[TUT317]

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

[arcura]

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

[Lukas Caldera]

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.

[arcura]

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

[TUT317]

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

[ebaines]

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

[arcura]

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

[Lukas Caldera]

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.

[Lukas Caldera]

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/outr...son-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.

[TUT317]

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

[TUT317]

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

[Lukas Caldera]

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

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.

[ebaines]

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.

[Lukas Caldera]

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?

[Lukas Caldera]

"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.

[ebaines]

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]

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

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.

[ebaines]

"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.

[elscarta]

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.

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.