Given that Hebrew Scholars attest to the fact that the verbiage in Genesis is absolutely intended to indicate six solar days and God Himself said He created the heavens and earth in six days, I'll issue to you the same challenge. Provide passages from the Bible to support your claims. I don't mean verses out of context, I mean passages.Genesis is a complex bit of scripture which has hidden meanings etc. I am sure that its not to be taken absolutely literal. This is my own gut feeling.
The papers are most likely rejected because they don't provide adequate scientific evidence to support their claims. It would be more honest to make it clear that the proposals are faith claims rather than scientific hypotheses. Unfortunately YECs have opened the door to flat earthers claiming scientific validity for their ideas which also come from a particular reading of the Bible that treats it as a scientific treatise. If the Bible were meant to be treated that way, it's rather lacking in detail. If science was limited to the Bible, we'd have to live like the Amish (whose sincerity in eschewing modern inventions because of their faith I admire).
Given that Hebrew Scholars attest to the fact that the verbiage in Genesis is absolutely intended to indicate six solar days and God Himself said He created the heavens and earth in six days, I'll issue to you the same challenge. Provide passages from the Bible to support your claims. I don't mean verses out of context, I mean passages.
Flat earth websites list hundreds of supporting verses and have the same sort of scientific evidence as YECs. What makes you sure they are wrong? I'll bet it's the photos from space rather than Scripture.“The papers are most likely rejected because they don't provide adequate scientific evidence to support their claims.”
That is what the evolutionists will tell us. But rather than rely on their word, why don’t you take the time to read the YEC material for yourself and investigate the sources they provide for their claims?
“It would be more honest to make it clear that the proposals are faith claims rather than scientific hypotheses.”
When it gets right down to it, evolution is just as much of a faith claim as the claim that the earth was created in six days. We have never witnessed molecules becoming a man, at least in the manner evolution teaches, nor have we witnessed the earth being created in six days. Other than God Himself, the closest witness we would have to testify of that account would be Adam.
But no one has ever observed evolution in action. There is no written account of cells turning into plants, animals and man nor has anyone observed life coming about by random processes and there has been no observable account of the geologic features we see today forming over millions of years.
But the YEC’s have a written account of our origins. How that account was acquired by Moses to whom the authorship of that account is credited, whether by divine revelation or whether it was an account passed down from Adam to Moses, we do not know. But who is to say that God did not explain to someone at some point our origins and how He created everything that there is?
“Unfortunately YECs have opened the door to flat earthers claiming scientific validity for their ideas which also come from a particular reading of the Bible that treats it as a scientific treatise.”
YECs typically do not support the flat-earth doctrine and you would be surprised to know that the Bible teaches that the earth is round. (Is. 40:22) It is not the observable and testable science that is disputed but it is how we originated that is disputed. Both YECs and evolutionists observe the same things and the same data, and both sides will tell you why the evidence supports their side.
So you have a thousand year day followed by a thousand year night in which everything died. Right.One day to God can be a thousand years. Even a million years. Even a billion years!
So you have a thousand year day followed by a thousand year night in which everything died. Right.
A day is described as an evening and morning from the earth's perspective; one rotation of the planet. It is intended to interpreted as it was written.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Not millions of years. The Bible does not conform to evolution. With two conflicting versions, only one can be true. We accept the word of God, you reject it.
You won't find any Hebrew scholars who would agree with you, and you know as well as I do there is nothing in the Bible to support an old earth. I was taught the earth was old growing up. I've read the Bible from beginning to end and NOTHING hints at an old earth. You can't produce anything to validate your claim, so your opinion is of no value.No, you 'interpret' it incorrectly!
You won't find any Hebrew scholars who would agree with you, and you know as well as I do there is nothing in the Bible to support an old earth. I was taught the earth was old growing up. I've read the Bible from beginning to end and NOTHING hints at an old earth. You can't produce anything to validate your claim, so your opinion is of no value.
"The severed head of a wolf that died about 40,000 years ago has been found in Siberia, and because of the freezing conditions, the remains are so well preserved that the fur, teeth, brain and facial tissue are largely intact.
Pavel Yefimov, a local resident, discovered the head last summer on the banks of the Tirekhtyakh river close to the Arctic Circle in the region of Yakutia, according to the Siberian Times.
The head was handed to the Science Academy of Yakutia. Researchers there sent samples and measurement data abroad and with help from colleagues in Japan and Sweden determined its age as approximately 40,000 years, the news outlet said.
