How do you young earthers know

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Again, how does your theories stand up against how INSPIRED men interpreted "And God Said" content of Genesis One?

Jesus interpreted Genesis 1:26 as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

David interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

Peter interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

God Himself interprets Genesis one as literal non-poetical historical narrative as the basis for the Fourth Commandment.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Literal statement or figuragive words:

And God said, - v. 1

And God said,- v. 6

And God said, - v. 9

And God said, - v. 11

And God said, - v. 14

And God said, - v. 20

And God said, - v. 24

And God said, - v. 26

And God said, - v. 29


Literal or Figurative:

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Ex. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 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.

God Himself interprets these numerical days as non-poetical but literal historical narrrative and sets them forth as THE EXAMPLE for observing non-poetical but literal historical seven days in our own life. Poetical numbers involving billions of years would be ABSURD for such an example to follow.


FINAL NOTE: Jesus makes a direct reference to Genesis 1:26-27. We know this because Genesis 1:26-27 is the ONLY PLACE in the Genesis record where the words "male and female" are found and Jesus says:

Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The "poetical" theory is based upon the wording in Genesis 1:27 in order to use it as a lift off to interpret the repetitive words "the evening and morning were the first.....second....ect" as poetical, not to be literally understood but rather figuratively understood! Why? In order to make the Genesis record fit the BILLIONS OF YEARS evolution model.

However, it is this very text (Gen. 1:27) that Jesus lifts his very words "male and female" from and places the origin of man "AT the beginning" or "from the begining of Creation" rather than BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of the universe.

This "poetical" developmental argument interpretation makes Genesis 1:26-27 directly contradicts the TIME FRAME in which Jesus places the origin of man.

This is not an INTERPRETATION problem with Christ's words. You cannot HONESTLY interpret those words to mean the exact opposite. Search the use of the term "beginning" used by the New Testament writers in regard to creation and you cannot find any objective evidence to force Christ's words "at the beginning" and "from the beginning of creation" to mean BILLIONS OF YEARS after the origin of earth - can't be done HONESTLY!

Hence, by PRINCIPLE the evolutionary BILLIONS OF YEARS interpretation opposes Jesus Christ, His words and ultimately His own veracity and thus His character as the Son of God. If you deny His words are part of the inspired scriptures then you are taking a position that no other textual critic has advanced and provided any evidence to support. Hence, you are again in PRINCIPLE rejecting Christ as the Son of God because he regarded scriptures as inspired and so did those He taught.

GE:

I cannot see why being poetical makes any difference to the Genesis 'story' being true and historical.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I see in Genesis 1 the telling of the 'war in heaven' and God's Eternal Purpose in and through Jesus Christ purposed and came / made true as recent as two thousand years ago.

Creation wasn't much ado about nothing. God willed to and created with the view to Jesus Christ --- and that, implies that God created in the face of sin, nothingness and chaos.

Therefore God, in the first place, "made the darkness" and the void universe, and thereafter through ORDERING, created the heavens and the earth AND EVERYTHING that in them is --- according to the Scriptures, "In six days" and for the salvation of all the works of God, "In the Seventh Day finished ..." EVER IN AND THROUGH AND BY AND FOR THE SAKE OF JESUS CHRIST.

If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the Substance of Genesis one from verse one, I have no interest in it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

I cannot see why being poetical makes any difference to the Genesis 'story' being true and historical.

GE,

The poetical theory is advanced in order to provide a basis to interpret the repreated phrases "the evening and the mornng was the first....second...etc." as figurative rather than literal and thus open up the way to make Genesis 1 compatible with evolution and thus theistic evolution.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I see in Genesis 1 the telling of the 'war in heaven' and God's Eternal Purpose in and through Jesus Christ purposed and came / made true as recent as two thousand years ago.

Creation wasn't much ado about nothing. God willed to and created with the view to Jesus Christ --- and that, implies that God created in the face of sin, nothingness and chaos.

Therefore God, in the first place, "made the darkness" and the void universe, and thereafter through ORDERING, created the heavens and the earth AND EVERYTHING that in them is --- according to the Scriptures, "In six days" and for the salvation of all the works of God, "In the Seventh Day finished ..." EVER IN AND THROUGH AND BY AND FOR THE SAKE OF JESUS CHRIST.

