It’s history, not science

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
theophilus
Valued Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:11 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 170 times
Been liked: 30 times
Contact:

It’s history, not science

#1

Post by theophilus » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:20 am

If a physician examines someone whose age he doesn’t know he can make a good estimate of his age because he understands the aging process and know long it would take his patient to reach his current physical condition. But what would happen if he traveled back in time and examined Adam a few days after his creation and tried to guess his age? If he didn’t know Adam had been created directly by God he would assume he had been born as a baby and grown to adulthood. His estimate of Adam’s age would be much too high. His error wouldn’t be the result of any incompetence on his part but it would occur because of his lack of historical knowledge of Adam’s past.

Most scientists believe the earth is over 4 billion years old. They have arrived at this figure by studying the natural processes at work in the earth and calculating how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions that exist now.

One method scientists use is radiometric dating. Radioactive elements break down and form other elements; one example is uranium breaking down to become lead. The rate of the process is known, so by measuring the amount of uranium and lead it is possible to determine how long it would take the lead to form. If all of the lead that exists is the result of radioactive decay it would take over 4 billion years to produce the amount of lead that exists today.

Another fact that leads scientists to conclude that the earth is very old is the existence of large numbers of fossils. Most organisms decay or are eaten when they die. The conditions required for fossilization are so rare that it would take millions of years for the vast number of fossils that exist to be formed.

The evidence that the earth is old is based on the assumption that everything that exists came into existence as a result of the natural processes that are going on today and that there has never been any major interruption of these processes. But the Bible tells us that God created the earth and that there was once a flood that covered the whole earth. If these things actually happened scientists who think the earth is old are making the same mistake as the doctor who tried to guess Adam’s age. Their estimate is too high because they fail to consider historical as well as scientific data.

If God created the world to be inhabited it would already have lead and other elements that are the products of radioactive decay. A worldwide flood would produce conditions favorable to fossilization over the entire earth so the fossils we find could all be produced in a short period of time. Those who believe the earth is young are often accused of rejecting science. That simply isn’t true. We believe that the scientists who claim the earth is old are competent. The reason for their error is that they reject the historical information they need to properly interpret their data.

The doctor who examined Adam didn’t have enough information to discover Adam’s age but the fact that Adam didn’t have a navel should have told him that he wasn’t born the same way his other patients had been. Science alone can’t tell us the true age of the earth but there is scientific evidence that the earth can’t be as old as is generally believed.

One example of this evidence is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.
Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)
Soft tissue couldn’t have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous estimates of the age of the world must be wrong. Unfortunately belief that the world is old is so strong that most scientists ignore or try to explain away the evidence rather than changing their theories to conform to the evidence.
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publicly considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... in-fossils

The existence of soft dinosaur tissue isn’t the only evidence that the earth is young. You can read about some of the other evidence here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evidences

This evidence alone doesn’t prove that the Bible is true but it does show that the earth can’t be billions of years old and there is no scientific reason to reject the truth of the Bible.

Here are some sites where you can find more evidence that the generally accepted beliefs regarding the earth’s origins are wrong.

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/

http://sixdaysblog.com/
God wants full custody of his children, not just visits on Sunday.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#2

Post by B. W. » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:59 am

theophilus,

You mentioned this...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evidences

This evidence alone doesn’t prove that the Bible is true but it does show that the earth can’t be billions of years old and there is no scientific reason to reject the truth of the Bible.
Were you referring that the article is being wrong as what you meant by This evidence alone doesn't prove that the Bible is true?

I am not following you or I am misreading you - can you please clarify what mean?

The last part of what you cited is basically a dog and pony show kind of evidence militant YEC's use to suggest that there interpretation is the only accepted version and anyone who disagrees with YEC is adherent, in error, and unsaved...

It is that Prideful attitude against fellow Christians is the main reason I reject YEC. In fact this sort of pride is part of two of the 7 things God's calls as an abomination to Him: a proud look and one who sows discord among the brethren. I find that strain only common among militant YEC's. I find the majority of OEC on the other hand to be quite reasonable, presenting their case and letting the reader make up there own minds as such thing is between themselves and the Lord. No Pride in that or discord.

Proverbs 6:1, "These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren." NKJV

Anyway Theo - please clarify what you meant Here as I am not understanding what you were trying to say as we old geezers sometimes forget our car keys... :lol:

:wheelchair:
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

theophilus
Valued Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:11 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 170 times
Been liked: 30 times
Contact:

Re: It’s history, not science

#3

Post by theophilus » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:32 am

B. W. wrote:Were you referring that the article is being wrong as what you meant by This evidence alone doesn't prove that the Bible is true?
Many people believe that science has proved the Bible is wrong and so they don't even bother to find out what it says. Scientific evidence that the earth is young shows that this belief is wrong and anyone who wants to know the truth should study the Bible to find out what it says. The ultimate truth about God is found in the Bible. Evidence for a young earth removes one obstacle that keeps people from finding this truth.
God wants full custody of his children, not just visits on Sunday.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#4

Post by PaulSacramento » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:49 am

theophilus wrote:
B. W. wrote:Were you referring that the article is being wrong as what you meant by This evidence alone doesn't prove that the Bible is true?
Many people believe that science has proved the Bible is wrong and so they don't even bother to find out what it says. Scientific evidence that the earth is young shows that this belief is wrong and anyone who wants to know the truth should study the Bible to find out what it says. The ultimate truth about God is found in the Bible. Evidence for a young earth removes one obstacle that keeps people from finding this truth.
You seem to be implying that for one to believe in God and know the TRUTH about God,one MUST believe in a young earth, yes?

