Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

In any case, I suggest that we try and return to the subject of the thread. Is there really any data that supports a young earth specifically? Let's review.

The first item proposed was the level of sodium in the seas. First, this is a fallacy of the false dilemma siince even if the premise were to be true, the age indicated was still millions of years, not 6000. So even if true, it would not count. But, in the end, it was found that the author changed numbers from his sources and left many important processes out. The story did not hold.

The next was the magnetic field decay. This was shown to be based on unsound science and to be internally contradictory.

Then there was the nasty bit of quote mining. We'll leave that alone lest we get any of it on us.

Then there was the helium flux. Helium was shown to be known to be at equilibrium. It was also another false dilemma as it, if it had been true, was not specifically evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

Then there was uranium in the oceans. Another false dilemma since this would show a millions of year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth. Plus the data is so sparse that the uncertainty in measurement is greater than the estimated difference meaning that no conclusion can be drawn.

The helium then returned. Already debunked.

Then the helium returned in a different format. Again, a case of cherry picking inaccurate numbers. Also lead to calculations of millions of years of age and therefore not specifically evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

There is currently some nipicking going on about evolution.

But the question remains. Is there any good physical evidence for a 6000 year old earth? Specifically? Not trying to find problems with old earth theories. Not showing only millions of years. Something that specifically shows the earth to be 6000 years old. Anything?

 

I am not referring to any specific Baptist scholars.

I believe that the internal evidence in the book of Genesis makes it quite clear upon careful study that it is a redaction of several or more original documents or oral traditions, and that Gen. 1 – 11 specifically is a redaction of epic narratives that God never intended for anyone to take literally and fuzz and fight over. God is not a man and HE is not bound to the literary ethics of 21st century Christian fundamentalists. Whatever God did, it was good, and those who call God a liar for doing what He did are guilty of a most horrible sin. This is my interpretation and I freely admit that I could be wrong about it. However, I know for an absolute fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event, and I know that from my many years of university studies in the sciences—chiefly the biological sciences.

 

I have posted on this issue in other threads. If you have a question about a specific reference to Noah’s Ark in the New Testament, I will be glad to answer that question. My point in this thread is that the story of Noah’s Ark has been conclusively proven not to be a literal account of an historic event, and since Genesis 1 -11 in its present form of redaction forms a unit, there is no good reason to suppose that any of the other stories in these 11 chapters are literal accounts of historic events. That the creation story of six days of creation cannot be proved to be other than a literal account of an historic event is undeniable, but when taken together with the rest of Genesis 1 – 11, we find compelling evidence that the creation story is an epic narrative that God never intended to be taken as a literal account of an historic event, but as a story that teaches spiritual principles that creationists ironically enough cause to be overshadowed by their insistence that the earth is only several thousands of years old.

 

If I didn’t know better, on the basis of your statement I would have to say that we do not believe in the same God. The God that I know cannot lie, cheat, or steal, and He cannot violate His own laws. And since one of us appears to be writing from the Twilight Zone, I can not see any point in continuing a dialog with you. I shall address two more of your comments and discontinue my dialog with you.

The question for me was whether I would trust a pompous, condescending Christian fundamentalist extremist who has no university education in the sciences and does not understand Genesis or would I trust tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of Old Testament scholars. Of course that was one question that I was able to answer without difficulty.

I made no reference whatsoever to your education or your intelligence.

 

A few facts about Noah’s Ark

The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas.

After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any rational man or woman can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

"The point I make here is that there were no fish in tanks aboard the Ark. What was in the Ark, was, man, beast, creeping things, fowls of the air. "

I think you miss his point.

There are many types of fish that require a very specific environment in which to survive. These fish would have been completely unable to survive a worldwide flood. He said it as "Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive."

If the fish were not separated from the flood waters they would have died.

 

Maybe not everything, but many.

In general terms, most fish are either adapted for salt water or fresh water so the flood would have posed a great challenge to all. But there are some fish that are even more specialized for very specific conditions. For these, there would be no hope of survival.

 

Then what should we understand you to mean? That you have made this statement (many—if not most—Baptist scholars of the Old Testament, [believe] that Genesis is a redacted compilation) without regard to how many or which Baptist scholars actually hold this position?

Do you mean this as an absolute, and would this negate the possibility of miracles? For example, a man walking on water "violates" the laws of nature that God has put in place.

 

The question is whether the New Testament should interpret the Old Testament passages.

Concerning specific passages, I believe the following ones are most, if not all, of the references to Noah and the ark in the New Testament.

