Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: 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.

Not real sure what to make of this conclusion. Seems to me that the huge difference in erosion of mountains, and plate movements between the two models would lead to measurable differences in lava deposits and topsoil depths.

No, lava deposits will erode, they cannot accumulate because exposed deposits would erode away. Don't you think? If you don't beleive me click here. But I am sure you'll admit that even mighty lava flows can and do erode.
=)

Plate movements will remove old crustal material as can now be seen in the marinara trench. Topsoil does not accumulate indefinately as climate and erosion levels change. As mountains become eroded don't you think the amount of erosion will decrease? Think about it.

And as the land levels out erosion of the plains will occur creating rivers etc. Think Mississipi. Try it out in a sand box. Build a little hill, and blow a fan on it, does the erosion occur at a constant rate? Once the mountain erodes away where does the additional topsoil come from? It could be a nice science project for an elementary school kid, showing that erosion does not occur at a constant rate. It seem elementary, even though in reality it is much much more complex than this, the basic principle remains. You keep saying that things don't occur at constant rates yet you keep using constant rates to try to disprove the other side, strange indeed. Posing obviously flawed scenarios does not address the argument in any acceptable manor.

Jbuza wrote:Perhaps there would be a difference apparent in the crust of the earth indicating whether there truly has been 4,000,000,000 years of trees growing

You really think trees grow continuously in one area for 4 billion years. And how come angiosperms don't occur until the Cretaceous. Did the flood cause oaks and other flowering trees to only be buried with certain animals? What kind of flood was this? Are you really thinking this through? The sahara desert was not always a desert, it was once a tropical jungle. Why are you making rediculous assumptions? Climates change, think ice ages, or do you have an alternate explanation for mammoths frozen in ice and dinosaurs in the frozen antarctic?

Jbuza wrote: -or whatever timeframe the current cumbersome theory of evolution/Old Earth would suggest - or if there has been 10,000 years of vegetative growth. The same is true of number of bones and graves. Evolution and Old Earth Theory are some nebulous mass with no empirical support.

No empirical support? Are you really examining the evidence? Here's a simple example. Lets take Lake Suigetsu as an example. Every spring single celled algae bloom in the lake and settle down creating a thin white layer. The rest of the year sediments are dark. This results in black and white bands of sediment. Each layer of algae deposits is relatively alike in thinkness measuring 1.2 mm each. 45,000 paired layers have been counted. What is your explanation?

Jbuza wrote:

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.

I think it is likely the data suggests this is so. I would likely refine it to say that, The chain of islands indicate they have been formed by the same process and suggest movement of the chain during the formation process. I would usggest that the chain could have been moving and formed more rapidly in the past than at present.

Why? What's your scientific explanation for this. Please go into detail. Suggestions are not scientific, it seems like wishful thinking.

Jbuza wrote:Mostly because it is reasonable as not considering there is no support for unifomrity of process based upon rates we see today.

No one claimed uniformity there had to be shifts in order for there to be separate islands. If what you say is true shouldn't the older islands show more similar signs of erosion than recent ones? For instance if island A and island B formed closer to each other timewise than Molokai/Maui and Hawaii shouldn't A and B show similar levels of erosion? Or did erosion occur faster too? So A formed and eroded rapidly than B formed and eroded less rapidly and now Maui is eroding at a relative snails pace? What mechanism caused this, what explanation do you have or are you trying to fit the evidence to your preconceptions? Just so stories just don't cut it in science.

Jbuza wrote:

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.

There is nothing demonstrated here, but I realize that your geological theory would closely match that narrative.

Then explain the argon/argon readings.

Jbuza wrote:

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

I have not seen this clearly demonstrated;

See here

Jbuza wrote:I would propose that the volcanic processes that took and take place forming the island chain have a different profile of constituents including entrained argon during any eruption.

Under what mechanism? Why would argon levels change, what caused this? Nobody wants your proposal! We need data supporting your proposal.

Jbuza wrote:I would also suggest that the unproven repetition of the claim that the Islands are very old is far more convincing than any concrete proof that you can provide. Especially since it has been consistently claimed within the scientific community for 200 years. As far as I am concerned it has tainted interpretations to the exclusion of other reasonable and often more simple explanations.

