Response plz?: When "evening and morning" are used with a day in Genesis it implies 24 hours

(George Brooks) #81

@John_Warren, I’ll let the enthusiastic @pevaquark tackle your mistaken grasp of Old Earth evidences. He is certainly more qualified than I am.

But I will take this one, because almost anyone could: you think we shouldn’t be able to find traces of DNA in very old bacteria? It all depends on how they were preserved. Provide the citation and we can discuss it.

(John Warren) #82

My point was in response to someone who said if you look at a child he looks a certain age range, so you can validly conclude that he most likely is that age range. Analogously, people investigate the earth and it looks old. My challenge was that it doesn’t necessarily look old. To what would you compare it. We have billions of children walking around. We can ask their age. We see the process all the time. We have one Earth, and we weren’t around when it was formed. No one can get away from bringing a lens to the data. Everyone had presuppositions.

(George Brooks) #83


There are dozens of methods of aging rock, and rock has the benefit of not being able to lie.

And when these methods are cross-referenced, we have agreement between the methods, and between the converging evidence we have for evaluating evolutionary changes we find in the fossils trapped in all those rock.

There is probably nothing more reliably known than the age of the Earth. Please recall, it was geologists who first discussed the need to accept that the Earth is very old… and they weren’t discussing evolution at all! Darwin had not even gone on his voyage yet.

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #84

I’m genuinely curious, and this isn’t a gotcha question. If “historical science” (as you guys call it) is so hopelessly unreliable and unscientific, how can you use it to find evidence for the flood? Wouldn’t this critique of the scientific consensus also undercut your own hypotheses?

(John Warren) #85

That’s my point, actually. I don’t say it’s hopeless. I start with presuppositions (as does everybody). Science is twofold: our attempts to subdue and protect nature (i.e. responsible technology), and our attempts to think God’s thoughts after Him. Any theory must bend to what Scripture clearly says. What I see Biologos doing is causing Scripture to bend to erroneous science. I’ve seen enough of the herd mentality in action in peer reviewed science to give me quite a skeptical eye toward the whole process. And that was in the religiously neutral field of EUV Astrophysics, which I participated in for a short time. But when it comes to ultimate matters, of course there’s going to be a deceiver and slanderer involved in the whole process. How could there not be?

(John Warren) #86

Need I say that everyone involved is not deceitful? I’m talking about the great enemy, who is involved in every field of inquiry, to try to turn people’s eyes away from the glory of God, and to get people to second guess what God said.


Lake Florrisant in Colorado, now long gone, tells us a different story. It was a local lake.

(John Warren) #88

I’m sure when studied with the right lens it will be found to fit in fine with a YEC model.


That sounds very sad. It’s as if you are afraid to peek outside of your Bible because you’re afraid of what you’ll see.

(John Warren) #90

No, not really.

(Chris Falter) #91

Hi John,

I do have a name; feel free to use it.

You are citing arguments that are rejected by almost every scientist; even the vast majority of Christian scientists do not agree with your view of the scientific evidence.

If you really want to consider the evidence carefully, please begin by providing some references. Many here will discuss these matters with you respectfully. If you are just here to blast us with your credo, though, you will probably not find your efforts very fruitful.

Chris Falter

(Chris Falter) #92

Please give us the details, John. You are espousing views that almost no scientists agree with. If you want to convince us, you will need to provide real evidence, not just an optimistic attitude.

Chris Falter

(Chris Falter) #93

I would like to hear more about this. How are astrophysicists misunderstanding the subject?

(George Brooks) #94


You haven’t even explained how cows avoided drowning longer than Bronto’s and Marine Reptiles! I don’t think you are qualified to make the prediction you make (above).

(John Warren) #95

I don’t mean astrophysicists are misunderstanding origins science. It was a criticism of the scientific process on more mundane topics, like what causes EUV radiation in a cataclysmic variable star. That kind of stuff is where I observed the herd mentality.

(Larry Bunce) #96

The world-wide presence of sedimentary rock is more likely the result of all of the earth’s surface having been ocean bottom at one time or another, rather than proof of Noah’s year-long flood.
Rotation of the earth is slowing, and it has been calculated that a day lasted 4 hr when the earth was formed, so if we want to get technical, YEC’s should say creation took 6 4-hour days.

Interesting article on length ofdays:


Not to mention how flowering plants managed to run for high ground.

(James McKay) #98

Sorry John, it doesn’t work like that. Saying that the earth “looks old” is like saying that Mount Everest “looks tall” when seen from the ground. Saying that it “doesn’t look old” when seen from another viewpoint is like saying that Mount Everest “looks small” when viewed from an aeroplane. But in both cases, you can actually measure it, and come up with a very specific number: a height of 8,848 metres. This height is exactly the same no matter what viewpoint you measure it from.

It’s exactly the same thing with the age of the earth. You measure concentrations of various isotopes in rocks, along with their respective decay rates, and no matter which viewpoint you adopt, the result comes out the same: the earth is 4.54±0.05 billion years old, and the K/Pg boundary was laid down by the event that wiped out the dinosaurs 66,038,000±11,000 years ago.

Attempts to interpret the evidence differently quite frankly descend into patent absurdity. In order to squeeze the nuclear decay evidence into 6,000 years, the young-earth RATE team resorted to proposing levels of accelerated nuclear decay on a scale that, by their own admission, would have raised the temperature of the earth to 22,000°C. It’s like trying to fit Mount Everest into your pocket. It simply doesn’t work.

(Randy) #99

Mr Warren, you are asking good questions. Keep it up.there are excellent answers here. I get a lot of my answers from Biologos myself. God bless.

(John Warren) #100

Thanks for your invitation. Unfortunately I don’t have a lot of time to enter into sustained dialog, compete with examples and references.
John Warren