Should we believe in a young earth or our lying eyes?

Those who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old may be a little puzzled by the Greenland ice cores. At the link below, there is a description of these cores. In essence, a reliable record of more than 100,000 years can be seen before the cores become deformed and unreliable. Here is the link:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/depthage/countage.txt

In essence the annual rings from the cores have been counted by eyeball, back to about 110,000 years. I can imagine an ardent creationist might ask who we are to believe, the YEC version of the age of the earth, or our lying eyes? Naturally this evidence contradicts Setterfield's theory also.

Originally posted by Peter101:
Those who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old may be a little puzzled by the Greenland ice cores. At the link below, there is a description of these cores. In essence, a reliable record of more than 100,000 years can be seen before the cores become deformed and unreliable. Here is the link:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/depthage/countage.txt

In essence the annual rings from the cores have been counted by eyeball, back to about 110,000 years. I can imagine an ardent creationist might ask who we are to believe, the YEC version of the age of the earth, or our lying eyes? Naturally this evidence contradicts Setterfield's theory also. .

Click to expand...

But of course it does...

You are assuming that the weather patterns of today stretch back that long without major changes. Do you have any evidence for that? I have a hard time, personally, imagining that many years of year in and year out same-ness...

>>>>>>>>You are assuming that the weather patterns of today stretch back that long without major changes. Do you have any evidence for that? I have a hard time, personally, imagining that many years of year in and year out same-ness... <<<<<

The major seasonal changes that cause the annual layers to be clear, is simply the difference between summer and winter. There is reason to expect that this summer/winter difference is stable over thousands of years. Because of the tilt of the axis of the earth with respect to the sun, the sun shines more directly on the northern hemisphere in summer than it does in winter. A number of different techniques have been used to test the idea that this has been stable over at least the past 100,000 years.

Peter, the vast series of storms which would have been the results of
1. The Deluge
2. The earth axis tilt
3. The catastrophic division of the continents

would all have been enough to produce the layering we see in the ice packs in rather short order.

It all depends, really, on whether you accept man's limited (VERY limited) knowledge, or God's clear revelation to us. Your presuppositions will almost always determine your conclusions.

There are a few for whom that is not so, however. Are you willing to be one who, with open mind, simply looks at the evidence itself first, without forming conclusions as to its interpretations?

>>>>>>Peter, the vast series of storms which would have been the results of
1. The Deluge
2. The earth axis tilt
3. The catastrophic division of the continents<<<<

The tilt of the earth's axis is a permanent feature and explains our seasons. The other two you mention, even on the assumption that they happened, do not explain the regular layering of the ice core. For example, the layering in the ice from say 1950 to the present is known to be caused only by regular seasonal effects. Since there is no difference in layering from the last 50 years, as compared to the last 100,000 years, the best bet is that the layering is due to one and the cause during that vast span of time. There is no need to invoke speculative causes such as you have mentioned. In other words, common sense tells us that the annual cycle of cold and warmth, winter and summer has existed for at least 100,000 years, based on the ice cores. If you want to provide a different interpretation, it ought to make some sense and be a better explanation, rather than a flight of fancy.

The earth's axis tilt was NOT always the way it is today. A silent witness to that is that we have the only major moon that does not travel along the equatorial plane. All the others that travel at angles to the equatorial plane appear to be captured moons, such as those around Jupiter and Saturn. However there is more convincing evidence in this, and that is in ancient architecture. George Dodwell was the government astronomer of South Australia for many years preceding his death. His papers should be out this year. They chart the evidence from both astronomical and archaeological evidence regarding the fact that the earth's axis has tilted at least once within the memory of man. There is other evidence, not quite as strong, that there have been three times of axis tilt and that the last one, in 2345 BC was actually a movement back from a tilt that was more pronounced than what we see now.

Seasonal effects are recognized by several things, Peter: the degree of wetness of the snowpack (and therefore the thickness of that particular layer) and the different ratios of gases in the atmosphere at the time of the storm, among other things. Inclusions, such as ash, are signals of either giant fires or volcanic eruptions which wafted over -- that kind of thing.

However an axis tilt, a Deluge, etc. would indeed result in waves of storms and waves of atmospheric disturbances which would easily mimic what we associate with seasonal changes now.

Flights of fancy aside....

---it ought to make some sense and be a better explanation, rather than a flight of fancy.

Click to expand...

The word of God is a "flight of fancy"?

The tilt of the earth's axis is a permanent feature and explains our seasons.

Click to expand...

And just how do you prove that this has been constant from the creation? What creation? Why, the one mentioned in Genesis of course.

I certainly cannot PROVE that the flood had any effects on these parameters you depend on, but it sure seems likely.