Matthew 24:37-39 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:26-30 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

I Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

II Peter 2:4-6 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament account, or vice versa (or is there some other way)? How are these New Testament passages interpreted in light of how you view them in relation to the redacted account of Noah and the ark? Would you apply the same principle (as you would apply in the Noah verses) to any other references in the New Testament to the "redacted account" (Gen. 1-11)?

 

You and I have been around this carousel enough to know that I am going to use the Bible as the standard to judge all science and you are going to allow science to limit what the Bible can mean.

But just the basics... there is as much "evidence", real, tangible, "put your physical hands on it" evidence for what I propose as for what you believe.

The explanations you accept are built on a premise of naturalism. The explanations I accept are built on a presupposition that the Bible is true- with the direct implication that Genesis is literal because the internal, biblical evidence supports this view.

I reject naturalism as a uniformly acceptable premise. Therefore, you can cite all the fancy explanations you want... and I will reject them until you establish that your philosophical premise is universally true. To do that to my satisfaction, you will have to disprove the God of the Bible.

 

If I didn’t know better, on the basis of your statement I would have to say that we do not believe in the same God. The God that I know cannot lie, cheat, or steal, and He cannot violate His own laws. And since one of us appears to be writing from the Twilight Zone, I can not see any point in continuing a dialog with you. I shall address two more of your comments and discontinue my dialog with you.</font>[/QUOTE] How many people did
Christ feed with a few loaves and fish? Was Christ lying, cheating, stealing, or violating His own laws when He fed more people than can be fed with this amount?

Christ entered a room without using a door or window. He walked on water. Made wine from water. Etc, etc...

Do these things mean that He lied, cheated, stole, or violated His own laws?

Do you really want to limit what God can do by naturalism? If you believe in a God that is limited by any law of nature or that it indicates a moral flaw in Him when He sovereignly chooses to supercede those laws then we most definitely do not believe in the same God.

The question for me was whether I would trust a pompous, condescending Christian fundamentalist extremist who has no university education in the sciences...</font>[/QUOTE] You can't avoid your superiority complex can you?

You have to impugn the intelligence, character, and education of anyone who disagrees with you. Why?

I have a university education in engineering technologies. I did not specialize in one field or another but have enough background to understand and critique the basic arguments.

Would you like for me to share my IQ scores also?

Also, I most certainly know enough of logic to know that ideas are dependent on their premises. The premise for evolution is naturalism. I reject "naturalism" as a governing force for the universe and accept God.

I understand Genesis just fine. It is an account written in narrative form that either means what it says or does not. I believe it to be the inspired Word of God therefore I reject the higher criticism that is applied to these writings.

I will trust God. You do what you want.

If God had wanted to make Genesis ambiguous, He could have... but He didn't. "Morning and evening" is a specific phrase. God gave specifics.

I made no reference whatsoever to your education or your intelligence.

</font>[/QUOTE]You do it persistently... but you generalize it. You didn't single out me. You just insenuated that anyone who could pass the 2nd grade should agree with you. It is part of your usual methodology when debating this subject.

 

"Therefore, you can cite all the fancy explanations you want... and I will reject them until you establish that your philosophical premise is universally true. To do that to my satisfaction, you will have to disprove the God of the Bible."

Your basis is then a fallacy of the false dilemma and it is unlikely that we will get anywhere with that as a starting point.

 

I made this comment on the topic of Which do you trust, God or science? ( http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/2730.html? ),"If I did not know the Scripture, then I would have no problem accepting the scientific explanation, BUT I DO KNOW what God said, so I look at this whole subject in a different light than the unknowing or the unbeliever.

Regardless of your belief, you have to accept it on faith as there is no CONCRETE evidence to prove either scenario. So again it boils down to who/what you believe is the most trustworthy, man & science, or God!

 

Of course not! The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before any of the New Testament was written, and it was written to be read and understood at the time it was written.

This passage in Matthew does not imply or even suggest that the story of Noah’s ark was a literal account of an historic event. Jesus was simply using, for illustrative purposes, a story that was commonly known. I have many books in my library that are full of literary illustrations for the use of teaching Biblical truth in sermons. Some of that literature is factual, and some of it is fictional, but it is all useful for illustrative purposes.

We find here the same sort of thing that we found in Matthew. Jesus is simply using a story that was familiar with his readers to illustrate his teaching. A picture is better than a thousand words, and Jesus very often used word pictures and literary illustrations to make his teachings easy to understand and easy to remember.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is here using an illustration from a piece of epic literature that he apparently believed his readers found to be inspiring. And of course, at the time, many of the laity believed, as many of the laity today believes, that the story of Noah’s Ark was a literal account of an historic event and the use of the illustration was therefore very appropriate.
(continued below)

 

(continued from above)

These three verses must be interpreted in their context,

18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Most Bible scholars, with the exception of Baptists and some others, believe that Peter is here teaching that water baptism is the means by which God saves sinners through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The biggest problem for most of these scholars is Peter’s use of the phrase “were brought safely through the water.” The obvious question is how did the water save Noah and his family? However we answer this and the many of questions raised by this passage, it is expressly clear that Peter’s understanding of the story of Noah’s Ark was VERY different than the understanding held by most Christians today. However, whether or not Peter himself believed that the story of Noah’s Ark was a literal account of an historic event or not cannot be determined from this passage, and is mostly likely irrelevant to its correct interpretation.

It seems clear to me in this passage that it was Peter’s understanding that his readers believed the story of Noah’s Ark to be a literal account of an historic event and that Peter therefore used this and other stories to drive home the importance of repenting from all sin and living a Godly life, a feat which very many members of this message board claim to be an impossible thing to achieve, citing their incorrect interpretation of Rom. 7:14 – 25 and other passages that they believe give them an excuse to sin, and thus making a mockery of this and many other passages in the Bible. The important lesson here is not whether or not the story of Noah’s Ark is a literal account of an historic event—the important lesson here is that those who refuse to repent of their sin shall suffer the fatal consequences of sin as did those who refused to go aboard the Ark.

I believe that I have answered these questions in my posts above.

 

It is a perfectly valid starting point when you are arguing from the premise that naturalistic explanations must always be preferred regardless of how improbable or implausible the are.

Anything is possible. It is just that the mechanisms proposed for macroevolution are so improbable that they very well border on impossible.

For it to work, you need a beneficial mutation to occur at precisely the right time. You need for the host of that mutation to not only survive (which relates directly back to "chance" events in a hostile environment) but you need the host to thrive. So much so that he/she reproduces so much that at least one of the descendents perpetuates the mutation and is likewise favored until all of that species without the mutation are eliminated. The mutation can't just be beneficial. It must be overwhelmingly beneficial in such a way that it overcomes the thousands or millions within the species that lack it.

Oh yeah, it's worth mentioning that very, very few mutations are beneficial... and most are destructive. Also, genes resist change. DNA has its own method of quality control that works to prevent change.

Not only this, you need meaningless mutations to occur and wait for subsequent mutations that make use of that mutation. Of course nature works against inefficiency so this must happen relatively quickly or else natural selection will work directly against the mutation.

The sequence of events that lead to complex systems via macroevolution is ridiculously improbable and completely lacks a credible mechanism.

You want to us to buy "proofs" that even if accurately presented are so miniscule that they could never point to a general progression of single cell to human evolution.

No process ever proposed by evolutionists has resulted in an observed, new functional trait that would favor an animal in natural selection. Yet this is the exact process you suppose explains the incredible complexity of biological life on earth.

And we haven't even begun to talk about where the information held in dna came from. Information does not arise from random occurrences. It could never arise on the order observed in nature by any combination of random events and natural selection.

The only false dilema is the one that you all insist upon- that for science to be coherent it must be based on a purely naturalistic premise. Intelligence however answers questions much more sufficiently than the naturalism that you all demand.

 

Craig, thanks for your answers. When you have opportunity, please note and answer the two questions in the last post on page 6, which you may have overlooked.

These New Testament passages referencing Noah and the flood (and II Pet. 3:6, which I failed to mention) have in common a general theme of God's judgment (except the Hebrews 11 passage). It is not impossible or even unlikely that someone would use a story to illustrate and teach about God's judgment. But the use of a mythical tale asserting that God did judge as proof that God will judge seems unlikely. It even calls in question the integrity of the New Testament and its authors. Also, a mixing of mythical and historical characters (such as in Jesus' genealogy, the example of Noah & Lot, and the various individuals in the faith chapter, Heb. 11) is bound to cause confusion, and even discouragement, when one finds out the "truth".

 

Then you believe something that is absolutely false.

Jesus, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) all refer to Noah as actual past events. In no way do they give any indication that they are using a myth for illustration purposes. Especially in the case of Christ who would have known more than any human ever the truth of Noah's flood, these inspired writers would have been dishonest in not revealing that the flood wasn't world wide and did not destroy all flesh from off the face of the world.

In fact without this being true, the illustration is nothing more than the perpetuation of a lie.

BTW, you guys missed 2 Peter 3: