Jack the Bodiless

Bait:

There is a problem that many creationists avoid tackling when they attempt to mess about with "day-age" arguments: the sequence of the Genesis "days" doesn't fit.

For instance, Genesis specifically mentions grass appearing before any of the animals. But grass evolved only recently (after the dinosaurs died). Neither grass nor grass pollen has ever been found in older strata. Similarly, birds evolved from land animals, they never appear in strata that predate land animals.

In fact, a remarkably consistent feature of the fossil record is that all the major groups of organisms appear in the correct sequence for the evolutionary "tree of life" of common descent.

excreationist

Answers in Genesis disagrees though.... (and they are managed by some of the most qualified creation scientists there are.

from <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">Arguments we [AiG] think creationists should NOT use</a>:

Kosh

I don't think you'll get any arguments here.

Ron, did you even read the article I posted
in the other forum with the refutation of the
day-age theory? The reasoning in it was quite
sound, and you seem to be simply ignoring the facts of both science and what the Bible
explicity says just so you can believe what you
"feel" may be right (in order to reconcile the
bible with science).

Archeology has already shown that the walls
of Jericho fell several hundred years after the
city was abandoned, not caused by an attack by
Joshua. So that's at least one datapoint to
disprove your comment.

So to stick with your analogy, you would have us
believe that God had this planet warehouse
somewhere from which he pulled the materials to
form the earth (and solar system) and that the
earth looks old becuase stuff was sitting in the
warehouse for a long time? Unfortunately for
these claims, geologists have developed a very
good understanding of how planets form, especially
the outer crust. Please educate yourself on
this stuff (Patrick can provide some excellent
material on it if you'd like).

No one (no scientists, or anyone here) have
claimed the earth is 45 billion years
old with a 1% error. So why even bother to point
out that it would be 450 million year error?
That is called a strawman argument, where you
fabricate a claim and attribute it to your
opponent so you can then tear it down. This is,
unfortunately, a common tactic of creationists.

Please refrain from doing that here.

Oolon Colluphid

I'm rather fond of the quote: Better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Apply that thought as and when necessary.

What flood? Since there wasn’t one, it’s pointless discussing when it was. When did I last ski down Kilimanjaro? When did the cow jump over the moon? You don’t need even very approximate times for non-existent events.

Roughly 4.5 billion, ie 4,500,000,000. Well gee thanks, very generous of you. I’m sure every working geologist, geophysicist, astronomer and physicist will be delighted that all their evidence and efforts COULD be right.

So when exactly did it start then? What of the arthritis in the OH8 Homo habilis fossil? Presumably eating wasn’t known either, despite the quantity of sharp teeth in the fossil record, from hundreds of millions of years before even vaguely human things appear. Was velociraptor among the things Adam had time to name, do you think? Or Andrewsarchus? Gastornis? If so, I hope he named them from a safe distance... oh, sorry, death wasn’t known then. I guess these and countless other carnivores ate grass for "thousands or millions of years", yeah? Pity the poor plants that died... or doesn’t that sort of death count?

What sort of creature, exactly, was Adam anyway? Care to show us which ones of these are ape, and which are human? Adam or something very similar to him must be amongst these.



Only if nothing ate. And only according to your timescale. How do you tell which bits of the bible to believe, and which to discard? If it is all figurative, why bother rationalising it? Just accept it as a story and be done with it.

But the science that underpins these dates and tecchniques is applicable elsewhere, and has proved itself reliable. What you are saying in your parable is that it could look old, but not actually be. Well if so, god is a liar, deliberately deceiving us by setting things up to look other than they are. Is your god a liar, Ron?

Did you have a great great grandfather? Oh really? Were you there?

Did Hitler invade Poland? Oh really? Were you there?

Heads up, folks: history apparently began when Ron started noticing stuff around him.

With the emphasis on ‘educated’.

And if you choose one minute, it’s 0.6 of a second. So? What you haven’t grasped is that pretty well ALL the results of ALL the dating methods fall within 1% of 4.5 billion: within a range from 4,545,000,000 to 4,455,000,000. And we're not "choosing" the date, it is what all the results converge on. Maths isn't exactly your strong point, is it?

No problem Ron. Have fun.

Best wishes, Oolon

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Bait

Hi all,
(long one I'm afraid)
Ok, I’ve a chance to read SOME of what was proposed for me to read, and I see where some of you are coming from. From those URL’s given for me: (In particular the Green river theory) I would have posted this yesterday, but I couldn’t get into the forum for some reason.

As to the Green River Shale, varves, etc. don’t dispute them, and can see if one was going on the thesis that earth is 10,000 years old or less, that it would be a problem. However, I do not hold to that thesis, so these findings do not affect my personal theories as to Genesis. I hold that it is entirely possible for the earth to be old (by our standards), and that humans could have been on the earth 50,000 years ago, or greater. I personally think that humans were even around during dinosaur times (albeit at the end of that period), and that there is evidence in the Bible saying so. I also personally believe that the “flood” even could have happened even greater than 10,000 years ago. To quote and answer some of what was given me to read.

&gt;&gt;Frank Zindler, 1989

&gt;&gt;&gt;The biblical genealogies generally tell how old each character was when he sired ("begat") the next person in the list. Although there are a few places where the genealogies break down and estimates of elapsed time can vary by several years one way or the other, there is no way that the Hebrew chronology could allow a creation as early, say, as 4500 BCE. (underlines and italics mine says the Bait)

And I purport that he is incorrect in this assumption, there is no way of knowing exactly how old the earth is based on Biblical texts. There are too many “gaps” in timelines…genealogy, too little evidence. In the absence then, one would have to find archaeological evidence of Biblical persons (which there is mounting evidence of)…and match up the Biblical texts accordingly to find the time periods to be anywhere near accurate.

It is a historical FACT that Hebrew methods of genealogy often skips generations for brevity. And this occurs in cultures worldwide as well. That does not make the Biblical accounts false, it just means they follow accepted methodology used by the Hebrews to trace ancestors... period. I do not think the genealogies were intended to pin down earth timelines and geological events. Where Mr. Zindler says that “ there is no way would allow creation as early, say as 4500 BCE” I say he is incorrect in his assumption, and therefore his argument fails. Actually if you actually read what the Bible really says of creation, you could go back millions of years, theoretically, since there is no record as to how many “years” Adam walked with God before the fall (or before Eve for that matter).

For kicks and giggles, let me put one more bug into the ointment (really not necessary though, and would probably honk off some of my fellow Christians)…it says in the bible that God made each item listed on this day and that. (First day,=light, etc.) Question: Was there any “days” (eons, time)IN BETWEEN the days God was creating things? We ASSUME one day immediately followed another….but does the account really dispute that? The first day I may begin to build a boat and did this and that. Then a week may pass, and then there was a second day I worked on my boat and I did this and that, then a month passed, , etc. You will say then, “why does not the Bible say so??? Is God hiding stuff? Is God a liar? The answer is no, I do not necessarily tell my children the reason I do certain things, or how I came up with the money to buy this and that….that’s my business, not theirs. I don’t have to tell them HOW I built the boat, theirs is just to know I did. Why should God be any different? He doesn’t answer to us…it’s supposed to be the other way around. Then again, perhaps it’s written, and we are just not seeing it (understanding it). I really don’t believe this theory, but Mr. Zindler stated “there is no way”…so here is one possible way that disproves his argument. A better way follows.

&gt;&gt;&gt;They claim that some generations have been left out, and that the world is perhaps several thousand years older than what the Bible says it is! If generations have been left out of the Bible, is it not possible that whole sentences have been left out also? Sentences, e.g., saying that Jahweh (Bait says: Yahweh...proper spelling) used natural selection to create the different "kinds" of animals?

When the earth, animals, etc. were created the Biblical account says “God said” and it was. It does not say HOW it happened, just that it happened. Evolution and/or natural selection may well have been the method, I readily admit, I DON’T KNOW. I personally think that the “kinds” of animals were created separately.

I have to say at this point in order to be accurate… I said something in a previous post, and I admit was in error….I said according to Job, a thousand years is like a day, etc….I misquoted from where that came. Actually 2 Peter 3:8 says “ But beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
Also in Psalms 90:4 : “For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past.” So, yes, I agree that God may have used natural selection to procreate all of the animals, after their kind…and EXCEPT FOR MAN. He could have put forms of cows, monkeys, birds, dinosaurs, etc., and let natural selection go from there (which IMHO is likely, and at the same time does not dispute the natural selection theory). I’ll even concede that it is possible that God even created the various forms of animals, etc. from some primordial ooze, though unlikely, because of the phrase used “after their own kind” would lend you to believe otherwise. Even today, you cannot successfully mix species more than one generation (when two do mix, that first generation is sterile) even with species as close as a donkey and a horse.

So the bible establishes very clearly that either 1. In God’s time, one of his days is equal to 1 thousand years of 24 hour earth days, or 2. God’s time does not count time…one day to God could be thousands, millions, etc. of years...i.e.: eons. Neither of these disagree with science, nor would science disagree with the Bible, if we hold these passages true.

Even scientifically it is unlikely animals came from ooze though. Really, what are the chances, mathematically, of ooze developing into something, developing into something else? I also put to you, from a scientific standpoint, what are the chances (odds) that out of all of the species of animals, or even from just species of Ape, (monkey, etc), ONLY ONE SPECIES, ONLY HUMANS have developed to have intelligence enough to create all of the things we have created, or even to debate theories as we are now? Usually, even by Darwin’s theory, there would be several species on the same basic level of intellectual development (or any other development for that matter).

IMHO, (my theory?) 24 hour “human” days did not begin to occur until AFTER the fall of man…up until that time, we were on God’s time…days consisting of a thousand years (or more). To evidence that supposition (Biblically), Adam and Eve were told that on the day they ate of the Fruit, they would die. It is recorded that they lived just under 1 thousand years (Adam lived around 930 years as I recall) – just less than one of Gods days. Also, something no one has mentioned yet (that I’ve seen), that is theoretically, IF Adam and Eve spent thousands of years in the Garden, after being told to populate the world, (but before the fall), would it not stand to reason that it is possible, if not probable, they could have had a lot of children…as in daughters. It was not customary to record daughters (normally), usually only the sons. It would also explain Cain’s wife, would it not? If Abel had a wife (the Bible doesn’t say either way), and hence also children (yes, even sons), it would explain the rest as well, such as why Cain needed a mark, other settlements, etc. Thoughts to make you go hmmmmm.

&gt;&gt;William D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1954, p. 404.

&gt;&gt;[10] Radiocarbon dates for these time intervals are consistently too low. That is, objects from these periods seem to be younger than their true age. This is due to the fact that the rate at which 14C is formed in the upper atmosphere can change slightly, as a result of slight changes in the radiation output from the sun. Radiocarbon dating specialists have gradually learned how to correct for these variations

(italics and underlines are by Bait)

Now I am pointing this out for those who insist that semantics count. I really do not dispute accuracy of carbon dating methods but…for the sake of argument:

So we have intervals CONSISTANTLY too low, caused by rates of 14C are formed in the atmosphere which CAN (but not necessarily?) change slightly in radiation output from the sun. Is it not “generally accepted” by “SCIENTISTS” that the sun’s output of radiation varies, sometimes greatly, and quite often? Then why would the tests be CONSISTANTLY too low?

So if the dates are too low to match their theories of the true age of certain time intervals, THEN the radiocarbon specialist correct for the variations and bring the results back to the true age? (the very thing they were trying to determine in the first place) Again, I don’t dispute that the dating indicated here could be correct, just that this is saying that this test is not ABSOLUTELY accurate, all of the time, by scientists own admission.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Frank Zindler (1987)
A theory is an explanatory hypothesis which has passed test after test,
.
Incorrect, it only has to pass ONE test to become a theory, or have some evidence that points in a certain direction that supports the hypothesis. And it becomes a law when the theory can be PROVEN beyond doubt. As long as there is ANY evidence against it, that cannot be explained, it cannot become a law, it remains a theory…an unproven hypothesis.

&gt;&gt;&gt;and is still the best available explanation of the facts in question

Also incorrect, a theory by definition, is UNPROVEN, and therefor not yet considered reliable, or infallible, and subject to challenge. A theory just means a hypothesis that has SOME evidence that points in the direction of some conclusion, but has not been proven totally yet. It is AN explanation, but not necessarily the only believable one, nor is it necessarily the best available explanation of anything..

&gt;&gt;&gt;The Logic Of Evolution
The conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple observations:

&gt;&gt;&gt;Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence.

Why is spontaneous generation not possible? If something occurred once, under certain conditions, then logically (scientifically) it should be able to be duplicated, using the same conditions. Is this not how science “proves” theories? So then, Mr. Zindler is saying that living things would have had to be “created” in their own kind (remember, he’s arguing AGAINST creation) first, THEN natural selection kicks in, and no primordial ooze? Sounds good to me. So is not this argument he is trying to raise in direst opposition of the argument he was using as cited above? (“If generations have been left out of the Bible, is it not possible that whole sentences have been left out also? Sentences, e.g., saying that Jahweh used natural selection to create the different "kinds" of animals?&#8221

&gt;&gt;Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were very different from living things today.

So? Recent history tells us that. And the Bible even says that (see Job concerning behemoth). What Mr. Zindler fails to recognize is observation no. 1 fails HIS OWN TEST. Even using Darwin’s theory, each species of today would (could) be accounted for from an original species…in multiples, and NOT from just one organism – supporting the Biblical account. If life was not created…rather it was formed from chemicals, then if conditions matched those of when life began, with the same chemicals, then new life should be able to be formed….on a continuous basis in nature (a hypothesis), AND in a lab, neither of which has happened. Why would the presence of one life preclude the formation of other life? Also, to those who will say we did create the primordial ooze in a lab…it hasn’t been done using the atmosphere the earth had during the time period it has been theorized when life began. In particular, with the presence of oxygen, which would almost instantly kill the formation created in the lab.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Robert J. Schadewald, 1982

&gt;&gt;&gt;In science, hypotheses are ideas proposed to explain the facts, and they're not considered much good unless they can survive rigorous tests.

Agreed, and the Green River Shale theory has not passed enough rigorous tests to be able to claim the “annual theory” as being fact, nor as the “only logical explanation”. Nor has it proven as fact, that the theory that it (layers) occurred within a 1 year period (as in the possibility of a flood) is totally incorrect. There is substantial evidence both ways.

&gt;&gt;&gt;A simple calculation (which creationists have avoided for 20 years) shows that the layers must have formed at the rate of about three layers every two seconds. A sequence of 40 million turbidity currents covering tens of thousands of square miles every two-thirds of a second seems a bit unlikely.

Ok, I’ll address this, and not avoid it. First, he says it is “a bit unlikely”…but he does not say it is impossible, causing his argument to fail right there, by his own words. Unlikely events happen all the time in nature. I’ve read where they have duplicated layering effects in a lab, at least to a certain extent, giving evidence to the possibility of millions of layers of sediment in one year, etc..

&gt;&gt;&gt;In rebuttal, Gish claimed that some of the fossilized fishes project through several layers of sediment, and therefore the layers can't be semiannual. As usual, Gish's argument ignores the main issue, which is the alleged formation of millions of distinct layers of sediment in less than a year.

Here Schaldewald is using this to try to disprove the “flood account” which it only does if one holds to the 6,000 year earth theory, which I do not. This area (Green River)could have been flooded several times, I agree, and/or could have had a catastrophic event (such as a volcano), or a hundred other explanations…including his theory, either before or after the “flood”.

As far as the “Gish” argument, Mr. Schadewald ignores Mr. Gish’s claim just as he claims Mr. Gish is ignoring the main issue. The fact is, it is entirely possible that the millions of layers COULD have happened fairly suddenly, over a period of a year. AND it still does not disprove the Bible, nor has he even proven himself against Mr. Gish. In fact, Mr. Gish’s argument seems to be the better because IF the layers were semi annual, the fish that project through several layers of sediment would have rotted and disintegrated within days, and not have fossilized as they did. In addition, the layering effect was duplicated in a lab situation, at least to a certain point.

Lastly, there is evidence, and scientific theory that there MAY have been ice “ring(s) around the earth at one time, and that the ring may have collapsed into the earth, causing a deluge (also explaining how various animals were seemingly frozen mid-chomp while eating.) A canopy of “water “ overhead would logically have the entire earth in a “glasshouse” type of effect, being tropical in nature, and would explain many other passages in the Bible, as well as answering a myriad of geological questions. But this is a “theory”…unproven hypothesis with SOME evidence, no worse, or better than the next.
I’m not as convinced with this theory, and personally think more feasible, the theory of a crust (mantle) around the earth that contained below it super-pressurized system water, and when an asteroid (or some other event) hit the surface, it cracked the “shell”(mantle) sending water into the stratosphere, etc. There seems more evidence of this theory than most others, including the “crack” (located in the Atlantic Ocean). Even today there is below the crust of the earth vast lakes of water (called aquifers) lending evidence to this theory.

Both are “scientific” theories (not necessarily by pro-biblical flood scientist btw). Each would explain a worldwide flood, and neither are unfeasible.

Ok folks, here’s a start. Time for some fun?

Bait

Hello Paradisedreams:

&gt;&gt; Because many atheists, and secular beliefs, et. al. use this (and other) points in the Bible to try to dissuade others, even believers, from believing, by telling them the Bible is incorrect, fallable, and by telling them that God lies. My point is that their points "ain't necessarily so". Yes, translations may be (actually I'll flat out say that many are) incorrect in their translation. This does not prove the Bible wrong, because MEN did the translations. I personally do not think the Bible and science are at odds...one supports the other, IMHO. I personally say, it all depends on how you look at it.
Why go down this road? MY main reason is just that I like to debate...it's fun, my thing, my hobby if you will.
Ron v.

excreationist

Bait:
I'm working on a think chart about the genaeologies. Basically I think Bishop Ussher was right and it looks like the fall happened in about 4004 B.C.
I haven't finished it yet, but if you look at the people in early Genesis, they became fathers at about the age of 100. And there were only 9 ancestors before Noah. So far I've worked out that it Noah's sons were born only 1556 years after the fall. Then in the Gospels it has genaeologies. If I can't find any ages for some of the people I might assume they had their son at the age of 30 or 50.

Bait

Hi Kosh,
Naw, I didn't miss the point. My point is that you cannot necessarily test one small thing (such as a shell)and determine the age of something as large as the earth, the universe, etc. We don't always know at the time we test something, if the test itself is appropriate.
Ron

Bait

I'm not arguing against carbon dating, or it's effectiveness...merely pointing out that people sometimes error...if only in using inappropriate testing methods.
R.

HRG

Well, if you want the odds for a strawman variant of abiogenesis, you'll get strawman odds.
Actually, no. Usually, there is only one species per ecological niche. We happen to occupy the niche "intelligent animal".

That's why radiocarbon dating is calibrated by comparing it with absolute dates from tree rings, varves and icelayers
No theory can be confirmed by passing just one test.
I'm afraid you confuse the vernacular with the scientific terminology. "Theory" is a higher qualification than "law"; the latter is used for a simple (often linear) relationship within a theory (e.g. Ohm's law).

A theory is a hypothesis which has passed so many confirmatory tests that it would be unreasonable to deny assent (to paraphrase Gould).
[/quote]

Also incorrect, a theory by definition, is UNPROVEN, and therefor not yet considered reliable, or infallible, and subject to challenge. A theory just means a hypothesis that has SOME evidence that points in the direction of some conclusion, but has not been proven totally yet.
[/quote]
Repeat: this is not the scientific definition of a theory. A theory is far more than an "educated guess".

&lt;snip rest, leaving ít for others&gt;

Regards,
HRG.