The data is there, what is your explanation? And saying things were different in the past just misses the mark. I need an explanation for why things were different. Otherwise it's just a story, don't you think? What is your more simple explanation, and please include the supporting data.

Jbuza wrote:ya ya you said all of that. Do you have anything to demonstrate about the earth being old, or specific things that indicate the added billions of years.

I think you may be asking how someone can believe that God created the world and that the apparent age the historical document of the Bible indicates is so can believe that without believing that God created the world and that the apparent age the historical document of the Bible indicates is so, but base that belief solely on interpretations of people that hold a different view.

You are not really asking if I can provide an example of a person that can prove their case based upon science and observations, you I think want someone to prove their point based upon the assumptions and interpretations of Old Earth Theory.

You are asking me to talk about a void. You have provided nothing of substance.

I'm glad that you put another appeal to majority in there, and continue to speak for every scientists personal path of discovery.

Jbuza,

There's a whole list of evidences which you were given a link which provides the scientific data. You've provided none yourself.

Do you dispute that an overwhelming majority of those in the field of science accept an old earth based upon the evidence. 95% may actually be low.

All I've asked you to do is to give me the name of one scientist who believes in a young earth who does not first start with their interpretation of Genesis. It's a pretty simple request. Are there any young earth scientists who come to that conclusion based upon the physical evidence alone?

You seemed to applaud when I challenged Bgood's statement that any who supported ID were not scientists. How did I do that? Did I name a name?

Respectfully, Bgood admitted his overstatement and I respect him for it. It would be ridiculous for me to gloat over that, as he has rightly corrected me multiple times. That's part of the purpose of this board. We're here to learn and challenge one another to grow in knowledge and wisdom.

You have the same opportunity. Just do a little research and name a name. A link to some source material would seal it.

I suspect you can't because to my knowledge there isn't one out there. If there is, I'll be glad to be corrected and I'll modify the claim moving forward.

The bottom line is that YEC is not a scientific position. I can't be. That doesn't make it wrong or right by itself. I also happen to believe that it is not a proper interpretation of the Scriptures. The fact that the creation itself contradicts it, is pretty strong evidence that needs to be considered.

Why not be clear about that and simply state, "I believe the Bible teaches the earth is young. Here are my reasons. Nothing you say or show me scientifically is going to change my mind because my faith in this regard is not based in science at all."

I can respect that position.

What bothers me in general (and I'm speaking generally here, not just to you, so please don't take offense) is when YEC proponents claim their position is not just Biblical, but also scientific, and then they throw out a whole litany of "scientific arguments" that they have cut and pasted from sites, (some credible, some not) and they just keep presenting them. There is no real discussion with those who provide evidence refuting one argument or the other. It really doesn't matter to them. They aren't there to learn or discuss. They're there to make statements and toss a laundry list of material at people.

There's little willingness to interact, learn, grow, modify where necessary, admit when they're wrong etc.

There are some exceptions and I'm glad for those like that. I respect them, while disagreeing with them.

I also see the damage occuring to the witness and testimony of the Church from the former group and it is small wonder, and very sad to me that there are many non-Christians who frankly have little or no inclination to listen to the most important claims and teachings of the Scripture, because they already "know" what to expect based upon their interaction with Christians who conduct themselves in this manner on the issue of the age of the earth.

I'm not advocating compromise to make the gospel more palatable. I am advocating some intellectual and spiritual humility however to admit that maybe, just maybe, a YEC position is not the equivilent of Scripture itself and there's some room for some honest dialogue and learning.

Sermon over.

Bart

gone

Jbuza wrote:Sorry I have little desire to hunt up scientists for you, or to research there personal history of thought.

I think you continually confuse hypothetical interpretations and science, and you continue to appeal to majority. You have demonstrated very little. I have also demonstrated very little. Up to this point it appears we have done very little except clash about differeing suppostitions.

I can offer no conclusive or convincing evidence for the age of the earth either old or young. I could begin to talk about conclusions and extrapolations, or post long lists of empty claims, that we could argu about, but I have seen a huge lack of convincing demonstration of anything in much of science and find it to be increasingly narrative in support of presuppositions.

I am convinced however that observations especailly with respect to geology and archeology would be vastly different in the two models.

Well, as the course is pretty easy for you to demonstrate the error of my claim and you choose not to take up what relatively is a pretty simple challenge, I hope you'll understand if I presume that there is no such young earth scientist on the basis of the evidence. If anyone else wants to prove me wrong, feel free and I'll thank you for it should you present me with the name and documentation.

A majority is not conclusive. It is indicative, however and gives rise to the question, particularly when it is a super-majority and based upon scientific evidence.

Claiming there is no evidence either way, in my opinion, simply serves as a convenient retreat.

It is true however, that a young earth position requires the suspension of uniformitarian rules of nature. In view of that necessity, it would make sense to simply discard science altogether. While I think that is not a particularly convincing argument or method, it is consistent and I respect that more than attempting to make science demonstrate a young earth, which frankly, it just doesn't.

What evidence, for either a young or old earth would you find convincing if it were to exist?

This is what I came up with for Scientists.

For Discussion
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v1 ... eation.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4387news10-5-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... parker.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... phreys.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... batten.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hpoole.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/creatio ... th-ae.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/creatio ... ry-rv.html

bizzt wrote:This is what I came up with for Scientists.

For Discussion
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v1 ... eation.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4387news10-5-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... parker.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... phreys.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... batten.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hpoole.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/creatio ... th-ae.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/creatio ... ry-rv.html

Thanks Bizzt,

I know there are young earth creationists who are also scientists.

My question is, if there is a scientist who believes in a young earth based upon scientific evidence who doesn't first start with their interpretation of Genesis?

I believe all those referenced above would not meet that requirement. If I missed it, please point it out to me.

I'm not trying to set-up a strawman.

It's a pretty narrow scope and maybe not reasonable to expect that even if such a person or persons existed that they would go public with their beliefs in this regard.

I believe it is a reasonable question however.

If Young Earth Creationism asserts that creation itself gives evidence of their interpretation of Genesis in this regard, then it would seem reasonable to me that someone starting with natural scientific evidence could be expected to come to the same or a similar conclusion based only upon that evidence.

You would think there would be at least a few, wouldn't you? Even if they were a minority?

I know there were many from the past prior to the measurements and data available now.

That's what I'm driving at.

Bart

Well there goes my Links

Hi Bart,

Do you think it is possible for a scientist to be neutral in respect of worldview?

I get where you are going with your question, but ultimately all scientists look at the same data, it's just that they arrive at different conclusions. Those conclusions are necessarily based on their worldviews (ref the move from modernism to post-modernism).

Elsewhere there is a discussion about whether evolution is an atheistic belief or not. The question you ask can be similarly applied there, do atheistic evolutionists become atheists before they study evolution, or do they apply their atheist worldview to arrive at the scientific conclusions they induce from the observations? According to Dilthey and Nietsche, the second is the case. One necessarily has a worldview which one applies to all aspects of life, even in the case of scientific investigation.

The same would then hold true for OEC vs YEC, it is based on a specific worldview, and the conclusions reached to support or deny the positions will follow from that. I therefore think that while your question is valid, the answer is that there are no scientists who hold any position that is not somewhat predetermined.

Please note, I am not saying that worldviews cannot change, but that does not happen empirically.

August wrote:Hi Bart,

Do you think it is possible for a scientist to be neutral in respect of worldview?

I get where you are going with your question, but ultimately all scientists look at the same data, it's just that they arrive at different conclusions. Those conclusions are necessarily based on their worldviews (ref the move from modernism to post-modernism).

Elsewhere there is a discussion about whether evolution is an atheistic belief or not. The question you ask can be similarly applied there, do atheistic evolutionists become atheists before they study evolution, or do they apply their atheist worldview to arrive at the scientific conclusions they induce from the observations? According to Dilthey and Nietsche, the second is the case. One necessarily has a worldview which one applies to all aspects of life, even in the case of scientific investigation.

The same would then hold true for OEC vs YEC, it is based on a specific worldview, and the conclusions reached to support or deny the positions will follow from that. I therefore think that while your question is valid, the answer is that there are no scientists who hold any position that is not somewhat predetermined.

Please note, I am not saying that worldviews cannot change, but that does not happen empirically.

Hey August,

I don't think it is possible for anyone to be neutral in terms of worldview. We all have one and we all tend to interpret things by it to varying degrees.

I do think however, that it is possible to limit the impact of that worldview in terms of objective questions where you establish objective means of confirming the validity of something. I think that is what the scientific method is all about.

