The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

and only trust those of the same opinion as yourself.

Only if it comes to a choice between the two.

That's the only situation when it matters and it is a completely biased way to think.

I have given examples of the force of 'established truth' and peer pressure in shutting the mouths of scientists. They are not the impartial nor fearless band of heros you paint them to be.

Yeah, but they're not:
"the modern equivalents to Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel"(?!)
There are degrees of people between "fearless band of heros" and the forces of evil.

wolfsbane wrote:

As to JC, your opinion of his abilities matches well the criticisms I have read of other Creationists with PhDs in relevant subjects, so I don't give your's any weight.

I don't understand how you're fooled by him. He has copy and pasted from wikipedia and modified the leading and trailing sentences to look like his own work.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku wrote:

And being "captive to their peers" is a ridiculous statement, the greatest scientists are those who revolutionize our understanding. Most physicists for example would love to overturn relativity.

Not if it pointed to a recent Creation and the God of the Bible.

I've said this before - wolfsbane, that's a lie. There are hundreds of thousands of Christian scientists who would be entirely comfortable with such a conclusion. Strangely, it is only the little band of those who already accept the literal historical interpretation of Genesis who see such evidence.

Following a reference from the paper you suggested, here's a quote from one of the (non-Creationist) sources cited:

The isolation of microorganisms from ancient materials and the verification that they are as old as the materials from which they were isolated continue to be areas of controversy. Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels. This fact has historically been used by critics to argue that these isolates are not ancient but are modern contaminants introduced either naturally after formation of the surrounding material (for further details, see Hazen and Roeder 2001Citation and the reply by Powers, Vreeland, and Rosenzweig 2001Citation ) or because of flaws in the methodology of sample isolation (reviewed recently in Vreeland and Rosenzweig 2002Citation ). Such criticism has been addressed experimentally by the development of highly rigorous protocols for sample selection, surface sterilization, and contamination detection and control procedures. Using the most scrupulous and well-documented sampling procedures and contamination-protection techniques reported to date, Vreeland, Rosenzweig, and Powers (2000)Citation reported the isolation of a sporeforming bacterium, Bacillus strain 2-9-3, from a brine inclusion within a halite crystal recovered from the 250-Myr-old Permian Salado Formation in Carlsbad, NM.

So, 250-million year old bacterium closely resembles modern bacteria. This is an observation - and one that needs to be explained. What is the most convenient way of explaining it? Well, contamination would be the obvious choice - we simply claim that the samples are modern bacteria, and that there is no problematic observation to explain.

At least, that's what we'd do if wolfsbane's conspiracy were true. It isn't, so instead scientists treat this as a genuine, puzzling, question. Instead of covering up with a claim of contamination, they work rigorously to exclude any possibility of contamination.

Indeed, why would such a paper have even seen the light of day? Why was it not suppressed? Why did not the authors, on stumbling on the problem, look the other way?

Virtually all the creationist articles that wolfsbane and JC have referenced in this thread cite scientific papers - papers that point out puzzles, challenges, and potential problems with accepted scientific theories - papers that are not the work of creationists.

At the same time, creationists claim that scientists cannot publish work that points out puzzles, challenges, or potential problems with accepted scientific theories.

So, creationists regularly make use of exactly the kind of papers that they say are never published...

Someone, somewhere, is kidding themselves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Virtually all the creationist articles that wolfsbane and JC have referenced in this thread cite scientific papers - papers that point out puzzles, challenges, and potential problems with accepted scientific theories - papers that are not the work of creationists.

That is an excellent point, completely ignored by wolfsbane and JC.

Creationists constantly drone on about problems in biology and physics theories as if they themselves have discovered these problems, as if they are the last bastion of scientific critical analysis, the only ones brave enough to be pointing these problems out

In fact the reality is quite different.

The vast majority of the issues Creationists claim against these theories are actually simply rehashes of issues and problems mainstream science has already identified and have been working on for years.

The idea that there is some widespread atheists conspiracy to hide the "truth" about creation within mainstream science is laughable to the point of totally absurdity.

