Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Interesting?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx


Bret*

Caught off the coast of New Zealand in 1977
by a Japanese fishing troller.
Does this look like a Plesiosaur ...
or a Basking Shark ???






Bret*

The Bible describes a beginning of the universe.  Some religions are based on an eternal universe that they believe has always existed.  In the last century, the scientific community has pulled together a mountain of evidence that shows that our universe did have a beginning.  The physical laws related to General Relativity have shown us that space and time came into existence at the beginning of an event called the Big Bang   After a century of observations and analysis, the weight of the scientific evidence has ruled out other hypotheses related to ours being an eternal universe or a cyclical universe.  These hypotheses are the foundation of belief systems such as atheism and eastern religions like Buddhism.  Imagine all the other universes that you like; this one is the only one that counts and the only one humans will inhabit.   

This finding by science is excellent independent confirmation of the first verse made in the Bible.  As science progressed through this past century, it made other discoveries about the geo physics and history of the earth that confirmed the next nine verses of the Bible. These discoveries told us how the moon came into existance through the laws of physics as well as the atmosphere, oceans and continents. It was an amazing century of good science and for me, it has totally validated Genesis1 and our God as the Creator.  These steps in the development of the world show us divine knowledge imbedded in the Bible that humans would discover approximately 4 thousand years later.     


The following post provides a scientific versus Bible comparison of the first ten verses.  From a scientific perspective, the physical laws have been the same since the beginning of the universe and forced the universe to develop in a precise ways based on those laws.  I will attempt to cover each verse of Genesis 1 in two posts and describe the correspondence of presently held scientific theories regarding our universe while showing excellent correlation between both (given the point of reference is placed at the ocean surface of our planet as specified in the Bible (Genesis 1:2)).  This version is based on my assessment of the technical papers I have read on the subject matter.  Although similar to Dr.  Hugh Ross’ views, there are differences in the two versions if compared.  These differences are slight based on the independent studies of the material and are related to the timing of the major events e.g.  dry land appearance.

Epoch/Day  1

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.  

According to the consensus of scientists, the physical laws came into existence 13.7 billion years ago starting the formation of the heavens (galaxies, supernovas, stars).  The sun and the earth condensed from gases and dust produced by prior occurring supernovas and other dying stars 4.6 billion years ago.

 The universe started miraculously with a huge pulse of antigravity or inflatons operating on a singularity (nobody really knows for sure, this is the metaphysics creeping in from non-Christians) and expanded from a point containing all the energy of the universe (no dimensions or time yet) into a ten or eleven dimensional incredibly stretched tiny fireball.  The metaphysics continues as the gravitational energy of the stretched dimensions were then transferred into photon energy trapped in the tiny fireball.  Six of the dimensions stopped expanding at about 10–33 centimeters.  The remaining 3 spatial dimensions and time (space-time) continued to expand causing the photons in fireball to cool.  


This is the point that known physics begins to operate.  At first, only photon energy was present, then through a complex series of symmetry breaking, the photon energy transformed to various particles of matter and antimatter. This series of nuclear interactions provides excellent evidence for design.  One needs to be a nuclear physicist to understand this however.    

After about 34 minutes, only matter consisting of protons, neutrons, electrons, alpha particles (helium nucleus), deuterium and a lot of non-interacting energy were basically all that was left. The fine tuned characteristics of the strong, weak, and electro-magnetic forces matched just right with the expansion rate and density levels to provide an abundance of protons, electrons, and alpha particles just right for the next stage of atom and galaxy development.   

This matter (plasma) was so hot that atoms could not form.  It took the next 300 thousand years for the universe to expand and cool enough to allow atoms to form.  The background radiation in deep space is  2.726o Kelvin and extremely uniform at ~1 part in 100,000.  This signature is exactly what we would expect to see from the photons released during the recombination of hydrogen and helium after 300 thousand years and the Big Bang occurring roughly 13.7 billion years ago.     


Initially this gas was very hot, but as the universe expanded and gravity tugged like brakes on these partcles, this gas cooled.  These large atomic clouds of mostly hydrogen and helium atoms slowly started to condense under the influence of gravity from the very slight concentration differences in the cosmic clouds.  These concentration variations have been measured to be about one part in 100 thousand.  These slight concentration variances led to more than 100 billion galaxies to form in the observable universe under the weak influence of gravitational forces.  The density variations are exactly what is needed to form the galaxies and stars that we see today as gravity operated over long time periods on these slight density fluctuations.  Most  galaxies began to form at about 900 million years after the Big Bang.    


As large rapid burning stars exhausted their lighter elements as fuel and eventually collapsed, the gravitational heating and shock wave caused each star to explode or supernova spewing its contents out into space as a nebula containing the full range of elements and isotopes in the periodic chart.  Eventually the gas and dust of the nebula would re-condense under the force of gravity along with left over hydrogen and helium from the big bang into the next generation stars then repeating a similar cycle of heavier element production.  The sun and our solar system is thought to be a third generation collection of this cosmic star dust that formed roughly nine billion years after the big bang with each generation enriched more with heavier elements.  Our solar system contains relatively high percentages of heavy elements with sufficient amounts to form rocky planets.  The earth was one of inner planets in this solar system with just the right characteristics to support the next phase of development.  It had the right mix of elements, a rare circular orbit, the optimal distance to the sun, large planets in the outer solar system in circular orbits to protect it from asteroids and a nice habitable location in a galaxy that could support mankind’s existence eventually.   

