Young earth creationism & 40000 year old frozen wolf

[sdowney717]

If there is supposed to be a Hebrew word for sphere, it does not exist in the scriptures themselves, probably because the term did not come about until sometime after the scriptures were written, compiled, and canonized, nevertheless, Isaiah’s description of the earth is just as applicable to a sphere as it is to a circle. They both possess the same basic shape.

Not really they dont, a sphere is a ball, a circle is a slice of ball and flat. God sitting above the circle of the earth shows He is above the round but also flattish earth. It is not totally flat as it has mountains, valleys. The earth came up out of the waters of the great deep, before the earth appeared, we have the Spirit of God moving over the waters of the deep. God created a separation in the midst of the waters, creating a firmament between the waters, and one side He called Heaven. So then comes about the great Deep of the waters below the Heavens, and from that the earth arose out of the waters of the deep. And so then this other side of heaven, which is under the firmament of heaven is called earth.
You will find many scriptures talking of heaven and earth, but you wont hear of heaven and mars, etc..

And in this Genesis and Peter agree.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

2 Peter 3:4-6 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

so scripturally, under the earth is the waters of the great deep.

 

[Butch5]

Everyone will not admit anything like that especially since you are not even bothering to try giving any peer reviewed evidence.

As I said, I'm not debating the Young Earth creation. This thread isn't about that. However, if you're following this thread you'd see that your arguments use assumptions which means they're not facts.

If you were serious about this study you'd already be aware of the evidence you seek. Anyone who studies a subject seriously looks for all of the available evidence and weighs it accordingly. If you're not aware of any of the evidence for a young earth creation then I'll have to assume you haven't engaged in serious study.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Not really they dont, a sphere is a ball, a circle is a slice of ball and flat. God sitting above the circle of the earth shows He is above the round but also flattish earth. It is not totally flat as it has mountains, valleys. The earth came up out of the waters of the great deep, before the earth appeared, we have the Spirit of God moving over the waters of the deep. God created a separation in the midst of the waters, creating a firmament between the waters, and one side He called Heaven. So then comes about the great Deep of the waters below the Heavens, and from that the earth arose out of the waters of the deep. And so then this other side of heaven, which is under the firmament of heaven is called earth.
You will find many scriptures talking of heaven and earth, but you wont hear of heaven and mars, etc..

And in this Genesis and Peter agree.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

2 Peter 3:4-6 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

so scripturally, under the earth is the waters of the great deep.

“Not really they dont, a sphere is a ball, a circle is a slice of ball and flat. God sitting above the circle of the earth shows He is above the round but also flattish earth.”


That is nothing more than a semantical argument invented by the flat-earthites and exploited by unbelieving skeptics. Isaiah was clearly shown that the earth was of a circular shape which a sphere possesses. An object need not be flat in order to be circular in shape.


“…so scripturally, under the earth is the waters of the great deep.”


The scriptures teaches that the earth was formed from the waters of the deep, but doesn’t say anything about the earth hovering over any water. In fact, the earth is suspended over nothing as written in the book of Job, (Job 26:7) millennia before NASA confirmed it.

 

[mcarans]

But, they're still assumptions. That's the point. They're not facts. Any assumption can be wrong. That's where the problem is. This stuff is stated as fact. 'Scientists find 40,000 year old wolf head'. They don't say, we think this head is about 40,000 years old according to our best estimates. They state it as fact. This is the problem when people use faith vs. science arguments. The impression given is that science is hard cold irrefutable facts and faith is, well, just someone's belief. This is how it's argued. However, when we look closely we see that there are in fact assumptions made in the dating methods and other areas. So, it's not really hard cold irrefutable facts that the science side is arguing with. It is in essence faith.

Firstly what I posted is a newspaper report about what the scientists found, not the scientific write up which I imagine will contain date ranges with confidence levels. Secondly, even the article says "The severed head of a wolf that died *about* 40,000 years ago"

If you define faith the way you've defined it, then everything is a matter of faith. If I turn on my kettle, I have faith that it will boil the water. It's not a fact that it will. The electricity might go off or the kettle might break down suddenly. It is a matter of faith that I assume it will boil the water by your definition.

 

[sdowney717]

“Not really they dont, a sphere is a ball, a circle is a slice of ball and flat. God sitting above the circle of the earth shows He is above the round but also flattish earth.”


That is nothing more than a semantical argument invented by the flat-earthites and exploited by unbelieving skeptics. Isaiah was clearly shown that the earth was of a circular shape which a sphere possesses. An object need not be flat in order to be circular in shape.


