RE: "Young Earth" doctrine?????

RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Zhi -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 4:35:11 PM)
quote: If we are going to insert an inscrutable deity into the mix with a dash of Last Thursdayism then nothing we do can be trusted. If we are going to truly contemplate a recent creation with the appearance of history then what do we do in our court systems? Afterall, the evidence against a defendant could have been poofed into being just a few minutes ago. True, but there's not a lot we can do about that, so we have to continue along. quote: The doctrinal issues are even worse. An all-knowing God would know that we would go on to use isotope ratios to date rocks, relative luminosity to measure the distance to type Ia supernovae, etc. This implies that God knew people would be fooled by these features and God put them there anyway. It also implies that God inserted a fake history into the universe, the equivalent of giving Adam scars from injuries that he never suffered. The universe we see does not have age. It has a history, a multibillion year history. This is tatamount to deception. If we can't trust God's Creation how can we trust His Word? That seems to be a very serious doctrinal problem. No, it more implies that we don't understand why He put that there, which is why we need to research it so we can better understand what we're seeing. As such it's really no different from wondering why an all-knowing God would allow the Fall, for instance. I guess I would say He has His reasons. Otherwise, the universe does too have an age, last I checked, regardless of whether you ask a theologian or the average scientist. quote: I don't think that is entirely true. If the entire city of New York witnessed God coming down from the clouds and poofing a sheep into existence in Time Square I think supernatural creation events would be proven. Not scientifically proven. Eyewitness proof and scientific proof are two entirely different things. Scientific proof requires, among other things, repeatability. quote: One bet I would think is not off is that God would not create a deceptive creation, or give a false representation of the event. When the map does not match the territory what are we to do? If a map says there is a mountain where there is no mountain should we assume the mountain is invisible, or should we assume the map is wrong? Well, this is my husband's thoughts on the matter, but he also notes that it's entirely possible that we're misinterpreting what we're seeing. So... shrug In poofing stuff into existence, there has to be some appearance of age, from the point of view of a causally-bound entity, simply because it's, well, there. A cookie poofed into existence would be assumed by one of us to have at some point been baked, whether it was or not... because our experience tells us that cookies are baked in order to exist, and that before it was baked the ingredients were mixed, and before they were mixed the wheat was planted and grew in the field and was eventually harvested and went to the flour mill and was ground into flour and bagged and sent to the grocery store where the baker bought it and brought it home and opened it and measured two cups into the mixer and so forth. quote: This still doesn't explain the correlation between the sorting of fossils and the ratio of uranium to lead within zircons. This correlation begs for an explanation, and I don't see how a flood could sort both zircons (by their miniscule lead content) and fossils so that they match across the entire globe. Well, again, it's a matter of where they came from, which, we're not sure. quote: Vestigial means having a rudimentary function compared to the same feature in other species. The human vermiform appendix does not house commensal organisms that break down cellulose. It is vestigial even if it is found to have a rudimentary function. You really didn't read the article did you. sigh Its purpose apparently has nothing to do with breaking down cellulose, therefore making it not the same organ as in the other species, meaning that it's not a vestigial anything, it's a different organ.

Zhi -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 4:37:52 PM)
quote: Could he actually have created everything 5 minutes ago such that all available evidence only appears to point to an earlier origin? Sure. But why go for that option? Well, unfortunately, we can't really tell what DID happen without a time machine. I don't have one handy, do you? As such, the question comes down to whether or not you interpret Scripture as meaning 6 literal days. If yes, you would expect poofage. If not, you don't. Either way, it's an unproveable quantity. And that's the point of bringing up the option... the fact that we cannot know, until we get to heaven and say "Hey, God? Mind telling us how you created the universe?"

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 4:40:25 PM)
Method, Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com concerning the status of your account. Please allow time for a response. Please do not post under this handle or any other until you have heard from the administrator. Sincerely Lisa Luper Forums Volunteer Faith Community Network Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please allow time for a response. Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.

GroupW -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 4:48:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames The thing that interested me was that most had no other reason to belive what they believed other than that is what so and so said.. Thanks RC Sadly enough, I think that's as far as most people get on nearly any issue. Christian or otherwise, most folks just don't put their energy into really thinking about things. To some degree, it's forgivable - there's just too much out there to expect someone to be informed on every issue. Still, would be nice we folks at least had 2 or 3. BT

GroupW -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 4:52:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames ... It seems possible to not buy the 6000 year thingy, but still have absolute confidence that God created everything ... Honestly I do not think it matters a hoot in a holler what folks believe about this, for it is certainly not a salvic thingy. And salvic thingys are all that matter. That's about where I stand. Edit: Is "salvic thingy" a defined theological term? If not, I believe it should be.

essentialsaltes -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 4:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Could he actually have created everything 5 minutes ago such that all available evidence only appears to point to an earlier origin? Sure. But why go for that option? It's definitely not a fruitful option. It's very similar to deciding that we live in the world of the Matrix, or that we are all brains-in-vats. Accepting those explanations is tantamount to giving up. While they may be 'philosophical' possibilities, on the pragmatic level, let's just ignore them, do some science, and see what we can figure out.

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/8/2008 11:06:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zhi quote: Could he actually have created everything 5 minutes ago such that all available evidence only appears to point to an earlier origin? Sure. But why go for that option? Well, unfortunately, we can't really tell what DID happen without a time machine. I don't have one handy, do you? As such, the question comes down to whether or not you interpret Scripture as meaning 6 literal days. If yes, you would expect poofage. If not, you don't. Either way, it's an unproveable quantity. And that's the point of bringing up the option... the fact that we cannot know, until we get to heaven and say "Hey, God? Mind telling us how you created the universe?" The difference is that the person who goes with the old age can say: I believe the earth is old because the evidence points in that direction and I don't believe a God of truth would allow misleading evidence in his creation. But the other option can only be: I believe what I believe in spite of the evidence, in spite of the fact it makes God look like a deceiver. And the support for that is an assertion that a literal reading of scripture trumps evidence. An assertion with no rationale behind it.

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 8:28:37 AM)
quote: The difference is that the person who goes with the old age can say: I believe the earth is old because the evidence points in that direction and I don't believe a God of truth would allow misleading evidence in his creation. But the other option can only be: I believe what I believe in spite of the evidence, in spite of the fact it makes God look like a deceiver. And the support for that is an assertion that a literal reading of scripture trumps evidence. An assertion with no rationale behind it. You know, I'm really getting tired of this gross distortion of truth. One believes the earth is "old" because one interprets the evidence with preconceived assumptions. I believe the earth is "young" (actually 6000 years is NOT young!) because I accept the Eyewitness account of origins and interpret the evidence which readily upports this dating. God is not a deceiver and there is as much if not more "evidence" for 6000 as 6 zillion years. That is true rationale!

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 8:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark I believe the earth is "young" (actually 6000 years is NOT young!) because I accept the Eyewitness account of origins And because you accept a theology that insists it is not only an Eyewitness account, but one to be interpreted as scientific reality. That is not something required by the text itself, but something you add to the text. It is part of how you interpret scripture from a basis of presupposition about the scripture: just as you accuse others of interpreting creation from a basis of presupposition about the creation. quote: and interpret the evidence which readily upports this dating. God is not a deceiver and there is as much if not more "evidence" for 6000 as 6 zillion years. That is true rationale! I have asked you about this before, but you seem remarkably shy about laying out this interpretation. Take a given piece of evidence, please, and show us how it can be coherently interpreted to uphold a 6K age of the earth. Otherwise you should end your sentence before the and.

essentialsaltes -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 10:48:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: The difference is that the person who goes with the old age can say: I believe the earth is old because the evidence points in that direction and I don't believe a God of truth would allow misleading evidence in his creation. ... I believe the earth is "young" (actually 6000 years is NOT young!) because I accept the Eyewitness account of origins and interpret the evidence which readily upports this dating. God is not a deceiver and there is as much if not more "evidence" for 6000 as 6 zillion years. Where is your evidence for 6000 years? In the thread for presenting such evidence, you did not present any. To the contrary, you stated "it's really not about evidence at all, but rather the assumptions and interpretations that lead to differing conclusions. The age of the earth is ALWAYS about "theology/philosophy"" It seems clear that evidence is irrelevant to your conclusions. Your theological assumption is that the earth is young, therefore you have no need of evidence; the matter has already been decided. Like all reasoning, science does depend on assumptions, but these assumptions are not tautologically equivalent to an old earth; an old earth is a conclusion to which we are led by several lines of scientific evidence.

rcjames -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 11:57:47 AM)
A llot of great responses (I guess the heated argument on this subject at our coffee shop was not an anomoly) Question; would someone who supports the 6000 year thingy, show my (or refer me) how the time frame from adam to Jesus was established to be 4000 years? An interesting observation; Our morning gatherings (5-6 AM) at the collfee shop is usually just sit where ever there is an empty seat. I was running a little late this morning (got there at 5;30) and low and behold the young earth folks were all sitting together, and the dissenters were all sitting together. I think we may be on the verge of a Coffee Shop split.[;)] Thanks RC

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 12:43:32 PM)
quote: Question; would someone who supports the 6000 year thingy, show my (or refer me) how the time frame from adam to Jesus was established to be 4000 years? I believe that the reason for 6,000 years depends on a couple of things--first, genealogical records, and second, it's based on an eschatology. It's the school of thought that each thousand years correllates to a day of a week, and the millenial reign is the last thousand years, our sabbath rest. From what I understand of the genealogical records, there's a little more leeway than 6,000 years, though. The range seems to be between 6 and 10 thousand years. I don't believe the evidence points to an old earth, at all, though. I'm not a scientist myself, which is why I often don't get into these discussions too deeply. I get bogged down in all the jargon and the best I can do is link to ICR or AiG's research on the subject. I do remember one thing they brought up, though, which is the amount of salt in the oceans. The creation scientists say that the ocean is getting saltier, and that if the earth was very old it would be all salt by now. There are other things I remember them talking about, too, such as the amount of dust on the moon. Here is an article from ICR: Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. Here is another page from AiG that has some links to more evidence about the age of the earth. Young Age of the Earth and Universe

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 2:04:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God I do remember one thing they brought up, though, which is the amount of salt in the oceans. The creation scientists say that the ocean is getting saltier, and that if the earth was very old it would be all salt by now. There are other things I remember them talking about, too, such as the amount of dust on the moon. These are both very out of date arguments. In fact, in the link you gave to AiG there is an article explaining why the moon-dust argument is no longer a valid one to use. The problem with the salt argument is that you have to deal with all mineral salts. And depending on which salt you use you can get an alleged age of anywhere from hundred of millions of years (for sodium) to only 100 years (for fast-reacting aluminum salts). See this table from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#ocean Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years Moreover, these are residence times, not accumulation times i.e. they don't measure how long it takes this much salt to get into ocean water, but how long it stays in dissolved form--on average-- before it is removed from ocean water. So in fact, these figures have nothing to do with the age of the earth. Austin & Humphreys argument is summarized and briefly answered here with a link to a more detailed analysis by Glen Morton. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 2:27:52 PM)
Like I said, I'm not a scientist. I dug those examples I mentioned out of my memory somewhere. If they say that moon dust isn't valid anymore, I didn't know that. Although according to the article, it was evolutionists who had first claimed the larger amount of moon dust per year, and they have had to change their views on that. Regardless, creation scientists still hold to a young earth belief. There's a lot of compelling evidence in the articles I linked to. I'm not prepared to debate them, myself. The reason I linked to them was because of the asseration I've seen here that the evidence points to an old earth, and that God either made it look like it was older than it was or that it's really old. Those aren't the only two options in my view. I believe the earth doesn't look old--it looks like it's been through a catastrophic world-wide flood. I've seen people here challenging the YECers to present evidence of a young earth, and the best I can do is post what creation scientists have written.

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 2:59:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Like I said, I'm not a scientist. ... I've seen people here challenging the YECers to present evidence of a young earth, and the best I can do is post what creation scientists have written. Yes, I understand that and I won't expect from you what you cannot give. I'm not a scientist either and have to leave the finer details of any discussion to those who are better informed. My basic problem with the creationist sites is that I have never found it difficult to discover a simple and IMO better alternative from the scientific mainstream. I think the creation science sites only appeal to people who 1) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments and 2) are predisposed to trust them over mainstream scientific sources. IOW we get back to the situation outlined in the Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science thread.

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 3:31:40 PM)
quote: Yes, I understand that and I won't expect from you what you cannot give. Thanks--I appreciate your understanding. [:)] quote: I think the creation science sites only appeal to people who 1) don't have much science background and therefore cannot see the weaknesses in the arguments and 2) are predisposed to trust them over mainstream scientific sources. I disagree with you there. I've read many testimonies about scientists who started out mainstream, and evolved (lol) into creationists over time as they studied the facts, so it's not just the uneducated or the ones raised as Christians that believe in a literal 6 day creation. Here is the testimony of one such person: Dr. A.J. Monty White. Here is a list of former evolutionists who became Christian scientists. They all have testimonies to share as well. http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

