Evidence for God from Science

From man's perspective the earth has always been here, but it would seem that it must be some specific age. People often say it is billions of years old. This is of course completly outside of man's experience and recorded history. Pretty much anything past 4 or 5 thousand years of recorded history is supposition and highly speculative.

As most of you know mount everest was formed when tectonic plates pushed India north into the Tibetan region. Now without any direct observations or verifiable records science claims that the mountian range began forming 60,000,000 years ago. That number when compared to recorded history is just enormous and highly speculative. In order to not ramble, I would like to focus on the growth of everest.

GPS technology deployed at the peak of everest indicates that the mountian is growing 2.4 inches per year. IT is a simple calculation to determine, given the elevation of 29,035 feet, how long the mountian would have taken to grow using only the present rate. This simple calculation works out to the begining of growth at just over 145,000 years ago. This is an enormous difference from the accepted scientific figure.

How can this be? Reason suggests that growth would have slowed (making it less than 145K years). A given force would lift a smaller mountian range more easily than a larger mountian range. There really seems to be a disconnect here.

Can anyone help me understand this?

NewCreature2 wrote:From man's perspective the earth has always been here, but it would seem that it must be some specific age. People often say it is billions of years old. This is of course completly outside of man's experience and recorded history. Pretty much anything past 4 or 5 thousand years of recorded history is supposition and highly speculative.

As most of you know mount everest was formed when tectonic plates pushed India north into the Tibetan region. Now without any direct observations or verifiable records science claims that the mountian range began forming 60,000,000 years ago. That number when compared to recorded history is just enormous and highly speculative. In order to not ramble, I would like to focus on the growth of everest.

GPS technology deployed at the peak of everest indicates that the mountian is growing 2.4 inches per year. IT is a simple calculation to determine, given the elevation of 29,035 feet, how long the mountian would have taken to grow using only the present rate. This simple calculation works out to the begining of growth at just over 145,000 years ago. This is an enormous difference from the accepted scientific figure.

How can this be? Reason suggests that growth would have slowed (making it less than 145K years). A given force would lift a smaller mountian range more easily than a larger mountian range. There really seems to be a disconnect here.

Can anyone help me understand this?

Do you think perhaps, there are any other forces at work in addition to the one you are isolating here and attempting to draw conclusions from?

Is isolating one force or statistic for a relatively short period of time and then relying upon it to draw a conclusion independent of forces of erosion, to name just one, and then appealing to that isolated force torn from the context of the system in which it exists, responsible science or even reasonable?

Welcome to the board by the way.

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Do you think perhaps, there are any other forces at work in addition to the one you are isolating here and attempting to draw conclusions from?

Is isolating one force or statistic for a relatively short period of time and then relying upon it to draw a conclusion independent of forces of erosion, to name just one, and then appealing to that isolated force torn from the context of the system in which it exists, responsible science or even reasonable?

Welcome to the board by the way.

Bart

Yes I agree there are any manner of forces involved on everest. Erosion for instance would be one of the forces involved on the mountian during the year when it increases in height by 2.4 inches. Perhaps if erosion were ignored it might be 2.6 inches who knows. The fact is that the mountian currently grows at 2.4 inches per year. Nothing is being torn from the system. The measurement is from the system as a whole with its host of variables included.

Much of the time in the past supposed 60,000,000 million years we are told were more geologically active. Also this still does not address the likelihood of more rapid mountian growth in the past. We are told that pangea existed. We are told that India crashed into the Tibetan region. This collision would have slowed over time. India must have been moving into Tibet with some unknown force, and that force would be dissipated by the work being done in uplifting the mountians. While it may be true that additional force is being supplied, there is no reason to think that the rate of growth has done anything but dissipate since the events that caused pangea to break apart and these regions to collide. IS there?

Anyway was just a few thoughts and wondered how science gets to the number of 60,000,000 years, when what we currently see doesn't even remotely suggest that it took that time frame. I mean even at this slow rate of growth the mountian should be well over 2000 miles tall.

I still say there appears to be some kind of a disconnect. IF the theory that everest took 60,000,000 years to form had even as much credence as what I propose here than it should easily answer for this disconnect.

Again Welcome.

I suggest you take a look at this article from our main board which addresses many of the types of arguments similar in form to what you're asking here.

I'd be interested in your thoughts and reactions to what is there.

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

Best Regards,

Bart

Is isolating one force or statistic for a relatively short period of time and then relying upon it to draw a conclusion independent of forces of erosion, to name just one, and then appealing to that isolated force torn from the context of the system in which it exists, responsible science or even reasonable?

very true... it is a common YEC fallacy to use current rates to assume past ages.

