Actscelerate.com

Creation, Dinosaurs, & Science with Dr. Mortenson

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/8/13 8:07 am**

I'd like to open this thread, this dialog, by first thanking Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis for taking the time to engage with us, and to express how honored we are that they, he, would make themselves available to add to our discussion. We welcome you here in the hope of the eyes of all of our understanding being enlightened, and each becoming all the more grounded in the word of truth and what it teaches about creation.

We understand that your time and ability to participate is limited, that this is a new medium of communication for you, and that your purpose in visiting here is to offer some input to this specific topic and thread. We do not wish to inconvenience nor weary you, and are grateful for any help or perspective you can share. That being said, we welcome you and look forward to your insight and input.

Permit me to start by quoting from the original discussion among ourselves, resetting the question(s) as they developed then, and which led to contacting AIG and you in the first place. I will offer pertinent quotes below and await your response.

The other conversation began with Troy saying ...

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2458 **8/8/13 8:55 am**

waiting for the Dr.

The World is CLEARLY older than 6000 years old

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/8/13 9:10 am**

We know this from anchored dendrochronology alone proves this. So let's AT LEAST agree that the earth is 11,000 years old (which anchored dendrochronolgy--using tree rings and cross-matching proves).

I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that either God is WANTING to fool us...or, indeed, the earth is a LOT OLDER than young-earthers claim.

Please hold comments till Dr. Mortenson can reply 1st

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/8/13 9:20 am**

Apparently you guys missed this in the OP ...

Re: Creation, Dinosaurs, & Science with Dr. Mortenson

Friendly Face Posts: 146 **8/8/13 3:05 pm**

Genesis, dating methods, dinosaurs & the age of the crea

Newbie Posts: 2 **8/15/13 7:25 am**

You all are raising some interesting points. I would encourage you all to get a copy of
The New Answers Book, Vol. 1. It answers the 27 most-asked questions on origins, many of which are related to your present discussion. It can be read free on-line here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab (sorry, I don’t know how to hyperlink in this response). Just click on the chapter title in the side bar on the right of the page to read the chapter you are interested in. Having said that let me make a few brief comments here.

There is one other book you should all have in your library. Coming to Grips with Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/coming-grips-genesis/) is an in-depth biblical and historical defense of young-earth creation produced by 14 theologians (mostly seminary professors). The chapters in the volume are listed on the web page above. Chapter 3 (based on my own PhD research) explains where the millions of years idea came from historically—and it wasn’t from the rocks and fossils but rather from anti-biblical philosophical and religious assumptions used to interpret the geological evidence. A shorter summary of that chapter is my DVD lecture: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/millions-years-where-did-idea-come/.

The world is NOT clearly older than 6000 years, as one of you said. No scientific method can tell us the age of the earth or universe, because every scientific method involves assumptions about the unobserved past that cannot be proven. The only way we can know the age of the creation is if there was/is a completely reliable eyewitness who was there at the beginning and tells us. That person is God and He has told us in His inerrant Word.

For a good overview of the geological evidence for a young earth and global Flood see Dr. Andrew Snelling’s DVD http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/rock-strata-fossils-and-flood/.

Radiometric dating is not what led scientists to believe the rocks and fossils were millions of years old. The method was only invented about 100 years ago but geologists were locked into a belief in millions of years 100 years before that.

Carbon-14 is never used by evolutionists to date rock layers. We can only C-14 date something that has carbon in it and most rock layers don’t. Also, the farthest back you could date something with C-14 is 80,000 – 100,000 years, maximum. Creation scientists have used it to date diamonds and coal (which the evolutionists say are millions or billions of years old) and the C-14 dated them to be only thousands of years old. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible.

Other dating methods are used to supposedly prove that the rock on earth (or meteorites or other objects in outer space) are millions of years old. But they are completely unreliable in telling us the true age of the rocks, because they are based on unproven assumptions that the evolutionists use and creation scientists have strong scientific evidence to show that those dating methods are giving false dates every time. See this chapter: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove and also this DVD http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/radioactive-and-radiocarbon-dating/.

Dendrochronology is much more complicated and less straightforward than you think and once again key assumptions (which are not proven) are essential to arriving at a chronology that contradicts the biblical chronology. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine. And for evidence that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are tight (no missing names or years), thus giving us an age of creation of about 6000 years, see chapter 10 in Coming to Grips with Genesis. God’s Word is more trustworthy than any man-made dating method.

Reasoning from Scripture, we know that since dinosaurs were land animals, they were made on Day 6 with Adam and they went on the ark with Noah. If they are in fact extinct (there is some intriguing testimony that they just might not be), they went extinct recently See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs. That dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago is shown both the presence of soft tissue and blood cells and DNA in dinosaur bones and the Carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones by young-earth creationists (see here: dinosaursofttissue.com) as well as the refusal of evolutionists to C-14 dinosaur bones (listen to this incredible phone conversation between a Christian radio talk show host and one of America’s leading evolutionist dinosaur experts: rsr.org/jack-horner).

