[_ Old Earth _] The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History

[Stone-yarder]

"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."

http://www.icr.org/article/4824/

 

[cupid dave]

"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."

http://www.icr.org/article/4824/

Even though some people will disagree with you here, Theistic Evolution reasoning shows the agrument and science used to confirm every verse in Genesis when understood comprehensively.
Consequentally, we who read Genesis in this way have God's back on this.

Theistic evoution does agree with you, though, in accepting the Axiom before we analyze Genesis, that the Bible reveals the Truth by stating Facts.

May I ask whether your OP here implies that you also find Genesis to be factually true, or are yoiu inferring this, as a charge against the Bible and the people who say they believe it?

 

[Arch Angle]

There is a difference between a documentary and a real eventsbased story. Like the movies "pearl harbor" and "blackHawk Down". They are true enough. And when we don't have to take them as the"literal truth" and we can learn much from them. Sometimes more than just a history text booktype of layout.

What is a perfect "god", that is theology, it iswhat you believe. The rock record is notperfect or imperfect. I would not assigna value like that to the rock record. The story of Guinness does not imply "perfection", or "in-perfection" of god.

How the story is used implies understanding god.

 

[cupid dave]

There is a difference between a documentary and a real eventsbased story. Like the movies "pearl harbor" and "blackHawk Down". They are true enough. And when we don't have to take them as the"literal truth" and we can learn much from them. Sometimes more than just a history text booktype of layout.

What is a perfect "god", that is theology, it iswhat you believe. The rock record is notperfect or imperfect. I would not assigna value like that to the rock record. The story of Guinness does not imply "perfection", or "in-perfection" of god.

How the story is used implies understanding god.

Agreed.
But I think what the OP is saying is that if we wrote Genesis the way the Vhurch people tell us hey understand it,
we would have to begin by sying things like, "There was no Big Bang beginning ccomparable what science has discovered, because the Universe is only 6000 years old and the Big Bang requires 13 billionyears of Cosmic Eolution.

Therefore Christians who come to our churches MUST agree that an instanteous spontaneous generation of the Cosmos took place in total violation to the Laws of Cause and Effect.
They would insist that 4 billion muslims and christians accept that 22 men lived to ages of even 950 years before the present state of affairs we find today.
They would require that the stated inbreeding between different kinds of men, Gen 6:4, has nothing to do with the evidence that we, today, all carry Neanderthal genes in every cell of our body.

On and on....

In other words, BEFORE we accept Christianity, we are expected to read the Bible believing in a god who breaks all his own Natural Laws.
That is recursive.

The PURPOSE of the Bible is to gradually convince the reader of a God they never knew about.

 

[Sparkey]

Here's a link to an article entitled, "Age of the earth
Subtitle: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe" found on the Creation.com site.

Within that (too long to discuss here) article is a reference to another article,

Chapter 4
What about
carbon dating?​

• How does the carbon ‘clock’ work?
• Is it reliable?
• What does carbon dating really show?
• What about other radiometric dating methods?
• Is there evidence that the Earth is young?

Chapter 4 Section: More evidence something is wrong
Carbon-14 in fossils supposedly millions of years old...
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little Carbon-14 to measure, but dating labs consistently find Carbon-14, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.


Footnotes:
21. Giem, P., 2001. Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon. Origins 51:6–30.
22. Baumgardner, J.R., Snelling, A.S., Humphreys, D.R., and Austin, S.A., 2003. Measurable Carbon-14 in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model. Proc. 5th ICC pp. 127–142.

The point that we should expect zero (0) presence of Carbon-14 in artifacts that are millions of years old includes the observation that too much Carbon-14 at the time the decay began would actually prevent life. It's an observation that interests me. Note that we are not speaking of rocks or other non-life materials, but only of those findings that contain plant or animal matter that is dated "too long ago", ie. millions of years. It is my understanding that "background levels" to be expected would include leeching actions.

 

[Arch Angle]

lmao,

wrong, radio isotopes would never, or rarely, be "zero".

 

[Sparkey]

lmao,

wrong, radio isotopes would never, or rarely, be "zero".