Continuing with Genesis 1:2 now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  

Initially gravitational forces collected meterites into larger and larger body. As it grew in mass, impacts became more violent adding more heat with each collision. This heating turned the young earth solids into a molten state and due to the different materials and densities these materials began to differentiate in this viscous liquid state. Materials such as molten iron migrated downward while silicon and lighter materials floated up. Water and steam, being lighter, migrated toward the surface. As a result,  the early earth (4.6 to 4.5 billion years) had a total water surface on a very deep hot boiling ocean (much deeper than today's deepest ocean).  The reason for so much water is the high percentage of water found in meteors(~4%) which initially aggrgated to form the earth.    This ocean was over molten rock, and under a very thick atmosphere consisting of mostly carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, hydrogen chloride, other greenhouse gases, water vapor and dust that prevented light from reaching the surface of the planet.  The luminosity after the sun began to shine was about 80% or less of the present value and light from it was further obscured by dust, gas and rock fragments in space before reaching the outer cloud tops of the earth.  The atmosphere was boiling hot on one side and close to absolute zero on the other resulting in tremendous turbulence in the atmosphere.  To get a sense of the conditions, imagine hovering over that water surface in tremendous winds and a deluge of acidic rain, barely able to see anything with storm clouds overhead too dark and thick to let any light through.  To make matters worse air as we know it did not exist yet, there was virtually no oxygen in the atmospheric gases.  
The Biblical account matches the scientific account thus far.  Let's see if our luck continues.  Although the earth was not yet suitable for human habitation, God saw promise in what was there and he continued to evolve the planet with His next miracle.  

Genesis 1 … 3 And God said "Let there by light" and there was light.  4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.  .  .  

Scientists tell us that shortly after the earth was formed there was a planetoid impact with the earth.  How brilliant the impact must have been at ground zero, a planetoid roughly the size of Mars impacted the early earth, and a large portion of the earth’s atmosphere and molten lithosphere including oceans was thrown into space forming the moon (~4.55 billion years ago).  A large proportion of the atmospheric gases and ocean water was permanently lost to space.  After a fairly short period of time by geologic standards, some of the dust, rock, and water returned to the earth and settled back to the surface layers of the earth.  The lithosphere was still molten, the recaptured H2O was at first superheated steam or plasma above the magma after the impact.  The atmosphere was thinned to about one-third the former thickness.  After impact of the planetoid, the gravity of the larger size earth prevented the remaining atmosphere components heavier than helium from escaping into space.  As time passed, light absorbing water droplets and dust in the atmosphere settled into the reforming oceans increasing the light that could reach the surface through a thinner translucent atmosphere.  In addition, dust and debris in space cleared as it collected onto various planets or was driven away from the sun by radiation pressure and the solar wind.  This clearing allowed more of the sun's radiation to reach earth's surface.


 At the magma surface, a thin rock crust reformed as cooling rain fell and later pooled to regenerate the oceans.  The rock surface was so thin at this stage that surface features were still absent.  The earth began to differentiate in this molten state into layers with iron and heavy metals moving to the center and lighter elements and molecules moving toward the surface.  Today our planet has an inner solid core of iron and other heavy elements.  Islands of the lighter matter pooled slowly at the surface of the magma- water interface as the differentiation continued over time.  The moon and sun were hidden behind a thinner and translucent atmosphere full of storm clouds with rain falling constantly.  The earth now had tides, shallow boiling oceans, a thinner atmosphere, and light which were essential for the next steps.  


We have now reached the end of the first 'day'.  My version is more verbose  and detailed than the Biblical version, but the Biblical account still matches the scientific account, so let's continue and see how it goes from here.   


Epoch/Day 2:

Genesis 1:6 And God said "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate the waters from the waters".  7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.  And it was so.  8 God called the expanse "sky".  

4.5- to 3.5 billion years ago

The planetoid collision added a tremendous amount of heat to planet and likely sufficient to temporarily boil off the oceans with the mixing of large volumes of magma, water, and atmospheric gases.  After the earth reformed into a spheroid where differentiation continued to separate liquid material according to density while the atmosphere contained ultra-heated steam, rock dust, plasma and gases, the earth began to cool again.  A substantial amount of time and cooling was required to solidify the upper thirty miles of magma into rock using the known laws of physics.  The thermal conductance and heat capacity of rock require many millions of years for even the upper mile of rock to reach a solid state.  The existing laws of physics would prevent cooling of this much magma within a 24 hour period.  At this point an oceans worth of water was suspended above the earth.  The superheated gases near the surface may have initially prevented water droplets from reaching the magma surface but as the rain fell above and evaporated, the temperature at the surface began to drop.  As the magma ocean cooled sufficiently to permit liquid water to first contact the surface, then form droplets on the thin solid rock, then later collect into ponds and eventually boiling oceans, water continued to evaporate at a high rate.  During this time period (4.5 to 4 billion years ago) the ocean temperature has been estimated to drop from 100C to 80C (boiling to scalding hot).  The hotter the ocean water temperature, the greater the evaporation into the atmosphere.  Although the lower levels of the atmosphere were near boiling temperatures, the upper levels of the atmosphere were extremely cold and gases radiated the heat energy away into space.  The fainter sun provided less heat for the earth with only about 75% of the current luminosity thereby increasing the temperature difference between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere which helped to increase the cooling rate.  After oceans were reestablished, the initial atmosphere of the earth was heavily laden with steam, water vapor and water droplets from the boiling ocean surface extending upward to space.  A constant deluge existed due to the steam or hot water vapor from the oceans traveling up into the atmosphere, cooling into water droplets at higher altitudes and falling back into the oceans to be reheated and evaporated once again.   The conditions at this stage of development must have been akin to inside of a pressure cooler. This resulted in a constant downpour as the lithosphere slowly cooled to the point when the atmosphere was no longer saturated with water vapor.  Extreme tidal action from the newly created nearby moon, stronger winds resulting from the higher spin rate of the earth, influx of solar system dust, and atmospheric temperature differences, helped to precipitate rain by infusing aerosols and particles into the atmosphere.  Tremendous levels of volcanic action added even more particulate matter, water, and other gases into the atmosphere.  All of the effects slowly decreased over hundreds of millions of years.  