Speculation on my part, but it could be that the earth was just one big land-mass & one ocean to begin with, & afterwards (took about a year for any land to appear for Noah to dis-embark) the earth as we now know it was in existence.

Maybe just the ole fundamentalist in me, but I'll choose the Word over science if there's a conflict, or just blame it on my lack of comprehension of the Word!!

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />---it ought to make some sense and be a better explanation, rather than a flight of fancy.

Click to expand...

The word of God is a "flight of fancy"?
</font>[/QUOTE]Its a flight of fancy to believe that movement of water on the earth's surface would be sufficient to cause the axis of the earth to shift. For all the vastness of the oceans, they are a very small part of the weight of the earth.

Maybe just the ole fundamentalist in me, but I'll choose the Word over science if there's a conflict, or just blame it on my lack of comprehension of the Word!!

Click to expand...

Actually, you only choose the Word of God's literal statements when think its possible for them to be true. You don't when you know its impossible for them to be true. For example, when Leviticus 11:23 states there are winged insects with four legs, you probably let that slide and go on to accept it to apply to the six legged insects that really exist. In this fashion you pass over the literal interpretation for some other kind of interpretation.

The difference is, some of us have come to realize in our own minds the earth is truly 4+ billion years old. This is established in our minds as much as the truth that all insects actually have six legs and there are no flying creatures with both wings and four legs.

Its not fair to change the rules when it comes to your own interpretations!

Originally posted by Helen:
The earth's axis tilt was NOT always the way it is today. A silent witness to that is that we have the only major moon that does not travel along the equatorial plane.

Click to expand...

Are you aware, Helen, that many astronomers assert it is this very feature of the moon in its orbit around us that has kept our axis tilt STABLE over the millions of years? The earth's tile would be stable for 10000 years without the moon, but not for millions of years, the time necessary to have a stable environment capable of evolving us. I thank God for this providential care on our behalf, even though you wouldn't think it necessary! And perhaps the fact that this little extra touch, unecessary for creationists, is in its own small way a small kind of evidence for evolution.

PS. The stability is caused by the moon casting the earth into a stable precession of the axis. It is a dynamic stability.

They may claim it, Paul, but when they have the other evidence against that, it will be interesting to see what they say then.

In addition, where on earth did you get the idea that the weight of water or something on one side of the world caused a tilt? I have never heard anyone propose that, actually. Did you misunderstand something somone else said?

And please don't bring up the canard about the people of the Bible not knowing insects had six legs. Don't you get tired of insulting them that way? Or insulting the millions of people through the millennia who have read that and actually DO understand what it is saying in the categorizations of living things?

And if you want 4 billion + years, fine. It's not true, but if that is what you want to believe, who's to stop you?

And please don't bring up the canard about the people of the Bible not knowing insects had six legs. Don't you get tired of insulting them that way? Or insulting the millions of people through the millennia who have read that and actually DO understand what it is saying in the categorizations of living things?

Click to expand...

the point Helen is that you do not take the literal word of the bible here - there are all sorts of logic backflips that you perform to explain it away - but you do not accept what is actually written on the page - why not?

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; However there is more convincing evidence in this, and that is in
ancient architecture. George Dodwell was the government astronomer of South Australia
for many years preceding his death. His papers should be out this year. They chart the
evidence from both astronomical and archaeological evidence regarding the fact that the
earth's axis has tilted at least once within the memory of man.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

But since his papers are not yet published and not yet subject to critical review, don't you agree that his ideas are at best speculative at this time? And by the way, since changing the earth's axis of rotation would require an enormous amount of energy, what mechanism does he propose for providing the energy? Is it a reasonable mechanism?

InHim, I have never claimed to take anything in the Bible 'literally' -- I don't know Hebrew or Greek and I don't have the original mss, and that is what that would take. However I do take it all straightforwardly, and this allows for learning about cultures and idioms. When I did, I found out about why the insects are classified the way they are and the bats and the fish and the rabbits, etc. We tend to be extremely ethnocentric, thinking the way we classify things is the only right way. It works for us; while their way worked for them. In terms of how long the human race has been noticing and classifying plants and animals, I would have to say our way is quite new and in the distinct minority as far as the number of people who use it. But that doesn't make us wrong, either! Instead, we ought to be courteous enough and respectful enough of other cultures to at least make the effort to find out why they do/did what they do/did and not to judge out of ignorance.

The answers are there. It's just that so many make judgments about ten steps ahead of knowledge.

Peter, Dodwell's work is not speculative because it has not yet been published! There is plenty of nonsense published and that, for one thing, does not stop it from being speculative. There are plenty of bits of knowledge which may not be published which are no longer speculative, but fact. Do you care that my French lavendar blooms after my coral bells? Of course not! Nevertheless, even though that is not published, it is a fact and not at all speculative!

