Evidence for God from Science

Can you think of a scientist or an example of how science independent of an assumption of a Young Earth based on interpreting Gen 1 & 2 (or possibly even other faith's scriptures) would conclude that the earth is less that 100,000 years old (which is the outside limit of most YEC proponents.)

I can. Take mars for example. Science claims there were rapid, sudden floods that released massive amounts of water. So, on Mars, rapid floods produce things like the grand canyon. On, earth, the grand canyon took millions of years.

Of course Mars lacks any substantial H2O to speak of. Which kind of throws a monkey wrench in those who would argue that Noah's flood isn't possible because there wasn't enough water to cover the earth. tsk tsk

jlay wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Can you think of a scientist or an example of how science independent of an assumption of a Young Earth based on interpreting Gen 1 & 2 (or possibly even other faith's scriptures) would conclude that the earth is less that 100,000 years old (which is the outside limit of most YEC proponents.)

I can. Take mars for example. Science claims there were rapid, sudden floods that released massive amounts of water. So, on Mars, rapid floods produce things like the grand canyon. On, earth, the grand canyon took millions of years.

Of course Mars lacks any substantial H2O to speak of. Which kind of throws a monkey wrench in those who would argue that Noah's flood isn't possible because there wasn't enough water to cover the earth. tsk tsk

OK. You're not giving the name of a scientist so I assume giving me an example of something that would lead to the conclusion that the earth is under 100,000 years old is what you're suggesting here.

Help me out here, please. I'm not understanding your point. You're attempting to say that an examination of purely scientific evidence would conclude an age on the earth of less than 100,000 years based upon an appeal to science in general concluding that physical features on Mars (not the earth) were accomplished in a short period of time (a source for this would be nice) and an appeal to Noah's flood (which is a presumption based upon a particular reading of the Bible) and these two factors taken together would lead to a purely scientific conclusion of the earth being under 100,000 years without that opinion being adopted first on the basis of one's particular interpretation of the Bible?

It appears to me that your argument appeals directly to the Bible and that it assumes that (assuming for the sake of argument) that your claim that this took place on Mars is a valid basis to conclude that it took place on earth in the same way.

So, in other words, the earth is under 100,000 years old because canyons are believed to have formed on Mars similar (actually greater) in size within that period of time and the YEC interpretation of the Bible being a World-Wide flood would allow for this to happen on earth as well.

Is this what you're claiming to say?

If so, then:

1. Assuming your claim is right with regard to Mars, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that Mars (and the earth as well) would be under 100,000 years old. The formation of a geological feature in under 100,000 years is independent of the age of the earth. However, conversely, if it were a primary argument that the earth must be over 100,000 years old because of a geographical feature taking that long, then all you've accomplished would be the refutation of one particular claim and that in and of itself has nothing to do with proving your counter-claim.

2. The appeal to Noah's flood presumes something by which you interpret the evidence you're offering (which is what is really unclear to me) and clearly doesn't meet my request to indicate something based upon the evidence itself.

I could go on but I think that's enough to start with.

blessings,

bart

I guess I'm kind of curious; why is the burden of proof on Bible believing Christians to prove that the earth is young when it's never been proven to be old?

There are good reasons to believe that the worldwide flood the Bible talks about was indeed worldwide (Grand Canyon, Fossil grave yards, etc.). It sounds to me like special pleading because all of the methods that supposedly "prove" that the earth is old are tall tale pseudoscience and all are unrepeatable and unverifiable based on the nature of the subject matter.

So why should we have such a highly detailed explanation when all the science of Old Earth Geology is Ad Hoc story telling with nothing but a popularity contest to back it up. It's kind of like this; why should we replace a plain reading of a Bible that's never been proven wrong with a perfectly dumb theory that's never been proven right?

Adam_777 wrote:I guess I'm kind of curious; why is the burden of proof on Bible believing Christians to prove that the earth is young when it's never been proven to be old?

There are good reasons to believe that the worldwide flood the Bible talks about was indeed worldwide (Grand Canyon, Fossil grave yards, etc.). It sounds to me like special pleading because all of the methods that supposedly "prove" that the earth is old are tall tale pseudoscience and all are unrepeatable and unverifiable based on the nature of the subject matter.