I think it is pretty clear by observation across many different disciplines that the earth and universe is older than 10,000 years.

I think it is telling that this is a conclusion arrived at by an overwhelming majority of scientists regardless of their particular worldviews.

I based my Old Earth belief ultimately upon the Scriptures as I believe it is there. That being said, I believe creation should bear out the truth of that belief and hermenuetic.

As it appears to me that is does, that reinforces my Scriptural belief.

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote: I do think however, that it is possible to limit the impact of that worldview in terms of objective questions where you establish objective means of confirming the validity of something. I think that is what the scientific method is all about.

That is the whole issue, isn't it?

You would be right, if this was 400 years ago.

The development of the scientific method was due mainly to the work of Francis Bacon, who first defined the scientific method. The underlying philosophy was that scientists were to suspend any knowledge of purpose or final causes, and draw conclusions by inferring from observations (induction). Bacon's purpose was to set his proposal against the more dominant study of built-in purpose and final causes promoted by Aristotle. Descarte proposed the 'rational' method through deduction, still contrasted to the Baconian method. The Baconian method is how we are sometimes lead to believe that science still functions today. However, there has been a lot of development since then.

The rise of enlightenment in the form of the enlightenment project followed, designed to, in the words of Voltaire, Diderot and d'Alembert, "lead mankind out of bondage to religion", and to "demolish prejudices" (as Christianity was called). This was where we first saw the strong entrance of atheists into the picture, and the first statements on how science was in opposition to religion. (Kind of ironic, since Bacon was a committed Christian). de Condoceret, a leading atheist of the time praised the contributors to the enlightenment project, including:"...and the abasement of reason before the transports of supernatural religion disappeared from society." We can see clear parallels to that still today, where anyone who dares criticize evolution is accused of suspending reason and employing primitive superstitions. This was further confirmed by Draper, who said that science and religion were "two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on the one side, and the compression arising from traditional faith and human interests on the other." The warfare model was further strengthened by Darwin and his theory of evolution.

There is still a lot of history here that I'm going to skip over through the time of Newton, Boyle and Laplace that describes the growth of the mechanistic universe originally proposed by Descarte and his method of deduction, and the birth of the concept of God as an indirect rather than direct cause. (Today this view is reflected in the theistic evolution perspective, for example)

Thomas Kuhn supported the growth of post-modernism, by characterizing science as a process of revolutions not unlike the Christian notion of conversion. This was preceded by some interesting problems for those who promoted the notion of "knowing" through the scientific method. This includes the radical skepticism of David Hume, following Kant, who questioned the relationship between human senses and the essence of objects. Hume also questioned the cause/effect relationship, correctly pointing out that one never observes a cause. This is very important, and is why I believe evolution is inherently atheistic. How can one maintain that one thing can be said to cause the other without introducing a metaphysical principle from outside of science, something that scientists assert they are not allowed to do? Although the rest of Hume's skepticism is easily refuted, his cause/effect dilemma stands.

Thomas Reid defeated Hume's skepticism by pointing out that experience correlated to common sense, saying:"I am resolved to take my existence, and the existence of other things upon trust, and and to belive that snow is cold and honey sweet, whatever they may say to the contrary. He must either be a fool, or want to make a fool of me, that would reason me out of my reason and senses." He followed this by saying that his trust is not in his own sense or reasoning from his sensory experience, but is based on faith in God:"The wise author of our nature intended that a great and necessary part of our knowledge should be derived from experience, befor we are capable of reasoning and has provided means perfectly adequate to this intention."

Kant disagreed with this and proposed that knowledge was universal and scientific, and concluded that our experience was not "out there", but they were categories in our mind "in here" which is common to all humans. The ultimate consequence of this line of reasoning is the abandonment of the notion that we actually apprhend things in themselves, we can can only know the expereince of perception in our minds. This further strengthened the warfare model, in the form of a dualist model that science is our experience about the world, while religion is concerned with the realm of ethics.

Thomas Torrance describes the influence of worldviews so: "Scientific thinking involves a methodological abstraction from all subjective factors in its concern for impartiality and disinterestness.However, when this rigorous scientific method came to be applied beyond the realms of mathematics and physics, it soon became clear that there is no such thing as impartial science, although methodological impartiality maintianed it's place. The really great change has come about in my own day through the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, when it became evident that the development of of classical science had reached the point where there had to take place a consderable change in the whole structure of scientific consciousness."

