YECs, did the universe begin?

[TasManOfGod]

Ted nailed it son

 

[shernren]

I am currently not convinced enough that the earth is yound to bother defending it. I was attempting to provide you with a sample to illustrate that there is enough arguments for a young earth to not rule it out.

Now that is remarkable. If I had 76 arguments for a certain position and none against - as you seem to have presented in this thread - I certainly would not let myself remain unconvinced.

By comparison, you probably believe that day and night are produced by the rotation of the Earth on its own axis, instead of the movement of the Sun around the Earth - and yet, if I asked you for ten cogent reasons to believe so, you probably wouldn't be able to list them. It normally takes far less evidence to move people to far stronger positions on conventional subjects.

Of course, it clearly can't be the case that you are trying to brashly challenge evolutionists' knowledge with arguments you barely understand, only to respond when they challenge you back by saying they're being really mean to someone who hasn't even come to a position on the topic. Creationists don't use such cowardly debating tactics now do they?

Be bold. If there really are 76 arguments against an old earth with nary an argument for, then I'll be the first to say that the earth is young, and you should too. But if you really are not convinced that the earth is young, then surely you have some reason for believing so, and you should tell us about those too.

 

[Assyrian]

I had the impression that this thread was begun with the intention of finding out what typical Christians believe concerning the age (young or old) and the beginning (big bang or ?????). I suspected that it was a way to begin arguments concerning how old the earth is, however I answered in the belief that maybe my suspicions were wrong. I never intended to debate young Earth (theory) and so am unpreparred. I last researched this 5 years ago. I was right in my suspicions but still believing in the sincerety of the inquiry provided some of the arguments. When pressed I provided an explanation of a few. Apparently the inquiries made to me were for the purpose of a debate I never consented to, not in the interest of information for it's sake (but even that would be fine given time to reaquiant myself with the issues) I never made the claim that I know the Earth is young and so am not obligated in anyway to defend it.

This is a forum for discussing Creationism and Theistic Evolution
discussion so there is nothing particularly sinister about wanting to discuss the different aspects of this. Phil asked one particular question about the universe having a beginning, why not just give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he actually wanted to discuss that issue. It certainly led to a pretty unexpected answer from Ted that the void that surrounds the universe has always existed. However you brought up the creationist claims about evidence for a young earth. Was it some sort of dastardly trap for Phil to follow the line of discussion you brought up? This is a discussion forum for Creationism and TE.

This doesn't make sense. Creationism is a theory and doesn't have the ability to twist anything.

Creationism is also a movement made up of people. Creationists teachers and preachers and organisation come up with the sort of arguments you brought up for a young earth, they also resort to preaching fear and condemnation to try to keep the flock following the YEC line. And ordinary creationists swallow these arguments too, and with the most sincere motives, repeat the twisted scriptures they have been taught to keep them bound up in fear and condemnation.

What passage? Who are you accusing in your last statement? I surely never said this nor necessarily (I can never spell that word right) agree with it nor have I ever heard a Christian make this argument. I suspect your understanding of scripture is incorrect, but what does any of this have to do with the thread anyway.

The passage Ted quoted from the book of Revelation. But I am glad you haven't been exposed to this kind of manipulative argument before. The fact is the bible is full of metaphor parable and allegory, God loves to speak to us that way, often without any indication in the text that it is a metaphor. Just think if the problems people had understanding Jesus, like Nicodemus thinking Jesus meant being born again literally, or the Jews in John 6 who though he was teaching cannibalism. The literalism Ted preaches is a man made rule that has no basis in scripture, and leads to bizarre result of using the highly allegorical Book of Revelation to claim we have to take the bible literally

But creationism is utterly dependent on literalism, because once you realise there is more than one way to interpret the creation accounts in Genesis, there is no reason to keep holding onto claims the earth is young. This is what the church did when Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton showed the sun didn't go round the earth. It meant their traditional geocentric interpretations were simply wrong and they needed to find different ways to understand these passages. The tragedy is that the church didn't do it soon enough and put Galileo on trial, this still brings the gospel into disrepute.

 

[1robin]

1 Robin -

A couple questions.

