The age of the earth

[Canuckster1127]

Would it be accurate ot say that many if not most OE basically believe in evolution, but that God caused it? In other words basically everything that Science says is true, but so are God and the Bible.

No that would not be accurate.

Old Earth Creationists by definition believe in creation.

Theistic Evolutionists and evolutions are by definition old earth proponents but they do not utilize scripture primarily in their arguments.

Lumping Old Earth creationists with Evolutionists is a common but fallacious argument made by some YEC proponents to attempt to create a guilt by association type of argument.

It's better to build an argument based upom what you are for than by seeking to paint opponents negatively.

I don't think you're trying to do that here Jbuza, but you're at the edge.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

Take this with a grain of salt

The OEC position existed before science established it to be near 4,700,000,000 years old.

the fact remains that no scientists hold to a young earth position who do not first start with the position. The remaining 95% of scientists are not Old Earth Creationists. Far from it. They are from a broad spectrum of beliefs and backgrounds and they espouse the position based upon the evidence.

Can you demonstrate both of these things please. Ah I think I misunderstand your first point here. You are perhaps saying that some beolieve the earth old before the 4,700,000,000 year figure became popular. I at first thought you were saying that OEs thought the earth to be 4,700,000,000 years old before science proposed that number.

As to the second point I think it is an empty claim.

Here's some of the history of the OEC position reaching back to Augustine and other Patristic Fathers. The introduction of the scientific basis for the age of the earth came with the advent of geology in the 17th century.

Old earth creationists did not put a date on the age of the earth at that time, but rather recognized that seven literal 24 hour days was not consistent with the text itself.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/s ... 0305W3.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.

As for your second point, you can disprove it easily if you like. Give me the name of a scientist who believes in a young earth who does not base their belief upon a YEC interpretation of Genesis, or more to the point, who basis it solely upon scientific information.

If you can do that, I will modify my statement to "an overwhelming majority" instead of "all".

[Canuckster1127]

Would it be accurate ot say that many if not most OE basically believe in evolution, but that God caused it? In other words basically everything that Science says is true, but so are God and the Bible.

No that would not be accurate.

Old Earth Creationists by definition believe in creation.

Theistic Evolutionists and evolutions are by definition old earth proponents but they do not utilize scripture primarily in their arguments.

Lumping Old Earth creationists with Evolutionists is a common but fallacious argument made by some YEC proponents to attempt to create a guilt by association type of argument.

It's better to build an argument based upom what you are for than by seeking to paint opponents negatively.

I don't think you're trying to do that here Jbuza, but you're at the edge.

Well I guess I don't see the difference really between saying that God instituted natural laws that caused everyhting to come into being, and saying natural laws casued things to come into being.

You have basically said that you mesh the age determined by interpretation of scientists, and that God instituted some natural laws that caused things to come about with inerrent scripture and Chrsitianity.

I am not trying to paint you anyway at all, but to understand how you have yourself painted.

Perhaps, well no, I'm dense, so it still seems to me like OEs try to mesh evolution and popular scientific thought with God and the Bible. That is not a reflection on you, that is just how things appear to me.

Old Earth Creationists by definition believe in creation.

But if you believe creation is caused by the same natural laws that cause evolution to happen, but that God instituted them, than what is the funcitonal differnce between that and saying many if not most OE basically believe in evolution, but that God caused it? In other words basically everything that Science says is true, but so are God and the Bible.?

Not that all OEs have the exact same view as you, but you seem to be representing them today.

I am willing to adjust my position. Show me the evidence you have to refute an Old Earth either scripturally or scientifically.

I am not interested in refuting OE, but in understanding how two conclusions that are so opposed can come from the same observations.

I think it really comes down to acceptance of conclusions, and suppositions.

Where have I stated that natural laws "caused" anything?

I've stated that God created the universe and everything in it. I think there are elements of that creation that are progressive and worked within natural laws that God established. That's a far cry to what you're inferring from that.

I don't think YEC bases its positions on observation. I think YEC believe the Bible states the earth is ~10,000 years old and therefore it should be provable from creation itself that that is all it is.

I don't think most YEC proponents will be swayed by anything scientific. That is why I believe that there are so many arguments out there that claim to be based in science. When they are refuted, most YEC proponents simply move onto another argument. If push comes to shove, they will attack science itself as the threat. The position is contrarion more than integrative of any science.

YEC as a position equates their hermeneutic of scripture as mutually exculsive of any scientific evidence or interpretation or any other hermeneutic. The position in my experience, and I was raised YEC, is pretty much along the lines of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

The problem is that their belief on non-belief is meaningless. If God says something, it is true regardless of anyone's response.

Second, it is not at all settled that YEC or OEC for that matter is a primary purpose of Genesis.

I think OEC is consistent with Scripture. However, as the way we have framed the question is beyond the intent of Genesis, I can accept what scientific study and evidence demonstrate wihout being threatened by it.

That evolutionists build upon the old earth to promote their beliefs does not obligate me to refute an old earth.

I don't belief that evolution has sufficient evidence to prove its claims conclusively.

[bizzt]

No not at all. AS I understand it the vast majority of OEs believe that. It seems necessary for that to be the case to make the view mesh with scripture. It seems that for OE to be even remotely Biblical that 99.99% of time would be pre man.

Would it be accurate ot say that many if not most OE basically believe in evolution, but that God caused it? In other words basically everything that Science says is true, but so are God and the Bible.

What is Science Falsely so called? IT must be something right? IT seems pretty clear that God says that people will claim things to be science, but that it will be false. Isn't that a pretty strong warning? Didn't God also say that he would send strong delusions, so that if it were possible even the very elect would no longer believe? What those are I am not sure, but there seems to be a falling toward the arms of science by much of the Christian community. Are not scientists among the wisest and most highly regarded people? Didn't God say he would basically fool the wisdom of the world? And lift up the simple?

I'm not trying top be accusatory, and I hope my tone in the response to canuckster wasn't hard, but I just wonder where this is all headed? God was once most important, and seems like he has been leveled with the interpretations and assumptions of man based upon what he has been able to observe. Why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that he is being supplanted by scientific interpretation, and will be relegated to a meaningless construct within science?

I however don't agree entirely of evolution. I find the Theory quite Lacking in evidence to say that animals or ourselves evolved from another Creature. However that being said it does not take away from what the Bible says. How do I know if Neanderthals are not big Apes? Killed out by the Adam and Eve (Spirit filled) Generation as witnessed in the fossil record. Of course that is ENTIRELY speculation.

God is most Important but we also try to use the Bible as our Base. Science gives us a better Idea of what God may have been saying. I just find it would be very dishonest of God to give us Stars, Galaxies, and ways to test these great and wonderous things and them come back and give us a "fooled you all, it really is only 10,000 years old "

I used to be YEC but I found it to be too inconsistent. OEC is more consistent with both Science and the Bible I find

[bizzt]

If you can do that, I will modify my statement to "an overwhelming majority" instead of "all".

Too Kind

[FFC]

No not at all. AS I understand it the vast majority of OEs believe that. It seems necessary for that to be the case to make the view mesh with scripture. It seems that for OE to be even remotely Biblical that 99.99% of time would be pre man.

Would it be accurate ot say that many if not most OE basically believe in evolution, but that God caused it? In other words basically everything that Science says is true, but so are God and the Bible.

What is Science Falsely so called? IT must be something right? IT seems pretty clear that God says that people will claim things to be science, but that it will be false. Isn't that a pretty strong warning? Didn't God also say that he would send strong delusions, so that if it were possible even the very elect would no longer believe? What those are I am not sure, but there seems to be a falling toward the arms of science by much of the Christian community. Are not scientists among the wisest and most highly regarded people? Didn't God say he would basically fool the wisdom of the world? And lift up the simple?

I'm not trying top be accusatory, and I hope my tone in the response to canuckster wasn't hard, but I just wonder where this is all headed? God was once most important, and seems like he has been leveled with the interpretations and assumptions of man based upon what he has been able to observe. Why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that he is being supplanted by scientific interpretation, and will be relegated to a meaningless construct within science?

I however don't agree entirely of evolution. I find the Theory quite Lacking in evidence to say that animals or ourselves evolved from another Creature. However that being said it does not take away from what the Bible says. How do I know if Neanderthals are not big Apes? Killed out by the Adam and Eve (Spirit filled) Generation as witnessed in the fossil record. Of course that is ENTIRELY speculation.

God is most Important but we also try to use the Bible as our Base. Science gives us a better Idea of what God may have been saying. I just find it would be very dishonest of God to give us Stars, Galaxies, and ways to test these great and wonderous things and them come back and give us a "fooled you all, it really is only 10,000 years old "

I used to be YEC but I found it to be too inconsistent. OEC is more consistent with both Science and the Bible I find

Almost thou persuadest me to be a OECer.

[bizzt]

No not at all. AS I understand it the vast majority of OEs believe that. It seems necessary for that to be the case to make the view mesh with scripture. It seems that for OE to be even remotely Biblical that 99.99% of time would be pre man.

Would it be accurate ot say that many if not most OE basically believe in evolution, but that God caused it? In other words basically everything that Science says is true, but so are God and the Bible.