In summary, and back to worldviews, the formulation of hypothesis or theories necessarily involve creative leaps, and the introduction of metaphysical assumptions that are not observable. Those assumptions are rooted in worldviews, and can serve to convince others of your worldview.

Please let me know if I need to expand on some of the points, this is a very short summary of the philosophy of science and the relationship to worldviews.

Thanks August. That is an interesting summary and it is material that I am basically familiar with although arranged in a more helpful manner than what I could state.

That said. My question (asked respectfully) is "so what?"

The issue for me in terms of an OEC position is not evolution. It is a simple matter of how old the earth is based upon measurements based primarily, if not exclusively, in physical measurements of such things as:

1. The speed of light, measured distances and red shifting within the spectrum of that light.

2. Ice core drillings that correlate with volcanic trace markers from similar cores in other locations that provide physical evidence going further back than the 10,000 years postulated in YEC teaching.

3. Radiometric measurements based upon set decay rates and half-lives.

Of course, those are only a few.

You're quite right that the further removed we get from hard evidence of something and apply our thinking, reasoning, interpretation of the facts etc the more we need to be aware that we are consciously or unconsciously arranging and building those facts to fit within our preconceived framework. We can modify that framework if we choose, but it is human nature to resist any such change in favor of maintaining a certain level of comfort within our sphere of belief and presumed knowledge.

The issue I see in this narrow application, is that you have a broad base of scientific professionals, across many disciplines, who represent a multitude of world-views and beliefs, (including incidentally Christianity) who have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the earth is old.

Set against them, you have a relatively small number of Young Earth Creationist scientists (and these scientists are for the most part not the primary promoters of YEC teaching and interpretation) who start with the presupposition that the earth is young, because they have a felt need for it to be right based upon their world-view and interpretation of Genesis.

Further, you have many within that group who either are not aware or are not willing to admit that their position is based upon their interpretation of the text. Those many equate their hermeneutic with the text itself and in effect proclaim themselves as the defenders of orthodoxy and relegate any who disagree with them, including Christians who agree with them on all other cardinal points of orthodoxy such as the inerrency and inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. etc. as heretics and have proactively sought to remove any such from ministry, teaching etc and then further have elevated this to a social and educational issue which has, in my opinion resulted in the alienation of many from the cause of Christ who otherwise might be inclined to listen to the message of the Gospel.

I'll concede that any human has bias, presuppositions and that it is arguable that any truly nuetral position from the perspective of the person making it, may be unattainable.

Despite that, you have hard data, from multiple disciplines, being interpretted and observed by multiply trained people, with a broad spectrum of world views, all coming to similar conclusions.

Further, the primary objection against such a consensus is a particular hermeneutic of passages of scripture which when examined in terms of history and validity today has been interpretted prior to these scientific findings as allowing for greater periods of time.

That's all I have time for now. Off to class!

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:That said. My question (asked respectfully) is "so what?"

Equally respectfully, I think there is a pretty big "so what" in there. The relationship between science and religion is currently somewhat strained, and I think we need to carefully assess how to make sense out of that complex relationship.

I personally also believe in an old earth, based on the fact that I cannot find any Scriptural support for a young earth. we are delaing with origin science here, which is similar in nature to evolution, which is why I conflate the two.

The issue for me in terms of an OEC position is not evolution. It is a simple matter of how old the earth is based upon measurements based primarily, if not exclusively, in physical measurements of such things as:

1. The speed of light, measured distances and red shifting within the spectrum of that light.

2. Ice core drillings that correlate with volcanic trace markers from similar cores in other locations that provide physical evidence going further back than the 10,000 years postulated in YEC teaching.

3. Radiometric measurements based upon set decay rates and half-lives.

I agree that we see confirmation of the age of the earth from these, and other, measurements. But what would your position have been if the criptures clearly stated that the earth was thousands, rather than billions of years old, while these measurements remained consistent?

You're quite right that the further removed we get from hard evidence of something and apply our thinking, reasoning, interpretation of the facts etc the more we need to be aware that we are consciously or unconsciously arranging and building those facts to fit within our preconceived framework. We can modify that framework if we choose, but it is human nature to resist any such change in favor of maintaining a certain level of comfort within our sphere of belief and presumed knowledge.

