ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What is the evidence to the contrary?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)
- Thread starter ftacky
- Start date
Sky Rivers
Active Member
The original post seems to highlight some of it. No?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Not really, most of what it presents is either unconfirmed, outright refuted or doesn't actually contradict an old earth.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Care to go through the original post and show me what’s been refuted? What’s unconfirmed? What doesn’t contradict O.E?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Okee doke.
1 and 2 fall into the "unconfirmed" category, since they are entirely based on Biblical claims without sufficient support.
3 can be considered refuted and not evidence of a young earth, since it is based on false assumptions about dating methods. Never is just one dating method used to determine the age of rocks, but multiple methods are used which can be verified in their accuracy within certain frames of time. And rocks aren't "formed" by volcanic eruptions, the matter that comprises them simply rises to the surface. They aren't "new" rocks, they're old rocks melted down into magma and then reformed.
4 is unconfirmed, as very little evidence actually exists of the Lincoln Memorial stalactites and their actual composition. Either way, it's erroneous to assert that the possibility of stalactites forming rapidly means they always do. For starters, we can actually measure the growth of stalactites in existing caves and see no evidence of stalactites forming rapidly anywhere else.
5 is also unconfirmed and doesn't indicate a young earth.
6 is just wild speculation as the image can be interpreted multiple ways.
7 is a refuted hoax (SOURCE: Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy)
8 is unconfirmed and provides insufficient detail.
9 is unconfirmed and doesn't indicate a young earth. The figurine could have ended up under the layer of rock by numerous means, the rarity of such a find certainly indicates that this is more of a fluke than an indicator of ancient civilization. (SOURCE: The Nampa figurine - Bad Archaeology)
10, 11 and 12 are also unconfirmed and don't indicate a young earth. At most, it indicates that soft tissue, under very specific circumstances, can be preserved much longer than once thought.
ecco
Veteran Member
Sky Rivers
Active Member
I prefer to take the position of not knowing the exact age of the Earth and I also don’t believe that position contradicts scripture.
For that matter, I’ve not found scripture too clear on Earth’s shape either. Spherical or otherwise, I fail to see a conflict.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We can know a fairly accurate age of the Earth and we can know that some of the stories of the Bible are mythical.
I have found that too many creationists take an all or nothing approach to believing the Bible. As a result they try to say that people that do not believe the myths of Genesis are "not true Christians". That has always been a mistake in my book since I can give a very good argument that literalists have to believe that God lied, even though they usually cannot understand that they are doing so.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
As I stated, the age of the Earth being in the billions or thousands of years, doesn’t contradict scripture to my knowledge.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The fact that there was no flood of Noah does.
But humans being around for longer than 10,000 years does. Adding up the time periods in the Bible shows that it cannot be consistent with what we know from science.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Genesis gap theory would suffice to deal with that. Familiar? Regardless, I’m neutral on this matter as well, since I lack sufficient knowledge to form a solid opinion as of yet.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would call It "Gensis gap WAG (Wild donkeyed Guess). It is not a theory. Here is a simple way to know that:
What reasonable test could possibly refute the Genesis Gap WAG?
Well, you can actually read the relevant verses and add them up. They do connect to one another by reference to the time of the destruction of the temple, which we can date by other methods.
As for not having sufficient knowledge, that is a condition that is curable by a bit of work. Especially today, there is so much information easily available, all you need to do is find a couple of reliable textbooks to start with and go from there.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Looncall
Well-Known Member
So what?
What do the scribblings of the ancients have to do with scientific matters? Their authors were steeped in ignorance about such things.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
To be fair, I think Sky Rivers is taking a reasonably open-minded approach to most of the science and isn't being very hard-line or fundamentalist in her approach to the Bible. Let's try to get a dialogue going if we can before we let this turn into another endless war of attrition; I'm sure we're all tired of those at this point.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
That’s your assumption, not mine.
Sky Rivers
Active Member
Thank you.
