Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Justbyfaith asked me to start a thread on the subject. He claims that young earth creationism is scientifically viable. - https://www.city-data.com/forum/chri...ffering-9.html This claim fails to recognize that by the 19th century, as a result of the geologic evidence few creationists held to young earth creationism. That view was abandoned by most in favor of old earth creationism - either the Day-age model or the GAP or ruin/restoration model of creation. Both of those views were attempts to reconcile science and the Bible, and are called concordism.
Contemporary readers who associate creationism with the teachings of the so-called scientific creationists will no doubt be surprised by the small number of nineteenth-century creationist writers who subscribed to a recent creation in six literal days and the even greater rarity of those who attributed the fossil record to the Noachian flood.
The Creationists, From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Ronald L. Numbers, p.16
The reason why young earth creationism was largely abandoned by the 19th century was because of the geologic evidence against it. There were very few creationists who still advocated a young earth and a global flood. It wasn't until the early 20th century when young earth creation began to make a resurgence.
Even before the advent of radiometric dating in recent times the geologists during the 19th century, of which some were believing Christians, came to realize from the geological strata and from the fossil record that the earth was vastly older than young earth creationism allowed.
There are various types of geologic strata comprised of different materials. Newer strata is formed on top of older strata. The lower the strata the older it is and older strata contain fossils that are more primitive and less advanced than fossils that are found at higher levels.
These days we have a variety of radiometric dating methods, some are better for dating things that are only in the thousands of years range - such as carbon-14 dating, while others, such as potassium Argon radiometric dating are better for dating material in the millions and billions of years range.
The Hawiian Island chain were dated using potassium Argon radiometric dating. As you go northwestward from the big island the islands are dated progressively older. From a very recent age on the bid island due to an active volcano forming new rock to millions of years in age for the islands at the extreme northwestern part of the island chain.
Despite the claims of skeptics, radiometric dating is highly reliable when done by a person who knows what they are doing and has taken the proper steps to ensure that the rock sample he is dating has not been contaminated.
JBF, in post #31 you said, ''I believe that you are led by false evidence (in what is falsely called science, 1 Timothy 6:20) to believe in that; not by the Holy Ghost.''
So you have to prove that not only I, but also the geologists of the 19th century, among them Christian believers, have been led by ''false evidence.'' How is geological evidence ''false'' evidence?
Why is it that Christians of the 19th century could change their views because of the evidence but modern young earth creationists cannot?
I know none of the participants in this discussion will care, but any view on the creation on the world will be taken by faith - either in God via the Bible, or man and its models and methods. So you might as well just believe in what God provided - if you are His child by faith.
Hebrews 11:3 -By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Then that would means you have to take Genesis by its word... which is a problem for some.
Justbyfaith asked me to start a thread on the subject. He claims that young earth creationism is scientifically viable. - https://www.city-data.com/forum/chri...ffering-9.html This claim fails to recognize that by the 19th century, as a result of the geologic evidence few creationists held to young earth creationism. That view was abandoned by most in favor of old earth creationism - either the Day-age model or the GAP or ruin/restoration model of creation. Both of those views were attempts to reconcile science and the Bible, and are called concordism.
Contemporary readers who associate creationism with the teachings of the so-called scientific creationists will no doubt be surprised by the small number of nineteenth-century creationist writers who subscribed to a recent creation in six literal days and the even greater rarity of those who attributed the fossil record to the Noachian flood.
The Creationists, From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Ronald L. Numbers, p.16
The reason why young earth creationism was largely abandoned by the 19th century was because of the geologic evidence against it. There were very few creationists who still advocated a young earth and a global flood. It wasn't until the early 20th century when young earth creation began to make a resurgence.
Even before the advent of radiometric dating in recent times the geologists during the 19th century, of which some were believing Christians, came to realize from the geological strata and from the fossil record that the earth was vastly older than young earth creationism allowed.
There are various types of geologic strata comprised of different materials. Newer strata is formed on top of older strata. The lower the strata the older it is and older strata contain fossils that are more primitive and less advanced than fossils that are found at higher levels.
These days we have a variety of radiometric dating methods, some are better for dating things that are only in the thousands of years range - such as carbon-14 dating, while others, such as potassium Argon radiometric dating are better for dating material in the millions and billions of years range.
The Hawiian Island chain were dated using potassium Argon radiometric dating. As you go northwestward from the big island the islands are dated progressively older. From a very recent age on the bid island due to an active volcano forming new rock to millions of years in age for the islands at the extreme northwestern part of the island chain.
Despite the claims of skeptics, radiometric dating is highly reliable when done by a person who knows what they are doing and has taken the proper steps to ensure that the rock sample he is dating has not been contaminated.
JBF, in post #31 you said, ''I believe that you are led by false evidence (in what is falsely called science, 1 Timothy 6:20) to believe in that; not by the Holy Ghost.''
So you have to prove that not only I, but also the geologists of the 19th century, among them Christian believers, have been led by ''false evidence.'' How is geological evidence ''false'' evidence?
Why is it that Christians of the 19th century could change their views because of the evidence but modern young earth creationists cannot?
Really, the geometric evidence is based in circular reasoning.
Example.
A scientist says, "This fossil is 50,000 years old."
"How do you know that?"
"Because it is in a strata that is 50,000 years old."
"How do you know that the strata was 50,000 years old?"
"Because this fossil is 50,000 years old, and it was found therein."
radiometric dating found volcanic material at Mount St. Helens that had just been formed to be very, very old.
This goes to show that radiometric dating is unreliable to be able to determine the age of strata.
Radiometric dating has to be carefully conducted by a trained geologist in order to ensure an accurate dating of the material. It's silly to argue that radiometric dating is unreliable because sometimes a false date is given. There are far more instances in which a reliable date is obtained.
Radiometric dating has to be carefully conducted by a trained geologist in order to ensure an accurate dating of the material. It's silly to argue that radiometric dating is unreliable because sometimes a false date is given. There are far more instances in which a reliable date is obtained.
The geologist being "trained" is no guarantee that there is going to be an accurate reading.
They are going into it with a premise that the earth is very old.
Newly formed igneous rock has been dated to be very old by geologists.
If they can make that mistake about rock formed at Mt. St. Helens, they can make the same mistake about rock that is found deep in the stratosphere.
What they have determined to be very old may, in fact, be very new.
Since they are going into the fray with a preconceived notion of old earth creationism, or worse, evolution, I believe that this can be conducive to predetermined bias in the conclusions that they make about what they find.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
