How old is the earth

[UTEOTW]

"The Bible doesn't say that the world is F L A T.

...

The Bible does say that GOD hung the circle of the earth on nothing."

When I looked up the word for "circle" in Strong's it sure seemed to indicate flat to me. Of course it has been a while. Might be having memory lapses. So you sort of contradict yourself here. Plus the part in Daniel where a tree is high enough to be seen in all the world. And the temptation where Jesus is taken upon a mountain high enough to see the whole world. This indicates flat. There is no need to belabor the point with examples.

I find no error in the Bible because of these things because I do not believe it was trying to be a scientific text. God is trying to teach us important stuff not the shape of the earth. The people to whom the Bible was given believed in a flat earth surrounded by the waters of the deep, a great ocean, and God never chose to contradict that. It was not important to His message.

You insist these things must be taken literal. But then verses such as these must be twisted far from their literal reading to avoid the appearance of a mistake when a literal reading is required. And you are forced to deny the reality of what is around you to cling to your literal reading. Doesn't matter that you are perfectly willing to abandon literal when it suits you.

There is no evidence for a young earth. You have not yet shown anything that comes close. I'm still waiting to see what part of the paper you posted is supposed to support a young earth. It seemed conclusive to me. DOn't know why you would want me to read it.

You keep calling all you deny a "lie" yet you have nothing to back up your assertion. The few things you try to use have all been rather easily shown to be, if not out and out "lies," half truths and twisted versions of what is actually known.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let me do this another way.

The claim was put forward, based on the claim from Wieland, that dinosaur cells had been found. I refuted the claim and asserted deliberate deceit on the part of Wieland and that this deceit is part of a pattern on the part of YEC leaders. A_Christian responded with one of Schweitzer's actual papers on the subject.

So my challenge is this. If you believe that Wieland was honestly presenting his case, then use the referenced paper to show how the scientist's data shows red blood cells and a young bone. You have the actual paper, the actual data. Read it for yourself. Reinterpret it for yourself. And if you can, use the actual data to show that he was being honest. In my opinion, the paper conclusively refutes the claims of Wieland. And since he was basing his claims on Schweitzer's work... You be the judge if what Wieland wrote follows from what Schweitzer wrote.

 

[A_Christian]

Evolutionists are the liars and their end will be just. A rock wouldn't last a million years let-alone bones. If I look at a cirle hanging on nothing then from what you say everything would slide off at the bottom.

You have to be willing to accept the ENTIRE Bible, and try to understand the ENTIRE Bible, and study the ENTIRE Bible----using the ENTIRE Bible. You cannot just pick and choose as you will. And if Jesus is God in the flesh, I have NO fear that HE couldn't see the ENTIRE world from your backyard if HE so desired-----that doesn't place your house on any mountain top. And GOD can take anyone anywhere HE so chooses and reveal whatever HE wishes. That is what I've learned about GOD and HIS abilities in the Bible. You seem to like to place HIM in a box and label it science...

 

[UTEOTW]

You're getting of topic of the thread. If you want to start a new topic, go ahead.

You are willing to demand a literal interpretation, but only where it suits you. You have no problem abandoning a literal interpreation if it suits you.

Not only have the evidences for a young earth been shown to be wrong, but it seems clear that those initially advocating them were willing to bend, twist, ignore, and flat out make up whatever was necessary to support their position. You constantly call those who do not share you view "liars" without any such proof but do not bother to condemn or repudiate those who share your view who have been shown to be doing such things.

Now, back to the topic. Using the paper you posted, show where the data indicates red bloodcells were found and that the bones were young.

And I'll add a second part of the challenge. Do you think that any of the evidences presented thus far in this thread have shown any YEC leaders using at the very least questionable judgement and ethics and are you willing to insist that they were wrong for doing so?

 

[A_Christian]

You interpret to suit yourself and ignore the fact that Genesis has ALWAYS been a HISTORY book and not one of poetry or metaphores, nor songs.

Evolution is actually a scientific metaphore in prose, and is not to be accepted as literal.

 

[UTEOTW]

Then show it to be so. The overwhelming evidence indicates that the universe and the earth are ancient, billions of years, and that common descent is a fact.

You have continually asserted that this is not true and that those who do not hold your view are "liars." Yet you cannot offer a single piece of evidence to show a young earth, you cannot offer a single legitimate objection to an old universe or to common descent, you cannot show that science is built on lies, and the only "evidence" you have attempted to proffer has shown that it is indeed the leaders of the YEC movement who are willing to be untruthful to support their cause. Make an argument, in your own words and with supporting references, of any of these things. Show a young earth/universe. Show created kinds not common descent. Show that all of science is a "lie." Show that these YEC leaders are correctly presenting the data.

Now, you offered the Schweitzer paper yourself as proof of something. You also offered the link to dino blood being found. Use the paper to show that Wieland was correctly presenting Schweitzer's work or admit that he was not correctly presenting it and withdraw the claim. Either way will make me happy. Your chance to make a case.

