Talk:Date of creation

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Good NPOV article as it stands! This is the first neutral treatment of a YEC topic I have yet seen. Wowzers. That said, I just have to comment on how ridiculous the idea of a 4004 bc creation date is. We have Egyptian mummies from 8,000 B.C.!-AmesGyo! 23:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget that YEC's may not accept dating methods used by archaeologists. --Ed Poor 23:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I am the token OEC here... MountainDew 23:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
The linked article points two two different variants of OEC. There is the "the original 6 days are metaphorical and can be billions of years" and there is the "it was 6x 24 hour days, but with the abridgment of the lineage, it could be thousands of years between significant events than the genealogy would suggest" --Mtur 23:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL I know you're the token OEC creationist MountainDew :-). You really are in the minority, aren't you, which is sad, because you're so much more cool and reasonable.-AmesGyo! 23:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Please explain how on earth an article which presupposes there WAS a creation can ever have a NPOV. First of all, the term "creation" implies a creator, whereas many scientific theories of how the universe may have begun either have no definitive starting point (e.g. Steady-State), or have no preceding moments prior to the instant (see Hawking's notions about how the edge of time/space folds back to give no distinct 'creation' moment'), or there were events which preceded the 'big bang', but these occur outside conventional 4 dimensional space-time. Yes 'big bang' admittedly is a scientific theory which does have a 'creation' moment, but this theory does not comment on what might have preceded it, or whether anything might have caused such an event other than quantum vaccuum fluctuations. Where is ANY of this stuff in the article???

--CatWatcher 16:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's only had this title for a week or so. It is clearly talking primarily about the Biblical record of creation, not other "creation" events, so perhaps there is a case for renaming it to reflect that. Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

An intresting quote

I find this quote interesting:

"In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which may otherwise appear reasonable. The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern." Comments of B.B. Warfield on Dr. Green

--Mtur 23:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

One wonders how he missed the chronogenealogies in Genesis to make a statement like that. Philip J. Rayment 11:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
II Peter 3:8: 'One day is with the LORD as a thousand years...' --Petrus 11:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
And the rest of the verse: '...and a thousand years is as one day.' That just cancelled that out. Philip J. Rayment 11:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

American Time

Since you are pro-american, you should use an america based timezone

--Stitch75 19:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Heh heh. The article as it currently stands was largely written by me, and I'm an Aussie, so I don't agree! I could give a serious reply or two, but I presume that wasn't meant as a serious comments, so I won't. Philip J. Rayment 05:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Secular Science

"Based mainly on geological dating methods, however, secular scientific research generally dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 billion (4.5 * 109) years ago."

Isn't saying 'secular science' redundant? GodlessLiberal 17:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not, given that (a) modern science owes its existence to a Christian worldview, and (b) not all scientists are secular. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Regardless of a scientist's religious convictions, wouldn't all research be secular? How can you research the supernatural? GodlessLiberal 13:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to get into an argument on semantics and whether it is exactly the correct term, but there is a difference between refusing to consider a supernatural cause and allowing for a supernatural cause. You can't measure/test/observe the supernatural, but you can deduce a supernatural cause and observe the effects of a supernatural cause. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I just thought that measure/test/observe was just about the entire basis of the scientific method. I've been known to pull B's in science classes though, so I could be wrong here. GodlessLiberal 22:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, measuring, testing, and observing are the basis of the scientific method. But we are talking about origins science here. See origins science in science. Philip J. Rayment 23:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

So... judging by the editing going on, creation scientists aren't Christian, but objective scientists are secular? Are the Conservapedia sysops trying to bait people, or do they really think that the majority of people think that way? Jazzman831 22:39, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

You have interesting logic. Changing "Christian researchers" to "creation scientist" does not mean that that latter are not Christian. And where does it say that objective scientists are secular? Or would you be reading your own beliefs into the text?
Sorry about the bracket. I didn't delete it; I just (accidentally) put it in the footnote instead of the main text.
Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
My own beliefs? You were the one who added the word secular back in. There is absolutely no reason why a scientist who has concluded that the evidence leads to the big bang must be non Christian. And, since the creation "science" calculation is based entirely on the Bible, there is no reason to believe that a creation "scientist" isn't Christian, no?
And I didn't think the bracket got deleted I just couldn't find it anywhere! Ha ha. Jazzman831 13:01, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
You are correct that some Christians believe in the Big Bang. However, the "science" of the Big Bang is secular, in that it first rejects the Biblical explanation to come up with a naturalistic one.
Yes, the creationist calculation comes from a book that claims to be a historical record, but we are, after all, talking about history here, not science. The study of things in the present (with the scientific method) is science. The study of the past is history. The best sources we have for history are historical documents.
And why do you put the words "science" and "scientist" after "creation" in quotes? Are you questioning whether they really are scientists, despite their being no room for doubt on that?
Philip J. Rayment 20:50, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
If you take into context that there are two ways to interpret the Bible, specifically Genesis, you don't have to reject the Bible to study the Big Bang. In addition, I would certainly hope that creation scientists also reject the Biblical information when they do their research/science before they conclude that the world was created (literally) as it says in the Bible. If they do not reject this assumption than how can any of their science be valid? I just think that the word secular in this case is unfair and it does not say to the general reader what you think it says.
As for creation "science" I was specifically referencing calculating the date of the creation, as in this article. There are creation scientists, but they support the calculation of the age of the earth made by creation researchers. If this is not a correct interpretation of the date of creation then we need to fix the article to include this (I'm only as good as my data!)Jazzman831 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
There are multiple ways to interpret any document, hypothetically, but a straightforward reading of the Bible (creation from the formation of the universe to the appearance of man took six days, plus the order of creation, including the Earth before the stars) in totally incompatible with the Big Bang scenario.
Why should creation scientists reject what they and I would argue is the most reliable source of information? The Biblical worldview is what gave rise to science, so rejecting that amounts to rejecting the basis for science. But remember (I think I said it in on this page) that we are talking history here, not science, and although science can be a useful tool in studying history, it cannot prove the history for us. Therefore we all start with assumptions; the creationary assumption is that the Bible is an accurate history, and it's in that framework that creationary scientists do their science. Atheistic scientists start with the assumption of naturalism, and do their science within that framework.
I find your explanation for putting quotes around "science" hard to accept. If you were using it just for "science" in this context, I'd understand, but that doesn't explain why you also put them around "scientists".
Philip J. Rayment 00:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to combine my literal/allegorical interpretation response below. As for why would they reject a reliable source: if you were to reject Newton's laws, and start from observation and the scientific method, you would still result in deriving Newton's laws. If creation scientists can't reject the Bible and still conclude it is correct, how do they know it is even an accurate resource? They have faith that it is, but faith is not science. And despite the fact that we are talking about history, you can use science to investigate history. You can't determine everything with 100% certainty (at least until we invent time travel), but you can certainly get a good idea of what is happening.
I don't care if you find the explanation hard to accept; this entire discussion you have been interpreting everything I say in the most difficult possible way. How hard is it to understand that if one studies "science" they are a "scientist?" If you buy it for one you must buy it for the other, otherwise you are just being argumentitive. Jazzman831 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
The difference between Newton's laws and the origin of the world is that the Newton's laws are observable; the origin of the world is not. That's why the latter is "history" and the former is not history. Thus your analogy is invalid.
How do creation scientists know that creation is correct without referring to the Bible? As scientists, they can't, just as evolutionary scientists can't know that their story is correct. But unlike the evolutionary scientists, they have reliable historical documents that reveal the history to them.
I'm sorry if you think that I've been interpreting your comments "in the most difficult possible way", but I've encountered so many people who, for example, simply reject that creation scientist are scientists simply because they are creationists, that I find that I have to drill right down to what they are actually thinking and challenge their presuppositions before it's possible to properly discuss the issue.
Philip J. Rayment 10:07, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Failure to include information

This article suffers from an abject failure to describe the vast bodies of scientific evidence that are in support of a recent date of Creation. Is there anyone willing to take this on? --SimonA 15:52, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Anyone could do it. This includes works by Whitcomb and Morris, links to the Creation Research Institute, various others. Karajou 15:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Dual-user provenance

The expansion that I have just added of James Ussher's calculations of the date of creation are a dual submission of original work. I am the same user as Temlakos on CreationWiki, and the edits to the "Calculated dates" section are based on the section titled "James Ussher" in this version of the CreationWiki article titled Anno Mundi. That section is entirely my own work.--TerryHTalk 20:43, 24 June 2007 (EDT)


Doesn't CreationWiki support both old and young earth creationism. Why is everyone so hung up on the age of the Earth. God made it, who cares how old it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheisticEvolution (talk)

First, why don't you sign your posts? That's what the Signature button is for.
Second: What we're "hung up" on, is the truth, and exerting the best of our ability to find it. We should care how old the earth is because the Bible gives us definite clues that make sense only in the context of a young earth. You will find these clues mainly in Genesis 5 , and then in Genesis 11:10-32 . In short: the chronology and genealogy tell us that only so many years can have passed since Creation.
Now if the Bible is incorrect in this, then it would not be trustworthy in the most important thing to which only the Bible attests--and that is the nature of sin and of the need for Jesus Christ to make amends for it. (I would mention Jesus Christ Himself, except that He is in fact the Best-attested Figure in recorded history, with more references mentioning Him than any other person of historical interest.)--TerryHTalk 14:05, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Wait, so if Genesis isn't giving us a literal timescale, then Jesus wasn't here to save us? I'm going to hold off on my criticism of that statement until I know that I interpreted your statement correctly. Jazzman831 14:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
No, that is not the case. What TerryH said was that if Genesis is incorrect on the timescale, then it would not be trustworthy on other things. He didn't say that it wouldn't be correct on other things. That is, if a person says some false things, it doesn't mean that everything they say is false. But if you know some of what they say is false, why should you take their word on other things that you don't know the accuracy of? Philip J. Rayment 20:53, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
That's why I wanted a clarification :) Jazzman831 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Criticize all you want--but if the Bible is found in definite error on any one point, then it ceases to be trustworthy on any other point.
The Bible itself has multiple testaments to its all-or-nothing standing as regards the truth. For one thing, the phrase rendered in English "His Mercy endureth forever" actually refers not to mercy as we understand it, but to God's Word being His Bond. God is a Being of His Word. If God says that He will do a thing, He does it, and if He says that he will see a thing done, He will see it done. And as a corollary to that, if God says that a thing occurred, then it occurred--and if God went into detail, then those details are matters of fact.
Therefore, if God said that "such-a-man lived so-many years and begat such-a-son," then you can bank on it. And if God gives us a long string of years-at-birth-of-sons, then you can reliably add them up--and you can be sure that only so much time has passed since the beginning of time--at least by an earthly clock, which is the only sort of clock that need matter to us.--TerryHTalk 14:27, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may dissagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed doccupment.
And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. Jazzman831 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
How can Genesis "be true without being literal" when it is making truth-claims?
And what makes you think that the universe looks as old as you think it is? I have seen old people and I've seen young people, and I've seen young people grow old. So if I see a person who's age I don't know, I can compare then to ones that I do know and get at least some idea of their age. And I could say the same for trains, houses, appliances, and almost anything that you like to name. However, I have not seen young earths and old earths and young earths growing old, so I don't have any such yardstick to compare this Earth against. Therefore, I am not in a position to say that it "looks" old, and I suggest that neither are you. Additionally, until the advent of the assumption of uniformitarianism around 200 years ago, virtually nobody thought that the world looked "old" (as in millions of years or more). The idea that it looks "old" has only come about since the idea that it is old has been promoted, not because of looks. So contrary to your claim, I can deny that it "looks like the earth is billions of years old".
The Bible is not unattributed, and not all from the 10th century BC. Philip J. Rayment 21:02, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
If you were to say that someone had an angry look on their face, that would be true and literal. If you were to say that they had a stone-cold glare, that would be true, but not literal. The glare does not change temperature. I believe that, while God created light, dark, earth, water, grass, animals, and man, he didn't make them literally as it is said in Genesis. In this way Genesis is "true without being literal" "when it is making truth-claims"
This is simply a semantics argument. I really hope you know I didn't literally mean the earth "looked" old.
According to the CP Genesis page, it was written somewhere in the vicinity of 1400-500BC. There is also considerable question as to who authored it. Jazzman831 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
You've explained well how something can be true but not literal, but your example was not of a truth-claim, i.e. claiming that something specific is the case, and you've not applied your reasoning to the Bible. How can you read Genesis 1 as "true but not literal", when it is making specific non-metaphorical claims about history?
I've heard a number of people claim that the Earth simply looks old, so no, I didn't realise that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
1400-500 B.C. is not synonymous with the 10th century B.C., is it? And although the Genesis article mentions the later date as being promoted, that date has no credibility.
The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors. In some cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".
Philip J. Rayment 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Again you are being difficult. I am obviously not a Biblical historian so why in the world are you giving me such a hard time about trying to recall the date of Genesis from memory? I remembered the 1000, so I thought 10th century. And all your arguing still doesn't change the meaning of my statement. And it's an insult to my intellegence to assume that I think you can physically look at the earth and see it's 4.54 Ga old. Jazzman831 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
As you are taking offence at some of my responses, I'll limit my response here to just your last point, by reminding you that I've had many people claim that the Earth simply looks old, so it was an understandable, even if incorrect, way to read your comments. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word seemingly later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think hard, about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.

