the #1 argument agenst hugh ross is no one in history before 1820 would ever have yowm meaning hundreds of thousands of years ALSO no one would never ever ever have the bible saying a local flood or death before Adam fell like hugh ross does! (look at his false teaching,he believes this crap)
3117 [e]yō·wm י֥וֹם day is defined BY CONTEXT this should be obvious! hugh ross ignores context. just by him using yowm out of context to prove his point in his argument shows you he a deluded and wrong
if you study what hugh ross believes it very easy to see he changes MULTIPLE foundational doctrine in order for his view to fit his false science conclusions. the one that is VERY easy to disprove biblically is his local flood lie. this is one of the doctrine he changes i disprove this in under 5min form the bible undeniably in my video "hugh ross exposed (local flood) lie"
@CalumAtheron "I have not seen a counter-argument on YEC websites yet"
A counter-argument to what??? It is Ross' assertion that this word is translated as "at long last" in EVERY scripture except for in Gen 2. Where are all these "other" translations? I haven't been able to find them. You don't have to be an expert on Hebrew! We have online resources as well as multiple translations available.
@CalumAtheron The same thing is done by people trying to defend all kinds of lifestyles that the Bible condemns. All you need to do is metaphorise selected verses and you can get it to say what you want it to say, rather than what it actually says.
@updr12 correct ~updr~ the bible can contradict itself over 500times if you pick and choose verses without keeping in mind context and rules of grammar aswell as doctrine.
this is what hugh ross does. he ignores what the bible actually says.
@CalumAtheron However, what is more important is that being of an old earth conviction necessitates a great deal of scriptural manipulation to get it to "make sense", and that is never a good thing. Both my parents were occultists and astrologers and yet claimed to be Christians. They did this simply by doing the very same kind of manipulation that OECs rely on.
@CalumAtheron I'm not going to repeat arguments that I have already addressed, so I hope you understand that. Whether or not olam is used beyond "eternal" is perhaps disputable since some scholars don't seem to do that, but I think the the argument that mountains and hills are not eternal still stands.
@CalumAtheron Now all i have to do is to find all the other verses that use this word which Hugh claims is always used to mean "at long last". And guess what? Neither the New American Standard Bible, The King James Version nor the Interliear Bible seem to agree with him. Neither is there any indication in Strongs that "at long last" is the primary translation of this word. Hmm...
@updr12 "Neither is there any indication in Strongs that "at long last" is the primary translation of this word. Hmm..."
Perhaps it is not the primary translation, but it more than likely as not means something very similar. I'm no expert on Hebrew, but I have not seen a counter-argument on YEC websites yet... if you come across one, please post a link or direct me to the website.. until I find one, "hap-pa-'am" remains 'at long last'.
@CalumAtheron "The word used, upon discovering Eve, is 'at long last'."
OK, at long last ;-)... after doing a lot of googling without any success, watching Hugh Ross' video... doing a more googling, checking out the Blue Letter Bible and the Interlinear Bible I finally worked out what he was talking about. I found the word! It is "hap·pa·‘am" (Strong's Hebrew 6471).
@CalumAtheron There are also other Hebrew scholars that also point out that olam can be translated "age" or "era". And to say that this is something "post-biblical" doesn't work when you consider the fact that is it is used IN THE BIBLE to describe things that are NOT eternal, such as hills or mountains.
@CalumAtheron "Hebrew lexicons show that only in post-biblical writings did ’olam' refer to a long age or epoch."
That's funny, because I first encountered the word when it was used in an old-earther's argument where he claimed, to prove his own point in other scriptures, that the word, apart from meaning "forever" and so on, can be used to describe a time or age that is conceptually beyond the horizon.
@updr12 Olam is not used in biblical Hebrew to represent long periods of time. Olam is almost always translated "eternity" "eternal" or "forever" in ancient Hebrew. This would not be used to represent long periods of time.
@updr12 the Hebrew word used here is pa‛amah, which means "at long last." I was just assuming Adam had waited weeks or months, possibly years, not a few hours. To me it seems impossible to get bored in such a beautiful garden, with all these animals to name, and then care for the garden within such a short time period.
@CalumAtheron Hey presto! An explanation is born, and evolutionists can rest assured that their theory is safe and sound. That's the way it works. And that is why it is so difficult to get anyone to change their stances. Now, before you turn around and say "the same to you", I already know this, and try to do my best to be open to the possibility of being wrong. But as far as empirical evidence is concerned the Bible holds up as it is written, time and time again.
@CalumAtheron You seem to be content as long as there is an argument or explanation that can put your mind at rest. That is dangerous thinking. When evolutionists finally came to the conclusion that the fossil record actually DOES contain gaps, you know what they did? They produced an explaination - the theory of punctuated equilibrium. And what was the evidence? Gaps in the fossil record!
@CalumAtheron "There are numerous alternative explanations on how this leg bone could have survived."
There are numerous alternative explanations to ANYTHING. That is what is so deceptive when dealing with science and beliefs. Schweitzer's first remark when she made her discovery was one of disbelief: "It can't be possible!". It's funny how that has changed to "soft tissue CAN BE preserved in fossilized bone in some instances". Evidence of that? Her findings! Talk about circular reasoning!
@CalumAtheron "Fascinating, none of them, not ONE of them believe this indicates recent burial or a young earth."
I never suggested, or even for a second expected them to do so! We are talking about evolutionists here. If they do not believe in the scriptures, then not even someone being raised from the dead will convince them of anything (Luke 16:31).
@updr12 To me the soft tissue found in this t-rex is not evidence for a young earth. You might say that this leg bone is strong evidence for a YEC viewpoint, or maybe it's just that it doesn't suggest a young earth at all. Every geologist knows fossils can form quickly, and slowly. This soft tissue appears to have been preserved in another way (wikipedia), in a process separate from fossilization. This shows how much more we have to learn. We'll just have to await further information on it.
@CalumAtheron A cell is like a huge factory with millions of small parts working together. How do these factory workers know what to do, and where to go, when they don't have brains to tell them? It goes way beyond chemical reactions. They can only have been externally programmed to be able to do these things.
@CalumAtheron "how else can you get such fine-tuning in a universe that began 'randomly' as secular scientists claim?"
Now that we CAN agree on :-) Perhaps even more far fetched is the idea of a living cell splashing together and somehow have the incredibly complex logic intact to process food, reproduce and so on. I can hardly believe that any scientist could possibly believe this. I work as a program developer, and even the simplest things demand heaps of logic in order for them to work.
@CalumAtheron "What Hebrew word can be used to describe an indefinite period of time?"
The word "olam" is used for time concerning the distant past or the distant future that is difficult to know or perceive. If the world was billions of years old then that would definitely be a better word to use than day if it was to be understood by people of all times.
@updr12 Hebrew lexicons show that only in post-biblical writings did ’olam' refer to a long age or epoch. In biblical times it meant 'forever,' 'perpetual,' 'lasting,' 'always,'. I doubt that 'olam' would be used in a restricted sense, or in a definite period of time.
@CalumAtheron "if the meaning of 'day' meant 24 hour time periods, why would they be written in such a manner? "
Here too, I don't get what you mean. Are you trying to say that the difference between ".. was evening and was morning day Xth." and "and was evening and morning day Xth." opens the gate for squeezing in billions of years? Please explain.
Genesis 2:20 says Adam named the animals on the sixth day of creation week. The word used, upon discovering Eve, is 'at long last'. My point is, how can Adam become bored and lonely in a garden he was just put in? Surely it was longer than just one day.
@CalumAtheron the word is never translated "at long last". either way it doesn't make a difference. Adam named many animals to select a wife for himself.
example
if you looked at 5,000cars then choose one. would you say something like "finally!"
a question i have is. if each day was thousands of years. how can you justify Adam being 930 when he died? (he lived through the 6th day remember)
@CalumAtheron "Also, the Hebrew lexicons validate that the word for generation (toledah) always refers to a long time period.."
You are assuming that the "generations" mentioned in chapter 2 refer to what happened during day six, but there is no indication that any generations existed on that day. It is only AFTER chapter 2 we get to the account of these generations. Where this account ends is anyone guess. Remember, there were no chapters in the original text.
@CalumAtheron "The Genesis creation narrative fits perfectly into the mainstream science views.."
The genesis narrative acknowledges God, mainstream science does not. The genesis narrative has birds appearing before animals, mainstream science does not. The genesis narrative has the sun created after the earth, mainstream science teaches the opposite.
The genesis narrative has grass, land plants and trees created before the sun, mainstream science does not. Need I go on?
@CalumAtheron Archeological records only go back about 5,000 years, so I don't understand how that could possibly convince you that the world is old. If man has been around for millions of years, and you don't believe in evolution, then why can't we find any artifacts that go back further in time?
@CalumAtheron Astronomy can only provide us with distances. The only way scientists can impose apon anyone that this infers age is by getting them to adopt their model of origins. There is no need to let anyone dictate what is or isn't possible for God to do.
@CalumAtheron Also, both geology and paleontology rely on the same assumptions. I.e. the age of the layers is determined by the age of the fossils they contain. The age of the fossils is determined by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based on uniformitarianism. And uniformitarianism cannot be verified.
@CalumAtheron But suppose that the conditions were dramatically different the first twenty minutes that made the candles burn at a much faster rate. If you were unaware of this then ALL of your candles would be wrong, despite the fact that they "agree" with each other now.
This is why people are so convinced that dating methods are a sure thing. They are told "Look, ALL 500 candles agree with each other, that must mean that the earth is old!"
@CalumAtheron You could do the same thing with 500 candles, some thick and short and others thin and long. You could light them, at different times and they could all burn at different rates. However, as long as all burn at constant rates they are perfectly good at calculating time.
@CalumAtheron "I only believe that the creation days are long because 1. geology, astronomy, paleontology, archeology, all suggest an Earth older than just six thousand years."
These fields of science don't "suggest" an old earth. Scientists do. To start with, there are no independent dating methods that pinpoint the exact same time in the distant past. They only "agree" when doing so in dating recent things (although not always), which is understandable, since they are constant today.
@CalumAtheron "... people spread over the planet in 300 (based on Peleg) to 1,000 years, both technically impossible."
There are different ideas about what happened during the time of Peleg. Some say the division refers to what happened after the Tower of Bable, others believe it refers to the continents splitting apart due to plate tectonics that may have occured in the aftermath of the flood. I have no idea, perhaps a little of both... But why would that be impossible?
@CalumAtheron The chronologies are different. With these it is possible to trace parallel lines of contemporary people, which makes it possible to see where that gaps are and the length of time they existed. The fact that the chronologies do this is the very reason that gaps were discovered to begin with.
@CalumAtheron "The Old Testament geneologies would have gaps farther back that recent."