First, you stated you didn't want to have the different sides present opposing scientists because it gets one nowhere. That's true. However, are you aware that practically all scientists support both the 4.6 billion year age of the earth as well as evolution? The consensus of the experts in the relevant fields has long rejected YEC with a clear and unified voice. That includes literally millions of experts who are Christians. As Philaddle has pointed out, you are relying on non-experts for YEC support. That's like asking a plumber for legal advice, or a mechanic for medical advice.

Next, I see you are Presbyterian. Are you aware that your denomination has long supported theistic evolution in full accordance with the view of the experts, as well as supporting a 4.6 billion year age for the earth, rejecting YEC? This was reaffirmed as recently as 2002 at the Presbyterian General Assembly:



Perhaps a good next step would be for you to discuss this with your pastor?

Papias

How do you come up with the idea that I use non scientists as evidence? There has only been one source identified and he had a scientific degree.
There are not millions of Christian scientists that support an old earth but it wouldn't matter if there were. I am not a presbyterian. The bible does not state directly how old the earth is, it is inferred by inderect references. I don't know why my profile has that on it. I couldn't even figure out how to change it. Even if I was I don't believe something because a denomination does. Most pastors are not as knowledgable about scientific matters as I am (but thats not saying much). If I were an evolutionist I would point out that you are arguing from popularity and thats incorrect. A group of the worlds top scientisst started screaming at any government that would listen global cooling was a dire emergency in the 80s. The majority of the citizens of Germany supported Hitler. Doctors not too many years ago believed that bleeding someone would fix about anything, however the bible says (the life of the body is in the blood) etc..... etc..... However your numbers of scientists do carry a certain weight with me but not enough to make up my mind. One of the reasons I don't usually like debateing evolutionists is that it is impossible for them to accept any scientist that dissagrees. It's, they don't have a degree, or their degree isn't advanced enough, or it isn't in just the right specialty, or it's the wrong school, or he lacks field experience, or he is biased or ad infinitum....... It just becomes futile but I am planning on actually taking some time to select a few that I think are good and we will see.

 

[1robin]

Now that is remarkable. If I had 76 arguments for a certain position and none against - as you seem to have presented in this thread - I certainly would not let myself remain unconvinced.

By comparison, you probably believe that day and night are produced by the rotation of the Earth on its own axis, instead of the movement of the Sun around the Earth - and yet, if I asked you for ten cogent reasons to believe so, you probably wouldn't be able to list them. It normally takes far less evidence to move people to far stronger positions on conventional subjects.

Of course, it clearly can't be the case that you are trying to brashly challenge evolutionists' knowledge with arguments you barely understand, only to respond when they challenge you back by saying they're being really mean to someone who hasn't even come to a position on the topic. Creationists don't use such cowardly debating tactics now do they?

Be bold. If there really are 76 arguments against an old earth with nary an argument for, then I'll be the first to say that the earth is young, and you should too. But if you really are not convinced that the earth is young, then surely you have some reason for believing so, and you should tell us about those too.

You are not qualified to tell me what I should do or should believe. Your lines of argumentation concerning my views are as incorrect as they are illogical. Why would I bother defending a position I have not taken. If I was trying to Brashly challenge an omnipotent evolutionists It wouldn't have been about this subject. My sole reason to post in this thread was to assert the fact that the universe is not infinately old, the rest has been my attempts to answer questions someone asked me.

FOR THE 100TH TIME. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE EARTH IS YOUNG. I EVEN SAID THAT IT IS THE BIBLES ONLY WEAK ARGUMENT IN MY OPINION. WHAT I HAVE EMPHATICALY STATED IS THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH REASONABLE ARGUMENTS FOR A YOUNG EARTH THAT I HAVE NOT RULED IT OUT. EVERYONE PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND.
(this comment was not necessarily for this post but rather a general statement)

76 is not a drop in the bucket. I used to have a book put out by a Christian with a Phd that listed hundreds but I also factor in as evolutionists love to mention (and one in this thread did and it probably isn't the last time) that the majority of the scientific community believes in an old earth. This post is a perfect example of an evolutionist who can't discuss something without being being adversarial, leading, and more concerned about winning an argument than haveing a discussion. As I have made clear this doesn't apply to some others in this thread. If you can't understand that there is enough of an argument for a young earth to warrant it's concideration then it's because you don't want to. As I have said after I have reviewed some material I will provide some data that I think is credible but it will take a bit.

