Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:00 am**

Good to See you back JBuza. You have not been here in a while!

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:42 am**

Jbuza wrote:What might we find if the earth is 10,000 years old?

What might we find if the earth is 4,000,000,000 years old?

What actual observations can we make, especially considering ten thousand to billions of years of unknown events, that can lend evidence to a particular age of the earth?

Now this is a drastic difference OEs say the earth is about 400,000 times older than YEs. What observation that we see requires 400,000 times longer to occour.

Now I can think of one observation that is probably the strongest argument for OEC, and that is distance to the stars, and how they could shine on a young earth. This might seem to be problamatic to some.

Are their others?

Notice: I believe the earth to be ~10,000 years old.

Good to see you back Jbuza!

Well, you asked for it. Here are a few from the main website"

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

Scientific Evidence for the Age of the Universe

Introduction This is not a complete list of the evidence from creation that the Earth is ancient, but is sufficient to provide a reasonable support for the idea. The Bible is not silent on the issue, since even Genesis (the first book of the Bible) declares that the mountains and hills are ancient.1 Most of the evidence presented does not give an exact age of the universe, but just a lower minimum age. Many have complained that the measurements of the age of the universe are based upon assumptions that are questionable. However, recent studies have calculated the vast distances to astronomical sources based upon geometry! The calculation of distances using triangulation require no assumptions, but are based purely upon mathematical principles.

Why must we, who trust the Bible, believe the testimony of the creation? The Bible tells us that the creation declares the truth about God:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalms 19:1-4)

And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge. Selah. (Psalms 50:6)

The heavens proclaim His righteousness, and all the peoples see His glory. (Psalms 97:6)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Geometric measurements of quasar 3C 279 now establish that the universe is at least 5.9 billion light years across. Since light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, the light from that quasar must have been traveling for 5.9 billion years. The alternative young earth explanation is that God created the light in transit. However, we know that quasars existed only during the beginning of the universe, since none are seen closer to us than billions of light years. If God created light in transit, He would have created the light in transit from a quasar that does not now exist. Likewise, we have observed supernova explosions in galaxies millions of light years away. If God created light in transit from these objects, He would have made the light from an object that does not now exist, since it appeared to have blown up millions of years before the universe was actually created. How can the universe declare the glory and righteousness of God if it declares a lie? Like many young earth doctrines, the appearance of age argument is nowhere taught in the Bible.

Here is the testimony from the creation about the glory of God. It is still under construction, since I have been adding to it as I find new studies in the literature.

Rocks (and other parts of the creation) of Ages God's Creation Proclaims Minimum Age of the Universe (yrs.)

Deuterium abundance and mass density 19 billion

Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect 18 billion

Nucleochronology (decay of radioactive nuclides) 17 billion

Anthropic principles 17 billion

Expansion of universe: red-shift (Doppler effect) 15 billion

Star color luminosity fitting (Chaboyer) 14 billion

Spectral line of Uranium-238 (half-life=4.5 billion years) (Cayrel) 12.5 billion

Supernova standard candles (Watson) 12 billion

Globular Clusters (Chaboyer, Peterson, D'Antona) 12 billion

Gravitational lensing (Kundic, Falco) 11 billion

Light travel-time based on quasar-light source 10 billion

Cepheids (Freedman) 9 billion

Expanding photosphere (Schmidt) 9 billion

Star stream interactions in galaxies 8 billion

Geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 (Homan) 5.9 billion

Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion

Age of meteorites 4.5 billion

Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion

Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion

Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion

Age of earth rocks 4 billion

Length of days of coral fossils (coral reference) 370 million

Accumulation of sodium in the oceans (sodium reference) 260 million

Rate of continental drift to form the the Atlantic Ocean 200 million

Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom 80 million

Erosion of the Grand Canyon 25 million

Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 (Hernstein) 23.5 million

Carbonate deposits: The Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick (Anselmetti) 12.4 million

There are sedimentary rock formations on Mars that are over 4 kilometers thick. Such layers would require tens to hundreds of millions of years of running water to form. In addition there must have been millions of years for all the water to have disappeared, since Mars is now extremely dry. (View pictures from the article) (Malin) >10 million

