YECs, did the universe begin?

[philadiddle]

I am currently bogged down with troubleshooting an F-15 diagnostic system but I intend to answer you as soon as I can. I haven't researched the age of the earth in a while it will take a bit. If you wanted to debate the age of the earth (that's fine but) why didn't you or whoever made this thread say so upfront?

Topics go where they go, I didn't intend to debate the age of the earth but you brought up that there is lots of evidence for a young earth so I asked what it was. You seem very suspicious of a hidden agenda, sometimes conversations just go where they go.

 

[1robin]

Why would the initial conditions have to be knowable for us to know that the universe took 13.5 billion years to get to where it is now?.

I didn't say they would. I said I didn't have an opinion on the BIG BANG because I don't think think those conditions are knowable.

Like what? Please name your best one. .

Receding moon.
750 m.y.a. max
Oil pressures
5,000 - 10,000 years
The sun
1,000,000 years max
Helium in atsmosphere
1,750,000 years max
Short period comets
5,000 - 10,000 years
Earths magnetic field
10,000 years max
Unfossilized dinasaur bones
5,000 - 50,000 years
Carbon 14 in atmosphere
10,000 years max
Mitachondrial Eve
6,500 years
Population growth
10,000 years max
Mineral content in oceans
Various (mostly young) Ages
Dark matter and spiral galaxies
100 - 500 million years (max)
Helium and lead in zircons
6,000 years

When you finish chewing on these I have about 200-300 more. I will state up front that some Christian sites are known for wishful thinking and some of these may turn out to be inaccurate but the cumulative case deserves thought

I would also like an example of when the bible was right about science and scientists were wrong.

The one I can think of off the top of my head is (Historians) used to say that there was no such civilization as the hittites which the bible mentioned. Well now there are museums full of Hittite artifacts.

 

[philadiddle]

You didn't really make any arguments. Saying "The sun 1,000,000 years max" is about as good an argument as me saying "DNA proves evolution". Those are not arguments, they refer to an alleged argument that wasn't actually made. Pick one or two of these and explain in detail why they are evidence of a young earth. I'll skim over them anyways though.

Receding moon.

750 m.y.a. max

The linear equation that creationists use for this is not how orbits work. 2.45 billion years ago the moon was just 10% closer than it is now. (Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit)

Oil pressures

5,000 - 10,000 years

Source?

The sun

1,000,000 years max

There's not really enough description here to know what you are talking about.

Helium in atsmosphere

1,750,000 years max

Helium is used in several ways by creationists. Can you clarify which argument you are referring to?

Short period comets

5,000 - 10,000 years

What does the age of a comet have to do with the age of the earth?

Earths magnetic field

10,000 years max

In what way does it make the earth a max of 10,000 years?

Unfossilized dinasaur bones
5,000 - 50,000 years

Which dino bones have been found unfossilized?

Carbon 14 in atmosphere
10,000 years max

Seriously, these are so vague there's no way to respond to them. Is it the mere presence of C14 in the atmosphere that you have a problem with? The rate at which it builds up? The rate it decays? The rate it escapes?

Mitachondrial Eve

6,500 years

Do you have a source for that age? (This is actually on AiG's list of arguments creationists should avoid.)

Population growth

10,000 years max

How do you figure?

Mineral content in oceans

Various (mostly young) Ages
Dark matter and spiral galaxies
100 - 500 million years (max)

Huh? Please explain.

Helium and lead in zircons

6,000 years

This has been so thoroughly refuted that no creationist uses it anymore. It only floats around the web because of people who don't look into it. RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

 

[1robin]

You didn't really make any arguments. Saying "The sun 1,000,000 years max" is about as good an argument as me saying "DNA proves evolution". Those are not arguments, they refer to an alleged argument that wasn't actually made. Pick one or two of these and explain in detail why they are evidence of a young earth. I'll skim over them anyways though.