Right, that is the creative leap. I am somewhat afraid that we are so conditioned to rely on the empirical and further very comfortable to either accept or creativly induce our own theories, that we tend to first do that and then seek for ways to fit that in a Biblical framework. As I mentioned before, I view theistic evolution in that light.

The issue I see in this narrow application, is that you have a broad base of scientific professionals, across many disciplines, who represent a multitude of world-views and beliefs, (including incidentally Christianity) who have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the earth is old.

Without descending into a swamp of skepticism, I hardly see the popularity of a theory as evidence of its correctness. There have been many popular theories that have been spectacularly wrong. I would rather say that we can, via deduction from our absolute source of the truth about origins, understand that the earth is indeed old, that there is no credible Scriptural framework that describes a young earth, and that the induction from observations seem to confirm that.

Set against them, you have a relatively small number of Young Earth Creationist scientists (and these scientists are for the most part not the primary promoters of YEC teaching and interpretation) who start with the presupposition that the earth is young, because they have a felt need for it to be right based upon their world-view and interpretation of Genesis.

Agreed. And the burden of proof for their worldview and assumptions lie with them. I personally think it may be an evangelical perspective, that if somehow it can be shown that the earth is young, it will prove the existence of God.

Further, you have many within that group who either are not aware or are not willing to admit that their position is based upon their interpretation of the text. Those many equate their hermeneutic with the text itself and in effect proclaim themselves as the defenders of orthodoxy and relegate any who disagree with them, including Christians who agree with them on all other cardinal points of orthodoxy such as the inerrency and inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. etc. as heretics and have proactively sought to remove any such from ministry, teaching etc and then further have elevated this to a social and educational issue which has, in my opinion resulted in the alienation of many from the cause of Christ who otherwise might be inclined to listen to the message of the Gospel.

Yes, but I hardly think that the power of the gospel can be undermined by something as relatively trivial as the age of the earth. You are right though, it may put some roadblocks in the way.

I'll concede that any human has bias, presuppositions and that it is arguable that any truly nuetral position from the perspective of the person making it, may be unattainable.

Ok.

Despite that, you have hard data, from multiple disciplines, being interpretted and observed by multiply trained people, with a broad spectrum of world views, all coming to similar conclusions.

Again, this is where the crunch comes in. No-one disputes the hard data, but we have many different conclusions from the same data. I will also argue that the prevailing theories influence worldviews, so that it becomes a series of self-fulfilling "truths". Kuhn was the one who forst confirmed that, concluding that it takes something akin to a religious experience to change the existing scientific paradigms. So while there may be similar conclusions reached across a broad spectrum, it is all within the the same pre-existing paradigm, which may or may not be true. How do we determine the truth value of those theories?

Further, the primary objection against such a consensus is a particular hermeneutic of passages of scripture which when examined in terms of history and validity today has been interpretted prior to these scientific findings as allowing for greater periods of time.

Yes, but what came first? Good thing we know that form the earliest days an old earth was accepted.

I personally also believe in an old earth, based on the fact that I cannot find any Scriptural support for a young earth.

This I don't understand because I read Genesis and it seems pretty clear cut and literal to me. The confusing part is the physical evidence that we see. I don't know what to think.

FFC wrote:

I personally also believe in an old earth, based on the fact that I cannot find any Scriptural support for a young earth.

This I don't understand because I read Genesis and it seems pretty clear cut and literal to me. The confusing part is the physical evidence that we see. I don't know what to think.

FFC,

There are those of us who read Genesis quite literally and do not come away with a young earth interpretation. It's not a salvation issue (for that see the Catholics thread ) but still, I believe Rich Deem's take on Genesis makes a lot of sense. It's why I'm a member of this site.

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

I personally also believe in an old earth, based on the fact that I cannot find any Scriptural support for a young earth.

This I don't understand because I read Genesis and it seems pretty clear cut and literal to me. The confusing part is the physical evidence that we see. I don't know what to think.

FFC,

There are those of us who read Genesis quite literally and do not come away with a young earth interpretation. It's not a salvation issue (for that see the Catholics thread ) but still, I believe Rich Deem's take on Genesis makes a lot of sense. It's why I'm a member of this site.

I understand, byblos, I'm trying to keep an open mind.