Just like us - Neanderthal children grew and were weaned similar to us:

No, just that the dating is wrong :smiley: Neanderthals lived during an ice age or soon after as far as I’ve looked at it. Until the climate settled, dating is confused. Couldn’t tell you why. Generally the order of events when using a particular method is correct. But mixing dating methods puts things out of order.

So, what I am hearing you say is that science that disproves YEC (the bulk of all geology, astrophysics and biology, basically all science) is wrong. You do realized that there was no ice age after 4000 BC, right? The “climate settled” well before 4000 BC.

1 Like

Well, astrophysics will prove YEC right and probably in the next 5-20 years. Mainstream biology will prove YEC right and probably within the next 50-100 years. Geology will probably take longer.

You missed my whole post on Nimrod where I discussed how the Babylonian World Map shows evidence of a northern hemisphere ice sheet.

I am curious, why these date ranges?

2 Likes

Me too. Can someone provide a link?

1 Like

What makes you trust creation scientists over mainstream scientists? What about faithful Christians who are also scientists?

The answers to these questions are not black and white, they do not fit into either/or categories. The answers are complex and require thinking and rethinking. Lets not throw out the baby with bathwater (either faith or science) by locking ourselves into narrow interpretations.

6 Likes

This Babylonian World Map?


Exactly where does this little broken clay tablet of a small region surrounding Babylon show any “evidence” of a northern hemisphere ice sheet? It doesn’t really show “evidence” of anything, other than perhaps the flow of water in and out of the city and surrounding areas. Not to mention that it is not in any sense an accurate depiction of the geography…

I am starting to equate YEC with flat-earthism…conspiracy theory at a very poor theological level, valuing ignorance above all. I don’t say that to be mean, I like you very much, I just don’t understand the intensity behind hanging on to a theory that is so easily contradicted through science (which is man discovering God’s natural order).

I strongly agree and inasmuch as I have given my life in service to Jesus, I know that His Word addresses truth, while science addresses fact. Science cannot address truth, and the Word rarely crosses into addressing fact (only historically, not scientifically). There will occasionally be confirmation between the two, but they are never at odds and one cannot be used to disprove the other.

2 Likes

Do you think the YEC model is not scientific? If so why?

2 Likes

I don’t see how you equate the two. YEC is a much more complex theory. If you state they both make claims that are problematic given empirical evidence then you have to lump many other theories into your conspiracy theory category.

Is the claim that all life on earth shares a common ancestor a conspiracy theory?

Do you throw out the science from astronomy and geology that show the age of the universe as being ~14 billion years and the evidence from biology, paleontology and genetics of common descent? If so why?

1 Like

Regardless of YEC complexity both YEC and Flat-earthism are based on belief and the denial of established science.

I don’t throw it out as there is lots of evidence here. It is a theory to be strongly considered. I also would not through out the YEC model just based on the time issue you are surfacing. Nathaniel Jeanson has produced some very interesting evidence that supports the young life hypothesis.

The conflict in itself is interesting. Even if the time element is wrong other parts of the theory (model) maybe accurate.

I am, on the other hand, not considering a flat earth at this point :slight_smile:

The YEC model is not scientific because it isn’t based on scientific evidence. It’s based on a literal interpretation of a religious text. In science the evidence drives the conclusion. In YEC the conclusion is assumed and evidence twisted and cherry-picked to fit.

2 Likes

It’s hard to get much simpler than POOF! MAGIC! with absolutely zero details. The only “theory” with less value than YEC is Intelligent Design. At least YEC has a proposed timeline.

On what basis do you accept the YEC arguments as opposed to the evidence from mainstream scientists? How do you decide which arguments to trust?

1 Like

OK, equate is the wrong term…my point is that both ignore obvious science…flat earthers can just look at a picture of the globe from space and know that they are wrong…likewise YEC can just look at a galaxy calculated to be >6000 light years away and know that they are wrong. In that respect, I don’t get the insistence of hanging on to a scientifically proven flawed belief.

I honestly don’t know enough about common descent, but I would guess that it also proves YEC wrong in terms of the time it takes for genetic mutations…but again, I can’t speak to it intelligently.

I take nothing away from God or His word by saying science has the ability to prove and understand the natural wonder of His creation.

1 Like

I agree with this!

2 Likes

It is logically not possible to hang on to YEC and state that there is enough evidence to prove the universe is 14 billion years old. The two statements are contradictory.

1 Like

OK, the acronym is Young Earth Creationism…Young specifically meaning the universe and earth were created simultaneously in roughly 4000 BC…If you take out the time element, there is no part of the theory that remains, it becomes OEC or something else entirely. A YEC proponent can try and refute this and I would just tell them if they think it means something else, they would need to change the name, which again means they are not YEC…

When a modern day astrophysicist tells me the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I’m going to trust that they know better than Moses did how to calculate that. I have the capacity to understand the physics of light, and the speed at which it travels and that there are calculable things that emit light that we see further away than 6000 light years. I can trust that Moses left the Word purposefully ambiguous and poetic (not literal), so that science could discover it without proving the Word of God wrong. The Word tells me that God was in the beginning (eternally past, older than the universe…greater than 13.8B y/o), which makes the science in regard to age of life irrelevant concerning the things of God, we cannot fully understand God or prove God scientifically. God IS. (emphatic period there).

So when we discuss how Neanderthal children were similar to modern day humans in a certain regard, and science can prove that it was 100k+ years ago that they did this…YEC proponents cannot say, “the dating is wrong” without proving it (which they can’t because scripture is not science). So, I get frustrated because YEC proponents obviously love God, but are misled into false beliefs by a man made conspiracy theory.

2 Likes

By the way, that should be “throw out”.

Yes, @Michelle started with that typo, but then you seem to have copied the mistake.

Yes, it is. It is more complex because of the ways that it has to twist and weave in an attempt to evade the clear evidence.

1 Like