The linear equation that creationists use for this is not how orbits work. 2.45 billion years ago the moon was just 10% closer than it is now.
Source?

There's not really enough description here to know what you are talking about.

Helium is used in several ways by creationists. Can you clarify which argument you are referring to?

What does the age of a comet have to do with the age of the earth?

In what way does it make the earth a max of 10,000 years?


Which dino bones have been found unfossilized?

Seriously, these are so vague there's no way to respond to them. Is it the mere presence of C14 in the atmosphere that you have a problem with? The rate at which it builds up? The rate it decays? The rate it escapes?

Do you have a source for that age? (This is actually on AiG's list of arguments creationists should avoid.)

How do you figure?

Huh? Please explain.


This has been so thoroughly refuted that no creationist uses it anymore. It only floats around the web because of people who don't look into it.

I can understand and agree with your comments about wondering how some of them lead to the dates given. when I posted them they all had links giving extensive explanations, however as I am new the site wouldn't let me post links. In the interest of time I just gave the info above alone. I thought you would be very familiar with these and would know. I have extremely limited time to post . I will try to give some clearer examples tomorrow like I said I wasn't prepared for this topic that is why I kept asking if this is what you were driving at from the beginning.

God Bless

 

[philadiddle]

I can understand and agree with your comments about wondering how some of them lead to the dates given. when I posted them they all had links giving extensive explanations, however as I am new the site wouldn't let me post links. In the interest of time I just gave the info above alone. I thought you would be very familiar with these and would know. I have extremely limited time to post . I will try to give some clearer examples tomorrow like I said I wasn't prepared for this topic that is why I kept asking if this is what you were driving at from the beginning.

God Bless

No problem, I can wait till tomorrow. While I wasn't driving for this from the beginning I don't mind it at all.

 

[philadiddle]

I thought you would be very familiar with these and would know.

Just out of curiosity why would you have thought that? You are new here right? Or are you a sock puppet?

 

[1robin]

Just out of curiosity why would you have thought that? You are new here right? Or are you a sock puppet?

Why would you suggest I was a sock puppet (and for whom or what) from the statements I have made? I thought that you would be familiar with most arguments for a young Earth because I had assumed from the directions your posts have been in that you had a penchant for debateing this particular point. I will get back to the evidence shortly.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I am currently bogged down with troubleshooting an F-15 diagnostic system

Freaking sweet!

 

[1robin]

