of evidence (intended to paint a picture of a beginning without needing God) - claiming to be Christians yet rejecting what God says about the beginning and instead elevate the supposed wisdom of man above the true wisdom of God, delving into what appears to be some kind of Humanism(!)

Intelligence is not the issue. A lack of understanding what the Bible says or what science says may not fully be the issue either. I've come across very intelligent Atheists who have an incredible knowledge of what we are told in the Bible - they know it, they can quote it better than many Christians, yet do not accept the idea of any god, let alone the God of the Bible. So what gives? We all have our own unique and personal threshold of what it takes to convince us that something is true/false and this forms our worldview. My parents are Catholic and so I grew up in churches that as you may know have a very liberal view on the topic of evolution and the Pope himself accepts this as a viable means God could have used; I went to public schools and secular universities where all the ideas we're talking about here were taught - and I used to believe it. It wasn't until my mid to late 20's that I became aware of scientists, research and models that are in alignment with and support what God tells us is true (and yes, are real - use the scientific method, apply physics/mathematics, etc... all the same things their secular colleagues do). This challenged my existing views and when I went back and read further into what I thought was irrefutable fact and saw the assumptions being made, how non sequitur dots were being connected, how the framework is built up (often with exaggerated headlines like "Large Hadron Collider (LHC) generates a 'mini-Big Bang'"), this old worldview began to fall apart. I wouldn't say I 'switched sides' because I firmly believed the Bible - to the contrary, I feel less confused about the creation account - these chapters of the Bible actually make more sense, and my belief in it now is much stronger than it was then.

Addressing the OEC's here:

Simply front-loading/prefixing the anti-God scientific framework with the idea that God triggered the big bang billions of years ago and at the beginning had all the information contained therein necessary for these naturalistic processes fails on a number of levels:

Scientifically speaking...
1) You first give initial credit for God for creation (good), but quickly shift to explain the 'how' of reality to supposed natural processes like evolution - perhaps not seeing that by doing so contradict and compromise the Neo-Darwinism assertions that random mutations and natural selection are the mechanisms for evolution alone. As such, non-Christian scientists will sharply criticize such a view to attribute anything to this mythical god.

2) There is no known natural law that can account for information-generation, which is needed to support the idea of continual evolution - period. There are hopeful claims and theories that would like to wish otherwise, but the bottom line is that no such law(s) exist.

Theologically speaking...
3) Your view significantly compromises your apologetics - what unbeliever will you share the gospel message with to convince that God exists when you attribute most of what they see to natural causality and go on to concede that you don't even really take the very first book of the Bible as being true? Would be like me selling Ford's, but then when asked, admit to my clients I in fact drive a Honda.

4) You make the claim that scientific conclusions that spawn out of secular mainstream science and the Bible actually agree, but then very carefully do not regard the interaction between the two and in Francis Bacon fashion, default to the 'science trumps scripture' mentality and so the Bible is no longer inerrant, no longer the authority of truth, and least of all perspicuous.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just want to add that, @NobleMouse
...
And this stuff isnt made up. Tetrapods dominate the late devonian, and tiktaalik is and was truly, right where you would think that it would be, based on the faunal succession and old earth geology. And I have no reason to lie about that fact, on a random internet forum.
Okay, so you have this lobe-finned fish that many scientists believe to be fishapod. For a non-believer, I would agree it is completely logical to conclude that within the evolutionary framework it represents the transition from fish in water to something like a salamander walking on land. This; however, is still speculative (1), and is still the very rare exception within the fossil record (2). There are a number of theories that try to explain the rarity such as rapid speciation/evolution, and that groupings of life may have separated and gone to geographically different areas where they then evolved differently to adapt to that environment. The challenge to these is that the idea of rapid speciation still has not been shown to create a new 'kind' (fish are still fish) and we do find fossils of the same life forms separated by thousands of miles of land and water.

But you get these bible thumping young earthers traveling up from texas with their degrees in mathematics and sociology (in this case, the author had a bs in biology, which is nice, but he still isnt a credible source on this), thinking they can just ignore our findings, and call tiktaalik "just a fish". And they just ignore the succession and its entire predictive nature.

They have an agenda, and cannot be trusted.
Ah, a Christian calling another Christian a Bible thumper. What kind of Christian does that make you?

The scientists at ICR are not the only ones who believe Tiktaalik is just another variety of fish:
Tiktaalik finished - creation.com
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat/

I will agree though that there is an agenda and the agenda is to shows that Christians should not be intimidated by claims made by mainstream science, nor be so quick to assume these claims are correct and just throw out what they believe to be true on the basis of God's word. The intent is not to twist, manipulate, or lie (just as I don't fully accept that non-Christians are intending to do so either); rather, their intent is to provide a scientific analysis (using the same methods of research and testing as their secular colleagues) that supports that there is equally a valid interpretation of the evidence that agrees with and supports the truth of the Bible.