What is Science Falsely so called? IT must be something right? IT seems pretty clear that God says that people will claim things to be science, but that it will be false. Isn't that a pretty strong warning? Didn't God also say that he would send strong delusions, so that if it were possible even the very elect would no longer believe? What those are I am not sure, but there seems to be a falling toward the arms of science by much of the Christian community. Are not scientists among the wisest and most highly regarded people? Didn't God say he would basically fool the wisdom of the world? And lift up the simple?

I'm not trying top be accusatory, and I hope my tone in the response to canuckster wasn't hard, but I just wonder where this is all headed? God was once most important, and seems like he has been leveled with the interpretations and assumptions of man based upon what he has been able to observe. Why wouldn't the logical conclusion be that he is being supplanted by scientific interpretation, and will be relegated to a meaningless construct within science?

I however don't agree entirely of evolution. I find the Theory quite Lacking in evidence to say that animals or ourselves evolved from another Creature. However that being said it does not take away from what the Bible says. How do I know if Neanderthals are not big Apes? Killed out by the Adam and Eve (Spirit filled) Generation as witnessed in the fossil record. Of course that is ENTIRELY speculation.

God is most Important but we also try to use the Bible as our Base. Science gives us a better Idea of what God may have been saying. I just find it would be very dishonest of God to give us Stars, Galaxies, and ways to test these great and wonderous things and them come back and give us a "fooled you all, it really is only 10,000 years old "

I used to be YEC but I found it to be too inconsistent. OEC is more consistent with both Science and the Bible I find

Almost thou persuadest me to be a OECer.

I Try

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Hi Bgood. IT has been awhile. How are things?

I agree it would be the epitomy of hypocrisy to claim uniformity for myself when I reject it. I agree that it can't be a strait line extrapolation. I wasn't being literal with the questions, and shouldn't have worded them that way. Given 470,000 times longer for process to operate in an old earth than in a young earth, shouldn't we see some drastic differences in what should be predicted from each model?

Yes, and no.

Some processes tend to reach an equilibrium, they won't be drastically different in each model. Such as top soil and lava deposits.

Others will lead to huge differences given different time spans. Such as Erosion of mountains, and plate movement.

Lets take the Hawaiin Islands as an example. Their current rate of movement suggests that all the islands in the chain were a result of once being on the same tectonic hotspot responsible for the formation of the main island of Hawaii. This would suggest that there were periods of time when large earthquakes moved the entire crust thus leading to the creation through volcanic activity of the next island in the chain.

Careful analysis of each of the islands can give us rough estimates of the ages of each island. However a better measurement would be to measure the argon/argon isotopes within the volcanic rock from each island.

Not surprisingly, the dates of the islands get sequentially older as we move away from the hotspot.

What is the alternative explanation for the different argon/argon measurements from the various islands?

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

As for your second point, you can disprove it easily if you like. Give me the name of a scientist who believes in a young earth who does not base their belief upon a YEC interpretation of Genesis, or more to the point, who basis it solely upon scientific information.

If you can do that, I will modify my statement to "an overwhelming majority" instead of "all".

I do not need to disprove a Universal negative, because it is already wrong for you to be claiming to know the motivation and road to discovery and truth for all of the scientific community, so I will simply leave this point, and the previous one that I had misunderstood alone.

I would just point out that you yourself point to scripture as being one of the biggest convincing evidences for yourself in believing the earth to be old, but you point it out as a problem with YEs.

Also you are of the schoold that seems to claim all observations as only being useful for your own conclusions, and consistently appeal to majority to try to lend evidence to the claims you have made, but you really have been unable to demonstrate any of your points as being truth.

I realize that I may have done no better with many of my points, which is why I had asked what hypothetical measurable differences we could see in an old earth as opposed to a young one.

I have seen no convincing argument why scripture or science indicate the Earth to be old. I understand that you like to point to numerous conclusions and extrapolations as proofs; however I would suggest that there are alternative conclusions and assumptions to many theories.

There are always alternates.

I can point to many in the field of science who believe the earth is old based upon the evidence alone. It's not a question of "motivation." It is a matter of evidence and interpretation.

A YEC position relies upon Scripture. God is the source of nature as well. It is reasonable to believe that if the earth were young that evidenc e in nature would point to this as the same God who revealed scripture created the earth. If anyone can point to a scientist who believes the earth is young based solely upon natural evidence that would be a very reasonable request to make. The fact is the YEC position does not have any such peson or persons to point to, as to my knowledge there is none.

YEC and OEC both rely first on Scripture. In terms of physical evidence, there are no young earth proponents who base their position solely upon the evidence. That says something.

While I don't base my position upon the physical evidence first, I think it is reasonable to ask some very hard questions of the YEC hermenuetic in view of this.

There are plenty of "alternatives" offered. Just none that are convincing in and of themselves without starting with the conclusion of a Young Earth and then attempting to force round pegs into square holes afterwards.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone