tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post65671078275092916..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: Wrestling with the Age of the EarthJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-55912775248836182052008-11-11T13:30:00.000-05:002008-11-11T13:30:00.000-05:00cawoodm, thank you for your comments, I appreciate...cawoodm, thank you for your comments, I appreciate your thoughts emmensely. You make a lot of good points in your brief response, so I am sorry if I do not comment on them all. <BR/><BR/>I agree that the empirical evidence backing up an old earth is superior, at least so far. The link that bethyada provided makes some good points. I still find, though, that the Young Earth perspective's evidence is more circomstancial than that of Old Earth (though it has a lot of circumstancial evidence. Eventually it does add up.)<BR/><BR/>I disagree, though, that it is untenable. Science is never as reliabel as we may think it is. I view science as the hermeneutic of general revelation, and like specific revelation, it is open to multiple interpretations. There are enough questions to leave the topic open for discussion. An old earth is not proven, though it is currently more likely IMO, given science. <BR/><BR/>I agree that Genesis is not an eyewitness account. I don't see how that matters though, because I believe the data to be accurate regardless. Most of Genesis is the recording of a oral tradition (and I do believe Moses to have been the recorder, though I dont believe it to be the relevent). However, I also believe this oral tradition to be accurate, and to be grounded in a history of interacting with God. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I find the day-age theory untenable. I would consider the entire chapter poetry before I consider that theory. Additionally, I think evolution itself is missing the mark in several aspects. THere is not sufficient evidence to give it the level of support that it enjoys. Additionally, I believe that it seriouslly undermines the gospel.<BR/><BR/>This is evident in the NT view of death. Part of the restoration promised is the resurrection of the dead. Not only did Jesus defeat death in the resurrection, be we are promised to share in the same kind of resurrection. There isn't a strong dialectic between spiritual and physical in the Bible. Rather, one is a reflection of the other, and physical death is seen as a symptom of spiritual death. Therefore, that means the physical death is also a result of the fall, not an intregal part of God's creation, let alone part of God's creative activity.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-51531308135249061502008-11-11T07:58:00.000-05:002008-11-11T07:58:00.000-05:00This is a huge and complex topic which I have rese...This is a huge and complex topic which I have researched and with which I have wrestled for some years. Basically it is clear to me that it is empirically untenable that the earth is only several thousand years old. You basically have to close your eyes to science or listen only to pseudo-science to believe that.<BR/><BR/>It's clear that Genesis is not an eye witness account (whose eyes?), it's also clear that it's not purely literal (the Sun is created AFTER 2 mornings - which sunrise?).<BR/><BR/>Can the days be literal days? Not if Adam named all animals in one "day".<BR/><BR/>Is the "death" coming from the fall physical or spiritual? Obviously spiritual since physical death MUST have happened on day 6 when elephants inadvertently stepped on ants and bacteria with short life cycles worked in our digestive systems.<BR/><BR/>Did lions magically evolve from herbivores into carnivores after the fall and switch from straw to meat. Hyper evolution anyone?<BR/><BR/>We need to move on from Sunday School theology and integrate theology and reality.<BR/><BR/>Evolution, if true, is the greatest miracle the world has ever seen. Christians need to read Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" and understand how great God's creation really is and stop thinking of Him as a magician.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-86371868491127879602008-10-24T14:34:00.000-04:002008-10-24T14:34:00.000-04:00I'd really like to argue more, but I'm going to re...I'd really like to argue more, but I'm going to refrain. :) God bless you guys.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-10028946871760672012008-10-24T10:06:00.000-04:002008-10-24T10:06:00.000-04:00Actually, it is recorded that he dies one year bef...Actually, it is recorded that he dies one year before the flood, but that is so close that it might simply be a matter of how the counted the years.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-1749466459550350592008-10-24T08:19:00.000-04:002008-10-24T08:19:00.000-04:00Yes, Methuselah dies in the year of the Flood, (bu...Yes, <A HREF="http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2007/09/antediluvian-patriarches.html" REL="nofollow">Methuselah dies in the year of the Flood, (but not Lamech</A> at least in the Masoretic text type).bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-363995967379311192008-10-24T04:33:00.000-04:002008-10-24T04:33:00.000-04:00Also, fun fact, if you treat Genesis 5 as a chrono...Also, fun fact, if you treat Genesis 5 as a chronology, Methusalah and Lamech die the same year. In fact, they die the same year as the flood. Interesting...Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-83035444053314880512008-10-24T02:47:00.000-04:002008-10-24T02:47:00.000-04:00Also, you are correct about Exodus being less than...Also, you are correct about Exodus being less than 400 years according to the ages. While the chronology is not given exactly, the ages do limit the time. Balancing all the passages, the 430 years is from Abram coming into Canaan. The Israelites were only in Egypt ~200 years. See <A HREF="http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-long-were-hebrews-in-egypt.html" REL="nofollow">How long were the Hebrews in Egypt?</A><BR/><BR/>And there is no problem about Shem and Eber living at the time of Abram contrary to Schaeffer's comments.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-25421882696913879552008-10-24T02:41:00.000-04:002008-10-24T02:41:00.000-04:00Beating a dead horse? not by a long way yet :)The ...Beating a dead horse? not by a long way yet :)<BR/><BR/>The point pizza_man is that you are seeing Genesis 5 predominantly as a genealogy and comparing to others where there are absent names. But 5 and 11 are strongly chronologies.<BR/><BR/>Read the period of the Kings. Although it is difficult to sort out the exact years because the structure is not as clear as Genesis, the issue is similar.<BR/><BR/>In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah the son of Baasha began to reign over Israel in Tirzah, and he reigned two years. (1 Kings 16)<BR/><BR/>It is the same type of construction.<BR/><BR/>I doubt that there are gaps in Genesis 5, but even if there are, jc_freak is right, the connecting dates hold. Enosh was 90 when Kenan was born whether Kenan was his son, grandson or great-grandson. <BR/><BR/>The problem with the solution along the lines of "Enosh was 90 when he had a son, that son had descendants who had descendants over many years until Kenan was born," is that, 1. it is not a natural reading and 2. it is bizarre to intend that but write as per Genesis knowing that everyone who reads it will misunderstand what is written.<BR/><BR/>Even with that interpretation it is difficult to extend it more than about 10000 years, there are only about 18 hypothetical gaps.<BR/><BR/>There are other reasons to argue against this gap interpretation. Some relationships are known for certain. We know by other passages that Adam was the direct father to Shem, we know Noah was the direct father to Shem. We know that Terah was the direct father to Abram.<BR/><BR/>Also, Jude states Enoch was the 7th from Adam which doesn't allow any gaps.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-14679412522565837802008-10-23T23:49:00.000-04:002008-10-23T23:49:00.000-04:00For what it's worth, the genealogies of Moses in E...For what it's worth, the genealogies of Moses in Exodus 6 do have years. Maybe I'll do a post on it some time. At any rate I agree, no more sense in beating a dead horse. Thanks for the discussion. :)Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-17517142706758915442008-10-23T23:09:00.000-04:002008-10-23T23:09:00.000-04:00But the geneologies in Exodus don't have the ages ...But the geneologies in Exodus don't have the ages in them. It just has names. The only number we get is 400, which I am fine with considering that to be a round number. <BR/><BR/>I personally, and you can disagree if you want, cannot justify reading the main geneologies throughout the book of Gensis as not meaning direct father-son accounts. That is the natural reading of the text, and even the bridging theory, with this particular rhetoric, does not seem possible to me. <BR/><BR/>I believe we are at an impasse here. Fortunately, this is not a faith breaking issue, and I still love you as a brother in the Lord and a fellow defender of Christ and Scripture.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-32776498522565897322008-10-23T16:43:00.000-04:002008-10-23T16:43:00.000-04:00I don't know why the particular form was used in G...I don't know why the particular form was used in Genesis 5. Perhaps the author wanted to give a little glimpse into individual lives at that time, or to show how old different people were when they started to have children, or to show how much longer life was during the pre-flood era.<BR/><BR/>As you pointed out earlier, the generations between Jacob and Moses do not add up to the time that we know that Israel was in Egypt. Specifically, we come up with something less than 400 years using the genealogies. But we know from elsewhere that Israel was in Egypt for more than 400 years.<BR/><BR/>It is reasonable to consider the possibility that if Moses abridged the genealogies in Exodus, he might have done so in Genesis as well.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-35687509061729835952008-10-23T12:12:00.000-04:002008-10-23T12:12:00.000-04:00Well, if that is the case, then why say it like th...Well, if that is the case, then why say it like that? It seems like a rather odd construction. The birth of Enosh is tied to the life of Seth, by being in the middle of his biography. And what is the point of mentioning the 105 years? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that Seth lived so long, and then that he was the forefather of Enosh, as a lead in to the Enosh biography?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-73518414892420171852008-10-22T23:58:00.000-04:002008-10-22T23:58:00.000-04:00I'm interpreting it like this:When Seth had lived ...I'm interpreting it like this:<BR/><BR/><I>When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the forefather of Enosh. </I><BR/><BR/>Or the form Schaeffer used:<BR/><BR/><I>When Seth had lived 105 years he became the father of someone who led to Enosh.</I><BR/><BR/>Does that make sense? Again, I'm not saying it *must* be interpreted this way, but only that it's a viable alternative.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-17061807170438311682008-10-22T23:03:00.000-04:002008-10-22T23:03:00.000-04:00Ok, let us look at your example here:When Seth had...Ok, let us look at your example here:<BR/><BR/><I>When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the ancestor of Enosh. And after he became the ancestor of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.</I><BR/><BR/>Now the first line there "When Seth had lived 105 years, he bacome the ancestor of Enosh". To me, that line means that Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old. Now if you use the material as chronology, whether Seth was Enosh's father or grandfather doesn't really matter. What matters was that 105 years passed between the time where Seth was born and Enosh was born. That is how you run the numbers. If that is the case, then I don't see how the abridging theory actually accomplishes anything. <BR/><BR/>THe only possible way it could is if "Now when Seth was 105 he became the ancestor of Enosh" would mean something other than Seth being 105 when Enosh was born. If that is the case, what would that line mean?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-440944949307786092008-10-22T15:22:00.000-04:002008-10-22T15:22:00.000-04:00Hi JC_Freak,Thanks for taking the time to read the...Hi JC_Freak,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking the time to read the Schaeffer links, and for interacting with his arguments. I appreciate too your irenic spirit. You are an excellent writer. I enjoy your blog and appreciate your contributions to SEA. <BR/><BR/>BTW, who is this Batman you refer to? ;)<BR/><BR/>You make some excellent points. It’s possible, even likely, that Genesis ought to be interpreted chronologically. My motivation for arguing otherwise is to reconcile science and scripture if it is possible here. I don’t see the exact age of man as a theological concern.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Schaeffer, here is the background of his argument: He was a conservative Christian who affirmed Biblical inerrancy (for example he would certainly affirm the life spans given in Genesis). He was summarizing the conclusions of earlier Christians who had made these points (WH Green and BB Warfield – late 1800s, dealing with the new theories of Darwin and the liberal trends in their denomination). He’s is not arguing that “abridgment” is the only interpretation of Genesis 5 and 11, but that abridgment occurs frequently elsewhere in scripture, and should therefore not be ruled out as a possibility in Genesis.<BR/><BR/>Our main disagreement I think is this: The Genesis genealogies state ages when each son was begotten. In your view this precludes the possibility that the lists could have been abridged.<BR/><BR/>In my view this is not necessarily the case. Despite the form of the genealogies, we don’t know for certain that the intent of the author was to present a chronology.<BR/><BR/>The word “father” in Genesis can reasonably be interpreted as “ancestor”. In fact, the NIV footnotes list this as an alternate interpretation. Given this possibility, we cannot assume a chronology in Genesis.<BR/><BR/>Let’s take Genesis 5:6-8 as an example (NIV)<I><BR/>When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, let’s use the alternate interpretation “ancestor”.<BR/><BR/><I>When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the ancestor of Enosh. And after he became the ancestor of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.</I><BR/><BR/>Using the term “ancestor” changes the conclusion that this passage must be interpreted chronologically, does it not? Granted, specific years are listed in the form, but there are other factors to be considered.<BR/><BR/>We know for fact that other genealogies in scripture have been abridged (including some in Exodus and Numbers, written by Moses the author of Genesis). We know that elsewhere in scripture the “Father / Son” form is used, but the “son” was not a first generation descendant of the father. We know that the terms “father” and “begat” can be legitimately be interpreted as “ancestor”. And we don’t know that the author of Genesis intend for the genealogies to be used as chronologies (despite the form).<BR/><BR/>Given these facts, and given that there is no other outside corroboration of the early s accounts, it is reasonable to consider the **possibility** that these accounts have been abridged.