This question has been bothering me for a long time. The fossils of the dinosaurs are assessed to be millions of years old. Their skeltons are displayed in the museums. I am very staunch believer of the fact that God created the universe in six days. I do understand that the timeline of Lord God is beyond our comprehension. HIS one day would be ten thousand or more years of ours. Then how is it assessed that Adam and Eve were on this earth about 6,500 years ago? If that is true then museums and scientists are giving fake information.

Does someone has some information to help me fit in creation of dinosaurs in 6500 years?

For one thing your working with a flawed premiss. The universe was created in 1 days time. Not 6.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day (see Ref)

So there alone is great expanses of time and as shown having originated in the sea then brough forth unto the land. By the time man came along most of the creatures had already been created.

Ref:
Genesis 1 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV)

Does someone has some information to help me fit in creation of dinosaurs in 6500 years?

Hi Triund,

You are asking for someone to do the impossible.

It's pretty simple really. The word as used in Genesis literally means one period. So one period can mean any amount of time from one second to 1 million years. When you look at it in the correct terms it makes perfect sense.

The Church I attend actually believes that the earth is approx. 6000 years old. There is a creation museum in Cincinnati, OH and they take the Bible and Science and attempt to prove it.

I'm not sure myself... I am only certain on one thing... God created the Universe.

If I were you I'd Google Ken Ham... he has studied this topic and is bound to have a website and info that may help you.

[QUOTE=classyT;2279334

If I were you I'd google Ken Ham...he has studied this topic and is bound to have a website and info that may help you.[/QUOTE]

Ken Ham is not an authority when it comes to science.

The bottom line is that empirically his claims about science are impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

TUT,

That is your opinion... I really don't know enough about him to argue differently. I did visit his museum... it is pretty cool and I think if someone is interested in why some Christians believe that dinasours and man co- existed... HE is a good place to start.

TUT,

that is your opinion...I really don't know enough about him to argue differently. I did visit his museum...it is pretty cool and I think if someone is interested in why some Christians believe that dinasours and man co- existed...HE is a good place to start.

HI ClassyT

My comment was not a opinion, either something is empirically verifiable or it isn't.

For example, to say that 90 percent of dating methods are inaccurate requires the person who said it to provide the empirical evidence to support this claim.


Regards

Tut

TUT,

that is your opinion...I really don't know enough about him to argue differently. I did visit his museum...it is pretty cool and I think if someone is interested in why some Christians believe that dinasours and man co- existed...HE is a good place to start.

Im sorry but I just read through his article and I can't seem to make any sense of it because he skips around and follows no true chain of thinking. He just wants you to think like him or be gone.

Ref:

Chapter 2: What?s the Best ?Proof? of Creation? - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/best-proof-of-creation)


I am a christian and I believe the earth is way way older then 6500 years. Im not even sure where he is trying to come up with that number from.

I am a christian and I believe the earth is way way older then 6500 years. Im not even sure where he is trying to come up with that number from.

I agree with this comment. I am a Christian too and I have my own interpretation of Genesis (which no one wants to hear).

If people believe that Genesis says that the world is 6,500 years old then that is OK with me.

What I am critical of are people who say that Genesis is correct BECAUSE scientific dating methods are 90% inaccurate. That's fine. But where is the proof that this statement is true. If Ken Ham wants to claim something like 90% inaccuracy then at the very least he can produce a working paper to this effect. From this we can learn such things as,what are his hypotheses? What methodologies will he be using? What controls will he be using? What are his predictions? etc.

Tut

I agree with this comment. I am a Christian too and I have my own interpretation of Genesis (which no one wants to hear).

If people believe that Genesis says that the world is 6,500 years old then that is ok with me.

What I am critical of are people who say that Genesis is correct BECAUSE scientific dating methods are 90% inaccurate. That's fine. But where is the proof that this statement is true. If Ken Ham wants to claim something like 90% inaccuracy then at the very least he can produce a working paper to this effect. From this we can learn such things as,what are his hypotheses? What methodologies will he be using? What controls will he be using? What are his predictions? etc.

Tut


Express your opinion of genesis. Id like to hear it. It might not be far off from my own line of thinking.

Go ahead and express your opinion of genesis. Id like to hear it. It might not be far off from my own line of thinking.

Hi calidadof3

Seeing as you asked...

The age of the earth as being infinite made sense to Ancient Greek Philosophers. This is because infinity was a concept they were familiar with. In other words, the idea of the infinite becoming finite was understandable.

The earth being 4.5 billion years old was not part of their world view. We are not only talking about the massive age of the earth but other concepts associated with a large time frame.

Motorcars are not part of my world view other than the fact that I experience them from time to time. All I know is that if you put fuel in you can drive it. Most other concepts associated with motorcars are beyond my grasp. If you ask me how many parts make up a car the answer from my point of view may as well be infinite.

When it comes to Genesis I believe the answer is simple. Genesis has been put to the scribes of the day in language and concepts they understand.

If someone can explain how the modern motorcar works in a simple language that I can understand then I would be grateful.

This is just my idea. If you think it is a load of rubbish, then fair enough. I will not argue with you. I have no evidence to support this idea.

Hi calidadof3

Seeing as you asked....

The age of the earth as being infinite made sense to Ancient Greek Philosophers. This is because infinity was a concept they were familiar with. In other words, the idea of the infinite becoming finite was understandable.

The earth being 4.5 billion years old was not part of their world view. We are not only talking about the massive age of the earth but other concepts associated with a large time frame.

Motorcars are not part of my world view other than the fact that I experience them from time to time. All I know is that if you put fuel in you can drive it. Most other concepts associated with motorcars are beyond my grasp. If you ask me how many parts make up a car the answer from my point of view may as well be infinite.

When it comes to Genesis I believe the answer is simple. Genesis has been put to the scribes of the day in language and concepts they understand.

If someone can explain how the modern motorcar works in a simple language that I can understand then I would be grateful.

This is just my idea. If you think it is a load of rubbish, then fair enough. I will not argue with you. I have no evidence to support this idea.

I don't believe the earth to be infinite but Ill accept the 4.5 billion year age. Also I believe the moon is younger then the earth. As it came from a colision at a later time.

Dear folks, thanks a lot for giving in your input on my question and to share what ever info you have. I did not and do not intend these postings to change into a debate or argument. I threw this question in because as I understand that 1 day for Lord God could be 10,000 years or could be million years. This reference we find in the Bible at 2 peter 3:8 mean, "... that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Then the piece of creation of dinosaurs fits in perfectly in the puzzle. On the other hand I know that carbon dating is not a reliable procedure to assess the age of something. Then is age of earth 6500 years?

Dear folks, thanks a lot for giving in your input on my question and to share what ever info you have. I did not and do not intend these postings to change into a debate or arguement. I threw this question in because as I understand that 1 day for Lord God could be 10,000 years or could be million years. This reference we find in the Bible at 2 peter 3:8 mean, "... that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Then the piece of creation of dinosaurs fits in perfectly in the puzzle. On the other hand I know that carbon dating is not a reliable procedure to assess the age of something. Then is age of earth 6500 years?

Where are you getting information that carbon dating is so inaccurate ?

Also a healthy debate is good because it gets ideas out there to be pondered. So long as it doesn't degrade into something disrespectful it's a healthy thing. That is one way we as people can solve problems.

Dear folks, thanks a lot for giving in your input on my question and to share what ever info you have. I did not and do not intend these postings to change into a debate or arguement. I threw this question in because as I understand that 1 day for Lord God could be 10,000 years or could be million years. This reference we find in the Bible at 2 peter 3:8 mean, "... that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Then the piece of creation of dinosaurs fits in perfectly in the puzzle. On the other hand I know that carbon dating is not a reliable procedure to assess the age of something. Then is age of earth 6500 years?

Hi Triund,

When working out the age of the earth scientists don't rely on one single source. Apparently there are a variety of radioactive dating techniques that are used which don't involve carbon. I am not a scientist but I do know that it is highly unlikely they are all inaccurate.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that it is also highly unlikely that something can be inaccurate to the tune of billions of years.

Leaving aside radioactive dating there are still other sources of evidence such as meteorite samples. What makes all this evidence seem plausible is they all point in the same direction.

Regards

Tut

It seems I'm catching this when it's still a day or so fresh. Obviously, take what anyone says (regardless of credentials, though those do matter) with a grain of salt. Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins, neither is God, both are humans like you and me. To discuss things like dating techniques and the age of the earth, frankly it's not about the evidence. Now I'm yet another human so take this with a grain of salt, but if you put a creation-believing scientist and an evolution-believing scientist in a room looking at the same fossil, access to the same tools for testing or whatever else they need... they'd come to different conclusions. You could have them both going to the same schools, same teachers, same degrees. Presuppositions make a big difference, what they already believe that they are going to use to interpret the evidence with. So ultimately it does come down to faith. What is your starting point, your world view? This is one of the reasons for the controversy over public school education. Which/what worldview do we give our children? There are arguments both ways. Personally I trust the book written by man but inspired by God, that despite the "telephone game" where by now you'd think our Bible would be very different from how it was initially recorded... check out the Dead Sea Scrolls. They include scriptures among the oldest we've ever found (then there's that dating technique issue again) and yet aren't really different from our current King James Version or New American Standard (different translation styles but utlimately as close to word for word translating as you're going to get). Notice that the Bible is still the bestselling book of all time?

On that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day" verse, how can this be used to internet the Genesis word "yom" (I think that's the word)? So yom (basically a time period) could be a thousands years or a day? True, it could. And "bear" could be an animal or a description for dealing with something, etc. Context, context, context. What does Genesis say? "evening and morning, the first day" "evening and morning, the second day" etc. Evening and morning are the context clue that help define the time "yom". If you know another meaning of evening and morning = time than a basic day, please enlighten me.

While Ken Ham is not an authority of science (even he admits that) he does have Ivy-league educated Ph.D. scientists like Dr. Jason Lisle supporting what he says on matters of science. Anyway, Ham is just the "face" of the Answers in Genesis Ministry. If you want a real scientist's opinion, go to Dr. Lisle. He speaks a lot on the topics too.

If you get a chance to go to that Creation Museum, go. I've been there, and while I was impressed with the quality of the place, the information in there is no different from AiG's website except that you can actually sit down with one of the scientists face to face and discuss the topics respectfully with each other.

I was just reading my post for spelling errors (should have done spell check, sorry) and saw "how can this be used to internet the Genesis..." internet should be interpret.

Again on the dating techniques: yes there are many. They are based on assumptions and are not full proof. Look up the 1980's eruption of Mount Saint Helens. We continue to get millions of years from dating that, yet we watched it occur so we know it's not millions of years old. Again, it's not full-proof.

"Does someone has some information to help me fit in creation of dinosaurs in 6500 years?"

I forgot to address this topic. Currently the majority of scientists agree that the famous meteor causing the extinction of the dinos is the most accurate theory.

I love it when media says stuff like that, it makes them look all the sillier when, say the next day, their information changes and they have to change what was so concrete yesterday. This happens all the time.

Here's what we do know: Dinosaur fossils exist, and we find them. I've known logically-minded people that made arguments that dinosaurs never existed, because they never witnessed the dinos and for all they know it was planted. Someone wants to get paid for finding it, etc. I won't say I agree with this.

According to the "literal creation" model, God created dinosaurs in the Creation Week when he created other animals. The sea creatures with the sea creatures, and so on.

Now there's much more to the theory, just as there's much to the evolutionary theory regarding dinos, but in a nutshell: some dino fossils were made before Naoh's Flood, most were made during it, and some were made after it. Some are still forming.

Two of every KIND (not species) went on the Ark to survive the Flood. After that, as with before the Flood, many were killed by people. If dinosaurs are still alive today (and no, I'm referring to the dino > bird thing) the Loch Ness Monster might be one. Dragon legends were probably originally stories of man's encounter with dinos. And there's a big swamp in Africa (I think in/around Congo) that might have them. Mokele Emembe... forgive my spelling if that's wrong.

That's the Young-Earth Creation Model. It leaves no room for millions of years. There are theories like the Gap Theory and The Day-Age Theory, Framework Hypothesis that some people (churches mostly) use because they want to respect mainstream scientists but not lose their faith.

AiG's website goes into all this in much greater detail. If you want some help finding what you're looking for, let me know.

So far this forum has been pretty respectful. Please let that continue. Some people start throwing personal attacks, cuss words and such around.

Another correction (not a spell check error) "and no, I'm refering to the dino > bird thing" meant to say "I'm NOT referring to the dino > bird thing".

It seems I'm catching this when it's still a day or so fresh. Obviously, take what anyone says (regardless of credentials, though those do matter) with a grain of salt. Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins, neither is God, both are humans like you and me. To discuss things like dating techniques and the age of the earth, frankly it's not about the evidence.





While Ken Ham is not an authority of science (even he admits that) he does have Ivy-league educated Ph.D. scientists like Dr. Jason Lisle supporting what he says on matters of science. Anyway, Ham is just the "face" of the Answers in Genesis Ministry. If you want a real scientist's opinion, go to Dr. Lisle. He speaks a lot on the topics too.




I would argue that it is all about the evidence and nothing to do with credentials. It does not matter if someone is an Ivy-League Professor or cleans windows for a living. All that matters is,'weight of argument'. In other words, how consistent and logical is their position?


I had a look at two of Lisle's papers, 'Critique of Origins : Part 1 and 2.

As a scientist Lisle knows that earth science has many gaps and there are things that seem contradictory. This is not surprising when we are dealing with massive time spans.

From the two Leslie papers it seems pretty obvious that his arguments suffer from the fallacy of, SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF .

In any argument which negative claims are made it is the responsibility of the positive protagonist to support their case and not to insert default positions.

In other words, Leslie knows that science cannot fill in all the gaps and in some cases this leads to contradictions. The fallacy is that Leslie tries to insert his position as a default for the apparent gaps.

What makes his position more untenable is that on one hand he is talking about scientific inadequacies and then inserts religion as a default position. What he needs to do in order to avoid this fallacy is to insert a positive scientific theory to explain away the inadequate theory.

As I stated in an earlier post I have no problem with people believing the world is 6,500 years old. Good on them I say. What I am critical of are people who say that science is wrong BECAUSE Genesis says the world is 6,500 years old.

I would argue that it is all about the evidence ...
.....What I am critical of are people who say that science is wrong BECAUSE Genesis says the world is 6,500 years old.

Science is not always right. If it was so new studies and researches would not had refuted the old studies and researches. What is absolutely right is existence of God and science is trying to prove it wrong.

Even if we take one day for God is 1000 years as in 2 Peter, still earth is much older than 6,500 years because under that God took 6000 human years to create the earth and any one can do the rest of the calculation.

Triund,

I don't know that anyone can answer the question with certainty. There are lots of Christians who believe in the Gap therory.

Genesis 1.. verses 1-2

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

They basically believe there could have been millions of years between those verses and then verse 3...

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

When we get to verse three it is obvious to me the Bible is speaking about literally 24 hours.

I believe when Peter states that 1 day is but a thousand years to God he means that God is timeless. Or he isn't bound by time... I could be wrong but those are my thoughts.

The Bible also lets us know that man was created about 6000 years ago. I believe the Bible completely concerning the age of man and I don't care what science says... I believe GOD.

Science is not always right. If it was so new studies and researches would not had refuted the old studies and researches. What is absolutely right is existance of God and science is trying to prove it wrong.

Even if we take one day for God is 1000 years as in 2 Peter, still earth is much older than 6,500 years because under that God took 6000 human years to create the earth and any one can do the rest of the calculation.

Hi Triund,

I agree science is not always right and quite often scientists get it wrong.
But that is what the scientific method is for. It is not up to one scientist.

Also, I agree that the existence of God is certain. I am not disputing any of this.

My dispute is with people who criticize the physical evidence with non-physical evidence. I know Genesis is correct but it is not to be taken in terms of days. I believe that it would have been a pointless exercise for God to tell the scribes of the days that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was put in a language and a sequence of events that was understandable to the people of the time.

As I stated earlier someone asked for my opinion of Genesis and I gave it to them. I am not saying it is correct or that anyone should believe it. IT IS JUST MY OPINION. The rest is not opinion.

As far as science trying to prove religion wrong. I know at least two scientists who do not use science to prove religion wrong.

Regards

Tut

Hi Triund,

I agree science is not always right and quite often scientists get it wrong.
But that is what the scientific method is for. It is not up to one scientist.

Also, I agree that the existence of God is certain. I am not disputing any of this.

My dispute is with people who criticize the physical evidence with non-physical evidence. I know Genesis is correct but it is not to be taken in terms of days. I believe that it would have been a pointless exercise for God to tell the scribes of the days that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was put in a language and a sequence of events that was understandable to the people of the time.

As I stated earlier someone asked for my opinion of Genesis and I gave it to them. I am not saying it is correct or that anyone should believe it. IT IS JUST MY OPINION. The rest is not opinion.

As far as science trying to prove religion wrong. I know at least two scientists who do not use science to prove religion wrong.

Regards

Tut

If anything I believe the science has been in fact proving what has been written in the bible. More and more discoveries are being made that is directly from the bible. And Im sure there are countless scientists that are christian. To me it does a disservice to say one is against the other. They are both competing and complimenting each other. And Tut thanks for your opinion. Im glad you expressed it and was happy to read it.

I would argue that it is all about the evidence and nothing to do with credentials. It does not matter if someone is an Ivy-League Professor or cleans windows for a living. All that matters is,'weight of argument'. In other words, how consistent and logical is their position?

I had a look at two of Lisle's papers, 'Critique of Origins : Part 1 and 2.

As a scientist Lisle knows that earth science has many gaps and there are things that seem contradictory. This is not surprising when we are dealing with massive time spans.

From the two Leslie papers it seems pretty obvious that his arguments suffer from the fallacy of, SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF .

In any argument which negative claims are made it is the responsibility of the positive protagonist to support their case and not to insert default positions.

In other words, Leslie knows that science cannot fill in all the gaps and in some cases this leads to contradictions. The fallacy is that Leslie tries to insert his position as a default for the apparent gaps.

What makes his position more untenable is that on one hand he is talking about scientific inadequacies and then inserts religion as a default position. What he needs to do in order to avoid this fallacy is to insert a positive scientific theory to explain away the inadequate theory.

As I stated in an earlier post I have no problem with people believing the world is 6,500 years old. Good on them I say. What I am critical of are people who say that science is wrong BECAUSE Genesis says the world is 6,500 years old.

There were a lot of responses to your post here, so I think I'll join them and reply to you, and then perhaps some comments on the others.

To you:

Above you stated an argument that it's all about the evidence, and the quality (logic, etc) of the argument made.

We agree on what credentials ultimately mean to this argument.

My counter-argument in regards to the evidence is that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. A rock will not talk and say "I'm 40 million years old." or "I'm 4000 years old."

People interpret evidence to say what they believe it points to or proves. And more often than not, eventually something new comes to light that proves their interpretation wrong. Or in some cases the evidence is proven to be a hoax (it happens). There have been logically sound arguments (or seemed so at the time) that were later proven false.

As for Dr. Lisle, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on logic or his perspective of it. I recommended him because he put a book out there "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" that is basically about logic and logical fallacies. He has been looking for someone to point out how it might not be a reasonable/logical argument. Mind you, he’s looking for a respectful, intelligent conversation and not insults/personal attacks. From my experience here so far, you (everyone here) is respectful and that’s awesome, so I don’t see it being an issue.

Use the feedback on their website and explain what you have told us here, to them. Dr. Lisle's remarks on it so far have been that nobody has been able to refute it. They don't necessarily agree to it, but they haven't been able to provide a logical argument against it. So if that's what you have, please submit it. I'd love to read their response. If you want, write your argument and I’ll help proof-read it for grammar, etc.

I have used their feedback before and although they didn't post it on their site (you can request they don't) they did give me a detailed response.

To others:

In regards to the Gap Theory, Day-Age Theories, etc... I'll refer to them as Compromise Theories, and I'll explain why I use that term.

Each of these theories/ideas has something in common: millions of years. They accept that idea that the earth and/or universe are millions of years old and thus have an argument that the Bible allows for this, perhaps it even requires it.

So the first chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally because the majority of scientists say the earth's history tells a different story... the majority of scientists would also say that human children aren't virgin born, miracles like walking on water can't happen, and people don't get resurrected after being dead for three days.

If you're going to say Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally, and it does appear to be written in historical narrative, then I submit that Jesus's birth, life, death, and resurrection are not meant to be taken literally either. They also appear to be written in historical narrative. This is what many claiming Christianity out there believe.

There are parables and metaphors, poetic things, etc as well. That's why I'm pointing out the apparent historical narrative that Genesis and the Gospel letters have in common. They don't appear to be written in that poetic or symbolic format.

And should the mainstream of scientists one day decide that the earth is much younger... does that change the Compromise Theories? I call them "compromise" because they exist to re-interpret Genesis beyond the written historical narrative. They attempt to fit in our alleged evolutionary past.

And just to clarify: no where in the Bible does it say you have to believe in a literal Genesis to get to Heaven. You are “saved” by grace through faith in Christ ONLY. My arguments above are in regard to the authority of the Bible, not in how you can be “saved.” Although some it appears contradictory to the whole of Scripture (examples above with Jesus), it is very possible for people to believe in Christ without believing in a literal Genesis.

QUOTE FROM LUKAS

Above you stated an argument that it's all about the evidence, and the quality (logic, etc) of the argument made.

We agree on what credentials ultimately mean to this argument.

My counter-argument in regards to the evidence is that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. A rock will not talk and say "I'm 40 million years old." or "I'm 4000 years old.

People interpret evidence to say what they believe it points to or proves. And more often than not, eventually something new comes to light that proves their interpretation wrong. Or in some cases the evidence is proven to be a hoax (it happens).




Hello Lukas,

What you have said above is basically correct. However, it would be incredulous that available evidence is inaccurate by billions of years. If we were to put the earth on trial in a court of law we would end up with a positive verdict. That is to say, the earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take a certain percentage. It is of course important to add, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. As you point out there is always uncertainty.



QUOTE FROM LUKAS
There have been logically sound arguments (or seemed so at the time) that were later proven false.


I think what you are suggesting above is that the premises have been proven false, not the logic. Logic remains constant and has done so for thousands of years. For example, Aristotelian Logic is still valid. What has happened is reasoning techniques have improved during modern times.



QUOTE FROM LUKAS
As for Dr. Lisle, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on logic or his perspective of it. I recommended him because he put a book out there "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" that is basically about logic and logical fallacies. He has been looking for someone to point out how it might not be a reasonable/logical argument.



As for, "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" I have not read it. The paper I suggested suffered from a fallacy was, "Critique of Origins". I still stand by this. I cannot and have not made any comment regarding, "The Ultimate Proof of Creation", simply because I have not read it. Nonetheless, I would be happy to read it and post a comment to Dr. Lisle.


QUOTE FROM LUKAS
Mind you, he’s looking for a respectful, intelligent conversation and not insults/personal attacks. From my experience here so far, you (everyone here) is respectful and that’s awesome, so I don’t see it being an issue.


ALWAYS


QUOTE FROM LUKAS

So the first chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally because the majority of scientists say the earth's history tells a different story... the majority of scientists would also say that human children aren't virgin born, miracles like walking on water can't happen.



Science does not actually say the above things can't happen. Science makes no comment on the above because these things are not part of the scientific methodology. Some scientists might say these things cannot happen but they are only expressing an opinion. They are not expressing any type of scientific claim.



QUOTE FROM LUKAS
And just to clarify: no where in the Bible does it say you have to believe in a literal Genesis to get to Heaven. You are “saved” by grace through faith in Christ ONLY. My arguments above are in regard to the authority of the Bible, not in how you can be “saved.” Although some it appears contradictory to the whole of Scripture (examples above with Jesus), it is very possible for people to believe in Christ without believing in a literal Genesis.



COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS



Regards

Tut

Tut,

Responding to the book first, perhaps this will help: Logical Fallacies: Introduction - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/27/logical-fallacies-introduction)

A series of online articles summarizing the book, by Dr. Lisle. The ultimate conclusion he comes to is that only a biblical worldview (including literal Genesis) can account for laws of logic and absolute morality.

Now when I initially read that (I did read the actual book later), I was shaking my head "I don't see how you can reasonably say this." Even though I ultimately agree to it, to make a reasonable argument "proving" it logically seems nearly impossible to do. Then again, naming any one thing as an argument like this seems difficult, but that's just my opinion. But ultimately he makes some good points. I look forward to someone (perhaps you) demonstrating how he may have missed a critical factor, because his argument seems on the surface at least to be pretty concrete. I'm also referring to that article you're specifically talking about. I'd be happy to help you write something to give Dr. Lisle via AiG's feedback, and I'd love to read their response.

Hopefully this helps some in understanding where Dr. Lisle is coming from.

On science:

Science doesn't actually say anything. Science is knowledge, we study it. People speak using it, correctly or incorrectly. Scientists, some of them at least, have quite a bit to say on the subject. An example I will point out is Dr. Richard Dawkins. An outspoken atheist and promoter of the public education of atheistic evolution, Dr. Dawkins has used his science background repeatedly and consistently to state that things like Jesus' resurrection are scientifically impossible.

On dating techniques and the age of the Earth/Universe:

Indeed, if the theory of millions of years is in error, it has some dramatic effects on public education and mainstream origins (historical)science (it shouldn't affect the operational science we get modern medicine and technology from). Will that ever happen? Not in the foreseeable future. To many it has become their religion of atheism/humanism while justified as science. Dr. Dawkins is an example of that, I've seen other evolution-believing scientists state that he's become too much of a preacher. Anyway, because it's so ingrained in public education and believed, I doubt it will change in the foreseeable future. If any change is to occur, it is in families, in the education of children. This is why church ministries and public science education alike are teaching their origin beliefs to younger and younger ages.

There is some documentation (for example Ben Stein's "Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed") that claims scientists even questioning the theory of evolution end up discredited and fired. The news responded to Stein's film with attempts to justify a couple of the cases it pointed out.

Aside from that...

Consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's. We watched many of the rocks there form, and yet when they are dated the results are in millions of years. That eruptions also caused a small "grand canyon" (small relative to the "grand" one) with the same layering that allegedly took millions of years to form. The media then quoted a scientist saying "It's amazing how it formed all those layers, just like the Grand Canyon." but then continued to hold to the millions of years story as a background on the Grand Canyon. It's their belief system, so it would be a surprise if they didn't.

This might turn into a discussion on whether dating techniques are reliable, and I don't think either of us is truly educated on them. I've taken basic Biology and Geology in college, so I understand the basics of how the systems work. Other than that, the best I could do is find a paper from a scientist and point you to that.

Then again, I've already done that with Dr. Lisle's articles... though that's more logic than Biology/Geology stuff.

Would you like to go deeper on dating techniques? Since the origin of this discussion was on how dinosaurs went with the Bible, the age of the Earth is a pretty big part of it.

One additional note I'd like to add: soft tissue and red blood cells of dinosaurs have been found. It seems incredulous that that particular dinosaur, at least, existed millions of years ago.

This was on the news last year I think, if you would like a reference just ask. I have it (somewhere in my collection of data on all these subjects).

Looking forward to your response.

Where in the biblical text is it written that a day is 24 hrs? To my knowlage it is not. You quote a statement by Dr. Dawkins. " An example I will point out is Dr. Richard Dawkins. An outspoken atheist and promoter of the public education of atheistic evolution, Dr. Dawkins has used his science background repeatedly and consistantly to state that things like Jesus' resurrection are scientifically impossible." (end quote)

I don't quite understand the tie in your trying to make. I too believe that it is scientifically impossible. I would even state it as fact. What's wrong with that? In order to have miricals happen it takes divine intervention. That is where the glory of god shines. So why would you point to something that is science fact and then try to refute it through logic? It can't be done. This argument on age of the earth and the existence of dinosaurs seems to be a never ending battle. The only guide we have to go by is that the sun came up and the sun set. There is no reference as to how much time had elapsed. Lets not forget that even in the bible it is written that god had stopped the sun. Thereby extending the traditional 24hr day. So why is it so hard to believe that the "days" referred to in genesis took longer and within that is the mystery and glory of god ?

Quote from Lukas
Responding to the book first, perhaps this will help: Logical Fallacies: Introduction - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/07/27/logical-fallacies-introduction)

My Response

I would disagree that the laws of logic are universal. That is, they must be given to us through an external source. I am just wondering how we can gain inductive knowledge from an external source which is not physical. To put this another way how can thought which lacks any experience give rise to any empirical knowledge?

Consider the inductive statement,"All swans are white". This is not universally true because it can be proven wrong in a variety of ways, including observation of swans. Inductive statement can be proven false therefore they are not universal.


Quote from Lukas
A series of online articles summarizing the book, by Dr. Lisle. The ultimate conclusion he comes to is that only a biblical worldview (including literal Genesis) can account for laws of logic and absolute morality.


My Response
Absolute morality can account for the laws of logic but these laws are by no means exclusive to non-naturalistic ethics. The laws of logic apply equally well to naturalist ethics. If Dr. Lisle is trying to say that naturalistic ethics is neither valid nor logical then he is trying to do the impossible.


Quote by Lukas
Now when I initially read that (I did read the actual book later), I was shaking my head "I don't see how you can reasonably say this." Even though I ultimately agree to it, to make a reasonable argument "proving" it logically seems nearly impossible to do. Then again, naming any one thing as an argument like this seems difficult, but that's just my opinion. But ultimately he makes some good points. I look forward to someone (perhaps you) demonstrating how he may have missed a critical factor, because his argument seems on the surface at least to be pretty concrete. I'm also referring to that article you're specifically talking about. I'd be happy to help you write something to give Dr. Lisle via AiG's feedback, and I'd love to read their response.

Hopefully this helps some in understanding where Dr. Lisle is coming from.


My response

Yes, he does make some good points. I did find the feedback menu and I will post a response when I read the book. Thanks for the offer.



Quote from Lukas

Science doesn't actually say anything. Science is knowledge, we study it. People speak using it, correctly or incorrectly. Scientists, some of them at least, have quite a bit to say on the subject. An example I will point out is Dr. Richard Dawkins. An outspoken atheist and promoter of the public education of atheistic evolution, Dr. Dawkins has used his science background repeatedly and consistently to state that things like Jesus' resurrection are scientifically impossible.


My Response

If Dr. Dawkins said this then he should know that if something is conceivable then it has a probability factor. It can happen and did happen. The event was of course highly unusual, but that doesn't make it impossible. Not every second person rises from the dead, it is definitely not a general rule.


Quote from Lukas

Indeed, if the theory of millions of years is in error, it has some dramatic effects on public education and mainstream origins (historical)science (it shouldn't affect the operational science we get modern medicine and technology from). Will that ever happen? Not in the foreseeable future. To many it has become their religion of atheism/humanism while justified as science. Dr. Dawkins is an example of that, I've seen other evolution-believing scientists state that he's become too much of a preacher. Anyway, because it's so ingrained in public education and believed, I doubt it will change in the foreseeable future. If any change is to occur, it is in families, in the education of children. This is why church ministries and public science education alike are teaching their origin beliefs to younger and younger ages.

My Response

I really don't know enough about your public education system.


Quote from Lukas
Consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's. We watched many of the rocks there form, and yet when they are dated the results are in millions of years. That eruptions also caused a small "grand canyon" (small relative to the "grand" one) with the same layering that allegedly took millions of years to form. The media then quoted a scientist saying "It's amazing how it formed all those layers, just like the Grand Canyon." but then continued to hold to the millions of years story as a background on the Grand Canyon. It's their belief system, so it would be a surprise if they didn't.


My Response

The danger here is,"doing a Dr. Dawkins in reverse". In other words by observing a unusual event this somehow means similar events in the past have followed the same pattern.



Quote from Lukas
This might turn into a discussion on whether dating techniques are reliable, and I don't think either of us is truly educated on them. I've taken basic Biology and Geology in college, so I understand the basics of how the systems work. Other than that, the best I could do is find a paper from a scientist and point you to that.

Then again, I've already done that with Dr. Lisle's articles... though that's more logic than Biology/Geology stuff.

Would you like to go deeper on dating techniques? Since the origin of this discussion was on how dinosaurs went with the Bible, the age of the Earth is a pretty big part of it.

One additional note I'd like to add: soft tissue and red blood cells of dinosaurs have been found. It seems incredulous that that particular dinosaur, at least, existed millions of years ago.

This was on the news last year I think, if you would like a reference just ask. I have it (somewhere in my collection of data on all these subjects).



My response

I don't know enough about these types of sciences to make any comment.


Regards

Tut

How about this food for thought, my opinion is that if there are dinosaur bones to prove they existed, and assuming that scientist method of finding the age of the bones is accurate then that in itself would tell us how long adam and eve were in the garden of eden before they fell into sin. The bible doesn't give days or years from when god created man to when they were deceived by the serpent, we only know that god created all living beast of the field and sea, and he put man in the garden of eden. So if dinosaurs really did roam the earth for 50 or 60 million years then I would take that as a hint as to how long adam and eve may have been in the garden. Being that god is eternal and man was inmortal until he fill into sin, up until that moment time was eternal. ----thanks zeke----

Califdadof3

“Where in the biblical text is it written that a day is 24 hrs? To my knowlage it is not.”

My reply:

You are quote right, it doesn’t say 24 hrs anywhere.

Genesis 1:5 “…and there was EVENING and MORNING, the first day” [emphasis mine]

My reasoning is to use “evening” and “morning” as the context clues to define “yom” (day). I am not saying that is 24 hours, because due to leap years, seconds, etc even our current day isn’t exactly 24 hours. The day consisted of the amount of time it took for the Earth to rotate that evening and morning. I’m applying the same reasoning to the other six days.

“I too believe that it [miracles] is scientifically impossible. What's wrong with that?”

My reply:

There’s nothing “wrong” with it per say. Science simply means “knowledge”, if I am not mistaken? So I see no reason it needs to be restricted to only natural processes. My point of view is that when God originally finished with His Creation, that was the “default” nature He put in place. And He upholds it. Anything extra He does outside of that normal natural process is supernatural. Or extra-ordinary, divine intervention, whatever term you’d like to use.

“So why would you point to something that is science fact and then try to refute it through logic?”

My reply:

Forgive me, I read your post a few times and was unable to figure out what you reference here. My best guess is the age of the Earth? Are you saying that millions of years is scientific fact? If so, I respectfully disagree. Millions of years is a theory. You can’t observe it, so it’s not scientific fact. There is a fact portion of evolution, and there is a theory. Saying that natural selection, mutations, speciation, adaptation and such occur is observable fact. Nobody argues this (that I know of). To state that these have been going on for millions of years is theory. Our best physical evidence for that comes from dating techniques, which is another subject.

“This argument on age of the earth and the existance of dinosaurs seems to be a never ending battle.”

My reply:

I agree with this statement. It does feel like a never-ending battle.

“So why is it so hard to believe that the "days" referred to in genesis took longer and within that is the mystery and glory of god ?”

My reply:

I will stick to Scripture for this reply.

Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

This refers to Exodus 20:8-10 “"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God….”

Unless the implication was to work for a large number of years and then rest for a number of years, that seems to refer to standard days in the Creation Week.

Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.”

John 5:45–47 “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

It seems pretty clear that Jesus Himself believed the Creation account in Genesis as straightforward reading.

“Lets not forget that even in the bible it is written that god had stopped the sun. Thereby extending the traditional 24hr day.”

My reply:

This appears to be referring to that one day only. I don’t see anything implying other days were affected after it.

“So why is it so hard to believe that the "days" referred to in genesis took longer and within that is the mystery and glory of god ?”

Please see for more information: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? - Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-days)

Also, death entered the world by sin. Sin occurred with Adam and Eve. Yet according to evolutionary theory, there was death for millions of years, long before man came into the picture. The order of appearance between evolutionary theory (starting with the Big Bang theory still being worked on, continuing through man’s appearance) is very different from the order of appearance in Genesis.

My conclusion is that the Bible appears to say God did it exactly as He said He did it. That is indeed to His glory.

Tut:

“Yes, he does make some good points. I did find the feedback menu and I will post a response when I read the book. Thanks for the offer.”

To this and your replies before this, I’m glad we have it documented on this website. We can use the work you’ve already written to help write feedback to Dr. Lisle. When do you think you will be able to obtain the book?

“If Dr. Dawkins said this then he should know that if something is conceivable then it has a probability factor. It can happen and did happen. The event was of course highly unusual, but that doesn't make it impossible. Not every second person rises from the dead, it is definitely not a general rule.”

Dr. Dawkins is one of the world’s leading spokesmen on evolution. That’s why I used his example. I tend to agree with you that he is not correct on many areas. Unfortunately, he is one of the leaders behind modern atheist movements across the world, and makes it his business to tear down Christianity and deity-beliefs in general.

“The danger here is,"doing a Dr. Dawkins in reverse". In other words by observing a unusual event this somehow means similar events in the past have followed the same pattern.”

Evolution-believing scientists usually state that a catastrophe cannot cause the geological strata we see in, for example, the Grand Canyon. This is why Mt. St. Helens is my example, to show that “cannot” in not an accurate statement. According to the Bible there was a global flood. The Creation model holds that this is what caused the majority of the geologic strata such as the Grand Canyon. The Mt. St. Helens event adds evidence supporting this. Not proving it, for as you say it’s it’s an unusual event, a catastrophe. A good scientist on this subject is Dr. Andrew Snelling.

“I don't know enough about these types of sciences to make any comment.”

I can’t say much about them, either. I do study apologetics based on 1
Peter 3:15 “always have an answer”.

As always, good talking to you.

Hi Lukas,

I will let you know when I get and read the book.

Regards
Tut

Science doesn't actually say anything. Science is knowledge, we study it.

This is not correct. Science is about a process used to make sense of the natural world. From it comes theories and "knowledge" about how things work, but this knowledge can be fluid, as discoveries are made and theories are refined. Hence while in the 1800's many (most?) geologists believed that Noah's Food accounted for things like the Grand Canyon, over the past 100 years or so the consensus has changed as new evidence is discovered, and as we have gained a better understanding of things like plate tectonics and the radio-active decay of certain elements. As we gain additional knowledge as to how nature works, the theories we ascribe to today will undoubtedly evolve. If there are geologists alive today who believe the earth is only 6000 years old they would be in very, very, small minority.




Consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's. We watched many of the rocks there form, and yet when they are dated the results are in millions of years. That eruptions also caused a small "grand canyon" (small relative to the "grand" one) with the same layering that allegedly took millions of years to form. The media then quoted a scientist saying "It's amazing how it formed all those layers, just like the Grand Canyon." but then continued to hold to the millions of years story as a background on the Grand Canyon. It's their belief system, so it would be a surprise if they didn't.

Be careful here - just because "the media" reported that the strata of deposits from the Mt. St. Helens eruption "look like" the Grand Canyon doesn't mean it's the same process as what formed the Grand Canyon. Scientists hold to the "millions of years" theory because it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence. If anyone can come up with a theory that does a better job of fitting the evidence, by all means geologists would be willing to change their thinking - it's all part of the scientific process. But theories about the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old or so have been thoroughly vetted against the available natural evidence, and (as noted earlier) abandoned, so it would take some striking new evidence to turn the tide back.



Would you like to go deeper on dating techniques? Since the origin of this discussion was on how dinosaurs went with the Bible, the age of the Earth is a pretty big part of it.


In discussion about the age of the earth it's not just dating techniques that come into play. Yes, there are techniques that date the age of certain rocks to at least 2 billion years. [N.B. One technique looks at zircon crystals with embedded lead impurities - the age of these crystals is calculated based on the fact that zircon can not form directly with lead impurites, as lead and zircon are incompatible in crystal form. But zircon can form with uranium impurities - thus it can be shown that if you find a zircon crytal with lead in it, the crystal must be old enough for what was originally uranium atoms to have decayed all the way to lead. The oldest rocks found so far are dated this way to about 2 Billion years.] Even so, any discussion about the age of the earth must also be consistent with the formation of the solar system, and the age of the sun. Current estimates are that the sun is about 5 Billion years, based on how stars convert hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, then oxygen, etc. So any theories about a young universe must take into account why the composition of the sun is the way it is. A "young sun" model just doesn't fit the data. Finally, any theory proposing a young universe must explain how it is that light from stars that are miilions of light years away is reaching us today. If those stars are all only 6000 years old, you couldn't see them.

Since this is a religion forum, I want to be clear that I am not in any way trying to disprove anyone's belief based on their faith and religious teachings. However, when the discussion starts to invoke "science" to prove a religious belief, I believe it is appropriate to point out fallacies in the discussion.

Since this is a religion forum, I want to be clear that I am not in any way trying to disprove anyone's belief based on their faith and religous teachings. However, when the discussion starts to invoke "science" to prove a religous belief, I believe it is appropriate to point out fallacies in the discussion.

Hi ebaines,

I don't have any problem keeping the two apart. I don't see a conflict. I can think about one or the other. Works for me anyway.

Regards

Tut

Ebaines:

“This is not correct. Science is about a process used to make sense of the natural world.”

My reply:

We seem to agree that science isn’t a human being and doesn’t speak. Aside from that, perhaps we should define “science” specifically so we are all on the same page. According to dictionary.com:

–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Definitions 2 and 3 apply specifically to the physical/material/natural, but 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not.

When stating that science is knowledge, I was pointing out “branch of knowledge” “systematic knowledge” “systematized knowledge” “knowledge, as of facts or principles”. Before continuing on what science is, I’d like to agree on the definition.

“Be careful here - just because "the media" reported that the strata of deposits from the Mt. St. Helens eruption "look like" the Grand Canyon doesn't mean it's the same process as what formed the Grand Canyon.”

My reply:

It is very true that just because the media report something, doesn’t make it true. I was pointing out that the media said it because that means it’s documented where a simple Google search will find it if anyone wished to reference what I was describing.

“Scientists hold to the "millions of years" theory because it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence. If anyone can come up with a theory that does a better job of fitting the evidence, by all means geologists would be willing to change their thinking - it's all part of the scientific process.”

My reply:

I agree it SHOULD be part of the scientific process. However, I must disagree somewhat to your statements. A growing number of scientists have been stepping forward to disagree with the “millions of years” theory. Many hide their personal beliefs to keep their jobs. As there hasn’t been a response to this the last time I referenced it, see Ben Stein’s “Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed” which documents a number of scientists that either refuse to admit they don’t believe “millions of years” because they like their jobs, or have admitted it and lost their jobs.
Whether it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence is subjective. Some say yes, some say no. The majority opinion ultimately only holds so much weight…there was a time when the majority said the Earth was flat.

“But theories about the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old or so have been thoroughly vetted against the available natural evidence, and (as noted earlier) abandoned, so it would take some striking new evidence to turn the tide back.”

My reply:

I don’t understand this argument. How could it have been thoroughly investigated when it is still under debate? I have heard that stated by many people but have yet to see documentation for the thorough investigation. The closest I’ve seen is the Scopes Trial, which didn’t accurately represent either side of the argument. What I have seen is as new fossils and such get discovered, scientists that already believe “millions of years” figure out how it fits into their current model. This includes when “living fossils” are discovered, creatures alive today that were claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

The evidence does not speak for itself and must therefore be interpreted. Two equally educated/accredited scientists can come to opposite conclusions based on this. This is why I state that the whole business ultimately comes down to individual world views. Faith. The starting point is the lens through which evidence is interpreted.

Please consider this link: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/)

These are some examples of scientists (modern and past) that did not and do not believe that available evidence points to millions of years.

The list has been growing, but of course it’s only one website.

Depending on what definition of religion we're going by, I will agree or disagree that science and religion should be separated. This is largely because, if the belief system covers the origin of life and how we got here, and if it is to be believed as accurate, then science should flow from that starting point and be produce accurate results. However, if religion is simply a private thing to believe/practice on private property... then yes it should be kept separate.

Consider that atheism is today a religion. Whatever their reasons for doing it (mocking deity-beliefs, tax purposes, legal rights, etc) it has become an official religion. Google the First Church of Atheism. And consider the legal case where an atheist claimed it violated his religious rights to have his daughter say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

That wasn't a "separation of church and state" legal case, it was a violation of religious rights legal case.

Since this is the global internet, I will point out that all of the events I'm referring to happened in the United States. Except some of Ben Stein's documentary, I'd have to double check that.

perhaps we should define “science” specifically so we are all on the same page. According to dictionary.com:

–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
... Before continuing on what science is, I’d like to agree on the definition.


No problem. My point was that it is incorrect to ignore definitions 2 and 3, and that the constant in science is the process, and that any so-called "science" that does not adhere to that process is not science at all. Specifically, the use of observation of the natural world to refine theories - sometimes quite radically. Agreed?



.. see Ben Stein’s “Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed” which documents a number of scientists that either refuse to admit they don’t believe “millions of years” because they like their jobs, or have admitted it and lost their jobs.


I like Ben Stein. But note that his movie is NOT about the age of the earth, or even about evolution, but rather about the origins of life (specifially the notion of intelligent design). But this thread is about the age of the earth, not evolution. And even if this was about evolution, remember that the theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. So by raising Ben Stein's movie you're onto completely different topic.



Whether or not it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence is subjective. Some say yes, some say no. The majority opinion ultimately only holds so much weight…there was a time when the majority said the Earth was flat.


So what would you say to someone who today insists the world is flat? Would you say - "gee, you may be right - your world view is as good as mine, it's all subjective?"



“But theories about the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old or so have been thoroughly vetted against the available natural evidence, and (as noted earlier) abandoned, so it would take some striking new evidence to turn the tide back.”

My reply:

I don’t understand this argument. How could it have been thoroughly investigated when it is still under debate? I have heard that stated by many people but have yet to see documentation for the thorough investigation.


I think we agree that the process used in legal proceedings to determine guilt or innocence is totally inappropriate for determining the validity of competing scientific claims. The only process that has ever been shown to work is the process of peer review, which is cumbersome, takes time, and does not lend itself to resolution in a simple trial. So my comment about "thorough vetting" is in relation to the vast majority of peer-reviewed articles and journals over the last hundred years or so.



What I have seen is as new fossils and such get discovered, scientists that already believe “millions of years” figure out how it fits into their current model. This includes when “living fossils” are discovered, creatures alive today that were claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

What of it? There is nothing inconsistent with the discovery of living aninals that had previously been thought to be extinct. It's a good example of how scientists are willing (and in fact eager) to change their views on things in the face of newly discovered observations of the natural world.



Please consider this link: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/)
These are some examples of scientists (modern and past) that did not and do not believe that available evidence points to millions of years.


This web site is of course funded by the Institute for Creation Science, and as such has very specific goals. It is not to advance man's knowledge about the natural world based on natural oibservation, but rather (quoting from the web site):

Mission Statement
Goal: To support the church in fulfilling its commission

Vision: Answers WorldWide is the Missionary Arm of Answers in Genesis. Our purpose is to provide the “global Christian” with answers for his faith (1 Peter 3:14) and to expose the world to the Creator God of the Bible.

Mission:
We take the absolute truth and authority of the Bible to the world.
We teach the relevance of a literal Genesis to the mission fields of the world.
We obey God’s call for global evangelism for all ethnic groups in the world

As such this site is not interested in presenting the best available evidence for anything except the organization's own view as to how to interpret the Bible. They are not at all interested in using the scientific process to consider alternate theories. As such this organization is purely a faith-based group, not a science-based one. I have no argument with their faith - only with the trappings of "science" that they try to cloak it with.



Consider that atheism is today a religion. Whatever their reasons for doing it (mocking deity-beliefs, tax purposes, legal rights, etc) it has become an official religion.

Are you implying that only aethesists believe in a world that is millions of years old? I certainly hope not, because that is patently untrue.

“No problem. My point was that it is incorrect to ignore definitions 2 and 3, and that the constant in science is the process, and that any so-called "science" that does not adhere to that process is not science at all. Specifically, the use of observation of the natural world to refine theories - sometimes quite radically. Agreed?”

My reply:

I agree that we shouldn't ignore that nature is a very significant part of the definition of science. I would add, though, that to say it was only on nature gives science a limit the definition does not. Science describes a process. If that process is outside of normal nature, why should that be excluded?

To state that science is specifically “the use of observation of the natural world to refine theories” means that the theory (not the fact part) of evolution does not fall under science. We can't and haven't observed one kind of animal become another. Nor have we observed enough to determine millions of years have passed in Earth's history. This is why we call it a theory, but if it's going to qualify as a scientific theory, we should give the definition more than just observation of nature. Since that is my only question, once you've replied we will hopefully be at agreement on the definition of science.

“I like Ben Stein. But note that his movie is NOT about the age of the earth, or even about evolution, but rather about the origins of life (specifially the notion of intelligent design). But this thread is about the age of the earth, not evolution. And even if this was about evolution, remember that the theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. So by raising Ben Stein's movie you're onto completely different topic.”

My reply:

I would argue that evolution, the origin of life, and the age of the Earth are ultimately inseparable. Unless the origin of life happened much more recently, and without the theory part of evolution. Or evolution is somehow irrelevant to life evolving from nonlife, and the amount of time it took doesn't matter. The basic definition of evolution is change over time, if I am not mistaken. Nonlife becoming life is quite a change. You are quite right that Ben Stein's film is not focused on the age of the earth. I simply see all three as linked.

“So what would you say to someone who today insists the world is flat? Would you say - "gee, you may be right - your world view is as good as mine, it's all subjective?" ”

My reply:

You make a good point. It isn't all subject. What is subjective are interpretations of evidence concerning the past, such as with the origin of life.

“The only process that has ever been shown to work is the process of peer review, which is cumbersome, takes time, and does not lend itself to resolution in a simple trial. So my comment about "thorough vetting" is in relation to the vast majority of peer-reviewed articles and journals over the last hundred years or so.”

My reply:

The “peer” is most often someone with the same starting beliefs. How often is it someone with different beliefs? If it's the same beliefs, then those foundational ideas continue unchallenged. They are assumed true and added upon. I'm referring to peers already believing in “millions of years”. How many millions might be questioned, but the possibility that it might be much less is ignored.

“What of it? There is nothing inconsistent with the discovery of living aninals that had previously been thought to be extinct. It's a good example of how scientists are willing (and in fact eager) to change their views on things in the face of newly discovered observations of the natural world.”

My reply:

The living fossils have been interpreted by some scientists to be evidence against millions of years. What was said about the red blood cells and soft tissue of the dinosaur? The scientist said it was amazing it had survived millions of years without fossilizing. Other scientists use it to add more evidence that “millions of years” is an inaccurate theory.

“This web site is of course funded by the Institute for Creation Science…”

My reply:

Actually I think it's Answers in Genesis, but close enough.

“As such this site is not interested in presenting the best available evidence for anything except the organization's own view as to how to interpret the Bible. They are not at all interested in using the scientific process to consider alternate theories. As such this organization is purely a faith-based group, not a science-based one. I have no argument with their faith - only with the trappings of "science" that they try to cloak it with.”

My reply:

This appears to be a strawman fallacy, posting an argument against something that may not exist. I think you misunderstand the organization. They employ full-time Ph.D. scientists from Ivy League schools. So they are very interested in presenting the best available evidence.

We all have the same evidence; we live in the same world. Any organization that does science from the “only nature exists” standpoint is an equally faith-based group. Their faith is atheism or humanism or some similar faith. Very few scientists are completely unbiased in that regard, so I would argue that they are not the mainstream. Answers in Genesis continually teaches starting points. Yes, they start with the Bible's account of the origin of life, as opposed to the usual “millions of years of evolution is fact” starting point. If the Bible is an accurate account, this is wise. You can't ultimately prove it, but neither can you ultimately prove “millions of years”. And this is also where we got into “how do you fit dinos into the Bible”.

Please read the previous posts on the topic of interpreting the Bible. If the Bible is true as it is written (without trying to add something to what it says) then we know how everything started. We are left to explore the details of it. Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr. Georgia Purdom are two good examples that currently research that.

Please see the Answers Research Journal, which is peer-reviewed. This goes back to the definition of science, is it limited to only natural processes?

“Are you implying that only aethesists believe in a world that is millions of years old? I certainly hope not, because that is patently untrue.”

My reply:

No. I'm implying that atheists believe millions of years have passed. Last I checked, the latest theory was that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The Geology professor that made that announcement (in high school they said 4.5 billion) said it was probably much older than that. Atheists will believe what their faith-leaders teach them. In this case that happens to be evolution-believing scientists. I've also heard arguments that Darwinism is a religion. The New York Times I think it was posted an article “Darwinism must die so that evolution may live.” Which had me wondering if it was an official religion now.

The responses were daily, yet have ceased these past few days. I hope that my last post did not come off an disrespectful. That was not the intention and I apologize if it was perceived that way at all.

If the responses have stopped because I defended Answers in Genesis then that's unfortunate but I'm not going to change that position. I agree with AiG's mission and I was hoping that by participating in this forum I could clear up some misunderstandings about dinosaurs, the Bible, and the age of the Earth. My goal hasn't been to convince anyone to what I believe, though I do highly encourage all to put their faith in Christ.

Lukas - I have been a bit busy the last few days so didn't respond only because of lack of time.

This topic has been beaten to death, but let me just respond to a couple of your points:

1. Regarding the definition of science: as I said before science is necessarily limited to concerns only of the natural world, and is limited to endeavors that follow the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing (specifically testing to see if the hypothesis might be wrong), and more observation. This is not the method employed in other scholarly work such as philosophy, religion, art, or even mathematics - these othere areas typically start with a supposition and then work it to a conclusion, and leave out the testing and observation parts. So if you start with the supposition that "the Bible is true as written and must be read in a purely literal way" then by definition you are not practicing science. Again - I am NOT trying to say that this supposition is wrong, only that it driven by faith and not science.

2. As for the process of peer review - you seem to assume that scientist "peers" are unwilling to consider alternative hypotheses to the generally-accepted wisdom, and hence alternative theories are always quashed. In other words - peers are unethical and can't be trusted. I would argue that while human nature makes individuals naturally skeptical of new theories that go against the accepted convention, if such theories are better at explaining how nature works better than the old, inevitably the better theory wins out - but ONLY if it explains the data better than the old. This process can take a long time - partly because when most new theories are first put forward they are rarely true home runs, but rather must be bolstered with supporting work by others to reinforce the new hypothesis and ultimately develop a working theory. It took 200 years for the heliocentric model of the solar system - first put forth by Copernicus - to replace the old sun-centered version, because it took that long for advancements in mathematics (Kepler and his theory of eliptical orbits, Newton and his theory of gravity) and observation techniques (Galileo and his telescope, among many others) to result in enough evidence to overwhelm the old theory. Without peer review it's impossible for the rest of us to understand whether a hypothesis is based on sound process or just so much quackery. There have been a few recent examples where individual scientists have attempted to bypass peer review and prematurely announced discoveries that turned out to be false when rigorously reviewed - "cold fusion" and NASA's microbes from Mars announcements come to mind. These examples illustrate the problem of NOT using peer review.

3. You say that anyone who investigates nature based solely on the scientific method is praticing faith in his own way. I agree - but it's a faith in the process. That's different than religion, where faith is in the conclusion.

4. Finally, you argue that modern-day science is controlled by aetheists. Perhaps - I won't argue that - but so what? If individuals employ the scientific process in pursuing science what religion they are has no bearing - they could be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Druid or whatever, it doesn't matter. In fact, if you want to make a scientific argument for a young earth you should start looking for and citing avowed aetheists who have reached this conclusion through the scientific process. Why doesn't "Truth in Genesis" cite any aetheists in its material? I'm being facetious here - but fundamentally it's because that organization is not about science - they've stated their mission and vision as a religious and are doing a fine job on that. On the other hand, it's easy to find and cite lots of Christians who believe in the theory of evolution and an earth that is billions of years old - Christians who trust the scientific method on which to base their understanding of nature's workings.

3. You say that anyone who investigates nature based solely on the scientific method is praticing faith in his own way. I agree - but it's a faith in the process. That's different than religion, where faith is in the conclusion.



This idea, or something similar came up in a scientific post.

I suggested that the difference between science and religion was that science starts with empirical observations and through the scientific method works to a conclusion. Religion on the other hand starts with the conclusion, e.g.. The earth is 6,500 years old and works backwards. I agree with ebanes that one is not necessarily better than the other.

In this particular case it would seem that empirical evidence is being looked at as a way to prove the earth is much younger than supposed. I also suggested that this is a very difficult task because there is not a lot of this evidence around. There is another problem as well.

I agree with ebanes that the scientific method is 'different' to disciplines such as philosophy. Finding physical evidence that the earth is much younger than supposed is not going to 'tip the balance'. There would have to be a huge number of counter examples along with a satisfactory theory for a paradigm shift.

Tut

Triund
There are several different interpretations of the creation story. Some are very hotly contested back and forth.
Personally I believe that the earth is millions of years old, BUT that is not important as to belief in God as the creator of all that is seen and unseen.
AND there is a lot of unseen we are now discovering.
Don't worry about the dinosaurs. They were here and are now gone.
Rather worry about being here and where you are going to go.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ebaines:

“I have been a bit busy the last few days so didn't respond only because of lack of time.”

My reply:

Understandable, please don't mind this forum, real life is more important.

“Regarding the definition of science: as I said before science is necessarily limited to concerns only of the natural world.…new theories that go against the accepted convention, if such theories are better at explaining how nature works better than the old, inevitably the better theory wins out - but ONLY if it explains the data better than the old.”

My reply:

In light of what you've said (and you've been consistent), let me show you an example of what has me wondering:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999

According to scientists like Dr. Todd here, the data is effectively irrelevant because anything outside of normal nature will not be considered science. If there is an evolution-believing scientist stating otherwise, I'm very interested.

Science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. There is no logical reason to expect it would otherwise…that's not to say people don't assume it anyway, being illogical has never stopped anyone from believing/accepting/assuming something. Many of the founders of principle scientific fields (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton) were believers in a recently created Earth. One might even say that the idea that science cannot accept a biblical perspective is a denial of scientific history.

Maybe I can better explain my point by contrasting two types of science: historical (origins) and operational science. Operational (observable) science does not need necessarily the starting assumption of either creation or evolution in order to create a computer or something else we use today. Historical (origins) does, because no human was around to witness the origin of life, age of the Earth, etc.

In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” Atheist scientists effectively redefined it, which also gave it limits beyond the original definition.

“You say that anyone who investigates nature based solely on the scientific method is practicing faith in their own way. I agree – but it's a faith in the process. That's different than religion, where faith is the conclusion.”

My reply:

Actually I think those who investigate nature based solely on the scientific method are very rare. A smaller number, perhaps, than any other group of scientist. The mainstream assume there was no special creation in the origin of anything and then continue to ask “How could this have come about without God?” The quote above is one demonstration of this. These are the mainstream so there are a LOT more with this point of view.

“Why doesn't “Truth in Genesis” cite any aetheists in its material?”

My reply:

I get that you're being facetious, and I don't know that “Truth in Genesis” organization, but I know Answers in Genesis well enough to know they actually do cite atheists in their material. I can't say the same for the majority of the groups out there. I'd agree with you that the vast majority of them have no interest in science (by your definition or the original one).

How nature is observed/works today no Christian or atheist I know of would disagree on. The debate is over the past, specifically the origin of life and how old the Earth/Universe are. Observing nature today does not prove anything in regards to that. We can only theorize based on available evidence, and then we're back to the dating techniques topic.

---------

Tut317

“I suggested that the difference between science and religion is that science starts with empirical observations and through the scientific method works to a conclusion.”

It is my understanding that we were discussing origins/age of the Earth subjects? This doesn't come from empirical observations or really even the scientific method. The scientific method involves repetition. We cannot repeat the origin of life (though they are spending billions trying) or the age of the earth.

I have my own arguments with the word “religion” in and of itself. Go to dictionary.com and you might be surprised at how broad that definition is. But if you are referring to the Creation Model or anything else based in the Bible, then they seem more similar to me. Science, if we are talking about observable nature today, agrees completely with the Bible. Animals reproduce after their kind, which includes speciation, etc. Observable nature today doesn't include the age of the Earth or the origin of life.

Both creation and evolution models start with themselves being true and then work to interpret the evidence to fit their theories, which adds and builds. I'd be interested in an example of an evolution believing scientist that doesn't start with evolution being true as their basis and then building from there.

The main evidence that the Earth is old (billions of years) comes from dating methods. Each of these method involves making assumptions that cannot be proven true or false. If the assumptions were false (and there is good reason to think they might be) then the “absolute ages” we have become invalid.

Hypothetically, what would be the conclusion from that? I say hypothetically to avoid digging into the dating methods themselves, which so far no one is interested in doing.

Lukas Caldera,
Thanks much for your observations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ebaines:


In light of what you've said (and you've been consistent), let me show you an example of what has me wondering:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."


Hi Lukas.

I started with your reply to Ebaines because it think it sums up the problem pretty well.

I agree that sometimes the data can point to an intelligent designer, but science cannot acknowledge that because that is not what science does.
Those are the rules and if science does not stick to them then we are not doing science. It boils down to different methodologies and, "never the twain shall meet." Well, one day they might, but not in the foreseeable future.

This also relates to your comment: "Both creation and evolution start with themselves being true and work to interpret the evidence to fit the theories, which adds and builds. I'd be interested in examples of evolution believing scientists that don't start with evolution being true as their basis and building from there".

I think it is important to distinguish between a hypothesis and a conclusion. They are not the same. I agree that there are many evolution believing scientists who start with what you would call, "an evolution hypothesis".

However, this does not exclude non-evolution believing scientists starting with a similar hypothesis. In fact that is the only assumption they can start with. Could you think of another? I would see any alternative not be a scientific hypothesis.

It is possible that an original hypothesis, evolutionary or other wise can be proven false. Therefore, the conclusion will no necessarily match the hypothesis.

We cannot afford the same luxury when starting with a conclusion. The conclusion must be correct because it makes no sense to work back to prove your conclusion false. Again, two different methodologies- different subject matter.

This does not mean that science and religion can't talk about the same subject matter, but it is how they treat the subject matter which is the important difference. It seems clear to me that if you are doing science then you are not doing theology and if you are doing theology then you are not doing science.

Regards

Tut

Tut gives a good response (as usual). I would only add two additional comments:



Science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. There is no logical reason to expect it would otherwise…that's not to say people don't assume it anyway, being illogical has never stopped anyone from believing/accepting/assuming something. Many of the founders of principle scientific fields (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton) were believers in a recently created Earth. One might even say that the idea that science cannot accept a biblical perspective is a denial of scientific history.


I would maintain that there is nothing that presents a scientist from being a religious person - scientists are individuals, and individuals can have all sorts of personal beliefs. Thus some of the most noted scientists were very religious peope - Galileo for example, who was a devout Christian despite his willingness to make pronouncements about the orbits of the planets that contradicted the prevailing lliteral interpretation of the bible of the day. Darwin was also quite religious. There are many scientists today who are religious people - Christians as well as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. But a good scientist can keep his personal beliefs separate from the process he uses to develop a better understanding of nature. This is what allows a scientist who is Christian to collaborate with those other scientists who are Hindu, or Buddhist, or aetheist, or whatever. So whether an individual scientist accepts a biblical perspective on a personal level is independent from whether the scientific process can be properly performed starting based on religious assumptions - a good scientist's religion is irrelevant when it comes to his work.



In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” Atheist scientists effectively redefined it, which also gave it limits beyond the original definition."


You have stated this theme several times, and I strongly disagree. As you yourself noted, many of the scientists who have had the most profound impact on our understanding of nature, and who helped develop the fundamental modern notions of the scientific process, were Christian. As Tut says - the world of science and the world of religion are separate and should not be confused.

One big problem that I have with the "literal day" idea is this: the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth "day," so how could there be "evening and morning" before that? The Hebrew word YOM is flexible enough that even with qualifiers such as one, two etc. it can mean an indeterminate amount of time. But more important, the sentence structure and certain aspects of the grammar - I won't go into detail and bore people with my nerdiness - suggest that we're dealing with poetic language here. I do believe the sequence of creation roughly matches what science has found in the fossil record, but if, as seems to be the case, the author was using poetic methods to describe the indescribable, then taking things like "day" in a strictly literal sense isn't in keeping with the type of literature we're looking at. It would be like reading the phrase "the trees clap their hands" and expecting to see it literally happening.

My own view is that the creation account focuses on Who, not when or how or how long it took, and that's what matters. I used to be a young-earth creationist until I got into astronomy. The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light-years away, which means it's at least that old and we're seeing it as it was at least that long ago. I don't have a problem with that, since the language of Genesis is flexible enough to accommodate it.

That said, I do have a problem with scientists who try to talk about ultimate origins or the existence of God. By their own definition, they're way outside the scope of their field, yet some of them talk as though an atheistic view is established by scientific fact. To me, that looks like talking out of both sides of their mouths. If origins, metaphysics and the like are beyond the scope of science, then scientists shouldn't be trying to use their scientific soapboxes to talk about such topics. If they want to drop down to a personal level, fine, but when they do they should make it clear that they are now speaking of things outside the realm of science.

TUT317,
I do agree with you and dwashbur.
At present science and theology do not mix very well.
Someday... maybe.
Fred

Tut and Ebaines:

I think we're now all on the same subjects. We agree that a good scientist is one that observes nature and figures out how it works. I would also agree that the world of observable science is different from any belief regarding the past. A person can believe as they wish about the past and still do every-day science. This does not conflict with my earlier point that beliefs of origins play a major role in the interpretation of evidence in theorizing the origin of life and age of the Earth.

Where we disagree is on the perspective of science in relation to history/origins. These do not involve nature or how nature works (in present observation). We disagree on whether science may include intelligent design, i.e. God. Your argument is that science is focused only on nature. That anything outside of nature touches on religion or theology and should be kept separate from science (nature).

My argument is that if (historical/origins) science doesn't include God, it ultimately excludes Him by trying to explain everything without His involvement, requiring science to be atheistic (which is religious) and this does not agree with the original definition or really the current one. There is no neutral ground.

Did I accurately state what we agree and disagree on thus far?

If it’s okay with you I’d like to know your definitions of religion? I have a personal one, and I’ve learned the dictionary definition. According to dictionary.com a belief does not have to involve the supernatural in order to be classified a religion.
Re•li•gion
   rɪˈlɪdʒ ənShow Spelled[ri-lij-uh n] Show IPA
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially [not limited to] when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects [atheism counts]: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices[atheism counts, but then so does a sports team or a military loyal to their flag/country]: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. Religious rites.
8. Archaic. Strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

I initially classified atheism and humanism as religions because of that definition. The First Church of Atheism took it a step further, although that organization might not actually be serious. Their ordained minister numbers are growing, which is starting to make me think they actually are serious.

“Religious” has a slightly different meaning. “I’ve very religious about having the correct change in my cash register.” A supervisor once told me while working at a gas station. This example seems to fall under definition #6.

A fellow student, when the topic of being religious came up, answered “I go to church.” He got offended when I asked if that meant he considered himself religious or not. One can be religious by continuing a practice (like going to church once a year) without necessarily believing or agreeing with any of it. This can be a sensitive subject.

I do not consider myself religious in that I don’t attend church regularly, nor do I adhere to all the practices within most churches. I have solid beliefs that are Bible based, I do my best to follow the "rules" and I work to think logically. This might mean I have a religion (in according with the definition) but might not mean I am religious.

I would also say that, unlike what most people tend to post in blogs or news comments, that more education does not mean less religious. Some people (like my Dad) believe that religion exists to fill in what science hasn't yet taught us, that the more we understand how the world works, the less we need religion. I passionately disagree with this. You do NOT have to "check your brains at the door". Many do, but that doesn't mean educated people can't also believe.

At any rate, since we’ve been discussing the definition of science and comparing/contrasting it with religion, it seems reasonable to also define religion.

Dwashbur:

Please see the previous posts on the topic of the word "day" in Genesis. If you have further comments/questions I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

"I used to be a young-earth creationist until I got into astronomy. "

My reply:

This statement implies that astronomy conflicts with "young-earth creationism". Please look up Dr. Jason Lisle, whom I have pointed to previously for different reasons, as his Ph.D. from an Ivy League school is in astrophysics.

Here is a good place to start: http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/jason-lisle/bio/

The issue of seeing "distant starlight" is one he seems to specialize in. The biggest point he makes there is that even for the 4.6 billion year old Earth theory, there hasn't been enough time for light from the most distant stars we see to reach our Earth, and yet we see them. Thus, both sides of the debate have this same problem.

"That said, I do have a problem with scientists who try to talk about ultimate origins or the existence of God. By their own definition, they're way outside the scope of their field, yet some of them talk as though an atheistic view is established by scientific fact. To me, that looks like talking out of both sides of their mouths. If origins, metaphysics and the like are beyond the scope of science, then scientists shouldn't be trying to use their scientific soapboxes to talk about such topics. If they want to drop down to a personal level, fine, but when they do they should make it clear that they are now speaking of things outside the realm of science."

I'm curious how Tut and Ebaines will answer this.

Tut and Ebaines:

My argument is that if (historical/origins) science doesn't include God, it ultimately excludes Him by trying to explain everything without His involvement, requiring science to be atheistic (which is religious) and this does not agree with the original definition or really the current one. There is no neutral ground.

Did I accurately state what we agree and disagree on thus far?



Hello Lukas,

Yes, I agree, we are on the same page in regards to your comment. It is significant in this debate.

I think there is a good reason why history/origins doesn't include God in any historical explanation.

Consider the response of the Ancient Greek Historians to the defeat of the Persians at Salamis. The chances of the Greek fleet defeating the might of the Persian navy were next to nothing. The only possible explanation for what turned out to be a Greek victory was, "the Gods were with us".

In the context of modern history it might well be the case that God was with the Allies during World War 11 ;thankfully ended up the way it did. But if we consult any history book there is no reference to God. Why is this the case? The answer is that unlike Greek history, modern history does not use teleological/origins explanations. I am not saying that teleological explanations are not correct, but it is again a case of scientific methodology raising its ugly head. To be honest I don't see how we can get around this. It is just the methodology at work.

I agree with your claim that there needs to be a definition of religion. My own view is that the definitions presented in .com are far too broad to have any practical application. I can outline my arguments if needed. However, I would see the need for an understanding of a scientific definition being more urgent. Granted religious definitions are broad but they still don't fit into a scientific methodology.

Regards

Tut

Dwashbur:


"That said, I do have a problem with scientists who try to talk about ultimate origins or the existence of God. By their own definition, they're way outside the scope of their field, yet some of them talk as though an atheistic view is established by scientific fact. To me, that looks like talking out of both sides of their mouths. If origins, metaphysics and the like are beyond the scope of science, then scientists shouldn't be trying to use their scientific soapboxes to talk about such topics. If they want to drop down to a personal level, fine, but when they do they should make it clear that they are now speaking of things outside the realm of science."

I'm curious how Tut and Ebaines will answer this.

If anyone is interested in my opinion of this quote I will be happy to give it. Basically I agree with it. I would just like to add one thing.

If a scientists says that an atheistic view of the world is a fact, then they are correct. Atheists can't or won't entertain anything to do with metaphysics. Therefore, all explanations are factual. However, this has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. Atheists can only say God does not exist because there is no verifiable evidence to say he does. So what? We can always say that God is not subject to the type of evidence that atheists allow for.

Tut

Tut,
Yes, I am still interested in your personal definition of religion. I have your definition of science, so I can refer to that when you comment on it. I would like the same with your definition of religion.

I am willing to continue the discussion on the definition of science as well if you like, but we seem to be at an agreement to disagree. I will concede that within your definition of science you are quite right regarding science and religion. If science can only be atheistic then deity-based religion is unrelated to it.

Do you agree that within my definition of science (allowing for God) my arguments then are reasonable?

“Basically I agree with it.”

So every time an atheist scientist starts talking about the origin of life or the age of the Earth, they should stop or state it's opinion? This relates directly to dinosaurs and the age of the Earth that started this whole forum.

“I am not saying that teleological explanations are not correct, but it is again a case of scientific methodology raising its ugly head. To be honest I don't see how we can get around this. It is just the methodology at work.”

My reply:

What reason do we have to think/believe that nature will continue by the Universal Laws? The original definition of science gave a reason and built the scientific methodology based on it.

“If a scientists says that an atheistic view of the world is a fact, then they are correct….However, this has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. Atheists can only say God does not exist because there is no verifiable evidence to say he does.”

My reply:

American Atheists seem to think atheism means god/gods does not/do not exist. I had to read through quite a bit of their website to find this, they spend a lot of time clearing up steriotypes, which is understandable.

“Speaking of the original meaning, the word atheism comes from the Greek atheos, which means "without god." The original meaning of the word, based on its Greek origins, mentions nothing about "disbelief" or "denial." A short and single-word definition would be "godless." “
American Atheists | About Atheism (http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism)

So if a scientist says that an atheistic view of the world is a fact, they are saying that God/gods do not exist at all. That is their belief. They call it free thinking or being rational. I do not agree with this position, that not believing in God/gods is rational, I’m just showing what they say and contrasting it to your argument that “they are correct.” It has little do with verifiable evidence. If someone has a firm conviction something doesn’t exist, then even if it were to appear in front of them they would find a reason not to believe it. Example: there are things the atheist scientist believes exists without verifiable evidence, like the Oort Cloud.

Tut and Ebaines:
My argument is that if (historical/origins) science doesn't include God, it ultimately excludes Him by trying to explain everything without His involvement, requiring science to be atheistic (which is religious) and this does not agree with the original definition or really the current one. There is no neutral ground.

Did I accurately state what we agree and disagree on thus far?


Not quite. I think a better term for science is that it is agnostic - meaning that it dos not claim to have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist). An atheist on the other hand actively denies the existence of God. Now, there are many individual scentists who ar attheists, but that does not mean that science itself is aetheistic. I've never heard of a scientific study or paper that attempted to deny the existence of God.



If it's okay with you I'd like to know your definitions of religion? I have a personal one, and I've learned the dictionary definition.
...
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially [not limited to] when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects [atheism counts]: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices[atheism counts, but then so does a sports team or a military loyal to their flag/country]: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow


Too broad for this discussion - by this definition the company I work for, the PTA, and my wife's bridge club are all religious organizations. My wife may say she is "religous" about getting to her bridge group on time, but that use of the word has no bearing on our discussion here. I prefer to keep to definitions of religion based on faith in a deity (or dieties) - basically definition number 1. When I used the term in my earlier posts, definition 1 is what I had in mind. As for "The First Church of Atheism" - I think that's somone's idea of a funny way to tweak the believers among us.

Ebaines:

Similar to what I told Tut, if we were to assume your definitions of science and religion then, within those meanings, your arguments and claims make sense.

And I see you noticed how broad the dictionary definition is as well. Yet everyone I talk to seems to adhere to a different combination within that broad definition. This is why I wanted to put it down here.

Would you agree that, within my definitions of science and religion, my arguments are reasonable?

"The main evidence that the Earth is old (billions of years) comes from dating methods. Each of these method involves making assumptions that cannot be proven true or false. If the assumptions were false (and there is good reason to think they might be) then the “absolute ages” we have become invalid.

Hypothetically, what would be the conclusion from that? I say hypothetically to avoid digging into the dating methods themselves, which so far no one is interested in doing."

I posted this earlier as a question. It seems to have been overlooked so I'm posting it again.

So if a scientist says that an atheistic view of the world is a fact, they are saying that God/gods do not exist at all. That is their belief. They call it free thinking or being rational. I do not agree with this position, that not believing in God/gods is rational, I'm just showing what they say and contrasting it to your argument that “they are correct.” It has little do with verifiable evidence. If someone has a firm conviction something doesn't exist, then even if it were to appear in front of them they would find a reason not to believe it.

I agree! Any individual who denies the existence of God does so on a personal level, not as a matter of science. It does not matter whether that person happens to be a scientist or not - it is not a "scientiifc" opinion. There are many atheists who are not scientists, and there are many scientists who are not atheists. As stated earlier - one has nothing to do with the other.



Example: there are things the atheist scientist believes exists without verifiable evidence, like the Oort Cloud.

I don't understand why you put the word "atheist" in front of "scientist" in this sentence. Many people of faith - many devout Christians for example - have no problem at all with the theory of the Oort cloud. In fact, the Oort cloud theory is a good example of how the scientific commiunity considers and (sometimes) ultimately accepts alternate theories. Today the existence of the Oort cloud is a pretty well established theory among astronomers, because it does a good job of explaining the existence of trans-Neptunian bodies and the orbital paths of deep-space comets better than alternate theories. If someone were to come up with a better explanation to fit the data, then by all means astronomers would gladly consider it. That's a major difference between science and religion - given improved data a scientist is always willing to alter his opinion on the validity of theories. The Oort cloud theory is a good example of this- it has been an accepted theory for only about 30 years or so. So scientists clearly do not have a "religion" about the Oort cloud.

As to whether you have to actually "see" something to believe it scientifically - you might have also cited the example of atomic theory, as no one has actually ever seen an electron or a quark. But I dare you to deny the existence of electrons (but please don't try sticking your finger into an electric socket ). Scientists infer the existence of thing like electrons based on the behavior of other things that they can observe. This works a lot better than simply saying that electricity is magic - and allows man to develop things like electric lights, computers, and the internet - ALL of which are dependent on things you can't see.

Dwashbur:

Please see the previous posts on the topic of the word "day" in Genesis. If you have further comments/questions I'll be glad to discuss it with you.


I read them. I haven't seen any explanation of why we have "evening and morning" language before there was a sun or moon.



"I used to be a young-earth creationist until I got into astronomy. "

My reply:

This statement implies that astronomy conflicts with "young-earth creationism". Please look up Dr. Jason Lisle, whom I have pointed to previously for different reasons, as his Ph.D. from an Ivy League school is in astrophysics.

Here is a good place to start: Dr. Jason Lisle | Answers Outreach (http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/jason-lisle/bio/)

The issue of seeing "distant starlight" is one he seems to specialize in. The biggest point he makes there is that even for the 4.6 billion year old Earth theory, there hasn't been enough time for light from the most distant stars we see to reach our Earth, and yet we see them. Thus, both sides of the debate have this same problem.


That's amusing coming from a guy who also has a book about "logical fallacies," because that's a logical fallacy itself. Who says the earth had to be fully formed in order for light from those distant stars to reach the place it would eventually occupy? I've seen all the "creation with apparent age" arguments, and any way you slice it, they make God deceptive. Believe me, I've tried to reconcile this and it just can't be done. Dr. Lisle is tilting at windmills, and frankly he's not doing a very good job of it.

"The main evidence that the Earth is old (billions of years) comes from dating methods. Each of these method involves making assumptions that cannot be proven true or false. If the assumptions were false (and there is good reason to think they might be) then the “absolute ages” we have become invalid.

Hypothetically, what would be the conclusion from that? I say hypothetically to avoid digging into the dating methods themselves, which so far no one is interested in doing."

I posted this earlier as a question. It seems to have been overlooked so I'm posting it again.

I strongly suggest that we NOT get into a debate on this forum about the scientific validity of dating methods. Instead, I suggest that you post a question in the science forums on this topic. That way you'll get some good, accurate information on dating techiques.

However, I'll follow along ith your hypothetical question - suppose (hypothetically) that all the dating techniques are wrong. Say they're all off by a factor of 2 or 3, which would be a huge error. Hypothetically that would mean that the earth could be as young as 1 billion years old, right? It's still a long, long away from a mere 6000 years. In order to convince me to ignore completely all dating techniques and evidence from geology, archeology, paleantology, astronomy, chemistry and physics you need to show that all the techniques are all in error by at least a factor of 100,000. To put it in perspective - it's like comparing the distance between New York and LA to the length of a football field - few people would get them confused. Or like arguing with the police officer as to how fast you were going when he pulls you over for speeding - his radar gun may tell him that you were doing 5 MPH over the limit, and you may argue back that his gun may be in error by 5 MPH. Showing that there is a 10% error in the radar reading could be enough to get out of the ticket. But if the officer clocks you with radar doing 120 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, and at the same time another officer clocks you using laser, and a third paces you with his police car - your argument that the first officer's radar may be off by 10% doesn't help.