Ooids (small spheroidal bodies): Formation for adding many layers of mineral deposits involves massive time elements. (Algeo) >7 million

The Green River annual layers (alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers) 4 million

Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 (Brunthaler) 2.4 million

Evaporites: When bodies of salt water are trapped so that circulation is limited, evaporation produces precipitation of calcium carbonate, then calcium sulfate and finally calcium chloride out of the water. Each layer takes several years to form. The Delaware Basin formation is 1,300 feet thick, consisting of 200,000 layers, requiring at least 600,000 years to form. The Mediterranean Sea floor is underlain by about 7,000 feet of evaporites, requiring millions of years to form and evaporation of a 60 miles depth of salt water. >3 million

Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays (extinct volcanoes in Nevada) 830,000

Huge stalactites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico (Carlsbad reference) 500,000

Vostok ice core in Antarctica (Petit) 420,000

Thickness of coral reefs 130,000

Organic banks (The Capitan Reef of West Texas, 2,000 feet thick in places, with fossilized remains of organisms.) 100,000

Radiocarbon dating of wood (upper limit of dating method) 50,000

Bristlecone pine trees in California 10,000

Dolomite formation: Replacement of calcium carbonate particles in lime sediment or lime rock gives strong evidence of vast amounts of time required.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:18 am**

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 am**

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:57 am**

Jbuza wrote:Hey thanks for the welcome!!

You're welcome. You've been missed.

Jbuza wrote:I've seen all that speculation, theorization, extrapolation, etc before.

OK. I prefer to refer to it as fact, but I understand you see it differently and I respect that.

Jbuza wrote:I guess I set things off on the wrong foot with my comment about distance to the stars. I was thinking more simple, more like when we look out our picture window are there any indicators that the earth is old as opposed to young?

Well, given that most of what we see out our picture window is cyclical and biological, then no. I don't suppose it is intuitive based upon a cursory examination. While age has been presumed from Greco-Roman times and has been presumed within the early Church from Augustine on, I think it fair to say that the scale that we now see it based upon measurement that has only become possible in the past few hundred years have opened a perspective upon it that we did not and could not have previously.

Jbuza wrote:I understand that scientific and mathmatical theory indicate that the world could be old. But there really is no proof here. I mean if you look at the distance to the stars issue the equation that leads to those conclusions is disproved mathmatically IMHO. E=M*C^2 leads to conclusions that really should disprove it. What is infinate mass after all? I'm just not too sure that there is any truth or reality in the heady theories of the wise men of this world. See I did it again. I digress.

If this is the case, then why are there no young earth scientists who do not start first with a young earth interpretation of Genesis? Shouldn't the creation declare the truth in this regard without a beginning interpretation or hermeneutic? It would be one thing if you were talking about a few processes. The evidence is across many disciplines and many mediums measured. We're talking about 95% of the scientific community. Granted the scientific community can and has been wrong about things in the past. So has the Christian community. The only real response to the scientific conclusions in this instance is to suspend the principle of uniformitarianism and claim apparent age on a universal scale.

This begs the question as to why God would encourage us to examine nature to see proof of Him and his creation if He at the same time stacked the deck to deceive those so looking.

It also begs the question as to whether an old earth position can be consistent with Scripture and if the issue is not one of Hermeneutics rather than Scriptures itself. I've never been comfortable with the YEC presentation of their position as the equivalent of Scripture itself.

Jbuza wrote:What I meant is that if we are all looking at the same world how can we be seeing so totally different things? Does it matter much? Is their any way to answer these questions at all; when in either case it is all hidden in the unrecorded past. I mean even if you look at the Bible as a historical document while it does provide some clues, it leaves out more than it tells about what processes took place on this planet from a scientific standpoint.

I think this is an excellent point. I belive all Scripture to be true, inspired and inerrant. However, not all truth is found in Scripture.

Maybe we get in trouble when we try to make the Scripture something it was never intended to be. We far too often mistake applicability with intention.

Science is not the source of all knowledge. However, the scientific method, when applied free of presuppositions and bias has resulted in an amazing amount of knowledge and practical application that has benefitted all of mankind: even those who claim to mistrust it, ironically enough. Further science, is generally engineered to allow for an acceptance of contradictory information to result in a constant change and adjustment to what is "known". When we tie something to Scripture in the Christian community we resist change, and rightly so when the issue is clearly addressed in Scripture based upon our acceptance of it as inerrant revelation from God.