So why should we have such a highly detailed explanation when all the science of Old Earth Geology is Ad Hoc story telling with nothing but a popularity contest to back it up. It's kind of like this; why should we replace a plain reading of a Bible that's never been proven wrong with a perfectly dumb theory that's never been proven right?

The burden if proof is on both sides in the YEC/OEC position to demonstrate their claims.

Both positions are primarily based in scripture and science is corallary.

As an OEC proponent, I certainly don't shy away from the examination of science and scientific data. To claim that science doesn't "prove" the old age of the earth and universe is a statement that boggles the mind but for the moment, let's accept it at face value and then counter with the question, if science isn't reliable in such a simple matter as determining the age of the universe through the extrapolation of established constants such as the speed of light, red-shifting, geological measurement etc. Then why on the one hand would you appeal to scientific sounding proofs as YEC proponents do and then on the other completely deny it's reliability?

That sounds remarkably like an argument of convenience.

Not all YEC proponents take those type of extreme positions, but those who do, convince me that attempting to discuss Science with that subset of YEC believers is like discussing the latest technology with the Amish.

blessings,

bart

Actually I meant to link a National Geo article.

Google it man. There are plenty of evidences that could demonstrate a younger earth. The evidence is evidence. It is often the predipositions of the persons analyzing the evidence that lead to outcomes. Tell me, how many scientists are predisposed to an old earth theory, before they ever analyze any evidence? This is the same reason I get frustrated with YEC who proclaim a specific 6,000 year old earth.

I could easily use a recent experience my eight year old had with the public school system. Talking about dino fossils they sent home this cartoonish pamphlet that said the fossils took millions of years to form. Now there was not actually any science in the thing at all. But it is establishing a foundation of an old earth view, without actually backing it up. Some might say brainwashing. I know the old earth folks would say, "well that's because it is a fact."

Why is it 70 million years old?
"because the geology says so."
Oh. Then why is the geology saying 70 million years?
"Because the fossils date it to that time."

So, in other words, the earth is under 100,000 years old because canyons are believed to have formed on Mars similar (actually greater) in size within that period of time and the YEC interpretation of the Bible being a World-Wide flood would allow for this to happen on earth as well.

In this case I think you are reading into my answer what you want to think I think.
It simply demonstrates that the belief that the Grand Canyon took millions or hundreds of thousands of years to form, is not a scientific conclusion. Especially in light of the fact that those in the scienctific arena are proclaiming rapid catostrophic floods producing results similar to the GC on mars, a planet with virtually no water.

The appeal to Noah's flood presumes something by which you interpret the evidence you're offering

This is one of those cloaked statements, that backhandedly says, "oh, you brought up the flood, therefore I can discount that anything you might have included has one iota of scienctific truth in in."

jlay wrote:Actually I meant to link a National Geo article.

OK. You still can. Why haven't you? I have no idea what article you're referring to or what you intended. It's not my job to read your mind or google your sources.

Google it man. There are plenty of evidences that could demonstrate a younger earth. The evidence is evidence. It is often the predipositions of the persons analyzing the evidence that lead to outcomes. Tell me, how many scientists are predisposed to an old earth theory, before they ever analyze any evidence? This is the same reason I get frustrated with YEC who proclaim a specific 6,000 year old earth.

Predisposition can influence interpretation, no doubt. The question I raised, was if it's simply a matter of the evidence, why are there no scientists who conclude a young earth without beginning with their YEC interpretation of the scriptures? That's still not answered.

I could easily use a recent experience my eight year old had with the public school system. Talking about dino fossils they sent home this cartoonish pamphlet that said the fossils took millions of years to form. Now there was not actually any science in the thing at all. But it is establishing a foundation of an old earth view, without actually backing it up. Some might say brainwashing. I know the old earth folks would say, "well that's because it is a fact."

I would say because the evidence overwhelmingly from several disciplines in science, indicates the earth is old which is what would be expected if the old earth hermeneutic of Genesis is correct.

So, in other words, the earth is under 100,000 years old because canyons are believed to have formed on Mars similar (actually greater) in size within that period of time and the YEC interpretation of the Bible being a World-Wide flood would allow for this to happen on earth as well.

I asked you several times in the material surrounding the quote you've listed what you meant and then when on to address a response based on what I think you meant. You're free to correct what you're saying if you want to discuss the issue, or you can just claim I don't understand and not clarify.

In this case I think you are reading into my answer what you want to think I think.
It simply demonstrates that the belief that the Grand Canyon took millions or hundreds of thousands of years to form, is not a scientific conclusion. Especially in light of the fact that those in the scienctific arena are proclaiming rapid catostrophic floods producing results similar to the GC on mars, a planet with virtually no water.

It does nothing of the sort. It simply means you've created an analogy, without a source and on the basis of that analogy with something you claim with regards to Mars, that that means the information based on the data from earth is not reliable.

This is a category error in logic.

The appeal to Noah's flood presumes something by which you interpret the evidence you're offering

This is one of those cloaked statements, that backhandedly says, "oh, you brought up the flood, therefore I can discount that anything you might have included has one iota of scienctific truth in in."[/quote]

I don't have a problem with bringing up the flood. I believe it was a local flood and that the YEC interpretation of it as a global flood is unsound both hermeneutically and further that the evidence offered for a global flood from YEC science is unsound scientfically as well.

You have yet to offer one iota of scientific proof or truth yet, so let's agree that I'll keep an open mind for when you might get around to that.

blessings,

bart

jlay wrote:This is one of those cloaked statements, that backhandedly says, "oh, you brought up the flood, therefore I can discount that anything you might have included has one iota of scienctific truth in in."

I like to call this motive mongering.

Local flood.

That makes no sense.
If the flood was local, why would God have Noah build a boat and then put animals on it, including birds when he could have simply sent them to higher ground? It totally undermines any credibility to trusting in the Bible at all. If Genesis is wrong, then death did not enter the world with sin as the Bible states. There was no fall. Death had been going on for billions of years. Man wasn't a purposeful desinged product of God's hands, but a random accident of nature. Sin isn't sin, but just the results of millions of years of evolution. So, then Jesus was wrong, Paul was wrong, and the cross was wrong.

Why are their whale bones, dated at less than 10k years old, 150s away from the nearest ocean?

http://www.uvm.edu/whale/Introduction.html
Funny, that they can theorize meteors blowing whales hundreds of miles (leaving skeletons intact) but a catostrophic flood is NEVER considered. Never.

The question I raised, was if it's simply a matter of the evidence, why are there no scientists who conclude a young earth without beginning with their YEC interpretation of the scriptures?

So, you know that to be true? Not very scientific.
A better question is why do many billions of years folks totally discount God all together? You actually can go into the scriptures and see that it addresses people beleiving a lie to conceal the truth. It's pretty evident that old earth theories are held dear by atheist. Whoops, I mentioned the bible.

You have yet to offer one iota of scientific proof or truth yet,

You mean testable and observable? If you want to research the Mars canyons, it is not my theory, but secular science, which stated they were formed rapidly. Maybe scienctist should go back in time, fly to Mars, make tests and observations before they comment on canyons on Mars.

The analogy is a simple step in logical thinking. If Mars canyons can be theorized scientifically to form rapidly from catostrophic floodings, then why can't Earth's? Seems like a perfectly fair question.

jlay,

I agree with everything you just said. Any Christian should pause when they find themselves in agreement with atheists, on metaphysical and philosophical issues and their common adversary is fellow Christians.

There are many Christians who receive, innocently and ignorantly an old earth view. Many leaders like William Lane Craig or John Lennox will shy away from the subject due to an admitted lack of knowledge even though they're okay with the old earth view. Those who defend it like Hugh Ross are a little suspect to me. He seems too proud to reconsider his position in spite of the mounting evidence that all the ad hoc explanations for an old earth are just that... ad hoc... and derived from strong assumptions not strong evidence.

Here is a great debate that has the heavy hitters in one place duking it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_tqEEQwcs

This is just the first of numerous sections. Ken Ham does a great job even though John Ankerburg in his disposition sides with the Old Earthers. John Ankerburg's main appeal isn't to the evidence but his main attempt is to minimize the importance of the issue. However, any Christian who can't see the logical problems that jlay rightly pointed out above is not wanting to see them or the importance of this issue.

