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

[PlainSense Bible believer]

I have started this topic as an experiment. As a result of discussions on another thread, I was asked to provide evidence for a young earth, see quotes below.

My intention is for this to be a calm, measured debate - wrong word really - I am not going to debate this - I don’t have a scientific background.

I have given two links below to evidence for a young earth presented by AiG.

I intend to look at evolutionist responses. If the responses are just differences in opinion, well, that is fair enough and to be expected.

On the other hand, the second quote, below, claims that AiG research is poor scholarship, and that they misrepresent the facts. If this is claimed for these two young earth evidences, I think it is only fair to give AiG the opportunity to respond if they want to. I will act as the go-between here, so please be aware that any claims of AiG misrepresentation, poor scholarship, etc. will be passed onto AiG for comment. I will also post comments from AiG here. If they don’t comment - well, I will be disappointed with them, but there is nothing I can do about it, save be disappointed.

My purpose in doing this is not to "show anyone up". I simply want to see both sides of the argument, and AiGs response, to any claimed misrepresentation etc.

I have chosen AiG because they are the creationist organization with which I am most familiar and because they are specifically mentioned as misrepresenting evidence.

I have chosen the two evidences listed because, again, they are two which I have known about for a number of years.

…there is NO evidence for a young earth. If you disagree, give me your five best evidences for a young earth. We'll see.

IMHO, folks such as AIG and ICR are forced to invent and misrepresent what is really seen to attempt to make a case.

This is the very reason why I am no longer YE. I once was. When I went to the YE source, like the ones you mentioned, I was so shocked by the poor scholarship (to put it charitably) that I felt forced to broaden my scope. I am no longer YE because of the evidence for YE. Or more specifically the lack of evidence thereof and the way in which folks such as AIG attempt to build a case.

Links to young earth evidences:

>>>Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth<<<

>>>The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young<<<

Let's get to it!
PlainSense

 

[Craigbythesea]

I don’t have a scientific background.

I am curious about something—since you don't have a scientific background, what will be the basis for your evaluation of the credibility of that which may be posted in this thread?

 

[hillclimber]

http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm
If you can follow it.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth"

Hello PlainSense

This is a good example of the kind of fraud we find on the YE side.

The first mistake is that there are at least 17 known sodium removal processes that are not mentioned or considered.

Another mistake is that he mistates the removal of sodium by alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity by a factor of 35! When you consider the actual number removes 23% of the sodium that enters the ocean by itself, this is a huge mistake. It is difficult to even call it a mistake since the number comes from one of his sources.

If you fix all of the mistaken nnumbers and overlooked proceses, you find that the input of sodium is estimated to be 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr while the output is estimated at 38.1 x 10^10 kg/yr. That appears to be a larger number out than in. Of course the error bars are large enough that what it really means is that the level of sodium is at equilibrium. If they are at equilibrium, then you cannot tell for how long this has been the case.

Another interesting thing is that the is a letter written to the authors about 9 years ago detailing the mistakes. The erroneous data has never been removed. Here is a link to the last of a series of letters between the authors and a scientists. They replied so they got the message. They just choose to continue the lie.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm
If you can follow it.

Do you plan to respond to the criticism of Setterfield or are you just going to keep posting the same link without defending it?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/39.html#000001
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/2931.html#000002

 

[billwald]

The magnetic field has flipped several times in the past and probably will do so again. What about it?

Salt water - citations from 1750 and 1859? You gots to be kidding.

OK let's assume that life on earth is only 6,000 years old. I propose that life was seeded here by space aliens in flying saucers. I challange you to propose a physical test to show me wrong.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm
If you can follow it.

I do not want to hijack what may prove to be an interesting thread to deal with this unrelated nonsense, but because it is hazardous to the health of Christians, I shall address it very briefly.