In addition - besides showing that there may be some amount of error in all current techniques, you need to propose an alternate technique that can be verified experimentally which provides positive evidence for an earth that is 6000 years old, plus or minus thousand years or so.

I look forward to seeing your question on dating techniqes posted in one of the science forums.

It amazes me how many times the argument about how old the Earth is comes up in discussion forums like this, in one form or another. What I find even more amazing is that there are reputable scientists on both sides of this argument insisting that their age of the Earth is correct and the other's age is wrong!

Any scientist worth his salt should know that time is NOT an absolute quantity but rather is relative to the particular frame of reference of the observer.

What this means is that two people who are in different gravitational fields and moving at different velocities (different frames of reference) to each other will measure two different values for the time between two events, and both of them are correct! (Usually we do not see this difference because the speed necessary to make a large difference in the measured time is very great, needing to be a reasonable fraction of the speed of light = 300 000 km/s)

This difference in measured time was first predicted by Einstein in his theories of relativity and have been verified experimentally many times. Wikipedia has a technical description of this in the following link. Time Dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).

What this means is that when a scientist states that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, what he actually should say is that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old relative to the frame of reference that the Earth is currently in.

When a Creation scientist states that the Earth is 6500 years old what he actually should say is that the Earth is 6500 years old relative to the frame of reference that the Earth is currently in PLUS 6 days relative to an unknown frame of reference!

The six days of creation are NOT measured in the same frame of reference as the remainder of the 6500 years since the only observer in those first six days was GOD! And we have no idea what GOD's frame of reference is!

The way I explain it to my students is as follows: Imagine there are two people watching God create the universe. The first is in God's frame of reference, looking over God's shoulder at the watch that God has on his wrist. He observes the passing of 6 x 24 hours while God creates the universe. Now the second person is situated in the frame of reference the Earth currently is in. He observes the passing of 15 billion years while God creates the universe.

The reality of the situation is that there is no conflict in the age of the Earth. People are just either arguing out of ignorance or deliberately withholding information to further their own cause. To continue arguing what the age of the Earth is, is to deny that time is relative.

Dwashbur:

“I read them. I haven't seen any explanation of why we have "evening and morning" language before there was a sun or moon.”

My reply:

Thank you for reading them. Now you know what’s already been said. Here is the best explanation I have heard for how there was “evening and morning” before there was sun or moon: “Let there be light.” There was light and darkness before there was a sun or moon, which is what the evening and morning came from. The numbers “the FIRST day” etc also add context clues to defining the time “yom”.

Keep in mind this is part of the Creation model, so it will of course conflict with evolution-related theories about the creation of our planet/universe.

“That's amusing coming from a guy who also has a book about "logical fallacies," because that's a logical fallacy itself.”

My reply:

Please explain how this is a local fallacy.

“Who says the earth had to be fully formed in order for light from those distant stars to reach the place it would eventually occupy?”

My reply:

So your argument is that the stars existed long enough before the Earth that the light had time to get there? Please show me what scientist or science book this theory comes from, because I haven’t heard it before?

“I've seen all the "creation with apparent age" arguments, and any way you slice it, they make God deceptive.”

My reply:

There are more arguments than just “creation with apparent age” although I agree that’s the one I hear most when I bring this topic up with believers. I agree, that argument makes God deceptive, it goes against what we already know for a fact about Him—he has not and will not lie.

“Believe me, I've tried to reconcile this and it just can't be done.”

My reply:

If “creation with apparent age” is the only argument you’ve encountered, then you haven’t explored all the options. Dr. Lisle had a video specifically on this topic you can watch online free here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight

“Dr. Lisle is tilting at windmills…”

My reply:

I’m afraid I’ve never heard this expression before so I can’t really understand your meaning. I was born in America but grew up (Kindergarten through two years college) in Germany. I attended 2 additional years of college in America prior to joining the military and had my first assignment in Japan from 04-08. I’m currently stationed stateside, which effectively is my first time ever living there. America tends to be more foreign to me than overseas. So I mean no disrespect asking about an expression. Assuming it is an American expression, there are many I’m still learning.

Now if I take your meaning this way: “Dr. Lisle is…frankly he’s not doing a very good of it.”

Have you read “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”? What works of his did you experience that led you to think he is not doing very good at it?

Perhaps you’d like to join Tut and myself. Tut is working on obtaining that book so he can read it and then is able to comment regarding it. He is interested in writing some questions and/or criticisms to Dr. Lisle in feedback, and Dr. Lisle normally responds. I am also interests in the responses so I have offered to help however I can. Are you interested in also writing a feedback?

So far things have been decently respectful to everyone involved, please keep in mind we want to continue that. We will respect whatever you come here believing and whomever you point us to as a reference, and expect the same in return.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebaines:

“I strongly suggest that we NOT get into a debate on this forum about the scientific validity of dating methods. Instead, I suggest that you post a question in the science forums on this topic. That way you'll get some good, accurate information on dating techiques.”

My reply:

I’ve been in message boards that went far deeper into this subject that my education anywhere near qualifies me to give input. There happened to be evolution-believing scientists using that board. There was an agreement to disagree, and so I’d expect similar to result in another board I participate in. Would that continue to be worthwhile to you?


“However, I'll follow along ith your hypothetical question - suppose (hypothetically) that all the dating techniques are wrong. Say they're all off by a factor of 2 or 3, which would be a huge error. Hypothetically that would mean that the earth could be as young as 1 billion years old, right?”

My reply:

Thank you for agreeing to this hypothetical question, but I’m afraid you misunderstand what I meant. If all the dating techniques are “wrong”, then I’m not saying they are off by 2 or 3. I’m saying what if they are entirely wrong? No number they produce is valid? What happens when basically dating techniques that produce a result of even one million years must be thrown out?

Again, this is hypothetical. I’m not asking to dig deep into the techniques themselves or even to use math.

“In addition - besides showing that there may be some amount of error in all current techniques, you need to propose an alternate technique that can be verified experimentally which provides positive evidence for an earth that is 6000 years old, plus or minus thousand years or so.”

My reply:

To my knowledge, there exists no technique like what you have in mind that is valid or accurate for the age of the Earth. There are too many variables we don’t and can’t know (assumptions) involved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Elscarta:

From your post I assume you are a teacher or professor. Pleased to meet you and thanks for joining the discussion.
Your post appears heated. Neither of us will learn anything from each other if one or both of us is heated.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To All:

What began as a simple discussion seems to have become an all-against-one. This is starting to feel less like simply explaining a perspective and more like a debate threatening to get in-depth technical.

Here is my point through this entire thing:

IF science can be permitted to include God, and IF the dating techniques are completely unreliable, THEN the Creation Model is a reasonable theory.

Here is my point through this entire thing:

IF science can be permitted to include God, and IF the dating techniques are completely unreliable, THEN the Creation Model is a reasonable theory.

If you want to continue with the hypothetical that ALL dating techniques are totally wrong - (that is, that they all give completely random results), so that there is no reliable evidence of the true age of the earth, then the likelihood of the earth being 6000 years old is identical to the likelihood of it being any age you would like to name: 6000, 6 miilion, 6 billion years - all would be equally likely. So what scientific evidence zeroes in specifically on 6000 years? None. It's like saying that if OJ Simpson didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson, then it must have been Ronald Reagan who did it, because after all it's equally likely to have been him as anyone. It's a faulty argument.

I keep coming back to this: if you believe in a 6000 year old earth it's because you have faith - NOT because of any support from science.

Dwashbur:

“I read them. I haven't seen any explanation of why we have "evening and morning" language before there was a sun or moon.”

My reply:

Thank you for reading them. Now you know what’s already been said. Here is the best explanation I have heard for how there was “evening and morning” before there was sun or moon: “Let there be light.” There was light and darkness before there was a sun or moon, which is what the evening and morning came from. The numbers “the FIRST day” etc also add context clues to defining the time “yom”.

It doesn't work. In Hebrew as in English, the terms "evening" and "morning" are specifically related to the rising and setting of the sun. No sun, no definable evening and morning. So either it's wrong, or it's poetic. Also, in Hebrew it's not "first day," it's "one day" (YOM EKHAD).


Keep in mind this is part of the Creation model, so it will of course conflict with evolution-related theories about the creation of our planet/universe.

I'm not sure what your point is. I haven't said anything about evolution.


“That's amusing coming from a guy who also has a book about "logical fallacies," because that's a logical fallacy itself.”

My reply:

Please explain how this is a local fallacy.

I thought I did.


“Who says the earth had to be fully formed in order for light from those distant stars to reach the place it would eventually occupy?”

My reply:

So your argument is that the stars existed long enough before the Earth that the light had time to get there? Please show me what scientist or science book this theory comes from, because I haven’t heard it before?

The prevailing theory about how the planets formed can be found in just about any science book, but I'll summarize here: as gas clouds condensed into stars, peripheral matter bands within their gravitational sphere coalesced into chunks of rock. By a process of accretion these "planetesimals" as they're usually called gathered into what we now see as planets and their moons (and whatever one chooses to call Pluto these days). Did all this take a long time? Yes. Did it take longer than the formation of the stars? Yes. Was light from the stars traveling through space while this was happening? Yes. Not all objects in the universe are the same age; some took longer to form than others, including stars. That's why we have stars of various ages and in various stages of their lives. For all we know, those stars that are a billion or so light-years away don't even exist any more, having burned out and gone nova. All we know is what we can see, but we can accurately measure how far away it is and hence how long it's taken the light to reach this part of the universe.


“I've seen all the "creation with apparent age" arguments, and any way you slice it, they make God deceptive.”

My reply:

There are more arguments than just “creation with apparent age” although I agree that’s the one I hear most when I bring this topic up with believers. I agree, that argument makes God deceptive, it goes against what we already know for a fact about Him—he has not and will not lie.

“Believe me, I've tried to reconcile this and it just can't be done.”

My reply:

If “creation with apparent age” is the only argument you’ve encountered, then you haven’t explored all the options. Dr. Lisle had a video specifically on this topic you can watch online free here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight

It's not the only one, but it's the most prevalent one as you acknowledge. Thing is, knowing Hebrew as I do, it doesn't matter how old the universe is or even how old the earth is, so there's no need to do the kinds of back-flips required for his approach.


“Dr. Lisle is tilting at windmills…”

My reply:

I’m afraid I’ve never heard this expression before so I can’t really understand your meaning. I was born in America but grew up (Kindergarten through two years college) in Germany. I attended 2 additional years of college in America prior to joining the military and had my first assignment in Japan from 04-08. I’m currently stationed stateside, which effectively is my first time ever living there. America tends to be more foreign to me than overseas. So I mean no disrespect asking about an expression. Assuming it is an American expression, there are many I’m still learning.

The reference is to Don Quixote, by M. Cervantes.


Now if I take your meaning this way: “Dr. Lisle is…frankly he’s not doing a very good of it.”

No, it means he's making a cure for which there is no known disease.

Tut,
Yes, I am still interested in your personal definition of religion. I have your definition of science, so I can refer to that when you comment on it. I would like the same with your definition of religion.

I am willing to continue the discussion on the definition of science as well if you like, but we seem to be at an agreement to disagree. I will concede that within your definition of science you are quite right regarding science and religion. If science can only be atheistic then deity-based religion is unrelated to it.

Do you agree that within my definition of science (allowing for God) my arguments then are reasonable?



Hello Lukas,

I think the problem with any definition of science which includes God doesn't work because it allows science to be a religion. It also allows religion to be a science.

When Dr.Lisle did his Ph.D. thesis in astronomy. What references did he make to God or the Bible in his thesis? The answer is none. If he did make such references then he would be doing a Ph.D in theology.

I agree with ebaines that the definition of religion is far too broad at the moment. As ebaines points out any club or organization could be regarded as religious under this broad definition.

My definition of religion is reasonably tight: A religious person is anyone who accepts metaphysical arguments which include the concept of God, Gods and other supernatural beings. My definition does not include Eastern Philosophy.

I think once we tighten up definitions of religion and science we can see why they are incompatible.


Regards

Tut

Elscarta:

From your post I assume you are a teacher or professor. Pleased to meet you and thanks for joining the discussion.
Your post appears heated. Neither of us will learn anything from each other if one or both of us is heated.


If my post appears heated it is because I am passionate about this topic. It is interesting to note that my point about time dilation was completely ignored, which was not unexpected. As I mentioned in my post, this is always left out of any debate on the age of the Earth, even though it is central to the debate!



To All:

What began as a simple discussion seems to have become an all-against-one. This is starting to feel less like simply explaining a perspective and more like a debate threatening to get in-depth technical.

Any discussion about the age of the Earth and theories of how the universe was created must get technical, since the universe is very technical and complex. The main problem is that many arguments superficially look plausible, but it isn't until there is a technical look at them that the fallacies in the argument become apparent.

If my post appears heated it is because I am passionate about this topic. It is interesting to note that my point about time dilation was completely ignored, which was not unexpected. As I mentioned in my post, this is always left out of any debate on the age of the Earth, even though it is central to the debate!


I can't speak for anybody else, but I didn't respond to your post about time dilation because it's far beyond my area of understanding, hence I can't really contribute anything toward its discussion. I did find it fascinating and food for thought, and apologize for not at least saying so.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I didn't respond to your post about time dilation because it's far beyond my area of understanding, hence I can't really contribute anything toward its discussion. I did find it fascinating and food for thought, and apologize for not at least saying so.

Hello dwashbur and elscarta,

I agree physics is a bit beyond me as well. So I will put this in the form of a question. Does time dilation result in a paradox when considered with reference to special relativity? By this I mean if we have two observers one stationary and one moving don't they see each others clocks running slowly?

Tut

Lukas Caldera,
I'm a firm believer in Intelligent Design and religious and a strong believer is science.
I see no personal conflict in that.There are many scientists who are also religious.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello dwashbur and elscarta,

I agree physics is a bit beyond me as well. So I will put this in the form of a question. Does time dilation result in a paradox when considered with reference to special relativity? By this I mean if we have two observers one stationary and one moving don't they see each others clocks running slowly?

Tut
Your statement about one stationary and one moving is technically incorrect. It appears that you give an absolute motion to one but not the other whereas special relativity simply states that each sees themselves as stationary and the other moving relative to them and so each will see the other's clock running slowly.

This is not quite the paradox it seems as in order to get the two observers together in the same frame of reference, one or the other needs to undergo acceleration. Whoever is the one who undergoes acceleration will be the one who will have aged less when they come together.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. As I said, this stuff is way beyond me... I can do languages all day long, but when you start getting into advanced math and stuff like that, I might as well take a nap. I've often said that my kids have inherited my "math idiot" gene, which is unfortunate for them...

elscarta,
That's the way I've been lead to understand time and motion.
Please and kindness,
Fred

This is not quite the paradox it seems as in order to get the two observers together in the same frame of reference, one or the other needs to undergo acceleration. Whoever is the one who undergoes acceleration will be the one who will have aged less when they come together.


Hi elscarta,

Does the paradox arise if we consider observer A and observer B are in
DIFFERENT frames of reference? Observing each others clocks running slowly compared their own.

Here is my point through this entire thing:

IF science can be permitted to include God, and IF the dating techniques are completely unreliable, THEN the Creation Model is a reasonable theory.

Hi Lukas,
Science cannot include God or exclude God. Science only deals with things that are of the material world. Science cannot be used to study God. Otherwise, all the researchers would be writing grant applications to the National Science Foundation asking for funding. :)

Radiometric dating techniques are very reliable within limits. They may not be able to tell you the exact year a particular dinosaur died, but they can often tell you within a few thousand years or even less. For something that is 75 million years old, that's close. As if that's not enough, the genes of modern day animals have little changes in them that are an indication of how long ago they separated from other species. This is called a molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock). These molecular clocks tell the same story as the dating of fossils. In other words, one area of science confirms the same story. It's like having two independent witnesses.

The Creation Model is a lovely and compelling religious story. It is not connected to biology or any other field of science.
Asking

Asking,
Point well made.
Thanks,
Fred

Asking biology expert:

It comes as no surprise that an expert in Biology who agrees with the theory of evolution will support dating techniques. This does not prove or disprove them, it simply means you support them.

Otherwise, the same posts said before still apply to this argument.

Dwashbur:

I've been a bit busy with work, give me a couple more days and I will look deeper into what you're talking about both on evolutionary theory and on the meaning of the Hebrew language. Then I'll give you a more detailed response.

Tut:

I checked a couple more dictionaries, to include an abridged one and religion continues to have the same basic concepts to its definition. In fact, the most abridged one I found had only two possible definitions for each, and it related the definitions related to each other. Perhaps you can point out a different dictionary?

Elscarta:

You can be passionate about this subject. That's fine. And if you want to get technical and feel it needs to go there that's fine as well. You're a professor, so you're throwing your higher-education weight class around mostly professing laymen. I recommend taking your argument to a discussion board that consists of other scientists and professors.
I don't see responding to your points accomplishing anything. If we disagree, it's doubtful either of us will change their stance based on something the other says.

If I could bring Dr. Georgia Purdom in here, and last I checked someone like that would only get involved in a formal debate and not something like this, it would be different.

All:

Since it seems we officially have several people involved (including at least two scientists) and I'm the only “young-earther” I have some questions I'm curious to know your answers to. I'll go one at a time to simplify things.

1) What caused the universe to come into existence and where did the original energy or matter come from?

1) What caused the universe to come into existence and where did the original energy or matter come from?

Hi Lukas,
I am not sure this will add anything to the current debate. Again, it will boil down to science and religion being incompatible, even if we go back to the very beginning of the universe.

The Big Bang Theory can explain the origins of the universe up until so many tiny parts of a second before the Big Bang. The laws of physics breaks down before this time. For those who are religious the answer is obvious as to what happened before the Big Bang. God set the Big Bang in motion.

From a non-religious point (a scientific explanation) the laws of physics says the universe was infinitely dense. It existed as a singularity.
No God required.

As you can see some people attach a religious interpretation to the Big Bang, i.e.. God cause it. This however, is not a scientific opinion. I think it is the right opinion. This is my religious opinion as opposed to my scientific opinion. Others might site a different explanation.

The other possible explanation which MIGHT appeal to the non-religious
Is the idea of branes colliding which gives the impression there was a Big Bang. In other words, it was branes colliding which caused the Big Bang.


I don't think this line of thinking is going to bring science and religion any closer.

Regards

Tut

The Big Bang Theory can explain the origins of the universe up until so many tiny parts of a second before the Big Bang. The laws of physics breaks down before this time period. For those who are religious the answer is obvious as to what happened before the Big Bang. God set the Big Bang in motion.

Tut

I think you forgot that science thinks that 75% of the universe is actually unexplainable and they call what they can't explain dark energy, you know I just call it God

I think you forgot that science thinks that 75% of the universe is actually unexplainable and they call what they can't explain dark energy, you know I just call it God

Dark Energy ( aka Dark Matter ) is being explained. The reason most of the universe is not know is because it hasn't been experienced yet. In science there is a holy grail called the universal theory. That is what science is searching for. Another new science is that of demensions other then our own and its properties and how it effects this one. I don't see a conflict in understanding what we experience. Nor trying to reach goals that are beyond our earth. God gave us free will and its science that is expanding on it.

I think you forgot that science thinks that 75% of the universe is actually unexplainable and they call what they can't explain dark energy, you know I just call it God

Hi paraclete,

I would probably agree with you. In the process of agreeing with each other we would be doing metaphysics as opposed to physics.

Regards

Tut

[QUOTE=califdadof3;2300478]Dark Energy ( aka Dark Matter ) [QUOTE]

Not correct dark matter apparently makes up about 5% and what is left unexplained about 75% is called dark energy

[QUOTE=califdadof3;2300478]Dark Energy ( aka Dark Matter ) QUOTE]

Not correct dark matter apparently makes up about 5% and what is left unexplained about 75% is called dark energy

Maybe Im not familier with the term dark energy. Can you enlighten me ?

Asking biology expert:

It comes as no surprise that an expert in Biology who agrees with the theory of evolution will support dating techniques. This does not prove or disprove them, it simply means you support them.

Otherwise, the same posts said before still apply to this argument.

I confess I have not read the entire thread, so I apologize if that has been covered before. I agree with you that if you could, for the sake of argument, prove that radiometric dating was meaningless, then radiometric dating would tell you nothing at all about the age of fossils or the rock layers they reside in. (But, to be fair, this is like saying that if a measuring stick did not actually measure, then you could not ever find out how tall you were, and that it would then be perfectly fine to claim that you were 6 feet tall.) But let's throw out radiometric dating since you don't like it. :)

Fortunately, a total lack of radiometric dating would not keep us from being able to see that the Earth is far older than 6500 years. First, nineteenth century scientists estimated things like the rate of erosion and how fast salt accumulates in the oceans to try to estimate the age of the Earth and came up with figures in the range of 20 million to 300 million years. We now know that these figures are off by one or two orders of magnitude, but the question of the age of the Earth was fiercely debated by many very intelligent and sophisticated scientists (who did not have access to radiometric dating techniques), and none of the estimates were in the range you are suggesting.

In addition, as I mentioned before, molecular clock techniques, which are completely unrelated to radiometric dating, give similar numbers to those of radiometric dating, so you could get similar information about the relative ages of different kinds of animals and plants even without radiometric dating. Molecular clocks tell the same story of ancient lineages.

Finally, even absent BOTH molecular clocks or radiometric dating, we would know that dinosaurs lived at a different time from humans. This is because the order in which the fossils appear in the fossil record tells a consistent story of the history of life on Earth.

Before the first vertebrates (animals with backbones) appear in the fossil record, there are no mammals or reptiles. No turtles or frogs, nothing with a backbone. Not until the fish, and then the amphibians, which colonized the land, do you begin to see the first reptiles. And not until the most ancient reptiles appear in the fossil record do you begin to see fossil turtles, early mammals, and, later, the more-advanced reptiles such as dinosaurs and birds.

All of these kinds of life first appear in the fossil record in a particular order. You would no more find a wolf or an elephant in a layer of rock that is lower than the rock containing the first fish than you would find an iPad in an Egyptian tomb.

For this reason, you do not actually need radiometric dating to know that dinosaurs did not live during the Neolithic period of human history. The fact that radiometric dating confirms the story told by the fossil record and molecular clocks merely confirms the same story. It's like having a third witness at a trial. As if the first two were not enough, we have a third who says he saw the same thing. It's very convincing to most people.

Hi elscarta,

Does the paradox arise if we consider observer A and observer B are in
DIFFERENT frames of reference? Observing each others clocks running slowly compared their own.

Tut,
I think that you have misunderstood my previous post. The two observers are in different frames of reference and "paradoxically" each see the other's clock as running more slowly.

While common sense tells us that only one of the clocks can "actually" be running slower that the other, hence the "paradox", the reality is actually a superposition of the following three states:

1. Clock A is slower than clock B
2. Clock B is slower than clock A
3. Clock A and clock B are running at the same rate.

What happens when we bring the two clocks together to the same frame of reference is to pick out which of the three states above matches the way in which the clocks were brought together, and from that time on reality is limited to only that particular state.

The four ways to bring the clocks back together are

I) accelerate A to the frame of reference of B. This matches state 1.
ii) accelerate B to the frame of reference of A. This mathces state 2.
iii) accelerate A and B equally to a common frame of reference. This matches state 3.
iv) accelerate A and B unequally matches either state 1 or 2 depending upon which has undergone the greater acceleration.

NOTE:

1. No matter which state the clocks end up in, at the time that they were in different frames of reference, all three states "co-existed".

2. Each observer only ever observes one of the states, observer A sees state 2. Observer B sees state 1 so there are no paradoxes for either of them.

3. Technically states 1 and 2 each are a range of states with differing rates of time but I've combined the states with A slower than B together and vice versa to simplify the discussion.

Asking Biology Expert:

Thank you for sharing the reasons you agree with millions of years. I didn't expect to learn something but I confess I didn't know a few of the things you posted. Just because I don't agree with millions of years doesn't mean I want to be ignorant of the theory. Looks like I need to brush up on it. Shouldn't be hard, there's tons of information out there.

May I ask what specifically your degree is in? I know of a few scientists that if I can possibly get in communication with you, I'd love to observe the conversation. It seems to make sense, at least to me, to try and get someone with a similar degree.

This is just a quick post. I'm still working on my other replies, like that question I asked. Thanks for answering it. I should post more in a few hours.

elscarta,
Thanks much for that information.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[snip]

If “creation with apparent age” is the only argument you’ve encountered, then you haven’t explored all the options. Dr. Lisle had a video specifically on this topic you can watch online free here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight

[more snip]



I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this. To be honest, I could have easily concluded that the guy is on drugs. That was one of the lamest defenses of a young universe I've ever seen. He said that, because young-earthers can come up with possible explanations for distant starlight, that means distant starlight doesn't support an old universe. Get real! Suppose one of those "possible explanations" is unicorns? And he himself pointed out that the "possible explanations" he cited are all seriously flawed. He also knows precisely squat about interpreting the Old Testament; he would have done well to study Hebrew and ancient near eastern literature at least as much as he studied astrophysics, because his comments about Genesis 1 are infantile at best.

That's 45 minutes of my life that I'll never get back, and all it did was verify what I already knew: anybody can get a Ph.D. It doesn't mean they actually know anything.

dwashbur,
LOL...
Thanks for watching that and telling us about it.
You saved me 45 minutes and I thank you for that alone.
I have seen several defenses for the young universe and most are with the used of biblical verses.
A few tried to do so with science that I considered to be bogus and/or lame.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was just going over the posts again while I looked into the topics being brought up. As we get deeper into this, it seems we go less into reasonable arguments and more into heated offenses. I'm not interested in that.

I was building to a point with the first question I asked about origins, and I had more questions but I don't think it's necessary to continue it.

Thank you to those of you that remained respectful for the duration of discussion. I learned a few things. I'm still going to research the topics brought up, but I'm done with this forum.

Thanks for your time.

Lukas:

Just to clarify, I am not a professor but a high school teacher with a Bachelor of Science degree, double major in Physics and Mathematics.

I have listened to the videos of Dr Lisle regarding the distant starlight problem and have many issues with all of his explanations, some philosophical and others scientific. If you are interested I am willing to post them but maybe we should do it in another thread as not to take over this one.

I also am very interested in what problems you perceive with radioactive dating techniques.

You seem to think that "(historical/origins) science" is different from "operational science" in so far as it does "not involve nature or how nature works (in present observation)" and "doesn't come from empirical observations or really even the scientific method."

Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical)
The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment.

If your position is correct then "(historical/origins) science" is just a philosophical debate, not relying on any information other than purely theoretical ideas, but this is not so.

Emprical evidence on the amounts of radioactive isotopes is gathered. Locations of fossils in the geological column are measurable. Looking out into space is observation of what happened in the past.

The Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis and Evolution all use working hypotheses that are testable using observation and experiments.

Experimentally, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at CERN is providing the opportunity to study the conditions of the early universe as proposed by the Big Bang Theory, these experiments are certainly repeatable.

Many experiments have been conducted to see if it is possible to create life in a test tube. (I am not saying that they have succeeded in doing it).

Experiments have been conducted which show how nautral selection and mutations can lead to changes in organisms and the rates at which change in DNA occurs.

Finally I am interested in your opinion of the hypothesis that the Universe may be the ultimate free lunch as described in the following link.
A Universe from Nothing (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html)
This is another possible answer to your question:
"What caused the universe to come into existence and where did the original energy or matter come from?"
According to this hypothesis, the Universe "came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity."

Elscarta,
One problem I have had with the current definition of "scientific method" is that it appears to eliminate history as a genuine science. Since that's more or less my bailiwick, I find that a little unsettling :eek: I'd be very interested in your view about history as a science.

Thanks for that summary of scientific and empirical method!

[QUOTE=paraclete;2300975]

Maybe Im not familier with the term dark energy. Can you enlighten me ?

Perhaps this will help you
Dark Energy, Dark Matter — NASA Science (http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy)

[QUOTE=califdadof3;2300978]

perhaps this will help you
Dark Energy, Dark Matter — NASA Science (http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy)

Thanks that cleared it up. I guess I never saw it referred to seperatly like that before. Nice link.

elscarta,
That is interesting.
Thanks,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Elscarta,
One problem I have had with the current definition of "scientific method" is that it appears to eliminate history as a genuine science. Since that's more or less my bailiwick, I find that a little unsettling :eek: I'd be very interested in your view about history as a science.

Thanks for that summary of scientific and empirical method!

To the extent that history can be proven by scientific method, but so much of history is perspective, the conquerer's perspective.

Elscarta,
One problem I have had with the current definition of "scientific method" is that it appears to eliminate history as a genuine science. Since that's more or less my bailiwick, I find that a little unsettling :eek: I'd be very interested in your view about history as a science.

Thanks for that summary of scientific and empirical method!



I know the question was directed at Elscarta, but I will put my 2cents worth in.

I would see history as not being a 'genuine' science, but attempting to employ the scientific method nonetheless. This is what the social sciences do.

It seems to me that science employs a limited of number of methodologies and sticks to them while the social sciences employs a variety of methodologies, which can still be regarded as empirical.

By this I mean there is an attempt at 'objectivity' when interpreting historical events. Paraclete is right when he indicates that it is easier to be 'more' objective when you are on the winning side.

However, as Karl Popper would point out when it comes to science in general we would be looking to falsify rather than verify the facts. As far as history is concerned this would mean that the 'facts' are subject to constant revision.

Tut

[QUOTE=califdadof3;2300978]

perhaps this will help you
Dark Energy, Dark Matter — NASA Science (http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy)

Fascinating stuff. I'm just going to toss this out for consideration based on that article.

A long time ago, but not in a galaxy far, far away, a former friend of mine came up with a working hypothesis about dark matter and such, and what constitutes the "stuff" that fills the void between observable objects and groups of objects.

His answer: God.

A God who is intimately involved with his universe, maintaining it, sustaining it, but still materially separate from it (thus avoiding the pitfalls of process theology).

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=paraclete;2301772]

Fascinating stuff. I'm just gonna toss this out for consideration based on that article.

A long time ago, but not in a galaxy far, far away, a former friend of mine came up with a working hypothesis about dark matter and such, and what constitutes the "stuff" that fills the void between observable objects and groups of objects.

His answer: God.

A God who is intimately involved with his universe, maintaining it, sustaining it, but still materially separate from it (thus avoiding the pitfalls of process theology).

Thoughts?

Didn't I say that earlier, seems we both have the same idea

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2302775]

didn't I say that earlier, seems we both have the same idea

Indeed you did. Sorry, I missed that.

Do you feel like expanding that thought a little?

This question has been bothering me for a long time. The fossils of the dinosaurs are assessed to be millions of years old. Their skeltons are displayed in the museums. I am very staunch believer of the fact that God created the universe in six days. I do understand that the timeline of Lord God is beyond our comprehension. HIS one day would be ten thousand or more years of ours. Then how is it assessed that Adam and Eve were on this earth about 6,500 years ago? If that is true then museums and scientists are giving fake information.

Does someone has some information to help me fit in creation of dinosaurs in 6500 years?