This will probably surprise you, but much of the evidence from the solar system is not consistent with an old system, and an old earth to be a part of it. For example: the planet Mercury ought not have a magnetic field. And yet it does. For another example: the rings of Saturn, as seen by Voyager I, have an intricate pattern that no astronomer has ever been able to explain. And for that matter, the Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the Great Dark Spot on Neptune ought to have dissipated long ago, but have not. These do not add up to an old solar system.

Indeed, were the solar system half as old as the traditional scientists pretend, then the moon ought to have touched the earth that long ago. If the earth were much older than ten thousand years, its own magnetic field ought to have been strong enough to tear it apart.

In short, I don't have to fight contrary evidence. I have examined it and found much of it to be based on either:

  1. Groundless supposition, or:
  2. Outright fraud.--TerryHTalk 17:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
You know very well what arguments are used, especially if you have done as much research as it seems you have. I don't really see any point in listing them, as we both know what we are talking about. Though I would like to see some examples of outright fraud within the mainstream scientific community. And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed so unless you are claiming some sort of systemic conspiracy to ensure old earth theory reigns (for which there is no motive or profit), you should be able to find this fraud through mainstream resources.
I have also done research on creation theory and a lot of that doesn't hold water as well. For example, many of the assertations are that if you were to take X pattern (such as the decay of the earth's magnetic feild or the depletion of the Mississippi river delta, etc) back 4.5 billion years you would get some obviously incorrect result. In other cases they find things that can't yet be explained (or at least they say they can't be explained; since I'm not an expert I just have to believe that the creationists are telling the truth), so therefore all of old earth theory must be wrong. But these are both plagued by incorrect assumptions; the former assumes that any pattern must have been that way from the beginning of time, the latter that old earth theory currently has an answer for everything. (I can't comment specifically on your examples because you have stated them as fact with no way for me to review the evidence myself).
But really there is no point with arguing the science. If every one of your pieces of evidence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt you still have your scripture and your faith; I would need to see mainstream physicists, geologists and mathemetitions disprove, starting from fundamental principals of science, every piece of evidence. This whole thing started because I wanted to know the theology, not the science. Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000? Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away? And why is the earth round? Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth, and all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky. Shouldn't the earth be flat? And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?
By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. Jazzman831 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed...: No fair drawing a distinction between "creationist" and "scientific community" and between "creationist" and "peer-reviewed". Creation scientists are part of the scientific community, and their work is peer reviewed just as much (if not more) than that of non-creationists.
I'll let TerryH respond regarding fraud, but there is a motive for what is not claimed to be a "conspiracy", but for a "ruling paradigm". The motive is a spiritual one—atheists, trying to promote their religious beliefs, want to push an old Earth, simply because it contradicts the Bible.
Regarding your examples of incorrect creationist arguments, you have actually misrepresented the creationist arguments. They don't argue that because something can't be explained, the old-Earth idea is incorrect. Rather, they argue that because the old-Earth idea can't explain something, the old-Earth idea is not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be. Similar with the Mississippi-delta-type arguments. They are not claiming that these arguments disprove an old Earth; they are claiming that old-Earth-type arguments produce results that are not always consistent with an old Earth, and are therefore not reliable (note that I didn't say not correct).
Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000?: Why should he create a world with one and only one layer of ice per year?
Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away?: Why not? The bigger the universe is, the greater He shows His power to be (up to a point).
And why is the earth round?: A) Because that's the way he designed it. B) Because that shape is a good shape for an Earth. Otherwise, there would be some ridiculously-high "mountains" on the corners of the cube (if it was as cube, for example). God makes thing according to (His) good design, not according to whimsical fantasy.
Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth...: And we still use such metaphors today. So what?
...all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky.: Possible if (a) all the world's population has television or similar, or (b) there is some supernatural display allowing this on a near-spherical planet.
Shouldn't the earth be flat?: Why?
And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?: See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.
Philip J. Rayment 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
In answer to your questions: as to 800,000 layers of ice, you're forgetting one big event that probably laid those layers down in one year instead of 800,000: the Great Flood.