Mr. Setterfield, a self-appointed “scientist” without a formal education in the sciences, seems to be determined to defend his personal and erroneous interpretation of Gen. 1 - 11 at all cost to the Christian faith. Notice the VERY FIRST SENTENCE in the article by Mr. Setterfield that is linked to in the above post,

“God does not lie.”

The clear and obvious intention of this sentence is to falsely insinuate that mainstream science makes God out to be a liar. But it is NOT God that mainstream science is making out to be a liar! The large majority of Baptist scholars of the Old Testament, and the vast majority of scholars of the book of Genesis, do NOT find Gen. 1 – 11 to be in conflict with science, but they do find the interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 that Mr. Setterfield tenaciously holds to be true to be in conflict with the a sound interpretation of that passage of Scripture.

Posturing science against God and telling people that they have to choose EITHER science OR the Bible, and if they believe science they are calling God a liar, is causing thousands of young people every year to make a conscious decision for science and against the Bible. However, when we compare science to what the large majority of Baptist scholars of the Old Testament interpret Genesis 1 – 11 to be saying, there is NO conflict, and NO young people need to choose between science and the Bible, but rather they can learn from both science and the Bible, and between the two grow and mature in their faith so that God can use them to help others discover the truth of the Gospel and invite Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior.

Contrary to what Mr. Setterfield would have you to believe, science if a gift from God that is every day improving the quality of our lives. Yes, some evildoers have used science to injure others just as some evildoers have used guns to injure others, but science is not to blame—the blame lies in the hands of sinful men. If it were not for science, you would not have the monitor on which you are reading this message, nor the electricity to power it. Indeed, if it were not for science, very many of our children and other loved ones would have died from disease or injury.

Now let’s get back to the subject of this thread—the two AIG articles by Jonathan Sarfati.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don’t have a scientific background.

I am curious about something—since you don't have a scientific background, what will be the basis for your evaluation of the credibility of that which may be posted in this thread?

</font>[/QUOTE]I wondered if someone would ask this, and it is something I considered before starting this topic.

I do have a background in electronics, so I have studied magnetics, particularly as they relate to motors, dynamos, generators, etc., so I can probably get the gist of arguments concerning the earth's magnetic field, though I accept that I may not be able to follow everything.

With the salty seas evidence, I will just have to do the best I can.

I accept that I may not be able to follow everything absolutely, but even if I find that the arguments are way over my head, I will still be interested:

a) To see if AiG respond at all to critisicms levied against them.

b) To judge their response (as far as I am able to).

I know they have their technical journal too, but generally AiG try to put things across in a way that the ordinary person can understand, for example in their "Creation" magazine.

I am trying to be objective about this, rather than standing in one corner or the other.

Also, I trust that this topic will be useful and instructive to others, not just myself.

You were quite right to ask the question. I trust the above answers it to some extent.

I have only had a superficial look this morning but I am very encouraged by the response so far to this topic. I have to do some work now and it will probably be this evening (UK time) before I look at the responses in any detail.

Yours in Christ,
PlainSense

 

[UTEOTW]

Before going on to the second link there is something else to point out. The first link was NOT evidence for a young earth. The author said that his [flawed] analysis showed only that the earth could not be older than 62 million years. That does not in any way show the earth to be 6000 years old unless you use the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. It is an important point.

"I accept that I may not be able to follow everything absolutely, but even if I find that the arguments are way over my head, I will still be interested:

a) To see if AiG respond at all to critisicms levied against them.

b) To judge their response (as far as I am able to)."

I would like your reaction to my response on the salty seas. First off, what do you think of the authors changing the number in one of the references by a factor of 35? This by itself makes up most of the gap they allege. Second, what do you think of the authors leaving out over a dozen known ways to remove sodium from their calculations? Thirs what do you think about them not changing their writing in the last nine years even after these mistakes were pointed out to them?

"&gt;&gt;&gt;The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young&lt;&lt;&lt; "

This one is a bit schizophrenic. At first it starts talking about Barnes and his claims of a decaying magnetic field. Well, the answer to this is that the field DOES change with time and it even goes to essentially zero and reverses itself periodically. But I do not even have to go int o this because the author then heads immediately into a polar opposite model which does allow for reversals. If there are reversals, then the Barnes stuff was a waste of everyone's time. It smacks of throwing everything against the wall and hoping something sticks.

It then goes right into Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics model. Which is full of problems. A few of these are:

The mechanism does not work with known physics. The mantle would have to be much hotter than it is to lower its viscosity enough for his numbers to be true. If you follow the link to his paper you should see this. There is nothing proposed to get the mantle that hot nor to subsequently remove all of that heat to get today's mantle temperature.

As the basalt that makes up the sea floor cools, it becomes more dense and sinks. There is much supporting evidence for this. Baumgardner's model cannot explain the observed cooling of the seafloor. You just cannot remove heat that quickly.

According to Baumgardner, the seafloor should all bethe same age. It is not.

You can also get into more subtle things. Take the Hawaiian islands. There is a long chain of volcanic islands. They appear to have been formed by a slowly moving hotspot. If you plot the age of each volcano against how far it is from the currently active volcanoes on the big island, you get a linear plot that shows the steady movement of the hot spot. You can also observe that the older the volcano, the more erosion is has endured. Some of the oldest volcanoes in the chain have been eroded completely back into the ocean. This just cannot be done rapidly. All the volcanoes would have been required to form at the same time according to Baumgardner but instead we see differences in age and in how much erosion they have been exposed to.

But this leads into the larger criticism of what you cite. The evidence simply indicates that reversal have happened over a long period of time.

Notice that the article you linked does not even mention the spreading of the mid-Atlantic ridge. We can measure the rate of the spreading today. If you take that rate and go some distance from the ridge you can figure how long it took that area to get there from when it emerged at the ridge. If you then date the rock you get the same age. These spreading layers of rock record in them many reversals of the magnetic field. It has been going on a long time.

 

[Craigbythesea]

PlainSense Bible believer,

Thank you for your answer. I believe that those individuals who honestly and prayerfully study the arguments over the age of the earth can come to the correct answer. I believe that some Christians are afraid to accept that the earth is old because they have been taught that the Bible says that it is young and they are afraid of the consequences of accepting the conclusion that the earth is old. Therefore, I would encourage to you to carefully and prayerfully study Gen. 1 – 11 to find out for yourself the truths that God has given to us in that passage of Scripture. The literature on the book of Genesis is vast, and if you have access to a large university or seminary library, I encourage you to take a peek at some of this literature and see how very complex and multifaceted the issues are.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
PlainSense Bible believer,

I believe that those individuals who honestly and prayerfully study the arguments over the age of the earth can come to the correct answer... I would encourage to you to carefully and prayerfully study Gen. 1 – 11 to find out for yourself the truths that God has given to us in that passage of Scripture.

I don't want to deceive anybody here. Just because I have started this thread, doesn't make me a potential evolutionist convert. When you say "I believe that those individuals who honestly and prayerfully study the arguments over the age of the earth can come to the correct answer", I assume you mean that the "correct answer" is the evolutionist position.

Before I came to know and love the Lord, at age 24, I assumed that evolution was correct because that is what was taught as fact at school. I wasn't even aware that there were alternative beliefs. But it was no big deal because at that time I didn't believe in God, and when you say that there is no God, what does it matter how old the universe is or where we came from? At least it didn't matter to me.

