[_ Old Earth _] Old Earth Vs. Literal Reading of the Bible.

[Free]

"BCE" cannot refer to "Before Christian Era" since Christianity didn't start until after 33 AD/CE, which makes no sense and would put dating out by several decades. The obvious point of "Before Common Era" is to remove the reference to Christ but it is really silly since to even define "common era", one must refer to the birth of Christ. Another example of PC gone mad.

 

[lordkalvan]

It is possible to argue technicalities forever. The point of any dating convention is to provide a valid and understandable common reference system. In this sense no one calendar is better or worse than any other. That the BCE-AD/BC dating conventions use identical anchor points makes the distinction between the two irrelevant in practical terms, regardless of what the C may be taken to refer to in the former. I, for one, am more than happy to use either as seems most appropriate and, as requested by the Staff, in this forum I will do my best to make sure I use AD/BC where I might otherwise have used BCE out of habit.

 

[Vic C.]

Well after 11 pages, I'm kind of glad we took this turn.

Rhetorical question, how old are you and when did it become habit? 8-)

 

[lordkalvan]

Well after 11 pages, I'm kind of glad we took this turn.

Rhetorical question, how old are you and when did it become habit? 8-)

Wa-a-a-a-ay too old and wa-a-a-a-ay too long ago! :-?

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of "wayyyyy too old" how about that 1998 article showing that mitochondrial Eve is 6,000 years old!

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Talk about "agreement with the Bible"!!

You have to admit that Bible believing Christians are going to be happy with that result.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ I notice that, in the article you link to, while the writers make great play of the Schwartz and Vissing paper's apparent conclusions in respect of paternal mtDNA, they fail to mention the fact that its discovery in a human male was in a single case linked to infertility. This implies a certain selectivity on the part of the writers in choosing and presenting information.

It is also the case that this article was apparently written in 2003 and the writers themselves remark that 'Things change rapidly in science.' Has further research confirmed or refuted their conclusions?

It is also worth remembering that, even if the writers were and remain entirely correct in their argument that mitochondrial Eve can be traced to just 6,000 years ago, this alone is not evidence that she was the first woman:

And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.

She didn't live alone – she would have lived within a community. She didn't just pump babies out, either. There is no reason to suppose that she had more than one female child. But there is reason to suppose that whatever female children she had, they contained specific advantages for survival over the rest of the population.

..... To get a completely accurate result the tests would have to be performed on every single person living on the planet today. The dates are in dispute, but the date is perhaps the least importmant [sic] point. Broadly speaking, populations do pass through bottlenecks. Eve had many ancestors – it helps if you think about her as an hourglass – she was the pinch in the glass through which our genes ran. There had been many more Eves before her, she is just our most recent common ancestor.....

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

By the way, Bob, I hope you haven't lost sight of those outstanding questions I asked you in respect of the sedimentation rates of 'all major river deltas' and Nebuchadnezzar's Empire and the Achaemenid Empire. The question of mitochondrial Eve's origins can only distract us from the original focus of our discussion.

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, in your recent posts to this thread you seem to have forgotten the outstanding matters that we were discussing and that I was hoping you would be able to elaborate further so that I could better understand and respond to your claims.

In the first place, I had been puzzled by your claim that in the Bible Daniel 'predicted the 4 major European empires'. When I questioned your assertion, you identified as amongst these four such 'major European empires' Babylon and Medo-Persia. I have questioned how you can identify these as in any sense 'European', but you have avoided answering this question. I have also questioned how you can claim that statements made ostensibly in the 6th Century BC about kingdoms that existed before the 6th Century BC, or came to an end during the 6th Century BC, or originated in the 6th Century BC, can in any sense be regarded as predictions about those kingdoms? This question you have also avoided answering.

