Evidence for God from Science

I liked your aquarium picture, nice. But I have another that I think is closer to reality. Imagine you have a forklift, on that forklift you place an aquarium with volcanic rock. Then place another and then another on top of it with the same stuff inside until you have ten aquariums like this. Then add an aquarium with half volcanic and half soil with few fossils. Then add another with more soil and more fossils. Keep this up until you have twenty aquariums. Now wait 10 million years. The forklift and all of the aquariums are located somewhere in the continental shelf.

Elaborating on the first aquarium post.
So, say we start with ten aquariums with volcanic rock to represent the first land. This erodes in some places down to 8 aquariums but in other regions is expands to 13 aquariums worth. As erosion continues, you add 3 aquariums of sed. rock and volcanic rock on top of the volcanic rock. Say this area is impacted in a plate-plate convergence, this area is crushed, buckled and pushed up as mountains. Now the fishtanks that were once long and low are now more like tall, narrow fishtanks (or broken alltogether!). Over time, this mountain range erodes until you are left with only 5 fish tanks of volcanic rock (which is still your basal rock in all cases) remaining from the original. Say sea level increases at this time... you have 1 aquarium of limestone deposits and 2 of sedimentary rock (containing fossils). Sea level returns to normal and you add 4 aquariums of sedimentery rock and soil, as well as an aquarium for a volcanic eruption. Since new seafloor basalt is being created at all times, all future uplift occurrs from below. So.... this area is impacted again by an uplift event and the 7 layers of rock (including granite, limestone, seafloor sed layers, soil, granite, land-based seds, soil) are pushed up once again. The layer erodes down to the seafloor sed layers, therefore exposing these fossil layers for your view. The area that you live in just happens to be in an area what the rock from that geologic period is exposed. If you go to another area, the chronology changes and another layer is exposed. The continental shelves are composed of rock and recent sediment loads from the continents. They do not yet have fossils since they are fairly recent.

It's all open to interpetation, which is unfortunate for both sides of this argument. But the stuff we see today is fully possible with old Earth geologic processes.

Now for questions on your model.
1. Your model sounds a lot like a Flood model in that you have a fixed order of aquariums stacked on top of each other and then buried in other sediment. Why don't we see this same order and thickness of layers over the entire planet?
2. Areas with higher erosion rates will have older exposed rock. That's why you see most U.S. dinosaur fossils found in the western U.S. The Triassic-Cretaceous layers are exposed by erosion. In the Appalachian mountains, which are older and more eroded, you see Carboniferous and Devonian seabed fossils. The Midwest is a low-erosion and uplift area so it is much lower and flatter when compared with the two coasts. How do you assume that if the forklift and aquariums were buried in one spot, that they would be gone in an Old Earth timescale? You downplay differential erosion, uplift, and subsequent rock deposition on top.
3. The continental margins are not covered in supposed global flood deposits. The sediment one find on the shelves and rises are all caused by river runoff and longshore and deepsea transport of that sediment. There is much exposed basalt and volcanic rock on the continental shelves. The sediment layers are thickest near river mouths and also thicker as one approaches the continent. The layer thins considerably as one approaches the abyssal plain. Most of the terrigenous sediment disappears and is replaced by carboniferous and siliceous oozes in the deep oceans. This goes contrary to what one would see in your Old Earth/Flood timescale.

Frank,

Thanks for the response and I agree with you on a lot of things.

I have to question a few things however and ask you something. When you say that YEC science is getting better, I have to wonder what you mean by that. By your admission the models are changing radically. Many of the arguments posited by the YEC have been refuted either early on or subsequently. It's always seemed to me, as a YEC believer myself in my younger years that the scientific arguments were really somewhat disingenuous, in that, most YEC believers, myself included at the time, put no faith in those arguments in terms of their final point of view. By that I mean that the entire point of YEC belief is based in their particular interpretation of Scripture and that only and therefore the science arguments were arguments of convenience, not conviction. I've rarely observed a YEC believer see a particular scientific argument refuted who didn't then move on to others and never skip a beat.

As an OEC now, I've based my beliefs equally primarily on Scripture and it appears to me that science is a better supporter of my point of view in that it better explains and ties into established science.

Why are there no scientists (none that I know of anyway) calling for a young earth solely on the basis of the evidence who do not start with a belief already that science must be made to show what is already believed?

I understand that science is imprecise in many areas and incomplete in its knowledge, but in the area of the age of the earth and the universe the consensus is so strong and crosses so many disciplines that is may well be one of the most universally agreed upon "truths" present in science.