“…so scripturally, under the earth is the waters of the great deep.”


The scriptures teaches that the earth was formed from the waters of the deep, but doesn’t say anything about the earth hovering over any water. In fact, the earth is suspended over nothing as written in the book of Job, (Job 26:7) millennia before NASA confirmed it.

Good point in Job. Now regarding also some more in that chapter, verse 5.
Job 26 mentions again water, as in the dead in Sheol as being under the water, which makes sense as Hell or the place of the dead, Hades, is under the earth, meaning it must be some kind of water there.
It could be that the great deep of the waters which contains the earth as well is also itself hung upon nothing. Because in other scriptures are also mentioned the DEEP.
Perhaps their is a bubble of water inside of a vast nothingness and that water is our universe.
Or within the great DEEP, God formed a bubble of emptiness and created His universe within that, so it is then surrounded entirely by the waters of the great DEEP.
Because God also separated the waters when He created Heaven and Earth, you cant just pull out Job 26 by itself apart from Genesis creation event to describe our universe in truth not recognizing the other scriptures, actually that is how cults do things.

5 “The dead tremble,
Those under the waters and those inhabiting them.
6 Sheol is naked before Him,
And Destruction has no covering.
7 He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
8 He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds [a]are not broken under it.
9 He covers the face of His throne,
And spreads His cloud over it.
10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble,
And are astonished at His rebuke.
12 He stirs up the sea with His power,
And by His understanding He breaks up [c]the storm.
13 By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;
His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
14 Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,
And how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

 

[sdowney717]

The waters of the great Deep covered the earth during the flood.
In Heaven God constructed upper chambers of the heavens in the waters, those same waters which He separated during the creation week. Someway, somehow these waters are integral to understanding earth and heaven according to the scriptures, versus the mind of a man which believes in an almost entirely empty void of space. The earth also scripturally can not be moved, but it will be removed by God along with the heavens when it is destroyed and recreated at the end of the age. The flood covering the entire earth is hotly disputed and denied by science. Science believes only in slow changes over millions of years when most likely things happened very fast like the creation of the grand canyon after the flood, the waters broke out from being damned up and the flow formed the canyon by erosion very quickly in a matter of days. The entire earth is covered in layers of sedimentation which occurred during the days of the flood over a few months time. And they find shells on top of the mountains, put there by the flood waters.

Psalm 104 New King James Version (NKJV)
Praise to the Sovereign Lord for His Creation and Providence
104 Bless the Lord, O my soul!

O Lord my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters,
Who makes the clouds His chariot,
Who walks on the wings of the wind,
4 Who makes His angels spirits,
His ministers a flame of fire.

5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Good point in Job. Now regarding also some more in that chapter, verse 5.
Job 26 mentions again water, as in the dead in Sheol as being under the water, which makes sense as Hell or the place of the dead, Hades, is under the earth, meaning it must be some kind of water there.
It could be that the great deep of the waters which contains the earth as well is also itself hung upon nothing. Because in other scriptures are also mentioned the DEEP.
Perhaps their is a bubble of water inside of a vast nothingness and that water is our universe.
Or within the great DEEP, God formed a bubble of emptiness and created His universe within that, so it is then surrounded entirely by the waters of the great DEEP.
Because God also separated the waters when He created Heaven and Earth, you cant just pull out Job 26 by itself apart from Genesis creation event to describe our universe in truth not recognizing the other scriptures, actually that is how cults do things.

5 “The dead tremble,
Those under the waters and those inhabiting them.
6 Sheol is naked before Him,
And Destruction has no covering.
7 He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
8 He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds [a]are not broken under it.
9 He covers the face of His throne,
And spreads His cloud over it.
10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness.
11 The pillars of heaven tremble,
And are astonished at His rebuke.
12 He stirs up the sea with His power,
And by His understanding He breaks up [c]the storm.
13 By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;
His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
14 Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,
And how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

Job is speaking of various things that God has created and aspects of nature and therefore the passage you cited cannot be treated as speaking entirely of Sheol or what is there. As to what is there in Sheol is a study for another thread.

“Perhaps their is a bubble of water inside of a vast nothingness and that water is our universe.
Or within the great DEEP, God formed a bubble of emptiness and created His universe within that, so it is then surrounded entirely by the waters of the great DEEP.”

All we know is what the scriptures tell us about the founding material from which all things were created; that being water. I am willing to concede to this possibility: That the edge of our universe may be bordered by a barrier made of water. But for there to be a vast nothingness beyond that barrier? That is impossible to believe. It would make more sense to believe that if it were possible for one to pass through that watery barrier, that they would be stepping right into the direct presence of God, but if that were to happen, they might not survive the encounter in their mortal coil because no man in his present form can stand before God and live.

 

[Butch5]

Firstly what I posted is a newspaper report about what the scientists found, not the scientific write up which I imagine will contain date ranges with confidence levels. Secondly, even the article says "The severed head of a wolf that died *about* 40,000 years ago"

If you define faith the way you've defined it, then everything is a matter of faith. If I turn on my kettle, I have faith that it will boil the water. It's not a fact that it will. The electricity might go off or the kettle might break down suddenly. It is a matter of faith that I assume it will boil the water by your definition.

Well, your OP doesn't say "about". It states it as fact. However, even if they give date ranges, they still have made assumptions. Everything I said still applies. Look at the decay rates you mentioned. Scientists estimate the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. We know there have been ice ages. Scientists also say that there have been periods heat. Is it really logical to assume that the decay rates haven't changed in 4.5 billion years?

The definition of faith is to put complete trust in someone or something. So, yes, turning on your kettle would be an act of faith. If you thought it wouldn't heat the water you wouldn't bother.

 

[mcarans]

Well, your OP doesn't say "about". It states it as fact. However, even if they give date ranges, they still have made assumptions. Everything I said still applies. Look at the decay rates you mentioned. Scientists estimate the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. We know there have been ice ages. Scientists also say that there have been periods heat. Is it really logical to assume that the decay rates haven't changed in 4.5 billion years?

The definition of faith is to put complete trust in someone or something. So, yes, turning on your kettle would be an act of faith. If you thought it wouldn't heat the water you wouldn't bother.

The OP begins: "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." The word "about" is there.

Your life must be really full of acts of faith if even basic things like using the kettle qualify as acts of faith for you. Regardless, we can make the distinction between simple assumptions like decay rates remaining unchanged which can be tested in at least some limited fashion using experiments eg. https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html vs complex assumptions like God having created the universe 10000 years ago which cannot be tested in any kind of experiment.

 

[Butch5]

The OP begins: "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." The word "about" is there.

Your life must be really full of acts of faith if even basic things like using the kettle qualify as acts of faith for you. Regardless, we can make the distinction between simple assumptions like decay rates remaining unchanged which can be tested in at least some limited fashion using experiments eg. https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html vs complex assumptions like God having created the universe 10000 years ago which cannot be tested in any kind of experiment.

I must have missed the word about. Either way, the point is that this stuff is presented as fact when it's really not.

I'm not sure what you mean by simple versus complex assumptions, but, you can't go into a lab and test the decay rates 5000 years ago. You just can't. But the decay rates aren't the only assumptions. Even if they know the decay rate, they have to know how much of an element was present to begin with.

 

[goldenboy]

And now you have opened a Pandora' box with all the standard stuff:

a) "datation is unreliable because Mt. Hellens..." (nolidad)
b) "scientists are evil or demon possesed" (dad)

LOL, I can most definitely go along with 'scientists are evil'. Just look at the NASA or NOAA(??) report from last year saying that they falsified data about global warming/cooling/whatever to go along with the party line. NASA!!!!!! Sheesh! That's like Billy Graham saying that he was secretly a Moslem all of these years!

There is no end to wickedness, especially when 1. Grant money from the government is involved 2. Science v. religion comes up. Scientists generally only use standards that were given to them. These standards/units of measurement may be accurate, or not. In around 2005, I took a Public Health, or some such class, at the university. Scientists generally don't like being contradicted, like most people, so, when they say something, and are contradicted, they will have to dig their heels in and swear to what they have already said.
Of course, the "Gap Theory" may explain some 'scientific age' stuff. Depending if you want to go there or not. I believe that most scientists are generally incorrect, willfully or not.

At any rate: Note to self-do NOT open any more links that mention severed heads in the title!

 

[mcarans]

LOL, I can most definitely go along with 'scientists are evil'. Just look at the NASA or NOAA(??) report from last year saying that they falsified data about global warming/cooling/whatever to go along with the party line. NASA!!!!!! Sheesh! That's like Billy Graham saying that he was secretly a Moslem all of these years!

There is no end to wickedness, especially when 1. Grant money from the government is involved 2. Science v. religion comes up. Scientists generally only use standards that were given to them. These standards/units of measurement may be accurate, or not. In around 2005, I took a Public Health, or some such class, at the university. Scientists generally don't like being contradicted, like most people, so, when they say something, and are contradicted, they will have to dig their heels in and swear to what they have already said.
Of course, the "Gap Theory" may explain some 'scientific age' stuff. Depending if you want to go there or not. I believe that most scientists are generally incorrect, willfully or not.

At any rate: Note to self-do NOT open any more links that mention severed heads in the title!

If you think scientists are evil, why don't you give up all the products of science you rely on for your comfort and health as you wouldn't want to use the products of evil would you?

 

[goldenboy]

If you think scientists are evil, why don't you give up all the products of science you rely on for your comfort and health as you wouldn't want to use the products of evil would you?

A. If you think that scientists aren't evil, you need to read your Bible. "ALL have sinned..."
B. Just because scientists, all, are evil, doesn't mean that science is evil.
B.1. I never said that science was evil.
C. You need to go back and reread my post.
D. I'm not sensing any Biblical background in your posts. Be assured, if there is a conflict between the Bible and 'Science', the Bible will always be vindicated.
"...vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith..”1 Timothy 6:20–21
E. Per your final riposte, your conclusion is incorrect.

1 Corinthians 5:9-10
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

Knife and gunfight story-sorry, that's the way it goes!

 

[mcarans]

A. If you think that scientists aren't evil, you need to read your Bible. "ALL have sinned..."
B. Just because scientists, all, are evil, doesn't mean that science is evil.
B.1. I never said that science was evil.
C. You need to go back and reread my post.
D. I'm not sensing any Biblical background in your posts. Be assured, if there is a conflict between the Bible and 'Science', the Bible will always be vindicated.
"...vain babblings, and the oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith..”1 Timothy 6:20–21
E. Per your final riposte, your conclusion is incorrect.

1 Corinthians 5:9-10
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

Knife and gunfight story-sorry, that's the way it goes!

You said scientists are evil, yet science - the product of their work - is not evil. One piece of science was the analysis of the age of the frozen wolf's head dating it to about 40000 years ago.

 

[goldenboy]

You said scientists are evil, yet science - the product of their work - is not not evil. One piece of science was the analysis of the age of the frozen wolf's head dating it to about 40000 years ago.

Really, you DO need to go back and read what I wrote, both times.

 

[mcarans]

Really, you DO need to go back and read what I wrote, both times.

Typo in my previous reply. It was meant to be :
You said scientists are evil, yet science - the product of their work - is not evil. One piece of science was the analysis of the age of the frozen wolf's head dating it to about 40000 years ago.

 

[Yahkov]

I hold to the belief in a young earth. I don’t see any other way for comprehending a day as anything more than a literal 24 hour day. Especially when the Bible states that evening came and morning followed. If we are to redefine day, what does evening and morning mean then? Serious question.

I am inclined to believe the wolf’s head is not 40,000 years old. No matter what science says. I’d rather give Scripture the authority on this one. Comparing science with Scripture may be profitable in some regards, but not to the point where we’d give up the authority of Scripture. If we dig deeper than just this wolf’s head, there’s a lot of stuff in Scripture that isn’t possible based on our laws of science. The miracles of Jesus are a prime example.

But I also believe God created a mature earth. Within the six days, there were already trees and plants, even animals. What would carbon dating results be for animals who were formed from the dust of the earth, just like Adam was? I have no idea.

 

[kiwimac]

I hold to the belief in a young earth. I don’t see any other way for comprehending a day as anything more than a literal 24 hour day. Especially when the Bible states that evening came and morning followed. If we are to redefine day, what does evening and morning mean then? Serious question.

I am inclined to believe the wolf’s head is not 40,000 years old. No matter what science says. I’d rather give Scripture the authority on this one. Comparing science with Scripture may be profitable in some regards, but not to the point where we’d give up the authority of Scripture. If we dig deeper than just this wolf’s head, there’s a lot of stuff in Scripture that isn’t possible based on our laws of science. The miracles of Jesus are a prime example.

But I also believe God created a mature earth. Within the six days, there were already trees and plants, even animals. What would carbon dating results be for animals who were formed from the dust of the earth, just like Adam was? I have no idea.

Then I guess you'd be wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

"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

All past events are "Faith Based". Without a time-stamp, the age is a best guess.

 

[SkyWriting]

No matter what science says. I’d rather give Scripture the authority on this one.

Me too.

Deuteronomy 33:15 with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains ...
with the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains and
the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills


Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made ...
The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed-- but he marches
on forever. ... The ancient mountains were crumbled. The age-old hills collapsed.


Genesis 49:26 Your father's blessings are greater than the ...
Your father's blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.


Psalm 76:4 You are radiant with light, more majestic than ...
You are the radiant one. You are more majestic than the ancient mountains.