No one has seen a live dinosaur so we have no reference point for dinosaurs in recent times but there are tales of dragons in antiquity. Could these dragons have been dinosaurs? And if they existed then dinosaurs could have been on the Earth 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs are found in very remote places, could there be any significance in that? There are many questions about what changes the flood would have brought and dinosaurs have to be put in this context. Dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate and the inaccuracy increases as the fossil gets older. Many strange things have been found including dinosaur bones with meat on them and mastidons with a mouth full of grass. What this tells us is the Earth is subject to sudden and catastrophic change about which we know little but the likelihood we have been here for much longer than 6,000 years is very slender indeed. Look at what we have managed to do in 6,000 years and ask yourself where would this have lead if we had been here for millions of years

Some interesting possibilities
There have been many extinction events and we managed to survive them all despite being stupid and taking a long time to develop
Mankind is the most unintelligent creature on the planet
Mankind is a superior lifeform that has unique survival abilities
A few hundred migrants from Africa just happened to populate the planet but it took millions of years for the population to grow to this level
The dinosaurs ate all the humans this is why it took so long for the human population to grow
The humans ate all thedinosaurs this is why they are extinct

No one has seen a live dinosaur so we have no reference point for dinosaurs in recent times but there are tales of dragons in antiquity. Could these dragons have been dinosaurs? and if they existed then dinosaurs could have been on the Earth 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs are found in very remote places, could there be any significance in that? There are many questions about what changes the flood would have brought and dinosaurs have to be put in this context. Dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate and the inaccuracy increases as the fossil gets older. Many strange things have been found including dinosaur bones with meat on them and mastidons with a mouth full of grass. What this tells us is the Earth is subject to sudden and catastrophic change about which we know little but the likelihood we have been here for much longer than 6,000 years is very slender indeed. Look at what we have managed to do in 6,000 years and ask yourself where would this have lead if we had been here for millions of years

Some interesting possibilities
There have been many extinction events and we managed to survive them all dispite being stupid and taking a long time to develop
mankind is the most unintelligent creature on the planet
mankind is a superior lifeform that has unique survival abilities
a few hundred migrants from Africa just happened to populate the planet but it took millions of years for the population to grow to this level
the dinosaurs ate all the humans this is why it took so long for the human population to grow
the humans ate all thedinosaurs this is why they are extinct

Hi Paraclete,

Most of these issue were discussed in previous posts.

Are you suggesting that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old but humans and dinosaurs have only been around for about 6,000 years?

Regards

Tut

Hi Paraclete,

Most of these issue were discussed in previous posts.

Are you suggesting that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old but humans and dinosaurs have only been around for about 6,000 years?

Regards

Tut
I am not concerned with what might have been said previously in this or any other place, I am answering a question.

What I am saying, Tut, is there are two different stories/opinions/theories and a big vacuum in the middle. We have an explanation for having being here six thousand years and a great deal of the evidence fits the narrative. On the other hand certain forms of measurement suggest that the underlying strata of the Earth might have been here a very long time. These facts are not necessarily inconsistent. One also has to examine the logic associated with the information presented and this leads to some inconsistencies which don't support the old Earth, or at least the old human, theory. The most consistent concise explanation we have is Biblical, a little short on detail, but very consistent with many observations and explanations.

We also have some conundrums, things to puzzle over, because they don't quite fit in the ordered view we would all like to have. The more we seek, the more we find that our explanations have to be modified and revised, so therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence I have opted to stay with the Biblical explanation.

Hello paraclete,

Thanks for the explanation; just curious.

Regards

Tut

... certain forms of measurement suggest that the underlying strata of the Earth might have been here a very long time. [this fact and the biblical version] are not necessarily inconsistent.

I would be very interested to have you explain how an explanation that says the Earth is 6000 years old is not mutually exclusive with one that says it is 4.5 billion years old.


One also has to examine the logic associated with the information presented and this leads to some inconsistencies which don't support the old Earth, or at least the old human, theory. The most consistent concise explanation we have is Biblical, a little short on detail, but very consistent with many observations and explanations.

Here I am not sure what you are referring to. The evidence for the Earth's age is quite consistent. There is no disagreement within the scientific community about it. How can the Bible be considered more consistent than that? As for concision, Genesis is certainly not a more concise account of the age of the Earth than a Wikipedia entry on scientific explanation of the same topic. The Bible is much more poetic but not more concise or consistent.

dwashbur, I agree with your friend and that also includes dark energy.
God is present everywhere and everywhen and nothing is impossible for Him.
So He could have created the universe just 6000 0r 7000 years ago, but I think that he did not do so.
I think He created the universe to eventually become what we see of it today billions of years ago.
It's just a matter of belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You do know Adam and Eve is just a story right? I am very catholic but I was even taught in my classes/studies that it is just a story. Adm and Eve were most likely never on this earth

kowcow44,
It is believed by many theologians that the story of Adam and Eve is a informative poem. The basic story is about a man and woman falling into sin and about how they did that.
Basically that is by disobeying God.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are symbolic according to that.
Either way a person wants to believe it there are lessons to be learned by such a story.
Mankind has a sinful nature and that story tells us how we acquired that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

kowcow44,
It is believed by many theologians that the story of Adam and Eve is a informative poem. The basic story is about a man and woman falling into sin and about how they did that.
Basically that is by disobeying God.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are symbolic according to that.
Either way a person wants to believe it there are lessons to be learned by such a story.
Mankind has a sinful nature and that story tells us how we acquired that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Please don't get me wrong I am not trying to say that there is not multiple good messages to be taken away from Adam and Eve and the other stories such as Noah's ark and The Tower of Babel and so on it just seemed to me like the question was being based on a belief that Adam and Eve actually walked this earth at a certain point in time and the dinosaurs could not have existed before then

kowcow44,
I agree that there there were a symbolic Adam and Eve who wlked this planet long after the dinos were dead and gone.
Thanks for your explanation.
Fred

Dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate and the inaccuracy increases as the fossil gets older.

Could you please provide specific information regarding this as it is not the first time that the idea that dating techniques are inaccurate has come up. Without specific details you are asking us to accept your word that this is true without being able to look at the validity of the claim for ourselves.

dwashbur, I agree with your friend and that also includes dark energy.
God is present everywhere and everywhen and nothing is impossible for Him.
So He could have created the universe just 6000 0r 7000 years ago, but I think that he did not do so.
I think He created the universe to eventually become what we see of it today billions of years ago.
It's just a matter of belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred I disagree that "it's just a matter of belief."

John 17:20-23
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves regarding things like how the universe was created?

Even if we respectfully agree to disagree, where is the complete unity that Jesus prayed for?

elscarta, You have made a very good point.
Thanks,
Fred

How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves regarding things like how the universe was created?

I like this.

Also, it seems odd to say that something is "just" a matter of belief. As an atheist, I think that belief is not a basis for deciding how the world was made. Though I believe other things--for example, that it is wrong to be unkind to children. But it seems to me that for someone who believes in God, belief is everything. Have I misunderstood?

asking,
Yes, I do believe that belief is everything, but maybe not in the way you think of it.
I believe that you can not do anything without some form of belief.
As an example...
If you believe you can feed yourself then you can.
There is an old saying that fits this.
"If you believe you can or if your believe you can not either way you are right."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I like this.

Also, it seems odd to say that something is "just" a matter of belief. As an atheist, I think that belief is not a basis for deciding how the world was made. Though I believe other things--for example, that it is wrong to be unkind to children. But it seems to me that for someone who believes in God, belief is everything. Have I misunderstood?


Hello Asking,

Interesting problem. I could be the case what we 'discover' morality differently to the way we 'discover' scientific facts. Most people would agree that we need to discover morality in an objective way, it is just that some want to say we need to discover these things in a scientific way. In other words, science and morality exist independently of us, yet they are discoverable in a similar way.

A moralist realist would say that we can discover objective facts about morality by thinking about our actions and the actions of others. There seems to be a problem here. How can something that arises out of the mind have the same type of objectivity as scientific objectivity?

Elscarta, highlighted this problem when he says:" How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves, regarding things like how the universe was created"

We can discover things scientifically and these things may not sit comfortably with the beliefs of some. On the other hand, some moral beliefs don't sit comfortably with a scientific explanation.

No answers, just observations.


Regards

Tut

Hi Tut,
We think differently. But there are some commonalities.

I think that, to a degree, morality is a rational process. It is a bad idea to steal in part because if I steal from my neighbor, he will eventually feel justified in stealing from me. If instead all of us follow certain social rules, everyone benefits--no one gets killed or robbed.

At the same time, it's clear that some people benefit by breaking those rules. So they can justify their behavior as rational. For example, if they expect not to get caught or not be punished.

But I would still say it is wrong to steal, and that's a strong, not very rational belief. Some animal species steal from one another and others don't, so I think whether a species has those inclinations depends on how they evolved. For example, birds that steal food from other animals are nearly all large birds, with large brains, who live in open habitat--like gulls at the beach--and not so different from another species I know. :)

So I think that science can offer insights into morality. But how I feel about morality is not scientific or rational. It makes me angry when the gull at the beach steals my sandwich!

TUT317,
I agree with your way of thinking on this.
I also think that God DOES give us the ability to discover morality in many ways.
I do not believe that animals like birds, bears, and lions can know what morality is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

We can discover things scientifically and these things may not sit comfortably with the beliefs of some.

There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:

1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.

2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.

3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.

Creationists' default position is #1. (Actually this is their only position!).
In my many dealings with creationists I have realised that there are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, there is a fundamental flaw in their logical process which leads them to outrightly rejecting anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Below is their argument paraphrased.

i. Scripture is the Word of God -> Scripture is Truth
ii. The Universe is the Work of God -> The Universe is Truth
iii. Science is man's attempt to understand the Universe and since it is based on imperfect man it can be flawed.
iv. Therefore any science that agrees with Scripture is good science and
v. Any science that disagrees with Scripture is bad science.

Now the flaw is not in any of these statements (I agree with the logic to this point) but in their equating their beliefs with Scripture!

The missing statement which must be added to the above is:

vi. Theology is man's attempt to understand Scripture and since it is based on imperfect man it can be flawed.

Good science does not contradict Scripture but it certainly can contradict bad theology!


Secondly, they accept atheists' arguments that if there is no need for God then God does not exist and so reject anything that appears to lessen the need for a God.

God's existence does NOT depend on whether there is a need for Him to exist or not, or even whether anyone believes in Him or not! Nothing man says, does or believes in any way changes the reality of God's existence/non existence!

Thirdly, they accept the logic of atheists' proofs of God's non existence and then argue the contrapositive instead of realising that the logic is false

Atheists' argument:-
If "__________is true" then "God does not exist".

Creationists' argument (contrapositive):-
"God exists", therefore "_________ is not true".

Instead of arguing:-
"God does not exist" does not logically follow from "_________ being true."


Fourthly, they seem to prefer supernatural explanations over natural explanations, forgetting that God is as much the God of the natural as He is of the supernatural.

There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:

1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.

2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.

3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.
[snip]


Agreed. In my case, I knew 1 wouldn't work. 3 wasn't an acceptable option for reasons I'll go into in a moment. Hence, I wound up at 2. Once I realized the poetic nature of Genesis 1, I had no problem seeing these "days" as a kind of creative "act," pushing things along the way God wanted them to go.

Many years ago I came close to losing my faith altogether, for reasons that aren't relevant here. I had to stop and reexamine everything with a fresh perspective, and I realized that it's not that important to know WHAT I believe; it's even more important, perhaps most important, to know WHY. That's why I'm on pretty solid ground now; I managed to sort out what's most important to believe, and why I believe it. I narrowed it down to two things: God exists, and Jesus rose from the dead. The former is pretty much a requirement regardless of what philosophical or scientific system one holds, because no matter how far back one presses cosmology, at some point they're going to end up with Aristotle's Uncaused Cause. Sooner or later, we have to hit that point. I decided to choose sooner and get it over with. The latter is a matter of historical investigation. Guided largely by my old friend Gary Habermas, I learned that there are certain facts surrounding the event that almost everyone agrees on, as well as a limited number of explanations for that body of facts. When we take the facts all together, only one answer explains all of them: it really happened.

Hence, an old universe doesn't give me any problem at all. As I've mentioned before, I tried to hold on to the young universe and flood geology and all that, until I got into astronomy. When I realized that I was seeing the Andromeda Galaxy as it actually was 2.5 million years ago, that was the final straw. And none of the explanations I've heard, including that absurd Lisle talk that somebody posted here, has changed my mind. If anything, that talk showed me how far some people will go to try and defend bad exegesis.

Now, Dr. Lisle did mention one thing that makes me curious, and I'd be interested in the view of the scientists and anyone else who have been participating in this discussion. He said, though he didn't give a reference, that astronomers have now reported that the observable universe, the part we can see, measures roughly 170 billion light years across. That is, we can see approximately 85 billion light years in one direction and the same in the other direction. (I'm rounding because I don't recall the exact numbers he cited.) His question: how can that be if the universe is only 15 billion years old? How can we see things 85 billion light-years away if they've only been there for 15 billion years?

It's a good question, unless he (and I) grossly misunderstood something. What do you folks think?

Now, Dr. Lisle did mention one thing that makes me curious, and I'd be interested in the view of the scientists and anyone else who have been participating in this discussion. He said, though he didn't give a reference, that astronomers have now reported that the observable universe, the part we can see, measures roughly 170 billion light years across. That is, we can see approximately 85 billion light years in one direction and the same in the other direction. (I'm rounding because I don't recall the exact numbers he cited.) His question: how can that be if the universe is only 15 billion years old? How can we see things 85 billion light-years away if they've only been there for 15 billion years?

It's a good question, unless he (and I) grossly misunderstood something. What do you folks think?

The observable universe is around 13.7 Billion Light Years in any direction from earth. This means we can "see" galaxies and other things that are as far away as 13.7 billion LY. That's what we can see. But the universe may in fact today be much larger than that - 156 Billion LY is one estimate. How can this be? It's because space itself expands, so that if two objects were one LY apart as measured back shortly after the Big Bang they would now be much further apart than that. So when we see an object that today we calculate sent light toward us 13.7 billion years ago, that object today may be as far as 157 bilion light years. The thing to remember is that we aren't actually seeing these objects as they are today, but rather as they were 13.7 billion years ago.

Here's an article that talk about this effect:
SPACE.com -- Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide! (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html)

I wonder - when Dr Lisle pulls writes this stuff is it because he is too anxious to talk about things he hasn't bothered to truly understand, or is he purposely trying to mislead? It must be one or the other.

There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:

1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.

2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.

3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.

I think, logically, this makes sense.


Creationists' default position is #1. (Actually this is their only position!).
In my many dealings with creationists I have realised that there are a number of reasons for this.

I think a lot of us do #1, not just creationists. I would not single them out.



Secondly, they accept atheists' arguments that if there is no need for God then God does not exist and so reject anything that appears to lessen the need for a God.


I certainly agree that this is an unsound argument. A thing's existence doesn't depend on whether someone or something needs it. I don't see why God should be any different. Though I am not a theologian.


Thirdly, they accept the logic of atheists' proofs of God's non existence and then argue the contrapositive instead of realising that the logic is false

Atheists' argument:-
If "__________is true" then "God does not exist".

This astonishes me. I have not seen any valid arguments anywhere ever that "prove" that God does not exist or even ones that purport to. I have not seen an atheist make this argument. As far as I know, there is no argument one can make that either proves God's existence or proves that God does not exist. Because rational arguments and science in particular operate only in the material world, not in the world of the supernatural.


Creationists' argument (contrapositive):-
"God exists", therefore "_________ is not true".

I agree. I have seen this. It makes no sense to me.


Fourthly, they seem to prefer supernatural explanations over natural explanations, forgetting that God is as much the God of the natural as He is of the supernatural.

I feel more comfortable with these kinds of arguments, but I think that's just because I like the natural world and related better to people who like and accept it as the wonder it is. Personally, it bothers me when its wonders are dismissed as unspiritual.

elscarta, Thanks for your thot on this.
It made me think.
And I do agree with much of what you said.
There is a logical argument for God's existence and also a philosophical one or three.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You are confused with a beliefe that that began by an anglican priest in the 1600s and has been slamed by Atheists to be the only belief of creation.

My father's day was not just 24hrs. The day of the Hebrews weer not just 24hrs. A creation day is not just 24hrs.

Just look at the work that Adam had to perfrom on the sixth day, and then began to be lonely and God then made Eve. The work he did on the sixth day would be impossible for a man to do, at the very least, very imporobable.

So do not let the teachings of an Anglican priest and the jibes of Atheists make you think that the earth is just 6000 yrs old.

I Newton,
Thanks, I will not.
I do firmly think that the universe IS billions of years old.
Peace and kindness,
Fred