The chronologies, apart from being ingredibly boring (sorry God) serve to fill in the gaps missing in the genealogies, so I don't know of any gaps, although I haven't taken the time to check it out myself (I think it would probably take a while). The problem, as it seems, with genealogies is that they are a "linear" list of significant people from Adam to Christ.
@CalumAtheron "I don't 'continually' paste all the arguments and counter-arguments, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to do so once or twice in order to get the point across in a better way."
Fair enough... point taken. I can see that you are trying hard to make you own arguments most of the time. I initially thought you might have been pasting everything, which can be pretty tiresome. It is quite ok to paste... at least on a moderate level.
@CalumAtheron "We both should agree that the word Yom has three meanings."
Yes, as far as I can see it pretty much coincides with the way we use the english word, which can also mean a 24-hour day, the daylight part of that 24-hours, or, as a method of convenience, a way to refer to a period of time associated with the lifespan or major activty of a person, or an event. I have no problem with this.
The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a NEW study says."
OK, so given the OLD RTB quotes and the article itself, show me how they address this find.
@CalumAtheron "There are no RECENT arguments that I know of that these pages don't address."
How on earth can old arguments be applied to new discoveries? This shows exactly how desparate you are to be right. Just think about it! The counter-arguments are built on OLD quotes and OLD data. There are NEW quotes to be taken into consideration just as there is NEW data. Do you think that the RTB, AIC or EFGFS articles are somehow valid throughout all eternity? Well, I'm sure you are...
@CalumAtheron Look, if you are so stubborn that you repeatedly deny the obvious, then go ahead, pretend that som creationist went around mushing up the insides of dinosaur bones, or that somehow a blood-like substance just happened to be where blood would normally be! It seems that you have just made your mind up that people like Hugh Ross just can't be wrong. Perhaps he knows more than both Schweitzer and Horner??
@CalumAtheron The 2011 article even spells it out, saying "researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells." The word "believe" is italicized in the article because that is the only way they can attack this scientific finding and shed doubt on it.
@CalumAtheron "Visit Reasons to Believe (which I doubt you've ever done before)"
Here is something else you are totally wrong about. I have been to ALL three of the sites you name, long before we started this discussion! Far from being as impressed as you seem to be, it is obvious to me that the articles do nothing than look for ways to get around what scientists have been forced to accept.
@updr12 That's ridiculous. You have been making all the a-typical claims of YECs. Before you make an argument, look it up on any of these websites for the counter-argument. That's the wisest thing to do.
@CalumAtheron Both Mary Schweitzer and Bob Horner (you know, the main paleontologist who "disproved" the Blood Report according to AIC!) are talking about BLOOD, not any biofilms or anything else! The idea that round microstructures that resemble blood cells with smaller objects inside that resembled nuclei, but are not, was too much even for them to believe!
@updr12 I saw the video. Fascinating, none of them, not ONE of them believe this indicates recent burial or a young earth. Nobody was suggesting that in the video! Schweitzer wasn't facing apprehension because it indicated a young earth, she was coming up with a ridiculous finding! Blood cells in a t-rex leg bone! That surely is fascinating.
@updr12 There are numerous alternative explanations on how this leg bone could have survived. To use it as an argument against an old earth, and merely dismissing the counter-arguments as 'old' and 'outdated' is arrogance to the supreme level! You haven't come up with anything to support your claim that the OEC arguments won't work anymore, even though I told you that no YEC 'counter-arguments' have been made against them!
@CalumAtheron "it doesn't matter if they were written in 2004"
It DOES matter! The experiment has been repeated on other dinosaurs and the argument that the soft tissue does not contain blood cells is no longer being used, at least by consciencous scientists worth their weight. It is only used by OEC denialists who stubbornly cling on to this because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs. Let me ask you again, did you see the video?
@CalumAtheron All scripture is God-breathed and shouldn't be toyed around with to make it comply with one's own preferred "scientific" model. Scripture clearly points out that in the last days scoffers will willfully reject his word and deny the flood, and this is exactly what we are witnessing today.
@UppsalaDragby I do not deny the flood, nor am I a 'scoffer'. I am not 'toying around' with scripture to fit my preferred 'scientific model'. I believe it fits perfectly with the genesis creation account. Science came up with the history of the Earth all on its own, and it's a miraculous coincidence how the Biblical history of the Earth fits perfectly with the scientific explanation, for how else can you get such fine-tuning in a universe that began 'randomly' as secular scientists claim?
@CalumAtheron And no one is explaining why the word day is used to explain an inconceivable period of time when there is a perfectly good hebrew word that can be used for this. Hebrew is a langage. As a language, it is full of all kinds idioms, colloquialisms, figures of speech and so on. Exploiting these language constructs is what people do when trying to twist scripture. And scripture should never be twisted.
@UppsalaDragby What Hebrew word can be used to describe an indefinite period of time? I doubt, since the Bible was written in such a way all people from all areas and all degrees of intellect could understand, it would reveal all the secrets of the universe. If it was written that the Earth was 14 billion years old, that would be hard for the ancients to swallow. The Bible does not mention the creation of the dinosaurs, or the Thea impact. It would be too difficult to wrap their heads around!
@CalumAtheron Is every week a seven year period? I could go on and on and you would end up with nonsense. The fact is, as I have said repeatedly, you must study the context. Just claiming that the genesis days were metaphorical because the word is used colloquialy in other parts of scripture is sloppy work. If the word is metaphorical then explain why it is so within the context it is written. No one is doing this!
@UppsalaDragby I find it quite impossible to argue with you. I could point out that 'the day of the lord' refers to a seven year period, that we have a seven-day work week as a symbolism of the creation account, that God's 'seventh day' is still going on today because it is never closed and God never created new creatures afterward, how the unique wording of Genesis Creation Account implies long creation days, And go on and on but of course you wouldn't listen, saying 'nonsense'. over and over.
@UppsalaDragby Just because 'evening and morning' is used does not imply a 24 hour time period! "In the morning grass flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away." (Psalm 90:6) In fact it can mean 'beginning and ending'.
@CalumAtheron Now please, to make this interesting, put some more thought behind what you write. Anyone who had thought this through would realize that you can't simply take one verse concerning the interpretation of time and try to force its definition into another verse. It won't work. You wouldn't know when to start and when to stop. Do we interpret every day recorded in the Bible as a thousand years? Does every record of a thousand years mean a day?
@UppsalaDragby I only believe that the creation days are long because 1. geology, astronomy, paleontology, archeology, all suggest an Earth older than just six thousand years. 2. The Genesis creation narrative fits perfectly into the mainstream science views on the formation of cosmos and the Earth. 3....
@UppsalaDragby ...3. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making" Genesis 2:4. Notice all the creation days are used as a single 'day' here. Also, the Hebrew lexicons validate that the word for generation (toledah) always refers to a long time period, never to anything as short as a week as you would suggest.
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary and Philo believed in long creation days
@UppsalaDragby Also, Adam named all the animals in the garden, apparently, in a single day. There is no evidence he had superhuman intelligence to name every single animal in the garden. Even if they were 'protospecies' as answers in genesis suggests, this would still be a large number of animals, if we were to include those that are now extinct. Then all of a sudden, Eve is made. Adam says 'at long last'. Do you really think he could get bored in such a beautiful paradise in only a day?
@CalumAtheron "It also appears YECs make too many assumptions. The Global Flood model is an example of that."
I am not too keen on exchanging rhetorical nonsense. If you have evidence then provide it. Your opinions are not important. I already know what side your are on.
@CalumAtheron "Then come back to me with problems you have with their explanation."
I have heard this "gap" explanation before, and although it might be able to account for a few decades here and there you could never plausibly be able to squeeze thousands of years into the genealogy of Jesus. As I think I have made clear, you can wiggle your way around anything. The question is if it is reasonable.
@UppsalaDragby We can conclude that the Biblical geneologies can have many gaps in them, I wouldn't say all of them had thousands of years between them, but many did have gaps of just a few decades. It was beyond the point to include all the details of each and every person in that line. Also, to interpret the geneologies to be written in a more modern way than ancient way is a large mistake. It would also suggest that after the flood people spread over the entire world in around 300 yrs.
@UppsalaDragby Now if the geneologies were to be interpreted as modern-version geneologies, we would reach the conclusion that people spread over the planet in 300 (based on Peleg) to 1,000 years, both technically impossible.
@CalumAtheron For example, the genealogies of Jesus cannot contain huge gaps in them. This generational "gap theory" has been compiled in an attempt to make the bible somehow conform to what secular scientists have been claiming is the age of the earth. The problem is that the whole argument fails. What OEC proponents NEVER tell you is that gaps in genealogies are filled in with information found in the chronologies!
@UppsalaDragby No, no, you are assuming (If I have understood you correctly) that there are gaps in ALL the spaces between generations. This is simply not true. The Old Testament geneologies would have gaps farther back that recent. For example, the geneologies were used to give a basic understanding of the line of Adam/Noah/David/Jesus. There would be no need to have great gaps between David and Jesus is there were less people between them.
@CalumAtheron "yes, I copied and pasted, so don't get all knotted up again"
I don't get knotted up. I just see a problem if both you and I continually pasted all the arguments and counter-arguments that we could find on the internet. I also see a risk that someone who quickly and lazily pastes in arguments usually does so because he hasn't done the groundwork necessary to stand on his own feet in a discussion.
@UppsalaDragby I don't 'continually' paste all the arguments and counter-arguments, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to do so once or twice in order to get the point across in a better way. I don't do it often, as a matter of fact. If it has offended you, please forgive me. Next time I will make sure to tell you when I am quoting or pasting another argument.
@UppsalaDragby We both should agree that the word Yom has three meanings. 1. a 24 hour time period, 2. a 12 hour time period, or 3. an indefinite length of time. The reason we see no other references to yom (or is it yowm?) being used as a long period of time in the Old Testament is because the Bible, afterall, has no
other occasion to incorporate (enumerate?) epochs of time.
@CalumAtheron "Therefore it would be more logical to say 'loves us for 100 generations/200 generations' if it was meant to be taken as 'ages and ages'."
It has nothing to do with logic but with language. The hebrews used expressions such as these to signify great periods of time (as opposed to the word "day"). If you think it has anything to do with logic then please tell me why God's love would suddenly turn cold after 10,000 years.. or whatever..
@UppsalaDragby "If you think it has anything to do with logic then please tell me why God's love would suddenly turn cold after 10,000 years." I don't quite understand you here. Here's my point: "but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:6)
I think you've missed my point. I never said God's love would turn 'cold' at any point in time, it's an infinite aspect of Him, as God never changes and he's infinite as well.