If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the Substance of Genesis one from verse one, I have no interest in it.

I completely understand your reasoning here because several years ago I embraced the very same interpretation of Gensis 1:2. However, that theory simple does not stand up in my opinion.

There was no war in heaven or sin in Genesis 1:2 as God could not look upon everything he created and made and say it was "very good" if Lucifer had already fallen, sin and war were already part of his creation. There is no time given to determine how long after man was created that the fall occurred and so there is plenty of time for Satan's rebellion in heaven and then his introduction of rebellion on earth.

Second, the wording of Genesis 1:2 does not demand that theory. Verse 1 simply states that God created the material universe. Verse 2 simply states the material universe (substance) was "void" of any life forms and without final "form" or light and light sources. Verses 3 to the end of the chapter states in simple terms the process of providing light, final form and life were completed within six literal days.

 

[Eric B]

I saw no point to address
You are dancing around your real problem and the real answer to all your speculations. The difference is obvious and explicit CONTEXT! You have NO CONTEXT to base your speculative theory upon.

You are desperately trying to establish a context for speculation but you HAVE NOT. Genesis 1:26-27 does not offer even a REASONABLE basis for your speculation. And the actual words you want to speculate about "the evening and the moring were the first....second....et." offers absolutely nothing for you to speculate about. FIRST you must establish that the contextual relationship of numbers in Genesis with "the evening and morning" is EVER used in Hebrew scriptures in connection with symbolic numbers. You haven't established that because there simply are no such examples.

Furthermore, Christ's on use of Genesis 1:26-27 simply denies room to speculate after that manner.

You're not really saying anything here, other than just reiterating your argument over and over, while brushing aside other instances that one could make the same argument over.

Touching upon what Mandy said, you are spewing a lot of apparent anger/emotion. You're lugning right at people who say they lean towards the litral position, but acknowledge the issue is not as clear as you claim. It looks like this is from a threatned standpoint (not that it is definitely wrong, but that the case you are making for it is, just as we are saying, not as strong as you wish).

Hogwash! If you embrace a doctrine/theory that contradicts the words and teaching of Jesus Christ you are OPPOSING Him just as much as creationism opposes evolutionism. If you embrace a theory that IN PRINCIPLE denies the deity of Jesus Christ you are OPPOSING Jesus Christ.

You are the one doing the "double talk" when you state "They do not oppose Christ. Their theory could be wrong, but...that is not the same as opposing Christ." If their theory OPPOSES Christ the person adapting that theory is OPPOSING Christ whether they are conscious of that fact or not.

Your double talk is like saying I am not opposed to that man just because I pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, that may be a wrong thing to do but I am not opposing that man. You are defending a position that in PRINCIPLE must deny the deity of Christ and yet out of the other side of your mouth you say just because I defend that position does not mean I am opposing Jesus Christ. You cannot oppose HIS WORD without opposing HIM!

No, what your's doing is like saying that in "friendly fire", where you pick up the gun and fire, but hit a comrade by accident, you still "opposed" the victim. You could even point to something he did wrong, that caused the accident. "Oppose" implies a DELIBERATE motive. It's so funny, as you then go on and say to someone else:

May I ask you what qualifications you possess to be able to examine motives or intents of the heart?

That is EXACTLY what you are doing with with your language, which speaks directly of MOTIVE and INTENT. For, to OPPOSE requires motive and intent.
People make mistakes, including in doctrine. No one sees the whole picture clearly, so we all tend to bend things to fit what seems make the most sense. Then, there are definite false teachers, who as scripture describes, and deliberately trying to "draw away disciples after themselves". THOSE are the ones who "oppose" Christ with their motive and intent.
If making a mistake in doctrine "opposes" Christ, then you are taking a highly legalistic approach. Now, in one sense, this is correct, as God's standard is 100% perfection. But then, you better be sure ALL of your doctrine is 100% true. Is that what you are claiming for yourself?

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is EXACTLY what you are doing with with your language, which speaks directly of MOTIVE and INTENT. For, to OPPOSE requires motive and intent.
People make mistakes, including in doctrine. No one sees the whole picture clearly, so we all tend to bend things to fit what seems make the most sense. Then, there are definite false teachers, who as scripture describes, and deliberately trying to "draw away disciples after themselves". THOSE are the ones who "oppose" Christ with their motive and intent.
If making a mistake in doctrine "opposes" Christ, then you are taking a highly legalistic approach. Now, in one sense, this is correct, as God's standard is 100% perfection. But then, you better be sure ALL of your doctrine is 100% true. Is that what you are claiming for yourself?

You are missing the point of my language entirely! Did you notice that I CAPITALIZED the word "PRINCIPLE"? Did you notice that I said "position" not "person." You and others are simply perverting my language in order to do two things:

1. Build a straw man argument based on things I did NOT say;

2. Avoid dealing with the evidence I presented.


I have learned you can't leave anything unexplained in debate forums but I often do. So let me explain it so you cannot miss what I said then and am still saying now.

The words of Christ cannot be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite what those words clearly and explicitly state. He clearly and explicitly uses specific terms "male and female" from what he says was "written" and places them in a specific time zone "at the beginning" and "from the beginning of creation." He is referring to Genesis 1:27 which is the only place these words "male and female" are found in Genesis record of the creation account.

This is also the very same text you attempt to use in order to establish a foothold for the argument for the possible "poetical" nature of Genesis chapter one. You make this argument in order to show that in your mind those who interpret the seven days in Genesis have a ligitimate hermeneutical ground for their interpretation "the evening and the morning was the first.....second.....etc as BILLIONS OF YEARS instead of literal historical days. In your mind, Gensis 1:27 and the Hebrew parallalism provides support for a "poetic symbolic" heremeneutic instead of a strictly "literal historical" hermeneutic which is consistent with hebrew parallelism.

Now, get these very important words that I have consistently used and am still using, it is words "IN PRINCIPLE." Ok, got it???

IN PRINCIPLE your interpretation of Genesis 1:27 as a poetical structure that gives hermeneutical grounds for a SYMBLIC interpretation of the days in Genesis one is directly opposed not only to how Jesus used the same exact text but contradicts the explicit and clear TIME FRAME that he places on that text. If your argument goes beyond merely the use of hebrew parallelism that simply reasserts the same literal historical time framework of that text by Christ's words "AT the beginning" of creation then your interpretative principle applied to that text is in direct opposition to Christ's own interpretation of that text.

Jesus places the origin of man "AT THE BEGINNING" of creation not BILLIONS of years after creation and the text he uses to make his case is the very same text your attempting to interpret in such a manner that directly contradicts the Lord's very words!

Therefore, IN PRINCIPLE, your argument and its design, as well as their interpretation of days into billions of years, IF CORRECT necessarily means that either Jesus did not speak by inspiration, or deceived, or lied and thus fallible and is not the Son of God much less the Creator and/or, the Biblical record is uninspired and thus you have proof that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. This is the necessary conclusion IN PRINCIPLE if your use of Genesis 1:27 demonstrates that text is anything beyond a hebrew parallelism of a literal and historical record.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're not really saying anything here, other than just reiterating your argument over and over, while brushing aside other instances that one could make the same argument over.

If you really understood the argument I presented you would not be saying what you say above. The argument I presented makes it impossible to view Genesis 1:27 in any kind of Hebrew parallelism associated with poetic symbolism. IMPOSSIBLE!

Touching upon what Mandy said, you are spewing a lot of apparent anger/emotion. You're lugning right at people who say they lean towards the litral position, but acknowledge the issue is not as clear as you claim. It looks like this is from a threatned standpoint (not that it is definitely wrong, but that the case you are making for it is, just as we are saying, not as strong as you wish).

You are unable to distinguish between an agressive attack upon a POSITION versus a PERSON. I did not say one bad word about any Person. Even with my "IN PRINCIPLE" argument I did not attack any person but I vigorously attacked a POSITION and defined that position as Anti-Christ and I STILL DO! I refuse to apologize to anyone for the nature of my argument! Indeed, I still VIGOROUSLY maintain that argument and I still call your responses absolutely "hogwash" or in Northerner langauge "absurd."

If making a mistake in doctrine "opposes" Christ, then you are taking a highly legalistic approach. Now, in one sense, this is correct, as God's standard is 100% perfection. But then, you better be sure ALL of your doctrine is 100% true. Is that what you are claiming for yourself?