Eventually for short periods, due to the lessening of one or more of these factors, the deluge of rain would cease as the atmosphere was no longer saturated in a particular area permitting a separation between the ocean (waters) surface and the heavy cloud layer (waters) above.  For the first time there was sky since the rain stopped above the oceans.  The amount of sky grew as time passed, the earth cooled and rotation slowed.   

Epoch/Day 3:


Genesis 1: 9 Then God said "Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place and dry ground appear." And it was so.  10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters He called "seas”.  And God saw that it was good.  

As the heat radiated away into space and as meteor bombardment dissipated, reducing impact heating, the molten rock slowly cooled over the next 500 million years until the lithosphere started to solidify permanently in large areas at about 4 billion years ago (oldest permanent rock field discovered).  Some zircon crystals with a higher melting point have been found that are older but the surrounding rock shows a younger date indicating it was remelted.  Until significant cooling of the crust took place, tectonic plates could not become large and thick enough to breach the surface of the ocean over 2 miles above; the force of gravity would force molten or soft high temperature rock to flatten out.  The continents began surfacing hundreds of millions of years later, as evidenced by the oldest samples of the sediment produced by wind and water erosion discovered in Australia and dated at around 3.46 billion years.  

The Australia plate, based on available data, solidified, thickened and floated to the water surface first with more plates rising to the surface as time passed.  The motion of the plate over the viscous liquid magma is a result of gravitational forces moving the solid plate downhill from the high end where magma rises (like the mid-ocean ridges) toward the low end (subduction zones at plate boundaries). This is a simple result of the laws of physics operating as they were intended to.  The miracle, if there has to be one, is in the laws of physics and how they transform energy and matter into a desired state from an exacting initial set of conditions.  I would argue that this is not a miracle but well planned and a consequence of the fixed laws of heaven and earth.  I am sure it was God's intention that the iron flowing in the earth's core and mantle with its radioactive isotopes and the heat they release not only produce a magnetic field to protect the forthcoming biology and maintain the right set of gases in our atmosphere but also drive plate tectonics to move, modify and lift the continents while sustaining biology with recycled nutrients from volcanic action.  We can measure the movement of these tectonic plates, the changing magnetic field of earth's dynamo, the weathering of rock, and watch the lava flow at plate boundaries that provide evidence of the steady but slow processes that cause earth's ever changing features and explain its complex topography.  We drill holes on each side of the mid ocean ridges to find older and older rock until reaching subduction zones off the coasts of continents where those samples are 100s of millions of years older than the basalts near the ridge.  We even find numerous polarity shifts of the magnetic field lines of earth frozen in the basalts paralleling the rifts as lava flowed out of the ridges and solidified millennia after millennia all the way across the ocean floor.  We find numerous rock features and compositions on each side of the Atlantic that exactly match.  If the shoreline shape similarity between Europe, Africa, South America, and North America are not sufficient in themselves to convince us, we also have extinct ancient fossils found in matching areas of diverging plates (found nowhere else on earth) now on opposite sides of the Atlantic.  

If one is wary of these discoveries under the sea, a simple drive along the San Andreas fault or an aerial view should be convincing enough as you pass over shifted river beds an fences that move about an inch each year because of the tectonic plate motion that is showing no sign of stopping.  If there is no time for travel, simply check the geologic surveys of Nepal and observe that Mount Everest grows about 2.4 inches each year as the Indian Plate subducts under the EurAsian plate. We know this because MIT scientists are monitoring it with instruments.   

Dry land finally appears when the first continent rises above ocean level from the sea floor miles below and the constant deluge of rain has ended allowing dry land to occassionally appear.

For those seeking to increase their knowledge in this area, a more in depth treatment and additional convincing details that plate tectonics is a real process on earth, I recommend going to the following website: http://science.jrank.org/pages/5327/Plate-Tectonics-Proofs-tectonic-theory.html.  If you desire more detail, read a good book on geology such as 'Understanding Earth'.  Both of these sources provide explanations of what we see on our planet consistent with the natural laws and topography of the earth.  

So after these major changes in the cosmos and earth, the Biblical account still matches the scientific account, but let's stop here for the moment after 2 and a half 'Days' since we transition now to the biological development of the earth. Additional posts are forthcoming. 

Lee

I'll be returning the "Creation, Science, & Genesis" tapes to Stu tomorrow.
Let me just hit a few High points of the last 3-Speakers in the Series ...
Plus a condensed breakdown of the 2-hour Group face-off !!!

Tape #3
Astronomer - Hugh Ross
Finally ... a true polished professional Creation Evangelist!
He gave a very powerful testimony about the unique Truth and irrefutable
accuracy of the Bible vs. the teachings of the other World Religions!
He approached the Bible from his understanding of the Big-Bang Theory
as well as the Billions of years in would take for the Universe to come into
being under that premiss. He seemed to have little to no problem with
interpreting the Genesis account to fit his scientific understanding.
Because there are dozens of completely independent scientific methods of
measuring the age of the Universe ... and the fact that they ALL give the
same 20-Billion year age ... he never even considered that the Bible may
be implying that the Creation week was actually Six 24-hour Days.
He speaks with such certainty about his view, and he is obviously a very
well educated & intelligent man ... that it's no wonder that he is so well
received by the Mensa crowd that are looking for deeper answers to life!
He is very quick to give answers to those who question his views ... and
does it in a calm but somewhat intimidating way.
A solid performance ... and totally unbending in his stance!

Tape #4
Theologian - Robert Saucy
This was probably the Best & most well-balanced explanation of the
Gap-Theory from a Biblical standpoint that I've ever heard!
Kind of a "Have your cake & eat it" view of an Old Earth & Universe ...
but with a Young (literal 6-Day) Creation!
He did not try to pander to the scientific views of the day ... but instead
felt that references to "the Deep" & "Null and Void" implied a possible
pre-Day-1 judgement of Lucifer which may have caused a do-over for
God with Creating the Earth. This would explain either an apparent age
or possibly an actual age being much older than just the Adam to Jesus
chronology listed in the Bible.
He seemed pretty confident that the text was clearly referring to Six
literal 24-hour Days from his Theological understanding of the Scriptures.