Footage provided to Reuters TV by the academy shows the head of an animal, visibly bigger than that of a modern wolf, covered with fur and with teeth visible. Its eyes are missing."
Young earth creationism says the world is in the order of 10000 years old. How does it account for a 40000 year old wolf's head?
Frozen wolf's head found in Siberia is 40,000 years old
Flat earth websites list hundreds of supporting verses and have the same sort of scientific evidence as YECs. What makes you sure they are wrong? I'll bet it's the photos from space rather than Scripture.
Have you actually read any technical scientific peer reviewed papers?I'm interested in any papers in peer reviewed scientific journals.
You won't find any Hebrew scholars who would agree with you, and you know as well as I do there is nothing in the Bible to support an old earth. I was taught the earth was old growing up. I've read the Bible from beginning to end and NOTHING hints at an old earth. You can't produce anything to validate your claim, so your opinion is of no value.
Carbon dating is a dating technique predicated upon three things:
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).
- The rate at which the unstable radioactive C-14 isotope decays into the stable non-radioactive N-14 isotope,
- The ratio of C-12 to C-14 found in a given specimen,
- And the ratio C-12 to C-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the specimen's death.
And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)
Carbon Dating
Absolutely no one knows what conditions were like back to the time of creation---it didn't even rain until the flood. And then afterwards, they still don't know what the conditions were. In a nutshell---carbon dating is only accurate to the known conditions which still means only about 6-10,000 years.
The conventional methods by which these alleged dates are assigned to these types of discoveries are untrustworthy because they are based on three basic assumptions that cannot be confirmed. The assumptions upon which they are based are:
1. Constant rate of decay.
2. No presence of daughter product alongside parent product.
(What is meant by parent and daughter product is one element produced from another. For example, C-14 from C-12 or Lead from Uranium. C-12 is a parent product and C-14 is the daughter product of C-12. Uranium is a parent product and lead is the daughter product of Uranium)
3. Closed system which is based on the assumption that the sample being dated was not contaminated by any external elements.
With organic material, which would include this wolf’s head, the rate of decay can slow or accelerate under certain conditions which makes C-14 dating under which this wolf’s head would have undergone unreliable.
Because the wolf’s head that was discovered was found under conditions that have kept it fairly intact and preserved, the rate of decay would have been very slow in comparison to other conditions which would have accelerated the rate of decay.
All that C-14 dating can really tell anyone for is the ratio of C-12 to C-14, but it can never really tell you how old something is because, again, the assumptions upon which the entire dating premise is founded cannot be confirmed. The same goes for radiometric dating as well.
For more information on why young earth creationists do not trust radiometric or carbon dating results, and not just from a theological perspective but even from a scientific perspective, visit the following:
The Institute For Creation Research (ICR) at https://www.icr.org
or Creation Ministries International at https://creation.com
Answers In Genesis and Creationwiki may also have information on why conventional dating methods cannot be trusted as well:
Answers In Genesis can be found at https://answersingenesis.org
and Creationwiki can be found at https://creationwiki.org
Creationism.org has list of other young earth creationist ministries that might also have some helpful information as well.
You guys have just scratched the surface of the problems with dating methods. Did good though. People put so much faith in the tabloid science media. It's pathetic.
You guys have just scratched the surface of the problems with dating methods. Did good though. People put so much faith in the tabloid science media. It's pathetic.
So you have a thousand year day followed by a thousand year night in which everything died. Right.
A day is described as an evening and morning from the earth's perspective; one rotation of the planet. It is intended to interpreted as it was written.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Not millions of years. The Bible does not conform to evolution. With two conflicting versions, only one can be true. We accept the word of God, you reject it.
Tabloid media science there too. Afraid you don't know anything about any of those things in the depth you need to, to be able to put your faith in them.Problems with carbon dating aside there is plenty of other science that proves the earth is old.
Age of the Earth from seasonal rings and layers.
Age of the Earth and solar system from radiometric dating
Age of galaxies from the travel time of light
Age of the universe from expansion
These are just a sample. Many different and complementary scientific measurements have established with near certainty that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Young earth creationism is just pure nonsense.
One day to God can be a thousand years. Even a million years. Even a billion years!
Tabloid media science there too. Afraid you don't know anything about any of those things in the depth you need to, to be able to put your faith in them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?