Posted on 05/01/2009 10:11:09 AM PDT by mnehring
The clash between young-earth and old-earth creationists can seem bewilderingly technical at times. Is there any easy-to-understand scientific data for determining whether Earth is young or old?
In recent months, new evidence has emerged that may be simple enough for everyone to understand, regardless of science background-as simple as counting tree rings.
Scientists are learning much about Earth's past by drilling deep into its surface-both ice and rock-with specialized instruments to remove long cylinders, or "core" samples. Six deep ice cores and one sediment core now provide a clear and continuous record of Earth's history. The ice cores reveal hundreds of thousands of ice layers laid down on top of one another year by year, just as a tree adds one new growth ring per year. Three deep ice cores pulled from Greenland record the past 120,000 years.1 Three deep cores in Antarctica-Dome Fuji, Vostok, and Dome C-allow researchers to look back 340,000, 420,000, and 740,000 years, respectively.2
How do scientists confirm that these ice layers correspond to years of Earth's past history? They can check for telltale markers, such as volcanic ash signatures. The Krakatoa eruption of 1883 and the Vesuvius eruption that wiped out Pompeii and Herculaneum in AD 79 left their specific marks in exactly the annual layers anticipated. Climatic cycles also allow for testing. As it turns out, these cycles-caused by regular variations in the eccentricity or ellipticity of Earth's orbit (period = 100,000 years) and the tilt of Earth's orbit (period = 41,000 years)-correspond perfectly with what's seen in those core layers. Finally, researchers have performed radiometric dating of minerals embedded in the ice to make sure their age corresponds with their annual layer, and in each case it does.
Further corroboration comes from a sediment core drilled off shore from New Zealand's Southern Alps. It reveals the past 3.9 million years of Earth's crustal history.3 Though each layer in this core represents a few centuries rather than a single year, the climatic cycles and events in this core for the past 740,000 years match perfectly with corresponding layers in the Dome C ice core. Such a calibration builds confidence that these cores yield a continuous climatic, geological, and astronomical record for the past few million years at least.
Proponents of young-earth creationism respond to this compelling evidence by pointing to possible problems at the tops and/or bottoms of the core samples as if such anomalies render the entire dating analysis unreliable.4 For example, the bottom 15,000 layers in two of the three Greenland cores are disturbed by ice folding close to the bedrock. Such disturbance (caused by extreme pressure conditions), however, in no way invalidates the 105,000 layers above or the 123,000 layers in the third core (the NGRIP core). The burial of the "lost squadron" of World War II under 250 feet of Greenland ice and snow in only 50 years has been offered as proof that the 10,000-foot-long Greenland ice cores cannot represent 100,000+ years of history.5 However, intrusions into the layers by localized forces and events does not invalidate them. In this case, the lost squadron crashed in a relatively warm area of southern Greenland where, unlike the sites of the three deep ice cores, several melts and refreezings per year can occur and seven times as much snow falls per year.
According to Psalm 19:1-4, God speaks not only through the words of the Bible but also through the record of nature. Since God speaks truth and chooses to reveal Himself, nature's record and the Bible's words can be expected to agree. The ice and sediment cores provide compelling extrabiblical evidence that the earth is indeed ancient. This evidence supports the literal interpretation of creation days in Genesis 1 as six long epochs.6
The Bible / Torah reads; on the first day....on the second day...etc.....it counts 6 days and then God rested on the seventh day.
Ok, show us an error in any literal English translation from the original language. You won’t be able to. It has been authenticated long ago.
The God I know is able to keep His written Word from being damaged.
Adaptation, mutation and selective breeding are not "evolution". Wouldn't ALL species continue to "evolve"? There is evidence that many most definitely have not continued to do so.
