|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 10:26:49 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Regarding uniformitarianism, why is it unreasonable to assume that the laws of physics and chemistry which govern the interactions of physical bodies were the same in the past as they are now? I never stated that naturalism and uniformitarianism are "unreasonable - I said they were "preconceived". The Bible negates them as valid assumptions. The religion of scientism is based on them. I know which Authority I believe!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:11:23 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
but that the earth really does look billions of years old is not a belief.
Sure it. I don't see an earth that looks billions of years old. I see an earth that looks like it's been through a catastrophic global flood. Coming from an area that recently went through a flood, I have seen what kind of power a lot of water yields, and that was only on a local water. I saw roads being washed away in 45 minutes--not smooth, either, like some have said water works, but digging trenches through the roads. It was amazing. It's not at all unbelievable to me that a global flood could do much more than wipe out a few roads, but carve caves and canyons and create entire mountain ranges.
As you've said, you are not a scientist. Therefore the appearance to your eyes is misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:14:31 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
AFAIK, the argument isn't that one fossil couldn't have been buried quickly, it's that ALL of them couldn't have been buried TOGETHER and form the deposits that we find.
I believe that most (if not all) of the fossil deposits are from the flood. They all died and were quickly buried TOGETHER and formed the deposits we find.
That's a nice belief, but the science suggests otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:19:46 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Perhaps. Could you list those assumptions and why they're unreasonable?
quote:
The funny thing about all these preconceived assumptions is that they are self-consistent across many scientific disciplines. Take up your complaints with geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers. I've "listed" the assumptions numerous times on numerous threads. They are naturalism and uniformitarianism. These form the basis of the religion of scientism as currently practiced by the (ever-shrinking) majority of geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers. Religion is always "self-consistent across many disciplines" - that's why it is called worldview!
The self-consistency is not limited to worldview topics. If earth did not appear 4.5 billion years old, then chemistry would be fundamentally broken, geology would be fundamentally broken, astronomy would be fundamentally broken, physics would be fundamentally broken.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:20:45 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
As you've said, you are not a scientist. Therefore the appearance to your eyes is misleading. Nonsense! Can any "scientist" tell the age of a rock by its visual appearance? Anyone present at an ongoing lava flow knows the answer to that! There is no observational data that distinguishes 6000 years from 6 billion years because no one was around to record either time frame. Its always about interpretations of and conclusions from the evidence.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:25:04 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
As you've said, you are not a scientist. Therefore the appearance to your eyes is misleading. Nonsense! Can any "scientist" tell the age of a rock by its visual appearance? Anyone present at an ongoing lava flow knows the answer to that! There is no observational data that distinguishes 6000 years from 6 billion years because no one was around to record either time frame. Its always about interpretations of and conclusions from the evidence.
With that line of thinking, you must think the sun revolves around the earth. Inference can be as good as observation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:27:05 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Its always about interpretations of and conclusions from the evidence.
Absolutely, and the interpretations, and the conclusions, and the evidence keep getting better.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 12:59:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
With that line of thinking, you must think the sun revolves around the earth. Inference can be as good as observation. More nonsense! Direct observations of parallax during the past 170 years have demonstrated the earth to be revolving around the sun in a closed orbit. How long this has been true is uncertain. There is NO direct observation of nature more than 6000 years ago, except by the Creator Himself. Inference is not observational science!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 1:02:53 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
More nonsense! Direct observations of parallax during the past 170 years have demonstrated the earth to be revolving around the sun in a closed orbit.
More nonsense! All that has been observed are lights captured on photographic films; you can't expect me to believe there are giant balls of flaming gas out there in space! Inference is not observational science!
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 1:11:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Are you talking to me, es, or is that just your inference? 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 1:29:02 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
With that line of thinking, you must think the sun revolves around the earth. Inference can be as good as observation. More nonsense! Direct observations of parallax during the past 170 years have demonstrated the earth to be revolving around the sun in a closed orbit. How long this has been true is uncertain. There is NO direct observation of nature more than 6000 years ago, except by the Creator Himself. Inference is not observational science!
The same direct observations of parallax allows us to conclude we can see light from much greater distances than 10,000 light-years away. The same technique that tells you the earth revolves around the sun tells us we can see events that must have happened much longer ago than 10,000 years.
