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

[Andre]

Insofar as the ark story and the story of Jesus feeding thousands with a few loaves and a few fish both seem to entail "violation of natural law" by God, they seem to be on equal footing. Without bringing other considerations to bear, why would one be more inclined to believe in the literal truth of one than the other?

However, there are other considerations. And on the basis of these other considerations, I am inclined to believe that the Ark story is not historical whereas the feeding story is. What are my reasons?

First, let me say that I have not studied the Ark story and its implications at all. Nevertheless, I would imagine that what was apparently a global flood in the not too distant past would leave a fair bit of physical evidence. Now I am going to assume that the "mainstream" scientific community holds that no such evidence exists. And I tend to believe the mainstream scientific community for reasons I will elaborate upon if asked. On the other hand, Jesus' feeding of the 4000 (or the 5000) would leave no "imprint" on the physical world that would be studied. It's effect on the physical world would be almost negligible. By contrast, I would expect that a global flood would have cataclysmic impact on the natural world. And the evidence of such an impact would, in principle, be discernable today.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Andre:
Jesus' feeding of the 4000 (or the 5000) would leave no "imprint" on the physical world that would be studied. It's effect on the physical world would be almost negligible. By contrast, I would expect that a global flood would have cataclysmic impact on the natural world. And the evidence of such an impact would, in principle, be discernable today.

This is a very good point.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
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!

So many issues.

The first will be that you challenged me on the thread you mentioned to show how evolution is a predictive, falsifiable, testable theory. I have answered your question and I deserve a response. I would also like to ask you how your would seek to explain what we see with a testable, predictive, falsifiable theory along with some of the evidence that you think supports your theory, successful predictions it has made and how it could be falsified.

The second is that there is much evidence for an old earth. There is little to none for a young earth. It is the YE scenario that has no concrete on which to stand.

Finally, you are making a false dilemma there at the end. It is possible that your interpretation is wrong in which case you can trust both God and His creation and not be forced to choose.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The only false dilema is the one that you all insist upon..."

Yours is the false dilemma because it supposes only two choices when there are others possible. You claim that you can only accept [your iterpretation of ] the Bible or what science has to say. But there are other options. The most important is that you could be wrong in your interpretation. There are even other possibilities such as that we are both wrong and there is an additional way to reconcile things.

Most of the rest of your argument is a fallacious appeal from ignorance. You do not know how such things could happen so you say that they could not have happened. Nevermind that experts in the field have no such reservations. You merely assert that they are not possible without ever telling us why they are so except for your own incredulty. How about an example?

"No process ever proposed by evolutionists has resulted in an observed, new functional trait that would favor an animal in natural selection."

Check out this reference.

Kato K, Ohtsuki K, Koda Y, Maekawa T, Yomo T, Negoro S, and Urabe I. (1995 Oct). A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: nucleotide sequence and analysis of pOAD2. Microbiology, 141 (Pt 10), 2585-90.

A mutation led to a bacteria that is able to now digest nylon. And it happened and was selected for in nature. So the impossible is observed!

Now the challenge for you.

Follow JWP's link above and you will find a short piece by me on how evolution is falsifiable, how it makes successful predictions and how it can be tested.

We need such a theory from you. If all life was the result of separately created "kinds" in recent times then what would you expect to see? What tests can we run to show this is what happened? What predictions would you make that would result? What kinds of findings would falsify your theory?

For that matter, what is your theory in the first place?

Just off the top of my head, here are some examples of the type of predictions such a theory should have. Of course without knowing exactly what you propose, these may or may not apply.

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that there should be sharp devisions between the kinds. It should be clear what the kinds are. There will not be intermediates between the kinds. There should be sharp morphological and genetic differences.

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that the designs should be perfectly adapted for their uses.

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that there should be no homology between the kinds. (Must be careful to use the proper definition of "homology here. Homology is "detailed similarity of organization that is functionally unnecessary, meaning the similarity is unnecessary (the trait in question may be, and usually is, functional).")

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that since all kinds were created at once that they should be found fairly randomly mixed in the fossil record with allowances made for habitat.

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that there should not be atavistic or developmental similarities to other kinds with different adult forms.

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that the genome should show the means by which information for speciation was programmed in.

With recently created, intelligently designed, separate "kinds" one would expect that there should be no reason for different techniques to yield the same phylogenies. In fact, it should be impossible to even attempt to generate phylogenies except within a kind.

We can extend this line of thinking to geology and astronomy also.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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.

Here we go,

quote:

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I am not referring to any specific Baptist scholars.

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?
quote:

God...cannot violate His own laws.

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.

My answer to the first question: I have been studying and teaching the Bible for many years, and I have read the works of hundreds of scholars, and for me to say that 273 believe interpretation A and then list the names of the 273 scholars is not something that I am able to do. Nor am I able to say that 168 believe interpretation B and list the names of the 168 scholars. That is why I wrote, “I believe, along with many—if not most—Baptist scholars of the Old Testament, that Genesis is a redacted compilation of the works of many different individuals as God inspired them to write.” If you really want to know which Baptist scholars believe in a redacted Genesis and which ones don’t, and if you really want to know what the percentages are, you have a few years of work cut out for you.

My answer to the second question: There is not the slightest hint in the story of Noah’s Ark that any miracle took place. The account, when interpreted literally, describes God saving the lives of Noah and his family and the lives of all the animals on the earth through natural means—a wooden boat for which even the dimensions and other details are provided. It is very obvious that the writer of this account believed that the ark was capable of doing the job without any miracles at all. The facts are, however, that the ark was NOT capable of doing the job without the help of miracles infinitely greater than any miracle recorded anywhere in the Bible.

When Jesus fed the five thousand, it is very clear from the narrative that the writer of the narrative understood that a miracle had taken place and the reader is expected to understand that also. The same is true of all the miracles in the Bible. God was and is very capable of performing miracles, but there are some things that God simply can NOT do. For example (I posted this in another thread), God can NOT squeeze a gallon of water into a one ounce bottle. Water simply can NOT be compressed like that because God made it that way.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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".

No one in any of these threads on evolution, dinosaurs, and the age of the earth is arguing that any part of Genesis is a “mythical tale.” There is a huge difference between epic literature and mythical tales. We know for a fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event, and there is neither confusion nor cause for discouragement except for those individuals who willfully choose to reject common sense because of religious beliefs that have no solid foundation.

Furthermore, no New Testament writer used the story of Noah’ Ark as proof of God’s impending judgment. Sound hermeneutics requires that we take all known relevant facts into consideration when interpreting New Testament passages. That the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event could not be more obvious and New Testament passages that make a reference to it MUST be interpreted in the light of that fact.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
My answer to the first question: I have been studying and teaching the Bible for many years, and I have read the works of hundreds of scholars, and for me to say that 273 believe interpretation A and then list the names of the 273 scholars is not something that I am able to do. Nor am I able to say that 168 believe interpretation B and list the names of the 168 scholars...

You may have been teaching the Bible for years and read hundreds of scholars, but on the Baptist Board you are 13 letters of the English alphabet and saint graemlin. That does not impress me. The original question asked for you to give examples of those to whom to you use for "backup" and whether you have any idea they are really in the majority of Baptist Old Testament scholarship. That shouldn't be that hard. It's easy to throw around the term "most".

My answer to the second question: There is not the slightest hint in the story of Noah’s Ark that any miracle took place...When Jesus fed the five thousand, it is very clear from the narrative that the writer of the narrative understood that a miracle had taken place...God can NOT squeeze a gallon of water into a one ounce bottle. Water simply can NOT be compressed like that because God made it that way.

So you evidently think miracles can't or don't "violate" God's laws? I notice you address Noah and Jesus & the 5000, but didn't address the one example I did give - a man walking on water.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
...We know for a fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event, and there is neither confusion nor cause for discouragement except for those individuals who willfully choose to reject common sense because of religious beliefs that have no solid foundation...Furthermore, no New Testament writer used the story of Noah’ Ark as proof of God’s impending judgment. Sound hermeneutics requires that we take all known relevant facts into consideration when interpreting New Testament passages. That the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event could not be more obvious and New Testament passages that make a reference to it MUST be interpreted in the light of that fact.

And yet on page 7 you say that it seems clear that Peter's readers "believed the story of Noah’s Ark to be a literal account of an historic event".

Notice what Peter said, "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; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day R86 of judgment." Noah's and the destruction of the ancient world is set forth as one of three cases of God's judgment, which demonstrate that God can and will judge, and not only so, but will do so with proper care and discernment.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You may have been teaching the Bible for years and read hundreds of scholars, but on the Baptist Board you are 13 letters of the English alphabet and saint graemlin. That does not impress me.

Nor should it impress you. I posted this information to explain why what you were asking of me was a bit much.

The original question asked for you to give examples of those to whom to you use for "backup" and whether you have any idea they are really in the majority of Baptist Old Testament scholarship. That shouldn't be that hard. It's easy to throw around the term "most".

No, that is not what you original question asked for. I you believe that I am throwing around terms, check out the literature on Genesis for yourself.

Notice what Peter said, "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; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day R86 of judgment." Noah's and the destruction of the ancient world is set forth as one of three cases of God's judgment, which demonstrate that God can and will judge, and not only so, but will do so with proper care and discernment.

2 Peter presents to the exegete of the New Testament a multitude of serious problems, and ever since 225 A.D. the canonicity of it has been seriously questioned (and the Syrian Orthodox Church continues to reject it), and no known writer quotes from or mentions 2 Peter prior to 225 A.D. And whatever one may choose to do with 2 Peter, it does not change the fact that the story of Noah’s Ark has been proven not to be a literal account of an historic event. ALL New Testament references to the story of Noah’s Ark need to be interpreted in the light of that fact.

 

[Craigbythesea]

So you evidently think miracles can't or don't "violate" God's laws? I notice you address Noah and Jesus & the 5000, but didn't address the one example I did give - a man walking on water.