Let me ask you, hypothetically, is there anything or what would it take in the realm of science to cause you to question your interpretation of Scripture in this regard? If there is nothing, then why continue to put so much effort into creating arguments that aren't the basis of your views anyway and simply serve as rationalisations that will simply be discarded and rebuilt if and when they are refuted?

Sincerely interested as this is the crux of what brought me to the place of my change of mind in this regard.

Bart

Himantolophus,

Sorry about the aquarium post. Without data or a logical argument I should not knock your visual.

I am putting together some data on the mississippi drainage basin. It will take a while. I picked this area because it really has a simple history compared to other areas. I am sorting through a bunch of data that makes no sense to post. I will boil it down soon. Oh, by the way I found out that the topsoil in most areas is not the seafloor as I have previously posted. It is close but covered by sediments from the ice age in a lot of areas. This does not change my position but since I made the statement I need to correct it.

Canuckster1127,

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I am the first to admit that I don't have a clue as to how early history actually happened. The whole debate on the earth's age is a scientific study which I love. Even in college I would always take the weak side of an argument because of the challenge. Now with scripture I do believe that the earth is much younger than science believes. How much I don't know. Since I am not doing the actual work on models and research and I am just on the sidelines I find I need the forum to push me into new areas. You would be surprised who I run across in these debates. I learn some fascinating things.

Now the point about the weight of science. Let me ask you a question, if everyone around you jumped of a cliff would you? That of course is an easy one. Now let me ask, if the school system said your kids had to go to a sexual orientation class would you object? Again simple but not as much as the first. Just because many people think a certain way is not a reason to do the same. All of the scentist believed light traveled at an infinite speed at one time. So we do know that with new data comes a change in mind set. When geology and biology were young all of the data was going in the direction to prove Darwin and Lyell correct. Now we don't see that. More geologist are willing to allow a catatrophic event in their thinking. Something 50 years ago was unheard of. Now we have molecular biologist unravelling the molecular machines in the cells. The level of complexity is staggering. Something Darwins theory did not predict. Now that we can actually map out gene and mutation events the models are making it harder and harder to support Darwins theory. What we know is far less than what we don't know, and that gap is increasing. But the trend is for more complexity not less. I see this as a good sign.

As for scripture and science. Even though my post may indicate I am tied to some YEC interpretation I am not. My belief in God is not based on science at all. I did come to God when it hit me that the reality I thoughI knew was not there. Our reality is a subset of a much greater reality that we can't perceive. Do you know that every photon in the universe knows what every other photon is doing? I had to reestablish my foundations at some point. It was my quest for this extended reality that lead me to God. After studying scripture in general I had a weak hold on faith. After studying prophesy I found solid rock. To answer your question about science and is there anything that will destroy my faith. I can't believe any new data or discovery of the creation could shake me. Yes, I may have to adjust some YEC material but since that does not determine my faith I see no problem. I would never recommend to anyone to come to faith through YEC. It is the weakest of the paths I can think of. Just a study of worldviews would be better.

Frank,

Thanks for the response. That helps me understand where you are coming from.

My comments were in the context of YEC only, not faith. I think you took my comments further than the context I asked them.

Th analogy of equating the balance of science and jumping off a cliff seems a bit of a stretch doesn't it? You appear to be equating OEC with Darwinism and one is not a subset of the other.

My belief in God is not based in Science either. I believe however that the same God who authored the Bible also created the world and therefore I expect the two ultimately to be in agreement with each other when viewed correctly.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Bart

I though I would go off track just a little with this post. I have gathered some data on archaeology in the past year and thought I would include it on this thread. I do this so you can get a feel of the various sets of timelines out there and see the wide range of interpretations of ancient artifacts.

Just as geology was difficult to write about archaeology is difficult as well. It seems that over time various civilizations were uncovered and each was placed on a timeline that was pieced together. Connections were assumed between various cultures and as more artifacts were uncovered the connections and timelines were moved. As time went on various subgroups of archaeologist were formed and timelines and opinions drifted apart and today we have a total mess.

The problem with archaeology is the same problem as with geology. We have a small number of artifacts and the interpretation of them varies greatly. So these snap shots into the past are wonderful to view but hard to use as evidence of the Biblical record. The words in the Bible are meant to bring someone to faith not provide a detailed history of the world.

For centuries people have attacked the Bible and have said that the Bible is just a story where the events and the people are a myth. Without a complete archaeological record one could easily argue that point. But the argument is based on the gaps not good research. A couple of examples will drive this point home.

The ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh was considered a myth as well as the Assyrians themselves. It seems that no artifacts and no city was found until recently. So for over a thousand years the Bible had talked about a race of people and their battles and cities with no evidence of their existance. So the gap in the archaeological record was used to disprove the Bible. This gap is now filled.