When I became a Christian, I wanted to know what the Bible said, not creation/evolution in particular - that wasn't an issue at the time - but the Bible is God's word and I wanted to know about God; I wanted to know about Christ. I was advised to read the New Testament first so that is what I did. I determined that I was going to read through the Bible and try to make sense of it myself, without reference to anyone elses ideas. That was easy - as a new Christian I only had a Bible, I didn't own any reference books. The only concession I made to this was to ask questions of other Christians whenever I got stuck on anything, which was plenty of times. There were (still are if I am honest) certain things I was not sure of when I finished the NT. Then I started on the OT. What a shock Genesis was! Creation in six days? I was told that God's word was right, but it said God created everything in six days, whereas my school teaching and the world at large said it all happened by itself and took millions/billions of years. I went to my fellow Christians about this. Some said creation in six days is right, evolution can't be proved and is wrong; some said each day represents a time period of x million/billion years; still others said God created using evolution. And there were other theories - more theories than you could poke a stick at! I prayed about this a lot - what should I believe - creation in six days? evolution in millions/billions of years? a mixture of the two? - what? I put the problem to one side while I continued to read through the OT. I kept on praying about it though. After some years as a Christian, I determined to prayerfully study Genesis for myself. I found that I could come to no other conclusion than that the six days of creation are literal, and that there was no possible way to reconcile it with the evolutionary timescale or with other evolutionary implications. I accepted by faith that the Bible was right in this. Over the years my knowledge of Scripture, Bible-time customs etc. has increased and I have returned and studied Genesis afresh many times. Each time I have come to the same conclusion. After many years I became aware of people like AiG, and having come to the literal six-day creation position by myself, I was pleased to find an organisation that provided scientific evidence of this. However, AiG's evidence has recently been questioned on this forum, and that is why I started this topic. It may be that AiG's evidence will be shown to be false or misguided. If that is shown to be so, it will not change my position on a literal six-consecutive-twenty-four-hour-day creation, because having studied this in depth many times by myself, I am absolutely convinced that this is the correct interpretation of, not just the creation account of Genesis, but of other passages that have a bearing on this too. I have had alternative "interpretations" of creation expounded to me but, frankly, there are problems with all of them - scripturally, linguistically and theologically.

I am interested to see if AiG's material can "hold water" scientifically, but the outcome will not alter my view of the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Sorry about the long post and the mini-biography, but perhaps you understand my position better now.

PlainSense

 

[just-want-peace]

Excellent reply PSBB! You sum up my beliefs very well, but I could never verbalize them as well as you.

I really fail to grasp why some people who name the name of Christ choose to believe what science says ove the inspired word of God!

But that's their choice.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually - when you say you don't believe in God what BETTER answer could be hoped for than the non-God anti-Gospel, anti-Bible, Anti-Creation-account myth we call "evolutionism"?

Certainly the well known atheist evolutionist - scientist Richard Dawkins gets the point.

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Excerpt –

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"[/b] -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

(Note for the Reader: In the above quote Dawkins argues that Christian evolutionist think “God does something”, that “God contributes something” to the subject of origins. And on that point alone – Dawkins argues for the inconsistency and flawed logic of so-called-christian-evolutionism.

Christian evolutionist sometimes argue against Dawkins claiming that HE has made too much of a grandiose claim about what Christian-evolutionists think God is doing.

How sad that Christian evolutionists are prone to going to such extremes.)

QUESTION: What is your view of more liberal religious views that are held by people like your Oxford colleage Arthur Peacocke, who is both a biochemist and an Anglican minister?

MR. DAWKINS: More sophisticated theological views, people like Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne – obviously they're not creationists in any simple sense -- they're not fundamentalists, they're not stupid. So do I respect them more? Well, in one respect obviously I do, because really you could have an intelligent conversation with them -- they're not ignorant. On the other hand, I can't understand what they're doing it for. I mean, I don't understand what it is that is being added, either to their lives or to the storehouse of human wisdom by bringing in this additional dimension of explanation. We have science. Science is by no means complete -- there's a lot that we don't know -- but we're working on it. Both of those two gentlemen are scientists, and they know what that means. They understand it and they respect it. We're working on building up a complete picture of the universe, which if we succeed will be a complete understanding of the universe and everything that is in it. So I don't understand why they waste their time going into this other stuff which never has added anything to the storehouse of human wisdom, and I don't see that it ever will.