@CalumAtheron "All four covenants, which have happened over the timespan of all of humanity, can refer to the covenants along with 'a thousand generations'"
OK, and what historical evidence can you provide to support that?
@CalumAtheron "So apparently we can take all verses poetically until it comes to a young earth."
No. We use the same methods of interpreting scripture as we do any other historical collection of documents. We consult scholars, we study context, we take verses poetically that are witten in a poetic style, and we interpret historical accounts accordingly. It's call discernment - rightly dividing the word of truth - otherwise we risk mixing everything together just to suit our own purposes.
@CalumAtheron "If you truly were unbiased, then you wouldn't be so hostile and arrogant, would you?"
Where have I been hostile? Where have I been arrogant? You are reading way too much into this and taking it personally. Disagreeing with someone is neither being hostile nor arrogant. Listen, you were the first one to use an ad-hominem insult in this thread. You were the first one to be hostile. So don't be such a hypocryte!
@CalumAtheron It's funny that scientists cannot agree about the causes and effects of global warming today, and yet there are so many like you who "personally think" that scientists get it right when they calculate what they think would happen during the flood.
@CalumAtheron Guess what, there are counter-arguments to these objections too. However, I'm sure what you "personally think" has nothing to do with what you personally know on the subject. But you are free to prove me wrong.
@CalumAtheron "Personally, I think worldwide chalk layers disprove the flood, because chalk can only form in calm, placid shelf environments and according to two YEC scientists Baumgardner and Barnette currents would have reached 90-180 mph. Also, no aquatic animal could survive the brackish waters that would accompany the flood."
@CalumAtheron "There's a lot of stuff here, but nothing that really 'disproves' an old earth. "
This statement shows how much you missunderstand this debate. Nothing PROVES a young earth, and nothing PROVES an old earth. That is my entire objection. No one knows for certainty how old the earth is. There are arguments and counter-arguments on both sides. But there is only one side that doesn't seem to realize this and is pretending to have "mountains of evidence", proving an old earth. Baloney!
@CalumAtheron I am not surprised that someone who has found a way to make the Bible say "red" and yet mean "blue" doesn't have a problem with anything. As long as you can find a counter-argument then everything is OK... However, if you have a counter-argument then why don't you present it yourself instead of sending me off to search some site that doesn't even make sure its references are up to date.
@CalumAtheron The reason you don't think there a problem is given in your post "easily explainable", "I found a counter-argument", and then you give me instructions to find the "counter argument" in a site that doesn't even seem to have a search facility.
@CalumAtheron "living fossils, I have no problem with that - nobody does, really"
So now you are a spokesman for everyone? I have heard claims like that so many times before. It's funny, nothing seems to be a problem for anyone in this debate. We seem to live in a problem free world.
@CalumAtheron If you had watched the video link I sent you instead of hurrying on to find a rebuttal then you would have noticed that she obviously no longer doubts that the cells were blood cells. Despite that, your precious OEC sites leave these quotes on their pages. I wonder why..
@CalumAtheron That was 8 years ago!!! You go on about "selectively reporting data" and yet you direct me to sites with OEC agenda that publish old material and quotes that no longer apply. These should have been removed YEARS AGO. What does it matter that Mary Schweitzer said a decade or so ago that she didn't believe the cells to be blood cells?
@UppsalaDragby Here's something for you. Visit Reasons to Believe (which I doubt you've ever done before) search 'dinosaur blood' or 't-rex blood' or whatever you want, and an article (written in 2011) will show. Click there, I'm sure you'll see the reason why YECs immediately go piggy-back on this argument that is outdated itself, and how it's just faulty.
@UppsalaDragby If you're not satisfied with RTBs view on the Dinosaur blood, you can of course always search the internet for older articles. There are no RECENT arguments that I know of that these pages don't address.
@CalumAtheron "Dinosaur blood cells ... I already explained that"
Explained what? Either you are not listening or are so eager to find a quick rebuttal that you don't take the time to check thing out. It is vitally important to make sure that your references are UP TO DATE. The "rebuttals" you provide are OLD. Not ONE of them provide a reference that questions the blood cell issue that is more recent than 2004!
@UppsalaDragby That's ridiculous. If you have searched this subject on the internet, you would have found several articles addressing the so-called 'problem'. I've found about eight so far. And it doesn't matter if they were written in 2004, is that really a huge problem to you? The YEC claims are so old nobody needs to repeat the rebuttals.
@UppsalaDragby Hah. Me? Arrogant aren't you, haven't you been listening to what I've been saying all this time? Besides, I believe you're pretending to know what you're talking about. It seems that you haven't taken a closer look at Old Earth Creationism. You're throwing the most typical arguments at me. All these OEC sites explain it better than I could, yet I doubt you've even visited them yet. If you really had looked at all the evidence you would see that YEC is absolutely mad!
@CalumAtheron "Actually, there's something called a 'cat scan' that reveals the interior of the fossils, without having to saw it open. Ever hear of those? "
Well that sounds like a good example of old earth arrogance to me. Listen kid, cat scanning cannot detect soft material in dino bones! If you disagree then why don't you get in touch with Mary Schwietzer and tell her how stupid she was for sawing the bones apart instead of just scanning them!
@CalumAtheron Trying to make it into a calculation doesn't make sense since it was part of a convenant made to the Israelites of that time, which wasn't 12,000 years ago. Also, you haven't addressed my suggestion that you count the ages in the generations from Adam to Christ. The very thing that CAN be calculated!
@UppsalaDragby "Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments."
All four covenants, which have happened over the timespan of all of humanity, can refer to the covenants along with 'a thousand generations' in Deuteronomy, Psalm, and Chronicles.
@UppsalaDragby Now here's a problem. Ussher's chronology by Biblical geneology fails on a condition. The following is copied (yes, I copied and pasted, so don't get all knotted up again) from EFGFS:
Biblical genealogies fall into three main categories according to their purpose: familial, legal–political, and religious.4 Familial (or domestic) genealogies were primarily concerned with inheritance and privileges of firstborn sons.
@UppsalaDragby Legal–political genealogies are primarily centered on claims to a hereditary office, but other examples include establishing ancestry for land organization, territorial groupings, and military service. Religious genealogies were primarily used to establish membership in the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods. The function of a genealogy largely determines its structure and organization.
@UppsalaDragby In each of these cases, there is little reason or need to give a complete listing of names, since it is ancestry, not the actual number of generations, that is important.
Very short genealogies are typically for the purpose of identifying a person’s tribal or genealogical grouping. The clearest example of this is the division of Israel into tribes based on which of the 12 patriarchs they were descended from.
@UppsalaDragby This tribal division was important for determining traveling arrangements (Numbers 2; 10) and allocation of land (Joshua 13–21). Each tribe was subdivided into divisions and further subdivided into clans according to which son and grandson of the patriarchs they were descendent from. For example, the Levites were assigned different duties according to which Levitical division they belonged to.
@UppsalaDragby So, it was usually sufficient to list only a person’s tribe, division, and clan to identify their place in society. This interest in genealogical identification is also seen in the time of King David and again in the time of return from exile. At these later times, genealogies often were given in terms of other key historical figures (Aaron, Moses, David, etc.) rather than going all the way back to the patriarchs.
@UppsalaDragby For example, Matthew starts his Gospel with “Jesus, son of David, son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). This very terse genealogy is a prelude to Matthew’s longer genealogy (Matthew 1:3–17). Some additional examples: (it then goes on to list 31 Biblical gaps and meanings of the word 'begat' and so on. If you want to see for yourself just visit the site and search 'genesis chronology'. Then come back to me with problems you have with their explanation.
@CalumAtheron "even if the generations were 12 years, it would mean 12,000 years, correct?"
No. You are still seeing this as a mathematical equation, which it is not. There are expressions in the Hebrew language just as there are in ours. These verses are just another way of saying God will love you and your offspring for ages and ages.
@UppsalaDragby So apparently we can take all verses poetically until it comes to a young earth. To me the Bible says 'a thousand generations'. So IF we were to take each biblical generation, and calculate it to be around 6,000 years, it would be 100-200 generations. Unless you think we humans can be around for 60,000 more years, which I doubt. These verses is more than likely to be taken literally, being the average number of generations. Humanity can be anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 yrs old.
@UppsalaDragby Therefore it would be more logical to say 'loves us for 100 generations/200 generations' if it was meant to be taken as 'ages and ages'. However all the verses never say anything like that, they all say 'a thousand generations'. You might say they are poetic in meaning, but I can also say 'day' is poetic in meaning. You can't have both, you know -_-
@CalumAtheron "To accumulate so much material as we see spread throughout the entire universe cannot happen in a space of just six 24 hour days."
I don't get you. On the one hand you are asserting that God is "outside of time" and "not restricted" and on the other side you are telling me what God cannot do. What does astronomy have to do with what God can or cannot do?
@CalumAtheron It is only after a great deal of work and patience that you learn what these confident people are NOT saying. However, despite doing this for years and years, and yet I am constantly accused of being ignorant. The ironical thing is that most of the people who are calling me ignorant have not spent as much time as I have in checking out the strength of the opposing arguments.
@UppsalaDragby You must have been looking at the evidences in the 1980s, because old earth creationism is much more powerful today. Evidence for God from science, Answers in Creation, Reasons to Believe... have you even visited those sites in your life? They address your 'problems' with the radiometric dating techniques used today, as well as countless others.
@CalumAtheron "I think it's appropriate to say that you are the one who's ignoring the conflicting evidence instead."
I don't think so. I have been following debates concerning evolution and the age of the earth on a daily basis for years, and I have been careful from the start to look at this from both sides. In fact I have switched sides many times, because it is difficult at first not to be swept away by confident arguments that at first glance seem so watertight.
@UppsalaDragby Hahahaha, then you obviously have not been looking at it closely enough. If you truly were unbiased, then you wouldn't be so hostile and arrogant, would you? There are too many problems with the global flood view, as well as the YEC one overall.
@CalumAtheron Obviously, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" EXCEPT when someone comes along and says "Did God really say?" (Gen 3:1), rendering it useless!
@updr12 You're ridiculous. That's not what I'm saying at all. The creation account is still under dispute and is either long or short. You seem very much like the flat-earth geocentristics of the previous centuries.
@CalumAtheron Given the way you "literally" interpret scripture, you can change ANYTHING in the bible and claim that "this is what God really meant". I can hardly believe you seriously mean this! But hey, why should I be surprised, this is the way anyone with an agenda twists scripture to support their arguments. I was raised by mediums that used the same tactics to make scripture say what they wanted it to say. Anyone can do that!
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The "Day of the Lord" also refers to a long period of time.
Early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose ALL believed in long creation days.
@updr12 Also the Bible says that the land produced vegetation on the third day. this obviously would take place over a period more than just 24 hours long. It doesn't say he went 'pop' there's a full-grown tree, no, it says the land produced it.
@updr12 I think the verses Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8, which all say that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations", go well with what you are saying here. Even if a typical biblical generation is not forty years (which in my opinion it is) what do you believe it is, a six-year generation? That's absurd!!! The date for humanity is longer than just 6,000 years! We have evidence for Aborigines reaching Australia roughly 40,000 years ago!
@CalumAtheron But even here, I will gladly step back and give you ample opportunity to support your assumption that she was "not pressured in any way". Although I don't know how you could possible know that, but since you seem to have some inside information about her that I do not have access to, and I feel it my duty to let you present it.
@CalumAtheron "The scientific community did not pressure her in any way."
Oh, so this is something you know for a fact is it? Here, to start with, you can judge for yourself whether or not blood cells were found, but it is also evident whether or not Schwietzer was pressured. Here she admits her apprehension of presenting her findings, and according to Leslie Stahl she was "attacked" by her peers:
@CalumAtheron But just to give you an opportunity to prove your point, please tell me how many dinosaur bones you are familiar with that have been sawn open without soft tissue inside? ... a rough estimate will do.
@updr12 Actually, there's something called a 'cat scan' that reveals the interior of the fossils, without having to saw it open. Ever hear of those? This is how people determine the makeup of the skeleton, even seeing the internal structures of the veins, if they are preserved enough.
@CalumAtheron "conflicting evidence? What evidence in the old earth viewpoint do you find to conflict with each other?"
I'm not talking about conflicting evidence WITHIN the old earth viewpoint, I'm talking about conflicting evidence BETWEEN the old age viewpoint and observable data. The rate of recession of the moon from the earth is one example of observable data, but there are more. If you google "101 reasons to believe in a young earth" you can see a few more.
@UppsalaDragby Interesting... DNA in ancient fossils (Ancient DNA, wikipedia) and Lazarus bacteria (I merely searched 'Lazarus bacteria' and I got a decent explanation) decay rates in the human genome (i have no problem with the idea that humans are many thousands of years old only) mitochondrial eve (I believe in Eve but I'm not even sure about that) Dinosaur blood cells (I already explained that. If not search Answers in Creation and Evidence for God from science, and Reasons to Believe)
@UppsalaDragby living fossils, I have no problem with that - nobody does, really. Missing organisms in the fossil record suddenly appear surviving today. Well that's easily explainable - 'The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.' actually I found a counter-argument on Answers in Creation, you'll find it if you bother to visit the site as well.
@UppsalaDragby Coconico sandstone's on the site as well - that's addressed in Answers in Creation.
There's a lot of stuff here, but nothing that really 'disproves' an old earth. Personally, I think worldwide chalk layers disprove the flood, because chalk can only form in calm, placid shelf environments and according to two YEC scientists Baumgardner and Barnette currents would have reached 90-180 mph. Also, no aquatic animal could survive the brackish waters that would accompany the flood.
@CalumAtheron "If dinosaur fossils were as YECs claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news."
You are clutching at straws. In order for these things to be recovered, the bones must be split apart and damaged in some way, which is something scientists are reluctant to do!
@CalumAtheron "Soft tissues have been found on other fossils, and DNA has been found from samples more than 300,000 yrs old."
DNA might have been found, but whether the samples are as old as this is the point of contention, so how on earth can you possibly submit this as an argument?
@CalumAtheron Listen, the moon is receding from the earth's gravity at a constant rate today! If you do your calculations backwards through time then you will realize that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the age of the earth to be as old as it is claimed. However, the selective reporting of data of evolutionists rejects whatever is conflict with the theoretical model they are trying to defend.
@CalumAtheron "An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique."
As I have already pointed out, ALL dating methods, not just those classified as radiometric, are based on the assumption that RATES measured today have been constant backwards through time. This is called uniformatarinism. No matter which of these you choose to play around with, a constant rate today proves NOTHING unless you can demonstrate that it has always been constant.
@CalumAtheron "The bone is? well preserved, so much that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but should not be exaggerated."
Exaggerated? Any dinosaur bone that is 80 myo should be mineralized, not sticking out the side of a cliff! The reason it's so "well preserved" is obvious!!
@CalumAtheron I hate it when people try to bluff their way through a discussion and don't seem to be able to think for themselves. What on earth do you think happened here? Did a bunch of creationists secretly inject red, soft, blood-like cellular objects into the bones of dinosaurs just to fool evolutionist?
@updr12 No, I already told you. they found evidence of decayed hemoglobin bits and pieces and structures that MIGHT represent altered blood remains. Visit Answers in Creation website, it has two or three articles addressing the t-rex 'soft tissue' argument. I would have posted a link, but for some reason it won't let me. I would also suggest visiting Evidence for God from science as well.
@CalumAtheron "Schweitzer did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells."
Oh!... Plese try to use your OWN arguments rather than just pasting in someone else's. No one likes to debate with a copy-and-paster. You are using a comment that was made at least ONE YEAR AGO based on a paper that was written FOUR YEARS AGO! Since then the experiment has been REPEATED in other dinosaurs, and more evidence has come to light.
@CalumAtheron "What I meant was that none of the main scientific theories or facts today rely on selective reporting of data like YEC 'science' does."
OK, please explain how you know for a fact that the none of the "main scientific theories" (which would obviously include evolution) do now rely on selective reporting. While you are at it, you might as well tell me what "data" YEC's are excluding. I will interpret any failure to do so as a CLEAR indication that you are bluffing.
@CalumAtheron "If you do not hold to the idea that the speed of light is slowing down, then how do you explain the multi-million light years away stars and galaxies?"
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem, but let me ask you this, do you think it is possible for God to create two stars instantaneously at the same time millions of light years apart?
If he can do this then obviously he can also create light in between the stars, instantaneously. So,... no problem at all!
So what??? Am I supposeto be impressed? I would rather believe in verifiable facts produced by atheists than a theory that some catholic monk conjured up in his head. There is absolutely NO reason for anyone to go beyond what is observable, repeatable and testable. Beyond that boundary we have nothing more than faith issues, which is something I have no problems with, as long as they are presented as such.
@CalumAtheron Can you provide the name of ONE biblical schollar who thinks that every instance of the word generation should be used as a parameter in some kind of ridiculous calculation? So instead of making such wild claims about "generations", why don't you add up the ACTUAL ages of the people in Jesus' genealogy and see where you land.
@CalumAtheron "the biblical generation is usually referred to as being 40 years."
Really? Usually referred to by whom? People on the internet that speculate about the length in time of a certain prophecy, or by professional biblical scholars who take the time to carfully study the language, the context, colloquialisms, contemporary customs of the Jews, and so on?
@updr12 Okay, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the Bible never makes 1 reference to a generation being forty years, but even if the generations were 12 years, it would mean 12,000 years, correct? Also, the first generations were much longer, nearly 1,000 years each. How long do you think THAT would make the date of humanity for? It is highly improbable people spread over the planet in a period of less than 1,000 years or so after the flood.
@CalumAtheron Patience is a synonym for "longsuffering". Without a measure of suffering there is no "patience". Waiting for repentance is motivated by God's love. Waiting for billions of years just for the sake of it, is ridiculous.
@updr12 Waiting for billions of years 'just for the sake of it' you say? I explain it to you over and over again, yet for some reason you can't cool off and listen. To accumulate so much material as we see spread throughout the entire universe cannot happen in a space of just six 24 hour days. Each day was billions/millions of years, where the stars dying and giving birth supplied enough material for planetary formation. Do you know nothing of astronomy?
@CalumAtheron There is nothing in scripture that indicates that God has patience in any other context that in waiting for mankind to repent. You might CLAIM that God had patience to wait for billions of years for something to happen, but what reasoning, or scripture, can you submit to support such a stupid idea?
@updr12 The 'stupid idea' that God is outside of time, of course. He is outside of time, and therefore he is not restricted to our timeline. Unless, of course, you think God is finite and is trapped inside our 3-dimensional space with time only travelling forward, instead of being infinite.
God waited billions of years because we would need the slow and steady accumalation of materials to support life. It doesn't matter how long it took to him, but to us and our physical universe.
@CalumAtheron What on earth do you think we need biblical scholars for? Especially when we have so much "overwhelming evidence". The trouble is that the amount of overwhelming evidence depends entirely on how easily overwhelmed you are. And how much you ignore conflicting evidence.
@updr12 conflicting evidence? What evidence in the old earth viewpoint do you find to conflict with each other? Personally, I find many 'flood geology' ideas to conflict with each other more than any other theory I have come across. I think it's appropriate to say that you are the one who's ignoring the conflicting evidence instead.
@CalumAtheron Are you serios? Do you mean that we should use the assumptions of secular scientists to determine which parts of scripture are poetic and which are not? Who in their right mind would take something like that seriously?
@CalumAtheron Anyone trying to say that the Bible says that the earth IS a circle, might just as well claim that we ARE grasshoppers. That is not what these verses are saying.
@updr12 I was saying that the Earth was a sphere, and I interpret the 'grasshopper' part to mean we are infinitely small and stupid in his presence. the reason I interpret this verse literally is because here it states where he sits enthroned, and then uses a metaphor to describe his majesty in comparison to us. I, for one, interpret the later part of the verse (Describing the expansion of heavens) as literal as well.
@CalumAtheron Actually there is a word for sphere, or "ball" at least (duwr), and as you can see it is used in Isa 22:18. However, the solution is not just to shrug and say "it could go both ways". The proper way to interpret scripture is to study the context. In Isaiah 40:22 the context is how things appear from God's perspective. From a distance the earth looks like a circle and we look like grasshoppers.
@updr12 'He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.'
we are obviously infinitely small in comparison to God, I get that. However 'chuwg' can indeed go either way, either it means circle or it means sphere. The ancients thought it to mean circle - however when science became better they came to understand it meant 'sphere' seeing as the Earth was round.
@updr12 This scenario is much like today - YECs like you look at the creation passage and see it the way the ancients did, without their science and technology (much like the flat-earthers did) eventually the evidence for a globe-shaped earth became so overwhelming that they decided here circle did indeed mean sphere. The Hebrews interpreted it to mean circle, but later on in the future we would see that God was hinting, and it meant sphere.