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I really enjoy this discussion. I’m not in the least offended by anything we have discussed, and hope that you haven’t been either. If we must agree to disagree that is completely fine. :)Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-48514622801444909332008-10-21T01:44:00.000-04:002008-10-21T01:44:00.000-04:00pizza man. Thank you for the links. Though I conti...pizza man. Thank you for the links. Though I continue to disagree, I do thank you for you continued candor. I'm rather enjoying this conversation, I would like to agree that this is a side issue, and not one to get emotional about. The important thing is Christ. To the links you gave:<BR/><BR/>Looking at your first link, I see some flaws. It gives a couple of different reasons. The first one it says that sequence of names and chronology isn't always a straight line, and then quotes Shem, Ham, and Japheth. This is a rather dishonest reference since does not use the same construction as the rest of the geneology. Note the difference between the rhetoric of 5:28-31 and the snipet in 32. Admittedly, this means that we have a little gap, not knowing the exact age of Noah when Shem is born. But that's hardly tantamount to discrediting the full rhetoric of the book. <BR/><BR/>The second reason he gave is the same reason that you gave earlier, but it doesn't consider the rhetorical differences between Genesis and other geneological passages. Genesis doesn't just say who begot who, but when each was begotten. It quotes years, in detail. The same cannot be said the the other geneologies he mentions. It would be like saying the Batman the Dark Knight Strikes Again is making simular messages as an Archie comic because they happen to be the same medium. <BR/><BR/>His third reason doesn't strike me as a reason at all. I don't understand why it would be illogical for Shem to outlive Abraham. It seems to me that it is just disbelief in the lifespans that Genesis proposes. This doesn't seem to be a discrepancy with the nature of the geneologies, but a refusal to believe that humans used to live longer than they do today. This isn't an issue a logic, but an issue of what one is willing to consider. <BR/><BR/>Looking at the second link, which I see is the same book, I still find his arguments dishonest. Again, when people point to the unique construction of the particular text, he says how it isn't true in Matthew, a passage that doesn't use the very construction being referenced! He then does something which I think is really terrible, no offense to you. He rewrites the Matthew text using the Genesis rhetoric, and then says that the rhetoric doesn't matter because the names are still skipped. I don't even know how he thought that works as an argument. <BR/><BR/>Again, an analogy. Imagine if someone was trying to argue that the 9/11 didn't happen. In defense of the existance 9/11, I quote a historical newspaper telling the events. To counter, he then rewrites the story of Cinderella using the same format, and then argues that this doesn't prove that Cinderella existed, so therefore the article that I reference can't be used to support9/11 happening.<BR/><BR/>I can't tell you what form of logical fallacy this is because the silliness of it really blows my mind. <BR/><BR/>Kevin, I would like to emphasize that these are not comments about you, since I have the utmost respect for you. Shaeffer is a commentator that I have heard of often, though I have never read him before. But I cannot contemplate how these arguments are convincing. They don't seem to actually engage with the text at all, and merely references other texts that have nothing to do with this one. The unique form of the text, as well as the kinds of details provided shows that the author believed he was talking about direct father/son relationships with no generations between. Shaeffer never directly interacts with the form, and only once indirectly by imposing on another text that had a different kind of purpose and content. I am really shocked by the kinds of arguments he uses. If you see something I am missing, please point it out.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-30206468608091525552008-10-20T17:08:00.000-04:002008-10-20T17:08:00.000-04:00Here's Schaeffer's argument against using Genesis ...Here's Schaeffer's argument against using Genesis as a chronology. I enjoy his work (even though he was Reformed).