Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[rossum]

The process of “checking” would obviously include making some assumptions, unless you are going to argue that people have been directly observing and recording radioactive decay rates for the past 150,000 years.

The process of checking involved geometry. Simple Euclidian geometry. Google for “SN 1987A”

We can also check something about decay rates by observing the surface of the Earth. Radioactive decay releases heat, which is how nuclear reactors work. Fast decay releases heat quickly and slow decay releases heat slowly. If we allow decay to proceed at the rates required for a 6,000 year old timescale we can calculate the amount of heat released in the last 6,000 years. We can also calculate the amount of heat the Earth would radiate into space over 6,000 years. The result is a planet covered with molten rock. Since we do not observe a planet covered with molten rock we know that the 6,000 year timescale is not correct.

YEC tries to compress 4.5 billion years of heat into 6,000 years. Heat kills YEC every time.

rossum

 

[Dan_Daly]

The process of checking involved geometry. Simple Euclidian geometry. Google for “SN 1987A”

We can also check something about decay rates by observing the surface of the Earth. Radioactive decay releases heat, which is how nuclear reactors work. Fast decay releases heat quickly and slow decay releases heat slowly. If we allow decay to proceed at the rates required for a 6,000 year old timescale we can calculate the amount of heat released in the last 6,000 years. We can also calculate the amount of heat the Earth would radiate into space over 6,000 years. The result is a planet covered with molten rock. Since we do not observe a planet covered with molten rock we know that the 6,000 year timescale is not correct.

YEC tries to compress 4.5 billion years of heat into 6,000 years. Heat kills YEC every time.

rossum

The statement you just made shows some of the assumptions that underly the analysis. You say fast decay releases heat quickly and slow decay releases heat slowly. You are basing a constant rate of decay upon an assumption of a constant rate of heat exchange. You are also assuming that the effect of that heat exchange upon the earth has been constant. You may argue that these are reasonable assumptions, but the fact remains they are assumptions. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge that.

“Heat kills YEC every time”

How is that different than saying:

“Serology kills the Eucharist every time”

??

That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer, if you are convinced that science absolutely rules out the possiblity of a young earth, do you believe the same regarding the Eucharist?

You are putting things beyond an all powerful God, and placing the minds of yourself (or other humans you have decided to trust) up on a pedastal.

Why would the percieved age of the world, assuming all of these analysis are correct- simply for the sake of argument, need to match the actual age of the world?

When Christ changed water into wine at Cana, those who tasted it thought it was the finest vintage- they perceived it to be a well aged wine- when in fact it had just been created.

Pax.

 

[inocente]

It doesn’t matter what other ancient cultures thought. It is what the Hebrews who preserved the tablets thought.

My point is that the Hebrews were no different from many other ancient cultures in believing the sky had a roof, and this error proves the science of Genesis could not have been divinely revealed.

As in the Bible, so also in the Talmud, heaven and earth designate the two borders of the universe. The former is a hollow sphere covering the earth. It consists, according to one authority, of a strong and firm plate two or three fingers in thickness, always lustrous and never tarnishing. Another tannaitic authority estimates the diameter of this plate as one-sixth of the sun’s diurnal journey; while another, a Babylonian, estimates it at 1,000 parasangs. - jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2052&letter=A&search=universe#ixzz1UzKZU0xj

 

[inocente]

Because they believe in Sola Scriptura and have no interpretive authority.

There’s a single authentic Catholic interpretation when you guys can’t even agree about the first page of the Bible?

 

[inocente]

The process of “checking” would obviously include making some assumptions, unless you are going to argue that people have been directly observing and recording radioactive decay rates for the past 150,000 years.

Any physical calculation requires that the degree of uncertainty is shown. For the Earth this is around 1%. The calculation comes from several pieces of evidence and fits with the estimated ages of our galaxy and the universe.

A young-Earther would object to all of the “assumptions” listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line. - talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

See also at US Geological Survey, although the article is a little old.

Would any YEC care to say why the age of the Earth is so all fired important that they need to jump through hoops?

 

[latin_rite]

One wonders how Buffalo believes people could have devised a way to produce a form of parchment, a robust vocabulary, a style of grammar, etc., that would have been necessary to write any biblical work in the first place without having some notion of time, space, and matter. I bet you could give him all the necessary materials and he wouldn’t even know how to make parchment or construct a language on his own.

I made paper at school, way before i knew anything about time, space or matter.
I think buffalo asked a question and some people here are just nit picking the question to avoid answering.

 

[Dan_Daly]

My point is that the Hebrews were no different from many other ancient cultures in believing the sky had a roof, and this error proves the science of Genesis could not have been divinely revealed.

As in the Bible, so also in the Talmud, heaven and earth designate the two borders of the universe. The former is a hollow sphere covering the earth. It consists, according to one authority, of a strong and firm plate two or three fingers in thickness, always lustrous and never tarnishing. Another tannaitic authority estimates the diameter of this plate as one-sixth of the sun’s diurnal journey; while another, a Babylonian, estimates it at 1,000 parasangs. - jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2052&letter=A&search=universe#ixzz1UzKZU0xj

You argument is wrong in a number of ways:

1. The Hebrews, or at least many of them, did NOT believe the sky had a “roof” as in a solid barrier that was part of a structure.
2. Even if they DID believe such a thing, it does not logically follow that the Genesis account of creation is false, simply that some Jews had a false understanding of it. Some scientists don’t believe in evolution. Does it logically follow that evolution is a false theory?

As far as the “roof” you are referring to, the Bible speaks of waters in the firmament. It’s quite possible that before the Deluge, the Earth had a cloud cover which contained a vast amount of water.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Any physical calculation requires that the degree of uncertainty is shown. For the Earth this is around 1%. The calculation comes from several pieces of evidence and fits with the estimated ages of our galaxy and the universe.

As the saying goes:

There are the things you know.

The things you know that you don’t know.

And the things you don’t know that you don’t know.

In short, color me skeptical on the 1% margin of error claim.

As to why the age of the earth is important, an understanding of the history of humanity is tied directly to an understanding of Christ- as Christ’s live, death, and resurrection is the central event of human history, and all other events would be utterly meaningless without them.

Jesus Christ told us in John 5:46-47:

For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

The traditional belief of the Church, as well as that the people Christ was talking to in that conversation is that what Moses wrote, includes Genesis.

So a central reason for believing Genesis, is that Jesus Christ told us that we need to.

There are many other reasons that the origin of the world and humanity are vital to understand. Throughout the 19th and 20th century, “naturalistic” explanations of both have been used purposely to erode faith in God and to trample upon humanity.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Inocente- your profile says you are Baptist, so I would guess you do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Do you believe that the Holy Ghost descended upon Mary and the Apostles at Pentacost and appeared as tongues of fire upon their heads? If so, what is the scientific explanation?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again? If so, what is the scientific explanation?

Do you believe that Jesus brought Lazarus back to life? If so, what is the scientific explanation?

Do you believe that Jesus walked on water and calmed storms? If so, what is the scientific explanation?

Pax

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

The Church has never insisted upon an exhaustively literal interpretation.

====================
It took the (Catholic) Church a while to study, sift and realize that the Genesis story is not to be taken LITERALLY in the popular sense but in the sense that the stories are from the culture and ancient understandings so their meaning is what GOD intended as the writers wefre guided to use them to teach about God’s Oneness, Monotheism, and His Lordship over all Creation and the sacredness of human creation and human marriage and sexuality. There were all sorts of weird theories then - and still are- about the Earth being created by a spiteful goid, and sexualirty therefore being evil. The Adam story as coming from a Babylonian story that has the first created human coming from blood and mud, not mud and God’s breath. And so on…LITERAL IS WHAT THE WRITER INTENDED not what we read in 21st century English without studying.

