"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."
- Exodus 20:11 -
Hoping to encourage further thought and discussion, I've been publishing some counterpoints to Steemian @gavvet's presentation here:
I encourage you to read his whole series of articles on the subject.
This is the third in my series suggesting that you consider other possible alternative interpretations of the facts. Here are links to previous articles:
The Seven-Day Universe - Part 2
In my last article, we looked at an alternative cosmological theory based on evidence that strongly indicates that the Earth actually occupies a very special place in the universe.
In this article, we'll consider data that offers possible clues to the age of the Earth itself.
There is significant physical evidence for a "young earth."
Evidence that, at the very least, calls into question some of the vast ages postulated by the prevailing scientific views.
I think that some responses to "young earth" data, have been purely reactionary.
In the 17th century, Archbishop James Ussher devised a detailed biblical chronology. The good bishop developed a calendar based on a very literal adding up of the geneological records in the bible.
Ussher pegged the creation at approximately six thousand years ago. Those who believe the earth to be far older have often poked fun at this number, using it as sort of a straw-man punching bag.
I consider that a bit of a red herring.
Simply poking fun at Ussher is not a legitimate critique of a young earth.
Created in six days?
Photo courtesy of Clker-Free-Vector-Images and http://pixabay.com
Here's a bulletin:
Much, if not most of what we know is probably wrong. As adults, it's past time for us to open our eyes, ask our own questions, and evaluate the "truth" of what we've come to accept by osmosis.
We need to recognize and acknowledge that much of what we know has been spoon-fed to us by groups with agendas, whether religious, political, or scientific.
When it comes to matters of great significance, we need to think and evaluate and research the fundamentals for ourselves.
Created in mere days?
Photo courtesy of NASA
I've learned things just by responding to @gavvet.
Even as I've gathered material for these articles, I've discovered that some of the evidences for a young earth that I remember reading about years ago now have credible counter-arguments.
As a result, this article has turned out to be considerably more difficult to write than I expected. Evidences of a young earth that I once thought valid may now be in question once more.
That's great!
My purpose has been less to debate @gavvet than to say "Hey, @gavvet has some great points. Please consider them, but don't simply take them on faith. There may be far more to this topic than meets the eye."
It's natural for us as humans to defend our beliefs.
If we make an honest effort to observe our own thinking and motivation, we will have a better chance of coming to impartial conclusions.
But we can't escape our predispostions. Let them guide you; just don't let them rule you. Keep in mind that both religious and scientific organizations are fallible. Don't let yourself become trapped in an old, false theory.
Created in six days?
Photo courtesy of Arek Socha and http://pixabay.com
Probably the most comprehensive compilation I've found of evidences advanced for a young earth can be found here:
This is also a fairly good compilation:
However, many of these evidences seem to either have plausible counter arguments, or counter arguments that are so involved that I have been unable to fully comprehend them while preparing this article.
Therefore, I'll only write about one "young earth" evidence.
It should only take one really disturbing "exception to the rule" to at least open your mind to the possibility that the Earth may be younger than you think. I find the particular, relatively new, and very widespread series of discoveries I'm about to discuss, to be one of those "paradigm busting" surprises for modern science.
What might that be?
"Terrify softly tissue?"
Photo courtesy of Katie Rose and http://pixabay.com
Dinosaur soft tissue preservation.
In 2005, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer shocked the world when she reported discovering soft tissue preserved in dinosaur bones.
How could there still be proteins, blood cells, and other "soft" organic matter present in fossils purportedly many millions of years old?
Schweitzer, a confessing Christian, speaks in this Smithsonian article of being confounded by other less than charitable Christians questioning how she can continue to believe in an ancient earth.
I find this personally distressing, as I see no reason to be uncharitable when discussing these matters.
Nevertheless, multiple and repeated discoveries like Schweitzer's appear to me to be convincing evidence that dinosaurs are not as ancient as commonly believed.
Those predisposed to believe "thunder lizards" are truly ancient have devised explanations for how soft tissue might have survived for so long. Here, for examaple, are a couple of such articles:
and
There are of course counter-arguments, such as this:
Discoveries of preserved soft tissue continue. I suspect that the debate over how to interpret them will continue as well.
Earth from space.
Photo courtesy of Free-Photos and http://pixabay.com
For now, that's a wrap.
I will openly admit here that I continue to be partial to the "seven literal day" view of creation. I will also admit that I am now challenged to do some more contemporary reading and study of the dialog on both sides, as I've been away from the debate for too long.
I also find it exciting to note that much data has been and continues to be collected since I last looked into this topic. We truly live in exciting times.
I appreciate @gavvet for having launched me in the direction of revisiting this topic, and I'll leave you with the following appeal.