1.Efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere1,750 - 175,000 years12.Influx of meteoritic dust from spacetoo small to calculate13.Influx of radiocarbon to the earth system5,000 - 10,000 years14.Development of total human populationless than 4,000 years15.Influx of uranium to the ocean via rivers10,000 - 100,000 years16.Influx of sodium to the ocean via rivers260,000,000 years17.Influx of nickel to the ocean via rivers9,000 years18.Influx of magnesium to the ocean via rivers45,000,000 years19.Influx of silicon to the ocean via rivers8,000 years110.Influx of potassium to the ocean via rivers11,000,000 years111.Influx of copper to the ocean via rivers50,000 years 112.Influx of gold to the ocean via rivers560,000 years113.Influx of silver to the ocean via rivers2,100,000 years114.Influx of mercury to the ocean via rivers42,000 years115.Influx of lead to the ocean via rivers2,000 years116.Influx of tin to the ocean via rivers100,000 years117.Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers100 years118.Influx of carbonate to the ocean via rivers100,000 years219.Influx of sulphate to the ocean via rivers10,000,000 years 220.Influx of chlorine to the ocean via rivers164,000,000 years221.Influx of calcium to the ocean via rivers1,000,000 years222.Leaching of sodium from continents32,000,000 years223.Leaching of chlorine from continents1,000,000 years 224.Leaching of calcium from continents12,000,000 years225.Influx of sediment to the ocean via rivers30,000,000 years326.Erosion of sediment from continents14,000,000 years327.Decay of earth's magnetic field10,000 years428.Efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure10,000 - 100,000 years529.Formation of radiogenic lead by neutron capturetoo small to measure530.Formation of radiogenic strontium by neutron capturetoo small to measure531.Decay of natural remanent paleomagnetism100,000 years532.Decay of C- 14 in pre-Cambrian wood4,000 years533.Decay of uranium with initial leadtoo small to measure634.Decay of potassium with entrapped argontoo small to measure635.Influx of juvenile water to oceans340,000,000 years736.Influx of magma from mantle to form crust500,000,000 years737.Growth of active coral reefs10,000 years738.Growth of oldest living part of biosphere5,000 years739.Origin of human civilizations5,000 years740.Formation of river deltas5,000 years841.Submarine oil seepage into oceans50,000,000 years942.Decay of natural plutonium80,000,000 years1043.Decay of lines of galaxies10,000,000 years1144.Expanding interstellar gas60,000,000 years1245.Formation of Carbon 14 on meteorites100,000 years1346.Decay of short-period comets10,000 years1447.Decay of long-period comets1,000,000 years1548.Influx of small particles to the sun83,000 years1549.Maximum life of meteor showers5,000,000 years1550.Accumulation of dust on the moon200,000 years1551.Deceleration of earth by tidal friction500,000,000 years1652.Cooling of earth by heat efflux24,000,000 years1653.Accumulation of calcareous ooze on sea floor5,000,000 years1754.Influx of lithium into ocean via rivers20,000,000 years1855.Influx of titanium into ocean via rivers160 years1856.Influx of chromium into ocean via rivers350 years1857.Influx of manganese into ocean via rivers1,400 years1858.Influx of iron into ocean via rivers140 years1859.Influx of cobalt into ocean via rivers18,000 years1860.Influx of zinc into ocean via rivers180,000 years1861.Influx of rubidium into ocean via rivers270,000 years1862.Influx of strontium into ocean via rivers19,000,000 years1863.Influx of bismuth into ocean via rivers45,000 years1864.Influx of thorium into ocean via rivers350 years1865.Influx of antimony into ocean via rivers350,000 years1866.Influx of tungsten into ocean via rivers1,000 years1867.Influx of barium into ocean via rivers84,000 years1868.Influx of molybdenum into ocean via rivers500,000 years1869.Influx of bicarbonate into ocean via rivers700,000 years1970.Escape of high-velocity stars from globular clusters40,000 years2071.Rotation of spiral galaxies200,000,000 years2072.Accumulation of peat in peat bogs8,000 years2173.Accumulation of sediments for sedimentary rocks20,000 years2174.Lithification of sediments to form sedimentary rocks20,000 years2175.Instability of rings of Saturn1,000,000 years1576.Escape of methane from Titan20,000,000 years15

Here are some more possible indications for a young earth it is all I had a chance to do today. When you consider this is only one list of many, even if 50% could be ruled out then the volume of what's left would at the very least justify an open mind to the possability. Try present-truth.org/3truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution for some of the explanations you asked about. I hope that address works. I still can't post links but hopefully that will get you close.
Talk at you later,

 

[philadiddle]

That's quite the impenetrable wall of text. Again, you aren't presenting any arguments here. This is the same as your last list. Simply saying "Influx of manganese into ocean via rivers1,400 years" in the middle of a wall of text isn't an argument. You are trying to overwhelm me by posting more than I could possibly respond to. It's a cheap tactic that won't work around here.

Pick one or two, explain in detail why they limit the age of the earth, and then we can discuss them. It's important that you pick one that you feel you can defend. I don't want to spend time refuting one and you just say "I'm not familiar with that so let's move on."

Also your website doesn't seem to work.

Thanks.

 

[1robin]

That's quite the impenetrable wall of text. Again, you aren't presenting any arguments here. This is the same as your last list. Simply saying "Influx of manganese into ocean via rivers1,400 years" in the middle of a wall of text isn't an argument. You are trying to overwhelm me by posting more than I could possibly respond to. It's a cheap tactic that won't work around here.

Pick one or two, explain in detail why they limit the age of the earth, and then we can discuss them. It's important that you pick one that you feel you can defend. I don't want to spend time refuting one and you just say "I'm not familiar with that so let's move on."

Also your website doesn't seem to work.

Thanks.

As I thought I had stated I am not attempting to argue to prove a young Earth. 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.
Please do not label me as using evolutionists tactics (too much info) as I don't care enough to bother with tricks. How can I be trying to debate this subject when I have no firm opinion. About the website, I think I pointed out it was not a link (as being new I am not allowed to post them). I was trying to give you enough info to search with but maybe I failed. I don't know why I would pick one and defend it as I am not makeing a conclusive case for a young earth, but if I did I would just refer you to sites where they are discussed because I don't have the capacity to do the research. These kind of claims boil down to who are you going to believe as we have to take both sides scientists word or not.
1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

 

[philadiddle]

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.

But you didn't post any arguments. Simply putting up 3 or 5 words and then a max time isn't an argument. I have asked you several times to pick one or two and explain the arguments behind them. Since you still haven't done that I assume you know that none of those have actual arguments behind them. You should stop pretending there are hundreds of arguments if you can't even produce one.

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

You posted: Since you still haven't done that I assume you know that none of those have actual arguments behind them.

Be careful friend, you know the old adage concerning those who 'assume'. I'm curious, why you don't do your own research. As robin has posted, all of this is available to anyone who cares to find out, on the internet. Ahh, but that takes away the glory of the fight, perhaps?

You then posted: You should stop pretending there are hundreds of arguments if you can't even produce one.

You really should spend less time drumming in useless circles and using your gray matter for gaining more wisdom. He has produced dozens of examples, but you are too overwhelmed by such evidence to do the research and check them out. It seems to me that what you want is a real brawl. Let's get down and dirty, face to face and tooth for tooth. Keep drumming those circles, just be careful you don't find yourself, in the end, on the wrong side of this wall:

He said to me: "It is done.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 I am the Alpha and the Omega,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without costhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomeshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liarshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-21--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-22 This is the second death." One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagueshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-24 came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-25 the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me awayhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-26 in the Spirithttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-27 to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-29 and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-30 clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-32 and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations,http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-34 and on them were the names of the twelve apostleshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-35 of the Lamb. The angel who talked with me had a measuring rodhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-36 of gold to measure the city, its gateshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/21.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-37 and its walls.

Who are the 'unbelieving'? Is it just those who don't believe that Jesus is who he says that he is? Or could it possibly be those who don't believe what God has caused to be written to His created in all things? Hmmm. What does God intend for us to understand as 'unbelieving', I think it should be a matter of grave concern for one who seeks after God, for the nearly last words of God to His created explain that they will not enter into the city of God.

 

[1robin]

But you didn't post any arguments. Simply putting up 3 or 5 words and then a max time isn't an argument. I have asked you several times to pick one or two and explain the arguments behind them. Since you still haven't done that I assume you know that none of those have actual arguments behind them. You should stop pretending there are hundreds of arguments if you can't even produce one.