@CalumAtheron When a secular, evolutionary scientist recently discovered soft tissue and blood cells in dino bones that were supposedly 80-90 myo, the "pressure" from her peers became evident when they tried to harrass her into admitting she was wrong. However, she wasn't and lucki
the #1 argument agenst hugh ross is no one in history before 1820 would ever have yowm meaning hundreds of thousands of years ALSO no one would never ever ever have the bible saying a local flood or death before Adam fell like hugh ross does! (look at his false teaching,he believes this crap)
3117 [e]yō·wm י֥וֹם day is defined BY CONTEXT this should be obvious! hugh ross ignores context. just by him using yowm out of context to prove his point in his argument shows you he a deluded and wrong
pimplahdon 2 weeks ago
if you study what hugh ross believes it very easy to see he changes MULTIPLE foundational doctrine in order for his view to fit his false science conclusions. the one that is VERY easy to disprove biblically is his local flood lie. this is one of the doctrine he changes i disprove this in under 5min form the bible undeniably in my video "hugh ross exposed (local flood) lie"
hugh ross is a cult leader.
he uses science to decide what the bible says
he ignores context
his is arrogant
pimplahdon 2 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "I have not seen a counter-argument on YEC websites yet"
A counter-argument to what??? It is Ross' assertion that this word is translated as "at long last" in EVERY scripture except for in Gen 2. Where are all these "other" translations? I haven't been able to find them. You don't have to be an expert on Hebrew! We have online resources as well as multiple translations available.
updr12 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron The same thing is done by people trying to defend all kinds of lifestyles that the Bible condemns. All you need to do is metaphorise selected verses and you can get it to say what you want it to say, rather than what it actually says.
updr12 3 weeks ago
@updr12 correct ~updr~ the bible can contradict itself over 500times if you pick and choose verses without keeping in mind context and rules of grammar aswell as doctrine.
this is what hugh ross does. he ignores what the bible actually says.
pimplahdon 2 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron However, what is more important is that being of an old earth conviction necessitates a great deal of scriptural manipulation to get it to "make sense", and that is never a good thing. Both my parents were occultists and astrologers and yet claimed to be Christians. They did this simply by doing the very same kind of manipulation that OECs rely on.
updr12 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron I'm not going to repeat arguments that I have already addressed, so I hope you understand that. Whether or not olam is used beyond "eternal" is perhaps disputable since some scholars don't seem to do that, but I think the the argument that mountains and hills are not eternal still stands.
updr12 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Now all i have to do is to find all the other verses that use this word which Hugh claims is always used to mean "at long last". And guess what? Neither the New American Standard Bible, The King James Version nor the Interliear Bible seem to agree with him. Neither is there any indication in Strongs that "at long last" is the primary translation of this word. Hmm...
updr12 4 weeks ago
@updr12 "Neither is there any indication in Strongs that "at long last" is the primary translation of this word. Hmm..."
Perhaps it is not the primary translation, but it more than likely as not means something very similar. I'm no expert on Hebrew, but I have not seen a counter-argument on YEC websites yet... if you come across one, please post a link or direct me to the website.. until I find one, "hap-pa-'am" remains 'at long last'.
CalumAtheron 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "The word used, upon discovering Eve, is 'at long last'."
OK, at long last ;-)... after doing a lot of googling without any success, watching Hugh Ross' video... doing a more googling, checking out the Blue Letter Bible and the Interlinear Bible I finally worked out what he was talking about. I found the word! It is "hap·pa·‘am" (Strong's Hebrew 6471).
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron There are also other Hebrew scholars that also point out that olam can be translated "age" or "era". And to say that this is something "post-biblical" doesn't work when you consider the fact that is it is used IN THE BIBLE to describe things that are NOT eternal, such as hills or mountains.
updr12 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12 "it is used IN THE BIBLE to describe things that are NOT eternal, such as hills or mountains."
The Bible describes the mountains as ancient, not a day old, or infinite.
CalumAtheron 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "Hebrew lexicons show that only in post-biblical writings did ’olam' refer to a long age or epoch."
That's funny, because I first encountered the word when it was used in an old-earther's argument where he claimed, to prove his own point in other scriptures, that the word, apart from meaning "forever" and so on, can be used to describe a time or age that is conceptually beyond the horizon.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@updr12 Olam is not used in biblical Hebrew to represent long periods of time. Olam is almost always translated "eternity" "eternal" or "forever" in ancient Hebrew. This would not be used to represent long periods of time.
CalumAtheron 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "The word used, upon discovering Eve, is 'at long last'."
Which word?
"how can Adam become bored and lonely"
Nothing in the text suggest that Adam was either "bored" or "lonely". What we are told that no suitable "helper" was found for him.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@updr12 the Hebrew word used here is pa‛amah, which means "at long last." I was just assuming Adam had waited weeks or months, possibly years, not a few hours. To me it seems impossible to get bored in such a beautiful garden, with all these animals to name, and then care for the garden within such a short time period.
CalumAtheron 3 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Hey presto! An explanation is born, and evolutionists can rest assured that their theory is safe and sound. That's the way it works. And that is why it is so difficult to get anyone to change their stances. Now, before you turn around and say "the same to you", I already know this, and try to do my best to be open to the possibility of being wrong. But as far as empirical evidence is concerned the Bible holds up as it is written, time and time again.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron You seem to be content as long as there is an argument or explanation that can put your mind at rest. That is dangerous thinking. When evolutionists finally came to the conclusion that the fossil record actually DOES contain gaps, you know what they did? They produced an explaination - the theory of punctuated equilibrium. And what was the evidence? Gaps in the fossil record!
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "There are numerous alternative explanations on how this leg bone could have survived."
There are numerous alternative explanations to ANYTHING. That is what is so deceptive when dealing with science and beliefs. Schweitzer's first remark when she made her discovery was one of disbelief: "It can't be possible!". It's funny how that has changed to "soft tissue CAN BE preserved in fossilized bone in some instances". Evidence of that? Her findings! Talk about circular reasoning!
updr12 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CalumAtheron "Schweitzer wasn't facing apprehension because it indicated a young earth, she was coming up with a ridiculous finding!"
This is also something I have never claimed.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "Fascinating, none of them, not ONE of them believe this indicates recent burial or a young earth."
I never suggested, or even for a second expected them to do so! We are talking about evolutionists here. If they do not believe in the scriptures, then not even someone being raised from the dead will convince them of anything (Luke 16:31).
updr12 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@updr12 To me the soft tissue found in this t-rex is not evidence for a young earth. You might say that this leg bone is strong evidence for a YEC viewpoint, or maybe it's just that it doesn't suggest a young earth at all. Every geologist knows fossils can form quickly, and slowly. This soft tissue appears to have been preserved in another way (wikipedia), in a process separate from fossilization. This shows how much more we have to learn. We'll just have to await further information on it.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron A cell is like a huge factory with millions of small parts working together. How do these factory workers know what to do, and where to go, when they don't have brains to tell them? It goes way beyond chemical reactions. They can only have been externally programmed to be able to do these things.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "how else can you get such fine-tuning in a universe that began 'randomly' as secular scientists claim?"
Now that we CAN agree on :-) Perhaps even more far fetched is the idea of a living cell splashing together and somehow have the incredibly complex logic intact to process food, reproduce and so on. I can hardly believe that any scientist could possibly believe this. I work as a program developer, and even the simplest things demand heaps of logic in order for them to work.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "What Hebrew word can be used to describe an indefinite period of time?"
The word "olam" is used for time concerning the distant past or the distant future that is difficult to know or perceive. If the world was billions of years old then that would definitely be a better word to use than day if it was to be understood by people of all times.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@updr12 Hebrew lexicons show that only in post-biblical writings did ’olam' refer to a long age or epoch. In biblical times it meant 'forever,' 'perpetual,' 'lasting,' 'always,'. I doubt that 'olam' would be used in a restricted sense, or in a definite period of time.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "if the meaning of 'day' meant 24 hour time periods, why would they be written in such a manner? "
Here too, I don't get what you mean. Are you trying to say that the difference between ".. was evening and was morning day Xth." and "and was evening and morning day Xth." opens the gate for squeezing in billions of years? Please explain.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "Adam says 'at long last'. Do you really think he could get bored in such a beautiful paradise in only a day?"
You've lost me here.. what verse are you talking about?
updr12 4 weeks ago
@updr12
Genesis 2:20 says Adam named the animals on the sixth day of creation week. The word used, upon discovering Eve, is 'at long last'. My point is, how can Adam become bored and lonely in a garden he was just put in? Surely it was longer than just one day.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron the word is never translated "at long last". either way it doesn't make a difference. Adam named many animals to select a wife for himself.
example
if you looked at 5,000cars then choose one. would you say something like "finally!"
a question i have is. if each day was thousands of years. how can you justify Adam being 930 when he died? (he lived through the 6th day remember)
pimplahdon 2 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "Also, the Hebrew lexicons validate that the word for generation (toledah) always refers to a long time period.."
You are assuming that the "generations" mentioned in chapter 2 refer to what happened during day six, but there is no indication that any generations existed on that day. It is only AFTER chapter 2 we get to the account of these generations. Where this account ends is anyone guess. Remember, there were no chapters in the original text.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "Notice all the creation days are used as a single 'day' here."
Which means what? Only what I have been saying all along. Context determins the use of the word.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "The Genesis creation narrative fits perfectly into the mainstream science views.."
The genesis narrative acknowledges God, mainstream science does not. The genesis narrative has birds appearing before animals, mainstream science does not. The genesis narrative has the sun created after the earth, mainstream science teaches the opposite.
The genesis narrative has grass, land plants and trees created before the sun, mainstream science does not. Need I go on?
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Archeological records only go back about 5,000 years, so I don't understand how that could possibly convince you that the world is old. If man has been around for millions of years, and you don't believe in evolution, then why can't we find any artifacts that go back further in time?
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Astronomy can only provide us with distances. The only way scientists can impose apon anyone that this infers age is by getting them to adopt their model of origins. There is no need to let anyone dictate what is or isn't possible for God to do.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Also, both geology and paleontology rely on the same assumptions. I.e. the age of the layers is determined by the age of the fossils they contain. The age of the fossils is determined by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is based on uniformitarianism. And uniformitarianism cannot be verified.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron But suppose that the conditions were dramatically different the first twenty minutes that made the candles burn at a much faster rate. If you were unaware of this then ALL of your candles would be wrong, despite the fact that they "agree" with each other now.
This is why people are so convinced that dating methods are a sure thing. They are told "Look, ALL 500 candles agree with each other, that must mean that the earth is old!"
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron You could do the same thing with 500 candles, some thick and short and others thin and long. You could light them, at different times and they could all burn at different rates. However, as long as all burn at constant rates they are perfectly good at calculating time.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "I only believe that the creation days are long because 1. geology, astronomy, paleontology, archeology, all suggest an Earth older than just six thousand years."
These fields of science don't "suggest" an old earth. Scientists do. To start with, there are no independent dating methods that pinpoint the exact same time in the distant past. They only "agree" when doing so in dating recent things (although not always), which is understandable, since they are constant today.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "... people spread over the planet in 300 (based on Peleg) to 1,000 years, both technically impossible."
There are different ideas about what happened during the time of Peleg. Some say the division refers to what happened after the Tower of Bable, others believe it refers to the continents splitting apart due to plate tectonics that may have occured in the aftermath of the flood. I have no idea, perhaps a little of both... But why would that be impossible?
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron The chronologies are different. With these it is possible to trace parallel lines of contemporary people, which makes it possible to see where that gaps are and the length of time they existed. The fact that the chronologies do this is the very reason that gaps were discovered to begin with.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "The Old Testament geneologies would have gaps farther back that recent."
The chronologies, apart from being ingredibly boring (sorry God) serve to fill in the gaps missing in the genealogies, so I don't know of any gaps, although I haven't taken the time to check it out myself (I think it would probably take a while). The problem, as it seems, with genealogies is that they are a "linear" list of significant people from Adam to Christ.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "I don't 'continually' paste all the arguments and counter-arguments, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to do so once or twice in order to get the point across in a better way."
Fair enough... point taken. I can see that you are trying hard to make you own arguments most of the time. I initially thought you might have been pasting everything, which can be pretty tiresome. It is quite ok to paste... at least on a moderate level.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "We both should agree that the word Yom has three meanings."
Yes, as far as I can see it pretty much coincides with the way we use the english word, which can also mean a 24-hour day, the daylight part of that 24-hours, or, as a method of convenience, a way to refer to a period of time associated with the lifespan or major activty of a person, or an event. I have no problem with this.
updr12 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "National Geographic News May 1, 2009
The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a NEW study says."
OK, so given the OLD RTB quotes and the article itself, show me how they address this find.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "There are no RECENT arguments that I know of that these pages don't address."
How on earth can old arguments be applied to new discoveries? This shows exactly how desparate you are to be right. Just think about it! The counter-arguments are built on OLD quotes and OLD data. There are NEW quotes to be taken into consideration just as there is NEW data. Do you think that the RTB, AIC or EFGFS articles are somehow valid throughout all eternity? Well, I'm sure you are...
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Look, if you are so stubborn that you repeatedly deny the obvious, then go ahead, pretend that som creationist went around mushing up the insides of dinosaur bones, or that somehow a blood-like substance just happened to be where blood would normally be! It seems that you have just made your mind up that people like Hugh Ross just can't be wrong. Perhaps he knows more than both Schweitzer and Horner??
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron The 2011 article even spells it out, saying "researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells." The word "believe" is italicized in the article because that is the only way they can attack this scientific finding and shed doubt on it.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Visit Reasons to Believe (which I doubt you've ever done before)"
Here is something else you are totally wrong about. I have been to ALL three of the sites you name, long before we started this discussion! Far from being as impressed as you seem to be, it is obvious to me that the articles do nothing than look for ways to get around what scientists have been forced to accept.
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 That's ridiculous. You have been making all the a-typical claims of YECs. Before you make an argument, look it up on any of these websites for the counter-argument. That's the wisest thing to do.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Both Mary Schweitzer and Bob Horner (you know, the main paleontologist who "disproved" the Blood Report according to AIC!) are talking about BLOOD, not any biofilms or anything else! The idea that round microstructures that resemble blood cells with smaller objects inside that resembled nuclei, but are not, was too much even for them to believe!
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 I saw the video. Fascinating, none of them, not ONE of them believe this indicates recent burial or a young earth. Nobody was suggesting that in the video! Schweitzer wasn't facing apprehension because it indicated a young earth, she was coming up with a ridiculous finding! Blood cells in a t-rex leg bone! That surely is fascinating.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@updr12 There are numerous alternative explanations on how this leg bone could have survived. To use it as an argument against an old earth, and merely dismissing the counter-arguments as 'old' and 'outdated' is arrogance to the supreme level! You haven't come up with anything to support your claim that the OEC arguments won't work anymore, even though I told you that no YEC 'counter-arguments' have been made against them!
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "it doesn't matter if they were written in 2004"
It DOES matter! The experiment has been repeated on other dinosaurs and the argument that the soft tissue does not contain blood cells is no longer being used, at least by consciencous scientists worth their weight. It is only used by OEC denialists who stubbornly cling on to this because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs. Let me ask you again, did you see the video?
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron All scripture is God-breathed and shouldn't be toyed around with to make it comply with one's own preferred "scientific" model. Scripture clearly points out that in the last days scoffers will willfully reject his word and deny the flood, and this is exactly what we are witnessing today.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby I do not deny the flood, nor am I a 'scoffer'. I am not 'toying around' with scripture to fit my preferred 'scientific model'. I believe it fits perfectly with the genesis creation account. Science came up with the history of the Earth all on its own, and it's a miraculous coincidence how the Biblical history of the Earth fits perfectly with the scientific explanation, for how else can you get such fine-tuning in a universe that began 'randomly' as secular scientists claim?
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron And no one is explaining why the word day is used to explain an inconceivable period of time when there is a perfectly good hebrew word that can be used for this. Hebrew is a langage. As a language, it is full of all kinds idioms, colloquialisms, figures of speech and so on. Exploiting these language constructs is what people do when trying to twist scripture. And scripture should never be twisted.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby What Hebrew word can be used to describe an indefinite period of time? I doubt, since the Bible was written in such a way all people from all areas and all degrees of intellect could understand, it would reveal all the secrets of the universe. If it was written that the Earth was 14 billion years old, that would be hard for the ancients to swallow. The Bible does not mention the creation of the dinosaurs, or the Thea impact. It would be too difficult to wrap their heads around!
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Is every week a seven year period? I could go on and on and you would end up with nonsense. The fact is, as I have said repeatedly, you must study the context. Just claiming that the genesis days were metaphorical because the word is used colloquialy in other parts of scripture is sloppy work. If the word is metaphorical then explain why it is so within the context it is written. No one is doing this!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby I find it quite impossible to argue with you. I could point out that 'the day of the lord' refers to a seven year period, that we have a seven-day work week as a symbolism of the creation account, that God's 'seventh day' is still going on today because it is never closed and God never created new creatures afterward, how the unique wording of Genesis Creation Account implies long creation days, And go on and on but of course you wouldn't listen, saying 'nonsense'. over and over.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@UppsalaDragby Just because 'evening and morning' is used does not imply a 24 hour time period! "In the morning grass flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away." (Psalm 90:6) In fact it can mean 'beginning and ending'.
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@UppsalaDragby The literal Hebrew is:".. was evening and was morning day Xth." The word order is a departure from the simple and ordinary. Hugh Ross:
"We would expect the literal Hebrew to say, "and was evening
and morning day Xth." But, that is not the case. This syntactic ambiguity does
not constitute a proof. However, it does at least suggest an indefinite period
for each phase of the creation."
if the meaning of 'day' meant 24 hour time periods, why would they be written in such a manner?
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron Now please, to make this interesting, put some more thought behind what you write. Anyone who had thought this through would realize that you can't simply take one verse concerning the interpretation of time and try to force its definition into another verse. It won't work. You wouldn't know when to start and when to stop. Do we interpret every day recorded in the Bible as a thousand years? Does every record of a thousand years mean a day?
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby I only believe that the creation days are long because 1. geology, astronomy, paleontology, archeology, all suggest an Earth older than just six thousand years. 2. The Genesis creation narrative fits perfectly into the mainstream science views on the formation of cosmos and the Earth. 3....
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby ...3. "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making" Genesis 2:4. Notice all the creation days are used as a single 'day' here. Also, the Hebrew lexicons validate that the word for generation (toledah) always refers to a long time period, never to anything as short as a week as you would suggest.
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary and Philo believed in long creation days
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Also, Adam named all the animals in the garden, apparently, in a single day. There is no evidence he had superhuman intelligence to name every single animal in the garden. Even if they were 'protospecies' as answers in genesis suggests, this would still be a large number of animals, if we were to include those that are now extinct. Then all of a sudden, Eve is made. Adam says 'at long last'. Do you really think he could get bored in such a beautiful paradise in only a day?
CalumAtheron 4 weeks ago
@CalumAtheron "It also appears YECs make too many assumptions. The Global Flood model is an example of that."
I am not too keen on exchanging rhetorical nonsense. If you have evidence then provide it. Your opinions are not important. I already know what side your are on.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Then come back to me with problems you have with their explanation."
I have heard this "gap" explanation before, and although it might be able to account for a few decades here and there you could never plausibly be able to squeeze thousands of years into the genealogy of Jesus. As I think I have made clear, you can wiggle your way around anything. The question is if it is reasonable.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby We can conclude that the Biblical geneologies can have many gaps in them, I wouldn't say all of them had thousands of years between them, but many did have gaps of just a few decades. It was beyond the point to include all the details of each and every person in that line. Also, to interpret the geneologies to be written in a more modern way than ancient way is a large mistake. It would also suggest that after the flood people spread over the entire world in around 300 yrs.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Now if the geneologies were to be interpreted as modern-version geneologies, we would reach the conclusion that people spread over the planet in 300 (based on Peleg) to 1,000 years, both technically impossible.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron For example, the genealogies of Jesus cannot contain huge gaps in them. This generational "gap theory" has been compiled in an attempt to make the bible somehow conform to what secular scientists have been claiming is the age of the earth. The problem is that the whole argument fails. What OEC proponents NEVER tell you is that gaps in genealogies are filled in with information found in the chronologies!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby No, no, you are assuming (If I have understood you correctly) that there are gaps in ALL the spaces between generations. This is simply not true. The Old Testament geneologies would have gaps farther back that recent. For example, the geneologies were used to give a basic understanding of the line of Adam/Noah/David/Jesus. There would be no need to have great gaps between David and Jesus is there were less people between them.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "yes, I copied and pasted, so don't get all knotted up again"
I don't get knotted up. I just see a problem if both you and I continually pasted all the arguments and counter-arguments that we could find on the internet. I also see a risk that someone who quickly and lazily pastes in arguments usually does so because he hasn't done the groundwork necessary to stand on his own feet in a discussion.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby I don't 'continually' paste all the arguments and counter-arguments, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to do so once or twice in order to get the point across in a better way. I don't do it often, as a matter of fact. If it has offended you, please forgive me. Next time I will make sure to tell you when I am quoting or pasting another argument.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "You might say they are poetic in meaning, but I can also say 'day' is poetic in meaning."
Colloquial expressions are not poetry!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby We both should agree that the word Yom has three meanings. 1. a 24 hour time period, 2. a 12 hour time period, or 3. an indefinite length of time. The reason we see no other references to yom (or is it yowm?) being used as a long period of time in the Old Testament is because the Bible, afterall, has no
other occasion to incorporate (enumerate?) epochs of time.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Therefore it would be more logical to say 'loves us for 100 generations/200 generations' if it was meant to be taken as 'ages and ages'."
It has nothing to do with logic but with language. The hebrews used expressions such as these to signify great periods of time (as opposed to the word "day"). If you think it has anything to do with logic then please tell me why God's love would suddenly turn cold after 10,000 years.. or whatever..
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UppsalaDragby "If you think it has anything to do with logic then please tell me why God's love would suddenly turn cold after 10,000 years." I don't quite understand you here. Here's my point: "but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:6)
I think you've missed my point. I never said God's love would turn 'cold' at any point in time, it's an infinite aspect of Him, as God never changes and he's infinite as well.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "All four covenants, which have happened over the timespan of all of humanity, can refer to the covenants along with 'a thousand generations'"
OK, and what historical evidence can you provide to support that?
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "So apparently we can take all verses poetically until it comes to a young earth."
No. We use the same methods of interpreting scripture as we do any other historical collection of documents. We consult scholars, we study context, we take verses poetically that are witten in a poetic style, and we interpret historical accounts accordingly. It's call discernment - rightly dividing the word of truth - otherwise we risk mixing everything together just to suit our own purposes.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "If you truly were unbiased, then you wouldn't be so hostile and arrogant, would you?"
Where have I been hostile? Where have I been arrogant? You are reading way too much into this and taking it personally. Disagreeing with someone is neither being hostile nor arrogant. Listen, you were the first one to use an ad-hominem insult in this thread. You were the first one to be hostile. So don't be such a hypocryte!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron It's funny that scientists cannot agree about the causes and effects of global warming today, and yet there are so many like you who "personally think" that scientists get it right when they calculate what they think would happen during the flood.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Guess what, there are counter-arguments to these objections too. However, I'm sure what you "personally think" has nothing to do with what you personally know on the subject. But you are free to prove me wrong.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Personally, I think worldwide chalk layers disprove the flood, because chalk can only form in calm, placid shelf environments and according to two YEC scientists Baumgardner and Barnette currents would have reached 90-180 mph. Also, no aquatic animal could survive the brackish waters that would accompany the flood."
Oh, so you are a marine biologist now?
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "There's a lot of stuff here, but nothing that really 'disproves' an old earth. "
This statement shows how much you missunderstand this debate. Nothing PROVES a young earth, and nothing PROVES an old earth. That is my entire objection. No one knows for certainty how old the earth is. There are arguments and counter-arguments on both sides. But there is only one side that doesn't seem to realize this and is pretending to have "mountains of evidence", proving an old earth. Baloney!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron I am not surprised that someone who has found a way to make the Bible say "red" and yet mean "blue" doesn't have a problem with anything. As long as you can find a counter-argument then everything is OK... However, if you have a counter-argument then why don't you present it yourself instead of sending me off to search some site that doesn't even make sure its references are up to date.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron The reason you don't think there a problem is given in your post "easily explainable", "I found a counter-argument", and then you give me instructions to find the "counter argument" in a site that doesn't even seem to have a search facility.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "living fossils, I have no problem with that - nobody does, really"
So now you are a spokesman for everyone? I have heard claims like that so many times before. It's funny, nothing seems to be a problem for anyone in this debate. We seem to live in a problem free world.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron If you had watched the video link I sent you instead of hurrying on to find a rebuttal then you would have noticed that she obviously no longer doubts that the cells were blood cells. Despite that, your precious OEC sites leave these quotes on their pages. I wonder why..
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron That was 8 years ago!!! You go on about "selectively reporting data" and yet you direct me to sites with OEC agenda that publish old material and quotes that no longer apply. These should have been removed YEARS AGO. What does it matter that Mary Schweitzer said a decade or so ago that she didn't believe the cells to be blood cells?
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Here's something for you. Visit Reasons to Believe (which I doubt you've ever done before) search 'dinosaur blood' or 't-rex blood' or whatever you want, and an article (written in 2011) will show. Click there, I'm sure you'll see the reason why YECs immediately go piggy-back on this argument that is outdated itself, and how it's just faulty.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby If you're not satisfied with RTBs view on the Dinosaur blood, you can of course always search the internet for older articles. There are no RECENT arguments that I know of that these pages don't address.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Dinosaur blood cells ... I already explained that"
Explained what? Either you are not listening or are so eager to find a quick rebuttal that you don't take the time to check thing out. It is vitally important to make sure that your references are UP TO DATE. The "rebuttals" you provide are OLD. Not ONE of them provide a reference that questions the blood cell issue that is more recent than 2004!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby That's ridiculous. If you have searched this subject on the internet, you would have found several articles addressing the so-called 'problem'. I've found about eight so far. And it doesn't matter if they were written in 2004, is that really a huge problem to you? The YEC claims are so old nobody needs to repeat the rebuttals.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron On second thoughts, why don't you just think your arguments through instead of pretending you know what you're talking about..
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Hah. Me? Arrogant aren't you, haven't you been listening to what I've been saying all this time? Besides, I believe you're pretending to know what you're talking about. It seems that you haven't taken a closer look at Old Earth Creationism. You're throwing the most typical arguments at me. All these OEC sites explain it better than I could, yet I doubt you've even visited them yet. If you really had looked at all the evidence you would see that YEC is absolutely mad!
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby It also appears YECs make too many assumptions. The Global Flood model is an example of that.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CalumAtheron "Actually, there's something called a 'cat scan' that reveals the interior of the fossils, without having to saw it open. Ever hear of those? "
Well that sounds like a good example of old earth arrogance to me. Listen kid, cat scanning cannot detect soft material in dino bones! If you disagree then why don't you get in touch with Mary Schwietzer and tell her how stupid she was for sawing the bones apart instead of just scanning them!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Trying to make it into a calculation doesn't make sense since it was part of a convenant made to the Israelites of that time, which wasn't 12,000 years ago. Also, you haven't addressed my suggestion that you count the ages in the generations from Adam to Christ. The very thing that CAN be calculated!
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby "Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments."
All four covenants, which have happened over the timespan of all of humanity, can refer to the covenants along with 'a thousand generations' in Deuteronomy, Psalm, and Chronicles.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Now here's a problem. Ussher's chronology by Biblical geneology fails on a condition. The following is copied (yes, I copied and pasted, so don't get all knotted up again) from EFGFS:
Biblical genealogies fall into three main categories according to their purpose: familial, legal–political, and religious.4 Familial (or domestic) genealogies were primarily concerned with inheritance and privileges of firstborn sons.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Legal–political genealogies are primarily centered on claims to a hereditary office, but other examples include establishing ancestry for land organization, territorial groupings, and military service. Religious genealogies were primarily used to establish membership in the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods. The function of a genealogy largely determines its structure and organization.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby In each of these cases, there is little reason or need to give a complete listing of names, since it is ancestry, not the actual number of generations, that is important.
Very short genealogies are typically for the purpose of identifying a person’s tribal or genealogical grouping. The clearest example of this is the division of Israel into tribes based on which of the 12 patriarchs they were descended from.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby This tribal division was important for determining traveling arrangements (Numbers 2; 10) and allocation of land (Joshua 13–21). Each tribe was subdivided into divisions and further subdivided into clans according to which son and grandson of the patriarchs they were descendent from. For example, the Levites were assigned different duties according to which Levitical division they belonged to.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby So, it was usually sufficient to list only a person’s tribe, division, and clan to identify their place in society. This interest in genealogical identification is also seen in the time of King David and again in the time of return from exile. At these later times, genealogies often were given in terms of other key historical figures (Aaron, Moses, David, etc.) rather than going all the way back to the patriarchs.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby For example, Matthew starts his Gospel with “Jesus, son of David, son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). This very terse genealogy is a prelude to Matthew’s longer genealogy (Matthew 1:3–17). Some additional examples: (it then goes on to list 31 Biblical gaps and meanings of the word 'begat' and so on. If you want to see for yourself just visit the site and search 'genesis chronology'. Then come back to me with problems you have with their explanation.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "even if the generations were 12 years, it would mean 12,000 years, correct?"
No. You are still seeing this as a mathematical equation, which it is not. There are expressions in the Hebrew language just as there are in ours. These verses are just another way of saying God will love you and your offspring for ages and ages.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby So apparently we can take all verses poetically until it comes to a young earth. To me the Bible says 'a thousand generations'. So IF we were to take each biblical generation, and calculate it to be around 6,000 years, it would be 100-200 generations. Unless you think we humans can be around for 60,000 more years, which I doubt. These verses is more than likely to be taken literally, being the average number of generations. Humanity can be anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 yrs old.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Therefore it would be more logical to say 'loves us for 100 generations/200 generations' if it was meant to be taken as 'ages and ages'. However all the verses never say anything like that, they all say 'a thousand generations'. You might say they are poetic in meaning, but I can also say 'day' is poetic in meaning. You can't have both, you know -_-
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CalumAtheron "To accumulate so much material as we see spread throughout the entire universe cannot happen in a space of just six 24 hour days."
I don't get you. On the one hand you are asserting that God is "outside of time" and "not restricted" and on the other side you are telling me what God cannot do. What does astronomy have to do with what God can or cannot do?
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Having only a one-sided viewpoint is true ignorance in my books. I might be wrong about some things, but I am definitely not ignorant.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron It is only after a great deal of work and patience that you learn what these confident people are NOT saying. However, despite doing this for years and years, and yet I am constantly accused of being ignorant. The ironical thing is that most of the people who are calling me ignorant have not spent as much time as I have in checking out the strength of the opposing arguments.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby You must have been looking at the evidences in the 1980s, because old earth creationism is much more powerful today. Evidence for God from science, Answers in Creation, Reasons to Believe... have you even visited those sites in your life? They address your 'problems' with the radiometric dating techniques used today, as well as countless others.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "I think it's appropriate to say that you are the one who's ignoring the conflicting evidence instead."
I don't think so. I have been following debates concerning evolution and the age of the earth on a daily basis for years, and I have been careful from the start to look at this from both sides. In fact I have switched sides many times, because it is difficult at first not to be swept away by confident arguments that at first glance seem so watertight.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Hahahaha, then you obviously have not been looking at it closely enough. If you truly were unbiased, then you wouldn't be so hostile and arrogant, would you? There are too many problems with the global flood view, as well as the YEC one overall.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Obviously, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" EXCEPT when someone comes along and says "Did God really say?" (Gen 3:1), rendering it useless!
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 You're ridiculous. That's not what I'm saying at all. The creation account is still under dispute and is either long or short. You seem very much like the flat-earth geocentristics of the previous centuries.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Given the way you "literally" interpret scripture, you can change ANYTHING in the bible and claim that "this is what God really meant". I can hardly believe you seriously mean this! But hey, why should I be surprised, this is the way anyone with an agenda twists scripture to support their arguments. I was raised by mediums that used the same tactics to make scripture say what they wanted it to say. Anyone can do that!