Tape #5
Biochemist - Duane Gish
Saving the BEST for last ... Dr. Gish knows Creation!
An extremely well prepared, knowledgeable, and hard-hitting presentation
of the scientific Facts vs. the scientific Claims !!!
He totally dismantles the Godless/Naturalist science of Evolution!
Starting with problems of Chemical Evolution ... then the Impossibility of
the Evolution of Life from Non-life ... and finally an in-depth dissection
of the Fairy-tale evidence for macro-Evolution of ALL living creatures !!!
Gish uses Humor, Sarcasm, and Scientific Truth to strengthen the confidence
of the average Christian believer that God's Word means what it says ... and
that it can be Trusted 100% !!! He was very confident (but humble) when
faced with some tough questions. He seemed to be the most well-received
of the 5-speakers by the audience ... if that reveals anything?

Tape #6
All 5-speakers in a Steel-Cage Death-Match !!!
This quickly became a Gish vs. Ross debate with some occasional commentary
from the other 3-players! Gish used a published article from one of Dr. Ross'
peers to show extreme problems with the Big-Bang Model.
Dr. Ross discounted the article because it was over 10-years old ... and therefore
"out-of-date"! This excuse did not sit well with many on the panel.
They also debated about Entropy, early Man, & population distribution after
the Flood. Ross & Gish both did a pretty good job about holding their ground.
Dallas Willard made it a point to state that even though Genesis could be
interpreted as meaning long-periods of time ... that a straight-forward reading
of the Genesis text could ONLY be understood as Six literal Days!
But even though they could NOT agree on MOST things discussed ... they did
ALL agree to remain friends ... and loving brothers in Christ !!!

Looking forward to some Coffee ... !!!


Bret*

Gentleman,

Its been awhile since I posted, & will check in from time to time. Lee's offer to discuss geology got me to post again, so Lee, feel free to post what you may, and I'll reply as best I can with the time I have. I do not feel plate tectonics supports an old earth, although I used to.

I've been taking a break from the blog as it was my personal opinion that we were all going around in circles just defending our own positions without really breaking much new ground.

For me personally it started to feel like a work of the flesh doing all the reading & then trying to post a thoughtful reply, which often weren't received too well, so its imperative for me to not spend quite the time I was once was. To make matters worse regarding availability of time, I've had a schedule change with work & taking care of our kids so my wife & I can juggle our work schedules which leaves even less time for fun stuff. (And hurling & reading the insults on this blog).

That being said, I'd still like to participate at some level. Also I do feel some of the posts are incredibly long. I know this is a sign of thoughtful input but at the same time if its more than a page long per post, it starts to read like a research paper & not like an internet blog which is typically more "short & sweet". Sometimes I find it difficult to make it through the really long ones I am not suggesting everyone revamp their posting style since I know this is a reflection of each person's identity & personality, I'm just saying I find the shorter ones more interesting & compelling. Reminds me of book report assignments or speeches that had strict maximum lengths, it was actually quite challenging to be concise & pithy within those constraints.

Just my opinion, gentlemen; so please take it with a grain of salt.

I did catch up by reading all the posts, including the sarcastic ones...and while I do feel we should treat each other with respect I didn't see anything that made my eyes pop in surprise. I even had to look up "uber nerd", actually sounds like more of a complement than anything else. Perhaps it can be taken wrong.

Lee, I'll be watching from afar for your geology take. This is a little closer to home for me as I do have a geology background.

Keith the Rockhead

I really never intended for my simple open ended posting
of the "Delk Track" to reach this level of controversy.
I'm seeing a lot passion & intensity from my good friend
& Christian brother Stewart on putting this Topic to rest.
I feel that I would be remiss if I failed to clarify & correct
some of the information presented in Stu's last post.
I totally agree with Stu that the "ICR" & "AIG" are (by far) the
best & most reliable Creationist organizations in the World!
The fact that they both decided to retract their support for
the Paluxy River Tracks evidence back in the 80's has nothing
to do with the "Delk Track". (apples & oranges)
The accusations that Alvis Delk sold fake artifacts & that his
friend is a murderer can only be traced back to an anonymous
Blog posting ... and would actually have no scientific relevance
to the authenticity of the "Delk Track" even if they were true.
While accusing Dr. Baugh of dubious credentials ... Glen J. Kuban
was sited as the most studied, balanced and unbiased researcher
on the Paluxy River controversies.
Posted on his own Bio ... Glen states:
"I was born and raised near Cleveland, Ohio. In 1979 I graduated
from the College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio with a B.A. in biology
and secondary (K-12) teaching certificate. I am currently employed
as a programmer and systems analyst Ceva Computer Corportation."
(with much difficulty ... I will refrain from sarcastic comments)
Dr. Carl Baugh has never claimed to hold 3-Doctorates!
Dr. Carl Baugh was never the President of Pacific International University!
Dr. Carl Baugh's real Bio:
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=21
Dr. Carl Baugh's 495-page Doctoral dissertation:
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/carlbaugh.htm
Does this information make the "Delk Track" 100% verified?
Of course not!
But ... I think that it puts the "Delk Track" back in play.
Maybe it's fake? ....... But what if it's REAL? (Wow!)
That's all that I'm saying.

Bret*

A warm thank you to my YE friends for suggesting I explore this fascinating topic. I spent many hours poring through YE and OE websites, books, and YouTube presentations. I started with an open mind and came to the following conclusions, but I will try to remain open and teachable on the subject.