When the Indian subcontinent approaches Asia, there was an ocean, called the Tethys Sea, between them. When the two plates came into contact 60 mya, the sea still existed. As the plates got closer and closer, the Tethys Sea began to shrink and shallow as the bottom sediments were uplifted and also deposited from the continents. The Tethys closed between 60-25 mya. The date can be closely calibrated using fossils unique to the Tethys fauna. Once the fossil record of marine organisms ended, one can assume the Tethys was gone. Now as the Indian subcontinent interacted with the Asian plate, most of the Indian (Indo-Australian) Plate got subducted since oceanic plate is denser than the Asian (continental) Plate. This made uplift significantly slower over that time. Now after 25 mya, the continental portion of the Indo-Australian Plate containing "India" came into contact with identical continental granite of Asia. As these two portions hit each other, neither "wanted" to be subducted so the rock buckled and wrinkled. The yearly rates of uplift are up to speculation but they differed over a large spatial scale. To this day, the two plates are still getting pushed up on each other and the buckling continues. But although the uplift rate is pretty fast, that rate may be variable over time as stresses increase and decrease in different sectors. There is also considerable wind, water, and glacial erosion going on that matches the rate of uplift in certain areas. So, the exact timing of all of these processes is unknown but radiometric dating and correlation of marine fossil layers with sedimentary fossils on the top of the mountains can give us a rough estimate of the age of the Himalayas

Thanks Himantolophus. I could have looked that up but probably not digested and presented back as well.

I think it is important to note that Old Earth Creationism and science don't necessarily have a specific answer to every instance that can be raised or has been raised by Young Earth Creationists. Of course, the absence of an answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

There's enough of these types of issues asked in the past though that have been answered to set the general observation that there is a tendency of some coming from YEC type positions to interminably ask these types of questions, often times not realizing at best, or not not caring at worst, that many have been addressed. When they are answered by pointing out that there is a system inclusive of many factors such as offsetting processes and/or natural changes of rates over years due to fluctuating factors, the tendency is to simply move on to other issues rather than concede or consider whether this information demands some concessions or modifications to the overall approach that is being taken.

More often than not these are rhetorical devices to introduce and emphasize doubts which them work fully to the benefit of their already decided position.

That's as good a definition of a red herring as I think I've ever seen, but that's just me.

I think it is important to note that Old Earth Creationism and science don't necessarily have a specific answer to every instance that can be raised or has been raised by Young Earth Creationists. Of course, the absence of an answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

that is true, especially for the "were you there to see it" type of questions. But to argue for the Old Earth side, almost all of the evidence fits very well into/can be explained by the Old Earth model. On the contrary, the YOung Earth people have very few answers when it comes to questions from the Old Earth side (both creationists and evolutionists).

As for the "absence of an answer", it remains to be seen if creationists are using the "God of the Gaps" argument to explain the apparent, yet unproven and untestable, macroevolution over time and the formation of life on Earth. The same can be said for evolutionists. We may be completely overlooking the true mechanism of change and Darwinism may be completely disproven in the next hundred years... as we sit right now, we have proven microevolution and pretty much proved that the Earth is ancient, we have a way to go to explain macroevolution I believe. But that gives scientists something to work on

Himantolophus wrote:

I think it is important to note that Old Earth Creationism and science don't necessarily have a specific answer to every instance that can be raised or has been raised by Young Earth Creationists. Of course, the absence of an answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

that is true, especially for the "were you there to see it" type of questions. But to argue for the Old Earth side, almost all of the evidence fits very well into/can be explained by the Old Earth model. On the contrary, the YOung Earth people have very few answers when it comes to questions from the Old Earth side (both creationists and evolutionists).

As for the "absence of an answer", it remains to be seen if creationists are using the "God of the Gaps" argument to explain the apparent, yet unproven and untestable, macroevolution over time and the formation of life on Earth. The same can be said for evolutionists. We may be completely overlooking the true mechanism of change and Darwinism may be completely disproven in the next hundred years... as we sit right now, we have proven microevolution and pretty much proved that the Earth is ancient, we have a way to go to explain macroevolution I believe. But that gives scientists something to work on

Agreed and it's good to see a recognition too of the limits of where science is on some of these issues.

I'll state as a Progressive Old Earth Creationist who is not opposed to a greater role being established for the role of evolution, but who believes it is not yet proven to a reasonable degree to concede, that I agree that there is a danger of a God of the Gaps type argument being used in all forms of creationism, young and old. It was historically an easy argument and a convenient one given that science had nowhere near enough information to challenge but now that many of these issues are being teased out and apparantly natural processes being established that are plausible for those things previously attributed as a mystery of God.

By the same token however, in fairness, I think it has to be noted that the distinction between natural and super-natural is one that Science is ill-suited to finally determine. Science by its very nature is limited in its speculations to only that which is natural. The establishment of a plausible path by natural means within the context of science leads to its acceptance on the basis of the evidence. It cannot demonstrate that other means or interventions from a non natural cause (ie God's creative intervention) were not at work. Further, it cannot effectively remove its inherent bias toward such solely natural means despite the relative probability of any given explanation.

It's exciting to think that science can demonstrate and provide evidence and support toward the existence of God and the probability of many elements of the Biblical Creation Account, which I believe and take literally, in the sense that I believe it is more than just metaphorical language. However in the end, evidence is nuetral and the same evidence can be taken by different camps and different conclusions reached.

