Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:
I can accept what you are saying and respect it.

The question, however, is not what God is capable of doing. The question is what is consistent with his nature.

I do not believe God purposely designed nature to deceive us. In fact, while natural revelation is not sufficient to salvation, it is part of the premise that God established to show forth His power and His glory.

I do maintain some caveat in my own thinking to remember that God's nature and wisdom is greater than mine and that I do not have it all figured out.

However, the evidence of the age of the universe is such that I don't belive that question is in doubt. God is not a deceiver. I have wide open questions in the areas of evolution, which I believe are nowhere near as clear. Frankly, I think there are very many unanswered questions and room for mysteries in many areas related to this.

The simple age of the universe though, I am as close to settling in my mind as anything. God is not a deceiver.

You're right Canuckster. God is not a deceiver, but sometimes when we deem ourselves wise we deceive ourselves. Who says the universe is 15 billion years old? God? or us? Who says the the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? God? or us? Go back to my fish. How old will science say that fish is?
Or is this a deception by God? Not!
It's a miracle.

Tim S wrote:Who says the universe is 15 billion years old? God? or us? How old will science say that fish is? Or is this a deception by God? Not!

The universe appears to be 15 billion years old. For all practical purposes it is 15 billion years old. While it is true that the universe may have been created 15 minutes ago and designed to look old, there is no scientific utility or insight gained from such a model. Anyone is free to believe that but will not be able to scientifically show that it is true. The fish science would say to be about two thousand years old.

Never the less, he makes a good point. For all practicle reasons, the universe may appear 15 billion years old. But 3 fish and two loaves of bread appear to be three fish and two loaves of bread (or what ever it was). Yet there are seperate accounts of the fish being drastically multiplied.

However, this is what I meen when I ask can we observe the process of radiometric dating. Can we watch the process unfold. Watch one rock age to another? Literally see the changes in these elements? THis is not an argument, but a simple question, I want answered.

Also I am glad we are discussing the age of the universe.

I present the first natural occuring chronometer to show signs of a young earth.

The moon! Now some of you might have read some info on this before, but according to "Astronomer Dr Don DeYoung" 1.4 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the earth. That would have made for really interesting Physics wouldnt it. Of course, I have not heard the official counter explenation, but I do have the numbers.

since tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the recession rate (dR/dt) is inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance. So dR/dt = k/R6, where k is a constant = (present speed: 0.04 m/year) x (present distance: 384,400,000 m)6 = 1.29x1050 m7/year. Integrating this differential equation gives the time to move from Ri to Rf as t = 1/7k(Rf7 - Ri7). For Rf = the present distance and Ri = 0, i.e. the earth and moon touching, t = 1.37 x 109 years.

huh????????

This shows it clearly impossible for our earth to be 4.5 billion years.

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth's rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth's tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age — far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric 'dates' assigned to moon rocks) — not the actual age.

Now let's think about tim's statement for one moment. If there is a serious flaw between radiometric dating and the laws of physics, one or both must be wrong. However, I concluded that "If radiometric dating is correct, then the earth is very old." SO my statement is simply that if this moon thing is correct, then the earth is very young.

Either the laws of physics are wrong, or the science of radiometric dating is wrong.

References:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/moon.asp

Whitcomb, John C. and Donald B. DeYoung, The Moon, Its Creation, Form and Significance, BMH Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, p. 41.

Slichter, Louis B., "Secular Effects of Tidal Friction Upon the Earth's Rotation," Jour. Geoph. Res., 1964, Vol. 8, No. 14, pp. 4281-4288.

I would like to see a feasible reply, I myself found many arguments against many other "young earth" scientific statements, but not this.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:Literally see the changes in these elements?

No, you can not literally see the changes. But you can measure them with instruments (more reliable and accurate than the human eyeball) quite readily.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:This shows it clearly impossible for our earth to be 4.5 billion years.

Or else maybe there is an error somewhere? What about other evidence showing it is old?

tyler_demerhcant wrote:Now let's think about tim's statement for one moment. If there is a serious flaw between radiometric dating and the laws of physics, one or both must be wrong. However, I concluded that "If radiometric dating is correct, then the earth is very old." SO my statement is simply that if this moon thing is correct, then the earth is very young.