 

[Dan_Daly]

====================
It took the (Catholic) Church a while to study, sift and realize that the Genesis story is not to be taken LITERALLY in the popular sense but in the sense that the stories are from the culture and ancient understandings so their meaning is what GOD intended as the writers wefre guided to use them to teach about God’s Oneness, Monotheism, and His Lordship over all Creation and the sacredness of human creation and human marriage and sexuality. There were all sorts of weird theories then - and still are- about the Earth being created by a spiteful goid, and sexualirty therefore being evil. The Adam story as coming from a Babylonian story that has the first created human coming from blood and mud, not mud and God’s breath. And so on…LITERAL IS WHAT THE WRITER INTENDED not what we read in 21st century English without studying.

That is not a true statement. The Catholic Church does not teach that Genesis is not to be taken literally. Right now, the Church allows one to consider a non-literal interpretation. Those are two different things. The Church also allows one to consider a literal interpretation. And most of the Church fathers, doctors, and saints have taken that interpretation.

The idea that the Bible is repackaged pagan myth is incredibly destructive. The Church teaches that God made Adam from the earth and Eve from his side. Read the encyclical Arcanum. If Genesis is repackaged bablyonian myths, why not consider Christ a repackaged diety from some other religion?

That so many cultures around the world have a story of a great flood among their stories, is often cited as a reason to doubt the story of Noah. We are told, as in the commentary of my NAB translation of the Bible, that the story of Noah is simply a repackaged Babylonian myth.

How’s this for an alternative explanation?

The reason so many cultures have a story of a great flood…is that there was a great flood.

The very evidence used to cast doubt on the Biblical account is in reality supportive of what the Bible says.

Listen:

audiosancto.org/sermon/20081214-Unless-We-Believe-in-Scripture-We-Can-Neither-Be-Christians-Nor-Be-Saved.html

Pax!

 

[inocente]

1. The Hebrews, or at least many of them, did NOT believe the sky had a “roof” as in a solid barrier that was part of a structure.

And you know of this difference of opinion amongst the Hebrews at the time Genesis was written how?

2) Even if they DID believe such a thing, it does not logically follow that the Genesis account of creation is false, simply that some Jews had a false understanding of it. Some scientists don’t believe in evolution. Does it logically follow that evolution is a false theory?

Genesis is so badly written that some of its original intended audience misunderstood it?

As far as the “roof” you are referring to, the Bible speaks of waters in the firmament. It’s quite possible that before the Deluge, the Earth had a cloud cover which contained a vast amount of water.

That’s not remotely possible. Read it - the waters are above the vault of the sky (1:7-8) and the sky contains the stars and the big lights (1:14-18). The waters are therefore beyond the furthest stars.

 

[inocente]

In short, color me skeptical on the 1% margin of error claim.

Is there a technical reason for your skepticism or is it just that the answer doesn’t match your prior belief? What do you calculate the margin of error should be (to get a young Earth it would have to be in the ball park of ±50,000,000% ).

As to why the age of the earth is important, an understanding of the history of humanity is tied directly to an understanding of Christ- as Christ’s live, death, and resurrection is the central event of human history, and all other events would be utterly meaningless without them.

Can you explain how that’s a reason why the age of the Earth is important.

*Jesus Christ told us in John 5:46-47:

The traditional belief of the Church, as well as that the people Christ was talking to in that conversation is that what Moses wrote, includes Genesis. *

I never realized that all those Catholics who think Moses maybe didn’t write Genesis and think God’s days might not be 24 hours are such naughty Catholics. In any event, Genesis doesn’t give an age for the Earth so it’s not a convincing argument.

*There are many other reasons that the origin of the world and humanity are vital to understand. Throughout the 19th and 20th century, “naturalistic” explanations of both have been used purposely to erode faith in God and to trample upon humanity. *

Didn’t erode my faith or the faith of millions of others, nor does it make those explanations wrong. Are you saying that we can’t be Christians without living in a Disneyland bubble?

 

[inocente]

Inocente- your profile says you are Baptist, so I would guess you do not believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

If you mean the Real Presence then no. As to your questions, nice try but there’s no physical evidence available for those events so we can only hypothesize, which I’m not given to. Can we stick to the question of why the age of the Earth might be important to a Christian?

 

[rossum]

The statement you just made shows some of the assumptions that underly the analysis. You say fast decay releases heat quickly and slow decay releases heat slowly. You are basing a constant rate of decay upon an assumption of a constant rate of heat exchange.

And you are basing YEC on the assumption of a non-constant rate of heat exchange. What evidence do you have that the Laws of Thermodynamics have changed to the degree required by YEC?

If the Laws of Thermodynamics do not hold then the Law of Conservation of Energy (aka The First Law of Thermodynamics) does not hold and the energy of the entire universe can be generated from nothing. All the YEC arguments about “where did the energy for the Big Bang come from?” immediately fail.

YEC often fails to look at the implications of its statements. It will assume the existence of the Laws of Thermodynamics for one argument and then deny the same laws for a different argument.

You are also assuming that the effect of that heat exchange upon the earth has been constant.

What mechanisms of heat exchange other than radiation do you propose? What would be the effects of these other mechanisms on extrasolar bodies? What would we expect to observe in the spectra of these extrasolar bodies (within 6,000 light years of course) that could show these previously unknown mechanisms in operation?

This is science. If you say something happened you can’t just assume it, you have to produce actual evidence. Where is your evidence?

You may argue that these are reasonable assumptions, but the fact remains they are assumptions. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge that.

I have no problems with that. Science does not do “proof”, it does “beyond reasonable doubt”. It is beyond reasonable doubt that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the last 6,000 years. It is beyond reasonable doubt that that heat transfer mechanisms have not changed for billions of years because we can see heat transfer occurring in very distant stars. What science cannot do is to show things beyond unreasonable doubt.

There is more evidence for what science tells us about the past than there is evidence that the Bible, as found today, is a correct copy of the original documents. Indeed it is known that some parts of the original documents have been lost, such as the original ending of Mark. You have a beam in your own eye and are straining at motes in the eye of science.

“Heat kills YEC every time”

How is that different than saying:

“Serology kills the Eucharist every time”

It is very different. YEC makes statements about material things: “this rock is less than 6,000 years old and was laid down in Noah’s Flood.” Science is fully equipped to make authoritative statements about material things like rocks. The Eucharist is about Platonic/Thomist Substance, not Accident. Serology can only study the material Accident and not the philosophical Substance. In the case of the Eucharist, science is outside its domain of expertise. In the case of YEC, science is within its domain of expertise.

YEC has not yet learned the lesson that the Catholic Church learned with Galileo. When dealing with material things science is unbeatable, because science specialises in just the material. Dating a rock is something material. Science is always going to win when dating rocks, just as it won when deciding that the Earth went round the Sun.

You are putting things beyond an all powerful God, and placing the minds of yourself (or other humans you have decided to trust) up on a pedastal.

The YEC God is a deceptive God, Loki/Trickster if you like. He makes things look old in order to deceive scientists. I prefer to think of a God that makes things look old because they are old. Why would I want to follow a God who acts like Loki/Trickster?

Why would the percieved age of the world, assuming all of these analysis are correct- simply for the sake of argument, need to match the actual age of the world?

Here I shall quote Theodosius Dobzhansky:One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

There’s a single authentic Catholic interpretation when you guys can’t even agree about the first page of the Bible?

I have continuously shown the constant teaching and understanding of the Church. IDvolution references that. Those teachings have not changed. Baptists believed it too (since you too were Catholic 50 years ago). The issue here is scientism. Many modernistic Catholics have given in to it.

 

[buffalo]

You argument is wrong in a number of ways:

1. The Hebrews, or at least many of them, did NOT believe the sky had a “roof” as in a solid barrier that was part of a structure.
2. Even if they DID believe such a thing, it does not logically follow that the Genesis account of creation is false, simply that some Jews had a false understanding of it. Some scientists don’t believe in evolution. Does it logically follow that evolution is a false theory?