When it comes to allowing "science" to modify "faith," use good judgement. Don't instantly "throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Be at least open to alternative theories that may initially sound "outside the box."
Who knows what you might learn?
~FIN~
LOOK! Check out our amazing product:
>>CLICK HERE!<<
You are why I'm here on Steemit!
I have very eclectic interests and hope, over time, to write about them all.
⬇️To Check Out @creatr's World⬇️CLICK Each Image Below⬇️
|
|
|
Great unbias post mate. I like your humble approach in writing about this. The thing I find is often left out in these debates is that, what if God just chose to build age into his creation. That is, God if he is all knowing and all powerful, could have just created the world with aging/history built in. Just think about it. Where Adam was created, was he created as a baby or matured adult? I tend to think he was created as an adult. Similarly, during the 6 days of creation, God could have simply designed everything with age built in already. Of course, none of us can be totally certain about how God did it and his reasoning, but God has been faithful with every other aspect of his word, with the fulfilment of so many prophercies, so I trust his word to be accurate here too. Just some food for thought.
““As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9)
Hello, friend...
Thanks for stopping by, and for your thoughtful comment.
I'm well aware of the "apparent age" argument. Yes indeed, God did create Adam as a full-grown adult. When he was only minutes old, to us he would have appeared to be twenty years old or more.
However, that particular argument is not helpful from a "scientific" standpoint because (in the case of the age of the earth) there is no experimental way to verify or falsify it. And so, Did God do things that way?
We will simply have to wait to ask him... ;)
Wonderful post @creatr ! I'm happy to see another person who is willing to question the dogmatic teachings of the scientific community. There really is a lot of evidence which may show that the earth is young, if we are willing to look at it objectively, without bias.
Keep going!
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Your comment reminds me of the old pun,
I've been very pleased at the (generally) gracious response of Steemians to discussions like this one. ;)
Haha, I love that pun! ^_^
It's really great to see a community where people are open-minded to discuss topics like these. I've also seen very positive responses.
I've looked into the Young Earth evidences as well and I'm also very much convinced that the world is younger than is thought in schools. I'll keep in touch and if I remember anything, I'll mention it ^_^
Thanks!
I think for me, personally, Dr. Russell Humphrey's ideas that reconcile a young earth and an old universe cosmologically are perhaps the most interesting...
There is another theory I've read that provides a neat solution to the appearance of the rainbow... but that's fodder for some more articles! ;)
Was Dr. Humphrey one of the proponents of the Geocentric Electric Universe? His name sounds familiar. :o
I'm not certain what his opinion may be of "Electric" universe. I find that realm quite interesting as well, but haven't had time recently to dig deeper.
I first encountered Humphreys fifteen or twenty years ago, and I think his views have continued to modify as he has continued to research matters.
Oh I see! So I must be thinking of someone else... I'll look him up! ^_^
Great post @creatr! There's a terrific show on Netflix called Is Genesis History?. It covers all kinds of different facets of a young Earth. It is a very informative scientific documentary about this very subject. Check it out if you haven't seen it yet.
Thanks for the recommendation! :D
Hey, anytime!
Great post! I'm interested to hear what else you come up with. I personally lean towards an earth older than 6000 years. I believe God did create it in 6 days, but I'm open to the days being longer than 24hrs. Simply because the sun and moon were created later in the week
Well, as our friend @stan has pointed out in a reply to earlier articles, you can still have a 6-day creation and an old earth... How long it took to create and the time elapsed since creation are not coupled together... ;)
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. You may find other indexed posts of some interest... click the GIF below. Warning, however, the TOC is sadly out of date. An update is in the works, pending some improvements to the Steemit UI...
😄😇😄
Thanks! Yea that makes sense.. I'll check them out
I think he should start over as human beings are destructive and evil. Apart from us 2 lol
Hahahaha! ;)
Well, according to what the bible says, he is going to start over. We just don't know precisely when. I hope you and all the people I care about will be ready when the time comes! ;)
I hope I am, about time done people got what they deserved lol
Yes I think we have been spoon fed what we tend to believe today. People are not encouraged to be critical thinkers. Sad. I do think the Earth is young. 6,000 years would make sense to a point. Here is a thought. may be wrong as I am not educated on this subject and I humbly apologize in advance. The number 3 seams to show up alot in the Bible as a common denominator. What if ....The 7 days of creation were actually 7 thousand years. Mans existence would be the next 7 thousand years. and the thousand year mullinium in Revelations could be the last 7 thousand years. I remember something in the Bible about a day is but a thousand years and a thousand years a day unto the Lord. I could be way off base. Just a crazy thought. Good post I appreciate your wisdom and thought you put into this. Thanks for taking us to school on this. - Troy
One fact for you to consider:
If the radiometric dating methods that we use to measure that the Earth is indeed ~4.6 billion years were wrong. Even by just 0.001%. All our GPS satellite systems would not work.
Now I could list many different sources of evidence for an old Earth and Universe. From our measurements of old glaciers to different layers of rocks found both on Earth and in Space. To the light we observe from distant stars, and our ability to measure their precise position based on distances we understand thanks to measurements of time and the speed of light.
Now while all of these are individually enough to disprove the young earth hypothesis, they are statistically speaking even more significant when you consider the fact that they provide the exact same answer. If all these individual measurement techniques were wrong, what would be the chance that they by pure accident happened to provide the same answer?
I look forward to hearing your response and hope this can be a forum for open-minded discussion and learning, without any biases as to what is true.
Hello, @fredrikaa,
I have never heard radiometric dating methods related to GPS satellite systems. I would like to see your source for that connection?
I do not have a problem with a very old universe. However, time flow is not a constant everywhere. If you would kindly have a look at my previous article in this series, and investigate the work of Dr. Russell Humphreys, you can see considerably more information about how the Earth can simultaneously be very young while the universe is very old.
Also, while it has been many years since I looked at these particular details, I do not believe that the geological layering is particularly consistent, and so I would also welcome specific reference data in that regard.
Thank you for stopping by, and please feel free to add some specific references or data to your comment if you would like to. I will gladly have a look! :D
:)Another ignorant question @creatr...... What would you say to anyone who believes that in fact dinosaurs are another part of the fiction that has been presented to us in such a way as to help us believe that the earth is older than it would appear to be? Is this a possibility in your mind at all?
No worries, Tony...
I think there is a huge amount of evidence for the existence of dinosaurs. I have personally seen many skeletons myself in several different museums. The bible also talks about and describes these beasts.
In short, I think the evidence for dinosaurs is overwhelming and indisputable. :)
As far as causing us to believe that the earth is old, that is all a matter of interpretation. I believe in dinosaurs, but do not presently believe that the earth is very old. I do believe that the universe may be very old, however.
I hope that helps? :D
Always my friend! :) If it is not too much trouble could you direct me to the passage or passages in the bible where it gives a description of dinosaurs? I would be interested to read it!
Thanks again!
The most comprehensive description of what I believe were dinosaurs can be found in the book of Job, chapters 40 and 41. Please read those descriptions, and let me know what you think? :D
And you are always welcome! ;)
I'm not sure what to think to be honest @creatr.
Certainly Job 40 and 41 seem to be describing some form of creature created by God but whether it is a reference to a dinosaur or not isn't clear. Reading just these two passages I would be more inclined to say that what is being described and referred to as Behemoth or Levaithan is in fact what we have come to know as a dragon.
I understand that there is the school of thought that historical and mythological references to dragons could and perhaps are in fact all descriptions of dinosaurs before the term dinosaur was introduced in the mid 1800s but the description in Job 40 and 41 seems to be referring to a specific beast rather than a species. Not all dinosaurs can be described in the terms used by God to convey His message to Job so it would appear that He was describing one creature in particular.
It adds more confusion to an already confused mind. :)
Thanks for your time as always my friend!
It is always a pleasure to speak with you!
While I haven't studied this in detail, I get the sense that Leviathan and Behemoth are two different creatures... Both large and awe-inspiring. ;)
Do you believe that God needs week ends!
aka
" Rest day! " ?
No, but I do believe that we do, and that is why he gave us an example... :)
Thanks for stopping by to comment! :)
You have spectaculer photo master @creatr very difficult to draw pictures like that, pictures that amaze people .
Sir if possible that you can consider this link to your research work --as source of getting additional vital info for your research work. Thanks and God bless. http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
Greetings, my new friend @rosher72! :)
Thank you very much for bringing this link to my attention. I had not seen that site before, and even after a short time browsing it, I can see that it contains much valuable and helpful information. Also, some great insights about how to "look at" various matters... I love it, so far! :D
Thanks again, you've blessed me today! :D
Thank you my new friend @creatr for liking it. What is so amazing is that, those involve in creation ministries are all in the sciences field and they are deep rooted Christians. Just take a look at the section of "Who we are" ---on a personal note: kindly continue writing such kind of article here. I really see it as a way for us to get a more balance understanding of how God is using science as valuable tool in simplifying what is obvious without wavering of our stand in the infallible word of God. God bless you Sir.
You're welcome, and thank you again, friend. I wish you God's good blessing as well. :D
I will continue to write here about Jesus and the word.
Master @creatr true is indeed our face to defend our faith, but it is not true if we continue to maintain wrong faith, that faith also needs proof and sometimes also logic, lest we defend that in our hearts do not believe in that faith.
Hello friend,
I believe that faith must come first. After the faith is there, everything else will eventually support it, even if it does not seem to do so at first.
Yes I agree with you master @creatr