Why is earth's AGE important to you?

[PrincetonGuy]

Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth

What does the Bible tell us about the age of the earth? Not only does the Bible describe how God created Earth and its life forms in six days, Genesis also contains detailed genealogies and chronologies. Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, one can deduce Earth’s age to be about 6,000 years.1,2...

www.icr.org

The author of “Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth” is Jeffrey Tomkins, an employee of the Institute for Creation Research. Like the other 42 or so “Ph.D. Scientists” around the world identified by Young earth Creationist organizations he is opposed by well over 3,000,000 men and women who have earned one or more doctorates in one or more fields of science and who are currently employed as scientists rather than as religious workers promoting Young earth Creationism.

 

[Vambram]

I am well aware of Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins field of scientific education and credentials. He is not employed as a religious worker. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is the Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He has a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University, an M.S. in Plant Science from the University of Idaho, and a B.S. in Agriculture Ed. from Washington State University. He was a faculty member in Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson University for a decade, where he published 57 secular research papers and seven book chapters in the areas of genetics, genomics, and proteomics. For the past six years, he has been a Research Scientist at ICR specializing in genomics and bioinformatics research, where he has published 24 peer-reviewed creation science journal papers, two books, and a wide variety of semi-technical articles in the ICR magazine Acts & Facts.

 

[Vambram]

Instead of apparently dismissing Dr. Tomkins as being irrelevant or a "religious worker", perhaps you might want to discuss what he wrote in the article which I posted?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I am well aware of Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins field of scientific education and credentials. He is not employed as a religious worker. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is the Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He has a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University, an M.S. in Plant Science from the University of Idaho, and a B.S. in Agriculture Ed. from Washington State University. He was a faculty member in Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson University for a decade, where he published 57 secular research papers and seven book chapters in the areas of genetics, genomics, and proteomics. For the past six years, he has been a Research Scientist at ICR specializing in genomics and bioinformatics research, where he has published 24 peer-reviewed creation science journal papers, two books, and a wide variety of semi-technical articles in the ICR magazine Acts & Facts.

I am well aware of Jeffrey Tomkins education and credentials, especially of the fact that he earned his Ph.D. from Clemson University where he studied agricultural genetics rather than the genetics of natural populations. In fact, Clemson University is a very small university that does not offer any programs in the biology of natural populations or evolutionary biology. Furthermore, the Institute for Creation Research is NOT science based—it based upon very modern religious interpretations of Genesis 1-11—interpretations that were thoroughly debunked more than a century ago! Therefore, their employees are not scientists—they are religious workers.

Some ancient Jewish rabbis continued to believe into the 8th century A.D. that Genesis 1-11 was an accurate, literal account of actual historic events. Ancient Christian scholars, however, were writing at least as early as the first half of the third century A.D. that Genesis 1-11 is not and could not possibly be a literal account of any events. Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430) spent much of his Christian life attempting to reconcile the observable world that God had created with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Late in his life, he published a two-volume work on Genesis 1-4 with the title De Genesi ad litteram (Literal Meaning of Genesis) in which he wrote that that he had not succeeded in his endeavor. See also the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Volume 1 on Genesis 1-11 in which numerous ancient Christians are quoted in context to reveal their non-literal interpretations of the passages of Genesis that were of special interest to them.

With the publication of De Genesi ad litteram, the issue of the literalness of Genesis 1-11 was essentially set aside until 1961 when two men raised it to the forefront of a new movement called Young Earth Creationism. One of these men did not know even so much as the first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet and had never earned even so much as an A.A. degree from a junior college in any field of the natural sciences. The other man had studied geology and paleontology for one year but changed the focus of his studies to ancient and European history and graduated in 1948 from Princeton University. He then enrolled at Grace Theological Seminary and in 1951 he completed a course of study for a B.D. Together, these two men authored a book with the title, The Genesis Flood. Although academicians viewed it as rubbish, Christian fundamentalists with a very limited education have believed every word of it without ever fact checking it.

 

[Vambram]

Furthermore, the Institute for Creation Research is NOT science based—it based upon very modern religious interpretations of Genesis 1-11—interpretations that were thoroughly debunked more than a century ago! Therefore, their employees are not scientists—they are religious workers.

I completely and totally disagree with you there.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Instead of apparently dismissing Dr. Tomkins as being irrelevant or a "religious worker", perhaps you might want to discuss what he wrote in the article which I posted?

The article is religious nonsense with no basis of scientific fact so there is nothing to discuss. We are now well into the 21st century and Christians should know better than to accept the word of religious workers pedaling false science over the word of well over 3,000,000 actual scientists who have devoted their lives to helping us to better understand and appreciate the wonders of God’s creation.

 

[Vambram]

Again, you have decided to attack the writer of the article, and use the fallacy of 3 million actual scientists and "religious nonsense" instead of attempting to address the scientific, logical arguments within the article.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Again, you have decided to attack the writer of the article, and use the fallacy of 3 million actual scientists and "religious nonsense" instead of attempting to address the scientific, logical arguments within the article.

There are no scientific, logical arguments within the article. It is nothing but religious drivel based upon gross ignorance of the Bible and a radical disregard for the truths that God himself has chosen to make known to us through the natural sciences.

 

[Job 33:6]

Again, you have decided to attack the writer of the article, and use the fallacy of 3 million actual scientists and "religious nonsense" instead of attempting to address the scientific, logical arguments within the article.

As a scientist myself, who is able to comfortably engage the articles that these YEC institutes produce, and as a Christian who is comfortable studying the Bible through a faithful lense...

You should understand that these YEc organizations, they start with a hermeneutic known as "scientific concordism" and then they read their hermeneutic into their scientific work. So their science is based on how they read the Bible. It's not actually based on the scientific method as most conventional scientists operate, Christian and non-christian alike.

Do you know what scientific concordism is?

 

[The Barbarian]

Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth

​

Well, let's take a look at those...

Soft Tissues and Biomolecules in Fossils

First, it's not tissue. There aren't even intact cells. But there are some biomolecules that chemists say can last many millions of years, if stabilized by iron. What they found was heme. Heme is a fragment of a hemoglobin molecule. Contains iron. And the heme from a T. rex did show us something important. The T. rex heme was more like that of birds than of other reptiles, again confirming that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.

Ancient Microbe Resurrections

In 2000, scientists claimed to have revived a 250-million-year-old bacterium from salt, though they could not definitively prove that their zombie bacteria weren't modern contaminates.

830 million-year-old organisms found locked in ancient crystals could be resurrected

Ancient salt crystals trapped ancient life.

www.livescience.com

It would be cool if bacterial cells could go dormant for that long. Chemists say it's possible, but we don't know for sure yet. Nothing to do with the age of the Earth, of course.

Degeneration of the Human Genome

Let's see... lactose tolerance, high-altitude adaptations, ability to deep dive for long periods of time, etc. All evolved traits that are very useful. As anyone who wasn't sleeping in high school science classes knows, there is no "devolving." There is only change, which is what evolution is. You're taking advice from someone who knows no more than you do.

Evidence for Mitochondrial Eve and Recent Origin of Y-Chromosome Adam

These are not the true Adam or the true Eve. They are respectively the last common male and female ancestors of all humans living today. This one is just super dumb; anyone who read the literature or even reports in popular news sources would have known this. It's so dumb, I suspect the writer knew the truth but hoped you wouldn't.

Unchanged Living Fossils (Stasis)

Evolutionary theory predicts stasis for well-fitted populations in constant environments. Darwin wrote about it. But that's not the biggest goof your guy made here. He points out coelacanths as an example. But neither genera of today's coelacanths is found in the fossil record. They are very different from the ancient, fresh-water coelacanths. Again, these are such basic things in biology that I suspect the writer is just hoping you don't know any better.

According to the evolutionary timeline, humans diverged from a chimp-like ancestor three to six million years ago. In that case, there ought to be many billions of people living today or buried in the fossil record. With the world’s human population now approaching eight billion, the evolutionary story falls completely short—there should be many more of us.

Amazingly stupid. The writer imagines (or pretends) that human population has increased at a constant rate since the beginning. In fact, it has increased and decreased over time. Medieval Europe lost one-third of its population in just two decades in one epidemic alone. And the world has experienced exponential growth in human population after the advent of agriculture, and again after the industrial revolution.

Be more careful who you trust. When some one tells you something you really want to be true, it's a good time to be skeptical and check out that claim. Saves me some embarrassment.

Might work for you, too.

 

[Vambram]

As a scientist myself, who is able to comfortably engage the articles that these YEC institutes produce, and as a Christian who is comfortable studying the Bible through a faithful lense...

You should understand that these YEc organizations, they start with a hermeneutic known as "scientific concordism" and then they read their hermeneutic into their scientific work. So their science is based on how they read the Bible. It's not actually based on the scientific method as most conventional scientists operate, Christian and non-christian alike.

Do you know what scientific concordism is?

The OEC scientists, and even the evolutionism scientists, also do what I believe would be reverse scientific concordism. They start with the belief that the earth, the galaxies, and the universe must be billions of years old. Then, they deduct conclusions of the evidence based upon that belief.

 

[Job 33:6]

The OEC scientists, and even the evolutionism scientists, also do what I believe would be reverse scientific concordism. They start with the belief that the earth, the galaxies, and the universe must be billions of years old. Then, they deduct conclusions of the evidence based upon that belief.

That's a form of concordism too. Concordism is just when people try to accord science and the Bible. But you're right. YECs usually try to adjust science, while OECs to be fair, try to read science into the Bible thereby adjusting the text.

The solution of course, is to recognize that they're both wrong. There is another option. And that is, to view the Bible in its original ancient near east context, in a non-concordist way.

The following video may help explain:

The Book of Genesis explained by Dr. John Walton

Dr. John Walton Explains the book of GenesisPlease Like, Share, and Subscribe...--------- MORE CONTENT FROM CHIP ---------------------------------------...

www.youtube.com

 

[Diamond7]

All the rest came out of stars.

I think there is something about this in the Bible. We are told

Rev 1:16a, Jesus is portrayed as holding the seven stars in his right hand. This represents the 7 churches.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think there is something about this in the Bible. We are told Rev 1:16a, Jesus is portrayed as holding the seven stars in his right hand. This represents the 7 churches.

I don't think God thought it was important to tell us where elements came from. He wanted us to know from where our blessing came, and Who loved us and wanted us to be with Him for eternity.

 

[The Barbarian]

They start with the belief that the earth, the galaxies, and the universe must be billions of years old.

Actually, science started with the belief that they universe was a few thousand years old. Then, as the evidence accumulated, they realized that it was much older. Since the Bible doesn't say how old it is, they had no problem going with the evidence.

 

[Diamond7]

OECs to be fair, try to read science into the Bible thereby adjusting the text.

The Bible is subject to interpretation and translation. Gerald Schroeder tries to avoid his version of OEC from being influenced by modern science. I am not as good at that as Schroeder is. I allow modern science to influence my translation and interpretation.


Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[Vambram]

I believe that one of the very best ways to interpret passages of Scriptures is by comparing those verses with other passages and verses of the Bible that were written about the same, or similar topics.

 

[Diamond7]

3,000,000 actual scientists

We owe them a debt of gratitude for gathering the natural evidence. We do not need them to interpret that evidence for us, we can do that for ourselves. For example we can look at ice cores and see they go back 800,000 years.

I don't think God thought it was important to tell us where elements came from.

We can look at what the Bible says about this. For example Job 38:4 "“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand." "5Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?…"

Ephesians 1:4​

"Before the world was created, God had Christ choose us to live with him and to be his holy and innocent and loving people."
God chose us before the world was created? How can that be. He makes us from the dust of this world. So how could He choose us long before He make us?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think God thought it was important to tell us where elements came from.

We can look at what the Bible says about this. For example Job 38:4 "“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand." "5Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?…"

Yep. It's not something He intended to tell us.

 

[trophy33]

I believe that one of the very best ways to interpret passages of Scriptures is by comparing those verses with other passages and verses of the Bible that were written about the same, or similar topics.

The best way to interpret passages of any literature is to understand their immediate textual and general cultural context.