In 1847 Sir Austen Layard found the city of Nineveh across the Tigris river from Mosul in Iraq. The city was covered by sand, it contained many artifacts and inscriptions. In fact in a room off to the side of the palace were 22,000 inscribed clay tablets. Many museums around the world have artifacts from this city that you can view today. After the city was destroyed in 612 BC it was soon covered by sand. This kept the city intact until it was found 2459 years later.

The city of Nineveh was founded by a great grandson of Noah. His name was Nimrod. Nimrod is considered the first world ruler. He and his people drifted away from God. In fact all modern cults can be traced back to Babylon and the Assyrians.

Now this city could have suffered the fate of others but it was spared. Most ancient cities were rebuilt after they were destroyed. The new builders would use the stone from the first city to build the walls and buildings of the new city. In fact some stones from an ancient city in Egypt were hauled off a great distance to be used in another city. This process destroys most of the inscriptions on the stones so the data is lost. Often a new city is built on the ruins and the old city is buried under the new city. This may repeat several times. In Jerusalem you must dig down 40 feet to get to the old layers of the city. So with this in mind we know it is a rare thing to find anything that is very old. And if you are looking for a particular item from a particular time the chances are almost zero. So when we do find something that links us back to our ancestors and has a place in Biblical history it is a treasure.
If you want to see some of the artifacts from Nineveh and the other Assyrian cities visit the website bible-history.com

One of the items found in Ninrud (another Assyrian city) was a black basalt stone carved into an obelisk. Carved onto the stone is a picture of King Jehu of Israel bowing down to King Shalmaneser III of Assyria. King Jehu is mentioned in the Bible in 2 Kings 10:31. This was around 850 BC.

There are many artifacts that are this clear about our history and I invite you to find them. The internet is a great place to look but be aware that many sites are anti-god and as such try to pull you from the truth. Remember that Jesus said that there are people out there that wear sheeps clothing but inside they are ravinous wolves. Check out who put together the information. Just because a site says they are Christian does not mean they are.

The second item I want to discuss are some ancient roman sea anchors found off the coast of Malta.

And sounded, and found it twenty fathoms: and when they had gone a little further, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. Then fearing lest we should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day. And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea, under color as though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot, be saved. Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off. And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.
(Act 27:28-33)


Paul was being taken to Rome to be judged by Ceasar(Nero). The ship he was on was tossed by a storm for 14 days before they came close to an island. An angel told him that all would be saved but they needed to stay on the ship. Anchors were tossed over when the depth was 15 fathoms. The seamen were ready to leave the ship but the Romans cut the ropes to the anchors or small boat so the seamen could not leave. The ship grounded on a reef but everyone made it to the beach safely.

Bob Cornuke wrote a book “The Lost Shipwreck of Paul”. In it he details how he found some ancient sea anchors off a beach in Malta. This is all well and good but do we know these are the anchors from Paul's ship? We could never know for sure. I for one think it is very likely. I bring this up to demonstrate a point. That point is that most artifacts are like these anchors subject to a wide range of interpretation. It is only when you have a mountain of artifacts that you can then know for sure what they mean. I will point out that ancient artifacts have not disproved the Bible. Now there are some writings after the death of Christ that are an attempt to subvert the Word of God.

With these two examples you can see the difficulty in placing an ancient artifact in proper perspective. The first thing one must do is to obtain a Biblical timeline that tracks the scripture. This is not easy. I studied many timelines and decided that Barry Setterfield and others that used the same track made the best case for a literal interpretation of the Bible and ancient history. The best case for the timeline is found when the septuagint is used for chronologies. The modern King James Version of the Bible and the new Jewish Tora both have errors. We cannot use ancient chronologies of Kings and Pharaohs because kingdoms were sometimes split and multiple kings ruled at the same time. So if we throw out everything except for the ancient text of the septuagint and use the New Testament, and early church fathers as a reference we come up with a scriptural based timeline. I cannot state for sure that this is absolutely correct but it does line up with ancient history well.

Just for your information here are some creation dates.


Ussher 4713 BC
Jewish 3761 BC
Science 14.5 billion BC
Attioch 5529 BC
Arab records 6174 BC

We will use 5793 BC for the creation date. Biblical events and artifacts will be in line with this chronology.

To read a detailed description of how this date is found go to setterfield.org

A quick cross check with the longest living trees on the planet should give us some confidence in the timeline. Bristlecone pine trees growing in the United States have been dated to 4900 years old. This means they started to grow in 2900 BC. So using our timeline we would not expect them to survive the flood at 3537 BC, we would also not expect them to survive the great tsunomis caused by the continents dividing in 3006 BC. So this first test seems to indicate that the timeline is at least old enough.

(a little review)

When the earth was created in 5793 BC it was a very different place than today. In fact the earth went through two drastic changes. One from the fall of man caused by Adam and Eve taking the forbidden fruit and the other caused by the flood. Both of these are supernatural events so we would not expect to see evidence of their cause. We would expect to see evidence of the flood on the earth. This we do see.

The earth prior to the fall did not have predators and the ground watered the plants. It did not rain and a mist was everywhere. One did not have to work to produce a crop of food. The whole earth was a garden and food basket. Desease and natural evil like falling off a cliff and dying could not occur. Man was created eternal. All of creation probably did not have the law of thermodynamics operating. This would mean that things did not decay and age as they do now. The seas were smaller. In fact we can see evidence of water erosion on the sea floor around major rivers. This means the sea level was much lower than today and the rivers cut valleys in the exposed rock. Once the fall of man occurred then death was part of the creation. Decay and the entropy laws were established. Now some of you may have a hard time with this because science says the laws are part of nature. That is not true. What science reports is what they see. If science saw something else that would be nature. Very few underlying causes are known to man.

From 5793 BC to the flood in 3537 BC we would not expect many fossils because it did not rain so having an animal buried after it died would not occur. The only item that some of us believe is preflood is the Sphinx in Egypt. There is some evidence that it was in the flood.

According to our timeline with orbital years and atomic years the Cambrian period occurred at the time of the flood. That would make sense that fossils would be found after the flood when many creatures were buried. So the so called Cambrian explosion of life was nothing more than some animals that already were populating the earth got themselves buried. Sometimes the simplest explaination is the right one.


After the flood, Noah's ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in the mountains of Iran. The ark has not been found although some people have said they have seen it. It may be in plain sight but we may not be allowed to see it. In a similar way the Garden of Eden may still be on the earth but we cannot see it.
The city of Bablylon was built soon after the flood. One of the things the people built was the tower of Babal. This was the tower that was supposed to reach to heaven. God made the people speak many languages so they could not understand each other. God had told the people to spread out over the earth but they had stayed in Bablylon. The many languages was His way of dividing up the people so they would populate the earth.

The tower of Babal is still standing in the ruins of the ancient city of Bablylon. If you visit Iraq you can see the ruins of one of the first cities made on the earth and see the remains of the tower.

I want to jump now in time to 1583 BC to when the Hebrews ended their 400 years in servitude in Egypt. From scripture we know that the baby Moses born of a Hebrew was taken in by the pharoah's daughter. From ancient historical documents we know he grew up and lead an Egyptian army against the Nubians and extended the lands of the pharoah to the south. The scripture tells us he soon left Egypt fearing for his life. He made his way to Midian where he met his wife and was called by God. God told him to return to Egypt and bring out His people from bondage, and to lead them to the promised land. Moses went back to Egypt where God subjected Egypt to many supernatural events to force pharoah to release the hebrews. The Egyptians eventually begged pharoah to let them go. They even gave them gold and silver when their were leaving so the God of the hebrews would stop punishing them. The Pharoah chased after the hebrews after a few days when he found out they were between the red sea and the wilderness. As the Egyptian army showed up Moses parted the red sea and the hebrews walked across the red sea on dry land. After they were across the Egyptian army tried to cross but Moses closed the waters of the red sea over them.

Moses lead his people to Mount Sinai in Midian which is in modern day Saudi Arabia. There is a mountain in the sinai desert called sinai but I believe this is the wrong location.

One cannot travel to Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia but you can see a video of the area. Go to baseinstitute.org and get The Mountain of Fire DVD. Keep in mind that these are not Hollywood productions. What is important is the data and the connection to scripture.

Moses taking the Jews out of Egypt (the Exodus) is not something the Egyptians would have been proud of. For this reason we would not have statues commenorating a defeat. It was common practice not to even mention defeats or mistakes of the rulers. So to find artifacts about this event would be extremely rare. We do have a few items that support the events around the Exodus of Egypt.

Moses was born in 1665 BC. The Pharoah at the time was having all male Hebrews killed at birth by drowning them in the river. Moses' parents set the baby Moses afloat on the Nile in a basket. The daughter of the Pharoah happened upon the basket and took in the baby. She called him Mousos. The Pharoah was Palmanothes and his daughter was named Merris. Merris married the next Pharoah Kha'neferre also called Sobekhotep IV. This Pharoah appointed prince Mousos to lead an army against Ethiopia (Nubia) bacause they were encroaching on Egyptian territory.

