Christians: Does age of earth matter?

Ut:
Convicting someone of a crime through the use of prima fasica evidence is posssible. Is it possible to know someone killed another person without seeing it take place? Yes, it is. If the gun is still smoking, the perpetrator has the gun in hand and the bullet matches the smoking gun. It is rational to believe the person holding the gun commited the crime. This type evidence is precisely the reason to reject evolution. Unless, one can rebut the very literal words of Moses in writing the account of creation, HE HAS NO CASE. Jesus believed the Genesis acccount to be literal ( Mat. 19:1-9). He believed in the lieral character Noah and the event of the great flood ( Mat. 24:37-39). Can you provide valid evidence to disprove these people and events are not accurately portrayed on the pages of inspiration? if so, you will be the first person in history to do so.

Science tests things as they are, not as they were. Do you deny this?
The processes of change and decay have not remained constant over time. Do you deny this?

As for the geologic timetable, it exists only on paper. The so called 12 ages are based on the ASSUMPTION evolution has taken place. Fossils of simple and complex life have been found scattered through the earth. This contradicts the evolutionist model. If all the theoretical geological records of earth's living creatures, that supposedly evolved over 2 billion years, were stacked on top of one another the depth would be 130 miles. Compare that with the fact the earth's crust is only 25 to 30 miles deep. Do you see a problem with this type " science? " I do!!!

The irrefutable truth is that because processes and decay rates change. Science is incapable of using the scientific method to measure time. The irrefutable truth is science can test phenomena as they currrently exist, not as they were in the past. Therefore, science is limited in the area of time, and origin. However, the overwhelming irrefutable evidence is that God in six days created the world and all that is therein.

My friend I appreciate all scientific advances that have made for a better life for humanity. You are obviously very passionate about your work. However, creatures are subject to their creators in many ways. Origin and time are two reminders of this fact.

 

Calvin:
I appreciate your honesty. I do not denigrate science because I reject the evolutionary models of some scientist. Rather, I have have decided to make only those conclusions as are warrranted by the evidence.... all of it!
If science, by it's own method, is incapable of proving evolution, why would a rational person believe the assumptions, approximations of men when irrefutable evidence exists for the conclusion that God made man and earth in six literal days.
Calvin, at least you realize the limitations of science.

 

Of course if you find someone holding a smoking gun you can convict them. I am talking about more difficult detective work than that. The kind that surprises criminals everyday when they are caught and convicted. Such as examining blood splatters and wounds to determine how the crime happened. Measuring the temperature of the body to see how long ago the victim died. Or looking at the state of decay and what organisms have infected the body for someone who has been dead a bit longer. Things where you take very minute pieces of evidence and recreate the crime. There was no witness to these things. They don't have signs telling you what they are. You have to let the evidence speak and interpret what it is saying. And you can very well determine what happened in the past. Do you deny this?

For the most part we can only test things as they are. (Astronomy is different. Because of the finite time it takes light to travel we can actually test things as they were. We cannot know how they are "now." ** ) But, as my list above partially demonstrates, we can learn about how things were by examining how things are now. You did not even attempt to answer those questions. I think because it is obvious that we can look at things today and tell learn something about how they were. And suddenly you are making observations about the past. Your premise about not being able to make observations about the past then falls apart.

"The processes of change and decay have not remained constant over time. Do you deny this?"

This I will deny. If you take a given process, the change you see it causing today will be the same as what it would have caused in the past. Can you show this not to be true?

"The so called 12 ages are based on the ASSUMPTION evolution has taken place."

This I will also deny. The ages came from the evidence before anyone had ever dreamed the world to be so ancient and before evolution became an accepted theory. You might find the way modern geology came about to be an interesting read some time.

"Fossils of simple and complex life have been found scattered through the earth."