The biggest challenger to modern scientific theories is the scientific community themselves. That is why science works, it is self-regulating. A theory has to stand on its own because you can bet that there are 100 other theories waiting to take its place if it cannot.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, the conspiracy theory is the last refuge of those lost without a proper argument. This holds equally with the guy on Grafton St who thinks the CIA made him lose his house as it does for the Creationists who believe the scientific community is trying to hid the truth of creation from the world.

The far more plausible explanation is that the CIA had nothing to do with the guy on Grafton St. losing his house, just like the far more plausible explanation is that Creation Science is ignored because it is simply wrong.

(of course seeing that I am under the control of the crab people I would say that, wouldn't I)

robindch

> We once stood where they now stand.

With respect, you have never stood where we stand, because you have never understood what we understand.

robindch

> I am under the control of the crab people I would say that, wouldn't I)

The crab people? You heretic! It's clams, my boy. Clams!

JimiTime

Hi again. Earlier I said that the old earth doesn't contradict the bible, but old life would, as far as I'm aware. So the question is, what is the oldest life found on earth. How was it dated? I've seen some things about fossils being dated, then arguements saying that the biblical flood would make these date older than they actually are, can this be explained? And same as last time, are there any assumptions made, and what would it take for these assumptions to be incorrect?
Thanks again.:)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

That is an excellent point, completely ignored by wolfsbane and JC.

Creationists constantly drone on about problems in biology and physics theories as if they themselves have discovered these problems, as if they are the last bastion of scientific critical analysis, the only ones brave enough to be pointing these problems out

In fact the reality is quite different.

The vast majority of the issues Creationists claim against these theories are actually simply rehashes of issues and problems mainstream science has already identified and have been working on for years.

The idea that there is some widespread atheists conspiracy to hide the "truth" about creation within mainstream science is laughable to the point of totally absurdity.

The biggest challenger to modern scientific theories is the scientific community themselves. That is why science works, it is self-regulating. A theory has to stand on its own because you can bet that there are 100 other theories waiting to take its place if it cannot.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, the conspiracy theory is the last refuge of those lost without a proper argument. This holds equally with the guy on Grafton St who thinks the CIA made him lose his house as it does for the Creationists who believe the scientific community is trying to hid the truth of creation from the world.

The far more plausible explanation is that the CIA had nothing to do with the guy on Grafton St. losing his house, just like the far more plausible explanation is that Creation Science is ignored because it is simply wrong.

(of course seeing that I am under the control of the crab people I would say that, wouldn't I)

Have people actually said that science is a conspiracy hiding creation?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Hi again. Earlier I said that the old earth doesn't contradict the bible, but old life would, as far as I'm aware. So the question is, what is the oldest life found on earth.

There is still some debate over the exact oldest fossiles of organic life on Earth, but they are put around 3.5 to 3.8 billion years old. These are fossiles that appear to be simple bateria, but because they are so old and small they are hard to identify very well.

The oldest most easily identifiable fossiles (ie definiately complex life) are found from approx 1 billion years ago.

JimiTime wrote:

How was it dated?

Various methods, mostly radiometeric dating.

JimiTime wrote:

I've seen some things about fossils being dated, then arguements saying that the biblical flood would make these date older than they actually are, can this be explained?

Complete nonsense. The flood only lasted for a year and a half. If you put something at the bottom of a lake it doesn't fossilise after a year and half.

This is when Creationists most often bring up the "God did it" excuse.

Despite no support from the Bible, Creationists argue that during the Flood God caused so much tectonic activity that whole mountain ranges such as the Alpes and the Andes formed during the flood, and the pressure from these massive tectonic movements caused fossiles to form very quickly.

They ignore the fact that such tectonic activity is not mentioned in the Bible, and would have destroyed large parts of the surface of the Earth. But then Creation Science allows the "God did it" excuse to solve any supposed problems with the theory, so it is impossible to argue against this logic. Science has no way of proving God didn't do it.

From a scientific point of view one could write a book on the reasons why the Flood didn't happen. But the Creationists response to each of these problems would simply be "God did it"

JimiTime wrote:

And same as last time, are there any assumptions made

Assumptions are made about the fossils of life older than about approx 1 billion years, and as I said there is still quite a debate going on in science as to these oldest fossils and what exactly they are.

JimiTime wrote:

, and what would it take for these assumptions to be incorrect?