As for the "stopped": OK, we are still hurtling through space at an untold rate of speed (are we slowing down or speeding up and how can you tell?), but the elements that compose us, our planet, our solar system and our galaxy are right here, right now and are "stopped", relatively speaking, as compared to the supposed beginning point of time/space/creation. These elements had to travel at a given rate of speed to the points they are now in time/space, then form into what they are now, then we had to wait another 187 billion years to see the light from that beginning, according to recent reports of astrophysicists and astronomers.
If you have that, I would like to see it.
cockroach, alligator, crocodile, sharks, fish, many birds, many bugs, . . . .
How is that evidence they stopped evolving and the state you see is a final state?
If they haven’t changed for millions of years, that would indicate an ending point, wouldn’t it? If evolution were real, there would be no separation of species, as every individual would evolve differently. While everyone is different, there are no branches of humans that have naturally evolved with special characteristics that are completely unlike the rest of us.
The elements which compose Earth, this solar system, this galaxy, etc. have NOT stopped at this point in space (or any other, ever). They (of which we are a part) are moving. Away from the galactic center, up and down through the galaxy, and away from other galaxies (at roughly the speed of light).
Nothing took 187 billion years. The age of the universe according to the best scientific estimates of our day is somewhere between 15 and 16 billion years, and according to the Talmud is roughly 15 3/4 billion years. You're off by an order of magnitude.
As to the development of life, let alone intelligent life, I cannot explain that. Dr. Schroeder (see my posts above) states that it is statistically nearly impossible for matter to have transformed by random action from inorganic to organic, and he attributes that act to G-d (many eons ago, I might add).
As to the development of technology, that is damned near a given when you understand that the nature of intelligence is to master its own environment as much as possible. It is a matter of a geometric progression, once intelligence arose (although being land-based, where fire is possible, is a huge help - porpoises and whales are intelligent, but they're not exactly competition to us for global mastery). As to what gave rise to intelligence...see the paragraph above (though such may have also been inevitable once organic matter came into existence - I simply don't know).
As I've mentioned in posts above, there is IMHO, no dichotomy between science and my religion (Judaism) on the issue of the age of the universe or the order of the unfolding of Creation. The opinions of the majority of people on FR on this issue are based in the teachings of Christianity, which are themselves based on the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis (31 lines worth). You can have a robust faith in G-d while still understanding that science is not entirely wrong (or even mostly wrong, or is even mostly correct).
No, actually, it doesn't. Your English (and Christian-oriented) version of the Hebrew Book of Genesis, which was long ago translated from Latin, which was long before then translated from some other language, reads that way.
Go to the link in Post #27, and read the section that specifically addresses this issue. Then, if you're still not convinced, go to a priest or minister who can read and translate Hebrew, and ask him.
Unreasoning faith is no faith at all. What are you saying, that faith in G-d necessarily withers away with the application of observations and logical reasoning? Actually, many people intimately involved with science have discovered or renewed their faith in the Creator as they have learned more about how the universe that He created is structured and works.
Insofar as not relying on what you see and hear, I'd say that such applies to what other people show you or say to you. Nature does not deceive, people do.
Who said they haven’t changed in millions of years. They may be similar, but we see a lot of speciation within all the groups that you describe. There may have been birds (for example) millions of years ago, but we are seeing countless more variants evolved now than we are aware of that existed millions of years ago.
In Jesus' time, the 'religious' are the ones that came against Jesus due to what 'they thought'. There are religious people and there are those that have a personal relationship with God. The religious ones are concerned how they are looked at by others, etc. Those that know God could give a rip what anyone thinks or says about them - for they KNOW they have God's approval and that's all that matters.