<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=vb2aSpCKnJEC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%22genesis+in+space+and+time%22+chronologies&source=web&ots=TjDzBRrve1&sig=y8HLURCr3c9cI5MDWLgj_DUpu0Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result" REL="nofollow">Genealology and Chronology</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=vb2aSpCKnJEC&pg=PA154&dq=%22genesis+in+space+and+time%22+the+generations+of++shem" REL="nofollow">The Generations of Shem</A><BR/><BR/>You guys could certainly be right though - maybe Genesis is meant to keep track of time. It's not something I lose a lot of sleep over either way. :)Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-38852380645519199262008-10-19T07:57:00.000-04:002008-10-19T07:57:00.000-04:00Hi jc_freak, the book I was referring to was Refut...Hi jc_freak, the book I was referring to was <A HREF="http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/" REL="nofollow"><I>Refuting Compromise</I></A>. I really enjoyed it. I am not certain you will appreciate the tone. Sarfati pulls no punches when dealing with what he considers error. He is not mean, just straight up. Anyway, it deals with several issues, but specifically with theological ones. The link takes you to the introduction so you can see what the book covers. He also has 2 of his evolution books free online if you want to assess his style.<BR/><BR/>bethyadaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-56575771823734641792008-10-18T00:36:00.000-04:002008-10-18T00:36:00.000-04:00Can I ask what you are getting at here? The geolog...<B><I>Can I ask what you are getting at here? The geological phenomena are related to radiodating.<BR/><BR/>The YEC cosmological stuff has issues, but the problems of an ancient universe are much bigger than the problems of a young one.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Well, I'm aware that there are a lot of missing pieces in my scientific understanding here. Additionally, most the scientific research I did in this subject is about 3-4 years old. My last study was looking into radiometric dating, which I wasn't able to complete due to seminary. However, I have forgotten far more than I remember.<BR/><BR/>The two things that irk me the most is radiometric dating and the ice layer dating in Antiartica. As to the latter, the former explanation that I heard, that is comparing it to Greenland, I now know to be inaccurate. My frustration for radiometric dating is I could never find any YEC critiquing the actual method; usually it was a vague sense of distrust or pointing at particular instances of inaccuracy. <BR/><BR/>If you have resources on either topic, I would love to look at them.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Fossils are radiodated by the rock surrounding them, not their substance. Because the fossil is assumed ancient the fossil is not usually dated, however if carbon dating is done on a fossil, often times there is measurable c-14 implying the fossil is not old.</I></B><BR/><BR/>I knew about c-14 being found in fossils. That's always a fun thing to point out to Darwinists. I didn't know they examined thing based off of the surrounding stone. That seems illogical to me. <BR/><BR/><B><I>This is why I think you need to read this area a bit further, old earth is the reigning paradigm, so science is interpreted such. Plenty of data suggest a young earth.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your comments about Scripture, while I came to YEC belief via the science, I now find the theological arguments more persuasive. Do you have an amazon account, there is a book about this I could get you. Email me or leave a note on the test blog.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Excellent link. Can't wait to go through it and really digest the material. Unfortunately I don't have an amazon account, but I would still be interested in the book. I could probably get my hands on it with just the name.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-30825412917305309642008-10-18T00:10:00.000-04:002008-10-18T00:10:00.000-04:00Concerning the genealogies, to see them as such mi...Concerning the genealogies, to see them as such misses what they are. Strict genealogies may miss persons, eg. 1 Chronicles, Matthew. <A HREF="http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/" REL="nofollow">But Genesis 5 and 11 are often referred to as chronogenealogies</A> because they are much more than a genealogy. They are more in line with the data in Kings which specify when kings reigned at what age and how long the other king had been reigning at coronation. <BR/><BR/>The Genesis data is tight. Even if you argue for missing heirs (very questionable) the age of birth, death and total age all add up. The author specifies that this is the time frame.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-36237305249305073882008-10-18T00:02:00.000-04:002008-10-18T00:02:00.000-04:00jc_freak We do not only argue millions of years be...jc_freak <I>We do not only argue millions of years because of that dating scheme. There are geological and astronomical phenomena that also are factored in.</I><BR/><BR/>Can I ask what you are getting at here? The geological phenomena are related to radiodating.<BR/><BR/>The YEC cosmological stuff has issues, but the problems of an ancient universe are much bigger than the problems of a young one.<BR/><BR/><I>Besides, the dating of fossils can never be an argument for dating something to be millions of years old anyway, since all carbon-14 in a specimen will decay after 50,000 years (radioactive material decomposes by percentage, not by quantity). Therefore, if there are datable isotopes, they were introduced to the fossil through the fossilization process, making any dating inaccurate.