Not true. These things are not evenly scattered. We find certain things in certain places. Look at the oldest rocks that have only very simple life in them. Bacteria and algae mats and such. Only simple multicellular life in rocks that are just a bit younger. Then recognizable animals appear, but not like anything we know. We get a lot of diversity in the Cambrian but we are still missing essentially everything you would find familiar. After the Cambrian, the fish come about and explode into various types. But you will not find any mammals or reptiles or birds or grasses or angiosperms or conifers. You then start getting a few simple land plants, like lichens, followed by early insects and then amphibians. Why are these by themselves on the land? Why no other plant types or animals? And so on. The fossils are not randomly scattered. They form a very distinct pattern. A young earth with recently created "kinds" would require that you find all types of life in all the layers. But we do not find this. Do you have any explanation for why? I do.

"If all the theoretical geological records of earth's living creatures, that supposedly evolved over 2 billion years, were stacked on top of one another the depth would be 130 miles. Compare that with the fact the earth's crust is only 25 to 30 miles deep. Do you see a problem with this type " science? " I do!!!"

I do not. You do not find all the layers in one place. Why not? The earth is a changing place. Layers erode, for one thing. More importantly when you are talking about deep time is that you have to consider tectonics. Many of the layers older than roughly 300 million years old have been subducted back into the earth and destroyed. We can see this happening all over the world today, so it can be observed.

"The irrefutable truth is that because processes and decay rates change."

What kind of things are you talking about? Is this an indirect response to radioactive decay rates changing? Are you saying that geologic processes have different effects today than in the past? Please tell me what has changed. I do not think that you can demonstrate that any of these things have changed.

"The irrefutable truth is science can test phenomena as they currrently exist, not as they were in the past."

Are you saying that we can learn nothing about the past from looking at something today? Then please go line by line through my first post directed at you and show why we cannot do those things.

"However, the overwhelming irrefutable evidence is that God in six days created the world and all that is therein."

I do not believe that there is any evidence that indicates a young earth. What are your top five pieces of "overwhelming irrefutable evidence" for a young earth?

**Astronomy is also a fun topic. As I alluded to above, light takes a finite amount of time to travel. We know the speed of light with great accuracy. We can easily measure the distance to various objects. Both observations made in the present with our senses" BTW. We then know how long the light has been traveling. And we have observered objects on the edge of the observable universe over 10 BILLION light years away. That means the light left over 10 billion years ago. That is a strong indication that deep time is real and it meets your requirements. Not only can we see the light, but the light carries a history of the object. We do not just see a static collection of objects at these great distances. We see stars exploding as supernovae. We can follow their change with time as they brighten and then fade. We see gamma ray bursts. Huge explosions that for brief moments release more energy than an entire large galaxy. We see galaxies colliding and spinning. We see new stars forming. We even see planetary systems forming. We see evidence of light having actually travelled the distance rather than being created in transit as some believe. The histories I mention being recorded in the light are an important part of that. In addition, we see the change in light from passing through or by various things on its journey. We see massive cases in gravitational lensing as the light passes by objects with a lot of gravity. We see where the collection of "colors" in the light have been changed by passing through clouds of gas and dust. We see where the frequency of the light has been changed by the expansion of the universe during its transit.

What do you think of the astronomical evidence for deep time?

 

UT:
It is obvious I will recevie no response to the record of creation as I have previously posted.

However, I will respond to a few of your previous remarks. The scientific model requires observation. You are rejecting the very foundation of proving anything scientifically. The very word science means " Knowledge based upon the OBSERVATION and TESTING of facts worked into an ordered system acting as a base for new knowledge and a guide for a way of getting it" ( Graham, E, G., The Basic Dictionary of Science New York: The MacMillan Co. pg. 404). Therefore, the origin of the universe and man are not testable as a scientifc hypotesis. Danson describes it as "not a credible theory". Danson, R.( 1971), New Scientist, Vol.49. I guess you reject the view of Danson and Graham. Dr. Louis T. Moore states "Science does not embrace all phenomena and it has not, for it's use all the criteria of truth." More Louis T. ( 1925) The dogma of Evolution ( Princeton, Princeton University). Curtis proclaimed, "observations and experiments MUST ALWAYS be REPEATED and verified before being incorporated into the body of knowledge". Curtis, Helena ( 1975), Biology (New York: Wortin Publishers).
Science has a checkered past. Consider the following:
1.The eternality of matter.
2.Alchemy, the notion that common metals could be transformed into gold.
3.The spontaneous generation of life.
4. The recapitulation theory, i.e. the idea that during the nine month gestation period the human embryo pases through the major stages of it's evolutionary past.
5. The body contained an estimated 180 vestigial organs.
6. The steady state theory, i.e. matter is continuously being created.
8. The geocentric theory.
9. The earth was flat.
10. The earth was supported by solid pillars.
I trust this post meets your requirement of specificity.

 

The church, too, has a checkered past. Flat earth, geocentrism, Crusades, witch trials, justification of slavery... But I am not giving up my Christianity over it. What does this have to do with the validity of modern theories?

You did not meet my "requirement of specificity." Admit that we can learn things about the past by observing in the present, such as the things I mentioned, or give me detailed reasons why we cannot. That would meet one requirement. You initial assertion rests on this and you have not addressed it.

Also, observations from astronomy are done in the present. Why does this not meet your requirement for showing deep time?

What about radiometric dating? This is done in the present.

What about any of the specific questions I asked of you above? What are your best irrefuteable evidences for a young earth? What processes are different today? Where are the geologic layers with all the "kinds" intermingled? And so on.

I ahve addressed the Biblical things you mentioned numerous times including recently. Search on them if you like. I'm not ignoring it, I just have repeated it too many times.

 

But evolutionism is simply a compendium of "bad science bias blessed by government grants" Frank. Do you expect it to "pay attention to details" that are "disconfirming"?

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html

Notice that the "Age of the earth" is a big deal to both Bible believing Christians that accept the "Creator's Account" in Genesis 1-2:4 as well as a "big deal" to atheist evolutionists.

Of course - Christian evolutionists also choose a side in that debate. But as Dawkins points out "what does it buy the Christian evolutionist?"

In Christ,

Bob

 

But I digress off the topic of "why this matters" to Bible believers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html

This is good stuff.

"The fossils found deepest within the geological column are simply immobile and inhabit the lowest elevations possible on earth. Organisms that are increasingly mobile, tolerant of change, and intelligent are expected to avoid the rising waters depending on their abilities and succumb to the catastrophe at different times."

I guess grasses and angiosperms must be the most intelligent and mobile of all the plants.

This would be funny if they weren't serious. According to recently created kinds, ALL "kinds" should be found together in all layers. They are not, so they fall back on such a silly statement as above for explanation. But the thing is, it explains nothing. Animals with similar habitats, body size, mobility, intelligence, and speed should be found together then. But they are not. Ever. This explains nothing about the actual sorting we see.

 

As for as Morris and Parker.

Mostly things layers get subducted and eroded. And it was Christian geologists who tied all the layers together using index fossils and finally recognized that there was in fact a geologic column.

 

Facinating - the geologic column does not actually exist anywhere.

The speculations about the column make it over 100 miles thick - not found anywhere on earth.

And all this "hard data" is simply "dismissed" by evolutionism's faithful.

How sad to find that here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

You are arguing against a strawman again.

Let me put it this way. If you are going to lay down a new layer of sedimentary rock, where does the material come fram? Eroding another rock layer, of course!

No geologists says that you should expect to see every layer at every place. That is nonsense. You have had billions of years of erosion, uplift (how do you think new layers are deposited at the top of a mountain? They are not, the mountain erodes and forms new layers somewhere else.), subduction, volcanoes, etc.

Uniform layers around the world more closely matches what we would expect to see under your version of world history. But we don't. Why not?

 

The Christian is instructed through scripture," Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). Thus when the bible is translated correctly in Genesis 1:31, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day," it does not mean 4.5 billion years. Evolutionists require billions of years to justify their faith that man and the universe were not created, but rather emerged from slime out of chance and evolved to the present condition. It is a critical tinction, because if the evolutionists are correct then scripture must be incorrect.

 

Gina,

I find it important that science be vindicated and that Chrisitianity not deny the modern scientific knowledge as it once denied what was discovered by Copernicus. It is important to me that some people's extremely literal interpretation of Genesis, which may have come to us by oral history, not be construed as a valid reason for Chistians as a group to deny science.

It doesn't matter so much to me that Person A believes in YEC. It does matter to me that Christians understand that YEC is not a universal Christian belief.

