Science or history?

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve immediately after they were created and was then asked to estimate their age? If he didn’t know they had been created directly he would assume they had been born as babies and base his estimate on how long it would take for them to reach their present state if they had undergone the normal aging process. The result would be that his estimate would be much higher than their actual age.

Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth begin by assuming that the natural processes which are occurring now have always been going. They have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old because that is how long it would take for these processes to bring about the conditions we see existing today. But what if the Biblical account of creation is true? Then scientists who try to measure the earth’s age are in the same position as the doctor who tried to estimate the age of Adam and Eve. Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.

Science can tell us a lot about the world we live in but when we try to find out about its past scientific methods alone can’t give us all the information we need. We need historical information as well. Did the earth come into existence as a result of natural processes or was it created by God? Was there ever a worldwide flood? We must know the answers to both of these questions in order to correctly interpret the data that we observe.

There is scientific evidence that the earth can’t be as old as most people believe. One example is finding soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that supposedly lived millions of years ago. This is from an article titled “Soft Tissue in Fossils” in the October 2012 issue of Answers magazine.

Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)

Soft tissue couldn’t have survived for such a long time so this is evidence that previous estimates of the age of the world must be wrong. Unfortunately belief that the world is old is so strong that most scientists ignore or try to explain away the evidence rather than changing their theories to conform to the evidence.

Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.

www.answersingenesis.org...

The existence of soft dinosaur tissue isn’t the only evidence that the earth is young. You can read about some of the other evidence here.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Everywhere in the world we find fossils of life forms that no longer exist. The Bible tells us that God sent a flood that covered the entire world; this would explain the existence of these fossils. Those who reject the idea of divine intervention claimed that the fossils were formed gradually over millions of years.

The fact that fossils contain soft tissue is evidence in favor of a flood. There is also historical evidence. Here is what Wikipedia says.

The Flood myths or deluge myths are, taken collectively, stories surviving from human prehistory, of a great flood which has generally been taken as mythical. These legends depict global flooding, usually sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. Flood stories are common across a wide range of cultures, extending back into prehistory.

The fact that flood stories are found in all cultures is evidence that the flood really happened.

Those who believe the earth is young are often accused of rejecting science. In fact those who claim the earth is old are using scientific methods to answer what is really a historical question.

Here are sites where you can find more evidence that the generally accepted beliefs regarding the earth’s origins are wrong.

www.allaboutcreation.org...

www.piltdownsuperman.com...

scienceagainstevolution.info...

reply to post by theophilus40


A question about fossils. You said that we find all of these fossils of animals that no longer exist is part of proof of the flood. Why exactly do we not find all the fossils of animals that do exist now in the same strata? If nothing evolved from previous species this should be the case correct? I'm on my phone so no I did not click the links to aig.

I would feel more confident if your source was not answers magazine. Although i do not reject their view on the subject I would like to see the same conclusions in science magazine or national geographic. As for how people know the earth is billions of years old, I'll ask you a question. How do you know the earth rotates around the sun? You have been told this your whole life but I doubt you could explain it with math. You take the word of someone else.

reply to post by theophilus40


Forgive my ignorance here, but does the bible actually say that Adam and Eve were created as full-grown adults?

The historical evidence of The Iliad points to the existence of a whole pantheon of Gods, ie. Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Hades, Artemis, Poseidon etc. There must have been a time when the creator lost control of Earth and allowed the Greek gods to run things. Apparently, Kronos can create all powerful gods while the Creator of earth could only muster up a few ape-like beings.

Aphorism
The historical evidence of The Iliad points to the existence of a whole pantheon of Gods, ie. Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Hades, Artemis, Poseidon etc. There must have been a time when the creator lost control of Earth and allowed the Greek gods to run things. Apparently, Kronos can create all powerful gods while the Creator of earth could only muster up a few ape-like beings.

That's what happens when a jealous god is invented by jealous beings. What I find funny is that the OP thinks s/he is smarter than hundreds of scientists who have devoted a lifetime to such research using methods and tools far beyond his/her experience - scientists whose processes and discoveries and analysis have all been documented and reviewed by the world at large. And if all of those people are caught up in a conspiracy to make money by deliberately misleading or lying to the public, then I don't see why we should trust these sources either.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I find this quote interesting as well:

Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.

If the analysis into the age of earth by Bronze age peoples holds any authority to scientists these days, The Vedas, being an older account of creation, must contain a higher degree of historical accuracy than the Bible.

an obvious question for creationists -:

why was adam created with nipples ?

ignorant_ape
an obvious question for creationists -:

why was adam created with nipples ?

Nipples make sense. I think "navels" are what you are thinking of.

Aphorism
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I find this quote interesting as well:

Their age estimates are off because they have a false idea of how the earth came into existence.

If the analysis into the age of earth by Bronze age peoples holds any authority to scientists these days, The Vedas, being an older account of creation, must contain a higher degree of historical accuracy than the Bible.

And what do the Vedas say?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Brahma is born from Vishnu's navel. Brahma goes forth and creates everything. Along comes Manu (first human), who is warned by Vishnu of the great flood, who then proceeds to build a great boat and saves humanity. Humanity is cool for a while. Brahma goes to sleep, and the universe is destroyed because of his slumber. He finally wakes, where the process starts all over again, until Brahma himself has lived his full life. At this point, Shiva destroys it all for good.

Something along those lines.

reply to post by Cuervo


no I am referring to nipples

there is not inference of " adams navel " - and further it is an artefact of placental gestation

PS - I am curious what use the use of the male nipple ???

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Cuervo

 

no I am referring to nipples

there is not inference of " adams navel " - and further it is an artefact of placental gestation

PS - I am curious what use the use of the male nipple ???

I think he meant the belly buttons. Why would you have a belly button if you were formed from dirt?

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Cuervo

 

no I am referring to nipples

there is not inference of " adams navel " - and further it is an artefact of placental gestation

PS - I am curious what use the use of the male nipple ???

Afterinfinity is right. I meant that, since they didn't really need an umbilical cord, what's the point of the belly button.

As far as nipples, all people start out as female which is why dudes have them. We are all rocking the female schematics for the first few weeks of growing and then decide whether or not we want to have a package down there or not. That extra chromosome that makes males is the factor that makes men deviate from the original blueprint and sprout a penis.

reply to post by theophilus40

The Bible tells us that God sent a flood that covered the entire world; this would explain the existence of these fossils. Those who reject the idea of divine intervention claimed that the fossils were formed gradually over millions of years.

So the Bible is true and the great flood killed the dinosaurs?

Remember what god told Noah?

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

From what I am reading there is about 500 different kinds of dinosaurs. So that puts a thousand dinosaurs on that Ark.

reply to post by Cuervo


adam was aledgedly CREATED from dirt as a man

drivers1492
reply to post by theophilus40

 

A question about fossils. You said that we find all of these fossils of animals that no longer exist is part of proof of the flood. Why exactly do we not find all the fossils of animals that do exist now in the same strata? If nothing evolved from previous species this should be the case correct? I'm on my phone so no I did not click the links to aig.

Some of the fossils [I]are[/I] of animals that still exist.

theophilus40
But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve

He'd get lost in the time stream because there was no 'Adam and Eve'. It's one of many creation myths.

But what if the Biblical account of creation is true?

It's not.

Did the earth come into existence as a result of natural processes or was it created by God?

Why do people think it has to be one or the other?

Was there ever a worldwide flood?

Not a chance. It's been debunked over and over.

Any one of these facts discredits the Noahs Ark myth.
Put together, it can not be disputed that the story is a myth.
PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.

Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

If Noahs Ark happened - 16 million critters would have been on the ark. That's impossible.
If Noahs Ark happened - there would be polar bears and penquins and armadillos (etc) living in Turkey.
If Noahs Ark happened - human DNA diversity would be magnitudes less than what it is today.
If Noahs Ark happened - the human race couldn't reproduce and survive with only 3 pair of reproducing humans.
If Noahs Ark happened - the ancient civilizations of India would be disturbed. They aren't.
If Noahs Ark happened - where did all the water come from?
If Noahs Ark happened - where did all the water go? Not into space. Impossible.
If Noahs Ark happened - the Earths crust would have collapsed from the weight. It didn't happen.
If Noahs Ark happened - the oceans would be DEAD. And so would we because we can't live without them.
If Noahs Ark happened - the 100,000 year old reefs would be destroyed and dead. They are not.
If Noahs Ark happened - the sea algea would have all died from severe lack of sunlight for months and months, but we know from core samples it survived fine.
If Noahs Ark happened -we would have evidence of it in the ice core samples from the poles. There is no evidence in the samples.

Lucid LunacyFrom what I am reading there is about 500 different kinds of dinosaurs. So that puts a thousand dinosaurs on that Ark.

You can find the answer to your question here:

www.answersingenesis.org...

In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate was to be on board (from the text, we know that Noah did not need to carry plants, sea creatures and insects as passengers). Also, seven of the “clean” animals, of which there are relatively few, were on board. Genesis 6:20 indicates that Noah didn’t have to round up the animals; rather, God brought them to Noah.

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe assumed, for his calculation, that each “kind” would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus” (plural genera), meaning that only about 8,000 animal genera (including some extinct animals), and when multiplying by two, meant that over 16,000 animals had to be aboard. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind”, it should be clear that Noah did not have to carry 2 sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind”, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

It’s important to note that Woodmorappe’s assumption is generous to the sceptics. The article Ligers and Wholphins: What next? shows that many “kinds” could even be the ancestors of a whole “family”; if so, then only 2000 animals would have been required on board.

At this point—if the skeptic is still on the line—the next question is asked: “Well, how could you fit all those 16,000 animals—especially the huge dinosaurs—on the Ark?”

First, although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” and much smaller than the adults. Note that even the biggest dinosaurs came from eggs no larger than footballs. Also, many modern reptiles keep growing till they die, unlike mammals, and since dinosaurs were reptiles, even many evolutionists believe that the very big specimens were very old ones.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, which is about 460x75x44 feet, with a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.

Without getting into all the math ( for more detail see the book: Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study), the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).

reply to post by theophilus40

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe assumed, for his calculation, that each “kind” would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus”

Exactly. Assumed. That's all it is. There is only talk of 'kinds'. There is just as much reason based on scripture to assume one of every dinosaur is what was meant by one of every kind.