1. Dinosaurs really did exist and left their remains behind
2. Job chapters 40 and 41 do not provide grounds for believing that dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago
3. There is no legitimate scientific evidence that the great dinosaurs lived contemporaneous with mankind
4. It is possible that species of "terrible lizards" may be living today and could be the source of some of the great dragon myths. But until one is caught I'll have to keep it in the myth category.

Biblical evidence
Starting with the Biblical evidence, Hebrew scholarship and proper hermeneutics show that the language of Job 40:15-41:34 is poetic. Behemoth and Leviathan are described as real creatures (possibly the elephant, hippopotamus, or crocodile), but the descriptions are highly hyperbolic. The point is that although these creatures are mighty and fearsome to Job they are under the sovereign reign of God. This aligns with the whole purpose of God's final chastening of Job in chapters 40-41 where He talks about how His power is also shown through the creatures He has made. These are not chapters from which from which to draw scientific facts.

YE perspectives
My research showed that Dr. Carl Baugh's Delk track "evidence" is not legitimate and that he is not qualified or credible to speak on the matter. Also it revealed that many legitimate YE scientists have distanced themselves from the Paluxy River dinosaur/man tracks as I originally stated.

The first witness I offer is Dr. John Morris, Ph.D. in geology and president of Institute for Creation Research. His paper at http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/ represents ICR's position on the matter since 1986 when the article was first published. Below I have copied and pasted the relevant paragraphs.

The Paluxy River Mystery, by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

... Due to an unknown cause, certain of the prints once labeled human are taking on a completely different character. The prints in the trail which I have called the "Taylor Trail," 5 consisting of numerous readily visible elongated impressions in a left-right sequence, have changed into what appear to be tridactyl (three-toed) prints, evidently of some unidentified dinosaur. The changes in the impressions themselves are mostly confined to lengthening in the downriver direction. The most significant change, however, is that surrounding the toe area. In almost each of the prints in the trail, three large "toes" have appeared, similar to nearby dinosaur tracks. These toes, typically, are coloration phenomena only, with no impressions, in most cases. Frequently the "mud push up" surrounding the original elongated track is crossed by this red coloration. The shape of the entire track, including both impression and coloration, is unlike any known dinosaur print ....

In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor Trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage Trail. The Giant Trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also ....

The various controversial prints labeled as human by Carl Baugh in recent years are of uncertain origin, and at best are not comparable in quality to prints at the sites discussed above, thereby providing no support for the original position. Earlier prints which had been removed from the river before being documented, even if genuine, cannot be considered as compelling evidence, in view of their uncertain source ...

Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order. We stand committed to truth, and will gladly modify or abandon our previous interpretation of the Paluxy data as the facts dictate.

John Morris reconfirmed this view in 1996 when the president's mantle of ICR was passed on to him by his father Dr. Henry Morris. In a statement noted as PART IX: PASSING THE MANTLE he said:

Another research project of some note involved the alleged discovery of human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River, central Texas. Having been nominally involved since the late 1960's, I undertook a major role in 1975 from nearby Oklahoma, culminating in a summary book, Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs, and the People Who Knew Them, in 1980. This book was withdrawn in 1985 when further research called the original interpretation into question. Research continues, but I am of the opinion that the evidence is, at best, ambiguous and unusable as an anti-evolutionary argument at the present time.

Curiously, however, for years afterward ICR continued to sell books promoting the human track claims, in contradiction to their own recommendations. Recent editions of Scientific Creationism and The Genesis Flood continue to advocate the human track interpretation of the Paluxy tracks, without any corrections or qualifications.

Other YE Creationists
When I researched what Answers in Genesis says on the subject, Ken Ham was in agreement with John Morris and linked readers to The Paluxy River Mystery http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use. Answers in Genesis said the Baugh has "muddied the water for many Christians. . . . People are being misled." In 1996, when Carl Baugh presented his "man-tracks" in the controversial program The Mysterious Origins of Man, Ham criticized Baugh: "According to leading creationist researchers, this evidence is open to much debate and needs much more intensive research."

Another YE advocacy group, Creation Ministries International agrees. Don Batten wrote: "Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to."

The Delk Print
In July 2008, Dr. Baugh was in contact with Alvis Delk and James Bishop, who claimed to have found a dinosaur-human print fossil. Bishop is a convicted murderer and Delk has a history of selling faked artifacts http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/local/local_story_225091209.htm. Baugh bought the "fossil" from Delk who used the money to pay his medical bills. On the authenticity of the claims, reporter Bud Kennedy noted, "since no scientists were involved, about all we really know so far is that the museum has a new rock."

The most studied, balanced and unbiased researcher I found on the subject is a long-time watchman of the Paluxy River controversies, Glen J. Kuban. Since 1980 Kuban has been intensively researching the Paluxy "man track" controversy, and has published his work in a number of mainstream and creationist publications, including doing a joint project with ICR http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm. Kuban published an 11 page analysis of The Alvis Delk Print: An Alleged Human Footprint on a Loose Rock (last edited 9/5/2008 and after the Baugh's CT scan) http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm . Kuban concludes:

The Alvis Delk Print is not a convincing human footprint in ancient rock. Its advocates have failed to present the necessary data and details to adequately support their assertions. ... the collective weight of several lines of evidence, including the uncertain circumstances of the discovery, lack of in situ documentation, the knowledge that similar tracks have been carved in the Glen Rose area, the serious morphological abnormalities in the prints, and the considerations about potentially misleading scanning artifacts such as beam hardening, point to the strong likelihood that both the "human footprint" and dinosaur track on this loose slab were carved or heavily altered from less distinct depressions.

Dr. Carl Baugh
The research on Dr. Carl Baugh was even more dissatisfying. Baugh has claimed several degrees professing to earning three doctorates. All three "doctorates" are from unaccredited schools. His 1989 "doctorate" and Masters Degree in Archaeology comes from the non-accredited Pacific International University, of which Baugh was the president.