Secondly, I have been awaiting the scientific evidence that you claim supports the age of Earth in accordance with a date derived from examination of the Bible. To begin with, I have yet to see presented the date for the age of Earth that you derive from the Bible. Following on from this, I have yet to see either the data for the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' that you claim supports this biblically-derived date. Remember it was you yourself who chose this as a test case for showing the scientific evidence supporting the age of Earth derived from the Bible. However, all you have claimed for the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' so far is that they support the date for the Noachian Flood, but you have not provided any figures for this either. I would remark in parentheses that the occurrence or otherwise of the Noachian Flood is not itself direct (or even indirect) evidence for the age of Earth.

I await your replies with some interest.

 

[Rick W]

We don't know the power of creation nor do we possess laws for it's mechanics or invocation thereof.
We as Christians believe God indeed possesses this power, creation of something from absolutely nothing... not a rearrangement or transfer of matter from one place to another... but creation of matter where there was once none at all.

We believe God created Adam as a mature, living being already in the progress of "living" with all bodily systems functioning with all necessary elements to do so. As an example, the cells of his body had the nourishment already required without first going through any process of digestion to acquire the needed elements to carry on life. Adam was a work already in progress and with all aspects of age in that he did not mature from the womb. Surely by any scientific research based on our knowledge today given our understanding of our surroundings that things don't just pop out from nowhere, that by years upon years of observation that things always have a beginning I seriously believe, again based on a multitude of past observations, that we would no doubt give Adam an age of at the very least over 16 years of age. Again, based on past observation.
Why should that change? We will continue to to base age on the observable since that is the only premise we have at our disposal.
We also believe the miracles of Christ in that he healed the sick, raised the dead and also possessed the power of creation. By all observable evidence the fish he created would also appear to have an age much more than just a few hours.
In each of these cases our science overshoots the actual to settle on an age far beyond that of the results of creation.
By all science, by all the evidence that we accept as valid, by all the evidence weighed against what we have already observed the universe would also appear much older than it really is. By all scientific data the conclusion made can only be one based on past observations.
We don't know how to create something from nothing, we don't even know if we've seen it. We don't have any knowledgeable grasp of anything compared to creation nor can we even begin to conceive of a set of laws to govern it's mechanics.
Adam would have displayed "history" by the very fact that he was matured. The fish would also show "history" simply by the diversity of God's imagination as displayed by what we now see in the universe. That is if indeed we believe God created and with an imagination far above our own.
This, the observable, is how God created the universe. He created us within it. Therefore we observe and conclude "history", we conclude age and we conclude process. Had He created all in another fashion I have little doubt we would again conclude "history", age and process by observing that which we find ourselves within but based on another set of criteria based solely on what is observed in another differently created universe.
We are part of His Creation, a part of His imagination through His power to create. Yet it is that very power that eludes us for we don't possess the intellect nor understanding. There is a limit to man's knowledge and a boundary to his understanding. But not so with God.

The only way to scientifically prove an answer to your question is to scientifically prove creation. But then, who could understand it but God Himself?

 

[BobRyan]

L.K -

I am hoping you have not lost sight of these points addressed to you 3 pages ago -

Have you thought about addressing the Helium problem identified in the link I gave you?

Have you thought about addressing the problem of the decreasing rate of earth's magnetic field in the link I gave you?

Have you lost sight of the problems identified in the quote below?

Did you ever compare the just-say-nay accusations against the Bible vs the confirmation of Bible facts found in the Ebla tablets?

I am claiming that there were 4 major world empires that covered palestine starting with Babylon and then going to Medo-Persia and then Greece a the time of Alexandar and then Rome.

You know -- "just the incredibly obvious" point.

Then I am pointing to the fact that Daniel gave this 4 world empire prediction starting in Daniel 2 and then in more detail in Dan 7 then in even more detail in Dan 8 - such that he even predicts the rapid advancement of Greece and the split into four kingdoms of the Greek empire at the death of Alexandar as well as the rise of Rome, the split of Rome into 10 kingdoms and ultimately the 1260 years of the dark ages after the break up of Rome.

Basically I am pointing to "inconvenient fact after inconvenient fact" in Daniel for the just-say-nay group.