QUESTION: Why do you think that in an age of science so many people, even in the West, and particularly in America, continue to believe in religion?

MR. DAWKINS: I don't understand why so many people who are sophisticated in science go on believing in God. I wish I did. You'd have to ask them.

I know that in some cases what they mean by God is very different from what the ordinary people that they talk to think they mean by God. There are physicists who are deeply awed, as I am, by the majesty of the universe, by the mystery of origins -- the origins of the laws of physics, the fundamental constants of physics, and who are moved by this to say there is something so mysterious that it is almost like God, and maybe use the metaphor of God. God is in the equations. God is in the fundamental constants. And that's fine. I mean, that's just redefinition of that which we find mysterious at the basis of the universe.
But other people misunderstand that, because to them God is that which forgives sins, that which transubstantiates wine, that which makes me live after I died -- and that is a totally different matter. And yet the misunderstanding is ripe for the picking. People will listen to sophisticated physicists, using God as this kind of metaphor for the deep constants, the deep problems, the deep principles of physics, and say that in that sense I believe in God. The reaction is, "Oh, this great physicist believes in God -- that means I'm free to believe in the trinity and in the crucifixion and in the reincarnation of Christ -- and all that stuff, which of course has nothing whatever to do with the fundamental constants of physics, which is what these physicists are talking about.

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What evidence do you find that the BIBLE reports that GOD SAYS He created the WORLD IN 6 DAYS and then rested on the 7th day?

Anything come to mind?

Anything "at all" evolutionists?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Craigbythesea]

I really fail to grasp why some people who name the name of Christ choose to believe what science says ove the inspired word of God!

I have personally read thousands of post on this message board and I have yet to read even one post in which the author of the post even suggested that he or she chooses to believe what science says over the inspired word of God. This is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS accusation to make!

The truth is that some people on this message board have studied both the Bible and science and have learned that there is absolutely no conflict between the two. But of course some people read Genesis as though it was written in English by some farmer who lived and died in Kansas in the 1950's rather than an example of ancient oriental literature through which God speaks to men and women today. Of course if a farmer in Kansas wrote the Book of Genesis in the 1950’s, it would be understandable for someone to see in it your particular interpretation, but, guess what! It was not written by a farmer in Kansas and therefore it only makes sense to read it in the light of the genre of literature that it is a part of—and when one does that—one sees that there are no conflicts between Genesis 1 – 11 and either the theory of evolution or an earth that is billions of years old.

I believe that the Bible is the most important document that has ever been written, and therefore I believe that it is worth the effort to study it rather than simply read an English translation of it and ignore the Hebrew text and its literary genre and the cultures of the peoples to whom God has given it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What evidence do you find that the BIBLE reports that GOD SAYS He created the WORLD IN 6 DAYS and then rested on the 7th day?

Absolutely none!

Anything come to mind?

The J.W.’s Watchtower Society!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I don’t know why some Christians choose to believe the words of men rather than Jesus, but I believe that Christians should believe Jesus instead men. Men say that God wrote the Pentateuch; Jesus said that Moses wrote it.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

I don’t know why men say that we should interpret Genesis literally, but allegorize the Gospel of John, but Baptists should know better.

Some men would say that I am just taking one verse out of context, but the truth is that Jesus never said that God wrote Genesis, but said or implied over and over again that Moses wrote it.

Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Mar 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luk 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

And here is John 5:46 in context,

Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

And here are six interesting passages,

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


God did NOT say that He created the world in six days, despite what men say. Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and we have the testimony of Jesus that Moses wrote it. Jesus does not say that Moses was inspired when he wrote Genesis, but I believe that he was, perhaps in a similar way that Luke was when he wrote his Gospel and the Book of Acts,

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

God did NOT say that He created the world in six days, and anyone who says that He says that He did is not telling you the truth.

Personally, I choose to take Jesus at His word, Moses wrote the Book of Genesis.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Sorry if this appears a bit scrambled - I have had to write this quickly in between other tasks - currently v.busy at work.

I believe that it is worth the effort to study it rather than simply read an English translation of it and ignore the Hebrew text and its literary genre and the cultures of the peoples to whom God has given it.

I don't want to deviate from the topic subject too much but, though you were replying to BobRyan here, people might think that, in studying Genesis, I have, to use your words "simply read an English translation of it". While this was certainly true in my initial studies of it as a fairly new Christian, it is not the case now.

...the truth is that Jesus never said that God wrote Genesis, but said or implied over and over again that Moses wrote it

Jesus said things like "[Moses] wrote of me" (John 5:46); "those things which Moses commanded" (Mat 1:44); "For Moses said..." (Mat 7:10). I don't read that Jesus said that Moses wrote the whole of the book of Genesis.

When you study Genesis, and in particular what the KJV translates as "generations" - i.e "these are the generations of x" (Heb. Toledoth), it becomes apparent that some of these generations are actually family histories written by (usually) the first born son, and that instead of the toledoths being at the beginning of a section as commonly thought, those sections which are family histories or family accounts are actually at the end of the related passage. There is evidence that Moses was divinely inspired. He certainly wrote a large chunk of Genesis, and was responsible for drawing the separate family histories together and editing them into a whole book (to his credit he left in the toledoth "markers" to show which parts were not written directly by him). (Incidently the nature of the text changes throughout the course of Genesis. For example in later parts of the book, Egyptian words occur, as you would expect from Mosaic authorship - Moses being raised and educated in Egypt. In earlier chapters there are no Egyptian words, but instead Babylonian words occur, consistent with a family history written by Noah (as an example - I am not saying that Noah wrote all that Moses didn't). To continue the example of Noah, the toledoth of Noah is in Gen 6:9, but where do we find the account of Noah's family history - we get one verse after the toledoth "And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (Gen 6:10) but the full account of Noah's family history is in Genesis chapter 5! The toledoth of Gen 6:9 is there to show Noah's authorship of his family history, and it is at the end of the account, as was common in writings of antiquity, not at the beginning of it.

I am not trying to show off here, just, I hope, showing that I have not "simply read an English translation of [Genesis]". My conclusion that the creation account should be taken literally is based upon a thorough in-depth study, taking into account the literary usage of antiquity, and the Hebrew text.

I should have said earlier, this being most appropriate to the topic, that there is evidence that Adam himself wrote the early chapters of Genesis (yes I know that it is commonly thought that writing was not invented then - but - quickly - there is evidence that Adam could write. Just one piece of which is that Genesis 5:1 says,

"This is the book of the generations (toledoth) of Adam. In the day that God created man..."

which in effect says that Adam wrote wrote the words before this toledoth.

Yours in haste,
PlainSense

 

[UTEOTW]

Good Morning, Plainsense.

I am still quite interested in what you think of the responses to your first two claims. Especially the first claim. The author changed numbers by large amounts from his sources, left out other numbers from his sources, and has not updated the results even though the mistakes were pointed out to him in a series of written exchanges nearly nine years ago. IMHO, this is not a good sign for either the author or the host web site.

A second question would be to ask if anyone has other data they think points to a young earth. I would hope specifically here for things that show a young earth and not just trying to poke holes in old earth because that sets up a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

Lastly, there was a good quote in what Bob had to say when quoting Dawkins.

The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in.

Now the point is that Bob has here introduced quotes from someone who he must think is enough of an authority to quote from who says that all the stages required for evolution are understood well enough to know they happened. Those who have studied the details have no doubt. You will find very, very few young earth biologists and I would assert none who came to that belief from the data only.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Sorry UTEOTW,

I had planned to get to these before now. I want to be able to spend enough time on this not to feel rushed. I can take in theological arguments quite quickly, but scientific ones take a little longer for me to get my head round. I will get to your points though.

PlainSense