Baugh is founder of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, TX. The exhibits at the museum have been strongly criticized as incorrectly identified dinosaur prints, other fossils, or outright forgeries. Purported dinosaur claws, were identified by University of Texas at Austin paleontologist Wann Langston as crocodile teeth. Footnotes and sources can all be checked out starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh#cite_note-matterofdegree-30 .

Dave ...

First ... can I ask you to please remove Stu's vestigial Topic String?
*******************************
Second ... I'm NOT in attack mode anymore!
I am just asking for some clarification on your expressed views.
I went back to your Post about how God must of somehow changed
the Water-Canopy from opaque to transparent on Day-4 so that the
Heavenly Bodies (that already existed) would be revealed to the
Earth's surface. I failed to read back further to your re-posted point.
(my bad)
But ... this is why I honestly need you (Stu & Lee) to give me your
best guesses of some kind of Time frame for each Day (or Time period)
of the Biblical Creation Week?
I agree with you about God being the source of Light on the 1st 3-Days!
But for me (personally) that's just 72-hours.
Your Timeline (I'm guessing) will vary greatly from that of Stu & Lee?
Plants can live for well over 24-hours in complete darkness.
But ... I believe (like yourself) that God provided some light for these
plants until the Sun took over the job.
Where I need some clarification is ... was God inside of the opaque
Water-Canopy for the duration of Day-3 to provide the light?
Also ... approximately how long (in years) was Day-3 ?
Actually ... how long (~) was each Day of Creation?
(and what was Created, brought forth, or revealed on each Day?)
This is the part of the OE view that I just can't seem to find
enough clarity for me to have an informed understanding?
Dr. Ross has done a great job of laying out his OE view!
Stu has stated that he's not ready to buy the whole package as is?
I understand that he is going to do some more research into this
Topic before rolling out his personal take ... and that's commendable!
I am not being sarcastic here ....... I want to learn!
Thanks for all of the extra effort put into answering my questions!

Bret*

My personal view is that I'm not smart enough nor do I have data enough to claim ownership of Hugh Ross' timeline. Although I believe the book of nature and the book of nature's Creator harmonize and ultimately reconcile, I am not a strict concordist and don't need to line up every scientific fact with a biblical passage. I sometimes forget that the Bible's primary purpose is theological and it is not meant to be a scientific text. The Bible needs to be allowed to speak its independent theological message without being forced into a reigning scientific paradigm of the times -- whether it be young earth, old earth, Ptolemaic, Copernican, whatever.

As you know, I believe the current scientific data and discovery trends favor an old earth interpretation. So when I have to take a position it is OE. I have the highest respect for Hugh Ross both as a Christian and as a scientist and highly recommend his Reasons to Believe ministry (www.reasons.org). I understand a detailed explanation of the timeline is given in his book A Matter of Days. I just ordered a copy and hope to have it in "a matter of days" for our meeting next Friday.

Where then do I stand in the YE/OE debate? As you must know by now my primary concern is to see us stop fighting among ourselves, accept one another as fellow Christians, unite in our apologetics to non-believers (some Christians believe in YE, some OE, some framework, et. al.), and join forces to defeat the common enemy -- Naturalism. GOD DID IT is the point -- and that's the trump card; not OE or YE. The battleground is the public square where Satan works to prevent any divine toenail from entering. HOW GOD IT is nice to know, but not necessary. Our time spent infighting sometimes just feeds Satan's diversionary tactics.

DEFEATING NATURALISM is my game. I am very impressed by the work being done by proponents of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. They have been able to pose a new paradigm in the scientific realm without introducing a religious bias. I think they deserve all our support.

Once the divine toenail gets into the public arena it will start filling up with Light -- "Who/what is this intelligent designer?" That's why the opponents are hell bent on eradicating the movement before it gains a toehold. Just like big bang cosmology got us away from having to believe that the universe is infinite in time and space and had a creation event, ID shows us that universe is designed and purposeful and that things don't have to arise by purposeless natural mechanisms. Once ID is acknowledged, the God hypothesis is back on the table. That's why the academic freedom issue is so important to me.

No intimidation here...Dr. Ross has more resources than I do!

Here is my Day 3 post again...

Day 3

God then allowed dry land to show and gathered the waters into seas. Once again, Moses seems to be offering an account of what he saw. All by inspiration of God. He then had the land “produce” [dasha] or sprout vegetation. Interestingly, God doesn’t use either of his creation words in this portion of scripture, bara or asah. Could he already have created vegetation before then? Perhaps vegetation was already made before, and it is much older than this creation? Perhaps God just caused it to grow again once he revealed dry land? One thing for certain; the Sun wasn’t available yet for photosynthesis, so God’s light must have served that purpose.

Another thing; there is no implication here this was the first time there was vegetation on the Earth. It doesn’t say there was either. But it leaves open the possibility for there to have been vegetation on the Earth before then.

How long was this? The same presentation goes for this as for day one. Moses perceived it as a day, but if the Sun doesn’t exist yet, it doesn’t seem that it has to be a 24 hour day. It could be a 24 hour day though in my mind, accounting for God’s omnipotence.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The point being, God could have had vegetation on the Earth in a previous use for the Earth, but it died off as a result of a past destruction. On day three he "brought forth" vegetation...not the creation words he used in previous instances.

I do mention that God's light must have kept the vegetation alive, because it was before the Sun was available...which brings up an important point I will respectfully submit Bret: If you claim the Sun is necessary for photosynthesis and the survival of plants, how do you explain its creation before the Sun?

---

Thanks Stu ...