Again, you missed my point. It is THE DOCTRINE that opposes Christ and if you hold to that doctrine then IN PRINCIPLE - IN PRINCIPLE - IN PRINCIPLE you too are opposing Christ in the area of that doctrine.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Bottom line is I shouldn't have even posted on this thread. I refuse to enter debate with non-Christians. If you can't believe God created everything as literally stated in Genesis, you don't believe in the right God.

Hmmm... Why would God create a fossil record that disagrees with a young Earth? Why would God create the cosmos in such a way as to disagree with a young Earth? Was he trying to fool us? How is it that God's own creations could differ from the Genesis story? Could it possibly be that Genesis is not a chronological road map as many would contend?

Now before you call me a non-Christian because I might disagree with a literal interpretation of Genesis, let me state that I'm not sure how long it took God to do it. He could have just as easily done it in six days or taken 6 billion years. God is outside of time. The only thing regarding creation that I am confident of is that He did create everything from nothing.

WM

 

[mandym]

The fossil record does not disagree with with young earth.

 

[revmwc]

Hmmm... Why would God create a fossil record that disagrees with a young Earth? Why would God create the cosmos in such a way as to disagree with a young Earth? Was he trying to fool us? How is it that God's own creations could differ from the Genesis story? Could it possibly be that Genesis is not a chronological road map as many would contend?

Now before you call me a non-Christian because I might disagree with a literal interpretation of Genesis, let me state that I'm not sure how long it took God to do it. He could have just as easily done it in six days or taken 6 billion years. God is outside of time. The only thing regarding creation that I am confident of is that He did create everything from nothing.

WM

What I want to know is how you see the fossil record disagreeing with a young earth?

Since the carbon dating formula is flawed how do you determine the age of the fossils?

 

[mandym]

What I want to know is how you see the fossil record disagreeing with a young earth?

Since the carbon dating formula is flawed how do you determine the age of the fossils?

Well see they determine the age of the fossils by the strata they are in. And then they determine the age of the strata by the fossils found in the strata. Very logical it is.

 

[WestminsterMan]

What I want to know is how you see the fossil record disagreeing with a young earth?

Since the carbon dating formula is flawed how do you determine the age of the fossils?

A geologist or an acheologist I am not. However, the predominant view is that the fossil record indicates a very VERY old Earth. Regarding carbon dating, I think that method went out decades ago. Some of the newer methods include radiometric and geomagnetic dating methods. Cosmology aften coroborates these producing similar old Earth dates. What is the Hubble up to now... a 15.2 billion year old creation event?

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

A geologist or an acheologist I am not. However, the predominant view is WM

Would you please define what you mean and who you are referring to when you say "predominate view"?

 

[WestminsterMan]

There are a few inconsistencies in the Genesis story - chronologically speaking. Even the Church Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, disagreed.

Among the CF's, there was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days while others argued for a much longer period. Those who took the older Earth position appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Would you please define what you mean and who you are referring to when you say "predominate view"?

Sure... the predominate view in the non-secular and secular scientific community - not the creationist museum folks.

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sure... the predominate view in the non-secular and secular scientific community - not the creationist museum folks.

WM

The Fossil Record
Unearthing Nature’s History of Life
by John Morris, Ph.D., and Frank Sherwin, M.A.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The debate over creation and evolution shows no sign of letting up. Many have become aware that this is a seminal issue—perhaps the most important of our day. They see it as a worldview battleground, one that cannot be ignored.

The Fossil Record thoroughly examines the evidence to determine which worldview—creation or evolution—presents the most accurate portrayal of earth’s early history. Did life spontaneously generate and then mutate over millions of years, or was life supernaturally created at one time and in the basic forms that exist today? Geologist Dr. John Morris and zoologist Frank Sherwin look at the fossil record to see what it actually reveals.

What they find is that the claim that fossils document evolution is simply not true. The fossil record presents a very different message, one supportive of the creation worldview. It speaks of exquisite design in every once-living thing, not random development solely through natural processes. There is no hint of an evolutionary “simple to complex” history, for life was complex from the very start. The fossils testify to the biblical history of recent creation, the Curse due to Adam’s sin, and the great Flood of Noah’s day.

The evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record holds power only if the alternative is censored. But censorship is not truth; there is a better way to think. Adopting evolutionary naturalism as one’s faith and guideline for life makes no sense if there is a God who has spoken. This book can help you examine the evidence and discover the Creator of all things.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A geologist or an acheologist I am not. However, the predominant view is that the fossil record indicates a very VERY old Earth. Regarding carbon dating, I think that method went out decades ago. Some of the newer methods include radiometric and geomagnetic dating methods. Cosmology aften coroborates these producing similar old Earth dates. What is the Hubble up to now... a 15.2 billion year old creation event?

WM

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the winter, and then sped up during the summer. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.

Since that time, investigators have yet to discover a satisfying physical mechanism explaining how the sun might accelerate the decay of radioactive atomic nuclei.2 For example, although at the time of the Brookhaven and Stanford reports solar neutrinos were implicated, it appears that neutrinos are just too small and too few. The chances seem too slim for enough neutrinos to collide with enough radioactive atoms to have caused the observed fluctuations.

However, a new report on a separate isotope has again correlated radioisotope decay acceleration with nearness to the sun.3 The investigators locked radioactive radon-222 gas in a lead chamber and compared radioactive readouts taken from both inside and outside the chamber. The experiment was designed to test whether or not changes in radon decay rates are due to atmospheric effects such as gases mixing. The researchers found instead that significant changes were cyclical and corresponded to the relative positions of the earth and the sun.

They wrote, "Combining these observations implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun."3 The radon decay rates accelerated during the daylight hours and during the summer. Other rate fluctuations were irregular and remain mysterious.

Some unknown factor affects certain radioisotope decay rates. If this, or a similar factor, altered nuclear decay rates of the systems that are routinely used in rock dating, then any "age" determination provided by this method would have been compromised. And this is exactly what the Institute for Creation Research's project Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) reported in 2005.

In particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated.5

Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A geologist or an acheologist I am not. However, the predominant view is that the fossil record indicates a very VERY old Earth. Regarding carbon dating, I think that method went out decades ago. Some of the newer methods include radiometric and geomagnetic dating methods. Cosmology aften coroborates these producing similar old Earth dates. What is the Hubble up to now... a 15.2 billion year old creation event?

WM

Can Scientists Now Directly Date Fossils?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

A trio of geologists has published what they called the first successful direct dating of dinosaur bone. They used a new laser technique to measure radioisotopes in the bone, yielding an age of millions of years.

But this "age" was not only the result of a broken radioisotope system, it was contrived to agree with previously assigned dates for the samples.

The scientists analyzed the abundance of radioactive isotopes of certain elements that had leeched into the edges of buried dinosaur bone from the San Juan Basin in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. Their new technique involved first polishing a slice of bone and then shooting a laser beam onto its surface. The laser dislodged radioisotopes and other relevant isotopes, which were detected and counted. They then used these measurements to estimate an age for the bone.

But radiodating cannot proceed without some primary assumptions: the starting conditions of a given sample (e.g., how much of each isotope was present in the beginning), a steady rate of decay of certain radioactive isotopes of elements called radioisotopes, and a lack of tampering with the system (e.g., elements added or subtracted since the radioisotope "clock" first began counting time). Then, the current amount of radioisotope is compared to the amount of stable element into which it is slowly changing. In theory, this ought to supply an age estimate.

However, evidence has mounted that radioisotopes underwent a period of radical acceleration of decay in the past.1 This evidence has indicated that radioisotopes have not decayed at a constant rate, and therefore the radiodating "clocks" in general are all broken.

One clue that they are broken comes from the evolutionary age disagreements that characterize the whole field of radioisotope dating. For example, an igneous rock from the Grand Canyon—which, unlike sedimentary rock, is a type of rock that has been considered "datable" because the relevant isotopes are locked up in its tiny crystals—was tested by standard means. It formed from lava that spilled down the canyon's side. Amazingly, it was dated at millions of years older than the sedimentary rocks under it!2

The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years. The authors tried to explain away the younger-looking numbers by writing in their report in Geology, "This pattern is attributable to a relatively young uranium-gain event."3 Thus, it was taken on faith that the data indicating a younger age do not represent the real age, but instead represent the age of some event whereby uranium was supposedly added to the dinosaur bone millions of years after it had been encased in its Cretaceous sandstone formation.

Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning.3

This new assertion not only ignores evidence that radioisotopes experienced accelerated decay, probably during the Genesis Flood, but also ignores two totally different natural processes that could be used to help verify the researchers' claim that the new technique was "successful."

First, as non-mineralized original dinosaur bone, the samples might contain the primary bone materials hydroxyapatite and collagen protein. Collagen is known to decay at a certain rate, even when dry and sterile. Since it is a biomolecule, it spontaneously decays even when encased inside bone or shell. It is no wonder that scientists were not interested in looking for collagen in these dinosaur bones, since no collagen could remain after a maximum of 30,000 years.4 If any collagen whatever is still in the bone, this would falsify their evolution-friendly "age."

Also, collagen contains carbon. Thus, if collagen is present, the bones could be carbon-dated. But given the known decay rate of radiocarbon, none of it could remain after 60,000 years. Neither collagen nor radiocarbon was tested in these dinosaur bones. Instead of hand-picking data points from a broken radiodating system and calling that a "successful" determination of age, why not take the scientific high road to legitimacy and perform cross-checks with alternative natural processes?

The answer is simple. Any indication that these dinosaur bones are not millions of years old might call the whole evolutionary picture into question, and might therefore offer evidence for a recent creation. And in the world of secular science, that cannot be allowed to happen, even if the data call for it.

References

1.Vardiman, L. 2007. RATE in Review. Acts & Facts. 36 (10): 6.
2.Austin, S. A. 1992. Excessively Old "Ages" for Grand Canyon Lava Flows. Acts & Facts. 21 (2).
3.Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.
4.Thomas, B. How Long Can Cartilage Last? ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 29, 2010, accessed February 7, 2011.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the winter, and then sped up during the summer. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.

Since that time, investigators have yet to discover a satisfying physical mechanism explaining how the sun might accelerate the decay of radioactive atomic nuclei.2 For example, although at the time of the Brookhaven and Stanford reports solar neutrinos were implicated, it appears that neutrinos are just too small and too few. The chances seem too slim for enough neutrinos to collide with enough radioactive atoms to have caused the observed fluctuations.

However, a new report on a separate isotope has again correlated radioisotope decay acceleration with nearness to the sun.3 The investigators locked radioactive radon-222 gas in a lead chamber and compared radioactive readouts taken from both inside and outside the chamber. The experiment was designed to test whether or not changes in radon decay rates are due to atmospheric effects such as gases mixing. The researchers found instead that significant changes were cyclical and corresponded to the relative positions of the earth and the sun.

They wrote, "Combining these observations implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun."3 The radon decay rates accelerated during the daylight hours and during the summer. Other rate fluctuations were irregular and remain mysterious.

Some unknown factor affects certain radioisotope decay rates. If this, or a similar factor, altered nuclear decay rates of the systems that are routinely used in rock dating, then any "age" determination provided by this method would have been compromised. And this is exactly what the Institute for Creation Research's project Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) reported in 2005.

In particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated.5

Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.

Perhaps... Yet isn't it odd how cosmological dating tends to support geological dating?

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Third Firmament
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above" (Ezekiel 1:22).

The English word "firmament" in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew, raqia, meaning "expanse." Its meaning is not "firm boundary" as Biblical critics have alleged, but might be better paraphrased as "stretched-out thinness" or simply "space."

Its first occurrence in the Bible relates it to heaven: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. . . . And God called the firmament Heaven" (Genesis 1:6,8). This firmament obviously could not be a solid boundary above the sky, but is essentially the atmosphere, the "first heaven," the "space" where the birds were to "fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20).

There is also a second firmament, or second heaven, where God placed the sun, moon, and stars, stretching out into the infinite reaches of space. "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1:17).

The firmament in our text, however, is beneath the very throne of God, and above the mighty cherubim (Ezekiel 1:23) who seem always in Scripture to indicate the near presence of God. This glorious firmament, brilliantly crystalline in appearance, must be "the third heaven" to which the apostle Paul was once "caught up" in a special manifestation of God's presence and power, to hear "unspeakable words" from God in "paradise" (II Corinthians 12:2-4).

All three heavens "declare the glory of God" and all three firmaments "sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). Therefore, we should "Praise God in His sanctuary" and also "praise Him in the firmament of His power" (Psalm 150:1). HMM