Look back at the responses to the YEC claims and either say that you think the YEC leaders who put forth this information (that in my opinion has been shown to be deliberately misconstrued) were acting with the highest of integrity and did nothing at all unethical or untruthful in the way they presented other's work or their work or point out where you think these guys dropped the ball. But comment either way. I'd like to know what you think of these people after seeing how they twist the data.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
You interpret to suit yourself and ignore the fact that Genesis has ALWAYS been a HISTORY book and not one of poetry or metaphores, nor songs.

http://www.orot.com/ec.html#Anchor-TORAH-9779

Here is a link that shows how YECism violates the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis. I admit to only having read the first several paragraphs. Maybe the Creation account has not always been looked at as historical.

I am also under the impresion that the YEC movement is a relatively recent one, though I could be wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

Orthodox Jews today exault the current evolution of their man-made tradition over the text of God's word as can be seen in the following.

#1. They teach that Satan is a good angel sent to challenge us.

#2. They teach that evolution is true no matter what the Word of God says.

Given these gross contradictions of the Word of God - the OT, I decided to contact the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi web site Ohr for some "straight talk".

I asked if the term "Yom" in the 10 commandments - specifically in the 4 commandment that equates the day of Genesis 1 with the day of Israel at the foot of Sinai had any Hebrew linguistic or syntactic justification for "undefined long period of time" as used in Exodus 20.

The answer give by these evolution-promoting Jewish Rabbis in Israel today?.... The Bible does NOT support long periods of undefined time as the meaning of "yom" in the Exodus 20 summary of the Gens 1-2:3 timeline. But they are quick to add "but that does not matter because our current tradition is that evolution is true".

Fascinating!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

He said "ALWAYS" so I gave a quick link that shows always wasn't always. If so, no one would ever have a different interpretation. We can post back and forth till the cows come home about those that insist on literal and those that do not, but it would be getting off topic. Besides, I thought my link was talking about the traditional way of Jewish interpretation, not necessarily modern ways. Maybe I did not read far enough.

Since you are still around and since you went rather directly for the dino blood, I'll make the same challenge to you.

You claimed dino blood. A_Christian was kind enough to post a link to the actual scientific paper. At least one of them. If you think Wieland was characterizing the work of Schweitzer correctly, then you should have no problem digging out the part of the paper that shows actual red bloodcells and young bone. If you cannot do so then do you admit that Wieland was mischaracterizing her work?

As a followup, what do you think of the evidences posted on this thread of other YEC leaders twisting the truth, at least in my opinion? If you think they were being honorable and truthful, then defend some of their claims that you abandoned after they were countered. If you think that they were not being honest, then say so. I'd like to know what you think.

 

[A_Christian]

I don't believe that the truth should ever be twisted. That goes for evolutionists also, even if it means that they will not be in for a promotion nor get that job in the lab that they were counting on...

As a Christian, I believe that the BIBLE should never be discounted or disregarded unless total absolute and undenyable proof is demonstrated. This has never been the case. It always amounts to learned OPINION... That isn't good enough for me.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let me ask it a different way then.

What would be sufficient for you to decide that the six day Creation is not to be taken literal? It is difficult, if not impossible, for anything done empirically to be shown to be "total absolute and undenyable proof." Since science is empirical, maybe the answer is nothing. But I have to remind you that we live our daily lives based mostly on what we know empiracally and not what we know with "total absolute and undenyable proof." I cannot even give you that kind of proof the sun will come up tomorrow though I have no doubt that it will. Same thing here. I cannot give you "total absolute and undenyable proof" but I have no doubt at all that what I speak is true. See?

I also think that it is not necessary to discount or disregard the Bible in order to accept an old earth. But all the available evidence must be denied, discounted, and disregarded to accept a young earth.

Maybe there is yet another way to ask this question. If you did not have the Bible and you were to examine the evidence that has been gathered, what would be your opinion on these matters and why?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
The Bible doesn't say that the world is F L A T.

Uh, if you interpret Geneses 1 literally, it's describing a flat earth. The Jews of the time believed he earth was flat, and fixed.

The Bible does say that GOD hung the circle of the earth on nothing.

The Hebrew word translated "circle" referrs to a circular flat disc shaped object. The verse in question described a flat, disc-shaped earth surface. (The Hebrews had a different word for "sphere", which is different than "circle")

 

[cotton]

UTE;
Thanks for posting the Torah paper from the Jewish source; I enjoyed it; If you read the entire paper, it seeks to harmonize Torah's creation account with modern science and especially, string theory. The author also mentions P'shat(simple), Remez(hint), Midrash(search) and Sod(secret); these are the 4 levels of scriptural understanding used by the Rabbis (both ancient and modern). The last 3 are easily misused, so most scholars avoid them; from what I've heard any use of the last 3 that overturn the simple understanding of Torah are probably mistaken;
Interestingly enough, the article sort of discredits "traditional evolution and 4.5 billion year" and "literal 24 hr day interpretation". It tends to trandscend both schools of thought with an entirely different approach than just "the earth is old vs. the earth is young".