Do you only accept observations based upon parallax when they support your pre-conceived notions?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 2:08:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you only accept observations based upon parallax when they support your pre-conceived notions? No, I interpret observations based on preconceived notions, and so do you. The difference is that I admit it and you do not!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 4:24:16 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Do you only accept observations based upon parallax when they support your pre-conceived notions? No, I interpret observations based on preconceived notions, and so do you. The difference is that I admit it and you do not!
So you trust parallax as an concept that demonstrates the sun-centric solar system, but do not trust parallax when measuring the distance of stars? I fully admit what my assumptions are, and the conclusions derive from those assumptions. Veritas, do you admit what your assumptions and pre-conceived notions are? I think Veritas would answer yes too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 4:30:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you trust parallax as an concept that demonstrates the sun-centric solar system, but do not trust parallax when measuring the distance of stars? Nice try, but the distance of stars to earth may or may not relate to the unobserved origin of the universe. Serial measures of parallax over many decades is observational data, not inference.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/11/2008 9:32:19 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1943
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
AFAIK, the argument isn't that one fossil couldn't have been buried quickly, it's that ALL of them couldn't have been buried TOGETHER and form the deposits that we find.
I believe that most (if not all) of the fossil deposits are from the flood. They all died and were quickly buried TOGETHER and formed the deposits we find.
Then why aren't the fossils and sediments ordered by density? Why are there fossilized burrows and sand dunes in middle layers?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/12/2008 9:06:44 AM
|
|
|
verdigris
Posts: 6
Joined: 8/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
veritas
cosmology it seems, is mostly composed of some sort of sociological/philosophical element or two.
you cannot discuss origins without contemplating the edge - singularity - infinity - the horizon - the center - etc.
let alone, the hows, the before and the after.
these are all elements that most contemporary/mainstream "scientific work" tend to ignore.
what are your thoughts?
The problem with what you're saying is that some of the earliest and greatest scientists of all time, rather MOST of them at the inception of science as a formalized study, were both Christians, Creationists, AND Young Earth Creationists. Take Sir Isaac Newton as your prime example.
The idea of an 'old earth' actually found it's beginnings very near the evolutionist movement. Why? Because the theory (though I hesitate to even grace it with the dignity of being called theory when it is really more simple speculation and a hope toward straying from 'moral virtues') of evolution has no ground to stand upon if they earth really is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, when science began to turn from Creationism to embrace evolution, the solution for finding the time needed to allow for Darwinian evolution was to simply start all research and scientific 'discovery' from that point on with a presumption that the earth HAD to be older than 6,000 years and MUST be as old as millions or more.
A great website to give you more insight on this subject is www.answersingenesis.org.
If you research the 'doctrine' of evolution back to its origins and explore how it has itself evolved, you will find that it has effected a great many things. Dr. James Kennedy did a very effective and enlightening series of sermons in this topic that you might look into.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/12/2008 9:08:17 AM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4940
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
quote:
AFAIK, the argument isn't that one fossil couldn't have been buried quickly, it's that ALL of them couldn't have been buried TOGETHER and form the deposits that we find.
I believe that most (if not all) of the fossil deposits are from the flood. They all died and were quickly buried TOGETHER and formed the deposits we find.
Then why aren't the fossils and sediments ordered by density? Why are there fossilized burrows and sand dunes in middle layers?
-Dan.
Here's an interesting article that explains the fossil record.
The Key to the Age of the Earth
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/12/2008 9:52:19 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1943
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: verdigris
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
veritas
cosmology it seems, is mostly composed of some sort of sociological/philosophical element or two.
you cannot discuss origins without contemplating the edge - singularity - infinity - the horizon - the center - etc.
let alone, the hows, the before and the after.
these are all elements that most contemporary/mainstream "scientific work" tend to ignore.
what are your thoughts?
The idea of an 'old earth' actually found it's beginnings very near the evolutionist movement. Why? Because the theory (though I hesitate to even grace it with the dignity of being called theory when it is really more simple speculation and a hope toward straying from 'moral virtues') of evolution has no ground to stand upon if they earth really is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, when science began to turn from Creationism to embrace evolution, the solution for finding the time needed to allow for Darwinian evolution was to simply start all research and scientific 'discovery' from that point on with a presumption that the earth HAD to be older than 6,000 years and MUST be as old as millions or more.
