Evidence for God from Science

meforevidence wrote:Dating Methods: Although there are different methods of dating, each one has not been proven infallible and even evolutionists have had dissentions on the accuracy of the methods used. Here are some examples:

1. Carbon 14 or potassium argon dating method: Using the potassium-argon method of dating, volcanic material in Hawaii that was less than 200 years old, tested at between 160 million and 3 billion years old. Shells from live mollusks were tested for carbon-14 and found to be “dead for 3,000 years.” also see: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html (Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating )

Of course the dating methods are not infallible. This is why it is important to know precicely how a technique works. Careful consideration for how a method works will allow one to scrutinize a result. One who is not involved in science may imagine a sample being placed into a machine and a date popping out with scientist just accepting the data.

This is not how it works. A method works by taking advantage of natural laws. Usually its a ratio of elements which are being measured and the date is induced from this ratio. Several measurements are made and the results are carefully examined. Those measurements which are high or low compared to the rest are thrown out. Also several methods of dating are used whenever applicable. When these methods converge on a date range, that date rangeis published along with statistical error.

In the case of dating volcanic material using carbon-14 dating, an understanding of the method will quickly lead one to the conclusion that dating inorganic material with carbon-14 dating is meaningless. Also carbon-14 dating cannot measure date going back 160 million years, so I am not so sure about your source.
=)

For more information on radiometric dating check out this thread.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/about1687.html

meforevidence wrote:2. Strata Dating: The oldest known stratum is the Cambrian Strata. Within this layer lies not only the simplest life forms, but also more complex organisms. Other dating methods have determined that the lower strata or layers of rocks in the earth are actually “younger” than some of the upper layers of rock and in some places, it is spread out for many square miles. This would totally contradict the evolutionary theory of strata dating. One theory used by evolutionists to explain away this is the “Pancake Theory.” This theory actually states that the land (including many square miles of land) simply “turned over” and so the higher life forms were placed on the bottom of the strata.

Dont forget overthrust faults.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/Vo ... fault.html
Finding one example of a reversed strata when most strata are not reversed lead to several possibilities.

This is a special case, the older layer is being thrusted over the younger layer.

The observation of layers everywhere else is an illusory one.

The same goes with stalagtite formation. Finding one example of stalagtites forming quickly does not instantly mean that all stalagtites formed quickly.
=)
Every instance is unique and does not necessarily apply to all cases. Most of the verified older formations are of calcium carbonate. Try re-examining your information.

meforevidence wrote:
I believe that the "7 days" are a literal 7 days because the same word for "day" is used throughout the Bible for a literal day.

I believe it was a literal 7 days because we are given the ages of Adam and Even and they did not live to be a Thousand years old. Yet they lived at least "two days" The first being the 6th day when created and the second the "seventh day" when God rested.

If the day was as a thousand years, then the nights would be too which would prevent life as we know it to exist.

Billy,

Welcome to the board and to this discussion.

I don't have time to interact completely with your posts in their entirety right now so I will just hit 1 point and return later when I have time.

1. With regard to the use of the Hebrew word "Yom," you are partially correct that the word is used throughout the Bible for a literal day. It is not used exclusively however. Yom is used with great frequency to also apply to only the daylight portion of a 24 hour day and also for extended periods of time. There are earlier posts in this thread addressing that. Further, there is no better word to express an age, or era in Biblical Hebrew than Yom, so your point is inconclusive without applying context to it's use within the Genesis account. Within the Genesis Account itself, the word is not used consistently in one regard as the first use is in the context of light only and then in Gen 2:4 it is clearly used in the context of more than a 24 hour day.

2. No one here, to my knowledge, is suggesting that the passage from Psalms 90:4 where "a day is as a thousand years" be used literally to suggest that the days in Genesis are 1,000 years. When I use that passage, I generally use it to note that the author of that Psalm is Moses who also authored Genesis and to demonstrate Moses understood the varied uses of the Hebrew word Yom beyond just a 24 hour day.

Obviously, those of us who are Old Earth, do not believe that there were long durations of uninterrupted darkness balanced with an equal period of uninterrupted light. We believe there were normal days and nights.

The question that Young Earth Creationism gives rise too, owing to the order or creation is how you reconcile the presence of 24 hour solar days when the sun appears not to have been created until day 4.

Old earth creationists have adopted in many cases a perspectival approach that reconciles how things must have appeared from the surface of the earth to an observer. This is the same approach that was developed as needful when the Copernican system demonstrated as true by Galileo showed that the sun was the center of our solar system. Sincere believers, prior to that took certain passages in the Scripture to mean that the sun revolved the earth and dogmatically held to that necessity as a defense for Scriptural integrity.

Of course, the Scripture was not wrong. But many believers, the majority in fact, were wrong in their interpretation.

Just so, I believe similar elements are at play here and both YEC and OEC believers would do well to tone down the rhetoric and couch their positions as their interpretation of Scripture rather than claiming absolute "literal" basis for their beliefs which in effect ties the inerrancy of Scripture itself to their doctrine. I'll leave it to you to decide which camp may be more guilty of that approach than the other.

Your cut and past following with regard to radiometric dating is easily refuted and I'll post some material on it later when I have time to tie in some references. You may want to check some of the main board on this site where it is addressed in multiple venues.

Again welcome and I hope you'll enjoy being a part here.

Bart

BeGoodForGoodSake
Every instance is unique and does not necessarily apply to all cases. Most of the verified older formations are of calcium carbonate. Try re-examining your information.

Do you have specifics on this? Locations where this has been proven? I do know of several other accounts short periods of growth. Furthermore, the caves mentioned are some of the largest ones in the world. If smaller caves (or larger ones) took longer, how did they measure the rate of growth for the stalactites and stalagmites? I don't mean to argue, but I do believe in evidence and have and can provide more evidence for the younger age view on stalagtites and stalagmites. Even if a site states it took "millions of years" like the ones that were proven false as mentioned above, please provide the evidence of measurement and how compared to other measurements. Thanks, Billy

1. With regard to the use of the Hebrew word "Yom," you are partially correct that the word is used throughout the Bible for a literal day. It is not used exclusively however. Yom is used with great frequency to also apply to only the daylight portion of a 24 hour day and also for extended periods of time. There are earlier posts in this thread addressing that. Further, there is no better word to express an age, or era in Biblical Hebrew than Yom, so your point is inconclusive without applying context to it's use within the Genesis account. Within the Genesis Account itself, the word is not used consistently in one regard as the first use is in the context of light only and then in Gen 2:4 it is clearly used in the context of more than a 24 hour day.

I agree we must follow the context. I also know that the word "day" is not always defined as "24 hours" since we all know that daylight can last almost 1/2 a year at the North and South Pole. I am just saying that that we should keep in context and remain consistant that each day was the same length of time. Since Adam and Eve and the animals were created on the 6th day and they lived through the 6th day and even after the "seventh day" but did not live to be 1000 years old, then we must assume that it must be at least similar to the days as we (and the Hebrews) knew it. Even if the word day sometimes meant "daylight" it usually always fell within a 24 hour period in the Mesopotanian Territory where the Garden of Eden was and where most of the Bible was written.

The inpsired writer of the book of Exodus understood the days to have been a literal seven days.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. This was also understood by the Israelites Moses passed this on to. The book of Exodus continues to parallel the 6 days of creation and sabbath day of the beginning with the seven day week given in this same law.

Also, the word "day" is not the only word used in Genesis. The word "night" "morning" and "evening" is used as well. The night and day were already created, but the moon and sun would show the "beginning" of each "day" and "night". see: 1:16 at - http://www.septuagint-interlinear-greek ... enesis.pdf (some of the modern versions may say "govern" or "regulate" which would still apply.

Take care and have a great and blessed day

meforevidence wrote:Do you have specifics on this?

Regarding the 55 year old formations from Mt. Isa the formations predate the mines. The operations took advantage of naturally existing cave system in Camooweal. Call them yourselves to verify.
http://www.aboutaustralia.com.au/enviro ... onal-park/

Carlsbad Caverns not only has evidence that it is contains old formations but the information contained in the formations themselves allows scientists to determine levels of rainfall in the past as well as ambient temperatures.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ ... eleothems/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/bar ... s2003.html

Regarding the 55 year old formations from Mt. Isa the formations predate the mines. The operations took advantage of naturally existing cave system in Camooweal. Call them yourselves to verify.
http://www.aboutaustralia.com.au/enviro ... onal-park/

Ouch!! You got me on that one. Thanks I emailed the site and asked about the particular cave mentioned at level 5. I hope to hear a response.

Here are some more sites with examples of dating error on the stalagtite, stalagmite theories.

http://sonnychilds.com/_wsn/page4.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Stumbling-in- ... &id=151113

A test of the "Bottle Stalagtite" at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... agmite.asp

and this rapid "instant stalagtite" in a manmade Austrailin cave at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... gmites.asp

More can be found at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... eology.asp

meforevidence wrote:

1. With regard to the use of the Hebrew word "Yom," you are partially correct that the word is used throughout the Bible for a literal day. It is not used exclusively however. Yom is used with great frequency to also apply to only the daylight portion of a 24 hour day and also for extended periods of time. There are earlier posts in this thread addressing that. Further, there is no better word to express an age, or era in Biblical Hebrew than Yom, so your point is inconclusive without applying context to it's use within the Genesis account. Within the Genesis Account itself, the word is not used consistently in one regard as the first use is in the context of light only and then in Gen 2:4 it is clearly used in the context of more than a 24 hour day.

I agree we must follow the context. I also know that the word "day" is not always defined as "24 hours" since we all know that daylight can last almost 1/2 a year at the North and South Pole. I am just saying that that we should keep in context and remain consistant that each day was the same length of time. Since Adam and Eve and the animals were created on the 6th day and they lived through the 6th day and even after the "seventh day" but did not live to be 1000 years old, then we must assume that it must be at least similar to the days as we (and the Hebrews) knew it. Even if the word day sometimes meant "daylight" it usually always fell within a 24 hour period in the Mesopotanian Territory where the Garden of Eden was and where most of the Bible was written.

The inpsired writer of the book of Exodus understood the days to have been a literal seven days.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. This was also understood by the Israelites Moses passed this on to. The book of Exodus continues to parallel the 6 days of creation and sabbath day of the beginning with the seven day week given in this same law.

Also, the word "day" is not the only word used in Genesis. The word "night" "morning" and "evening" is used as well. The night and day were already created, but the moon and sun would show the "beginning" of each "day" and "night". see: 1:16 at - http://www.septuagint-interlinear-greek ... enesis.pdf (some of the modern versions may say "govern" or "regulate" which would still apply.

Take care and have a great and blessed day

Fair enough.

I would note that I don't accept that it is a given that each "day" if seen in the context of a day - age context has to be of equal length.

Your interpretation that allows day and night to exist without sun or moon until the fourth day does not answer why we should assume similar length in the absence of defining astronomical bodies.

When you release your hermeneutic in this manner in one area, you beg the question as to what standard you hold to in maintaining a strict hermeneutic in the same passage.

Your argument from Exodus is a good one and one that has given me in the pause in the past. However, the pattern of 6 periods and then rest is sufficient to account for the use of the 7 day week which clearly is the context in Exodus. The context of Genesis is primary over its use in another.

Obviously the "author" of Exodus is the same as Genesis.

I really think when you look at historical context Exodus is a key to understanding a lot of Genesis. Moses as the author of Genesis, likely was inspired to write Genesis while in the midst of the Exodus.

There is a purpose to Genesis that ties into Moses' desire to provide the Israelites with a recounting of their past and of God's habit of bringing order out of Chaos.

Just as God brought Israel out of Egypt from chaos into order, there is a theme in Genesis illustrating how God brought them to where they were then and I think there is a key there that helps to understand in my opinion.

meforevidence wrote:Here are some more sites with examples of dating error on the stalagtite, stalagmite theories.

http://sonnychilds.com/_wsn/page4.html

Here's a quote from this site.

A bridge was built between Olney and Flora Illinois on the present Route 50 in 1923. Seventy nine years later, on January 1, 2002 this author photographed and removed a 10 inch long stalactite from the bottom edge of this bridge. A metal sign is attached to one end of the bridge which reads as follows. “Station 673 +70 Built 1923 by State of Illinois with bond issue of 1918 Route 12 Section 9.” According to the above mentioned rule of one inch per every 1,000 years, this bridge is now 10,000 years old. It should be noted that this was not a cave underground which received a constant supply of water and minerals but a bridge that would only have water present when it was raining.

The error is on the part of this website. All stalactite like formations do not grow at the same rate. Environmental variables along with the minerals involved lead to differing growth rates.

Scientists don't just measure the length of a stalactite and determine its age based on the measurement. Factors such as material, temperature, moisture and source and type of corrosives all factor into the equation.

The structure under which the stalactite was found is a concrete structure. The chemistry behind the formation of these "stalactites" is not the same that produces the ones found in limestone caverns. The difference between an icicle and a stalactite found in Lurray Caverns may be obvious, but there also exists a difference between that stalactite and the one found under Route 50.
http://www.cmste.uncc.edu/summerventure ... 0Paper.doc

Concrete as it turns out is more soluable than limestone alone. Thus these formations develop at a higher rate.
This sort of stalactite formation also resolves the bat carcass case.

Yes, I agree with you on that. The problem though is that many times before, some scientists would date the stalagtites and stalagmites in caves to be "thousands" or "millions" of years old before they actually tested the rates of growth only to find out that many of them grew at rates far more quickly than earlier thought. Many scientists did not perform the tests before making the statements just like in the cave called 'S.P.' near Sierra Vista, Arizona

'“From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor's sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns [New Mexico] that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7—10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.”'
The article continues:
'In short, he [Trout] says, geologists don't know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that cave decorations such as S.P.'s beautiful icicle-looking stalactites took years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.'

I did look at some of the sites you mentioned. Fascinating information with some beautiful photos. Thanks again.

I would like to refer to another site where specialists speak of what we are speaking of and how it is almost impossible to have an absolute answer on this. It is found at: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=161

I just think that too often, scientists (or so called) will make these statements without performing ample amounts of testing first. I believe in calling a spade a spade and we should pay attention to the testing, but not just accept the statements that it took "millions" or years for this to occurr. Please know I am not trying to argue with you. I appreciate your candor and research and I do want to look at both sides. I just want to point out some of the errors that the "Old Earth Theory" bases itself on, put them aside, and go forward with accurate information.

meforevidence wrote:The problem though is that many times before, some scientists would date the stalagtites and stalagmites in caves to be "thousands" or "millions" of years old before they actually tested the rates of growth only to find out that many of them grew at rates far more quickly than earlier thought. Many scientists did not perform the tests before making the statements just like in the cave called 'S.P.' near Sierra Vista, Arizona

Agreed.
=)

Bgood,

I do not always agree with you, but I do want to say that you bring a lot of integrity to the board because you do try to back up your points with research. I do not always agree with the interpretation of the research, but I appreciate your efforts.

That being said, the Earth is old and it shows the glory of God. Just read Psalm 104 and you will see that God clearly talks about creating species and turning his back on them when they no longer serve his purposes-therefore they become extinct.

Dan

aa118816 wrote:Bgood,

I do not always agree with you, but I do want to say that you bring a lot of integrity to the board because you do try to back up your points with research. I do not always agree with the interpretation of the research, but I appreciate your efforts.

That being said, the Earth is old and it shows the glory of God. Just read Psalm 104 and you will see that God clearly talks about creating species and turning his back on them when they no longer serve his purposes-therefore they become extinct.

Dan

Thank you.
=)

I am just truly amazed at how everyone here (so far as I have seen) is so intelligent and does so much research. I don't meet too many Christians that know that much about the Bible, history, archeology, etc. Most of my close friends are very fundamental (wonderful people though) and just believe faith is enough. I sometimes envy that, but I know each one of us must work out our own salvation and we each have different missions in life. Thanks so much though for the encouragement and hard work/study.

God bless, Billy

meforevidence wrote:1. Carbon 14 or potassium argon dating method: Using the potassium-argon method of dating, volcanic material in Hawaii that was less than 200 years old, tested at between 160 million and 3 billion years old. Shells from live mollusks were tested for carbon-14 and found to be “dead for 3,000 years.”

Three comedians are shooting the breeze at the back of a nightclub after a late gig. They've heard one another's material so much, they've reached the point where they don't need to say the jokes anymore to amuse each other — they just need to refer to each joke by a number. "Number 37!" cracks the first comic, and the others break up. ""Number 53!" says the second guy, and they howl. Finally, it's the third comic's turn. "44!" he quips. He gets nothing. Crickets. "What?" he asks, "Isn't 44 funny?" "Sure, it's usually hilarious," they answer. "But the way you tell it…"

These comments about the reliability of dating methods also have come up often enough to be referenced by numbers. Since this thread seems to be mainly about the interpretation of words, perhaps comments on age could be done on one of the other threads such as http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 2A&start=0.

Any discussion should also address the standard explanation about why living mollusks can seem to be so old. Note: Even the ICR doesn't use this one (anymore?): http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=293

MYTH #3. The shells of live freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated in excess of 1600 years old, clearly showing that the radiocarbon dating technique is not valid.

The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.

The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment. If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone. Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon than would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.

This problem, known as the "reservoir effect," is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water.

Canuckster1127 wrote:1. Genesis 1 - The Fourth Creation day. How do you explain 24 hour days from day 1 - 3 when the astronomical bodies needed to frame that time frame were not in existence?

Sue (at the Field Museum) is estimated to have been 13 feet tall and weighed about 7 tons. How does one explain "feet" and "tons" when dinosaur Sue is believed to have died long before humans invented those terms of measurement?
Let's assume that God created everything over some period of time. When Genesis was written (or first appeared in some human language), what measure of time should have been used which would have any meaning to people? Doesn't it seem only natural to use a system of hours, days, years, etc? What other units would be comprehensible? "Hayvehs" or "dimtubs"? Just as feet and tons can be used to measure things which existed before those concepts were defined, so can days and weeks be used to describe creation.
Now why God is described as taking days to do something which could have been done instantaneously is an entirely different question.