theophilus
Valued Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:11 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Has liked: 170 times
Been liked: 30 times
Contact:

Re: It’s history, not science

#5

Post by theophilus » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:55 am

PaulSacramento wrote:You seem to be implying that for one to believe in God and know the TRUTH about God,one MUST believe in a young earth, yes?
No, I was pointing out that there is scientific evidence that shows the earth is younger than most people believe. This proves that there is no scientific reason to reject the Bible teaching that the earth is young.
God wants full custody of his children, not just visits on Sunday.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#6

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:33 am

theophilus wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:You seem to be implying that for one to believe in God and know the TRUTH about God,one MUST believe in a young earth, yes?
No, I was pointing out that there is scientific evidence that shows the earth is younger than most people believe. This proves that there is no scientific reason to reject the Bible teaching that the earth is young.
Ah, thanks for making that clear.

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#7

Post by Revolutionary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:21 pm

We of course could have a discussion about Adam and Eve having children and then what?
Well apparently brothers and sisters got together, then cousins?

We could also have a discussion about God and eternal darkness before he created light... saw that it was good.... Wait, did he create his own eyes in the moment he created light in order to see that it was good and divide it from the darkness?
Now, if he had eyes in the eternity before he created light, I wonder if he ever poked himself in the eye fumbling through the darkness?

I could keep going, but do I need to?

We could just agree that genesis and the entire creation story isn't very intellectually advanced, simply because primitive minds wrote it.

pat34lee
Recognized Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:27 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Hilliard, Florida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#8

Post by pat34lee » Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:16 pm

Revolutionary wrote:We of course could have a discussion about Adam and Eve having children and then what?
Well apparently brothers and sisters got together, then cousins?

We could also have a discussion about God and eternal darkness before he created light... saw that it was good.... Wait, did he create his own eyes in the moment he created light in order to see that it was good and divide it from the darkness?
Now, if he had eyes in the eternity before he created light, I wonder if he ever poked himself in the eye fumbling through the darkness?

I could keep going, but do I need to?

We could just agree that genesis and the entire creation story isn't very intellectually advanced, simply because primitive minds wrote it.
Have you ever looked at how they breed dogs or other animals for certain characteristics? Inbreeding is part of it. When Adam and Eve were created, they had no inherent flaws. They had no bad genes, and their DNA was perfect, where ours has been degenerating for about 4,000 years (since the flood.) Noah had to start with more people, as his DNA was good, but no longer perfect.

Are you really implying that the God who created the universe, who is outside the constraints of space, time and energy, would need light to see?

Lonewolf
Valued Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:12 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Southern California
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: It’s history, not science

#9

Post by Lonewolf » Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:39 pm

^ ^ would that be a physical light, or a spiritual light?
Your outward profession of having put on Christ, has as yet to put off Plato from your heart!

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#10

Post by Revolutionary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:21 pm

pat34lee wrote:
Revolutionary wrote:We of course could have a discussion about Adam and Eve having children and then what?
Well apparently brothers and sisters got together, then cousins?

We could also have a discussion about God and eternal darkness before he created light... saw that it was good.... Wait, did he create his own eyes in the moment he created light in order to see that it was good and divide it from the darkness?
Now, if he had eyes in the eternity before he created light, I wonder if he ever poked himself in the eye fumbling through the darkness?

I could keep going, but do I need to?

We could just agree that genesis and the entire creation story isn't very intellectually advanced, simply because primitive minds wrote it.
Have you ever looked at how they breed dogs or other animals for certain characteristics? Inbreeding is part of it. When Adam and Eve were created, they had no inherent flaws. They had no bad genes, and their DNA was perfect, where ours has been degenerating for about 4,000 years (since the flood.) Noah had to start with more people, as his DNA was good, but no longer perfect.

Are you really implying that the God who created the universe, who is outside the constraints of space, time and energy, would need light to see?
See what?

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#11

Post by Revolutionary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:23 pm

Is the mind able to grasp the idea of nothingness before God created something?
Is the mind able to grasp the eternal, that it was eternal nothingness before doing so?

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#12

Post by Revolutionary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:32 pm

We have this observable brilliance where mass is concerned.... Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, mass is and has always been.... This threatens creationist ideas where genesis is concerned, but simple logic also makes eternal nothingness a rather absurd state in light of all the "creative" brilliance we are witnessing.
If you're going to accept a creator, at least accept an idea of brilliance that the universe and all of life including light is an eternal reflection having existed for all eternity.
I could actually respect that, the genesis gig.... That's some flat earth ignorance in this day and age of knowledge.
Last edited by Revolutionary on Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#13

Post by Revolutionary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:35 pm

It is human nature to desire to feel special, important... That God made all of this just for man...... Why not suggest we are a part of something infinite in expanse, that we a part of it's fiber?
That certainly is a focal brilliance that allows you to let go of that ego of self, and by all intents and purposes.... why would it's fabric be any less brilliant?

Revolutionary
Established Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:50 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: It’s history, not science

#14

Post by Revolutionary » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:49 pm

Do you suppose if the universe is a perpetual form/reflection of the infinite and eternal, that there would be any question how intellect would develop and the exact characteristics necessary in order to develop it?
Yet some are so hell bent on proving a belief because someone along the way claimed a collection of primitive ideas explaining the earth and also universal inherent ideas concerning the attributes of love claimed it to be the word of God?

We're far too intelligent to be contained within such a limited scope.... seriously!

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 143 times

Re: It’s history, not science

#15

Post by Byblos » Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:01 pm

Oh dear Lord, not again. :shakehead:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Post Reply