What happens when we tie something to Scripture however that comes from outside of Scripture and not within it? Do we not then mistake applicability with inspiration? What is the damage to our testimony and faith when we do that and the evidence becomes overwhelming? Do we admit error or do we dig our heels in and fight for the position until it becomes ridiculous? Has that happened in the past? See any possible similarities with what is happening now?

Jbuza wrote:A difference in beleif about this planet's age by a factor of 400,000 is huge, actually it kind of boggles my mind. There are numerous people that think this planet is 400,000 times older than I believe it to be. All I can say is WOW!! Does that mean that there should be 400,000 times more topsoil on an old earth than a young? 400,000 times more LAVA? What about the moon? I know the star dust thing has been done, but isn't it reasonalbe to expect there to be 400,000 times more star dust on an old moon, or conversley 1/400,000 of the star dust that is there if the earth be young?

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

There's plenty here to address some of these arguments. Even YEC sites are begging their adherents to drop some of these arguments as they've been refuted so thoroughly that they only serve to highlight that point.

Many of them are also errors in measurement. YEC arguments tend to isolate dynamic processes and then to take a small portion of data and do a straight line extrapolation which ignores balancing processes also at work.

Jbuza wrote:We're not talking about a minor differnce of opinion here, it is not just old earth v. young earth, but a difference of opinion by a astronomical factor.

What gives?

There's only 3 possibilities.

1. YEC is wrong.
2. OEC is wrong.
3. Both are wrong.

Option 3 is unlikely as the positions are pretty close to being mutually exclusive.

It's not a matter of salvation. It is however very important as the hermeneutic employed may have implications that need to be faced by those holding to a false position.

One of the most significant things that I haven't seen discussed much here is that Intelligent Design, may provide a means for YEC proponents to gracefully save some faith and move in the direction of an older earth based upon practical factors. Most ID proponents are OEC.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:05 am**

Jbuza wrote: A difference in beleif about this planet's age by a factor of 400,000 is huge, actually it kind of boggles my mind. There are numerous people that think this planet is 400,000 times older than I believe it to be. All I can say is WOW!! Does that mean that there should be 400,000 times more topsoil on an old earth than a young? 400,000 times more LAVA? What about the moon? I know the star dust thing has been done, but isn't it reasonalbe to expect there to be 400,000 times more star dust on an old moon, or conversley 1/400,000 of the star dust that is there if the earth be young?

Welcome Back Jbuza

The answer to all your questions are definite no's. You can't simply multiply everything by 400,000. That is ignoring very obvious and observable processes. For instance lava flow deposits erode. Top soil compresses, and erodes.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:09 am**

Jbuza wrote:Whoops I'm way off base here. I forget that the earth ages exponentially . Actually don't moth OEs now believe the earth to be older than 4 billion years?

I think the scientific consensus right now is 4.7 Billion. What's a few hundred Million years here or there when you're dealing with billions?

I base my OEC position first upon Scripture. So, I'm not particularly worried about changes and adjustments made by science in this regard.

Science for me is supportive, but not the primary source of my belief in terms of creation. I do think it very strongly supports such a view and that is consistent with my belief, also from Scripture itself, that nature will confirm what scripture reveals.

That being said, there are a lot things that Scripture does not address in terms of detail and Science I think is a legitimate means of understanding the world and universe around us. It's a developing process however, not an absolute.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:55 am**

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:06 am**

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:08 am**

Jbuza wrote:Interesting. I assume that we are reading the same Word of God, so the question really remains the same. How can you see an age 470,000 times greater than I do? What do you find in the bible that requires the earth to be 4,700,000,000 years old? OR, How can I be reading the same book and concluding that the earth is only 1/470,000 of its actual age?

Does the vast majority of this time predate man and plants and animals in your view?

Did God just laze about for millions of years throughout his creative acts? I just don't get it, I guess.