</I><BR/><BR/>Fossils are radiodated by the rock surrounding them, not their substance. Because the fossil is assumed ancient the fossil is not usually dated, however if carbon dating is done on a fossil, often times there is measurable c-14 implying the fossil is <B>not</B> old.<BR/><BR/><I>Besides, for the most part, the natural sciences support an old earth. I have found most young earth models to be scientifically poor.</I><BR/><BR/>This is why I think you need to read this area a bit further, old earth is the reigning paradigm, so science is interpreted such. Plenty of data suggest a <A HREF="http://www.icr.org/article/1842/" REL="nofollow">young earth</A>.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your comments about Scripture, while I came to YEC belief via the science, I now find the theological arguments more persuasive. Do you have an amazon account, there is a book about this I could get you. Email me or leave a note on the test blog.<BR/><BR/>cheersbethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-89657899955704926372008-10-16T21:20:00.000-04:002008-10-16T21:20:00.000-04:00Truehope:How would the flood effect radioactive de...Truehope:<BR/><BR/>How would the flood effect radioactive decay? Do you have an idea in mind? Or is it just that radioactivity has not been studied under such conditions?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-39838335463602371412008-10-16T20:59:00.000-04:002008-10-16T20:59:00.000-04:00To Pizza Man,That is a good point. Throughout the ...To Pizza Man,<BR/><BR/>That is a good point. Throughout the OT, and with Matthew and Luke, there doesn't seem to be a sense of exactness with the geneologies, focusing on important persons as opposed to each person. <BR/><BR/>However, I'm not sure if that applies to Genesis. There are two reasons. First, geneology is the structure of Genesis as opposed to an element within the book. Though this doesn't make your interpretation impossible, it does demonstrate that Genesis is different than other geneologies. <BR/><BR/>The second thing is that the rhetoric of Genesis is different. It doesn't just say that Seth was the son of Adam, but it lists the age that Adam was when Seth was born, and how long Adam lived after Seth was born, relating the son's birth to an actual time in the father's life. This makes your interpretation difficult. Though the generations between Joseph and Moses is a bit iffy.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-19763227951608893822008-10-16T20:05:00.000-04:002008-10-16T20:05:00.000-04:00One thing I'm not sure of is whether dating method...One thing I'm not sure of is whether dating methods can accurately take the Flood into account. I believe the Flood wiped out all dinosaurs except those in the Ark, and those in the Ark died out soon afterwards, because they couldn't adapt to the change in climate.<BR/><BR/>IMO the fossil fuels we use today were generated by the Flood as well.TrueHopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08468797209411273315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-673668117785388592008-10-16T19:44:00.000-04:002008-10-16T19:44:00.000-04:00Good stuff guys.I enjoy speculating on these diffe...Good stuff guys.<BR/><BR/>I enjoy speculating on these different theories, but am not real set on any one view. This is really a secondary issue for me.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion it is a mistake to insist that the OT genealogies are also to be read as chronologies. Their intent was to focus was on important ancestors / descendants in the context of a passage. They were not necessarily written with the purpose of documenting the age of the earth. Viewing them as chronologies creates unnecessary problems. If we take genealogies as the literal passing of time, then Noah was alive until Abraham was 50. That doesn't seem to fit very well.<BR/><BR/>This was the view of Francis Schaeffer. In "Genesis in Space and Time" he pointed out that different passages give different genealogical accounts, sometimes skipping multiple generations (for example 1 Chr 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-5). If chronology was the intent, then skipping or adding generations is a problem. However, if the intent was to focus on important people, then there is no need to argue about the reliability of these differing accounts.<BR/><BR/>Schaeffer argues that "A is the father of B" can also be interpreted as "A is the ancestor of B" (so B isn't necessarily the first generation son of A, he could be a multiple generation descendant). If this is true, it could be that between Adam and Abraham there were generations that were not accounted for in the genealogies. Practically, this would allow for an older earth.<BR/><BR/>All this to say I personally think the earth is older than 6K years. How old? I don't know. I would guess it's closer to 6K than 2 billion (or whatever number the secular scientists throw around). But it could certainly be a 100K years old, and I don't see this as causing any issues for a literal reading of scripture.<BR/><BR/>What is important, however, is that there was a real guy named Adam. Maybe he lived 6,000 years ago, or maybe longer back than that.Kevin Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.com