rcjames -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 5:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God Like I said, I'm not a scientist. I dug those examples I mentioned out of my memory somewhere. If they say that moon dust isn't valid anymore, I didn't know that. Although according to the article, it was evolutionists who had first claimed the larger amount of moon dust per year, and they have had to change their views on that. Regardless, creation scientists still hold to a young earth belief. There's a lot of compelling evidence in the articles I linked to. I'm not prepared to debate them, myself. The reason I linked to them was because of the asseration I've seen here that the evidence points to an old earth, and that God either made it look like it was older than it was or that it's really old. Those aren't the only two options in my view. I believe the earth doesn't look old--it looks like it's been through a catastrophic world-wide flood. I've seen people here challenging the YECers to present evidence of a young earth, and the best I can do is post what creation scientists have written. Thanks for the response; As for me it matters not what "Scientist or Evolutionist" might have to say. personally I am more interested in what the Scripture says and how it is being interpreted by both camps. Thanks RC

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 6:18:02 PM)
quote: As for me it matters not what "Scientist or Evolutionist" might have to say. personally I am more interested in what the Scripture says and how it is being interpreted by both camps. Good for you. [:)] From what I've read, James Ussher was the first to use a literal reading of the Bible to come up with the 6,000 year age of the earth in the 17th century. Here's a little about him:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology Here's a site I found that gives a Biblical timeline with dates. Try this and see if this was what you are looking for. http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 6:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God I disagree with you there. I've read many testimonies about scientists who started out mainstream, and evolved (lol) into creationists over time as they studied the facts, so it's not just the uneducated or the ones raised as Christians that believe in a literal 6 day creation. Here is the testimony of one such person: Dr. A.J. Monty White. Here is a list of former evolutionists who became Christian scientists. They all have testimonies to share as well. http://www.creationists.org/switch.html Actually the fact they have testimonies is part of the problem. I am never too much impressed by these, first because most (not all--there are some notable exceptions) whatever their credentials in other fields do not have the requisite depth in biology and/or geology. One of the exceptions on the list is Gary Parker. Some others are Jonathan Wells and Kurt Wise. All of these have qualifications in biology but dispute evolution. I don't know if I have ever seen an argument in favour of a young earth from a qualified geologist. What all of these have in common is a prior commitment to creationism. Both Wise and Wells were creationists before they began their studies. Parker was converted to Christianity before committing to creationism. So what would really impress me is someone knowledgeable in biology or geology who is convinced of a young earth solely on the scientific evidence without an accompanying religious commitment. Someone like a Japanese Buddhist who, as a Buddhist and as a qualified geologist, but not as a Christian, argues for a young earth solely from evidence.

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 6:28:50 PM)
I've started a new thread on this subject, so as to keep this one on topic. CLICK HERE

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 6:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames As for me it matters not what "Scientist or Evolutionist" might have to say. personally I am more interested in what the Scripture says and how it is being interpreted by both camps. Thanks RC Absolutely. This, after all, is where the real controversy is---the scientific question being long ago settled in scientific circles. It is the hermeneutic of literal interpretation that is the real core of the issue. No one (except possibly for one of the couple of dozen flat-earthers, if there really are that many) reads all the bible literally. Everyone is aware of its poetry, its imagery, its typology, its visionary passages, it parables, etc. But the notion that certain passages of scripture must be understood as literal, scientific, historical fact and in no other way, is the root of the controversy. For my part, I have never understood the fascination which "literal" interpretation has for many people. It is, in my mind, a form of modernistic scientism which basically adopts the materialist view that if something is not scientifically true, it is not true at all. And, of course, I have my own biases, for as a student of literature, I refuse to concede that literature is truth of a lesser quality than science or that it is any less effective at describing reality than science is. So I bristle when people describe those of us who take a literary approach to scripture as "dismissing" scripture.

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 6:50:14 PM)
quote: This, after all, is where the real controversy is---the scientific question being long ago settled in scientific circles. [&:] If it was settled long ago, there wouldn't be any debate about the issue.

gluadys -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 7:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God quote: This, after all, is where the real controversy is---the scientific question being long ago settled in scientific circles. [&:] If it was settled long ago, there wouldn't be any debate about the issue. And among scientists, there isn't. The debate is almost totally a public debate among non-scientists of different religious commitments. Even the scientists who get involved on the anti-evolution side are usually from a field outside of biology/geology/paleontology. And often have a prior commitment to creationism in some form other than evolutionary creationism.

Consecrated2God -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/9/2008 7:40:19 PM)
There are plenty of creation scientists, but that's a topic for the other thread.

swan42 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (8/10/2008 6:39:00 AM)
Obligatory FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI