Best postive scientific evidence for an old universe/ earth

[roblaine]

I'd just like to point out that although I don't think Job or other early biblical writers lived simultaneously with dinosaurs per se, it is highly probably that the book of Job is describing now extinct/ pre-historic animals. The animals that were apparently around at the advent of man were pretty beastly in their own right (saber toothed tigers, giants sloths, etc..)

Josh,

As we discussed on your forum, none of these animals that you mention fit the description of those mentioned in Job, nor did you ever produce the name of a known creature that you believe lived during the time of Job that does fits the descriptions given in the book of Job. If, as you suggest, the fossil record gives a reliable record of animals that have been present at different points throughout history, should we not find some identifiable fossil that is not a dinosaur that would fit with your theory? It appears to me that the YEC's theory about behemoth, and leviathan is at least a workable theory, where the OEC are left simply to speculate about creatures that they imagine existing at the time of Job. At a minimum I would think that OEC should admit that this evidence is problematic to their theories and reason enough to believe that the debate is not "settled", as some OECs like to say.

Robin

[anochria]

Well, first off, the fossil record is incomplete, so I don't doubt that there are many, many species we have no clue about.

Gotta run, but I'll try and follow up some more later.

[roblaine]

Well, first off, the fossil record is incomplete, so I don't doubt that there are many, many species we have no clue about.

Gotta run, but I'll try and follow up some more later.

One of the points that you have made in our prior discussions, is that since we don't find dinosaur and human fossils together we must therefore conclude that they did not exist at the same time. Do you believe that your statement above (incomplete fossil record) weakens this argument?

Robin

[steve]

we are taught that at one time dinosaurs were the dominant species on the earth. this may not have been the actual case, but their mere size alone would seem to have merited some specific mention in ancient writings, biblical or otherwise.

I am not so sure. As I mentioned, there are no ancient writings that mention saber-toothed tigers. In fact, how many modern books (selected at random from library shelves) would one have to check before finding one that mentions something as well-known (but remarkable) as a praying mantis? I dare say that not one in 100,000 books make mention of such a creature, though everyone has seen them. In fact, their very familiarity may be one reason not to mention them. Their existence is simply taken for granted, and they normally would not be mentioned unless a book was cataloguing species of insects. There is just no occasion to mention them in most writing.

[TK]

good point, steve. agreed.

TK

[anochria]

One of the points that you have made in our prior discussions, is that since we don't find dinosaur and human fossils together we must therefore conclude that they did not exist at the same time. Do you believe that your statement above (incomplete fossil record) weakens this argument?

I love you too, brother It's a pleasure to fellowship with a young-earther every week

I mean that seriously, Robin

Um, in response, I'd just say that not finding humans and dinosaurs or rabbits and dinosaurs or cats and dinosaurs together (or a host of other animals) together (at least yet) is one evidence against them existing at the same time. The good thing about the fossil record is that, from either viewpoint, time should tell with enough digging.

[roblaine]

I love you too, brother It's a pleasure to fellowship with you a young-earther every week

I mean that seriously, Robin

Thanks Josh. I feel the same way about you. I'm grateful that we have a fellowship that allows for different views on many subjects, not only this issue.

Robin

[mkprr]

I find it interesting also, that there are tons and tons of trees running through different coal seams. Did the tree just stand there for millions of years through the Carboniferous era while coal formed around it?

I've heard people bring up this point in the past, and while I lean towards a YEC view point (I'm not wholly decided) it occurred to me recently that this argument might not be as valid as it seems at first. If you are ever in Central Oregon I suggest visiting Clear Lake Resort near Mt Hoodoo. There is lake there that was formed very suddenly by a volcano that dammed up an ice cold mountain spring. Because the water is so cold bacteria doesn't grow well in it and the water is almost perfectly clear. The cold water also effectively petrified many of the trees that were there hundreds or thousands of years ago so when you go out fishing you see this really eery forest underneath you frozen in time. Now most of these trees don't have pine needles anymore but they do have branches and I suspect some pine cones and needles have survived. As time goes on and sediment builds up, these trees will likely stand, already fossilized, for thousands of years I would suspect. I imagine this isn't all that rare of a circumstance. I'm not a geologist though, it is just something I thought was interesting that might add to this conversation.

[mkprr]

On another note, I don't think the creation story is necessarily dishonest if it isn't fully literal. Moses wasn't there in person when the earth was created so he was either shown a vision, or some details were revealed to him about it and he recorded them. Visions are rarely purely factual. I have often wondered if perhaps the reason the sun and stars aren't mentioned until after the creation is in mid progress is that heathens in Moses' day were so fond of worshiping things like the sun and stars. Putting them in the middle (but not exactly in the middle) of the account puts less emphasis on their importance and would likely be helpful in keeping his people away from getting the wrong idea.

Also the fact that we know so little from the Bible about the details of creation compared to, for example, the details of the tabernacle seems to tell me that maybe the creation account might not be pure historical narrative.

Paul's statement seems to clarify further

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 1 cor 13:9-10

I sometimes worry that we spend too much energy putting our faith in things that aren't necessary to our salvation. It is definitely good to look at different view points and to defend the YEC stance because it seems likely to be at least partially accurate but I'd hate to see someone lose their faith in Jesus Christ because they associate YEC theories with following Jesus and then hear a good Old Earth argument that shatters their young fragile faith.

[darinhouston]

we are taught that at one time dinosaurs were the dominant species on the earth. this may not have been the actual case, but their mere size alone would seem to have merited some specific mention in ancient writings, biblical or otherwise.

I am not so sure. As I mentioned, there are no ancient writings that mention saber-toothed tigers. In fact, how many modern books (selected at random from library shelves) would one have to check before finding one that mentions something as well-known (but remarkable) as a praying mantis? I dare say that not one in 100,000 books make mention of such a creature, though everyone has seen them. In fact, their very familiarity may be one reason not to mention them. Their existence is simply taken for granted, and they normally would not be mentioned unless a book was cataloguing species of insects. There is just no occasion to mention them in most writing.

I don't think you prove much from silence and I understand the logic of Steve's point above but it strikes me that if animals like T-Rex, Velociraptors, and the like were roaming the inhabited earth in such an ancient low-tech age, it would have dominated the culture to survive against their ferocity. Certainly, cave paintings and the like would have shown evidence of this.