Either the laws of physics are wrong, or the science of radiometric dating is wrong.

Here's another idea. Let's think about it for more than just a moment. You have two lines of argument from which you arrive at opposing conclusions. Either the world does not operate logically and consistently or else someone has made a mistake. [How do you get to a conflict between the laws of physics and radiometric dating? Your conflict is between the result of applying the laws of physics to the earth moon system and the result of applying the laws of physics to radioactive decay.]Radiometric dating is a much simpler system than the earth moon system. Radioactive decay of elements is quite insensitive to environmental conditions; the earth moon orbital system is more complicated than presented.
You might want to look at this paper:
Title: Lunar orbital evolution: A synthesis of recent results
Author(s): Bills BG, Ray RD
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 26 (19): 3045-3048 OCT 1 1999
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 40 Times Cited: 7 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: The present rate of tidal dissipation in the Earth-Moon system is known to be anomalously high, in the sense that the implied age of the lunar orbit is only 1.5 x 10(9) years, though other evidence suggests an age closer to 4 x 10(9) years. To assess how long the anomalous dissipation has persisted, we use published estimates of lunar orbital configurations derived from (a) fine grained sediments containing tidal laminations and (b) numerical ocean models averaged over varying ocean geometries. The implied histories of the lunar semimajor axis are surprisingly consistent over the past 10(9) years. The ocean models imply, on average, reduced dissipation in the past because of a spatial mismatch between tidal forcing and oceanic normal modes of higher frequencies. Webb's ocean model suggests that the "anomalous" oceanic dissipation began about 10(9) years ago and has been increasing since then.
KeyWords Plus: EARTH-MOON SYSTEM; TIDAL RHYTHMITES; DISSIPATION; ROTATION; OCEAN; TIDES; DYNAMICS; ESTUARY; LAMINAE; HISTORY
Addresses: Bills BG (reprint author), Univ Calif San Diego, Scripps Inst Oceanog, Inst Geophys & Planetary Phys, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
Univ Calif San Diego, Scripps Inst Oceanog, Inst Geophys & Planetary Phys, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Ctr, Space Geodesy Branch, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
NASA, Goddard Space Flight Ctr, Geodynam Branch, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
Publisher: AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION, 2000 FLORIDA AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20009 USA
Subject Category: GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
IDS Number: 242UU
ISSN: 0094-8276

I am not stating that it is simple, nor exact. My conclusion is not comparing either method, but I am simply stating that both methods draw a conclusion to the age of the earth. One can not be correct or absolute without the other being wrong. The world can not be proven old and proven young. It is not possible.

My thesis I wrote for science class states that the truth is, the world must not exist!

But it does.

I am glad that you brought forth some information regarding a changing variable, such as ocean disapation, into the discussion.

This article is fairly techinicle though, I am not sure I understand the comparison.

If it is insinuating that the ocean levels have decreased, that would be correct. This would mean that the tidal pull is becoming less and less.

Because the distance per year becomes less and less every year, the obit transition is slowing down. In order for the earth-moon system to work with 4.5 billion years, it would have to have been going slow and then speeding up. But we know that it is not, so this means it would have to have spead up from it's original spead and then started slowing down again.

I am not understanding much of this, but sense you are arguing against this theory, I will counter this information.

Could I have the link affiliated with your argument?

Non-the-less, Neither of these Chronometers can be proven absolute correct. In fact, I will give you an example of wear radiometric dating fails to collaberate with layers of the earth.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:This article is fairly techinicle though, I am not sure I understand the comparison. ... In fact, I will give you an example of wear radiometric dating fails to collaberate with layers of the earth.

I sent you the article. The problem is that it is complex and technical. Most of these arguments are. The versions we non-scientists get to see are usually simplified. It is very difficult to verify the data or understand the arguments without a lot of training.

Never the less, this argument seems pretty week and I have not seen a viable argument presented to "young earth" converstional debates on this issue.

Also, this does not explain the process at all. The speed in which the moon is becoming further away is slower and slower. it would have to have been going slow, then some event would have to have made it's speed increase and then this claimed process would have to have slowed it down again.

There are many viable arguments for both beliefs. For every logical argument from either side of any discussion, there will always be counterarguments and then counterarguments to them. Niether position can ever be proven without absolute doubt.

That is why I have a conclusion.

WHO cares! lol

All I know is that God knows and when we get to heaven, one side will tell the other side "I told you so".

GOd bless all and consider this moon-earth system.

The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape within a 100 km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km (7,700 sq. miles) in area and up to 250 metres (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is chemically very similar to window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which forms prominent cliffs, such as at the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline.

Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation about its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its total thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive sandstone and relatively thin mudstone.1 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents, such as in a violent flood.4 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone beds (technically known as cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 metres (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge sandwaves (like sand dunes) swept along by raging water.

Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses (lenticular bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone.5 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils.

The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic 'age' of around 225—230 million years by most geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists.

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.

TECHNINCLE:

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225—230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX—23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C 'age' of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been '13C corrected' by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of —24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225—230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don't get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same 'age' as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria.

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

You are right, very much simpler science involved than the earth-moon system.....


COnclusion:

This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon 'age.' However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon 'age' emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary 'age' of 225—230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon 'age' for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory's calculated 14C 'age' (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.10

Correctly understood, this radiocarbon analysis is totally consistent with the biblical account of a young Earth and a recent global Flood, as recorded in Genesis by the Creator Himself.


Let's consider this before we decide that I am just another "young earth advocate" and that this information is false or that I am a liar. Science is supposed to accept inconsistantcy for the purpose of progressing our sciences.

REferences:

P.J. Conaghan, 'The Hawkesbury Sandstone: gross characteristics and depositional environment,' NSW Geological Survey Bulletin 26:188—253, 1980.

J.C. Standard, 'Hawkesbury Sandstone,' The Geology of New South Wales, G.H. Packham (ed.), Journal of the Geological Society of Australia 16(1):407—417, 1969.

C. Darwin, Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands, 1844. Reprinted in: On the Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs …, G.T. Bettany (ed.), Ward and Lock, London, pp. 155—265, 1890.

J. Woodford, 'Rock doctor catches up with our prehistoric surf,' The Sydney Morning Herald, April 30, 1994, p. 2.


A.A. Snelling, 'An exciting Australian fossil fish discovery,' Creation 10(3):32—36, 1988.

F.M. Gradstein and J. Ogg, 'A Phanerozoic time scale,' Episodes 19(1&2):3—5 and chart, 1996.

M.E. White, The Greening of Gondwana, Reed Books, Sydney, pp. 135—155, 1986. Return to text.

Answers in Genesis is indebted to Mr Stephen Vinicombe, then living in nearby Moss Vale, for this discovery, for sending the sample, and for information supplied in letters.

d13CPDB denotes the measured difference of the ratio 13C/12C (both stable isotopes) in the sample compared to the PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) standard—a fossil belemnite (a shellfish classified with octopuses and cuttlefish) in the Pee Dee Formation in the USA. The units used are parts per thousand, written as ‰ or per mil (compared with parts per hundred, written as % or per cent). Organic carbon from the different varieties of life gives different characteristic d13C values.

Stable 12C would not have been totally replaced in the biosphere after the Flood, whereas 14C would have been regenerated in the atmosphere (from cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen). So comparing today's 14C/12C with the 14C/12C in pre-Flood material would yield too high a calibration, resulting in 'ages' far too long.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX—23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.

Sorry this is a classic example of using a technique when it would be inapropriate to do so. Anything millions of years old will show a carbon date range between 40 and 50 thousand years old depending on the equipment used. Lab technicians and operators may be unaware of this due to the fact that most scientists would not send them this type of sample.

What one needs to consider is, are the results consistent with other dating techniques.

And

Is the technique one which is applicable in this case.

Obviously in the above example neither condition is met.

For an idea of how important correlative studies are for a finding to hold merit see here.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:You are right, very much simpler science involved than the earth-moon system.....

Ah, so you've finally read Kurieuo's references. I must say, I am looking forward to reading your book.

Tim S wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:
I can accept what you are saying and respect it.

The question, however, is not what God is capable of doing. The question is what is consistent with his nature.

I do not believe God purposely designed nature to deceive us. In fact, while natural revelation is not sufficient to salvation, it is part of the premise that God established to show forth His power and His glory.

I do maintain some caveat in my own thinking to remember that God's nature and wisdom is greater than mine and that I do not have it all figured out.

However, the evidence of the age of the universe is such that I don't belive that question is in doubt. God is not a deceiver. I have wide open questions in the areas of evolution, which I believe are nowhere near as clear. Frankly, I think there are very many unanswered questions and room for mysteries in many areas related to this.

The simple age of the universe though, I am as close to settling in my mind as anything. God is not a deceiver.

You're right Canuckster. God is not a deceiver, but sometimes when we deem ourselves wise we deceive ourselves. Who says the universe is 15 billion years old? God? or us? Who says the the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? God? or us? Go back to my fish. How old will science say that fish is?
Or is this a deception by God? Not!
It's a miracle.

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

Thanks for the reference Canuckster. There's a lot of good science there. as I had mentioned, I am open to both sides on this.

And here's why!

1Corinthians1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God, the world through it's wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."


Okay. I believe what we are being told here is that God has purposed that we will not be able to prove his existence through our own devices (i.e.- science, archeology, etc). If God created us, the earth and the universe in 6 days and we deem it as appearing much older, that does not make God a deceiver. It is "our wisdom" that that says "old earth".
If the earth and everything was created in 6 days, God does not want us to discern that except by His Word.

All the indicators in the thread that you provided testify to God's power, but not necessarily to the length of time it took for Him to bring things about. Good science will testify to God's power and His Glory, but will not prove His existence.

Young earth creationism, however, is not science, IMHP. The Word is sufficient, and does not need the help of any science.

Tim S wrote:Thanks for the reference Canuckster. There's a lot of good science there. as I had mentioned, I am open to both sides on this.

And here's why!

1Corinthians1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God, the world through it's wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."


Okay. I believe what we are being told here is that God has purposed that we will not be able to prove his existence through our own devices (i.e.- science, archeology, etc). If God created us, the earth and the universe in 6 days and we deem it as appearing much older, that does not make God a deceiver. It is "our wisdom" that that says "old earth".
If the earth and everything was created in 6 days, God does not want us to discern that except by His Word.

All the indicators in the thread that you provided testify to God's power, but not necessarily to the length of time it took for Him to bring things about. Good science will testify to God's power and His Glory, but will not prove His existence.

Young earth creationism, however, is not science, IMHP. The Word is sufficient, and does not need the help of any science.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're right. YEC is not good science.

In my opinion it is also bad hermeneutics and contrary to the Word of God.

The onus is upon you to show that it is what the Word says.

Your use of Scripture in this instance by your defense can be used arbitrarily to defend anything you happen to pull out of your hat and by the use (or misuse) of that Scripture you can attempt to defend anything, even heresy ,and then circularly come back to your claim of equating your belief as the equivilent of the Word itself.

The issue is what does the Word say, not what do you believe it says. Are you able to provide a defense that proves your position Scripturally?

Further, can you explain why God would willfully seek to make creation in a manner that would make creation itself contradict His Word?

That is not consistent with my understanding of God.

But, as you're the one making the claim. It's up to you to provide proof.

Tim S wrote:When Jesus fed the four thousand, there appeared loaves of bread and fishes that were not there for more than a minute, but I would imagine that they had every appearance of being normal loaves and fishes. If you were to analyze one of those fishes with modern testing methods, what do you think you would conclude about the age of that fish?

How should they appear? What would you propose?

Your analogy is flawed, in that the time frame you are speaking of here is a matter of hours or at most days in terms on the state that the fish is in. Further, the purpose of the creation or multiplication had a context of necessity for an immediate need. God had no such necessity in creation, dictating his actions.

In order to claim such an analogy for creation you are claiming the appearance of Billions of years against a presupposed reality of thousands of years. This would be the equivilent of Jesus giving fossilized fish to the crowd.

Miracle's happen. By definition they are an exception or intervention.

Drawing inference from that to suspend belief in the Natural laws that God Himself has established and put in place is circular reasoning, counter-productive and creates the impression of a capricious and deceptive God, that frankly, does not square with how I believe God has revealed Himself to us, both in Nature AND in the Word.