 

[Assyrian]

hi assyrian,

You asked: Isn't it odd that a book like Revelation, full of symbolism and allegory, would be condemning people for not taking everything God said literally?

As I said, it depends on what God means by 'unbeliever'. You see, it's not in the least important what you think or what I think. It's all about what God thinks.

Yet you see fit to preach fear and condemnation for those who don't interpret scripture the way you think...

I'm just reading the next to last chapter of the Revelation, in which I don't think there is any of the symbolism or allegory of which you speak,

Apart from the church being a golden city that marries a sheep?

and it says that outside the gates of the city will be those who are 'unbelieving'. So, the question becomes, how does God see believing vs. unbelieving.

I would have though it meant trusting in God, not trusting in man mad rules about literalism. I don't know anyone in scripture rebuked for understanding a passage metaphorically, on the other hand Jesus did rebuke Nicodemus for not getting past literalism. Literalism isn't faith, it is fear. Faith wants to understand God more and more and understand how he speaks to us in his word. Faith follows in the disciples' footsteps as they try to get to grips with Jesus teaching them to understand parables, metaphors, symbols and allegory. Faith is not afraid when it realises God spoke that way in the past too.

The Scriptures are surely full of symbolism. Daniel's visions of various animals describing kingdoms is surely symbolic, but that symbolism definately is supposed to be understood by the reader.

Dan 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end.

The bible is full of symbols no one understood until they saw how God fulfilled it. Jesus told his disciple after the resurrection that the OT was full of references to him to his suffering and resurrection that no one had realised, even the disciples needed Jesus to explain it to them before they understood.
Luke 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Interestingly another rebuke for being foolish and slow of heart to believe the symbolic and allegorical message hidden in the OT. "And beginning with Moses... in all the Scriptures" that meant Genesis too didn't it? Ever wonder what metaphorical pictures of Christ and his suffering are in the Genesis creation accounts. How are you supposed to see and understand these metaphorical pictures if you insist on taking everything literally?

The next question is whether you are correct in what you find to be symbolic and allegorical. Is the genesis account of the creation symbolic? I don't think so. Is it some hidden allegory? I don't think so. Yes, there are such places in the Scriptures but the whole of the Scriptures is not and so where does one draw the line?

And here we get to the root of the fear. You understand God has spoken in allegory and metaphor, you know there are times when it isn't clear if a passage is figurative or literal, and when the meaning of a literal sounding passage is figurative, but because you don't know where to draw the line you draw back and cling to literalism. You take the coin the master gave you, and out of fear, wrap it in a handkerchief and hide it away.

You claim the account is symbolic and allegorical, I say it isn't. Who's correct? You lay your understanding of these things on science and I lay mine on God's word - only. When the account of the creation begins, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...", you claim that that is somehow a symbolic allegory. I don't. However, much of this understanding comes from, what I believe is understanding the whole of the Scriptures.

Yet before the church came under this bondage to literalism, church fathers and scholars studied scripture and came up with different interpretation of the days of Genesis, some took the days literally, though they even the literalists saw figurative prophetic meanings there too, others thought the days were not meant to be take literally, and from Augustine to Aquinas this was the dominant understanding of the creation days.

What is wrong with discovering through science that one of the interpretations of Genesis was mistaken? Haven't we seen that there are passage whose meaning we won't understand until we see how it is fulfilled? When you see what God has done you begin to understand what he meant.

God created this realm of existence and the one creature that He created to love and honor and serve Him refused. Adam and Eve were condemned not because they didn't believe in Jesus, but that they just didn't believe and mind God's simple request of them. So, based on the understanding that God created this realm of existence for the sole purpose of creating a place where a creature of flesh and blood could live to love, honor and serve Him, I can't really find any support that this all powerful, omnipotent God would have taken billions of years to create all that exists today.