BTW maybe you can help with something... no matter what the Bible subject your side of the discussion always seems to leave you "less than" if it turns out that the Bible is correct. I am still not sure why accuracy in the Bible is always a bad thing from your POV. Are you atheist?

Bob

In short -- will you be addressing the problems raised?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, in your recent posts to this thread you seem to have forgotten the outstanding matters that we were discussing and that I was hoping you would be able to elaborate further so that I could better understand and respond to your claims.

On the contrary - you claimed not to understand the context for the book of Daniel - and I showed you where this may be found not only in his statements about the 4 world empires listed there - but also in the timeframe context given at the start of the chapters.

I also pointed you to the contrast of the just-say-nay solution vs the confirming evidence we have in the Ebla tablets.

I also pointed you to the link showing a large number of earth geochronometers that refute the Darwinian notion.

In the first place, I had been puzzled by your claim that in the Bible Daniel 'predicted the 4 major European empires'.

Indeed you seem puzzled that Greece and Rome might have had something to do with Europe as well as showing confusion on the idea that Persia waged war against Greece.

While that is a wonderful rabbit-trail for you -- it does not help with your fundamental doubt-the-Bible-first solution since Daniel is a perfect example of the Bible being reliable in terms of historic events predicted and the just-say-nay arguments falling flat.

. I have also questioned how you can claim that statements made ostensibly in the 6th Century BC about kingdoms that existed before the 6th Century BC,

I have questions your wild rabbit-trail notion that the Roman empire took power before the 6th century.

so far you provide no evidence at all of the rise of Rome not coming where History books place it -- after the rise of Greece and in fact directly linked to the fall of Greece.

You completely avoid answering the point that ALL history books SHOW these empires in the SAME order as Daniel gives them as he writes in the 6th century B.C.

Secondly, I have been awaiting the scientific evidence that you claim supports the age of Earth

Is this the part where you "did" or "did not" read the link referencing the examples I gave with Helium and the earth's magnetic field?

, I have yet to see either the data for the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' that you claim supports this biblically-derived date. Remember it was you yourself who chose this as a test case for showing the scientific evidence supporting the age of Earth derived from the Bible.

Is this where you are asking to evaluate the calculations for the sedimentation results?

The Geologic Age Of The Mississippi River
(With a Presentation of Basic Factors Pertaining to Age-Estimates of River Deltas)
Benjamin Franklin Allen
The Mississippi-Missouri river system is the longest in the world, measuring some 4,221 miles in length. In flood season flat-land inundation below Cape Girareau has always been a problem. In the 1850’s congress ordered General Andrew A. Humphreys to make a survey of the whole area, which was completed and published in 1861.

The English geologist, Charles Lyell (1797-1875), promoter of the Principle of Uniformitarianism, had made superficial examination of the river and delta, and gave the river system an age of 60,000 years, on the basis of a total depth of the delta of 528 feet. Humphreys showed these measurements to be erroneous, and that the actual depth of the delta was only 40 feet. Below that was the blue clay layer and below that marine fossils, indicating that antedating the river was a marine estuary intruding far up into what is now the lower Mississippi River flood plain.

Therefore, using Lyell's formula for age computation, Humphreys got an age of about 4620 years or approximately the time of the Flood of Noah. It is logical to believe that most of the present river drainage systems of the world were born at the close of the Flood.

There are less data for computing the age of other major rivers of the world, but the data available seem to concur with the age of the Mississippi River.

If the river were as old as many uniformitarian geologists believe, the whole Gulf of Mexico would have been filled with sediment in some 10,000,000 years.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ab ... um9_2.html

Or are you asking for more links to YEC sources for river deltas etc?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism

http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/imp-017.htm

I would remark in parentheses that the occurrence or otherwise of the Noachian Flood is not itself direct (or even indirect) evidence for the age of Earth.

Please see the above -- and be sure to observe the Helium argument in the links provided.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

L.K -

I am hoping you have not lost sight of these points addressed to you 3 pages ago.....