Mt Everest shows that it came to be because of the colliding continents. This is fine with YEC. We would only say the collision happened during the flood year. The continents separated during the flood year and much of earths geography can be explained from this. The bible puts boundaries on things and then with field evidence it can all be fit together.
Robert Byers

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Himantolophus wrote:

I think it is important to note that Old Earth Creationism and science don't necessarily have a specific answer to every instance that can be raised or has been raised by Young Earth Creationists. Of course, the absence of an answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

that is true, especially for the "were you there to see it" type of questions. But to argue for the Old Earth side, almost all of the evidence fits very well into/can be explained by the Old Earth model. On the contrary, the YOung Earth people have very few answers when it comes to questions from the Old Earth side (both creationists and evolutionists).

As for the "absence of an answer", it remains to be seen if creationists are using the "God of the Gaps" argument to explain the apparent, yet unproven and untestable, macroevolution over time and the formation of life on Earth. The same can be said for evolutionists. We may be completely overlooking the true mechanism of change and Darwinism may be completely disproven in the next hundred years... as we sit right now, we have proven microevolution and pretty much proved that the Earth is ancient, we have a way to go to explain macroevolution I believe. But that gives scientists something to work on

Agreed and it's good to see a recognition too of the limits of where science is on some of these issues.

I'll state as a Progressive Old Earth Creationist who is not opposed to a greater role being established for the role of evolution, but who believes it is not yet proven to a reasonable degree to concede, that I agree that there is a danger of a God of the Gaps type argument being used in all forms of creationism, young and old. It was historically an easy argument and a convenient one given that science had nowhere near enough information to challenge but now that many of these issues are being teased out and apparantly natural processes being established that are plausible for those things previously attributed as a mystery of God.

By the same token however, in fairness, I think it has to be noted that the distinction between natural and super-natural is one that Science is ill-suited to finally determine. Science by its very nature is limited in its speculations to only that which is natural. The establishment of a plausible path by natural means within the context of science leads to its acceptance on the basis of the evidence. It cannot demonstrate that other means or interventions from a non natural cause (ie God's creative intervention) were not at work. Further, it cannot effectively remove its inherent bias toward such solely natural means despite the relative probability of any given explanation.

It's exciting to think that science can demonstrate and provide evidence and support toward the existence of God and the probability of many elements of the Biblical Creation Account, which I believe and take literally, in the sense that I believe it is more than just metaphorical language. However in the end, evidence is nuetral and the same evidence can be taken by different camps and different conclusions reached.

very nicely stated

Mt Everest shows that it came to be because of the colliding continents. This is fine with YEC. We would only say the collision happened during the flood year. The continents separated during the flood year and much of earths geography can be explained from this. The bible puts boundaries on things and then with field evidence it can all be fit together.

I'm confused. In one sentence you say that they formed by the collision. Then right after in the next sentence you say the supercontinent separated. How can it the plates collide if you assume they were splitting apart at the same time? You are saying a convergent boundary can be a divergent boundary at the same time! Plus they can't break apart, dash around the Earth, and collide in that span of time.

Thanks for the welcome.

As I look into this further I see quite a range of growth for everest. Some say it isn't growing at all, others by only millimeters per year. I am still digesting quite a lot of conflicting reports so hang in there. Apparently I was confused or got some bad information. Many sources indicate very little current growth for everest. Most sources also indicate that the 2.4 inches per year is the current movement of everest across the surface of the earth.

This is the original article I read
http://www.extremescience.com/HighestElevation.htm

NewCreature2 wrote:Thanks for the welcome.

As I look into this further I see quite a range of growth for everest. Some say it isn't growing at all, others by only millimeters per year. I am still digesting quite a lot of conflicting reports so hang in there. Apparently I was confused or got some bad information. Many sources indicate very little current growth for everest. Most sources also indicate that the 2.4 inches per year is the current movement of everest across the surface of the earth.

This is the original article I read
http://www.extremescience.com/HighestElevation.htm

You're welcome. Keep looking and digesting it. The rate will likely change significantly over a long enough period of time. The nature of plates colliding is the latent energy builds and is released in spurts and phases.

Thanks.

The problem is that some measurements are taken with the snow pack, some are taken without the snowpack. Most are taken from ground stations using triangulation, and of course the newest most percise measurements are taken by GPS. This is where the range of information comes from. Yes it is true it grows 2.4 inches per year when you campare certian measurements, but of course those are just changes in measurments not actual changes in height. I have at this point even seen measurments that put the actual height at less than 29,000 feet. IT will be exceedingly difficult to determine the actual rate of change for about another decade.

IF you think this information was a bit misleading perhaps I should post what I just read about Everest moving northeast at 12-24 inches per year.

IF you think this information was a bit misleading perhaps I should post what I just read about Everest moving northeast at 12-24 inches per year.

Just let me know when it'll be in the Washington DC area and I'll make the effort to take a look as it goes by ......