There could be another explination for the fossils found that are old than 1 billion years, but the most likely one is that they are early life. After all complex baterial life probably did not just appear suddenly 1 billion years ago (though there is a theory that it did come from space)

But then, since 1 billion year old life doesn't fit with the Bible any more than 3.8 billion year old life from a Creationists point of view neither of these dates are acceptable because they both contradict the Bible.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Have people actually said that science is a conspiracy hiding creation?

Yes, all the time.

Wolfsbane and JC are constantly stating that mainstream science has an atheist agenda and the scientific community are purposely conspiring to hide or misrepresent evidence that supports a Biblical model of creation. This is a quite common Creationist complaint.

They normally do this in response to the question If the Bible is correct then why do so many scientists from so many different backgrounds, including Christians, reject the Biblical account of creation as not being a literal account of creation?

The thing is, I genuinely believe that a lot of Creationists actually think they are 100% right, the Earth was created in 6 days, the first life on Earth was made completely fully formed in a flash, humanity was first created as a single adult male in a garden south of Babylon, the first woman was made out of a rib from this man. The believe this because of religious grounds, the Bible is the literal word of God otherwise there would be no reason to believe in God. And they want to believe in God, so the Bible has to be perfect.

So they actually can't understand why science isn't comfirming this for them.

Why does science suggest the Earth is actually a big ball of compressed stellar rock and gas from a star that exploded 5 billion years ago, when we know the Earth and everything in it was created by God over a 6 day period for us to live on?

Why does science suggest that the universe is 10 billion years old, when the heavens were created by God on the 2nd day of creation?

Why is science claiming that humans evolved from older species approx 150,000 years ago when we know humans were created by God in the garden of Eden 10,000 years ago?

Why is science claiming that all life on Earth evolves due to mutation and natural selection when we know that God made all life in one go during the 6 days of creation?

Basically, why is science lying to us? It must be obvious from the evidence that the Biblical model of creation is the correct one, so why is science constantly stating it didn't happen like that?

They need to find a rational explination to this, because after all they can't wrong. From that point of view the most likely rational explination is that science knows it is wrong but is pushing an false agenda on the general population, an evil atheist agenda attempting to mislead and distort the truth, because scientist want people to believe in their religion "atheism". They probably believe at the back of all this that it is the work of Satan, after all Satan is known as the "Great Deciever"

Scofflaw

Post 4000 ended page 200!

Perhaps one of our expert statisticians can tell us the chances of that.


slightly surprised,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Well, it's been interesting reading it, another 4, 000 coming up.
Edit: I did statistics in college, the answer is one!


Yes jimi, they claim that sciene is an atheist conspiracy all the time, for some reason...
JC and Wolfsbane are the ones I have seen say it, I think.

JimiTime

Hmmm, while I believe in creation, I don't really go for the conspiracy theory, not that it really matters.

If I may ask a rhetorical question. The arguements you quote creationists making in relation to the tectonic activity etc I.E. 'God did it'. Would that be an explaination if it were in fact true? If I may ellaborate, If God actually did cause the tectonic activity spoken of, could this then explain the fossills?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Post 4000 ended page 200!

Perhaps one of our expert statisticians can tell us the chances of that.


slightly surprised,
Scofflaw

Such an event would be impossible, so clearly God must have designed it that way

Cool, I got 4,000th post

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

If I may ask a rhetorical question.

What you ask isn't rhetorical.

The arguements you quote creationists making in relation to the tectonic activity etc I.E. 'God did it'. Would that be an explaination if it were in fact true? If I may ellaborate, If God actually did cause the tectonic activity spoken of, could this then explain the fossills?

It could, but it would be non-scientific.

<edit for clarification>

"God did it" can be used as an explanation for anything. If God caused the tectonic activity, then this is an admission that there is no scientific model which can explain it, so Divine Intervention is instead called for.

Similarly, the fossils shouldn't be there, but hey...if God caused the tectonic activity, then God could have caused the fossils to be there too. God could also have caused higher rates of nuclear decay without the earth needing to be vaporised, as per Son Goku's earlier post.

In every case, though, what it boils down to is a situation where the real answer is "we have no scientific explanation for this", and thus it is ascribed to God having intervened instead.

"God did it" is a response which admits that something happened in defiance of the scientific understanding of the universe. If it wasn't in defiance of this understanding, then science could explain it without the need to invoke God.

Thus, "God did it" is the excuse for why the scientific explanation is wrong. It is, therefore, non-scientific.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Hmmm, while I believe in creation, I don't really go for the conspiracy theory, not that it really matters.

If I may ask a rhetorical question. The arguements you quote creationists making in relation to the tectonic activity etc I.E. 'God did it'. Would that be an explaination if it were in fact true? If I may ellaborate, If God actually did cause the tectonic activity spoken of, could this then explain the fossills?

No - fossilisation isn't a tectonic process. Rapid tectonic activity of the kind required by Flood theories like the hydroplate theory would, if anything, slow down fossilisation. It would also, in most cases, prevent fossilisation because of the sheer amount of disturbance.

Most fossilisation is a replacement of the organism's tissues with minerals - usually those carried in solution by the local groundwater. Usually this process is diagenetic - that is, it occurs as a change before the sediment containing the animal turns to rock. After the sediment lithifies, the process can continue (water moves through most rock, but much more slowly), but at a much slower rate. It's really quite a peaceful process, and fairly delicate.

In addition, the rapid burial of rocks required by the Flood will not actually help rocks solidify. No amount of pressure will turn sand into rock if it is buried full of water - because water is incompressible. All that results is a huge depth of buried sediment under enormous pressure. It won't turn to rock until the water has been squeezed out.

Of course, while sediments are still not solid, ramming them together will not create mountains like the Andes and the Himalayas - or even as high as the Sugarloaf. It will just create big heaps of wet sand.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

What you ask isn't rhetorical.

Indeed as you pointed out, my ignorance is not limited to science:o Maybe I should have said, 'for the sake of arguement'. Thanks for pointing it out though.

It could, but it would be non-scientific.

Ok. what about what scofflaw said? He claims that even if 'God caused' tectonic activity happened, it still wouldn't explain things?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The arguements you quote creationists making in relation to the tectonic activity etc I.E. 'God did it'. Would that be an explaination if it were in fact true?

"God did it" would certainly be an explination, but it would be one that is impossible to prove, and would also make science a pointless excercise

For science to have any point the universe must be in some form of fixed state. It doesn't matter if this state was set by God or if it was a naturall phenomona. All that matters is that it is relatively fixed. If God is constantly altering things, changing the laws of nature on a whim, and making things look like things that they aren't, then science becomes rather pointless.

Which is why the term "Creationist Science" is a rather silly paradox.

JimiTime wrote:

If God actually did cause the tectonic activity spoken of, could this then explain the fossills?

No (as Scofflaw points out), but then it doesn't really matter.

If you are using the "God did it" excuse anything and everything is possible. Since God can do what ever He likes the laws of physics and chemistry are meaningless, and as such science becomes meaningless.

The rapid tectonic activity that Creationists talk about talking place during the Flood would not create fossils like the ones we find, but that is rather beside the point because the rapid tectonic activity Creationists talk about in the first place isn't possible to being with. You would have to alter the nature and structure of the Earth to cause this activity.

God could have altered the structure of the Earth to allow for the rapid tectonic activity. This still would not have created the enviornment for fossils to form, but hey God could have change that too. He could have altered the laws of chemistry to allow for this impossible tectonic activity to also produce these impossible fossils. And He could have changed everything back so it looks like it does now.

You end up with an endless march of God constantly altering things so they appear different than they are. Our observations and models of the universe become pointless, because reality is not a fixed thing. Reality is what ever God wants it to be at any given point in time. The laws of nature one day might be completely different another day, and it is doubtful we would even notice.

As has been mentioned before any Creationist theory is therefore "prefect", because the "God did it" excuse can be used to explain anything, you just have to keep using it over and over again.

JimiTime

Are there any circumstances that fossilisation could have occurred other than what is currently accepted in science?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Ok. what about what scofflaw said? He claims that even if 'God caused' tectonic activity happened, it still wouldn't explain things?

It wouldn't explain things under the normal process that fossils form. But then if God can fundamentally alter the structure and behaviour of the Earth to allow for this tectonic activity on a whim, He can also fundamentally change the process that creates fossils.

Or why bother at all, why not just make the fossils appear by magic?

The question to keep in mind during all this is why? Why alter the nature of reality to make it look like something happened one way when in fact it happened another way.

The most blantantly obvious example of this is the idea of a supernova

As you probably know light travels through space at a certain speed (and when I say light I mean all photonic radiation, not just visiable light). The term "light year" is the distance light will travel in a year. Some stars are so far away that it takes light from the star millions of years to travel to us on Earth.

If the universe (the heavens and "light") were created on 10,000 years ago 99.9999% of the universe should be invisiable to us, because the light from these stars, created only 10,000 years ago, would not have reached us yet. Clearly the opposite is true, since we can see them

The Creationists explination to this is that God not only made the stars, but he also made the stream of light stretching from the star to us. Instead of the very first beem of light having to travel a few million light years before we could see it, God gave it a head start, producing the entire beem in one go. Fair enough, God might have wanted us to see these stars.

The really paradox comes from the idea that because light takes so long to reach us we can be recieving light from stars that no longer exist.

Say we have a star 2 million light years away, that exploded 1 million years ago. If the light from a star sets off 2 million years ago, by the time that light is travelling to us the star has exploded. In fact a lot of the stars we see in the sky have exploded, but we are still waiting for the light from this explosion to reach us. We are still seeing the star as it was 2 million years ago, because the light that set off 2 million years ago is just reaching us, it has taken 2 million years to travel 2 million "light years" (remember a light year is a distance, the distance light travels in a year).

The image we see are made up of light that left that star 2 million years ago (light is made up of photons, that travel through space), and while this image was travelling through space to us the star itself exploded 1 million years after this light left the star. The image of this explosion is on its way, but won't get to us for a million years.

But if God made the universe and all light 10,000 years ago then these stars never existed. God made the light, but not the star itself. We have the image of the star before it exploded, but that imagine is of the star 2 million years ago, and since the universe only existed for 10,000 years and the star exploded 1 million years ago the star actually never existed, just the "fake" image we are recieving on Earth.

The question is why? Why make the universe appear to be something it isn't. Why make light travelling through space that looks like it is from a exploding star that never in fact existed. Why?

It is around this time that the Creationist explination machine goes into over drive. The responses range from "Everything God does has a plan" to "Don't question the will of God"

And I mean there is absolutely no way for science to show that the light falling on a radio telescope that appears to be from a supernova 3 million light years away, was actually created 10,000 light years away at the beginning of the universe by God and just made to appear like it was from a supernova that happened 3 million years ago.

The real question you have to ask yourself is "Does that make sense?" At what point does the "God did it" excuses become absurd?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Are there any circumstances that fossilisation could have occurred other than what is currently accepted in science?

Any way that God wants it to occur. God (I assume) is not bound by the laws of the universe, and therefore can do anything He wishes.

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Ok. what about what scofflaw said? He claims that even if 'God caused' tectonic activity happened, it still wouldn't explain things?

If God did the tectonic activity, and only the tectonic activity, then I side with Scofflaw.

But once you allow God to interfere to bring about cause/effect situations that violate scientific understanding, then why stop where there are still unknowns?

The reason God is invoked for tectonics is because there is no other option other than to reject that it happened "post-flood". God is invoked to explain why science is wrong.

The invocation of God as (if we excuse the inherent pun) Deus Ex Machina is inherently non-scentific - it is using the conclusion to drive the interpretation of the evidence.

If we allow that God did the tectonics, then nto only does it explain away the tectonic problem, it also means that we implicitly allow "God interferes" as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Whenever science doesn't conclude what we want....God interferes...and we have the conclusion we want.

So if the fossils also need explaining, and we've allowed God to interfere, then the conclucsion could be that God must have done that too.

Its logically consistent. It uses the same conclusion-drives-interpretation-of-evidence approach. Its non-scientific.

If I miusunderstood the question, and you meant that if tectonics-happening-overnight could explain fossilisation, then I'd still have to say "maybe", because it would depend on how God managed to do mountains overnight. If it was "let there be mountains", then there'd probably be no fossils. However, if it was "let this world, but not those living on it, be affected as though several billion years passed over the course of the next 12 hours", then sure, fossils could form, coastlines would be eroded, mountains could appear, and science would be fooled into thinking several billion years had passed because in a manner of speaking, they had.