Bob, we had already agreed to address the evidence for a 'young' Earth compatible with a biblically-derived date (yet to be proposed) that could be substantiated scientifically by the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'. This was your chosen metric, not mine. This post looks like an attempt to slide out of substantiating your assertion. I hope that this is not a diversionary tactic. I am sure the unbiased reader that you often refer to will be able to draw their own conclusions from this if it is.

For my part, I am more than happy to look at another metric once we have completed our examination of the one that you first chose to focus on. If you are now happy that this metric does not in fact support the as-yet-to-be specified biblically-derived date for the age of Earth, please say so and we can move on.

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, I see that you have begun to address the question of sedimentation rates of river deltas. Brief apologies for my preceding post. I will break my responses to this post down into at least two parts, one dealing with Daniel's 'predictions'. the other with the question of sedimentation rates. The second part may be delayed a little.

In the first place, I had been puzzled by your claim that in the Bible Daniel 'predicted the 4 major European empires'.

Indeed you seem puzzled that Greece and Rome might have had something to do with Europe as well as showing confusion on the idea that Persia waged war against Greece.

No, I am puzzled that you claimed the earlier two kingdoms were European. If this was just a typographical error on your part, just say so and we can move on; people do make simple mistakes and I won't argue that if you're mistaken about this you must a priori be mistaken about everything else. If it wasn't a mistake, please explain how you conclude that the two kingdoms that preceded Greece/Macedonia and Rome were European. I'm sorry you regard it as a rabbit-trail, but it at least goes to the matter of addressing your historical and geographical awareness and understanding, both of which are relevant to this discussion.

[quote:1fjz3q7t]I have also questioned how you can claim that statements made ostensibly in the 6th Century BC about kingdoms that existed before the 6th Century BC,

I have questions your wild rabbit-trail notion that the Roman empire took power before the 6th century.[/quote:1fjz3q7t]
In an effort to launch a 'wild rabbit-trail' of your own and to avoid providing an answer to the question asked, you are implying that I am questioning predictions about the Roman Empire in the comment you post. This is disingenuous. As you are well aware, the question I asked, that you have only quoted part of, and that you have been persistently avoiding answering, refers specifically to the kingdoms that you refer to as Babylon and Medo-Persia.

 

[BobRyan]

The "Four" world empire scenarios predicted in Dan 2, 7 and 8 are
1. Babylon
2. Medo-Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome

Hint: Obviously - each of these historic world empires subsumes the previous one and expands in scope which brings us to the point that both Greece and Rome expand into Europe. You have spent a huge amount of time on the detail that these last two world empires expand into Europe whereas Babylon and Medo-Persia do not. That point of yours seems to hold no end of entertainment value in your posts and you are certainly welcome to continue that sideline comment.

But for those interested in the actual title of the thread an OP - The "significance" of Daniel's 6th century BC world empire predictions is that get it gets to the "comparison" between the proven reliability of an "honest reading of the Bible" vs some of the more Darwinian atheist humanist history revisionism and outright "wishful thinking".

I find it curious that your posts completely ignore the salient point of the argument.

At the very least it is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob. further to your claim that the Mississippi Delta supports your argument that the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' provide evidence that validates an age for Earth that agrees with a biblically-derived date (as yet not provided) for that age, I note that you rely on Benjamin Allen's 1942 study of the Delta, itself largely a rehashing of the mid-nineteenth century argument between Charles Lyell and Andrew Humphreys. It is significant that you are unable to reference any more recent studies that support the conclusions that Allen draws by considering only Humphreys' rather elderly data.

It is agreed by geologists that the Mississippi Delta in its current incarnation is relatively young, dating to around 18,000 years ago and originating with the last Ice Age when sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico were some 400 feet lower than they are at present. Despite Humphreys assessment based on disputed data from more than 150 years ago that the depth of Delta sediments was around 40 feet, more recent studies show a thickness of at least 1,000 feet attributable to deposition by the Mississippi (Gould, H. R. 1970. The Mississippi delta complex.in J. P. Morgan, ed. Deltaic sedimentation modern and ancient. Soc. Econ. Paleontol, and Mineral. Spec. Publ. 15.). This simple fact alone invalidates Allen's argument and refutes the suggestion that the Mississippi Delta has formed in the space of a few thousand years.