Same question is for you Jbuza and how can you see an age 470,000 times less then Science Does? The Bible doesn't give you the exact time the World was created but it does give you the order in which it was. God could have set in motion the Big Bang. He then started to order things into position for an earth. God created because he is a creating God. So why would it be so hard as he created to allow it occur naturally according to his Laws? By the time Man had to be created there probably was a few Billion years in Between. Just because he did not create us Right away does not mean we were not in his Plan. God probably wanted to make sure everything was "Good". I don't think God was ever Lazying around but using his Creativity to create new and wonderous things. In fact I believe GOD is still creating! (pure speculation on my part though)Remember Time is nothing to God yet Time is everything to us! I keep a very open mind to Genesis because in the end I really have no Idea...

you ever see the "Time machine"? I find it to be an interesting Movie as this Guy goes through time. Seasons change, everything changes but it is like nothing. This guy experiences that in this time change as he goes forward in time.
I believe the vast majority of the time predates Man... Why is there a problem with that View?

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:26 am**

Jbuza wrote:Interesting. I assume that we are reading the same Word of God, so the question really remains the same. How can you see an age 470,000 times greater than I do? What do you find in the bible that requires the earth to be 4,700,000,000 years old? OR, How can I be reading the same book and concluding that the earth is only 1/470,000 of its actual age?

Does the vast majority of this time predate man and plants and animals in your view?

Did God just laze about for millions of years throughout his creative acts? I just don't get it, I guess.

I don't see a specific age necessitated within Scripture.

There is no specific age given one way or the other. The 10,000 year age taken by YEC is inferred based upon genealogies combined with a belief that the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis 1 & 2 means a literal 24 hour day.

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

Much of the argument today between OEC and YEC is based upon a framework that the human authors and the original audience never understood in their interpretation of Genesis.

What is the point of Genesis 1 - 2 from the original audiences point of view?

Who was the original audience?

The Israelites who were at the time in the midst of the Exodus.

Who was the Human author?

Moses. There is some argument on this from more liberal quarters. There is strong evidence to support Moses as the author and with the exception of the tail end of Deut. after Moses' death, more analysis of the Pentateuch indicates a single author.

What was the need of the Israelites while in the Exodus?

I think a good argument can be made that the purpose of the entire book of Genesis was to remind the Israelites of the history of their nation and their special relationship with God. Moses then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, shows from the beginning of the creation how God has had a plan and a purpose for them. They now faced the taking of the promised land and would need to be reminded of that plan and purpose and sustaining of God all throughout their history to hold fast to that promise God was giving them now.

How many of the original audience of Israelites in the desert would have been concerned or even given a passing thought to how many years this represents or whether the days were literal or not?

Think that maybe we are bringing some issues to the text that weren't intended to be primary?

I don't think the Bible or Genesis was ever intended primarily to be understood in the context of 21 century science.

The Jewish mindset in these matters was primarily holistic and accepting of the fact of God's creation and that it demonstrated purpose and a goal.

Our western mindset is different. We tend to be static and want to dissect things down to the smallest component in a look for internal consistency.

That viewpoint tends to fail in this instance, as Hebrews didn't even have the language to communicate things in those terms.

Does that mean that I think we should discard all things scientific in terms of the Bible's revelation. No, I'm not saying that. When the Bible makes an assertion with scientific ramifications, then I think we should expect it to be consistent with what nature reveals. I think we need to be careful of elevating it above what the language allows, the world view that was prevalent at the time of revelation and our desire to superimpose our own point of view back onto the text.

In view of that facts that Scripture never directly addresses the age of the earth, I think we butcher the text when we try to make it something it was not intended to be.

My thoughts anyway.

So in terms of your other questions:

I do believe that the world likely is as old as science indicates it to be.

I believe the purpose of Genesis and the use of the word yom allows for this.

God Himself by definition is outside of time so our perception as to what is reasonable is meaningless. What is 7 literal days or 4,700,000,000 years relative to infinity? Both are meaningless.

Could God have created everything in 7 literal days.

Sure.

As far as I'm concerned 7 days is too long if you're going to invoke the omnipotence of God. He could have done it instantaneously.

As best I can tell, it pleased God for His own good reasons to weave the tapestry of this universe and our world through the use of a system of natural laws that He chose to institute and utilize in the process.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:48 am**

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:13 am**

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:14 am**

Jbuza wrote:Canuckster, thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail, I just want to comment on a couple of things.