It also matters to me that bright young folks who are raised within the universal Church not come to the conclusion that IF Genesis is not 100% literally true that God created everything in literal 24-hour days THEN everythin in the Bible is worthy of study only as mythology. I fear that fundamentalist YECers who quote atheists like Richard Dawkins where these atheists adopt a position similar to their own regarding the centality of the literal Genesis creation account to the validity of Judaism and Christianity may not only lead young people to reject science but also cause some young people--particularly the brigtht ones--to unnecessarily reject Christianity.

Let us suppose that proposition YEC is not universally held among Christians. It seems to me harmful to our witness for those Christions who believe proposition YEC to state substantially that "IF proposition YEC is not true, then Christianity is not true." Especially when there are clearly Christians who do not believe proposition YEC. It is possible that the only contact with Christian doctrine which a young person who understands and believes science will have will be with a Christian who believes in proposition YEC. If this Christian then expresses to the young person that the truth of proposition YEC is essential to the truth and validity of Christianity and that without proposition YEC the whole must fall...then the young person who is seriously searching for truth and the fulfillment only God can offer may think that all Christians believe this. The young person may conclude that this is an essential part of Christian doctrine.

I see this as harmful. So...when I sense that someone is open to listening to other points of view regarding this matter...and not simply quoting Genesis and explaining the Hebrew meaning of the Hebrew word for day in the Genesis text...I will try to answer them. I tend to answer less often when folks say "I believe [Bible text] and assert the Bible text as proof for the proposition it is asserted to prove [the proposition that it is literally true]. (This seems to me a circular form of argumentation. Of course, one saying this in an inappropriate context opens oneself to the charge that one doesn't believe the Bible.)

Gina, I would be curious why this topic was moved from its own forum to the other religions/doctrines forum. I never responded to the topic when it was in its own forum but have occasionally responded since the discussion was moved.

 

Originally posted by john3v36:

Well, J3, that would be a logical position you could take; if you were consistent in always taking that same position, you might get some credit. But I suspect you are not consistent in always taking that same position. In fact, I suspect you believe the earth rotates and this is the cause of day and night.

So what, you might ask?

You claim you want to take the biblical position on any matter of science as long as the bible is properly translated and obviously meant to be literal.

I defy you to find any hint anywhere in scripture that the earth rotates. It is not there. There are many, many statements to the effect that the sun rises and sets, and there is the famous passage in Joshua where the scripture explicitly states the sun STOPPED its diurnal motion and the day therefore was longer . .

In history, these scriptural references were used to oppose the findings of scientists like Copernicus, Gallileo, Bruno . . . there works were banned, they were called heretics, they were threatened with torture, Bruno was burned at the stake.

All in the name of keeping the scripture literal interpretation as true.

So today, you believe the earth rotates, a belief that a few centuries ago would cause others to lay the same condemnation on you that you lay on the evolutionist.

Why the difference? Scripture hasn't changed in the interim period.

I'll tell you what has changed.

The evidence for the rotation of the earth has become so clear and certain in the minds of people that they no longer feel the need to interpret the scriptures literally.

Hence they will use any old excuse to excuse this difference between their beliefs and what the bible literally says. They will say, well the words of the bible are simply to be interpreted as indicating what men were seeing, not what was really happening.

Poppycock. If you let science inform you about the rotating earth and accept it as true, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse us evolutionists of doing, that is, accepting the findings of science over what scripture literally says.

And you do it without a trace of distress reading those verses! Because, KNOWING AS YOU DO that they are not literally true, you merely adjust your interpretation of those scriptures automatically, without even thinking about it, as you read.

And that is what Paul of Tarsus would have had you do, when he used the phrase "rightly dividing the word of truth".


Well, some of us have COME TO KNOW - really know that the earth is billions of years old and all life shares a common descent from the original simple life of the planet.

Therefore as we read our precious scriptures, the adjustment to not taking those verses literally happens automatically as we read, just as it does for you when you read about the sun having his chamber from which he comes out to show light upon the world.

We're not going to start wrongly dividing the word of truth just because you haven't caught up yet with the knowledge men have wrest from the earth, that God put there for them to find.

 

If you will recall the founders of modern science such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle and Galileo were all creationists. You see their understanding that there is a logical Divine Creator gave them the foundation to LOOK at the NATURAL LAWS of HIS Creation and to think HIS thoughts after HIM. This is no different today with regards to Creation scientists.

You see evolution fills the need for our origins, because the bible isn’t reliable. Evolutionists get all huffy when Creationists show that evolution stands against scientific evidence. I always thought that science was about the free exchange of ideas and evidence and what not.

The crux of evolutionism is: “scientists said it, I believe it, that settles it.â€￾ Sounds like sound science to me…

Any topic that deals with another type of religion, such as evolution, belongs in the appropriate forum.

 

John,

Please note that the forum is Other Religions/Doctrines. Emphasis on the "Doctrines" part. And I would like to know if the moderators moved the topic because they think this is "another type of religion." Science is not religion.

Science does not venerate the unscientific personal beliefs of scientists. I don't think the scientists you quote made the literal truth of Genesis an essential part of the observation of the modern world the truth of which was essential to believing their observations of the natural world.

Did I say the Bible wasn't reliable? No. I say that God can create by multiple means, including the means of evolution. To say less is to deny the omnipotence of God. Now, you may say that God didn't create by means of evolution because the Bible, literally interpreted, didn't give sufficient time for Him to have done so.

I don't think Six-Literal-Day-Creationists have ever, solely by reference to the natural world, offered a better scientific explanation for life on earth than evolution. Please keep in mind that a scientific explanation must be potentially falsifiable by reference to the natural world (just as evolution was and is potentially falsifiable by reference to genomic and mitochondrial DNA). I (and I think Paul and UTEOTW) would like to hear any truly scientific explanation for how life on earth came to exist in its present varieties that you have to offer.

Is there such as thing as evolutionism? The crux of the scientific of evolution is not "Science says it. I believe it. That settles it." The crux is the evidence and that evolution is the best scientific explanation of the evidence that is before our eyes. This includes geology. Anthropology. The study of fossils. Climatology. And even biology. The very DNA of living things provides evidence that they are related and fails to falsify the theory of evolution in a way that an omnipotent Creator who didn't want people to believe in evolution could easily have made the DNA evidence do.

To me, the evidence for evolution in the genomes of living things is equivalent to God's saying that it's ok with Him for me to believe in evolution. Otherwise, He wouldn't have put that evidence there.

 

CalvinG

There used to be a separate CvE forum. Helen was the moderator and they disbanded the forum when her life got to busy to keep moderating. Most related threads quit appearing for a while. Recently, there has been a new up surge. At first, the moderators said there the forum would be restarted. It did not happen. So I asked if it was to be restarted. Gina was kind enough to go find out for us. The decision was made that the Other Religions/Doctrines forum would be the "correct" place in the future for such threads. I do not think that moving the thread necessary reflects that the moderator who moved it considers it to be another religion. Though I would think that most of the moderators here are YEC. I hope that explains it for you. I hope I have not stepped on Gina's toes by answering.

 

I said ‘evolution’. Not ‘science’. I have no qualms about true science.

Since you can only ‘think’ the scientists I made mentioned of didn’t take a literal interpretation of Genesis, here a link that not only lists these scientists I mentioned, but other scientists that believed in Creation as well that contributed greatly to early science.
Source

You’re twisting scripture…tsk…tsk…tsk…

To say less is to call God a liar.

Mitochondria DNA, interesting, then explain how the enveloped cells reproduce in close synchronicity? How did lateral gene transfer into the nucleus take place when the nuclear membrane is designed for the passage of mRNA (out), and to contain DNA? If DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, would not the host respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would detect it as a virus? (Note that the enzymes used so widely to chop up DNA into pieces in DNA sequencing studies come from bacteria, i.e. prokaryotes, they function in destroying foreign DNA inside the bacteria.)

It’s all a THEORY…or is it b/c Science says it. I believe it. That settles it? You sure that’s not how it works for you?