Finally, how do you reach out to non-believers who are convinced that evolution and/or millions of years are proven scientific fact? Point them to our web site and the resources I mention here (but of course you can’t defend what you don’t believe yourself, so do your homework first). At the same time in your witness open your Bible to Genesis and read to them what it actually says. The Word of God is sharper than a 2-edged sword (Heb 4:12). As a result of lecturing on creation and evolution in 22 countries (including in many secular universities) I have found that many people who believe in evolution and/or millions of years are ignorant of but interested in what the Bible actually says, not what some arrogant non-Christian professors or other skeptics said that it says. And share the gospel with them as you refute lovingly there pseudo-scientific objections to the truth of the Bible.
_________________
Terry Mortenson, MDiv, PhD
speaker, writer, researcher
Answers in Genesis

Dr. Mortenson...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/15/13 7:54 am**

First, let me welcome you. I consider it a privilege to discuss this matter with you. At the same time, may I gently take "Answers in Genesis" to task for statements such as this:

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3954 **8/15/13 7:55 am**

Dr. Mortenson...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/15/13 8:48 am**

I want to say that I know you've had to "hit the ground running" here, since we are going right at it. Just know that I very much APPRECIATE you coming on to discuss this with us.

I want you to know that I am OPEN to the young earth theory IF it can be shown to be valid. After all, I believed that way for most of my life. I am no longer willing, however, to hold things whose explanations seem contrived or desperate.

I noticed that one of the books you mentioned was written by theologians. I don't care what their pedigree is, for it seems to me that SCIENTISTS should be the ones that should be making the argument, right? That's what I'm looking for: SCIENCE that demonstrates the young earth theory.

If we are going to just go with theology, fine. But if we dare to make the claim that our theology makes scientific claims, then we must allow ourselves to be scrutinized by scientific means. Fair enough?

Again, I love you, my brother, and would not want to come across as jabbing or harsh, even if we strongly disagree.

Golf Cart Mafia Soldier Posts: 2458 **8/15/13 9:08 am**

Dr. Mortenson, welcome to Actscelerate! I think you'll find us to be a spirited group who have fun with each other but are all on a quest for the 'truth', whatever that may be.

I'll take a look at the links you provided but could you address this question when you get a chance? Is the Earth as old as the Universe on the whole? If so, are we saying that the entire Universe is 6,000 years old? How does that jive with the widely accepted observation that the Universe is billions of years old. As Wikipedia states:

The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.8 billion years[3] of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative. If one extrapolates the Lambda-CDM model backward from the earliest well-understood state, it quickly (within a small fraction of a second) reaches a singularity called the "Big Bang singularity." This singularity is not understood as having a physical significance in the usual sense, but it is convenient to quote times measured "since the Big Bang" even though they do not correspond to a physically measurable time. For example, "10−6 seconds after the Big Bang" is a well-defined era in the universe's evolution. If one referred to the same era as "13.8 billion years minus 10−6 seconds ago," the precision of the meaning would be lost because the minuscule latter time interval is swamped by uncertainty in the former.
Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the International Astronomical Union[4] presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe.

Re: Dr. Mortenson...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/15/13 4:31 pm**

An incorrect interpretation IS an illegitimate one

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/15/13 5:10 pm**

Love you anyhow brother. Wink

_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."

Re: An incorrect interpretation IS an illegitimate one

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/15/13 5:23 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3658 **8/15/13 9:23 pm**

This is why you shouldnt be rude and tell people to stop posting when you have no earthly clue when the "resources" you are bringing to the discussion will be available

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3954 **8/15/13 10:49 pm**

I'm still waiting to hear where the dinosaurs might still be roaming.
_________________
Live an epiK life!

Discover More...
http://www.refocusing.org

A Mission in Formation
www.bluewaterinthekeys.com

Golf Cart Mafia Underboss Posts: 3658 **8/15/13 11:32 pm**

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4989 **8/16/13 3:18 am**

The fundamentals of radiocarbon dating and radiological half lives are very sound. It is not some hocus pocus used to try to disprove the bible. The understanding of nuclear science is pretty astounding and allows for very precise control of nuclear reactions. Those reactions are not observable, directly, but it is predictable based on the science. Nuclear power would be neither safe nor reliable energy without it. C-14 dating alone is reliable 60k to 80k years.

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **8/16/13 5:13 am**

Guys,
Don't let this thread degenerate - I really wanted to see more debate - and not nitpicking here.

Phillip raised a valid point.

Let's keep it to comments like his.

I am open to reasonable debate.

Creation and Revelation are the same. No one but God has been there. Often the wording God uses only makes sense once you see it yourself. Tough to be dogmatic about unobservable things.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4955 **8/16/13 8:33 am**

The Key Problem in the Debate...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/16/13 10:32 am**

The key problem I have noted over and over when I see Evolution vs. Creation debates is that they almost never actually debate the SAME POINT. It becomes more about winning a DEBATE than finding the TRUTH. Almost like a lawyer who is more interested in winning than in justice.

What happens is that the Creationist is usually far better prepared to hit a few key trouble spots, use that to call into questions billions of hours of scientific research, and knows how to make statements that "preach to the choir."

I would like to see a debate where the Evolutionist and the Creationist are given, say, 10 questions...and the both come prepared to answer those questions precisely and to the point.

Also, both parties could--in advance--ask the OTHER party to answer several key questions.

All would come to the debate NOT to win debating points, but to actually find the truth.

Further, once both sides have answer the questions and rebutted this or that...there is a break (it might even be a break of several days or weeks) for them to gather additional evidence.

This, ideally, would be judged by objective people (yeah, right) that would admit when this or that side actually proved or disproved something.