Christians: Does age of earth matter?

So, Cotton, tell me about the firmament of Genesis 1.

 

Wrong. In fact "dead wrong" if one "assumes" evilutionism to be true.

In the "evolutionary tale" the argument is 'never' of the form "and then one wonderful day a single lizard gave birth to a bird and that bird just-so-happened to find another bird to mate with and that those two lucky pairs just-so-happened to be the ancestors of all birds".

Which is the "form of the myth" that your traversal of the family tree for a given species "needs".

It is a "form" that evolutionism "does not tolerate" when working from the bottom up.

It is a form "demanded" when evolutionism tries to explain the genetic data - working from the top down.

It "shows" the flagrant blunder in the tales of evolutionism.

Your repeated attempts to show that FOR a given primal parent all THEIR descendants "descend from them " via your "set math" is pointless. The "point" to be proven and not assumed is that there SHOULD be only ONE primal pair for ANY one species IF the evolutionary tale is the "mechanism" by which the first generation of that species arises.

Just stating "The obvious" here.

The frank confession by NOVA is instructive on this point.

(By Rick Groleau (managing editor of NOVA Online.)

Here we see a short discussion of "contemporaries" that are "supposed to exist" in the prime generation that establishes the emergence of a species. (Rather than a couple of lucky hopeful monsters that just so happened to be "neighbors").

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 02, 2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

But "disbelief" in the text is not based on "exegeting the text" rather it is "in spite of the text".

If you accept that God literally formed Adam from the dust of the ground on the 6th day of creation week "using that SAME unit of time for mankind to ALSO observe in Exodus 20" -- then you have chosen to "believe the Word of God" inspite of what your evolutionist brethren tell you and not "because of it".

You are correct that you HAVE to hold on to the sinless and perfect creation of Adam as the Bible account shows -- in order to "keep" the Gospel authors of the NT "intact".

But if sinless, divine, instant "creation" is the model for creating sinless man - "no matter what evolutionists say" -- then your entire argument for evolutionism collapses because all the "other evolutionary data" for every other species is in fact "more of the same" as compared to the evolutionary data for man.

Once you find a "basis" for rejecting the evolutinary tale for man - you have all that is needed to refute the evolutionary tale for every species for it is "not one bit stronger" than evolution's case for man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So you cannot show where the math is wrong.

Thanks.

 

CalvinG:

"This gives us This gives us the Eve of the mtDNA but at a more ancient time than predicted by YEC.
=======================================

The Eve of the mtDNA is dated according to the time frame pre-established by anthropaleontologists.

Molecules don't keep time.

 

Are you so sure?

We can measure the rates of mutation in genes. Then by looking at the differences between two strains of a gene, we should be able to tell how long ago they diverged. Of course it works better if you do a whole bunch of genes instead of just one.

 

There is nothing about the way the argument is presented that ever indicates that any animal ever gave birth to a different species or of hopeful monsters wondering the earth looking for a mate.

If the actual TOE was anything like the strawman you are knocking over, I would not believe that it is true either.

 

When you say "we" do you mean that you and I can measure the rates of mutation in genes?

The rates of mutation are pre-set to coincide with the 'properly' dated conclusions invented by paleoanthropologists.

 

Might as well talk about Adam and Eve. I also take Adam to be the first man; created through the process of evolution, God saw him as fit for making him a living soul in a manner distinct from the animals, did so, placed him in the garden; and Eve was, yes, taken from his side.

The garden was a unique place, fit for blessed, immortal, innocent people, but we all know about being kicked out of it due to Adam's fall, and outside the garden, the world had all that bad stuff including predators, disease, parasites, etc.

 

BobRyan,

I did not say that man was created from the dust of the earth. The best evidence is that mankind evolved, though we do not fully know what the evolutionary path was.

The mtDNA data suggest that the hominids seen over a million years were not as an entire population the ancestors of modern man. If they are in our ancestral tree (and I suspect that at least some of them are), it is individuals, not the entire group, that are.

jcrawford,

UTEOTW is of course right that we know the rate of mutation. The Nature article I cited provides you the information we know, with references. None of this was invented to coincide with the time scale of the paleoanthropologists. To the contrary, biological sciences confirm independently much of the paleoanthropological time scale. This is part of what makes the old earth data so powerful.

BobRyan,

I think that even if Adam is a symbolic figure...symbolic of the state of all men existing at that time...the Gospel still holds true. I disagree that the Gospel requires a created-from-dust Adam.

 

Well that is not the "best evidence" from either science or the Bible. So I assume you "take it by faith".

For Bible believing Christians that trust Christ the Creator's "Account" on this we read this "Evidence in scripture" ...

The "evidence" from God's Word is that "Christ the Creator - Created them".

But I can see how that would not be acceptable to Richard Dawkins.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

I have already expressed to you my opinon of Richard Dawkins.

If you do not believe that the best evidence of science is that mankind evolved, please state the scientific basis for your belief that mankind did not evolve.

I do not take evolution by faith. Evolution is science, not a faith-based doctrine. This has alredy been explained to you.

 

The best evidence is not that man evolved. Science is incapable of proving such a theory. The scientific method requires: 1. observation by the senses. 2. Recording of data. 3. Testing of records data. 4. Validation of test. 5. Conclusion.

Evolution cannot be proven through the use of science as the scientific method is incapable of testing: 1. phenomena as they WERE; science tests things as they ARE. 2. Phenomena and processes that change over time. Consider the age of the earth. The scientific community is hopelessly lost. The earth is 12 billion, 6 billion 16, billion, 2 billion, 800 million years old so they say. This is about as reliable as our odds of winning the lottery.

It is sad to see many actually believe in evolution. It is a cruel hoax shrouded in academic snobbery with little reliable substance to support it.

Scientist cannot answer the following:
1. Who observed the data as it pertains to the origin of the evolution of man and the material world?
2. Who recorded it in time as we know it?
3. What tests have been employed to test the data?
4. How do you know the tests are reliable?
5. Are the conclusions reliable based on the tests employed?

Evolution is incapable of being proven by science as we know it. Science is limited as is all of mankind. This is why we have a creator. (Gen. 2:7).

 

1. The observation of data is recorded by researchers in paleontology, geology, climatology, and archaeology. Their observations are recorded in peer-reviewed publications. The observations are such as are available to us in modern history, which is a mere fraction of the time the earth has been around.

2. See #1 above.

3. The predictions of evolution have been tested by the biological sciences and DNA homology. Both genomic DNA and mitochondrial DNA have been used. mtGenomic DNA mutates more rapidly than the mtDNA which codes for rRNA.

4. The tests test the genetic similarity of organisms predicted to be genetically similar. There are many possible DNA codes for a given protein. There is no fundamental reason why life on earth should use ribosomes which are generally similar. Genetic tests do reliably determine the degree of relatedness of human beings and can by logical extension determine the degree of relatedness of other organisms. If evolution did not occur, there would be no reason why the human genome would be more like that of a chimpanzee than that of a monitor lizard. But it is.

5. This of course depends on what conclusions are made. If the conclusion is that life on earth appears related...well...that's a fairly reliable conclusion.

Evolution is capable of being falsified. That is why evolution is science. I have not seen either you or BobRyan, who made the incredible claim that evolution was not the best scientific evidence for how living things came to be, offer another scientific explanation.

By the way, look at all the ages of the earth you have given me...and tell me whether any of them are consistent with a young earth.

 

Calvin:
There has been no obervation of data at the origin or the beginning. It is simply beyond human capabilities. Therefore, proving evolution/ creation by the scientific method is not possible. The facts you posted reveal facts known at that time, but not at the beginning.
Again, science cannot test: 1, one time phenomena, or, 2, things as they were. This is an irrefutable truth. One that renders science inept to proving evolution.I also note you did not answer any of the questions in my post. I am not surprised. However, I will answer your question. NONE of those numbers are accurate as to the age of the earth.