Maybe you concept of God is just too small. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

He created it all for His pleasure as a place for His created beings, man, to live and to love and to serve Him. It is exactly what we find is the final outcome in the book of the Revelation. In the end God will create a city with the walls as described and those who have believed Him and loved Him and chosen to serve Him and allow Him the authority as creator of their lives, will live with Him. This entire existence, according to the Scriptures is a time for some men to learn to love and serve their Creator, and Jesus is building those people into a priesthood of people who will ultimately recieve the promise of eternal life because of their faith. God began this entire existence and realm of stars and planets, etc. to make a place for man to live. He didn't need, nor did He take billions of years to get everything the way it needed to be. No! He merely spoke it all into existence as a perfect home for man.

You do realise the golden city is a symbol of the church don't you?

I can see you problem here. You have taken a genuine understanding of redemption and woven it together with a literalist interpretation of Genesis and Revelation. So when a literal interpretation of Genesis is challenged, you think it unravels all the bible teaches about redemption too. It doesn't. It is just your finely wove fabric that doesn't hold together. But people have been misunderstanding Revelation and the return of Christ since the first century. Christ's work of redemption still holds, and it is not going to be shaken if you misunderstood Genesis too.

However, man sinned, which God knew that he would, and the time that we are living in now is God's patience allowing some to come to repentance and receive the reward that is clearly explained in the last two chapters of the Revelation. Now, because scientist tell us that all of that is just impossible, men believe them.

No science just tells them your interpretation of the days of Genesis didn't happen. Science doesn't tell us God couldn't build a cubic golden city and land it on earth. He certainly could, but that isn't what the passage is about. The city is a picture of the church the bride of the lamb (another metaphor). What the passage shows us is how literalism stops you from even beginning to understand the rich imagery there is in the bible.

And so the question again becomes, will we believe God or man? And if we choose to believe man despite God's clear explanation, are we then really believers?

We certainly shouldn't believe men's interpretation of scripture when they show us that cannot understand the metaphors and imagery God uses to speak to us.

If we are believers, then we believe that God has always told us the truth. We believe that He created this realm of existence and that even though man sinned, He loved us so much that He sent His Son into the world to save those who would turn back to Him in belief. Some will say, well all you really have to believe is that Jesus died for our sins. I'm not convinced that that's the truth. Jesus said, "Believe in God, believe also, also, not or, but also believe in me.

Believing in Jesus didn't mean taking everything he said literally, did it? In fact for the disciples believing Jesus meant understanding the truth he spoke in parable and metaphor too. Why would believing in the Father be any different? You should have read the next two verses.

John 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

If Jesus is supposed to show us what God the Father is like, how can a disciple of Jesus keep on thinking God was a literalist, that when God spoke truth it was always spoken literally?

So, surely each man must make up his own mind as to what he is going to believe, and for this man, I'm believing every jot and tittle of God's word. I believe that at some point in His time He merely spoke words and suddenly the entire heavens were created and filled with stars and other heavenly bodies. He's just that powerful and wise. He didn't need or use some amoeba like creature to become something else and then something else, etc, until one day a man came out of the copulation of two other creatures. No! He formed out of the dust of the ground in a mere moment a form that looks just like you and me in physical nature and breathed into that creature the breath of life and instantly there was a man living upon the earth. I'm sorry friend, and I completely understand that you don't see it this way, but I'm solidly convicted that that is what God did. But again, the question comes back to what God sees as 'believing' in Him.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

What does believing someone mean when they speak in metaphor? Does it mean taking the metaphor literally, or trying to understand what the metaphor meant? Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Does believing God mean we deny human reproductive biology and insist God made each of us from clay he way you think God made Adam? Or if we can believe God, understanding the potter description is metaphor, why is the only way to understand Genesis taking the potter imagery literally?

 

[1robin]

Here is one that I am not claiming is the best or absolute proof but it is one that seems simple and I would be interested in hearing more about.

DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.


Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"2
Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the insides of a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't empirical science all about observation? Furthermore, Morell reported, "Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA."
However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago.3 The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.

James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, M.S.

This seems fairly straight forward.

 

[philadiddle]

1robin,

It seems you have a lot to respond to now from different people. Hopefully you will still have time to respond to post #37. It was the argument you thought was worth bringing up first so I would be interested to hear how you defend it.

Thanks.