Adam

http://www.uvm.edu/whale/Introduction.html

The answer is found in your own link if you followed further what onto subsequent pages.

http://www.uvm.edu/whale/HowDidAWhaleGetInVermont.html

Argue with your own reference.

So, you know that to be true? Not very scientific.
A better question is why do many billions of years folks totally discount God all together? You actually can go into the scriptures and see that it addresses people beleiving a lie to conceal the truth. It's pretty evident that old earth theories are held dear by atheist. Whoops, I mentioned the bible.

The refutation is open for you to make. Name anyone whom on the basis of scientific evidence alone, believes the earth to be young.

Thanks for demonstrating the next step in your argument, that OEC's are in league with Atheists. It's in keeping with the validity and strength of your other arguments.

I agree with everything you just said. Any Christian should pause when they find themselves in agreement with atheists, on metaphysical and philosophical issues and their common adversary is fellow Christians.

The age of the earth isn't a metaphysical or philosophical issue. By this same definition, YEC's should pause when they find themselves in disagreement with fellow Christians, yet that standard isn't applied both ways. Atheists say the sky is blue. I happen to agree with them on that. Atheists believe the earth is old, I happen to agree with an atheist who would say that on the basis of the evidence, but that doesn't mean that on that basis I reject the Bible or that I accept the philosophy of materialism.

Science is not the exclusive realm of Atheists or non-believers. The majority of Christians in scientific fields believe in an old earth on the basis of the scientific evidence. Science as a corallary demonstrates that the OEC position, which is also a literal rendering of Genesis is not only plausible hermeneutically but also most likely true on the basis of the evidence from the creation itself.

Sadly, there is a sector within the YEC camp that approached cult status in my experience, observation and opinion with confusing their hermeneutical construct within Genesis with the Bible itself and sadly, many within the scientific community have equated this faction with Christianity itself, and it then becomes a hinderance to the gospel itself.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The age of the earth isn't a metaphysical or philosophical issue.

Oh yes it is. It may be passed off as science but any careful scrutiny on your part will reveal that it's an 18th and 19th century pseudoscience that tries to establish philosophical naturalism as superior to the Word of God.

Remember what jlay said about rock/fossil dating?

The fossil date the rocks
The rocks date the fossils

Anyone who doesn't challenge that circular reasoning has an agenda or a lack of understanding.

Again, there is nothing to be tested and demonstrated. The question relies on asking the observer what presuppositions are you going to superimpose onto the observations.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The age of the earth isn't a metaphysical or philosophical issue. By this same definition, YEC's should pause when they find themselves in disagreement with fellow Christians, yet that standard isn't applied both ways.

We do. That's why this issue is important to discuss openly and with candor. Here is the difference. Who has the heathen encouraging them? I cringe when Eugenie Scott, a vociferous atheist, brags about the Christians that have fallen prey to the propaganda of old earth/evolution thinking.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Atheists say the sky is blue. I happen to agree with them on that. Atheists believe the earth is old, I happen to agree with an atheist who would say that on the basis of the evidence, but that doesn't mean that on that basis I reject the Bible or that I accept the philosophy of materialism.

In this case you are accepting materialism. That's the bottom line. Hugh Ross is a classic example of someone who limits what God could have done based on his own materialistic presuppositions. I hope you watch that debate. It's really interesting.

Adam

Here is a great article:

http://www.creationworldview.org/articl ... .asp?id=42

Glacial rebound. Yes I read, years ago. Who observed this rebound?

I always wondered how anything can swim over a glacier large enough to depress a land mass. Maybe this is one of those whales with feet, and it walked over the glacier, and its feet disappeared.

Too bad you don't hold this alleged answer to the same proof you want to hold me to.

Nice attempt to avoid the theolocigcal holes you've created though.

jlay wrote:Glacial rebound. Yes I read, years ago. Who observed this rebound?

I always wondered how anything can swim over a glacier large enough to depress a land mass. Maybe this is one of those whales with feet, and it walked over the glacier, and its feet disappeared.

Too bad you don't hold this alleged answer to the same proof you want to hold me to.

Nice attempt to avoid the theolocigcal holes you've created though.

You're arguing with the source you provided, not with me. Perhaps you should be more selective of the sources you select.