Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[canadyjd]

Or the by product of life, as in waist.

The by-product of life (for me) has been a large amount of waist.

But you probably meant "waste".

peace to youraying:

 

[Palatka51]

Waist, waste what is the difference? No one wants too much of any of it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Do you believe man "evolved" from a common ancestor of chimps and other apes?

peace to youraying:

I'm saying before, at the latest, 12,000 ago man was primarily hunter/gather in loosely connected bands of people. Not really civilized.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's not the issue. God did say, in very clear, crystal terms, that he created the universe in 6 days. He even tells us which day he created what!

The problem with that of course is that according to the Genesis account the earth was established before anything else in the Universe which runs contrary to what we know from astrophysics.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Forget the apes. Actually, now it's a ratlike creature that is supposedly the common ancestor for all mammals, including man. :smilewinkgrin:

Which now puts me solidly in the evolutionist camp :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where were you educated? Hyles-Anderson college?

Is the "day" mentioned here 24 hours?

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gill didn't think so

And neither does anyone else who knows Hebrew. But as has already been pointed out, the use of yom in Gen 2:4 is not the same as in chapter 1. For you to continue to ignore that is unacceptable.

Many have believed "day" doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours:

Everyone who knows Hebrew believes this. But sometimes it does mean 24 hours, as it does the way it is used in Gen 1.

There are really two conversations going on here, and there is (to use Amy's words) a lot of intellectual snobbery, and it is misplaced.

On the one hand, some ignore what the text says, and continue to make illegitimate arguments such as Grasshopper did here (and many others have done.

On the other hand we have people saying things like "the universe has been proven to be older than the earth," which shows a gross misunderstanding of what science is about. It is observation and drawing conclusions. It can't prove something of that nature. It can only guess.

So many of you here need to take a big step backwards and start thinking through some of these issues in a more rigorous manner.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So now that we can question the Creation account, why not question any other part of the Scripture that we so choose? Fact is if we can deny creation, we open the door up for denial of the rest of God's Word. Which is the clear intent of many who deny a literal 6 deny creation, even the Hebrew grammatical structure of the passage does not allow for anything other than a 6 day creation.

As to your examples:
Radioisotope dating has a tract record of not being accurate. The others I will confess I have never looked into.

Here are some scientific papers reflecting on your last statement:

1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
• The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
• Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
• The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

 

[Pastor Larry]

ThinkingStuff (an ironic name, I must admit), have you stopped to think about all the assumptions that go into that? I don't think anyone questions that radiometric dating is fairly consistent, but the assumptions are the most favorable assumptions as I understand them.

At the heart of the assumption is that God didn't create a mature universe. Yet that assumption is plainly false since God said he did create a mature universe.

Have you interacted with R.A.T.E.?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

ThinkingStuff (an ironic name, I must admit), have you stopped to think about all the assumptions that go into that? I don't think anyone questions that radiometric dating is fairly consistent, but the assumptions are the most favorable assumptions as I understand them.

At the heart of the assumption is that God didn't create a mature universe. Yet that assumption is plainly false since God said he did create a mature universe.

Have you interacted with R.A.T.E.?

I personally haven't interacted with the Rate project. However, their findings I know have been disputed by mainline scientist and I have the rebuttals to each topic.

And like I've said before. ThinkingStuff means exactly that. It doesn't imply superior thinking or that the stuff thought about is particularily profound. Just Thinking Stuff. Some things I think about are no more than musings others are more. Just depends. If you think my identifier is an attempt to show a superiority in some manner that is something that you've attached to it not implied by the title. FYI.

 

[canadyjd]

I'm saying before, at the latest, 12,000 ago man was primarily hunter/gather in loosely connected bands of people. Not really civilized.

Fine, I understand what you are saying.

Now, will you please answer my question directly?

Do you believe human beings "evolved" from an ancestor that is common to humans and chimps and/or other apes?

peace to youraying:

 

[Pastor Larry]

As for RATE, I don't know much about it. I have no doubt that some would dispute the findings. Whether or not they do so with integrity and accuracy is another matter. There are some who reject anything that questions the mainstream age of the earth view, regardless of how sound it may be.

As for your name, I wasn't reading anything into it. I was simply pointing out that it was ironic, particularly is that you don't seem to be thinking much about the text itself and the ramifications of it.

I also notice that you didn't address the assumption issue. That is a major problem. If you assume wrong things, and build an argument on wrong assumptions, you will likely conclude wrong things, or at least unnecessary things.

 

[canadyjd]

Here are some scientific papers reflecting on your last statement:.....1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:.....The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable,(my emphasis) at least within limits of accuracy.....(Emery 1972).....(Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998)....(Knödlseder 2000).....(Prantzos 1999).....(Perlmutter et al. 1998)......(Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).....(Meert 2002).....(e.g., Renne et al. 1997).....(Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987)

I notice the scientists haven't been "observing" radiometric dating for 1,000's of years or 10,000's of years, or 100,000's of years or millions or billions or years.

Looks like the scientists have been "observing" radiometric dating for a few decades. Seems sort of presumptuous, imho, to make statements of certainty about things that happened billions of years ago based on flawed human observations of a few decades.

And using human experiments they determined:

Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

So the scientists admit they, as human beings, can artificially change the decay rates but declare that information to really be of no consequence.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As for RATE, I don't know much about it. I have no doubt that some would dispute the findings. Whether or not they do so with integrity and accuracy is another matter. There are some who reject anything that questions the mainstream age of the earth view, regardless of how sound it may be.

As for your name, I wasn't reading anything into it. I was simply pointing out that it was ironic, particularly is that you don't seem to be thinking much about the text itself and the ramifications of it.

I also notice that you didn't address the assumption issue. That is a major problem. If you assume wrong things, and build an argument on wrong assumptions, you will likely conclude wrong things, or at least unnecessary things.

You're right if you start out with the wrong premise no matter how logical your derived conclusions are they are also wrong. I don't disagree with that.

As far as ramifications I have considered them. I've been arguing for a non literal translation of Genesis. I started of with Yom being either Eon or day. But with in the context of the text Yom is more reasonably taken as day in the context of a day in Canaan or Egypt. My next approach was to show that Genesis is similar literature as the Enuma Elish or the Atrahasis. And by expansion most creation mythologies all over the world which aren't intended to be scientific but to forward a perspective or value system on who the story is told to. This from my point of view doesn't mean Genesis creation account is not true, because the elements are true, but not in a literal sense. Similarity of certain themes are seen in the two documents I've mentioned. Since the bible is actually a library of selected books we call canon or rule they hold different types of literature. Some of it to be taken literally some not. Some are poetic, some prophetic, and some are just historical. The debate here is whether the creation account is other than historical account. I agree with Ed who showed that if there was an error it doesn't mean the whole thing is a lie. But with the creation account I take it one step futher: just because I don't agree with a literal interpretation of Creation doesn't automatically mean I throw out the rest of the bible or take the whole thing figuratively. Just like no one takes the whole bible literally. Parts are meant to be taken literal other parts are not. So an attempt to thow someone into an all or nothing catagory cannot be substantiated. Just like I can't classify you as someone who believes Jesus was being literal with the communion (body and blood or Eucharist) because you take Genesis literally. So you're assumption that I must necissarily throw out the entire bible because of how I view the creation account is a non sequitur.

Now then what can science observe with regard to the bible? Obviously, the bible has been in many areas substatiated by archeology. Qumran shows how faithful the bible was translated over at least the last 2,000 years. So science is not a method that is an enemy of the Bible. Science can tell us things about creation and the origins of the earth by observable facts. So just because the creation account in genesis isn't substantiated by certian data doesn't mean thow out the bible. You must come to two conclusions. One the data is misinterperted (which also includes obtaining that data in a fraudulent maner or wrong data) or your interpertation of what the bible is saying is wrong or misleading. I offered a comparison of literature of the period as a possible senario for wrong interpertation. In fact, I think I've made it clear that I haven't thrown out the possiblity that God created the world in 6 days. I admit I don't know how God made the universe. Refusing to look at data from a non biased view put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life. Even today Calvinist debate with Armenianist; etc... All based on how you choose to interpret the same bible. I do start of with the premise that God is always telling the truth through the bible. The particular debate is how that truth is transmitted with regard to the creation account.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I started of with Yom being either Eon or day. But with in the context of the text Yom is more reasonably taken as day in the context of a day in Canaan or Egypt.

But that is simply not true, not as it is used in Genesis 1. I have repeatedly pointed that out. The challenge you face is this: Find one use of YOM as used in Gen 1, that means something other than a 24 hour day, and you can start to make a case. So far, no one (anywhere, not just here on the BB) can find a starting point ... a use of YOM in the Gen 1 construct, that means "eon." It just isn't there.

Your comparison of ANE literature is the old hashed over tripe that Peter Enns put out. It is thinly veiled liberalism in many cases. It should be easy for us to see that God inspired Genesis as a polemic against those views, not a capitulation to them.

Why would these ancient documents have so many similarities with Genesis? Because they start with the truth of Genesis and conform it to their own worldview. That doesn't mean Genesis was wrong (which is what you ultimately have to say if you hold that YOM in Gen 1 is anything other than a 24 hour day). I realize you don't want to go there, but you really don't have a choice.

As for science and the Bible, science per se is not the enemy of the Bible. But there is no uninterpreted fact. Science comes to conclusions based on presuppositions, not based on raw evidences. Furthermore, there is a vast difference between the kind of science that explores modern medical issues for example and the kind of science that explores origins.

Whatever science may say about origins, it is only a conclusion based on in the interpretation of the evidence. It is not a "fact" per se.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But that is simply not true, not as it is used in Genesis 1. I have repeatedly pointed that out. The challenge you face is this: Find one use of YOM as used in Gen 1, that means something other than a 24 hour day, and you can start to make a case. So far, no one (anywhere, not just here on the BB) can find a starting point ... a use of YOM in the Gen 1 construct, that means "eon." It just isn't there.

Your comparison of ANE literature is the old hashed over tripe that Peter Enns put out. It is thinly veiled liberalism in many cases. It should be easy for us to see that God inspired Genesis as a polemic against those views, not a capitulation to them.

Why would these ancient documents have so many similarities with Genesis? Because they start with the truth of Genesis and conform it to their own worldview. That doesn't mean Genesis was wrong (which is what you ultimately have to say if you hold that YOM in Gen 1 is anything other than a 24 hour day). I realize you don't want to go there, but you really don't have a choice.

You obvously didn't read my post. I was agreeing with you about a single day in the context in the Creation story. You just jumped on the first think you thought you read.

 

[SeekingTruth]

For me the question is not what God could or could not do, but what did He do.

Why was there no evening of the seveth (sic) day?

I believe there is no evening of the seventh day because it has no end. God in His infinite wisdom caused the first six days to have bounds on them. It seems to me that since He rested on the seventh day, and did not provide an end to it, this day represents His eternal reign over the universe and the never ending time of rest in Him that He has promised His children. I cannot prove this, just my opinion of why the seventh day has no evening.:godisgood:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why would these ancient documents have so many similarities with Genesis? Because they start with the truth of Genesis and conform it to their own worldview. That doesn't mean Genesis was wrong (which is what you ultimately have to say if you hold that YOM in Gen 1 is anything other than a 24 hour day). I realize you don't want to go there, but you really don't have a choice.

this shows you didn't read the post. I agreed that yom on the context of the creation story in genesis is to be understood as 1 day as in Canaan or Egypt (not Alaska or Antartica). Which is why I brought up the other documents. I do have a choice. You're saying that they all start off with the same truth and the other two documents embelish it. I say they all start off with the same culture and try to get their meanings across in the same manner. The mode of communication in other words is the same. Whats communicated is different. Neither are to be taken literally.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You obvously didn't read my post. I was agreeing with you about a single day in the context in the Creation story. You just jumped on the first think you thought you read.

I did read your post, several times.

You said: I've been arguing for a non literal translation of Genesis. I started of with Yom being either Eon or day. But with in the context of the text Yom is more reasonably taken as day in the context of a day in Canaan or Egypt.

That seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I did read your post, several times.

You said: I've been arguing for a non literal translation of Genesis. I started of with Yom being either Eon or day. But with in the context of the text Yom is more reasonably taken as day in the context of a day in Canaan or Egypt.

That seems pretty clear to me.

Which is? 24 hours right?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why was there no evening of the seveth (sic) day?

Why would you think there was no evening on the seventh day? Do you also think there was no morning on the eighth day? Or the ninth day? What about evening on the eighth or ninth day?