You asked about the energy required to tilt the earth's axis. Yes, it would be quite phenomenal. The most likely cause Dodwell considered was impact, and we do have evidence of some very large impact craters all dating from about the same time, and on the northwestern quadrant of our planet. The date he puts on the one he studied is 2345BC -- and this is the one that is so well attested to archaeology and architecturally. The Temple at Karnak, the structure at Stonehenge, and the Temple at Tiahuanaco all bear silent testimony to the fact that things have not always been the same where the earth's axis is concerned.

Originally posted by Helen:
It all depends, really, on whether you accept man's limited (VERY limited) knowledge, or God's clear revelation to us. Your presuppositions will almost always determine your conclusions.

Click to expand...

But you are using your own knowledge – which you say is very limited – to determine what you think God has said. Just like evolutionists, you are inescapably dependent on your finite, fallible human intelligence to arrive at your conclusions about what God has said or anything else.

You write of “God’s clear revelation” or “what God says” or “God’s Word” as if God were a man who had walked into the room five minutes ago and spoken clearly in English, explaining exactly what he meant and how his statements are to be understood. Would that understanding Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, were so simple. But if it were so simple, there would not have been endless disputes over thousands of years concerning the proper interpretation and true meaning of the Scriptures. You write as if your understanding of the meaning of Genesis had been directly handed to you by God, without passing through your humanly fallible thought processes. But that’s not the case: you’re using your human knowledge and reason to decide what Genesis means.

What we have, in fact, is an ancient book (or rather collection of writings) written in two ancient tongues. Now, how should we understand it? In attempting to understand it, should we disregard the evidence of our reason and senses concerning the natural world? We use our reason and senses to understand the age of the earth, etc., not because we think we know better than God’s Word, but because they are the tools God has given us to understand the world He created.

There is no way to determine what Genesis means, or what God has said, or what God’s Word actually says, without using our human reason and senses, short of standing face to face with God in the next world. And if our reason and sensory data tell us that the earth is 4.55 billion years old and that humans evolved from other species, then we need to understand the meaning of Genesis and the rest of the Bible in the light of that knowledge, rather than rejecting some of the evidence of our reason and senses because of a preconceived notion about what God has said, i.e., the notion that Genesis is to be understood as literal, factual history.

It is a long-standing Christian doctrine to regard Nature as a revelation of God. Indeed, the Bible says that Nature speaks:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” [Psalms 19:1-4]

Since both the book of Nature and the book of Scripture are revelations of God, they need to be read together, each in the light of the other.

Richard

[ May 05, 2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: RichardC ]

Originally posted by Helen:
InHim, I have never claimed to take anything in the Bible 'literally' -- I don't know Hebrew or Greek and I don't have the original mss, and that is what that would take. However I do take it all straightforwardly, [...]

Click to expand...

How do you define "straightforwardly"? That is, what are the principles of Biblical interpretation or understanding to which you adhere?

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You asked about the energy required to tilt the earth's axis. Yes, it would be quite phenomenal. The most likely cause Dodwell considered was impact, and we do have evidence of some very large impact craters all dating from about the same time, and on the northwestern quadrant of our planet.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Northwest quadrant? I have never heard of a sphere described as having a northwest quadrant. Maybe you can explain where that is exactly. But I suspect that your impact craters do not have a suitable age for a relatively recent impact required by your ideas. Just this past weekend, I visited what seems to be the most recent impact crater on earth, the famous meteor crater in Arizona. The claim is that this relatively recent one is 50,000 years old.

Originally posted by Helen:
InHim, I have never claimed to take anything in the Bible 'literally' -- I don't know Hebrew or Greek and I don't have the original mss, and that is what that would take. However I do take it all straightforwardly, and this allows for learning about cultures and idioms. When I did, I found out about why the insects are classified the way they are and the bats and the fish and the rabbits, etc.

Click to expand...

Helen, the point is, you were driven to research this and find out a way to avoid the straightforward reading of God's word because you KNEW the straightforward reading of God's word was giving you the wrong answer. And you found a way to satisfy yourself. Well, if you really KNEW that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and life has evolved along Darwinian lines, you would do the same! Some of us are convinced by the evidence. We feel we have the same right as you to reinterpret scripture to apply to the truth.

By the way, I have doubts about the Hebrews using a classification catagory labeled "having four legs" in any but a literal sense. Do you have any evidence they did?

bump - I would really like to see Helen's reply

I would like to see Helen's reply about the Northwest Quadrant. Where did you get THAT, Helen?