Hugh surely lays ALL of his cards on the table Face-Up!
Beautiful Graph! (maybe a little too nice?)
I say that because now I'm afraid that Dave might be a
little intimidated by all of the flash & polish?
No graphs are necessary Dave!
Lee ... do you have any personal tweaks or revisions to
add to Dr. Ross' Timeline?
Stu ... you stated this as "One" view of OE ...
but is this your personal take as well?
I have some questions about this Timeline that I'm not
sure if I understand?
But ... I don't want to put anyone on the spot to explain
them ... unless they want to claim ownership of this view?
btw ...
F2F @ Oso Sb on 9/18 @ 3:30pm ....... I'm IN !!!
See you there ...

Bret*

Here is Hugh Ross' Genesis 1 Creation Days timeline ...

http://www.reasons.org/creation-timeline

Dave ...

First ... can I ask you to please remove Stu's vestigial Topic String?
Now ... about this this whole Water Canopy Theory ...
I have to agree with you on the fact that this is the Grayest of all
areas when it comes to God's Creation Week!
I have been meaning to Post my "Day-2 View" for some time.
I fully understand your point about the exact Words used to describe
this event ... and how this Theoretically opens the door to your assertion.
But ... I don't understand how any Vegetation could survive for very long
if the Water Canopy was opaque or even slightly translucent?
*********************************
As far as my request for You, Lee, & Stu to present me with an estimated
Timeline ... I understand that these Time-spans will be Guess-timates!
But since God divided up his Act of Creation into 7-Days (or periods)...
I honestly need ALL of your help in dividing up the What? & When? ...
to align with God's Infallible Word?
I know that your totals will (most likely) end up just over 13-Billion years!
It's the dividing this number by 7 that gets fuzzy for me to understand?
If you believe that these Days (or periods) overlap ... that's fine!
I'm NOT going to judge or criticize anybody's numbers!
I'm just going to ask questions about your views ... & post my personal
Young-Earth views. I will try to explain them with as much Scientific
data ... and Theories as possible.
Brothers Unite !!!

Bret*

I am happy to further elaborate on some of the points I made with respect to the timeline as I believe it happened (since I wasn't there). If I could humbly ask two things first (I know, more conditions...)

- That you would please take a look at my posts and see I actually did place some time boundaries around the areas where I think we can know them. It is important that you realize I think God is clear in some places concerning time.

- In the areas where the length of time is not clear (as in when the Sun and Moon weren't available to govern night and day), I have no idea how long it was. But I feel comfortable with the age that most astrophysicists place on the universe as a boundary condition.

If you are comfortable with that level of uncertainty, I will give it a shot. If not, I think the post best stands on its own.

Last, if you remember, I was looking forward to some of your opinions concerning a few assertions I made concerning the possibility that vegetation existed on Earth before this creation event, and my exegesis of Gen 1 using the Hebrew words in context. I did field some inquiries concerning the assertion I made that the canopy limited view from the Earth before day 4, but I don't remember any alternative views being offered.

I have to say, this has greatly refined my thinking about Creation, and what I am willing to accept as valid based on scripture. I am much less inclined to believe in an evolutionary process for the "ascent" of man based on this discussion and the research it drove. Hopefully your opinions are being likewise refined through critical thought, accepted knowledge and most important, a right division of the Word of God.

Hopefully that didn't beg the question, but I shall take that risk...!

Thank you Bret and Lee for your virtual hug.

How's everybody else doing? Any other comments before we move forward? Keith, Lucien, Dave, Bill, Don, others who may be watching or waiting?

Let's try to do our F2F coffee at the Oso Starbucks on Friday, Sept 18 at 3:30pm. Please confirm.

Maybe we can all learn how to be funny, clever, ironic, etc. without being scornful. I know I need to learn

Stu

How sweet and pleasant it is when brothers can live in harmony.
-- Psalm 133:1

I will try especially hard to cut my sarcasm way down. It won't be as much fun, but in the interests of fair play and improving our relations to each other and our image as Christians to outside observers, I will live to higher standards in future posts. My apologies if I have offended anyone as well or made them feel bad about themselves. My goal has always been to enlighten and help others grow in knowledge and faith. Sometimes my tactics get off the mark; thanks to Don, Dave, and Stu for bringing attention to our misguided techniques in growing our Brotherhood! I can't promise that I can do what you have asked sarcasm free, but I think I might be able to change my knock out punches to love taps. Still in the match; let's go at it!

I will be happy to give you my perspective on day three: the rising of the continents. I'll give you a response soon.

Lee

Lee -- Please see Bret's post. Do you want to play by the rules?

Stu ...

Did you read Lee's last Post?
Personally I have zero problems with it ...
and actually think it's hilarious!
But ... in light of the new rules ...
It is blatantly pretentious, insultingly
condescending, and dripping with sarcasm!
I don't mind the double standard ...
and would really like for You, Lee, & Dave
to answer my Timeline question?
Isn't this a fair question to ask?

Bret*

Bret -- what makes you think otherwise?

Definition of sarcasm - the use of scornful remarks. Tell me where in the Bible that's justified among brothers? Sarcasm is a choice, not a handicap.

Nobody is forcing you to agree -- and nobody is forcing you to be part of this discussion. Do you want to play by the rules or not? I would like a yes or no answer.

I'm sorry (sound familiar?)... for personally bringing the Blog to the brink of extinction!
The Creationist tent may not be big enough for ALL of us? I hope this isn't the case?
I'm glad that Jesus didn't put any restrictions or conditions on Forgiving my Sins, welcoming
me into His Family, and Granting me Permanent Irrevocable Eternal Salvation in HEAVEN !!!
I will try very hard to abide by the NEW rules ... even if nobody else is required to do so!
But ... for someone to ask me to stop being Sarcastic ... is akin to asking a hair-lip if he
could please stop mumbling! (let's call that ... one for the road)
**********************************************
I would like to pose a serious question to each of the Old-Earthers!
Dave went through each Day of Creation ... and explained what he felt actually happened!
This was VERY helpful for me to understand (a little better) where he was coming from!
But ... (without rehashing How or Why)... it would be extremely helpful to me ... if each
of you (including Dave)... could give me the 7-Days of Creation laid out in a "Simple"
Timeline (starting at T=0) that tells me What Happened ... over What period of Time?
i.e.
Day #1 lasted for ~5,000,000,000 years while the Universe expanded ... but nothing solid
(or technically completed) has yet to be fully Created?
Day #2 ... ~year 5,000,000,001 to ~year 7,500,000,000 this & that were Created ... etc ... ???
This would greatly help me to get my head around your Creation views!
I will NOT question your #'s with ANY alternative Data ... Secular or otherwise !!!
This request should not restrict any other Topics from being posed at this time or any!
I welcome Lee's offer to explain the Facts of the Pangaea Theory!
Thank you for your help!