Anyone who knows about devonian rock, knows that it is dominated by early tetrapods (you will see this if you go out and look at them), and tiktaalik, is not just a fish. Its a tetrapod and a fish. It is truly, morphologically, both, and it is in the devonian where you would think it would be.
See above links. There is a great variety of aquatic life and there are fish with lungs, fish with gills --> we see them today and we see them in the fossil record of yesterday... in fact, as I understand those who operate under the evolution paradigm still have an ongoing debate as to which evolved first - the gill or the lung. Not a problem if you believe God created both and also created creatures that He intended to be able to go into the water and on land.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, so you have this lobe-finned fish that many scientists believe to be fishapod. For a non-believer, I would agree it is completely logical to conclude that within the evolutionary framework it represents the transition from fish in water to something like a salamander walking on land. This; however, is still speculative (1), and is still the very rare exception within the fossil record (2). There are a number of theories that try to explain the rarity such as rapid speciation/evolution, and that groupings of life may have separated and gone to geographically different areas where they then evolved differently to adapt to that environment. The challenge to these is that the idea of rapid speciation still has not been shown to create a new 'kind' (fish are still fish) and we do find fossils of the same life forms separated by thousands of miles of land and water.

Your response is not a challenge to my statement. Honest and informed people know that tiktaalik is not just a fish. Honest and informed people also know that it wasnt pure chance or pure luck that it was found in shallow marine, mid devonian rocks up in canada, 10 feet below the surface.

Also, I dont think tiktaalik and its discovery is a rare exception at all, it is just one of many that i decided to talk about, just because i am familiar with a handful of its details. If you would like another example, i will give one.

You brought up rapid speciation, but the devonian transition from fish to tetrapod, as seen in the fossil succession, is something that occurred over some 50 million years. It isnt rapid at all. So, im not quite sure what you are referring to there.

800px-Zachelmie_tracks_vs_selected_Devonian_fossils.svg.png


Young earthers just arent able to respond to these topics. Old earthers on the other hand, can easily explain these things. It is knowledge of Gods creation that has allowed us to predict where it was. And this has been done through an understanding of an old earth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
@NobleMouse

I just noticed the casey luskin article there.

The article bases an argument around these tracks that came about 10 million years prior to tiktaalik (zechelmie tracks). In other words, how could tiktaalik be a transitional if the transition from fish to tetrapod occurred 10 million years prior to tiktaaliks existence?

To respond to this, imagine if I had a book that was 4.56 billion pages long (the number of years in the age of the earth, and the number of years identified in the faunal succession and in the geologic succession). To equate to the number of years in the geologic succession.

Then the predicted and discovered location of the "word" tiktaalik would simply be 10 million pages after the "word" zechelmie tracks.

I we were to cut the numbers down by dividing each age by 10 million (4.56 billion/10 million, 375 million/10 million and 385 million/10 million , we would have a book that is 456 pages long, and the tetrapod tracks and tiktaalik fossil would be less than a single page apart (on pages 37 and 38 respectively).
-------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me ask this, if the succession and transition between fish to tetrapod, was predicted to be between the late silurian and the late devonian (between pages 42 and 36), of what value is it to young earthers to say, no no, "the word" tiktaalik that was predicted and found on page 37, isnt a transitional because the first tetrapod tracks (zechelmie) were actually identified on page 38.

You would say that, the predicted transition occurred over some 60 pages (late silurian to late devonian), so why would a single page difference (38-37) within that range (42-36), somehow be a challenge to the faunal succession?

The fact that tiktaalik is found just 1 page away from the zechelmie tracks, in a 456 page long book, is a testament to the reality of the faunal succession. Tiktaalik could have been on page 300, 450, 200, 100, 50, 10, as could have the zechelmie tracks. They could have been found on any page, they could have been found anywhere on earth, at any depth. But no, tiktaalik was found on page 37, literally less than a single page away from the foot tracks being discussed by casey luskin (zechelmie tracks on page 38).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine if i gave you a book that was 456 pages long, and i said that based on the faunal and geologic succession, the word "bird" would be found for the first time on page 14, and you discovered that it was actually on page 15. And you argued that because it was on page 14 and not 15, somehow my theory is in danger of being completely false.

I would laugh and I'd say, of all the pages of the book, of all the locations on earth, of all the 3 dimensional depths deep in the earth, i predicted their location within a single page. Why in the world, would you think that my science is wrong because you found out that it was page 14 and not 15?

Casey Luskin is making a senseless and deceptive argument. Where he is exacerbating a minor detail, making it sound as if it is some hugely detrimental find, when in reality the discovery of the zechelmie tracks is just further proof, or evidence, and a further testament to the reality of the faunal succession, simply because even the zechelmie tracks, are in the book right where we would anticipate they would be, in that 42-36 range. The fact that the tracks are 1 page from tiktaalik simply brings more precision to our already accurate predictions and understanding.
 
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

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think thats one of my biggest pet peeves about this whole topic too. These young earthers are...

they really are deceptive. Maybe not intentionally. But they formulate these half arguments based on vague and incomplete details.

Then they build support from people who say "oh yes, the zechelmie tracks, look they predate tiktaalik, theyve proven it all wrong!". And its just a complete misconception. Because they miss the fact that the zechelmie tracks themselves solidify the fact that the fish to tetrapod transition occurred in the mid to late devonian.

If tiktaalik were in the ordovician, or if the zechelmie tracks and tiktaalik were found in the mesozoic or cenozoic, then it would be a true challenge. But when they are both side by side in the devonian, its just a demonstration of the reality of the succession.
 
Upvote 0