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 Are you just a block-headed dimwit?
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The "Day of the Lord" also refers to a long period of time.
Early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose ALL believed in long creation days.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@updr12 Also the Bible says that the land produced vegetation on the third day. this obviously would take place over a period more than just 24 hours long. It doesn't say he went 'pop' there's a full-grown tree, no, it says the land produced it.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@updr12 I think the verses Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8, which all say that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations", go well with what you are saying here. Even if a typical biblical generation is not forty years (which in my opinion it is) what do you believe it is, a six-year generation? That's absurd!!! The date for humanity is longer than just 6,000 years! We have evidence for Aborigines reaching Australia roughly 40,000 years ago!
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron But even here, I will gladly step back and give you ample opportunity to support your assumption that she was "not pressured in any way". Although I don't know how you could possible know that, but since you seem to have some inside information about her that I do not have access to, and I feel it my duty to let you present it.
Just lay it out on the table for everyone to see!
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "The scientific community did not pressure her in any way."
Oh, so this is something you know for a fact is it? Here, to start with, you can judge for yourself whether or not blood cells were found, but it is also evident whether or not Schwietzer was pressured. Here she admits her apprehension of presenting her findings, and according to Leslie Stahl she was "attacked" by her peers:
watch?v=DB69zCwbBPY
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron But just to give you an opportunity to prove your point, please tell me how many dinosaur bones you are familiar with that have been sawn open without soft tissue inside? ... a rough estimate will do.
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 Actually, there's something called a 'cat scan' that reveals the interior of the fossils, without having to saw it open. Ever hear of those? This is how people determine the makeup of the skeleton, even seeing the internal structures of the veins, if they are preserved enough.
Another example of young earth arrogance.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "conflicting evidence? What evidence in the old earth viewpoint do you find to conflict with each other?"
I'm not talking about conflicting evidence WITHIN the old earth viewpoint, I'm talking about conflicting evidence BETWEEN the old age viewpoint and observable data. The rate of recession of the moon from the earth is one example of observable data, but there are more. If you google "101 reasons to believe in a young earth" you can see a few more.
UppsalaDragby 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Interesting... DNA in ancient fossils (Ancient DNA, wikipedia) and Lazarus bacteria (I merely searched 'Lazarus bacteria' and I got a decent explanation) decay rates in the human genome (i have no problem with the idea that humans are many thousands of years old only) mitochondrial eve (I believe in Eve but I'm not even sure about that) Dinosaur blood cells (I already explained that. If not search Answers in Creation and Evidence for God from science, and Reasons to Believe)
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby living fossils, I have no problem with that - nobody does, really. Missing organisms in the fossil record suddenly appear surviving today. Well that's easily explainable - 'The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years.' actually I found a counter-argument on Answers in Creation, you'll find it if you bother to visit the site as well.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@UppsalaDragby Coconico sandstone's on the site as well - that's addressed in Answers in Creation.
There's a lot of stuff here, but nothing that really 'disproves' an old earth. Personally, I think worldwide chalk layers disprove the flood, because chalk can only form in calm, placid shelf environments and according to two YEC scientists Baumgardner and Barnette currents would have reached 90-180 mph. Also, no aquatic animal could survive the brackish waters that would accompany the flood.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "If dinosaur fossils were as YECs claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news."
You are clutching at straws. In order for these things to be recovered, the bones must be split apart and damaged in some way, which is something scientists are reluctant to do!
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Soft tissues have been found on other fossils, and DNA has been found from samples more than 300,000 yrs old."
DNA might have been found, but whether the samples are as old as this is the point of contention, so how on earth can you possibly submit this as an argument?
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Listen, the moon is receding from the earth's gravity at a constant rate today! If you do your calculations backwards through time then you will realize that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the age of the earth to be as old as it is claimed. However, the selective reporting of data of evolutionists rejects whatever is conflict with the theoretical model they are trying to defend.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique."
As I have already pointed out, ALL dating methods, not just those classified as radiometric, are based on the assumption that RATES measured today have been constant backwards through time. This is called uniformatarinism. No matter which of these you choose to play around with, a constant rate today proves NOTHING unless you can demonstrate that it has always been constant.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "The bone is? well preserved, so much that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but should not be exaggerated."
Exaggerated? Any dinosaur bone that is 80 myo should be mineralized, not sticking out the side of a cliff! The reason it's so "well preserved" is obvious!!
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron I hate it when people try to bluff their way through a discussion and don't seem to be able to think for themselves. What on earth do you think happened here? Did a bunch of creationists secretly inject red, soft, blood-like cellular objects into the bones of dinosaurs just to fool evolutionist?
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 No, I already told you. they found evidence of decayed hemoglobin bits and pieces and structures that MIGHT represent altered blood remains. Visit Answers in Creation website, it has two or three articles addressing the t-rex 'soft tissue' argument. I would have posted a link, but for some reason it won't let me. I would also suggest visiting Evidence for God from science as well.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "Schweitzer did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells."
Oh!... Plese try to use your OWN arguments rather than just pasting in someone else's. No one likes to debate with a copy-and-paster. You are using a comment that was made at least ONE YEAR AGO based on a paper that was written FOUR YEARS AGO! Since then the experiment has been REPEATED in other dinosaurs, and more evidence has come to light.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "What I meant was that none of the main scientific theories or facts today rely on selective reporting of data like YEC 'science' does."
OK, please explain how you know for a fact that the none of the "main scientific theories" (which would obviously include evolution) do now rely on selective reporting. While you are at it, you might as well tell me what "data" YEC's are excluding. I will interpret any failure to do so as a CLEAR indication that you are bluffing.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "If you do not hold to the idea that the speed of light is slowing down, then how do you explain the multi-million light years away stars and galaxies?"
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem, but let me ask you this, do you think it is possible for God to create two stars instantaneously at the same time millions of light years apart?
If he can do this then obviously he can also create light in between the stars, instantaneously. So,... no problem at all!
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "The Big Bang is not an atheist idea"
So what??? Am I supposeto be impressed? I would rather believe in verifiable facts produced by atheists than a theory that some catholic monk conjured up in his head. There is absolutely NO reason for anyone to go beyond what is observable, repeatable and testable. Beyond that boundary we have nothing more than faith issues, which is something I have no problems with, as long as they are presented as such.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Can you provide the name of ONE biblical schollar who thinks that every instance of the word generation should be used as a parameter in some kind of ridiculous calculation? So instead of making such wild claims about "generations", why don't you add up the ACTUAL ages of the people in Jesus' genealogy and see where you land.
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron "the biblical generation is usually referred to as being 40 years."
Really? Usually referred to by whom? People on the internet that speculate about the length in time of a certain prophecy, or by professional biblical scholars who take the time to carfully study the language, the context, colloquialisms, contemporary customs of the Jews, and so on?
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 Okay, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the Bible never makes 1 reference to a generation being forty years, but even if the generations were 12 years, it would mean 12,000 years, correct? Also, the first generations were much longer, nearly 1,000 years each. How long do you think THAT would make the date of humanity for? It is highly improbable people spread over the planet in a period of less than 1,000 years or so after the flood.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Patience is a synonym for "longsuffering". Without a measure of suffering there is no "patience". Waiting for repentance is motivated by God's love. Waiting for billions of years just for the sake of it, is ridiculous.
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 Waiting for billions of years 'just for the sake of it' you say? I explain it to you over and over again, yet for some reason you can't cool off and listen. To accumulate so much material as we see spread throughout the entire universe cannot happen in a space of just six 24 hour days. Each day was billions/millions of years, where the stars dying and giving birth supplied enough material for planetary formation. Do you know nothing of astronomy?
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron There is nothing in scripture that indicates that God has patience in any other context that in waiting for mankind to repent. You might CLAIM that God had patience to wait for billions of years for something to happen, but what reasoning, or scripture, can you submit to support such a stupid idea?
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 The 'stupid idea' that God is outside of time, of course. He is outside of time, and therefore he is not restricted to our timeline. Unless, of course, you think God is finite and is trapped inside our 3-dimensional space with time only travelling forward, instead of being infinite.
God waited billions of years because we would need the slow and steady accumalation of materials to support life. It doesn't matter how long it took to him, but to us and our physical universe.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron What on earth do you think we need biblical scholars for? Especially when we have so much "overwhelming evidence". The trouble is that the amount of overwhelming evidence depends entirely on how easily overwhelmed you are. And how much you ignore conflicting evidence.
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 conflicting evidence? What evidence in the old earth viewpoint do you find to conflict with each other? Personally, I find many 'flood geology' ideas to conflict with each other more than any other theory I have come across. I think it's appropriate to say that you are the one who's ignoring the conflicting evidence instead.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Are you serios? Do you mean that we should use the assumptions of secular scientists to determine which parts of scripture are poetic and which are not? Who in their right mind would take something like that seriously?
updr12 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Anyone trying to say that the Bible says that the earth IS a circle, might just as well claim that we ARE grasshoppers. That is not what these verses are saying.
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 I was saying that the Earth was a sphere, and I interpret the 'grasshopper' part to mean we are infinitely small and stupid in his presence. the reason I interpret this verse literally is because here it states where he sits enthroned, and then uses a metaphor to describe his majesty in comparison to us. I, for one, interpret the later part of the verse (Describing the expansion of heavens) as literal as well.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron Actually there is a word for sphere, or "ball" at least (duwr), and as you can see it is used in Isa 22:18. However, the solution is not just to shrug and say "it could go both ways". The proper way to interpret scripture is to study the context. In Isaiah 40:22 the context is how things appear from God's perspective. From a distance the earth looks like a circle and we look like grasshoppers.
updr12 1 month ago
@updr12 'He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.'
we are obviously infinitely small in comparison to God, I get that. However 'chuwg' can indeed go either way, either it means circle or it means sphere. The ancients thought it to mean circle - however when science became better they came to understand it meant 'sphere' seeing as the Earth was round.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@updr12 This scenario is much like today - YECs like you look at the creation passage and see it the way the ancients did, without their science and technology (much like the flat-earthers did) eventually the evidence for a globe-shaped earth became so overwhelming that they decided here circle did indeed mean sphere. The Hebrews interpreted it to mean circle, but later on in the future we would see that God was hinting, and it meant sphere.
CalumAtheron 1 month ago
@CalumAtheron When a secular, evolutionary scientist recently discovered soft tissue and blood cells in dino bones that were supposedly 80-90 myo, the "pressure" from her peers became evident when they tried to harrass her into admitting she was wrong. However, she wasn't and lucki