That is not correct. While the theories of evolution and an old earth did come about at roughly the same time (i.e. within ~50 years), they were independent of each other.
We're discussing this in another thread if you'd care to check out the links already provided: http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_3693905/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#3693905
quote:
A great website to give you more insight on this subject is www.answersingenesis.org.
They are referenced on the other thread and their articles don't support your statement.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
Here's an interesting article that explains the fossil record.
The Key to the Age of the Earth
It doesn't explain anything. All it does is claim that a global flood can explain most of the geological features we see today and that people who discount the ideas of a young earth and a global flood are ignoring the Bible. The same claims I hear all the time. They're quite clear that they draw their conclusion from a particular reading of Genesis and not from an examination of the evidence.
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. AIG and other YEC organizations have a habit of glossing over details and simplifying scientific understanding to the point where their position sounds scientifically plausible. If all you know of geology is that stuff dies, gets buried, and then fossilizes, then it's pretty easy to think that all the fossils in the world could have been laid down at once w/ a global flood. But when you start delving into the details - what fossils are found, where they're found, how many of them there are, how they're ordered, what layers they're found between, then the YEC position starts to fall apart. Even the basic things I've pointed out are enough to throw a serious monkeywrench into the notion that YEC enjoys considerable scientific support and that the argument is a matter of interpretation.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/12/2008 11:33:22 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: verdigris
The problem with what you're saying is that some of the earliest and greatest scientists of all time, rather MOST of them at the inception of science as a formalized study, were both Christians, Creationists, AND Young Earth Creationists. Take Sir Isaac Newton as your prime example.
The problem with what you're saying is that some of the later and greatest scientists of all time were Christians, Creationists, and discoverers of the evidence showing that the earth is old. Take Lord Kelvin as your prime example.
quote:
The idea of an 'old earth' actually found it's beginnings very near the evolutionist movement.
Very near, but before. This eliminates your argument that the earth 'had to' be old, in order to bolster evolution.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/12/2008 4:16:27 PM
|
|
|
wreid77
Posts: 26
Joined: 4/25/2007
Status: offline
|
The greatest falicy in dating the Earth or the Universe is that there is simply no way to say "I know this object is X years old" aside from the various dating methodologies used and thus there is no way to verify the voracity of any dating method.
The Earth is what it is. The truth that really matters is that GOD is.
God existed before time and will exist well after time.
My choice is to take the creation story literally but as has been pointed out...days could be years or millenia it makes little difference. If you take creation to be days (without a gap) then following the Biblical record would place the Earth at approx. 6,000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/12/2008 4:29:03 PM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 17229
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
Earlier there were a few posts removed. The thread has been reviewed and the posts reinstated. If you have any comments, questions or concerns about this please email Fritz at community@salemwebnetwork.com allowing time for a reply during normal business hours. Please do not discuss it in the community or send a moderator a PM about this action. Thank you.
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/14/2008 7:42:46 AM
|
|
|
diddl2007
Posts: 22
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm pretty much a purist...I believe a day was a day
I agree.
_____________________________
http://messianique.forumpro.fr/index.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 3:20:36 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Moving to San Antonio!
Status: offline
|
Late to the party here, but ....
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
That is not correct. While the theories of evolution and an old earth did come about at roughly the same time (i.e. within ~50 years), they were independent of each other.
Actually the idea of a millions of years old earth came quite a bit before evolution was ever a spark inside Darwin's skull. By the early 1800s, and very possibly even earlier, most geologists saw evidence that the earth was at least millions of years old. Including Christian geologists.
So this misinformation:
quote:
The idea of an 'old earth' actually found it's beginnings very near the evolutionist movement.
is really quite irritating. It makes Christians look bad.
_____________________________
My current ministry dream:
http://victorymuseum.org
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 3:23:37 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Moving to San Antonio!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
It's not at all unbelievable to me that a global flood could do much more than wipe out a few roads, but carve caves and canyons and create entire mountain ranges.
A global flood that would rise up, resurface the earth, and go away within a years' time would do rather more than that. It would also vaporize everything on the surface of the earth, including Noah.
_____________________________
My current ministry dream:
http://victorymuseum.org
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? - 8/19/2008 3:44:43 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4940
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
Is there evidence that the flood went away within a year's time? I was under the impression it took longer than that.
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