Oh, so no one who is "religious" has a "personal relationship with G-d? And all of those with such a "personal relationship" couldn't care less about what others think? Speak for yourself. First, you have serious definitional problems. Second, I've known plenty of religious (which I will define as ritualistically attentive) who are not such decent human beings...just as many of those same types are thoroughly decent human beings. I also know many (both ritualistically attentive and not) who take great care to be decent human beings (what you may call having a "personal relationship" with G-d). The vast majority of them DO care what others think of them - they wisely understand that they are ALL ambassodors for faith in G-d, and that not caring one whit for what others think is a sure recipe for turning all of those people away from such faith. They believe in setting a good example - not compromising their beliefs, mind you, but setting a good behavioral example - by getting along well with others. Religion is, after all, for us humans. G-d doesn't need it, any more than He needs us. He existed long before us (since the beginning of Time, however you choose to define it), and will exist long after we are gone (until the end of Time, etc., etc.).
You paint with such a broad brush that you conclusively demonstrate your ignorance and/or prejudice. Take each person as they are - that's what G-d does (though infinitely better than we are capable of), and I think you'd do best to try to emulate Him to the greatest degree that you can.
"causes many to lose faith and many others (like the NY Times, Newsweek, etc.) to ridicule faith."
Lose faith? One is not grounded if they lose their faith. LOL! What does the NYT and the other rags know about 'faith'?
Every person loses faith at some point in their lives (though not necessarily permanently). That is the nature of free choice: there MUST be doubt. If there is no doubt, then what is the point of existence? To me, human existence is about purifying your soul, making this a better place for those who follow us by making ourselves better. If you have no doubt about the existence of G-d, then you never have to make a choice between Good and Evil, your soul never, ever has a chance to improve itself. I don't know about you and your religion, but to Judaism the existence of doubt in every person is a given. We are tested CONSTANTLY, many times each day, and tested by One Who knows our weaknesses (i.e. where our doubts lie). If you tell me that you have reached the point of never having any doubts, I'd tell you that you are almost certainly violating one of the 10 Commandments, which in and of itself would demonstrate your doubt.
What does the Times know of faith - little or nothing. Which is exactly my point. It and similar papers, magazines and networks are highly influential, and they have undoubtedly caused many with little knowledge of the faith of their fathers to stray, given their inherent bias against religion, morality and the religious/faithful. I choose not to aid their crusade against religion by not conforming with one of their chief stereotypes.
Gen 1:8 second day שׁני shênîy Hebrew meaning = Second
יום yôm Hebrew meaning = Day
Nice try though Ancesthntr, guess you figured I could not read.
The Genesis account is of 6 days and God rested on the 7 th day, whether you read it in the Torah or the goyium English Bible.
|
|
|||
Gods |
I'd almost be willing to ping this one. :')According to Psalm 19:1-4, God speaks not only through the words of the Bible but also through the record of nature.Uh, okay... |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
2Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
Now consider Genesis 1:
5: "God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
" 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day....
"11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
So, the "evening and...morining" of Genesis are pretty clear. On the other hand, both the Old and New Testaments tell us that a day for God can be a thousand years for us.
And, we must consider this: whereas plants and trees come on the third day, the sun and moon don't arrive until the fourth day. So clearly the "evening and...morning" of those early days have nothing to do with rising and setting of the sun, I'd suppose...
OK, I misread or read a typo. The report I just read says the explosion they are now seeing happened around 13 billion years ago. I clarified my stopped statement previously. Now, if we came from that point, or beyond it, and we are still traveling away from it at the speed of light, exactly how fast did those elements have to travel? They must have either decelerated, or the light we are now seeing has accelerated. If we are traveling away at the speed of light, then that light that is reaching us now must be traveling at twice the speed of light. If two things leave the same point at the same speed in the same direction, they arrive at the same point at the same time. If we are moving at the speed of light, the light reaching us from “near the beginning of time” must be moving at twice that speed and therefore, in order for us to be here now, we (our elements) must have traveled at at least three times the speed of light to a certain distance, then slowed to the speed of light.
So, basically you are saying that your family tree is a record of evolution and each individual on it (ancestors and descendants) are sub-species of humans? That does put a new twist on things. That would equate to about 6.8 billion human sub-species now living and a total of over 15 billion since time began? If we evolved from apes, why are each line of apes not evolving still?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.