Also, I doubt there is one and only one traditional view of Genesis from a Jewish perspective. Many of the rabbinic sources are exactly opposite on much of scripture. Oddly enough, Jewish thought is comfortable with this!

Thanks again for the interesting site,
Cotton

 

[jcrawford]

When scientists talk in terms of millions of years they are not speaking of observable and empirical facts. Millions of years are only calculated in the human mind. They are extrapolated and imputed data. They do not exist in and of themselves.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[UTEOTW]

jcrawford, do you have anything to support you assertion?

For strictly dating purposes, we can observe the rate at which radioactive isotopes decay. This is both empiracal and observable. We can measure the levels of these isotopes and the various daughter and parent isotopes. That, too, is observable. These are facts that we can glean from the rocks themselves. There is nothing about it that is strictly in the human mind. Do you have a specific objection to dating that supports your assertion?

We can go out to today and observe geologic processes at work. We can then look for similar processes in the geologic history of the earth that show how it took millions of years to give us the features we see. That is both empirical and observable.

We can look at how ice layers are deposited year by year in Antartica and Greenland. We can then count these layers back several hundred thousand years. That is both empirical and observable.

We can measure the speed of light. We can then look at objects billions of light years away and tell that it took billions of years for the light to travel the distances. That is both empirical and observable.

We can look at the genes of both humans and the other apes and trace out the common elements and those that are different and build a family tree that supports common descent. This includes the similarity of proteins, the shared mutations, and the endogenous retrovirus DNA. That is both empirical and observable.

We can look at the fossil record and show that only a very narrow slice of all creatures ever known to live were alive at any given time and that the relationships through time imply common descent. This is fully expected by evolution but goes against what one would expect from created kinds. That is both empirical and observable.

Elementary indeed!

 

[mud]

In response to UTEOTW's assertion that no science shows a young earth: there are many different ways of measuring physical process and extrapolating backwards to arrive at a date for the earth. The ones we always hear about give long ages for the earth (ie: radioactive dating methods). Apparently there are about 100 different ways to get ages for the earth and, a great majority of these "geochronometres" give ages much younger than the "accepted" 4.5 billion years. A few examples follow:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
9. Helium in the wrong places
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
11. Agriculture is too recent
12. History is too short

This list is taken from an article at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Check it out for more info.

For lots of info on this topic go to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

 

[Jim Ward]

GREAT post mud

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let me ask it a different way then.

What would be sufficient for you to decide that the six day Creation is not to be taken literal?

What would it take? Simple!

#1. Abandon faith in the Word of God - declare it to be myth - "pick and choose" religion.

#2. Abandon Exegesis in Gen 1 AND in Exodus 20.
Ignore the clear and obvious meaning to the primary audience at Sinai - as God summarizes the Gen 1-2:3 timeline saying out loud "SIX days SHALL You labor and work and then then rest the 7th day FOR in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the Sea and ALL that is in them"

#3. Abandon the Gospel
In Romans 5 it is the DETAILS of the fact that through ONE MAN sin entered and with it DEATH.

In Romans 8 it is declared that DEATH in creation itself is only due to man's sin.

Paul asserts that Adam was MADE first and then Eve.

Paul states in his gospel message that God made from ONE blood ALL nations of the earth.

#4. Abandon the OT text as the Word of God
In Psalms we are told that God SPOKE and it WAS - He commanded and it stood fast.

---

The next thing that would be needed is to embrace non-sense, non-science as your "new science" clinging to the half-truths and blatant deceptions of evolutionism.

But "IF" one was "willing" to swallow all that error -- then YES - I could easily accept evolutionism as my new religion.

THEN in that case Marriage can be questioned, God's Law banished from public view, the Word of God "edited" by every liberal non-believing religion professor that TV has to offer.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I also think that it is not necessary to discount or disregard the Bible in order to accept an old earth. But all the available evidence must be denied, discounted, and disregarded to accept a young earth.

Maybe there is yet another way to ask this question. If you did not have the Bible and you were to examine the evidence that has been gathered, what would be your opinion on these matters and why?

That is a good example of what some of our atheist friends call "anti-knowledge" conveyed by too much time in evolutionism.

As has been pointed out here there are a lot of geochronometers pointing to a young earth. The flaw in evolutionism's devout faithful is that they deceive themselves into thinking that when they "rationalize-any-old-answer" to an obvious problem 'that deletes the opposing data against their view'.

Then they can come up with such absurd statements as all the available evidence must be denied, discounted, and disregarded to accept a young earth

How can you live with such blatantly false assertions? Even atheist evolutionists themselves "admit" that there are some young-earth indicators for which they have no satisfactory response other than "rationalizing" and "hoping" for better data some day in their favor.

Your statement demonstrates the reality of "anti-knowledge" conveyed in the myths of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Johnv:

Uh, if you interpret Geneses 1 literally, it's describing a flat earth. The Jews of the time believed he earth was flat, and fixed.

Uh - if you want us to believe that - please give a quote from Genesis 1 with your "flat earth" reference.

In Christ,

Bob