[Lukas Caldera]

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/medi...tant-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.

[Lukas Caldera]

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.

[ebaines]

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]

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/medi...tant-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.

[TUT317]

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]

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[arcura]

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

[elscarta]

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.

[dwashbur]

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...

[arcura]

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

[TUT317]

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.

[asking]

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. 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

[arcura]

Asking,
Point well made.
Thanks,
Fred

[Lukas Caldera]

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?

[TUT317]

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

[paraclete]

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

[cdad]

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.

[TUT317]

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