Young Earth Frustration

[_Molok]

Ceeboo, I really hope you don't think anything on that site is true, because everything I have read so far(3 articles) has been poo. But I think you already knew that. You have a dark sense of humor, sir, but I totally get why you read this site so much. Haha, peace.

[_Ceeboo]

First, Sorry to have posted my request to have y'all give me your take on the site and then seem to have vanished (I had a lovely neighbor stop by and we shared a quick cup of coffee).

I appreciate all the replies. (I Really do as I mostly get the perspectives/opinions of fellow believers on all this stuff) (Fellow believers being those who believe in a God/Creator. Not just my young earth brethren)

As I have stated earlier in this thread (As I do to all my "believing" friends), I am agnostic concerning the age of the earth (I do lean toward a very old earth but I am indeed, agnostic for what it's worth)

Anyhoo, I appreciate the responses.

Thanks a bunch and peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Runtu,

Is there some reason you think I should bother with Grady's site?

Yes, in case you were interested in hearing the "young earth" perspectives directly from someone who believes in a young earth.

(At least that was the reason I bothered with it)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Hello friend,

You have a dark sense of humor

The gorgeous bride tells me this too! :)

I totally get why you read this site so much. Haha, peace.

Indeed! :)

Haha and peace back at you (doubled)
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Quasi,

Sorry, Ceeboo, my friend.

Please, never be sorry when taking the time to share with me (I asked for and appreciate your take)

I couldn't get past the first page.

That's too bad, in my opinion.

I wonder (as someone who clearly holds different beliefs than LDS and or atheist folk) how much I would have missed, the perspectives I would have never heard, or the journey's of people I would have never known about, if I wasn't able to get past "hello" on MADB or MDB.

Anyhooo, I do appreciate and understand your position.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Hoops]

I've read about 2 articles so far. Honestly, I'm not sciencey enough to tear apart the one about radiocarbon dating.
I am very unimpressed with the one about Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe. He seems to assume that humans/homo sapiens would always have buried their dead in a way that would allow us to discover their remains and burial objects. That is just not something that should be assumed. There are plenty of places where we have not discovered as many remains as we should given the likely population of an area. Hey! Maybe they were translated to heaven.

Do you have to time tell me what specifically you find troubling? I haven't read anything on the site, but it is at least a commone text that to which we both could refer. Or, perhaps, we can just move on.

[_Hoops]

OK, so I read a few of the articles, starting with the one about how a young earth is important to God, which I think is nonsense. Why would God care at all about whether we believe in a young earth, especially if the earth clearly isn't all that young?

He predictably attacks Carbon-14 dating. About the only thing he gets right is that Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life, so it is not useful for fossils older than about 50,000 years old. Why that should concern anyone is not really explained. After all, there are multiple, overlapping types of radiological dating, as well as tree rings and glacial ice layers that can be used to accurately date fossils. It's always funny to me that they act as if Carbon-14 is the only type of dating that is used, and then they vastly overstate its inaccuracy.

And so forth ... I'm not impressed.

If you're referring to his C-14 article, I think his point is that c-14 dating ... uh.... techniques make assumptions that aren't warranted. I'm not sure why he would address other techniques in an article specific to c-14 dating.

[_just me]

I've read about 2 articles so far. Honestly, I'm not sciencey enough to tear apart the one about radiocarbon dating.
I am very unimpressed with the one about Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe. He seems to assume that humans/homo sapiens would always have buried their dead in a way that would allow us to discover their remains and burial objects. That is just not something that should be assumed. There are plenty of places where we have not discovered as many remains as we should given the likely population of an area. Hey! Maybe they were translated to heaven.

Do you have to time tell me what specifically you find troubling? I haven't read anything on the site, but it is at least a commone text that to which we both could refer. Or, perhaps, we can just move on.

The article I am referring to is this one: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=2

He believes that the lack of mounds and mounds of hundreds of thousands of dead bodies found by us moderns is problematic to the theory by scientists that homo sapiens have been around for about 100,000 years.

In order for this to be problematic he seems to make several leaps. He first seems to assume that homo sapiens have always buried their dead along with funeral objects, at least generally speaking.

He also makes up some mathmatical calculations to try and support his idea that there would be vast numbers of homo sapiens that lived during the last 100,000 years. He comes up with the number 4 Billion. He believes that with such a huge number we should be digging up a corpse every time we dig in the ground.

When people are buried, whether or not their bodies are preserved, there are the artifacts left in the graves which identify them as human. Even if the body decomposes completely their jewelry, tools and vessels placed in the grave with them will survive.

This assertion just isn't backed up by evidence. Every time human remains are discovered they are not automatically accompanied by funerary artifacts. Some climates are better for preserving than others. Funeral practices have varied from culture to culture and era to era. Humans are also great at grave robbing and likely have been doing it a long time. Wild animals are fabulous at scattering remains. Moderns have not found everything there is to find, nor will we because we don't plan to dig up the whole earth.

The place I visited this weekend has not found enough bodies for the population they believe the area
held based on the buildings and artifacts left behind. However, digging has stopped and will likely not resume. Plus, back in the late 1800's people just carted off artifacts including corpses willy nilly.

Why should there be so many more artifacts found? People of the past kept using the same things over and over and over again. Literally. Some would occupy the same buildings for hundreds of years and then the next people would make their homes out of the previous materials.

Then he goes off on the ocean floor sediment and salt levels. He seems to be of the opinion that the Earth does not regulate herself and that some day the ocean will be filled with sediment and salt and since that hasn't happened yet the Earth is young. I've never seen a scientific concensus claiming the Earth can't regulate herself.

In the end he talks about spiral galaxies and how they prove that they are young because we can still see them as a spiral. I have no idea what he is talking about, To be honest. He finishes off with a zinger about scientists not knowing what they are doing since they have changed their theory of the age of Earth and universe in his lifetime. It isn't very convicing since they are all still far and away higher than 6,000 years old.

He fails to address tree rings, ice cores, dinosaurs, and other geological evidence. Actually, when he does address geological evidence he says how it all works perfectly with a young earth and worldwide flood.

In other articles he talks about geological evidence all fitting perfectly with a catastrophic worldwide flood 4500 years ago. I am not sure where to even begin on that one. There are so many problems with a worldwide flood occuring 4500 years ago that it could be a whole thread unto itself. If we all descended from Noah in less than 4500 years how are there so many different people in so many different places? How are there trees older than that? How come the ice core samples don't show it? How come DNA says otherwise? How were Noah, et al. able to breath during the deluge? How were plants and trees able to recover? It takes many trees/forests 300+ years to recover from a fire. I can only imagine how long it would take if they were covered in SALT water for a year. Did Noah have fresh water creatures on his boat so that they could survive, too? Now did Noah make enough fresh water for all the boats occupants for one whole year? He would have needed thousands of gallons a day, I imagine.

Anyway, that is the start of the list of my issues with the articles on the website.

[_madeleine]

Just jumping in here, for what it's worth. God's creative "action" in Genesis is described as "God breathed", or in the reference to wind (pneuma), also can be read as the Breath of God. The Holy Spirit is referred to more than once in the Old Testament as the Breath of God. In this sense, I understand nature (all of it) to be a grace, in Catholic terms, sacramental.

So, Genesis describes all of creation having a divine order, one that is a gift of the Holy Spirit (including our own creation). It isn't a scientific thesis.

As for numbering things in the Old Testament, such as "6 days", the seventh day, 1000 years, etc. Numbers have symbolic meaning in the Old Testament. This is well documented. Seven symbolizes the perfection of God. Six, being just short of perfection. The seventh day is God's sanctification of Creation, blessing it as Good.

1000 years is not a literal time, but symbolic of "a long period of time".

Peace.

[_just me]

I'd love to CFR the guy on this. See, he makes lots of assertions with no sources to back him up.

How do evolutionists construct the fossil record in an attempt to prove that evolution is true?

First, those who believe in evolutionism state that by faith evolution is true and that the earth is billions of years old. Second, they dig up fossils in various locations around the world. Third, they arrange those fossils in the order that they want them! Finally, they claim that the rearranged order of fossils proves that they are right!

Well it would wouldn’t it! If you allow me to rearrange the evidence I may prove anything I want to. Couldn’t I?

One of the single greatest differences between an evolution believing scientist and a creation believing scientist is that the creation believing scientist does not rearrange the evidence and the evolution believing scientist does! The creationist has no incentive to rearrange the evidence. The creationist doesn’t care what evidence you find; whether or not he understands it; whether or not he ever understands it; nor whether or not he has to wait for the Creator to come back and reveal its meaning to him. The creationist believes that whatever evidence is found honestly will be consistent with a Creator God.

The evolutionist, however, must rearrange the evidence before he claims proof and that is a monstrous difference!