Ok I will give you what you have been wanting since the beginning of this thread. However it will all come down to whatever scientist you produce vs. whatever one I produce and that will result in which one I or you find credible. (Which doesn't prove anything)
Not that it makes a big difference but what are your credentials in these subjects?
How divergent are these two views (creation and a young earth versus evolution and an old earth)? The Bible places the Beginning at about 6,000 years ago. Many evolutionists put the beginning of earth at about 4 l/2 billion years ago. Dennis Peterson attempts to help us understand the degree of difference in these two choices of faith:
"One way to visualize the extremes of our choices is to equate one year to the thinness of one page from a typical Bible. If you were to stack up several Bibles to a height about equal with your knee, you'd have about 6,000 pages before you.
Now how many Bibles would you have to stack up to make four and a half billion pages?
The stack would reach at least a hundred and fourteen miles high into the stratosphere.
So, you're standing there between your two stacks, and you are supposed to choose which one to believe in. Why is it you are made to feel rather sheepish to admit that you lean toward the Biblical stack of about 6,000 years? Or why is it that you start to arrogantly ridicule anyone who would dare to not agree with your proud billions?" (My emphasis)
Petersen lists 35 or 40 evidences for a young earth. These are scientific reasons to believe the universe to be quite young -- on the order of several thousand rather than several billion years. Petersen states:
"Scientists are aware of over 70 methods that can give us ideas of Earth's age. We could call these "GEOLOGIC CLOCKS." All of them are based on the obvious reality that natural processes occurring steadily through time produce cumulative and often measurable results. Most of these "clocks" give a relatively young age for the Earth. Only a few of them yield a conclusion of billions of years. Those few are loudly publicized to support the commonly held theory of gradualism." The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them. This is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. Our sun is estimated to suck in about 100,000 tons of cosmic dust every day. An old sun should have "pulled in" and destroyed all the particles in our solar system. Yet, our solar system is full of these particles! The Poynting-Robertson effect would demand a sun and solar system of less than 10,000 years of age. Petersen states:
"All stars have a gravitational field and pull in particles like gas, dust and meteors within their range. Stars radiating energy 100,000 times faster than our sun have a spiraling effect, pulling things in all the faster. The unusual thing is that O and B stars are observed to have huge dust clouds surrounding them. If they were very old at all, every particle in close range would have been pulled in by now." Two types of stars have huge dust clouds and, hence, must be quite young. No one has ever seen the birth of a new star, although some scientists have postulated through computer simulations and theoretical mathematics that as many as three new stars should form every year. No scientist ever has, nor ever will see a star form because the Creator created all of His stars on the fourth day of the creation week (Genesis 1:14-19). In the spring of 1992 some scientists claimed to be observing a star form out in the stellar heavens. They used various mathematical equations to come to their conclusion. However, if their conclusion is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says, then their conclusion is wrong. So we sit back and wait a few months or years and finally some scientist will sheepishly admit "We are sorry folks, all our meticulously produced evidence led us to believe a new star was forming, but we now realize that we made a mistake. We will keep looking for a new star to form and we will let you know as soon as we find it." God created His last star out of nothing on the fourth day of the creation week!
Astronomers may see stars die since entropy and sin entered the universe, but no star-birth is possible; God completed His creation of the universe and rested on the seventh day. If a star (O and B) and/or a solar system (ours) have significant cosmic dust and meteoroids in the space around it, it cannot be billions of years old.
I can provide as many of these as you can stand but I am not defending a young universe only the possibility (based on the fact that many qualified scientists say there is sufficient reason, not necessarily on a particular line of reasoning). I will give you the benefit of the doubt seem somewhat civil, however I usually find that evolutionists simply look for an opportunity to exhibit their self-supposed intellect while ridiculing any theory that they don't agree with. Most times they wind up getting 3 or 4 more fellow evolutionists and the discussing becomes adversarial, unpleasant, unproductive, and a waste of my time. I will assume none of these things in this case and wait and see.
The location where I got this has many more and can probably be found by searching THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST.

 

[Assyrian]

hi phil,

You posted: Since you still haven't done that I assume you know that none of those have actual arguments behind them.

Be careful friend, you know the old adage concerning those who 'assume'. I'm curious, why you don't do your own research. As robin has posted, all of this is available to anyone who cares to find out, on the internet. Ahh, but that takes away the glory of the fight, perhaps?

You then posted: You should stop pretending there are hundreds of arguments if you can't even produce one.

You really should spend less time drumming in useless circles and using your gray matter for gaining more wisdom. He has produced dozens of examples, but you are too overwhelmed by such evidence to do the research and check them out. It seems to me that what you want is a real brawl. Let's get down and dirty, face to face and tooth for tooth.