Evidence is the key word here. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils, not one, which has stood the test of time. The believed radioactive dating methods for postulating millions of years do not stand up to testable-repeatable scientific scrutiny. Rocks don’t come with dates stamped on them; and there’s no ‘instrument’ that can determine the age of a rock. Radiometric dating is 1/3 fact, 2/3 assumption, and is unreproducible. I know personally a couple of geologists who has as student’s carbon dated an apple peel and had a result of thousands of years. They’ve even sent cooled lava to different labs and the results were millions to thousands of year’s difference. Molecules to man maybe the most popular theory, but it’s not the ONLY theory in town.

 

In history, these scriptural references were used to oppose the findings of scientists like Copernicus, Gallileo, Bruno . . . there works were banned, they were called heretics, they were threatened with torture, Bruno was burned at the stake.

All in the name of keeping the scripture literal interpretation as true.

So today, you believe the earth rotates, a belief that a few centuries ago would cause others to lay the same condemnation on you that you lay on the evolutionist.
</font>[/QUOTE]I find that it is the Evolutionists who are doing condemning. They have a faith that can not be proved by empirical science. But they would refuse allow the ever-increasing evidence of scientific support for creation to be shown to our children.

No I afraid it is the evolutionist who would do the witch burning today if it was allowed.


1 Timothy 6:20 - O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

2 Timothy 3:7 - Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

You say that evolution is not science. But evolution is a theory promulgated to explain observations of the natural world. And evolution is falsifiable by genetic evidence that life on earth is not related. Such genetic evidence has not been forthcoming. Moreover, most scientists believe that evolution is science. I believe the science/not science debate has been addressed either previously in this thread or in another thread. Do you have a falsifiable alternative theory that better explains the observed data than the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by John:

I don't believe you have addressed my point at all. These scientists may well have had personal beliefs regarding Creationism. Other scientists may be atheists. The correctness of one's scientific observations and theories does not depend upon one's theology.

My point is as I stated above...and as you correctly quoted...that literal-Genesis-Creationist beliefs were not essential for believing their observations and descriptions of the natural world.

How does it twist Scripture to say that God *can* create by means of evolution if He chooses to? Please interpret this statement prospectively.

I don't choose to answer allegations that I am "twisting Scripture." Because I don't think I am twisting Scripture any more than folks who say that it is the earth which rotates to create day and night and not the movement of the Sun over and under the earth.

Mitochondria do reproduce in close synchronicity to the eukarotic cells which house them. Do you deny this? Not all intracellular processes are presently understood. Presumably, the regulation of mitochondrial reproduction is by means of a biochemical messenger synthesized under the direction of the host cell. I would do research to find out if you would adopt OE-E if presented with such evidence. But I fully concede that the exact regulation may not yet be known. We do not yet know the complete regulatory pathway for all cellular processes.

Are all viruses degraded? Or do some viruses enter the genome and become passed on to descendants. I think you know the answer to this question. So it is possible that over time such DNA being laterally transferred would eventually incorporate into the genome even if it were treated exactly the same as viral DNA is treated.

It is a theory to explain events in the natural world. It is a theory that can be tested with reference to the natural world and potentially falsified by observation of the natural world. It is the theory which at present best explains the observed data. Do you have another falsifiable theory which can be tested and potentially falsified by observation of the natural world which you believe explains the observed data better than the theory of evolution? I would like to hear it if you do.

Yes. I am sure that "Science says it. I believe it. That settles it." is not how it works for me.

What exactly would you consider a bona fide transitional fossil? Because we do have fossils of broad categories of creatures which broad categories appear to take on different appearences at different times.

What do you make of the greater than 99% homology between the DNA of chimpanzees and the DNA of Homo sapiens?

John, do you know the "Creation Scientists" you publish on sites like truthingenesis, etc? I don't know how carbon dating gave a time of thousands of years on an apple peal. These dating methods are something I'm actually reading about at this time. But from what I understand...and Paul or UTEOTW would probably be better at the radiometric dating part than I would be...is that the "creation scientists" sent recently cooled lava to be evaluated by a test that is only supposed to be used to evaluate very, very old igneous rock and that the dates they were provided are in fact within or close to the accepted range of error (called standard deviation) of the test.

I'm still waiting for another falsifiable theory that is based solely on observations of the natural world which explains the observed data better than the theory of evolution.