But equally, your paradigm is falsified by innumerable finds of soft tissue. So we both have a problem that needs more research.
Ah, a new subject. Iâm suspecting youâre getting your ideas of these finds from creationist web sites. Is that true? Once again, the primary literature doesnât support your claims.
My summary of this thread:
Young Earth Creationism cannot be reformed 
1 Like
What do you mean? I have to change? We are not talking about us. We are talking about what we observe of Gods revelation about Himself. I have reviewed all of the interpretations of early GenesisâŚgap theory, sailhammer, etc. If one ignores the science that says the earth is old, the most sensible interpretation of early Genesis is a young earth. If one thinks that this inhibits others from respecting Christianity because they adhere to an old earth view via science, then so be it. I just cannot lie about the nature of God and His revelation about His creative purposes just to appease the science of humans. God transcends our intelligence, take Him or leave Him. God in His essence is the opposite of the natural. He is supernatural. To suggest that He must be conformed to the natural to appease our scientific appetite is foolishness in the highest degree.
This is not to say that i will demand that others believe a young earth to be saved. I believe that the gospel is the means of our salvation. But if someone asks about whether God created the earth 6000 yrs ago, i will tell them the truth that i believe this is what it says and that God is a great God who trascends the natural and leave it at that.
So with regard to science education in this country do you agree with this?
Some Creationists still have this loopy idea what was found were great globs of fresh dino meat still dripping blood. Wrong. What was found are microscopic trace amounts of mineralized biomaterials, mostly collagen, preserved deep inside the fossil. Itâs a neat find which is opening a whole new avenue into dinosaur research but it in no way shape or form is a problem for evolutionary theory or the dating of the dino fossils.
2 Likes
Sailhammer?
Sailhamerâs old earth theory in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Unbound-Provocative-Creation-Account/dp/0880708689
These are 100 myo? Doesnt this surprise you? It did the scientists who discovered them
Yes it was a most surprising find since we didnât know trace biomaterials preserved under remarkable and rare conditions can survive that long. Now we do know. The real mystery is why Creationists think this find somehow negates the other 150+ yearsâ of positive evidence we have for an old Earth and evolution of life over at least the last 3.8 BY.
I bet you forgot all about your Flood explanation for those geologic angular uncomformities, right? 
4 Likes
Ok. I understand. I know one thing for sure, I do not want to be the cause of your overthrow of faith. Keep it at all costs. Even if the earth is old, your faith is more important.
I am concerned about the young ones, however, coming up in homeschools and who love science. They will not have a chance in the real university and real world if they hold to a young earth. I am concerned.
Greg misspelled the surname. He was referring to the late John Sailhamer, an Old Testament professor and translation team member on the NLT and the HCSB Bible projects.
I used to work with John. His âhistorical creationismâ viewed Genesis 1 as a description of the preparation of the garden in the Eden region as a home for Adam and Eve, rather than an account of the creation of the world or the universe in general.
Is it âsensibleâ to ignore what God has revealed to us in his creation?
Also, are you implying that evangelical Christian theologians and scientists are not sensible?
Yet, it sounds like you are implying that what God has revealed in his creation is a lie. (Or are you saying that the aforementioned evangelical Christian theologians and scientists are somehow deceived?)
Why are you assuming that the aspersions you are casting apply to an old earth position more than a young earth position? This sounds like poorly considered special pleading. (It sounds like, âGod agrees with me because I say so.â)
2 Likes
I donât suspect it would, but then, neither is it able to adequately explain what they are finding. The iron test is no longer sufficient - too much soft tissue evidence outside that âenclosedâ realm has been found.
Conclusion: The dates of radioactive rock are old, but they are also adjusted. Sedimentary rock has not been dated. Only doing that would produce evidence of your claims. Soft tissue supports young sedimentary rock.
Evidence please.
That seems odd. How could he make any such case, given that the text describes formation of the firmament of heaven, the dry land emerging from water, life in the ocean, and formation of the sun, moon, and stars?
1 Like
Whatever are you talking about, and where did you find it?
What do you mean âadjustedâ? Are you accusing geologists of a worldwide conspiracy to fake the data?
You do understand how lava flows work, right? They flow on the surface. That means lava flows above a sedimentary layer were laid on top of that layer when it was on the surface, and flows below that layer were laid before that layer was deposited. That means the age of the sedimentary layer falls between the ages of the lava flows above and below it.
Incidentally, some sediments can actually be dated directly using diagenetic minerals. Guess what: also old.
According to the creationist web site youâve been reading?
I never agreed with John Sailhamer on his Genesis 1 approach. Nevertheless, a lot of evangelical leaders and theologians found it appealing, ranging from conservative pastors like John Piper to self-described âprogressivesâ (such as in the Emergent Church movement and âseekers ministryâ movement.)
It has been many years since I read Sailhamerâs book on this topic but I recall him considering all of your aforementioned list being âobservableâ from the Edenic garden (or related to its history and formation.) Keep in mind that all of this would be within the Ancient Semitic world everything above Eden is âthe heavensâ and everything below is of âthe landâ (because ERETZ refers to the âthe landâ not âplanet earthâ, a more modern concept.)
I was not a proponent of Sailhamerâs position so youâd probably get fairer coverage from one of the many positive online reviews or one of the Youtube videos about Sailhamerâs Genesis Unbound.
I propose that we build new universities with state of the art science curriculums. I know if a couple of Christian billionaires. Whether the earth is billions or thousands of yrs old does not inhibit science. Science was established by Christians who chose God and Scripture first and science was observance of His world. This does not inhibit finding a cure for cancer.
Kurt wise was a yec going into harvard under Gould into a geology field!
How do you define âstate of the artâ science curriculums? And why do you assume that the many well-funded Christian universities need to be replaced by ânew universitiesâ funded by Christian billionaires? The existing Christian universities already accept many Christian young people who study science, including those from home-schooled backgrounds.
If such universities reject evolutionary processes, that certainly does inhibit their graduates âfinding a cure for cancerâ (unless they start accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary processes.) Moreover, you speak as if cancer is a single disease. It isnât. There are a great many cancersârequiring many different treatments and âcuresâ. When you speak of âfinding a cure for cancerâ, you are reinforcing a popular myth about cancer.
1 Like
Deception according to Scripture is more looking into it as in a mirror to see what it says about our essence then looking away and forgetting what you saw into self deceit. Scripture never gives license to allow scientific observations to trump what Scripture seems to say.