Mousos lead the army and crushed the Ethiopians and returned a hero to the people of Egypt. He extended the area under the Pharoah 200 kilometers to the south. The Pharoah became jealous of Mousos so Mousos feared for his life. He fled to Arabia to the land of Midian. While Mousos was gone the Pharoah died and was replaced by Dudimose I.

The original records of this time frame would have been in the library in Alexandria. Sadly it was destoyed by fire and those records are lost. But there are a few historians who had access to these records and their account of the events still exist. The first of these is Josephus who was a jew captured by the Romans before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I recommend highly that you read the complete works of Josephus. The second historian whose works still exist is Artapanus who wrote his works around 300 AD. Both of these historians support the Biblical acount of Moses. A stela (carved stone) in the British museum tells of Kha'neferre's expansion into Ethiopia during his reign. Since the two historians and the stela support each other we should have confidence in their records dealing with Mousos.

When Moses was trying to get the Pharoah to let the jews go judgements were placed on Egypt. This was done to show Egypt that there is but one God. These judgements are listed below.

Water turned to Blood
Frogs
Lice
Flies
Pestilence on livestock
Boils
Hail and fire
Locust
Darkness
Firstborn of Egypt dies (passover)

Egypt was greatly weakened by these judgements. Pharoah told the Jews to leave. He soon changed his mind and sent his army after them only to have his army drown in the red sea. With no army and Egypt weak from the judgements they were ripe for invasion. An army from the east came lead by Hykos, they took Egypt without a single battle.

There is a papyrus called the Ipuwer papyrus which is in Leiden in the Netherlands. It is a copy of an earlier papyrus from the time of the exodus.

Here are some excerpts of the papyrus, and you can see for yourself the connection to the exodus events.

Blood is everywhere…
The river is blood.
Columns and walls are consumed by the fire.
Grain has perished on every side.
The land is not light….
He who places his brothers in the ground is everywhere…
The storehouse of the King is the common property of everyone
Confident of victory they marched against our land. By force they took it, easily, without a single battle…

Imagine if you were in Egypt at the time that God was imposing judgements. If you were seeing all of this without the knowledge of the struggle between the Pharoah and Moses. The Ipuwer papyrus is written in that light.

After the Hebrews crossed the red sea they made their way to Mount Sinai in Arabia. There they received the Law of the ten commandments. Many of the Hebrews were still of this world and did not walk in the spirit. As the Hebrews approached the promised land they sent out lookouts to scope out the land and the people. They came back telling of giants. The people were afraid even though God was with them. Because they did not trust God they were led by Moses back into the wilderness where they wandered for forty years until that generation was dead. Moses led them to the promised land but he could not enter. Joshua took charge and led the people in. They made war with many people. One of the cities they destroyed was Jerico. The ruins of Jerico are still there. Artifacts found at the ancient city of Jerico were made in the late middle bronze age. Using our timeline Joshua destroyed Jerico in the late middle bronze age. Some historians place the Hebrews coming into the promised land some 500 years later. This just means they made incorrect assumptions in their timeline. Some say that the Pharoah was Ramses during the Exodus. They were in the land of Ramses but not under the Pharoah named Ramses.

There are many other cities that were conquered by the Hebrews at this time.

I have a mountain of data so sort through for the next 500 years. I will post it when I am done.

Just an update on my search for artifacts after the Exodus. There seems to be a gap in the artifacts after the exodus and before the Assyrians documented the wars with the jews. So the first temple period has very little to my knowledge. But I am still searching and will put together something. I will stop after the first temple is destroyed. After this the histories are pretty solid and there is not too much disagreement.

If someone knows of a source of data for this gap era I am all ears. I have some already but I am looking for something new.

Your timeline reads like a good chronology of events but I can't see your reasoning for anything up until the Ark comes to rest on Ararat. Everything after that is well supported by archealogical evidence (Babel, Moses, the Exodus, Abraham, etc.). Many of the cities in the Bible have been re-discovered. But all that other stuff seems like a fabricated story made up to squeeze everything else (99.9% of Earth's history) into a 2000 year window. Not to beat the proverbial dead horse but...

Bristlecone pine trees growing in the United States have been dated to 4900 years old. This means they started to grow in 2900 BC. So using our timeline we would not expect them to survive the flood at 3537 BC, we would also not expect them to survive the great tsunomis caused by the continents dividing in 3006 BC

bold assumption that these extant bristlecones were the first (and also current!) generation after some flood. Bristlecone cones cannot survive immersion in salt water. How do you know that the oldest tree was the first tree? There were bristlecones exiting before the bristlecones we see today and more before those and so on. Just because they happen to be 4900 years old doesn't lend support to the story, it is simply convenient for it. And how did these 4900 year old trees survive these ice ages you say happened post-flood (bristlecones are arid, warm climate trees)?

We would expect to see evidence of the flood on the earth. This we do see.

there is zero evidence for a global flood. Saying this is oversimplifying what we actually see. You see all the layers in a strata and say "it was all laid down at once by a Flood". This may be the most parsimonious explanation, but few things in this world take the simplest explanation to explain. If you look closer, you will see that the order and procession of faunas. There are unconformities and intrusions, some worn down, twisted, covered again, and the top layers laid flat in an order that can only be sequential over time. There are layers indicating volcanic activity, covered by layers of sedimentary rock, that could not have been deposited within days of each other. you have a layer indicating a meteorite impact, even craters themselves buried in the strata. This could not have come along in the timescale of a year-long Flood! Erosion and sedimentation rates, as well as plate tectonics, aren't even close to fast enough to do this worldwide unless the whole world was a raging flow. And forget about anything surviving if this was the case.

The earth prior to the fall did not have predators and the ground watered the plants.

Evidence? We have plenty of earlyfossils that were adapted for carnivory. The earliest heterotrophs fed on each other. Since you believe it was all around (but not able to fossilize), then explain how an organism adapted for carnivory can eat plants? And what process made it suddenly eat animals? A tiger can't switch to hervivory on a whim and an elephant can't suddenly take meat. There needs to be some morphological, physiological, and behaviorial change.

It did not rain and a mist was everywhere. One did not have to work to produce a crop of food. The whole earth was a garden and food basket.

Evidence? Mist is a form of precipitation... It is fine, suspended particles of liquid water. What force is preventing this from condensing into rain? And if there is some "anti-condensation" law, how does the mist form from vapor? And what experimentation has been done to show that mist and groundwater can support a rainforest? The Amazon, African, and island rainforests all have high annual rainfalls to support their plant life, in addition to the mist. How does mist water the plant because mist usually just coats the stems and leaves, and does not saturate the soil.

And people were able to survive off the land because we were in small numbers and we were harvesting well under the level of sustainability. If we had a few thousand on Earth today, we would be sustainable too.

Desease and natural evil like falling off a cliff and dying could not occur. Man was created eternal. All of creation probably did not have the law of thermodynamics operating. This would mean that things did not decay and age as they do now.

this is speculation with a capital S! Evidence for any of this? Nothing on Earth or in the Universe could funtion if the laws of thermodynamics were "shut off". How would systems operate? No gravity!? So people walking to a cliff could not fall? People could not collect food ( it is killing)? What about all of the fossils that show clear aging? Saying we didn't have any fossils at this time is only a convenient excuse for not being able to explain it.

The seas were smaller. In fact we can see evidence of water erosion on the sea floor around major rivers. This means the sea level was much lower than today and the rivers cut valleys in the exposed rock.

yes, this is true. Drowned river valleys are formed because rising sea level engulfs old river valleys. The procession of a coastline takes tens of thousands to millions of years. And the sea level has been HIGHER as well in the past. The area I live now is built on top of old barrier islands that existed when sea levels were higher. So this phenomemon doesn't lend itself as evidence for your position.

Now some of you may have a hard time with this because science says the laws are part of nature. That is not true. What science reports is what they see

science reports what it sees, YEC's report what they see. Both are prone to the same human error, the scientist in the experiment and the creationist is the interpretation of the Bible. And there is no evidence that the laws were ever turned off! Scientists can't mis-interpret something that doesn't exist.

From 5793 BC to the flood in 3537 BC we would not expect many fossils because it did not rain so having an animal buried after it died would not occur. The only item that some of us believe is preflood is the Sphinx in Egypt. There is some evidence that it was in the flood.

Evidence? Because we see fossils in some of the oldest Pre-Cambrian rock... where does this "pre-flood" layer begin exactly? The Sphinx has not been covered by anything but moving sand. The desert had completely buried it by the time it was re-discovered and excavated. The features of the statue are all consistent with wind erosion. There were also many civilizations besides Egypt that trace their lineages back around 6-10K BC, if not much more. Did they not exist? And if they did, then why didnt the flood bury their artifacts under meters of flood deposits? Where are these pre-flood civilzations in Pre-Cambrian rock? In Cambrian rock? In any pre-Holocene rock?

According to our timeline with orbital years and atomic years the Cambrian period occurred at the time of the flood. That would make sense that fossils would be found after the flood when many creatures were buried. So the so called Cambrian explosion of life was nothing more than some animals that already were populating the earth got themselves buried. Sometimes the simplest explaination is the right one.

or the most convenient... see above for why this is impossible. And I guess only primitive marine invertebrates were able to be fossilized in this Cambrian rock? I guess God wanted them to die by complexity?

After the flood, Noah's ark came to rest on Mount Ararat in the mountains of Iran. The ark has not been found although some people have said they have seen it. It may be in plain sight but we may not be allowed to see it. In a similar way the Garden of Eden may still be on the earth but we cannot see it.

[/quote]
and finally, my good friend the ark. There are huge piles of problems for the global flood story but that's another thread. Maybe the ark broke down and rotted? Maybe all of this crazy stuff that happened post flood destroyed it. Why are people expecting this thing to be on the top of Ararat? It could just as easily been erased in 3000BC. If the ark is in the same place today as it was back then, that is proof right there that the Earth has been uniformitarian since this Flood (local or global).


I know these rambling usually end up going nowhere and I'm not changing anyone's mind on these things. I just find it ridiculous that you could possibly attack macroevolution for "having no evidence", and yet post these wild scenarios that have no basis in factual data and say "it's reasonable". I don't see the logic... I really don't. And the assumption that the superficial, simplest explanation is always right is a fallacy. most things in this world, as you know, are far more complex than the simplest explanation.

What you write about I can find in any science book that excludes God. The model I present allows for supernatural intervention. Why is that a problem? This is not a science classroom. The ideas on this board are not limited by the Supreme Court. If you can't handle that some people have different views and opinions than what you have learned in school then you need to get out more.

Himantolophus ,

Check out this link to bristlecones and C14. Oh, and by the way bristlecones in certain conditions live a long time. Not all of them. I think you may be reading about the subject until you see something you want to read and then stopping.

http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html

Radiometric dating is very trustworthy
FOr one of the best explanations of radiometric dating

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

wiens wrote:Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.

Doubters Still Try

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about.

There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods we have discussed.

1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.

page 21

2. Physical conditions at the center of stars or for cosmic rays differ very greatly from anything experienced in rocks on or in the Earth. Yet, self-proclaimed "experts" often confuse these conditions. Cosmic rays are very, very high-energy atomic nuclei flying through space. The electron-capture decay mentioned above does not take place in cosmic rays until they slow down. This is because the fast-moving cosmic ray nuclei do not have electrons surrounding them, which are necessary for this form of decay. Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. ' Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. This has been observed for dysprosium-163 and rhenium-187 under very specialized conditions simulating the interior of stars (Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2164-2167; Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 5190-5193, 1996). All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees.

As an example of incorrect application of these conditions to dating, one young-Earth proponent suggested that God used plasma conditions when He created the Earth a few thousand years ago. This writer suggested that the rapid decay rate of rhenium under extreme plasma conditions might explain why rocks give very old ages instead of a young-Earth age. This writer neglected a number of things, including: a) plasmas only affect a few of the dating methods. More importantly, b) rocks and hot gaseous plasmas are completely incompatible forms of matter! The material would have to revert back from the plasma state before it could form rocks. In such a scenario, as the rocks cooled and hardened, their ages would be completely reset to zero as described in previous sections. If this person's scenario were correct, instead of showing old ages, all the rocks should show a uniform ~4,000 year age of creation. That is obviously not what is observed.

3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates.

These cases are very specialized, and all are well understood. None of these cases alter the dates of rocks either on Earth or other planets in the solar system. The conclusion once again is that half-lives are completely reliable in every context for the dating of rocks on Earth and even on other planets. The Earth and all creation appears to be very ancient.

that is just a sampling of the explanation...


For info on tree rings

http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land ... estel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/f ... ow_tr.html

zoegirl ,

Thank you for your post. I think you have made the argument for me. The author of the article starts by saying that the speed of light has never changed. This is false. It has been changing over the last 40 years and has been measured. Some "constants" of physics have also changed.

Now the article you reference discounts the real reason for the change and then goes into a lengthly discussion of all of the reasons why atomic dating can't change. This is a red herring. The only thing that can effect the basic atomic rates is a change to the fabric of space. Anyone who is knowledgable of the mathematical model of space knows that. So your article was written for people who don't know this and seems on the surface to deal with the subject when in fact it is a distraction from the facts.

The Bible clearly describes the stretching of the heavens or space several times. Why was this so important to describe in numerous places? This is key to our understanding of the events back in time. With this single change then all of the scientific data falls in place with the Bible timeline. Without the stretching of space the Bible and science cannot be reconciled. Then with just man's measurements the Bible would appear on the face as being untrue. This is not the case. It is man's interpretation that is in error.

Did you read the link I provided to Hip? It deals with some C14 issues. Check the references too if you have your doubts.

Major foundations of science fall if they accept that the fabric of space is changing. I do not expect that the established group of scientist will accept that. They will of course push back. I accept that. Now the question is do you accept that the Bible was correct when it stated that the heavens were stretched? If you do then fine, if you do not then why not? This is the key question. Do you think the Bible is wrong?

And please do not post a bunch of "scientist" saying they don't agree with the fabric of space changing. I am sure that you could come up with hundreds of people saying they don't agree. To be honest, I could care less. My view is obtained from looking at the raw data. Their opinion is worthless to me. Their opinions can be added to the others I don't care about, muslims, Hindus, satanic cults, etc. I am not blind to the opinions of science, I reject them.

Thank you for your post. I think you have made the argument for me. The author of the article starts by saying that the speed of light has never changed. This is false. It has been changing over the last 40 years and has been measured. Some "constants" of physics have also changed.

Please provide a source for the claim that the speed of light has been changing over the last 40 years.

Now the article you reference discounts the real reason for the change and then goes into a lengthly discussion of all of the reasons why atomic dating can't change. This is a red herring. The only thing that can effect the basic atomic rates is a change to the fabric of space. Anyone who is knowledgable of the mathematical model of space knows that. So your article was written for people who don't know this and seems on the surface to deal with the subject when in fact it is a distraction from the facts.

You make a general appeal to authority here without naming them or providing references. Further, you make a personal reference to any who would disagree with your position as ignorant or unknowledgable thus making it a personal matter rather than a matter of fact or interpretation of data. Why is it necessary for you to do that? Is your information not strong enough by itself to make your case without using this type of tactic?

The Bible clearly describes the stretching of the heavens or space several times. Why was this so important to describe in numerous places? This is key to our understanding of the events back in time. With this single change then all of the scientific data falls in place with the Bible timeline. Without the stretching of space the Bible and science cannot be reconciled. Then with just man's measurements the Bible would appear on the face as being untrue. This is not the case. It is man's interpretation that is in error.

Do you have any interpretaion involved in your conclusions?

<snip>

Major foundations of science fall if they accept that the fabric of space is changing.

That would appear to be a remarkably significant "if".

I do not expect that the established group of scientist will accept that. They will of course push back. I accept that.

There's that "they" again. I don't doubt that established scientists will push back. It's the nature of science to challange changes to existing understandings of this nature. The onus is upon those making the claims however, especially claims that would cause "Major foundations of science" to fall if they were to be accepted. So, who are the scientists who are doing the work to test this hypothesis you refer to, and what value has it shown to predict future happenings different from existing theory?

Now the question is do you accept that the Bible was correct when it stated that the heavens were stretched? If you do then fine, if you do not then why not? This is the key question. Do you think the Bible is wrong?

Is your theory and interpretation the same as the Bible? What hermeneutical evidence do you have to suggest that the terminology within the Bible is intended to be understood in the context of 21 century scientific reference in the manner you do? Was that the understanding of the original audience? Has the Church historically understood these references in this manner? What evidence from the text itself should lead someone to accept your conclusions as equating to the truth of the Bible itself? Are you attempting perhaps to suggest that questioning you in this regard is the same as questioning the Bible? I think those are far more key questions, in my opinion.

And please do not post a bunch of "scientist" saying they don't agree with the fabric of space changing. I am sure that you could come up with hundreds of people saying they don't agree.

This would be that group of people you continue to refer to as "they," right?

To be honest, I could care less.

Really?

My view is obtained from looking at the raw data.

I see. And theirs is not? Your view is the equivilent of the data itself?

Their opinion is worthless to me. Their opinions can be added to the others I don't care about, muslims, Hindus, satanic cults, etc.

My. That's a lot of people there. I had no idea that muslims, Hindus, satanic cults etc. were all in the same category and group of people that this "they" group of scientists were.

I am not blind to the opinions of science, I reject them.

Opinions of science are the opinions of men. I can understand that.

Are you a man Frank?

Canuckster1127 ,

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:

This requires time travel and television. You may not see that.

As for the fabric of space, the detail is in an earlier post.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You make a general appeal to authority here without naming them or providing references. Further, you make a personal reference to any who would disagree with your position as ignorant or unknowledgable thus making it a personal matter rather than a matter of fact or interpretation of data. Why is it necessary for you to do that? Is your information not strong enough by itself to make your case without using this type of tactic?

I was refering to the tactic of the author who wrote the article that Zoegirl posted. Why are you taking this personal? That was not my intent. If you want to discuss this please stick to the subject.