I do not know why you should find any problem with this miracle—I certainly don’t. But I do have a problem with those who insist that the story of Noah’s Ark is a literal account of an historic event that does not include any miracles, and then spiritualize the story of Noah’s Ark and attach to it a huge host of miracles the nature of which we do not find anywhere in the Bible. Again—if the ark was too small to do the job without a huge host of miracles, why did the author give the dimensions of the ark to show us that it was big enough? I cannot fathom how anything could possibly be more absurd.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I posted this information to explain why what you were asking of me was a bit much.

Why is it too much to ask you to defend your assertion?

No, that is not what you original question asked for. I you believe that I am throwing around terms, check out the literature on Genesis for yourself.

Here is what I originally said, "...would you post the names of some of those to whom you refer, along with any data that supports their percentage within the totality of Baptist Old Testament scholarship?" Simplified it means, "If you're going to claim that 'most Baptist Old Testament scholars hold that Genesis is a redacted compilation of the works of many different individuals' then give us some proof of that assertion." I don't have to prove the negative. You're the one who made the claim.

2 Peter presents to the exegete of the New Testament a multitude of serious problems, and ever since 225 A.D. the canonicity of it has been seriously questioned (and the Syrian Orthodox Church continues to reject it), and no known writer quotes from or mentions 2 Peter prior to 225 A.D.

Thanks for clearing that up. I understood from your second post on page 7, with the use of the words like "Peter’s understanding" and "his [Peter's] readers", that you believed that this was the Apostle Peter's writing. But if you do not regard II Peter as inspired scripture, it obviously doesn't matter what it says.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I do not know why you should find any problem with this miracle—I certainly don’t.

You stated that God cannot violate His own laws. Yet it seems to be against the God's laws of nature that a man could walk on water without sinking. Do you believe this miracle violates God's laws? Why or why not?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Thanks for clearing that up. I understood from your second post on page 7 with the use of the words "Peter’s understanding" and "his [Peter's] readers" that you believed that this was the Apostle Peter's writing. But if you do not regard II Peter as inspired scripture, it obviously doesn't matter what it says.

I did not say that I do not regard II Peter as inspired scripture. However, whether it is inspired or it isn’t inspired is irrelevant to the fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event. My reason for dismissing those verses in 2 Peter was simply that they are irrelevant to the issue in Genesis because no amount of inspiration in the New Testament can make the story of Noah’s Ark a literal account of an historic event.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You stated that God cannot violate His own laws. Yet it seems to be against the God's laws of nature that a man could walk on water without sinking. Do you believe this miracle violates God's laws? Why or why not?

Let’s not be guilty of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

 

[rlvaughn]

No, you do not say that II Peter is not inspired, and are careful that you do not say it is. Right or wrong, whoever is making this argument understands the flood (as well as the fallen angels and Sodom) as an historical judgment by God which demonstrates His capability and the surety of judgment.

"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...then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment."

"[If God] 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...then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment."

"f 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; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men...then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment."

Also I'm not sure why you can't or won't defend your assertion that most Baptist Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis is a redacted compilation, or why you'd rather not answer about a man walking on water.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Also I'm not sure why you can't or won't defend your assertion that most Baptist Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis is a redacted compilation, .

I am sure why not—I never made such a claim!

or why you'd rather not answer about a man walking on water.

Matt. 14:24. But the boat was already a long distance from the land, battered by the waves; for the wind was contrary.
25. And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.
26. When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out in fear.
27. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid."
28. Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
29. And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"
32. When they got into the boat, the wind stopped.

My personal understanding of Matthew 14:24-32 is that Matthew is describing a miracle—a man walking on water. Where in Genesis 6 - 8 do you find Moses describing any miracles? Fact: a literal interpretation of Genesis 6 – 8 does NOT include any miracles. Genesis has been redacted enough without some Christian fundamentalists editing in a multitude of miracles to do away with the following difficulties:

• 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.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I am sure why not—I never made such a claim!

Well then, I'm not sure what you meant on page 3, or why after three or four attempts, you only now come up with this answer.

My personal understanding of Matthew 14:24-32 is that Matthew is describing a miracle—a man walking on water.

I'll take it that is a close as you'll get to answering whether God "violated" His laws with this miracle.

Thanks.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Well then, I'm not sure what you meant on page 3, or why after three or four attempts, you only now come up with this answer.

My statement was expressly clear and I did not realize till now that you did not understand it.

I'll take it that is a close as you'll get to answering whether God "violated" His laws with this miracle.

Wrong again! God NEVER violates His laws and he did not do so by allowing Peter to walk on water.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Rlvaughn,

I have been a gentleman and courteously answered all of your questions. How about returning the favor and answering my question, “Where in Genesis 6 - 8 do you find Moses describing any miracles?”

 

[rlvaughn]

You answered with obfuscation and continued to do so, making it necessary to repeat over and over to try to get a straight answer.

As for my view of Genesis 6-8, I believe it is an historical account of a true story - just as true and historical as God's creation of Adam, the call of Abraham, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the birth of Israel in Egypt, the anointing of David and so on. If your view makes this call for miracles or means I am irrational, then so be it.