Continuing the discussion from Cordova and Runyon on the fossil record:
If that is true, is there any example of scientists concluding the Earth is young, or fossils are young, without consulting the Bible?
If within the last thousands of years – perhaps even 10s of thousands – a profoundly ancient cosmos and a very old geology of earth collided with a young biosphere, then yes, there should be traces of that collision left behind outside of the Bible text.
Science did not exist thousands of years ago. Sorry. None of them, for example, were considering geology or radiodating, or even the evidence they had in a systematic way.
How about in the last 200 years? Can you give me any?
Also, @r_speir most Greek proto-scientists were convinced the earth was eternal, with no beginning. They were wrong of course, but they also outnumbered protoscientist of other sorts I’m sure.
He’s not talking about the view of people thousands of years ago. He’s talking about the supposed origin of life thousands of years ago. The main problem is that he’s never managed to reconcile the ancient earth with recent life. He won’t even try to deal with the evidence. And he’s not trying to deal with your question; he’s ignoring it.
1 Like
Then why can’t any YEC scientists find physical evidence of this collision and why is there so much physical evidence which directly contradicts the idea?
How about those Suigetsu varves with the cross-correlating volcanic ash going back 150,000 years? Varves are formed by the seasonal deposition of biological material in the lake remember. In real science you don’t get to ignore such evidence just because you don’t like it.
The advent of dating techniques should have helped sort out the details. An honest researcher would want to see and evaluate all of the evidence. A remiss researcher would enter into the investigation with a priori assumptions like
- the Bible seems to indicate that the entire cosmos and biosphere are only 6000 years old so evidence that seems to contradict that will have to be ignored
- the overwhelming age being returned by the cosmos and certain types of rock of our planet seem to indicate that the entire cosmos - even including the biosphere - is very old, so any evidence to the contrary will have to be ignored
Both views are remiss. Neither is indicative of sound or thorough or honest research.
You get credit for acknowledging the Earth is old.
Other than Bible focused YEC/YLC, who thinks life is young?
With so much evidence for an old earth, why are there not more YLC?
What would an honest researcher do with all the evidence life has been on the planet evolving for at least the last 3.5 billion years and possibly quite a bit longer?
Because we [mankind] are not honest researchers.
2 Likes
Once again, you get much credit.
1 Like
I tip my cap to you for that honest admission. Have a “like”.
ETA: Oops, I see you went back and changed the admission. No like for you. 
3 Likes
Last Tuesdayists. But they’ve been locked in disputes with Last Thursdayists since last Friday.
6 Likes
Because in truth that researcher is not honest. If he were he would accommodate all evidence.
What evidence is being ignored?
We just had a thread about the recent discovery of a pre-Cambrian segmented worm in strata dating between 539 MY and 551 MY.
Ancient worm fossil rolls back origins of animal life
You sure seem to be ignoring that evidence.
And you are ignoring my opening remark way above about a very old earth geology colliding with a young biosphere. You found young worm fossils and dated them using part of that collision of old with young.
Your research is not thorough or honest.
What do you mean by collision? Am I missing something?
Where is your evidence the worm fossil is young? The article shows a picture of the fossil animal and its track as an integral part of the rock and the dating methods are explained.
You are accusing paleontologists of deliberate fraud so you better be prepared to back up the claim.
BTW I’m still waiting for your explanation of the biological material going back 150,000 years in the Suigetsu varves. But you’ll continue to ignore that evidence, right?
1 Like
The Flood
Their a prior assumptions prohibit honesty in research. They may be fine people personally…or not. I don’t know.