 

[1robin]

I know thisis too much stuff but being the source is a phd with a masters and two bachelors in fields from Computer science to nurseing, and is a contributing editor of several technical publications. Even the Phd engineer I work for thinks he is a genius. I figured I would throw this in the mix. I don't understand some of it but I thought some of you might find it interesting. However my post previous to this contains the one argument that I am most interested in.



Age of the earth:
(1) James Watt and Mr Newcomb (Inventors of Steam Power and the science of
Thermodynamics) estimated the earth age based upon thermal decay which is
how we determine about all of our heat processes and adding an error factor
of 2 to the calculation giving an older age the earth still falls less than
10,000 years old.
(2) NASA has repeated the data sets for this calculation at least 6 times.
Always it comes in the same numbers.
(3) The errors are assumed to be atomic energy allowing a longer life
span.... (excuses excuses)
(4) If atomic energy is allowed into the equation giving atomic decay you
run into several problems
-- Problem 1. There is insufficient atomic material to make a significant
amount of energy.
-- Problem 2. The reverse in time calculations would burn the earth to a
plasma in about 1 Million years. -- Not a chance of the supposed age.
-- Problem 3. The excuse for the Sun being a fusion engine also related to
the age of the earth doesn't work because there has never been any evidence
of the fusion reaction on the sun... The Neutrinos are missing! Neutrinos
are the atomic reaction products fusion produces.
-- Problem 4. The breakdown products from Atomic Fission are missing.
-- Problem 5. Best estimates of the actual atomic Fission decay indicate
that it is insignificant to the equation.
(5) Delta systems of rivers are not big enough. The Mississippi River Delta
is considered to be the oldest river delta on earth. It is estimated at 185
million years old and contains dinosaur bones and such indicating it was a
life location for such animals. The problem is that a river delta is a
clock you cannot fool. The Erosion of the delta is currently suppressed by
dams etc to what is probably substantially less than the natural levels. At
the current erosion rate the delta would fill all the way from 60 miles
north of Cairo, Il, to the sea and all undersea areas of the delta and from
the Pearl River in Mississippi to the Sabine River in Texas (The extent of
the Delta fill) in just 4300 years. Even giving this an error factor of
100 in favor of extreme age this would be 4.3 million years. ==> This
supposition fails obviously and catastrophically for the believers in long
age earth.
(6) You are excused from this equation on rivers by the claim of Subduction
in plate tectonics. This fails due to the fact that the Gulf of Mexico has
no such zones. Also it fails due to the fact that there is no evidence what
so ever world wide of Subduction. Subduction fails for the following
obvious reasons. Sea Floor rock is lighter than the continental base rock.
It would have to violate Archimedes Principal by which boats float to sink
below a continent. Also there is no evidence for such zones anyway. If you
look at the west coast of the USA and for that matter around the world in
the "zones of Subduction" as they are claimed you can see on Google Earth or
Google Maps (IE) the old river channels clear down to the sea floor with old
deltas related to them where water ran off the continents and filled up the
oceans. These would have been subducted under the continents if there was
Subduction going on.
(7) The existence of Calcium based sedimentary rock is inconsistent with the
processes claimed for their formation. Weathering of rock (volcanic) is
assumed to be the source of sedimentary rock with animal and plant material
added. Volcanic rock is largely silicate based rock. This gives no
calcium to the rock. The formation process is wrong.
(8) River systems worldwide have trivial delta systems to their "erosion"
base. The Grand Canyon for example is more than 10 times larger than the
delta content of the Colorado River. Counting the erosion effects claimed
for the Colorado river upstream of the Grand Canyon it misses by 100 times
or more.
(8) The earth is growing by 18 feet in diameter every year and this is
calculated into GPS and Very Long Baseline Array data for Geo-positioning
calculations. For the earth to get bigger like this isn't possible under
the Atomic Decay and Nebular Origin Hypothesis of the earth.
(9) The Solar Wind from the sun which by standard Rectilinear Equation
Physics does not behave correctly. The Solar wind should by standard
equations leave the sun the assumed energy source and decelerate going out.
In fact it accelerates going out. The velocity leaving the sun is typically
about 10,000m/sec (Speed of Light is 300,000m/sec) It often passes earth
going 75,000m/sec. It has been measured passing Saturn at 150,000m/sec.
This means that the cause of CME and the Solar wind is external charges to
the sun. The sun is not the source of energy of our solar system. The sun
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']is merely a body in the Solar System.[/FONT]

 

[1robin]

1robin,

It seems you have a lot to respond to now from different people. Hopefully you will still have time to respond to post #37. It was the argument you thought was worth bringing up first so I would be interested to hear how you defend it.

Thanks.

I am not qualified to defend #37. I never said I even believed that theory was true. Why would I accept the challengers conclusions even if I was interested in defending it. I am sure I could provide a scientist that would simply give equally speculative answers as to why the challenger is incorrect but I have no insentive to. It was given as an example of the hundreds of counterpoints against an old earth almost none of which I can personally defend, but the audacity to suggest there isn't anything of merit in any of them would be the height of arrogance. This topic is no threat to my faith either way, it however seems to be of vital interest to you guys. If so why don't you find these claims yourself (it's easy) and argue with the people that created them or have the education to defend them. By the way no-one has ever said and I am curious as to what qualifications that you have to critique other scientists claims. It doesn't matter I am just curious.

 

[philadiddle]

Here is one that I am not claiming is the best or absolute proof but it is one that seems simple and I would be interested in hearing more about.

DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.


Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"2
Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the insides of a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't empirical science all about observation? Furthermore, Morell reported, "Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA."
However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago.3 The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.

James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, M.S.

This seems fairly straight forward.

Hi,

I hope you still respond to post 37 first, but in the mean time here's a simple response to the claims that Mary found soft tissue. It actually looks at the source documents. It's only the first 6 minutes of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

 

[Papias]

Whew, a lot of statements, but here goes:

1robin wrote:

How do you come up with the idea that I use non scientists as evidence? There has only been one source identified and he had a scientific degree.

He had a B. S. The use of non-scientists such as that is common throughout pseudoscientific literature, such as creationist literature.

There are not millions of Christian scientists that support an old earth but it wouldn't matter if there were.

Of course there are. Plenty of data shows that practically all scientists support evolution, that there are tens of millions of scientists, and that a large proportion of Scientists are Christians. IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

I am not a presbyterian.
.... I don't know why my profile has that on it. I couldn't even figure out how to change it.

OK. Just access your control panel using the link on the top left. It's easy to remove your "faith" icon.

Most pastors are not as knowledgable about scientific matters as I am (but thats not saying much).

Right, that's why we rely on experts. As shown above, practically all the experts (including Christians) agree that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

If I were an evolutionist I would point out that you are arguing from popularity and thats incorrect.

No, I'm not. The argument from popularity fallacy is when one appeals to the opinions of everyone, including those ignorant of the evidence. It it not wrong to look at the consensus of the experts. In fact, it's something reasonable people do every day, such as by listening to doctors, lawyers, accountants, and so on, in their fields, as they should. I hope you don't also deny the existence of cancer, electrons, heliocentrism, and so on - those are all areas where we rely on experts.

The majority of the citizens of Germany supported Hitler.

Godwin.

However your numbers of scientists do carry a certain weight with me but not enough to make up my mind.

Do you apply the same approach when a doctor gives you a diagnosis, or uses a medical machine, or you get your children vaccinated, or when you put gasoline in your car, or a hundred other areas in our lives where we rely on experts?

One of the reasons I don't usually like debateing evolutionists is that it is impossible for them to accept any scientist that dissagrees. It's, they don't have a degree, or their degree isn't advanced enough, or it isn't in just the right specialty, or it's the wrong school, or he lacks field experience, or he is biased or ad infinitum....... It just becomes futile but I am planning on actually taking some time to select a few that I think are good and we will see.

It is quite reasonable to request that anyone used as an expert actually be an expert in their field (and creationists regularly use all kinds of quacks). Yes, let's see how this goes. In doing so, do you yet agree that practically all the experts in the field, including Christians, accept the fact of an old earth and evolution?

Papias

P. S. Philaddle, I think you link didn't come through.

 

[1robin]

Papias. I'm out of time again, but you made some interesting points here that I will look over when I can. I still am curious what yours and others credentials in these fields are.


Have a good weekend guys.

 

[Papias]

1robin-

I have no credentials in this field (my Ph.D is in a different scientific field). That's why I don't disagree with the experts. A rational person will go with the expert consensus (if there is one). In this case (the age of the earth and the fact of evolution), there is a clear scientific consensus that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that evolution happened.

If someone is going to disagree with the experts, they first must do the actual work of getting a Ph.D and then actual research in the field. Then they can disagree in scientific journals. Only after doing both of those is is appropriate for them to tell non-experts that the experts are wrong. I haven't done that in this field, and so I have no standing to disagree with the experts. One way in which it is easy to see that the creationists are quacks is that they disagree with the experts without first doing the actual work of understanding the evidence, as shown by first doing what I just described.

Credentials thus are only relevant if one is disagreeing with the consensus of the experts, which I am not doing.

Papias

 

[TasManOfGod]

1robin-

I have no credentials in this field (my Ph.D is in a different scientific field). That's why I don't disagree with the experts. A rational person will go with the expert consensus (if there is one). In this case (the age of the earth and the fact of evolution), there is a clear scientific consensus that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that evolution happened.

If someone is going to disagree with the experts, they first must do the actual work of getting a Ph.D and then actual research in the field. Then they can disagree in scientific journals. Only after doing both of those is is appropriate for them to tell non-experts that the experts are wrong. I haven't done that in this field, and so I have no standing to disagree with the experts. One way in which it is easy to see that the creationists are quacks is that they disagree with the experts without first doing the actual work of understanding the evidence, as shown by first doing what I just described.

Credentials thus are only relevant if one is disagreeing with the consensus of the experts, which I am not doing.

Papias

Perhaps the actual experts are the ones that are led by the true facts -The Word Of God

 

[NGC 6712]

One of the reasons I don't usually like debateing evolutionists is that it is impossible for them to accept any scientist that dissagrees. It's, they don't have a degree, or their degree isn't advanced enough, or it isn't in just the right specialty, or it's the wrong school, or he lacks field experience, or he is biased or ad infinitum....... It just becomes futile but I am planning on actually taking some time to select a few that I think are good and we will see.

That's because there are almost no working scientists who hold to Creationist views. The ones trotted out by the Creationist groups are either qualified in unrelated fields (often not true sciences by the way - like horticulture and agriculture or engineering) or they haven't worked as scientists is decades.

On top of that their numbers are in the few dozen as opposed to tens of thousands in the traditional sciences. Also, none of them ever seem to have actually been renowned in their fields even when they actually did science. It seems they become Born Again and then suddenly have a brain fart and forget how to do science or think.

When you see the mission statements of groups lik AIG you know the fix is in. They already know what they want - they'll try to shoehorn facts and whatever to try to match their preconceived notions.

 

[Keachian]

Perhaps the actual experts are the ones that are led by the true facts -The Word Of God

Um, let's see pretty much all the Theologians that I know their stance on this who have studied enough to be called experts in their fields also agree with the scientific consensus. The thing is that they've spent as much if not more time studying God's word, the cultures that God spoke through to get it and what not that they're quite happy to accept it, but in addition to that they have also looked into it and find that there isn't any contradiction between the two.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Um, let's see pretty much all the Theologians that I know their stance on this who have studied enough to be called experts in their fields also agree with the scientific consensus. The thing is that they've spent as much if not more time studying God's word, the cultures that God spoke through to get it and what not that they're quite happy to accept it, but in addition to that they have also looked into it and find that there isn't any contradiction between the two.

Perhaps you are mixing with the wrong crowd

 

[Keachian]

Perhaps you are mixing with the wrong crowd

I'd hardly call NT Wright, Alister McGrath, CS Lewis and John Walton to name a few the wrong crowd

 

[TasManOfGod]

Um, let's see pretty much all the Theologians that I know their stance on this who have studied enough to be called experts in their fields also agree with the scientific consensus.

I'd hardly call NT Wright, Alister McGrath, CS Lewis and John Walton to name a few the wrong crowd

I am having problems reconciling these statements Could you help me please . I have so far checked with N T Wright but cant see where he believes in evolution and billions year old earth