As far as the “roof” you are referring to, the Bible speaks of waters in the firmament. It’s quite possible that before the Deluge, the Earth had a cloud cover which contained a vast amount of water.

Pax.

Additional food for thought.

The firmament is a very dense medium and could be considered a “roof” even though objects can pass through it.

 

[buffalo]

====================
It took the (Catholic) Church a while to study, sift and realize that the Genesis story is not to be taken LITERALLY in the popular sense but in the sense that the stories are from the culture and ancient understandings so their meaning is what GOD intended as the writers wefre guided to use them to teach about God’s Oneness, Monotheism, and His Lordship over all Creation and the sacredness of human creation and human marriage and sexuality. There were all sorts of weird theories then - and still are- about the Earth being created by a spiteful goid, and sexualirty therefore being evil. The Adam story as coming from a Babylonian story that has the first created human coming from blood and mud, not mud and God’s breath. And so on…LITERAL IS WHAT THE WRITER INTENDED not what we read in 21st century English without studying.

Was the Holy Spirit sleeping until just recently?

 

[buffalo]

Can we stick to the question of why the age of the Earth might be important to a Christian?

Is there a SQUIRM emoticon?

 

[buffalo]

And you are basing YEC on the assumption of a non-constant rate of heat exchange. What evidence do you have that the Laws of Thermodynamics have changed to the degree required by YEC?

If the Laws of Thermodynamics do not hold then the Law of Conservation of Energy (aka The First Law of Thermodynamics) does not hold and the energy of the entire universe can be generated from nothing. All the YEC arguments about “where did the energy for the Big Bang come from?” immediately fail.

YEC often fails to look at the implications of its statements. It will assume the existence of the Laws of Thermodynamics for one argument and then deny the same laws for a different argument.

What mechanisms of heat exchange other than radiation do you propose? What would be the effects of these other mechanisms on extrasolar bodies? What would we expect to observe in the spectra of these extrasolar bodies (within 6,000 light years of course) that could show these previously unknown mechanisms in operation?

This is science. If you say something happened you can’t just assume it, you have to produce actual evidence. Where is your evidence?

I have no problems with that. Science does not do “proof”, it does “beyond reasonable doubt”. It is beyond reasonable doubt that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the last 6,000 years. It is beyond reasonable doubt that that heat transfer mechanisms have not changed for billions of years because we can see heat transfer occurring in very distant stars. What science cannot do is to show things beyond unreasonable doubt.

There is more evidence for what science tells us about the past than there is evidence that the Bible, as found today, is a correct copy of the original documents. Indeed it is known that some parts of the original documents have been lost, such as the original ending of Mark. You have a beam in your own eye and are straining at motes in the eye of science.

It is very different. YEC makes statements about material things: “this rock is less than 6,000 years old and was laid down in Noah’s Flood.” Science is fully equipped to make authoritative statements about material things like rocks. The Eucharist is about Platonic/Thomist Substance, not Accident. Serology can only study the material Accident and not the philosophical Substance. In the case of the Eucharist, science is outside its domain of expertise. In the case of YEC, science is within its domain of expertise.

YEC has not yet learned the lesson that the Catholic Church learned with Galileo. When dealing with material things science is unbeatable, because science specialises in just the material. Dating a rock is something material. Science is always going to win when dating rocks, just as it won when deciding that the Earth went round the Sun.

The YEC God is a deceptive God, Loki/Trickster if you like. He makes things look old in order to deceive scientists. I prefer to think of a God that makes things look old because they are old. Why would I want to follow a God who acts like Loki/Trickster?

Here I shall quote Theodosius Dobzhansky:One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (“the Navel”). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now - a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for.

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.rossum

The deceiver God is bogus - if one was walking along the beach and saw left footprints as far as one could see should he conclude a deceiver was at work?