As I understand what you are saying, you feel that young earth scientists are dogmatic about the earth being young, and try to fit all manner of evidence into that model, while OE scientists have discovered the truth, and thus are on a higher plane.

I don't think that one need suspend the principle of uniformitarianism, because it is a concept and not an actual observation backed up by any sort of evidence.

If one comes to the wrong conclusions on their own are they deceived by God?

You are not comfortable with YEC claiming that scripture indicates that the earth is young, but you claim that your OEC view is based on scripture. How are these things different?

However, the scientific method, when applied free of presuppositions and bias.
Hypothesis are presuppositions and biases, and presuppositions and biases are what drive science. It is the observations that are unbiased.

What is the damage to our testimony and faith when we do that and the evidence becomes overwhelming? Do we admit error or do we dig our heels in and fight for the position until it becomes ridiculous? Has that happened in the past? See any possible similarities with what is happening now?

I guess you are saying that it is ridiculous to believe the earth to be 10,000 years old, and that my testimony and faith is less than those who believe the earth to be 4,700,000,000 years old, it seems like you are doing what you accuse YEC of.

There's plenty here to address some of these arguments. Even YEC sites are begging their adherents to drop some of these arguments as they've been refuted so thoroughly that they only serve to highlight that point.
Really, I guess than it goes like this, since we know the earth to be 4,700,000,000 than every observation we see is exactly how things would be on a 4,700,000,000 years old earth. Talk about dogmatic. The fact that the age of the earth is established taints interpretations. I have no problem with observations, but if you would like to discuss interpretations that would be great. That is why you call interpretations fact, and I call them theory, assumption, and extrapolation.

Many of them are also errors in measurement. YEC arguments tend to isolate dynamic processes and then to take a small portion of data and do a straight line extrapolation which ignores balancing processes also at work.
Strait line extrapolations are the forte of evolution and OEs. Assumptions of present geological processes begin unifrom and extrapolated into the past is what first caused the exponential aging of the earth.

One of the most significant things that I haven't seen discussed much here is that Intelligent Design, may provide a means for YEC proponents to gracefully save some faith and move in the direction of an older earth based upon practical factors. Most ID proponents are OEC.
Hmmm. Seems like you are again pointing out the moral high road that OEs live on. Are you saying everyone is going OE so I might as well too?

Jbuza,

First, let me admit that I am dogmatic in my position. I have turned the corner and I do believe that the YEC position is harming the Christian community. I don't do as good a job as others in being more understanding of YEC proponents. I confess that and I'll work on it as best I can without compromising what I believe to be true.

In terms of the age of the earth, 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.

What common presupposition do you find across that broad spectrum to explain an emotional need to explain that occurance?

My OEC position starts with Scripture. I've given you pretty clear reasons and if you want to search my past posts you'll see where I've addressed scriptural basis for the position being consistent.

My view of Scripture incorprorates my understanding of textual criticism in terms of the audience, historical context and limitations of an unscientific culture using unscientific language, nevertheless, I fing the position in Scripture and indeed the position was found in Scripture before the advent of modern science.

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

In terms of Young Earth Arguments that Young Earth Sites are telling their proponents not to use because they have been refuted, Here's a link.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

I'm sorry that I'm not as kind about it. I honestly do think that much in YEC is ridiculous. It's not kind to use that word however and I apologize.

I don't think YEC proponents are insincere and I admire their desire to defend what they believe to be Scriptural. I hold as high a view of Scripture as they do and frankly, if the choice is to look foolish or reject Scripture, I will choose foolishness.

In this instance, however, I believe the YEC position is wrong.

I believe YEC proponents are good Christian people and I look forward to an eternity with those God judges to have accepted Christ. I have no doubt in that eternal future that I'll find out where I have erred in this and many other places and if anybody is inclined to care in the context of that perfect future in God's presence, I may no doubt feel some shame for my errors and my attitudes.

That having been said.

How many Young Earth Creationists have been excluded from ministry, seminary and teaching positions for their views?

I can name you many OEC proponents whom YEC proponents have black-balled and expelled from Churches, Seminaries and Schools. Does that maybe speak to which side is more dogmatic and militant?

Just a thought.

Evidence for God from Science

The age of the earth

The age of the earth

Re: The age of the earth