twohumble,
The only part of Gentry's work that was not solid was in his willingness to accept rock samples from other sources and not get them himself. Andrew Snelling and Mark Armitage have corrected that problem by getting samples themselves and have been working with these samples for a year or two now in preparation for an article and/or presentation. I am personal friends with both Andrew and Mark and can verify what I have said via my own eyewitness to the rocks and the work. Gentry was not off, however, on his claims regarding what the existence of the halos means.
I posted two papers. Which is ludicrous and why, please?
No, I have not and will not read Ross' latest book. I do not have the time to waste on someone who has a history of his kind of deceit. However an excellent piece of research on the beliefs of the early church fathers is here: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm
It is the best piece of research I am aware of in this area, actually. The following might interest you:
Table 3.2: Church Fathers Who Believed that This World Would Last 6 000 years
Name............................Date.....................Reference
Pseudo Barnabas .........70-135 AD............Epistle of Barnabas 15:1-4
Irenaeus ....................c.115-202 .............Against Heresies 5.28.3
Gaudentius of Brescia .... after 410........... Tractatus 10.15
Hippolytus.....................d. 235 ................Commentary on Daniel 4.23
Hilary of Pontiers..........c.315-367........In Matthew 17:1; 20:6; Tract Myst. 1.41; 2.10
Lactantius....................d. after 317...........Divine Institutes 7.14-27
Firmicus Maternus.........c.346.................The Error of the Pagan Religions 25.3
Sulpicius Severus.........c.363-c.420............History, 1.2.1
Tyconius.....................d. c. 400................Book of Rules, 5
from the author, immediately following this table, is a part on Hugh Ross:
Progressive creationist Dr. Hugh Ross interprets the evidence presented above rather differently. He argues that the fathers believed that the days of Genesis were a thousand years in length and not 24 literal hours.(7) Ross cites two writers in support of his position: Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons. Justin Martyr wrote:
Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, “According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound, obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, “The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,” is connected with this subject.(8)
Irenaeus:
And there are some again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,” he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation); whether [we regard this point] that with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day of the preparation, which is termed “the pure supper,” that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit…(9)
Both of these early Christian writers argue that because Adam was told that he would die on the day that he sinned, therefore he lived for less than a thousand years which is a day in the Lord’s sight (cf. Psalm 90:4). Irenaeus adds a further parallel between Adam and Christ: they both died on the sixth day of the week. Taken in isolation it might be concluded from this that both believed that all the days of creation were a thousand years in length, as well as the “days” of the history of the earth. Further research shows that the idea that Adam’s life span being less than a thousand year “day” was not a new one. It originated in Jewish literature and is found in the Book of Jubilees (c.105-153 BC):
And at the close of the Nineteenth Jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year thereof Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried on the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; of one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: “On the day ye eat thereof ye shall die.” For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it.(10)
A similar saying occurs in Bereshith Rabba on Genesis 3:8: “I said to him, on the day thou eatest of it, thou shalt surely die. But you know not whether it is one of My days or one of yours. Behold I give him one of my days which is as a thousand years.”(11) This last quote appears to me to give us the key to understanding how the various “days” were viewed. There seems to be a distinction being made between one of the Lord’s “days” and one of man’s “days”. The former are a thousand years in length, the latter last for 24 hours. This would explain how Irenaeus, a few chapters after the passage quoted above is able to write:
For in six days as the world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all his works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of the things to come. For that day of the Lord is a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.(12)
So Irenaeus seems to have seen no contradiction here. For him the days of Genesis were 24 hours long and served as a pattern for the history of the world. Adam lived for 930 years, which was 70 years less than a full “day of the Lord” and so he solved an apparent contradiction in Scripture. Justin Martyr makes no further reference to the days of creation, so we are unable to confirm that he too believed the days of Genesis to be “human” days, but it seems likely that he followed what appears to be an accepted practice. Later writers, such as Hippolytus, Lactantius, Victorinus of Pettau do not mention the “explanation” of Adam’s life span given by Justin and Irenaeus probably because they understood Genesis 2:17 (“...on the day you eat of it you will die...”) differently. Table 3.3 shows how the writers of the early church viewed the days of creation. We cannot be sure of the views of most writers for a variety of reasons already mentioned above. My own view based upon the style of exegesis of other passages of Scripture would lead me to think that the vast majority of those listed as having an unclear view would opt for 24 hours had they discussed the subject. The shortage of references does not mean that they thought the issue of the age of the earth was unimportant. On the contrary it was clearly an contentious issue in the early church, because the Greeks believed that the world was extremely ancient.(13) Lactantius wrote:
Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place, and the condition of human affairs be remodelled for the better, the proof of which must first be related, that the matter itself be plain. God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day, on which He rested from His works.(14)
Hugh Ross notes that Eusebius makes no reference to a date for creation or to the age of the earth anywhere in his works.(15) He then goes on to note that Eusebius twice cites Genesis 2:4(16) and finds in this proof that he took the days of Genesis 1 to be longer than 24 hours. It has been well been said that arguments from silence are seldom worth considering! The length of the “day” of Genesis 2:4 essentially tells us nothing about what an author believes about the days of Genesis 1 as to the best of my knowledge all modern writers and commentators take Genesis 2:4 to mean a period other than 24 hours - most take it to include (as Eusebius did) the entire period of God’s creative activity up to Genesis 2:3. The most that can be deduced from the available evidence is that there is no way of knowing what Eusebius believed on the subject of the days of Genesis 1.
Even those who rejected literal 24 hour days still believed in a young earth as Table 3.4 demonstrates. Origen believed that the world was less than 10 000 years old and Clement thought it was still younger. In my view Davis A. Young is right when he concludes that the early church fathers “...did not believe that the creation had taken place over six thousand years, but that the totality of human history would occupy six thousand years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation.”(17)
Following this are the two tables (because the author did not do them separately from the text itself I could not lift them and do not have the time to do what I did above) showing who believed what in terms of the length of the Genesis days.
Later in the chapter, for those who might be interested, is a good discussion of the day-age theory.
Hugh Ross is, in other words, picking and choosing what he wants to try to support his own theories. He ignores the rest. Just like he ignores the parts of science he does not agree with.
So no, I have not and will not read any more of his nonsense.
Gentry's work is solid. Read his material. He has a good presentation for the layman in "Creation's Tiny Mysteries" as well as documentation at the back as to what happened when he pointed out that his work (when he was considered by ALL to be the world's leading authority in this area of science) might well indicate a young creation. He was immediately blackballed.
Setterfield's work is solid.
You and Ross and others just don't LIKE it, that's all.
You have given NO reasons why you don't like it, or why it rates badly in 'your book'. I'm interested in data, sir, and not in your hysterics. If that seems belligerant to you, there's nothing I can do about that. Give me facts and data, not your feelings.
I have done that for you.