Bret*

I suggest that we make a final run at discussing a subject a little closer to home since points of light in space seem to be not acceptable as stars vast distances away from us and existing long long ago. 

The new topic is geology which in my view makes an excellent case for an old earth and is independent of the speed of light (at least to my thinking). When discussed earlier, a few Emails were written by the the YEs and the entire subject was cavalierly dismissed faster than the speed of light just like the expanding universe got stretched by the same Brothers.  I think plate tectonics makes an undeniable case for an old earth and I would like to present it's case over the next few weeks to enlighten our Brotherhhood with the natural evidence for it. Of course if natural evidence is no longer of any value to members of this eternal family, I will save ourselves from the effort of presenting and challenging it.  We can continue our trip through Wonderland otherwise and discuss strings, sealing wax, how babies are born out of thin air and other fancy stuff.   Anyone interested in geology (I hope)?

Lee

OK guys - we'll give it one last try ... and if doesn't work this time we'll just part brothers in Christ -- unfortunately not helped much by the hundreds of hours spent in discussion so far.

Bret - your many apologies are accepted. I hope you will not have to give anymore.

We are doing this to learn from each other -- not convert. That means when we ask another person a question it is in good faith, trying to understand why they think differently than we do. It is not because we think they are less intelligent or less Godly -- or part of some scientific conspiracy. And as Don reminded us from Col. 4:6, when we give an answer, "Be gracious in speech. The goal is to bring out the best in others, not put them down, not cut them out."

As Dave reminded us -- if you can't agree that scientific facts are legitimate knowledge, then you have no business participating in this forum. Of course all scientific theories (even some theological doctrines) are tentative. But they are held because of legitimate knowledge -- some of which supports the theory or doctrine, and some of which refutes it. So let's learn both sides. Let's not pretend that any one of us have all the facts. Let's "clothe ourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1 Peter 5:6).

State why you believe what you believe -- and why something is important to you. Give your source of knowledge and authority; your source of understanding; your logic. I'm interested in, "Did dinosaurs co-exist with man?" Bret gave me Dr. Carl Baugh's presentation as his authority. Lucien gave me a number of thoughts from Job, and thoughts to check out about dragon myths. Keith gave me Ken Hovind as a source of dinosaur information, and Don Deyoung as a source for moving him from old earth to young earth thinking.

Lee gave Swartzchild as a source of his knowledge of stellar models (cosmological not feminine ones I presume). I gave Augustine and others as sources of theological authority. All references can be and should be checked out. And, let's not forget that even their authority as sources is tentative.

This is not a forum for sarcasm, bluster or put downs. In fact, I don't know any Christian venue appropriate for that. Much of what I see out on the web is of that variety. So, if that's what you are looking for, there are many places to do it. This is not one of them.

Humor is very welcome (Lee's ubernerd post is hysterical), but potty humor is not -- unless it's clever like "Lucien's baby fart" and Bret's retort of a "breath of fresh air") which were given to make a legitimate point about gases diffusing.

And one final admonition. Let's have this dialog in front of the King. Let's imagine that we are doing this in His presence (it's all on the tapes anyway). How might we formulate our thoughts and say them before we post them? Perhaps we should pray and reflect on that before we post?

Anyone who has something to add please do so now. Otherwise, let the Final Round begin.

This is just a brief reply to Bret's comment regarding The FACTS:
Bret stated: The "Model" predicts our Milky Way Galaxy to see a Supernova about every 50-years!
"Observation" has recorded only *8* Supernovae in our Galaxy during the last 2000 years!
The last one occurring on October 9th ... 1604 !!!

Reply from Lee:

The vast majority of stars lie in the galactic plane behind one spiral arm of our galaxy or more which contain large amounts of gas and dust which greatly attenuate the light that a supernova transmits before it reaches earth since it lies in the galactic plane that helps to protect it from this type of radiation. Because of this and the great distance to most of the supernova near the center of the galaxy, it would be remarkable to see many more than we did during this two thousand year period without the aid of a telescope for over 1600 years. .

I have been called many things in my life: smart, intelligent, knowledgeable and a nerd. I have never been called an ubernerd. In a way, the name seems somewhat endearing coming from Bret; it's a somewhat nice alternative to toilet humor. Since they don't have anything technical to add, it's the YE contribution to our entertainment. I guess I will have to live with it as our trip through Wonderland comes to an end. May God bless us all as we stretch the limits of our civility to the Brotherhood.

Lee

If it wouldn't offend, I would like to make one more request concerning our dialog. If someone here is feels it is necessary to dispute commonly held scientific theories that are the foundations of the physical sciences, it is incumbent upon them to offer alternative perspectives that attempt to reconcile what we see as honest observers and scientists with the Word of God. When we are not willing to do this, we are doing the same thing the Vatican did when it denied the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

If this is to be an intelligent dialog, there must be standards we all agree to which enable us to have reasoned conversation. This does NOT mean that evolution is accepted science and beyond refutation (far from it!) but we should not reject scientific knowledge that is in fact, knowledge.

Interested in your perspective here. If this rule cannot be put in place, I personally see no possible way we can have a meaningful discussion. It just becomes a bunch of conjecture and at times, only snarky prose.