Even after discounting "background levels"? So what happens? Does the decay rate freeze?

 

[Arch Angle]

radio isotopes behave in a certain way. These observed behaviors areunderstood enough that we can use them for a variety of things.

List what is known about radio isotopes. Stating they are 'wrong" withthis understanding is not reasonable.

Do radio isotopes point to an older earth or a younger Earth?

It really is that simple.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

"The Bible never claims to be a textbook on history or science, but if God is who He claims to be, then He has all knowledge and power, and never makes mistakes. Therefore, if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be truthful, even when it touches upon matters of history and science. Otherwise, this Creator God is a liar. The very character of God requires the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a trustworthy record."

http://www.icr.org/article/4824/

Here are two of your close relatives(when I say "close", I mean when compared with all of the creatures that have ever been known by us to live). I don't think they're the same individual, because they hold their cigarettes differently.

Just look at these two, and accept the Fact of Evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gteEe1d-rQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmQUp-JZ7c

 

[Sparkey]

radio isotopes behave in a certain way. These observed behaviors areunderstood enough that we can use them for a variety of things.

List what is known about radio isotopes. Stating they are 'wrong" withthis understanding is not reasonable.

Do radio isotopes point to an older earth or a younger Earth?

It really is that simple.

So a question about the presence of carbon-14 in samples dated millions of years old, that exceeds "background levels" is not allowed?

I wonder about that too.

But then again, when approached by the "Skeptics Society" president on campus, I asked him to prove he was a skeptic himself, and suggested that he had been lax in his own approach, being content to follow along with other skeptics and their sayings. His response was to chuckle to himself and invite me in for more discussion.

 

[Milk-Drops]

So a question about the presence of carbon-14 in samples dated millions of years old, that exceeds "background levels" is not allowed?

Would these samples happen to be from organisms that would have been exposed to the reservoir effect in deep sea conditions by chance?

 

[Sparkey]

Would these samples happen to be from organisms that would have been exposed to the reservoir effect in deep sea conditions by chance?

Interesting observation, no. The article quoted (Chapter 4, What about Carbon Dating) doesn't mention the precise source of the materials that are alleged to have anomalous (excessive) amounts of carbon-14. You could probably just scroll down to page 79 for the gist of it. It is a creation based article and there is no omission of conclusions and allegations that the bible is right. As you know, I'm not opposed to that notion but the idea seems worthy of notice in and of itself.

I've been reading other threads in this forum regarding C-14 dating and conversations between StoveBolts, Barbarian and Lordkalvan. Am learning as much from this as I do in independent research.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Interesting observation, no. The article quoted (Chapter 4) doesn't mention the precise source of the materials that are alleged to have anomalous (excessive) amounts of carbon-14.

It would be interesting to find out what the samples were. Mainly because many of the arguments I've seen that involves discounting Carbon 14 dating ( which is not used to date the earth at all), tend to rely on samples form deep sea dives. I learned about the reservoir effect when taking a geology class in high school and learned that due to low carbon being able to filter to the bottom of the ocean, it tends to build up down there and dating there can be tricky due to this.

 

[Sparkey]

It would be interesting to find out what the samples were. Mainly because many of the arguments I've seen that involves discounting Carbon 14 dating ( which is not used to date the earth at all), tend to rely on samples form deep sea dives. I learned about the reservoir effect when taking a geology class in high school and learned that due to low carbon being able to filter to the bottom of the ocean, it tends to build up down there and dating there can be tricky due to this.

I tend toward skeptical myself but lack the ability to collect the samples and/or perform the tests. I imagine one would need to be very careful in the collection process to ensure best practices. I'll not search but if my hand finds something noteworthy about C-14 in samples that have organic material millions of years old, will be sure to consider your suggestion as it does make sense. Oceanic environments would impede the uptake rate, or that's what I hear you saying? Or maybe you're saying that C-14 is more concentrated? Hmmmm... I'll wait for clarification.

 

[Arch Angle]

yes, C-14, is not really used to date rocks. But be that as it may.

There are anomalies in places . Radio dating in of itself looks like an older earth, but the numbers can be fudged, rightfully so, to look younger. Radio dating can be off bya fair percent. That is why it iscritical to link it to other observations. Like index fossils and deposition rates. let alone the rest of it.

But the the understanding of how they work cannot not be dismissed by anomalies alone. All that can be stated is that it is incomplete. And everybody knows that. But the understanding of decay rates through all the radio isotopes, points to a older earth.

Then it gets back to the list of evidence that we are drawling our conclusions from. We all (believers)start at the bible. Then I have to ask the YEC creation peeps what is the second piece. And always saying "that aint proof"gets old after the 5th piece of evidence that they don't like. I love the one about "they don't know where the dirt went from the grand canyon",I mean really? We can't let these people teach the younger generation.

I know this is theology, and off topic but:

What is the big deal. Can't god do it the way he wants and not how we tell him to?

If he did it a way, wouldn't he like us to know how?

Doesn't god want us to know him as he is?

 

[Sparkey]

Good questions (I think). Best asked of the source, not the product, right?

 

[cupid dave]

What is the big deal. Can't god do it the way he wants and not how we tell him to?

If he did it a way, wouldn't he like us to know how?

Doesn't god want us to know him as he is?

[/FONT]

The reality is that biological evolution is not opposed in Genesis, which merely mentions that Life appeared by an Act-of-God called Spontaneous Generation which created the "first sprouts of life on earth," (deshe), referred to as "grass."
From there, the entire Plant kingdom appeared, followed, correctly stated, by the Animal Kingdom.

YEC's and Chritians in general would do well to state this fact plainly and withdraw from discussions where they add more than exactly what is written in the Bible.

 

[Arch Angle]

thats right cupid.


That verse about the tax coins fits here.
When looked at indetail, it wasn't even spontaneous generation or luck. How many times canwe say "by chance" in evolution before it becomes clear it is almostimpossible to be that random.
The bible answers "what am I". leave the rest, to the rest.

 

[Adam]

The reality is that biological evolution is not opposed in Genesis, which merely mentions that Life appeared by an Act-of-God called Spontaneous Generation which created the "first sprouts of life on earth," (deshe), referred to as "grass."
From there, the entire Plant kingdom appeared, followed, correctly stated, by the Animal Kingdom.

YEC's and Chritians in general would do well to state this fact plainly and withdraw from discussions where they add more than exactly what is written in the Bible.

Deshe does not mean "the first sprouts of life on earth" and it certainly isn not in regard to spontanious generation. And you've already been corrected numerous times that the bible is not chronologically correct in terms of plants coming before animals.

We can easily evidence that animals (simple sponges) preceded plants by about 300,000,000 years.

 

[Sparkey]

Each person is free to base their conclusions on whatever evidence they feel is real. For some, this is an easier choice than for others.

Our courts have a system where twelve peers consider evidence and issue a verdict (their conclusion). This is designed to help eliminate mistakes. The burden of proof falls to the plaintiff or the person making the claim. If the defendant makes a counter-claim, they will then have the burden shifted to them for support of the contrasting or opposing allegation. There are differences between a "preponderance" of evidence, clear and convincing evidence and evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Each evidentiary standard has its own requirement(s).

Many "discussions" ensue when the lines between each type of evidence is blurred. How much evidence exactly (is there a formula?) is required to constitute a "preponderance" and will serve to establish the burden of proof being satisfied? There is no clear rule. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing "proof" isn't really a proof, but rather, a measure of the confidence of the jury involved. If it is considered highly probable to be true and the jury or judge has a firm belief or conviction in it it is called "Clear and Convincing". A greater degree of believability must be met with this type of "proof" than the common preponderance standard.

Much of what is discussed in the Christianity and Science forums pretends to meet the Beyond-All-Reasonable-Doubt standard. This might be the case if Jury Selection procedures were in place, where ones presentation would be heard only by those in prior agreement. But it just isn't so. There are many "reasonable" readers who refrain from full agreement to either side.