 

Frank,

You mistake science to include only irrefutable truths.

I agree that science cannot test one-time phenomena or phenomena that do not depend on things that can be measured or predicted. Example: Resurrection of Jesus. Example: Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.

Past things do pose a difficulty for science. But science can tell you the most likely cause of death of a deceased human by pathological analysis even though the death was not actually witnessed. This is a thing that was.

You are correct that we are limited in that we have not quite two centuries of good examination of the data of the earth. And we have no examination of living dinosaurs or living early hominids. This poses challenges to scientific theories but does not render them unscientific. And I think we can test the theory of evolution with modern genetics.

You claim that I did not answer any of your questions, but I did in paragraphs numbered to correspond with the numbers of your questions. It may be that you do not like the answers or do not find them satisfactory.

 

Calvin:
Question 1. Who observed the data? No WHOM given.

Question 2. Who recorded it? answer same as one. NO WHOM given.

Question 3. What tests have been employed? PREDICTIONS were used based on mutation. In other words, extrapolations that may or may not be true.

Question 4. How do yo know the tests ar reliable? The answer is an asssumption based on presuppositions. It ignores that life may be similar by design of the origin of life itself.

Question 5. Are the conclusions realible based on the tests? Life is related. Yes, how does this buttress your argument when you fail to make your case in 1-4?

 

Is the origin of life testable and repeatable, like a chemical reaction? If so, has this been done in a lab? Is there a sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating life? If so has the scientific community agreed upon this model? If not why?

Has it been demonstrated in a lab that a living cell can gradually evolve one part, but not another? Wouldn’t by evolutionary theory, evolving one part of a cell and not another, put a transitional form at a disadvantage? Isn’t it true that in order for a cell to exist all components that make up a cell must exist simultaneously?

How could something like DNA be created randomly? Have evolutionary science been able to adequately explain the design and purpose shown in the living cells and in structures that make-up these living cells, as DNA?

 

God created all things in a literal twetny four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the follwing:
1. The hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occassions it does not mean a lieral 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalams 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10,The punishement for the sins of Israel are being recorded.
2.The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the old testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceeded by a numeral in a nonprophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the old testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.

 

Frank

Welcome to the fray.

I want to jump right in and establish a few things about this observational problem you think exists.

First off, let's ask if you think that all criminals who have been convicted at least in part by forensic evidence should be freed or given new trials. If you think they should, no need to explain since you have already given us your opinion on needing to actually observe something. But if you think they should not be released, please explain to us this apparent contradiction. I am assuming that you think crime investigators are capable of determining what happened at a crime scene from the evidence only without needing an eyewitness.

Now, let's jump right into things that are germane.

What can be learned from a fossil that we dig up?

Can we determine that the fossil really is of something that once was alive?

Can we get an idea of what the fossil was? That is if you find a lion fossil do you think we really can tell that it was a lion and not a buffalo?

Can we sometimes tell how the animal died?

Can we sometimes tell under what conditions the organism was preserved in order to be allowed to be fossilized? That is can we tell if it was buried rapidly or slowly? In turbulent water or still water? Was the water stagnant or not? Was it scavenged?

Can we tell something about the life of the organism from the fossil? Can we look at the teeth and jaws and get an idea of what it ate? Can we look at the skelton and where the muscles attached and get an idea if it was fast or slow, how it walked or flew, whether is was muscular or thin or fat? Can we look at the bones and see if they have more in common with, say, warm blooded creatures or cold blooded creatures?

Can we learn about the ecology the organism lived in from what other fossils are found with it?

For anything in which you answer negatively, I will ask for a detailed reason for why we cannot do so in somewhat technical terms not personal incredulity. And I will not accept a blanket statement about how we cannot know absolutely because no one was there. Of course, for any you answer in the affirmative you have admitted that we can make observations about the past.

When you are through, depending on how direct you are, we will go through a similar list for geology and astronomy. Maybe even some biology and archeology. I'll take an indirect response to mean that we may actually be able to make some observations about the past.