Its still not scientific though.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Any way that God wants it to occur. God (I assume) is not bound by the laws of the universe, and therefore can do anything He wishes.

Ok, but God would not really have a purpose in 'magically' making fossills. You keep going back to 'but then creationists will say this or that or the other'. I'm not a creation scientist, nor have I said this that or the other. I have merely asked question's. I haven't contradicted your answers, just asked more questions. I have also stipulated a number of times that the old earth and universe do not apply to me as they are not indicated in the bible to my knowledge. I am curious about the science of an old earth, but the big question for me is the age of 'life'. So once again, for arguements sake. What would have had to happen in order for fossils to occur, if life was only 6,000 years old? Is there anything that could have happened, I.E. A by-product of the biblical flood etc etc? I am not asking you to believe this or that, I'm just curious of what scientifically would have had to happen in order for the age of life to be 6,000 years old?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Are there any circumstances that fossilisation could have occurred other than what is currently accepted in science?

Essentially, the answer to that, of course is - if there are, we don't know about them.

That is to say, if someone suggests a mechanism for fossilisation that is not currently an accepted mechanism, then it will be studied. If it seems to work, it will be accepted - if not, not.

Only those mechanisms which we have yet to think of, or which are still under investigation, are both possibly acceptable, and not accepted as possibilities, if you see what I mean.

What I said summarises the essence of the mechanism, but obviously different fossils are likely to have undergone changes that are slightly different in detail. There is little need for a clam or an oyster to be fossilised as such, since their shells in any case consist of the same mineral that would most likely replace them - calcium carbonate - nevertheless, they do fossilise, and the original aragonitic form of calcium carbonate in the shell is replaced by a calcite form. This is not the case for a fish bone, which is not calcium carbonate to begin with.

So, order of replacement, preferential replacement of particular minerals, speed of fossilisation - all will vary. However, all known fossils nevertheless appear to be the results of the currently understood fossilisation mechanism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Are there any circumstances that fossilisation could have occurred other than what is currently accepted in science?

You're asking if science allows other possibilities other than what science allows. This is - by definition - impossible.

There is the possibility that science is wrong, as always. All that means, though, is that we remain open to the possibility but only accept it as more than a theoretical possibility when our current model can be shown to be wrong (cause scientific models are falsifiable).

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

If I miusunderstood the question, and you meant that if tectonics-happening-overnight could explain fossilisation, then I'd still have to say "maybe", because it would depend on how God managed to do mountains overnight. If it was "let there be mountains", then there'd probably be no fossils. However, if it was "let this world, but not those living on it, be affected as though several billion years passed over the course of the next 12 hours", then sure, fossils could form, coastlines would be eroded, mountains could appear, and science would be fooled into thinking several billion years had passed because in a manner of speaking, they had.

Its still not scientific though.

If I may be so bold. 'IF' you believed in God and in life being 6000 years old. What would he have had to have done in order to leave the fossils as a by-product?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Ok, but God would not really have a purpose in 'magically' making fossills. You keep going back to 'but then creationists will say this or that or the other'. I'm not a creation scientist, nor have I said this that or the other. I have merely asked question's. I haven't contradicted your answers, just asked more questions. I have also stipulated a number of times that the old earth and universe do not apply to me as they are not indicated in the bible to my knowledge. I am curious about the science of an old earth, but the big question for me is the age of 'life'. So once again, for arguements sake. What would have had to happen in order for fossils to occur, if life was only 6,000 years old? Is there anything that could have happened, I.E. A by-product of the biblical flood etc etc? I am not asking you to believe this or that, I'm just curious of what scientifically would have had to happen in order for the age of life to be 6,000 years old?

1. massively increased rates of change in organisms - say 500,000 times faster than observed, to fit a 3,000,000,000 year history into 6,000 years. Human evolution from Homo erectus, currently thought to have occurred 250-400,000 years ago, would have occurred last year (2005). The evolution of dogs from wolves would have happened sometime over the summer.

2. alternatively, if humanity existed from the very beginning, then we would have been coeval with everything from dinosaurs to the Ediacara fauna (a bunch of nightmarish sea-creatures with, in most cases, no known living relatives).

3. all animals and plants would have to be stacked in a layer 4 or 5 deep on every square foot of available land - and that's just based on what we actually find in the fossil record. If we extrapolate from estimated rates of fossilisation to probable populations, we need to bury the whole surface of the planet about 100 yards deep in living beings.

4. virtually all geology needs to be wrong.

5. our understanding of radioactivity needs to be fairly badly wrong.

Anyway, I could go on, but I've picked some of the more dramatic examples out of a huge list. In essence, several major fields of science would need to be almost entirely incorrect, and a huge number of physical impossibilities would need to be overcome.

The major one, I suppose, is that to fit all the observed forms of life into 6000 years requires mutation rates and extinction rates to be about 500,000 times faster than we've observed them to be - sufficiently so that you'd be able to see things evolving over the course of a year. Obviously, generations would have to either be incredibly short, or else (given the timescale) you would have to accept that your parents are probably Homo heidelbergensis, or some other early proto-human.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Ok, but God would not really have a purpose in 'magically' making fossills.

Well fossils exist, and they look millions of years old. If they are then that fact contradicts the Bible. So if one assumes the literal Bible has to be correct then these fossils are only 10,000 years old, yet appear to be millions of years old. There is no known natural process that could created them in the last 10,000 years but make them look like they were millions of years old without also vaporising the Earth while it was at it (as has been mentioned to alter the radioactive decay of an object you have to place it in something with extreme energy output, something like an exploding star, a supernova).

If you assume that God must have done something then it makes as much logical sense to suppose God just magically made them up and placed them in the ground as it does to suppose God did a long string of different alterations to the fabric of reality to find a way to create these fossils.

JimiTime wrote:

What would have had to happen in order for fossils to occur, if life was only 6,000 years old?

God would have to alter the nature of reality.

I have no idea how He would do that, or what exactly He would do, since I'm not a god (despite what the ladies will tell you)

JimiTime wrote:

I'm just curious of what scientifically would have had to happen in order for the age of life to be 6,000 years old?

Touching on Scofflaws point 5 - The Earth would have to have been placed inside a supernova, the surface of the Earth would have had to have been heated to 1 trillion degrees kelvin and some how the Earth would have had to have come out of this fine.

The point isn't what would have to happen for fossils to occur in 6,000 years. Fossils can occur in 6,000 years The point would be what would have to happen to make fossils occur in 6,000 years that look like they are million of years old. That is a lot harder (impossible?) to explain without the "God did it" excuse.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

If I may be so bold. 'IF' you believed in God and in life being 6000 years old. What would he have had to have done in order to leave the fossils as a by-product?

I think you are slightly missing the point. If you allow in the "God did it" excuse anything is possible, since God can do anything anyway He wants at any time.

God did not have to do anything a particular way if He made the fossil record. He could have done it anyway He wanted. He could have done what science thinks happened naturally, only sped it up a million times quicker, while holding humans in a seperate limbo so they would not be affected. Or He could have just made them appear out of thin air.

Its like asking what did God have to do to make Adam? He didn't do anything, He just made Him. This is why God is beyond science, because God is not bound by observable and predictable rules. God doesn't follow any rules and as such there is nothing to modeled.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

If I may be so bold. 'IF' you believed in God and in life being 6000 years old. What would he have had to have done in order to leave the fossils as a by-product?

Again, He would have had to speed up the processes of fossilisation enormously. We could say, again, by about 500,000 times, although, if most of the fossilisation occurred immediately post-Flood, the increase would need to be larger still to give the leveks of fossilisation observed.

Obviously, God would then need to slow it down again, otherwise someone buried today would be largely fossilised by spring 2007.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

If I may be so bold.

Please.

'IF' you believed in God and in life being 6000 years old.

I'll answer the question, but I want to ask one in return. Actually...two, but they're quite similar.

Do you accept that such a belief is inherently non-scientific
Do you understand why such a belief is inherently non-scientific?

(Please note - non-scientific doesn't equate to "wrong" in the sense that I use it here. It simply means that it is not a belief supportable within a scientific framework.)

What would he have had to have done in order to leave the fossils as a by-product?

Alter reality.