The light-time problem takes just a little bit longer to explain. The best model I have seen is the "white-hole" theory by D. Russell Humphreys. That model--which relies on the general theory of relativity, BTW--states that the universe began, not with an explosion of all of space from a point, but rather with the introduction--through a white hole--of lots of matter into what was once empty space, with nothing in it. So much matter came through, in fact, that the universe was too dense for the kind of space-time continuum that we're familiar with. The original space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time.
Gradually, beginning at the edges, this matter began to thin out, and time began to flow. But toward the center, time did not flow until about 6,000 years ago.
So: the earth is 6,000 years old, because 6,000 years of time has flowed near the earth. The rest of the cosmos might be far older--by a clock in the fringes of space. By our clocks, it's all 6,000 years old, but the stars on the fringes have undergone accelerated aging.
Maybe you didn't know that Albert Einstein figured out long ago that time was not uniform. Time, and the flow of time, depend on your frame of reference. And the concept "frame of reference" includes more than position and its derivatives (velocity, acceleration) with respect to time. "Frame of reference" also includes the strength of the local gravity field--because what is gravity, except the curvature of space? And, of course, time always flows more slowly at the bottom of any gravity well than at the top.
The Scriptural reference to "four corners" actually translates as four winds--the four points of the compass. So that doesn't violate physical laws, either. Other verses in Scripture are amply consistent with a rounded earth.
Now about "peer review": I have the direct experience of "peer review." "Peer review" means a bunch of guys sitting around a table and asking each other, "Is this guy for real, or are his theories just flat-out too outrageous to be true?" And contrary to what you might think--and I know this because I've been there--"peer reviewers" are human, too, and they have a human weakness: that they always seek consensus, because they're not willing to think for themselves. And so a creationist submits a paper, and nobody wants even to review it, because his theories are too outrageous for them even to admit the possibilities. Nothing nefarious (well, sometimes it is, but not usually); just a case of "His theory cannot possibly work under our theories, and so his theory must be wrong."
That one logical fallacy has blinded more men to more great scientific discoveries than has any other. It's really simple to fall into through no fault of one's own. It blinded me, too, for many years, until--well, John Newman, the former slave trader, said it best, didn't he? "I once was lost, but now am found;/Was blind, but now I see."--TerryHTalk 21:40, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand all the physics and maths behind Humphreys' model, but I don't think it's true to say that originally there was no "time" dimension. Rather, time was almost stationary (or went backward?). And you mean John Newton, not Newman. Philip J. Rayment 00:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I'll try to respond to everything as succinctly as I can
Peer review: This was mostly a vocabulary ...thing... on my part. What I meant was: find me an example of fraud which was found by people who do not have a vested interest in doing so. In other words, a creation scientist finding fraud by himself would not be credible to me, because finding this fraud only helps his own work. If the creation scientist is the one who finds the fraud, but then the general scientific community (or a credible entry wherein) agrees that there were fraudulent actions, there's no reason not to believe that the fraud took place.
Incorrect creationist arguments: I took these from the Young Earth Creationism page. "Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth" and "Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old." I don't think I'm being unfair with my interpretation (the former quotation is only partial, but the latter is the full quotation from the YEC page). Both of these assume that, when you take these trends back 4.5 billion years, they give you results that we know are wrong. This in no way shows that the old earth theory is "not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be." These are both straw man arguements. No serious old earth scientist would argue that the Mississipi river delta existed 4.5 Ga ago, so this argument does not hold water. No pun intended.
Why should...: None of those answers (Philip) advanced the conversation. I say again, sometimes reading context is a useful skill. Obviously all of those questions were trying to get at the question I've been asking all along. If (a) God could design the universe anyway he wants, (b) you must take the Bible literally for it to be trustworthy, and (c) God is omnipotent, why would God create a universe which leaves certain clues which, when using Occom's razor principal, seem (to the majority of His creation) to destabalize His entire following? And you say that "four corners" was a metaphor! Why can Revelation be a metaphor but not Genesis?
Great Flood: I have had at least 4 college-level courses in which we studied phase diagrams, and one studying heat transfer, and I can safely say that ice couldn't form layers, and for the 800,000 layers (or 794,000) to form all within the timeframe of the flood the amount of cooling needed would be astronomical.
Relativity: I know quite a bit about relativity, but I'm in no way an expert. The white hole view of the cosmos is either supported by Einstein or not.
Again, my intent was never to argue the science, the whole time I've been asking about the theology. I ask for the third time: Who cares when the earth was made, so long as I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? Why fight so hard to get people to believe in the part of the Bible that has nothing to do with the important part, forgiveness of sin? Jazzman831 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Almost all exposure of fraud is by those with a vested interest. The Piltdown fraud was exposed by evolutionists who realised that Piltdown was inconsistent with what they "now" (at the time) believed about the evolution of man, so they had a motive to find fault with it. But I think your main point is that fraud has to be demonstrated as such, not just claimed. On that, I agree, but that can be regardless of motive and regardless of worldview (creationary or evolutionary).
Okay, I retract (and replace) my comment about you misrepresenting the creationist arguments. The page you relied on did not make the point clear (I have clarified it now), but it is true that most creationists (i.e. creationists associated with the main YEC organisations, such as ICR, CMI, AiG, and etc.) do not argue that the arguments listed on the Young Earth Creationism page prove scientifically that the world is not old. The point of those arguments, despite it not being clarified in the leading paragraph of the relevant section of that page, is to show that arguments based on uniformitarian assumptions give inconsistent results, so such arguments are not absolute and not reliable. The Mississippi example is to show that the evidence, according to uniformitarian assumption, is inconsistent with the supposed age of the river, not that it is inconsistent with the age of the planet.
I find that if I "read in context" in cases such as these, I often misunderstand the context. You need to be clearer as to just what you are getting at. Creationists (by and large) don't argue that you must take the Bible literally. They argue that you should take it the way it was meant to be understood, e.g. poetry as poetry, metaphor as metaphor, and literal history as literal history. And if the literal history is not trustworthy, how can you have confidence that the spiritual pronouncements (e.g. that heaven exists) are trustworthy? I believe that Occam's razor encourages us to take the creation account literally. Which is the most straightforward explanation? That the universe was created by a Being capable of creating it, or that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason? The problem is not God leaving "certain clues" to "destabilize", but man's rejection of God's testimony and his determination to find an explanation that leaves God out. God clearly told us how long it took, so there is no ambiguity there. As for metaphor, we all use metaphors all the time, yet almost everyone can understand when metaphors are used and when someone is being literal, simply by their understanding of the language. That is, whether or not metaphor is used is dependent on the structure of the text. Revelation uses many metaphors, Genesis uses a few, but not so many. Genesis 1 uses almost none. That's a simple fact about the text itself. You can't claim something to be metaphor simply because it is inconsistent with an opposing claim.
As far as the ice is concerned, I forgot to pick TerryH up on this. The ice wasn't formed during the flood, but after the flood, in the ice age which lasted for several hundred years.
Humphreys' "white-hole cosmology" is based on Einstein's theories, but with a different starting assumption (a bounded universe) than the Big Bang (which assumes an unbounded universe). Einstein himself could not support it, of course, because the idea wasn't proposed until well after he was dead! :-)
The reason that people care is simply because the secular (man-made) ideas on the origin and age of the universe, the Earth, life, etc. are in conflict with the biblical account, and many people therefore (correctly) choose one over the other, and (incorrectly) choose to reject the Bible, with the result (if they don't change their mind) that they reject the gift of salvation. See also here.
Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to gracefully bow out before this just turns into an exercise in mud-slinging. Philip, you are interpreting what I say in whatever way suits your purposes, and frankly it's insulting to me. I have responses to all of your newest arguments, but I don't see why I should even bother, since you will just twist them around, or subtly change your own arguments. I talked to my dad last night (who was a Methodist minsister) and he finally answered the theology for me. I'm confident in my interpretation of the Bible and that's good enough for me. Jazzman831 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry for any offence, but you are also offending me by claiming that my responses are not genuine ones. And your comment about your father "finally answering" your theology question implies that I failed to do so, when I made an explicit attempt to answer that very question. Furthermore, I try very hard to not indulge in mud-slinging. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Reason for reversion?

Wonder why my edit was reverted? That was my first contribution!!--Heffalump 17:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

"Everyone knows that radioactive decay is accelerated in catastrophic events" is far too strong a statement. All that I have ever read in the literature is that radioactive decay did accelerate, perhaps once in the history of the earth--perhaps during Creation Week, or just before the Great Flood, or sometime in between. I never read any claim that where you get disaster, you get accelerated decay.
Beaides: the problem is that not everybody knows. Our job is to tell people things that the schools aren't telling them. But we have to make sure that we're telling them the right things.--TerryHTalk 22:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

thanks for explaining.I meant the nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption. --Heffalump 09:30, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Got a citation for that? Because you know that the uniformitarians will demand one.--TerryHTalk 09:42, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, what "nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption"? I'm intrigued—and sceptical. Philip J. Rayment 09:49, 21 February 2008 (EST)