The fact that Allen presented no data for computing the age of other major river deltas is itself significant and so wholly fails to support your assertion as to the evidence supplied in support of a 'young' Earth from 'all major river deltas'. I also note that the links you provide supply no additional information or data beyond Allen's rather forlorn argument. In conclusion, I find it ironic that an albeit flawed YEC argument in favour of a 'young' Earth is based on the idea that the past is the key to the present, an argument in support of a more conventional understanding of geology which is more usually derided by creationists. This metric based on sedimentation rates in river deltas is cleatly unsound, poorly evidenced (if at all), out of date and entirely inadequate.

For your part, you may be interested in the following observations based on more up-to-date studies:

About every thousand years, the Mississippi river has changed course. Each Mississippi River deltaic cycle was initiated by a gradual capture of the Mississippi River by a distributary which offered a shorter and steeper route to the Gulf of Mexico. After abandonment of an older delta lobe, which would cut off the primary supply of fresh water and sediment, an area would undergo compaction, subsidence, and erosion. The old delta lobe would begin to retreat as the gulf advanced, forming bayous, lakes, bays, and sounds.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Delta

Three types of 210Pb profiles were observed from short cores (15–45 cm) collected on the shelf. Proximal to Southwest Pass in 30–100 m water depths, non-steady-state profiles were observed indicating rapid accumulation. Sediment accumulation rates in this area are typically >2.5 cm yr−1 (>1.8 g cm−2 yr−1). Kasten cores (200 cm in length) collected near Southwest Pass also indicate rapid deposition (>4 cm yr−1; >3 g cm−2 yr−1) on a longer timescale than that captured in the box cores. Near shore (<20 m), profiles are dominated by sediments reworked by waves and currents with no accumulation (the exception is an area just south of Barataria Bay where accumulation occurs). The remainder of the shelf (distal of Southwest Pass) is dominated by steady-state accumulation beneath a 10-cm thick mixed layer. Sediment accumulation rates for the distal shelf are typically <0.7 cm yr−1 (<0.5 g cm−2 yr−1). A preliminary sediment budget based on the distribution of 210Pb accumulation rates indicates that 40–50% of the sediment delivered by the river is transported out of the study region. Sediment is moved to distal regions of the shelf/slope through two different mechanisms.

From the abstract of an article at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=c55dd15218727a7768f9fa1ae96a9dbd

And this AFP article: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOzgECwLQP8vaAbWw_KIela3vvmQ

 

[lordkalvan]

Further to my last post, I omitted to query again how even flawed evidence that supposedly supports the claim that the Mississippi Delta formed at the time of the Noachian Flood in any way supports an argument about the age of Earth derived from biblical analysis, an age that has still not been presented.

 

[lordkalvan]

The "Four" world empire scenarios predicted in Dan 2, 7 and 8 are
1. Babylon
2. Medo-Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome

Hint: Obviously - each of these historic world empires subsumes the previous one and expands in scope which brings us to the point that both Greece and Rome expand into Europe. You have spent a huge amount of time on the detail that these last two world empires expand into Europe whereas Babylon and Medo-Persia do not. That point of yours seems to hold no end of entertainment value in your posts and you are certainly welcome to continue that sideline comment.

If there is any entertainment value to be derived from this, it lies in watching you do anything you can to avoid explaining why you claimed 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7' when two of those empires/kingdoms were not, in any sense, European, or, alternatively, to admit that you made a simple error. Why is this so difficult for you to do? Do you believe yourself to be infallible? The time I have spent on this matter is an attempt to clarify exactly what you mean. If you truly believe that Babylon and Medo-Persia were European empires or kingdoms, it calls into question your grasp of historical context and its importance.

But for those interested in the actual title of the thread an OP - The "significance" of Daniel's 6th century BC world empire predictions is that get it gets to the "comparison" between the proven reliability of an "honest reading of the Bible" vs some of the more Darwinian atheist humanist history revisionism and outright "wishful thinking".

I find it curious that your posts completely ignore the salient point of the argument.

At the very least it is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

And I find it curious - and no doubt instructive for the unbiased reader - that you ignore one salient point of the argument, namely how a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that already or had ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation. If you can explain how this is so in relatively straightforward language without confusing and misused quotation marks, this would help advance discussion.

Once we have clarified these points we can move on.

 

[BobRyan]

The "Four" world empire scenarios predicted in Dan 2, 7 and 8 are
1. Babylon
2. Medo-Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome

Hint: Obviously - each of these historic world empires subsumes the previous one and expands in scope which brings us to the point that both Greece and Rome expand into Europe. You have spent a huge amount of time on the detail that these last two world empires expand into Europe whereas Babylon and Medo-Persia do not. That point of yours seems to hold no end of entertainment value in your posts and you are certainly welcome to continue that sideline comment.

But for those interested in the actual title of the thread an OP - The "significance" of Daniel's 6th century BC world empire predictions is that get it gets to the "comparison" between the proven reliability of an "honest reading of the Bible" vs some of the more Darwinian atheist humanist history revisionism and outright "wishful thinking".

I find it curious that your posts completely ignore the salient point of the argument.

At the very least it is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

That LK seems to be running as fast as possible from the POINT of the thread -- "Old Earth vs literally (actually) reading the Bible" can not be denied.

For the rest -- the point in the post above is to show that the Bible has DEMONSTRATED itself (as in the case of the book of Daniel) to be a trustworhty document though atheists, agnostics and others who unwittingly joing them in "just-say-nay-to-the-Bible" arguments love to avoid that point at all costs.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K -

I am hoping you have not lost sight of these points addressed to you 3 pages ago.....

Bob, we had already agreed to address the evidence for a 'young' Earth compatible with a biblically-derived date (yet to be proposed) that could be substantiated scientifically by the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'.

1. The topic of the thread OLD earth (in your case -- really OLD LIFE on earth not simply old rocks) vs accepting the Bible as a valid trustworhty document on the topic of ORIGINS for life on earth.

Might as well stick to that as much as possible.

2. The YOUNG earth examples given included the evidence from helium, sedimentation rates, shore erosion rates and Magnetic field reduction rates.

Young as is in defying all the proposed ages given by atheist darwinists.

Consider that the shore erosion plus river delta sedimentation rates do not allow that the continents should STILL be in a compatible form (shape) to be re-assembled into a Pangea formation.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, is this all you can come up with after 11 days to chew it over: ignoring every point I made?

I am not addressing your posts until you at least acknowledge the arguments I have made against your claim that the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' support a (yet to be specified) creationist date for the age of Earth - or even for the Noachian Flood - and have responded to my questions concerning the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia, and have discussed the implications of the term 'predictions' made ostensibly in the 6th century BC when applied to 6th century BC (or earlier) empires.

It seems to me that you have no interest in reasoned discussion, but wish only to make your own points to the exclusion of everything else.

I have addressed your claim about the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas', and found it to be sadly wanting and wholly out-dated. Please either acknowledge that this metric - the one you chose to put forward to support your claims, after all - fails to deliver the evidence you claim it does, or deal with the points I raised against it.

All you seem to be demonstrating so far in this discussion is your inability to acknowledge that you may possibly be wrong about something.

 

[BobRyan]

As already pointed out - the fact of Daniel's 6th century prediction for world empires starting with the fall of Babylon then going to Medo-Persia - then Greece then Rome - is an argument IN FAVOR of trusting the Bible -- just when you wanted to argue that it was nothing more than Aesop's fables.

Having failed to refute that point you are not content to just complain?

I have waited patiently for you to come up with a point.

Bob