That's funny I got the impression phil wanted robin to examine the evidence himself so they could discuss it. Doesn't it give creationism a better chance if robin picks the best argument rather than phil maybe choosing a weak one. Unless of course all the creationist arguments are bad.

Which is why creationism ends up twisting scripture to try to keep people in line with fear and condemnation.

Keep drumming those circles, just be careful you don't find yourself, in the end, on the wrong side of this wall:

He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls.

Who are the 'unbelieving'? Is it just those who don't believe that Jesus is who he says that he is? Or could it possibly be those who don't believe what God has caused to be written to His created in all things? Hmmm. What does God intend for us to understand as 'unbelieving', I think it should be a matter of grave concern for one who seeks after God, for the nearly last words of God to His created explain that they will not enter into the city of God.

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? The passage describes the church, you, me and all the believers who have ever lived, and says we are a city coming down and landing on earth, and that the city is bride going to marry a sheep. And you somehow imagine this is a passage condemning everyone who isn't a literalist?

 

[1robin]

That's funny I got the impression phil wanted robin to examine the evidence himself so they could discuss it. Doesn't it give creationism a better chance if robin picks the best argument rather than phil maybe choosing a weak one. Unless of course all the creationist arguments are bad.

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.

Which is why creationism ends up twisting scripture to try to keep people in line with fear and condemnation.

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

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? The passage describes the church, you, me and all the believers who have ever lived, and says we are a city coming down and landing on earth, and that the city is bride going to marry a sheep. And you somehow imagine this is a passage condemning everyone who isn't a literalist?

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.

 

[philadiddle]

Given the comment you made about how you find people to be insulting while talking about his, I should note that I am quite blunt about some things in this post, but I'm not intending to be insulting to you in any way.

Petersen lists 35 or 40 evidences for a young earth. These are scientific reasons to believe the universe to be quite young -- on the order of several thousand rather than several billion years.

Petersen has a B.S. so he knows some science. He went on to get a master of arts, that's arts, not astro physics. He further went on to take theology courses and become a pastor, that's "pastor", not astro physicist. In fact, he has never spent any time in an observatory dealing with real data in a practical setting. It's too bad your best source isn't even a scientist, but if this is the best you've got I will look at the argument itself instead of focusing on how Petersen doesn't actually work with or study this kind of data.

Petersen states:

"The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them. This is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. Our sun is estimated to suck in about 100,000 tons of cosmic dust every day. An old sun should have "pulled in" and destroyed all the particles in our solar system. Yet, our solar system is full of these particles! The Poynting-Robertson effect would demand a sun and solar system of less than 10,000 years of age.Petersen states:
"All stars have a gravitational field and pull in particles like gas, dust and meteors within their range. Stars radiating energy 100,000 times faster than our sun have a spiraling effect, pulling things in all the faster. The unusual thing is that O and B stars are observed to have huge dust clouds surrounding them. If they were very old at all, every particle in close range would have been pulled in by now."

I found this on the web, I guess I was copying your link wrong before : Chapter 10: Earth, Young or Old - Give Me Facts, Not Assumptions

I don't see any scientific work done here. What is his source and calculation for 100,000 tons being pulled in? How much dust could there have been to begin with? How much is left? What about solar winds that push dust away? What about influence from other stars?

Like I said earlier Petersen isn't a scientist and obviously has no experience in this field. Let's look at a paper done on the Poynting-Robertson effect done by a real astro-physicist posted on the Harvard website:

1950ApJ...111..134W Page 134

In this eight page article he actually makes calculations based on observed data, and takes the time to explain it. This way it can be reviewed, criticized, and corrected if needed. The information is available for anyone, even Petersen, to criticize.

In the final paragraph it says that it can take up to 10^16 years for a body to spiral into the nucleus (which is 10,000,000,000,000,000) and it can even happen up to 100 times as fast as that, which is 100,000,000,000,000 years.

Now, you may think this is about who decides to trust what source. It isn't about that at all, it's about objectively weighing the evidence. Your pastor did not provide any evidence, whereas the astrophysicists I referred to did provide specific evidence with calculations that can be analyzed. The scientists that wrote the paper work in the field where getting results that are torn apart will result in them losing their jobs. A pastor designing an apologetics course can be wrong about everything and it won't actually make a difference.

I do not choose to listen to scientists because I like them better or because I arbitrarily decided to trust them over your sources, I listen to them because they have the objective evidence. It's the evidence that speaks to me.

No one has ever seen the birth of a new star, although some scientists have postulated through computer simulations and theoretical mathematics that as many as three new stars should form every year. No scientist ever has, nor ever will see a star form because the Creator created all of His stars on the fourth day of the creation week (Genesis 1:14-19).

I've never understood this argument. Do you know how long it takes a nebula to produce a star? What do you expect us to observe?

We have observed the different stages of star formation taking place. There are many resources online to show you how nebulas act like star nurseries and we have observed the different stages of stars forming within them, although it takes too long for us to have observed the entire process from start to finish.

Here's a good place to start: Star formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

Given the comment you made about how you find people to be insulting while talking about his, I should note that I am quite blunt about some things in this post, but I'm not intending to be insulting to you in any way.

Petersen has a B.S. so he knows some science. He went on to get a master of arts, that's arts, not astro physics. He further went on to take theology courses and become a pastor, that's "pastor", not astro physicist. In fact, he has never spent any time in an observatory dealing with real data in a practical setting. It's too bad your best source isn't even a scientist, but if this is the best you've got I will look at the argument itself instead of focusing on how Petersen doesn't actually work with or study this kind of data.


I found this on the web, I guess I was copying your link wrong before :

I don't see any scientific work done here. What is his source and calculation for 100,000 tons being pulled in? How much dust could there have been to begin with? How much is left? What about solar winds that push dust away? What about influence from other stars?

Like I said earlier Petersen isn't a scientist and obviously has no experience in this field. Let's look at a paper done on the Poynting-Robertson effect done by a real astro-physicist posted on the Harvard website:


In this eight page article he actually makes calculations based on observed data, and takes the time to explain it. This way it can be reviewed, criticized, and corrected if needed. The information is available for anyone, even Petersen, to criticize.

In the final paragraph it says that it can take up to 10^16 years for a body to spiral into the nucleus (which is 10,000,000,000,000,000) and it can even happen up to 100 times as fast as that, which is 100,000,000,000,000 years.

Now, you may think this is about who decides to trust what source. It isn't about that at all, it's about objectively weighing the evidence. Your pastor did not provide any evidence, whereas the astrophysicists I referred to did provide specific evidence with calculations that can be analyzed. The scientists that wrote the paper work in the field where getting results that are torn apart will result in them losing their jobs. A pastor designing an apologetics course can be wrong about everything and it won't actually make a difference.

I do not choose to listen to scientists because I like them better or because I arbitrarily decided to trust them over your sources, I listen to them because they have the objective evidence. It's the evidence that speaks to me.

I've never understood this argument. Do you know how long it takes a nebula to produce a star? What do you expect us to observe?

We have observed the different stages of star formation taking place. There are many resources online to show you how nebulas act like star nurseries and we have observed the different stages of stars forming within them, although it takes too long for us to have observed the entire process from start to finish.

Here's a good place to start:

I was wondering where you went. The reason I have went with your suggestions so far is that you do seem to be more civil than most anti-creationists. So I will continue but I am out of time, so I will re-read and address your points tomorrow God willing.

 

[Papias]

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:

The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA):

1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.
2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.
3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in public schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.
4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

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

Papias

 

[miamited]

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. 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, 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. 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.

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? 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.

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.

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.

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. 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?

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.

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