quote:


Not scientifically proven. Eyewitness proof and scientific proof are two entirely different things. Scientific proof requires, among other things, repeatability.

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.

quote:

Scientific proof requires predictability. Repeatability is a sub-set of predictability.

quote:


Of course it is. I just wanted to pick a facet of what is required for scientific proof that made it obvious that God appearing in Times Square and poofing a single sheep into existence wouldn't be considered scientific proof (eyewitness proof yes, scientific proof no.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God

There are plenty of creation scientists, but that's a topic for the other thread.

quote:

Complete agreement; but you see, this is exactly why participants in this grand debate will not see eye-to-eye. The discussion participants are using different tools and different standards. In the meantime, the earth appears old and the creation of apparent age is self-consistent. If ever the self-consistent old earth age is detected by man to be inconsistent, then the 'deceptive' argument that might occur in heaven becomes quite complicated.

I will not pretend to change other people's minds about their beliefs, but that the earth really does look billions of years old is not a belief. So, I don't believe the earth is 4.5 billions of years old, I simply work with that assumption. If I held a different assumption, then every scientific field of study would collapse due to logical contradictions. This assumption is just as valid as assuming that the sun rises every morning and sets every evening.

Whether the appearance of age is deceptive is a theological problem. I am not a theologian by any stretch of imagination.

quote:



The thing about our assumptions regarding age is that they are based on what we perceive to be the laws and processes of the universe. The thing is that the laws and processes of the universe were created by God in the first place. Therefore He, if anyone, would be able to circumvent them (which is pretty evident in, well, miracles). So, the question is really whether or not our assumptions are correct regarding whether we think God circumvented those laws and processes in creating life, the universe, and everything. This does not in any way make our interpretation of those laws and processes the way they should happen without interference incorrect, it merely questions whether we should assume lack of interference.

quote:

So were does this leave us? I think it means look for rational answers first, eventually the magic behind the curtain probably has a rational explanation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

So were does this leave us? I think it means look for rational answers first, eventually the magic behind the curtain probably has a rational explanation.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether you believe in a divine being or not.

If you don't, you're going to search for any answer that doesn't include a divine being and claim that it's rational, simply due to the fact that a divine being is not involved.

If you do, then obviously you're okay with the whole divine being thing, and by extension you are also okay with the possibility of divine interference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: facedown

veritas
cosmology it seems, is mostly composed of some sort of sociological/philosophical element or two.
you cannot discuss origins without contemplating the edge - singularity - infinity - the horizon - the center - etc.
let alone, the hows, the before and the after.

these are all elements that most contemporary/mainstream "scientific work" tend to ignore.

what are your thoughts?

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Anything that gets poofed into existence is going to have the appearance of age. It's just a side effect of our causal expectations not expecting "poofing" to happen. Just as we would expect a long line of things to have happened in order for us to be handed a cookie by an all-powerful being (grain being grown, flour being ground, oven being preheated, ingredients being mixed, etc) that might not have actually happened had that all-powerful being poofed the cookie into existence, we would have certain expectations of the earth being older than it actually is, if it were, in fact, poofed into existence. Poofing a cookie into existence skips steps like wheat growing and baking for 12 minutes at 350F. Poofing a world into existence skips steps like swirling dust and gases and cooling magma and such. So, "apparent age" is more a matter of misinterpretation of the precursors of a currently present object, than any attempt at deception.

If the earth is in fact a young earth, I can imagine the conversation regarding the whole "deception" argument in heaven:

Old Earther: So, God, how did you make the universe?
God: Well, it took me six days.
Old Earther: Really? Why did you make it look like it took billions of years though? Doesn't that make you a liar?
God: Well, I DID tell you that in Genesis, didn't I?

quote:


"While poofing everything into existence is possible, there's a certain elegance, a beauty, to the idea that God planned everything so perfectly that all He had to do is set it in motion and the entire thing unfolded like an incredibly complex version of a Rube Goldberg machine, with a few "touches" here and there to create different types of life from nothing, which is something we still cannot do in a lab."

quote:

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.

quote:

You're right, to a degree. A response I gave elsewhere to this same point was that while a tray of cookies may have some appearance of age and "preparation," the pile of dirty pans and mixing bowls and the garbage pail full of egg shells and empty butter wrappers would certainly lend more weight towards the interpretation that the cookies were actually baked in the traditional sense. Even one still accepts the claim that the cookies were poofed into existence, one should admit that the physical evidence points towards traditional baking and that the "poof" theory is being accepted on faith. For the most part, this isn't what happens in these YE vs OE debates. YEC's not only claim that the Bible says that the earth is young, but that the physical evidence also points in that direction. We who believe in an old universe argue because the world is essentially overflowing with "dirty baking sheets" and not just freshly baked cookies.

quote:

I'm inclined to agree with your husband.

quote:


The problem with that is that we then have to determine what is a "dirty baking sheet" and what is a "representation of the God-created laws of the universe", requiring things to "be that way" for purpose of consistency with those laws.

quote:


I'm pretty much apathetic on the subject. I'm not going to tell a divine being that He has to make the universe a specific way just because I'd prefer it. *shrug*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

You're right, to a degree. A response I gave elsewhere to this same point was that while a tray of cookies may have some appearance of age and "preparation," the pile of dirty pans and mixing bowls and the garbage pail full of egg shells and empty butter wrappers would certainly lend more weight towards the interpretation that the cookies were actually baked in the traditional sense. Even one still accepts the claim that the cookies were poofed into existence, one should admit that the physical evidence points towards traditional baking and that the "poof" theory is being accepted on faith. For the most part, this isn't what happens in these YE vs OE debates. YEC's not only claim that the Bible says that the earth is young, but that the physical evidence also points in that direction. We who believe in an old universe argue because the world is essentially overflowing with "dirty baking sheets" and not just freshly baked cookies.

The problem with that is that we then have to determine what is a "dirty baking sheet" and what is a "representation of the God-created laws of the universe", requiring things to "be that way" for purpose of consistency with those laws.

quote:

This subject does not exist in a vacuum. It is not something to remain apathetic about. Earthquakes, hurricanes, medical research, near-earth asteroids, oil exploration, volcanic activity, and many other issues of concern have at least tangential relationships to the age of the earth.

quote:

but that the earth really does look billions of years old is not a belief.

quote:

Perhaps. Could you list those assumptions and why they're unreasonable?

quote:

The funny thing about all these preconceived assumptions is that they are self-consistent across many scientific disciplines. Take up your complaints with geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God

quote:

but that the earth really does look billions of years old is not a belief.

Sure it. I don't see an earth that looks billions of years old. I see an earth that looks like it's been through a catastrophic global flood. Coming from an area that recently went through a flood, I have seen what kind of power a lot of water yields, and that was only on a local water. I saw roads being washed away in 45 minutes--not smooth, either, like some have said water works, but digging trenches through the roads. It was amazing. It's not at all unbelievable to me that a global flood could do much more than wipe out a few roads, but carve caves and canyons and create entire mountain ranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Perhaps. Could you list those assumptions and why they're unreasonable?

quote:

The funny thing about all these preconceived assumptions is that they are self-consistent across many scientific disciplines. Take up your complaints with geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers.

I've "listed" the assumptions numerous times on numerous threads. They are naturalism and uniformitarianism. These form the basis of the religion of scientism as currently practiced by the (ever-shrinking) majority of geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and astronomers. Religion is always "self-consistent across many disciplines" - that's why it is called worldview!

quote:

The argument is that the evidence left behind by slow erosion and slow deposition looks different than that left behind by fast erosion and fast deposition, and that for the most geological features, what we see is consistent with slow processes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God

quote:

The argument is that the evidence left behind by slow erosion and slow deposition looks different than that left behind by fast erosion and fast deposition, and that for the most geological features, what we see is consistent with slow processes.

Again, I'm not a scientist,

quote:

but I've understood that the complete fossils we have show that the animals were covered quickly, not slowly. If they were covered slowly, they would have decayed and there wouldn't have been much left. Creation scientists believe the evidence shows that fossils were created by rapid burial in mud from the flood. Here is an interesting article about a fossilised ichthyosaurs in the process of giving birth. She would have had to have been fossilised rather quickly.

Buried birth

quote:

AFAIK, the argument isn't that one fossil couldn't have been buried quickly, it's that ALL of them couldn't have been buried TOGETHER and form the deposits that we find.