Old Earth vs. Young Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Banff9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monkey1976 said:
The oldest radioactive material on earth is actually older than earth itself: Uranium 238. Its half-life is roughly 4.5 billion years, which means we can use it to date something nearly as old as the universe itself. It formed the same way that every naturally-occurring element heavier than iron did: In the final, spectacular seconds of a star’s life as it went supernova. The way that we can tell how much radioactive material was originally in a given sample is that we know what these elements become as they decay (for uranium, it’s a particular isotope of lead), and we can use the amounts of those “daughter” materials to figure out how much of the original material there was.

When scientists say that “nothing is ever proven”, what is meant is that we use the best models we have available, but if new observations come along which definitively overturn that model then we start looking for a new one. For example, Newton’s model of gravity vs. Einstein’s: The Newtonian model, while useful for simple situations, consistently gave errors when calculating where Mercury should appear in relation to the Sun during an eclipse, if the position was within a certain arc length from our point of view. Einstein gave us a new model, and that model - because it took the bending of light rays by the Sun’s gravity well into account - gave correct predictions of Mercury’s position, as verified by observation. But even Einstein’s model has problems, because it breaks down under certain conditions, so we’re still looking for a model of gravity that can give correct predictions under all circumstances. When one says that something is “proven” in a scientific context, it means that we know absolutely everything about it with 100% certainty, and no further research is necessary or even useful.

Of course God can perform miracles - He’s God. But why would He perform miracles in such a way that we would see false evidence as true? Genesis isn’t a scientific treatise - it’s the account of the beginning of salvation history. It tells us what God did, but very little about how He did it. Faith can tell us the who and what of creation, and reason can give us the how. Scripture is silent about how God formed Adam - it only says that He did, and the materials that He used. Physical anthropology tells us how God shaped the “dust of the earth” through the millenia, culminating in the gift of the breath of life - a rational soul - to our first father, Adam. Adam is the only creature to whom God gives the “breath of life”, so it must be something other than the biological processes we call “life”, because we see other living things all around us.

And I believe every word that is in Genesis. What I don’t do is mistake the history of our salvation for a scientific treatise on biology, geology, and cosmology. The technology we have now is based on the same principles that we use to determine things like the age of the earth. If we’ve gotten the age of the earth wrong because of variable radioactive decay rates, than radiation therapy couldn’t work - both are based on the same model. Not to mention that - like I said above - the amount of daughter isotopes we can detect tell that, for that much decay to have occurred in only 6,000 years, our first parents would have been exposed to over 300 times the lethal limit of radiation. Not could-someday-cause-cancer lethal, but instantly lethal.

That is Our Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - hidden under the appearance of bread.
Click to expand...
Again, an assumption that the decay rate is constant since the beginning is not provable.
 
Monkey1976 said:
The oldest radioactive material on earth is actually older than earth itself: Uranium 238. Its half-life is roughly 4.5 billion years, which means we can use it to date something nearly as old as the universe itself. It formed the same way that every naturally-occurring element heavier than iron did: In the final, spectacular seconds of a star’s life as it went supernova. The way that we can tell how much radioactive material was originally in a given sample is that we know what these elements become as they decay (for uranium, it’s a particular isotope of lead), and we can use the amounts of those “daughter” materials to figure out how much of the original material there was.

When scientists say that “nothing is ever proven”, what is meant is that we use the best models we have available, but if new observations come along which definitively overturn that model then we start looking for a new one. For example, Newton’s model of gravity vs. Einstein’s: The Newtonian model, while useful for simple situations, consistently gave errors when calculating where Mercury should appear in relation to the Sun during an eclipse, if the position was within a certain arc length from our point of view. Einstein gave us a new model, and that model - because it took the bending of light rays by the Sun’s gravity well into account - gave correct predictions of Mercury’s position, as verified by observation. But even Einstein’s model has problems, because it breaks down under certain conditions, so we’re still looking for a model of gravity that can give correct predictions under all circumstances. When one says that something is “proven” in a scientific context, it means that we know absolutely everything about it with 100% certainty, and no further research is necessary or even useful.

Of course God can perform miracles - He’s God. But why would He perform miracles in such a way that we would see false evidence as true? Genesis isn’t a scientific treatise - it’s the account of the beginning of salvation history. It tells us what God did, but very little about how He did it. Faith can tell us the who and what of creation, and reason can give us the how. Scripture is silent about how God formed Adam - it only says that He did, and the materials that He used. Physical anthropology tells us how God shaped the “dust of the earth” through the millenia, culminating in the gift of the breath of life - a rational soul - to our first father, Adam. Adam is the only creature to whom God gives the “breath of life”, so it must be something other than the biological processes we call “life”, because we see other living things all around us.

And I believe every word that is in Genesis. What I don’t do is mistake the history of our salvation for a scientific treatise on biology, geology, and cosmology. The technology we have now is based on the same principles that we use to determine things like the age of the earth. If we’ve gotten the age of the earth wrong because of variable radioactive decay rates, than radiation therapy couldn’t work - both are based on the same model. Not to mention that - like I said above - the amount of daughter isotopes we can detect tell that, for that much decay to have occurred in only 6,000 years, our first parents would have been exposed to over 300 times the lethal limit of radiation. Not could-someday-cause-cancer lethal, but instantly lethal.

That is Our Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - hidden under the appearance of bread.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed the whole point entirely. When the earth formed, how did all the elements in it form? I think you should look at the different, recent theories of planet formation.

Second, your statements are just the same, old and reworded: “Your Bible is wrong. Here, here and here.”

If Jesus Christ could bend physical reality by His will, you prefer science? Show me the peer-reviewed paper titled: “A Scientific Analysis of the Claims made in the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.”

All your statements offer is the GOD DID NOTHING IN GENESIS claim. God couldn’t do this and God couldn’t do that. Really? So what powers does God have? None? If so, how can He act as a God?

This debate is entirely about: “You better believe science. We must stamp out young earth creationism everywhere and anywhere.”

SO WHAT if some people believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old? What if your coworker revealed that to you one day? What would be the practical outcome? He’s been doing the same job for a long time and now that it turns out he’s one of “them,” how does it affect his job performance, his ability to drive or use a cell phone? Answer: IT DOESN’T.

So, there is obviously a payoff to putting in the time and effort to leave God out of the picture in Genesis with zero peer-reviewed scientific papers titled: An Analysis of the Christian God and HIS Powers and Abilities."

Ed
 
buffalo said:
Again, an assumption that the decay rate is constant since the beginning is not provable.
Click to expand...
If the decay rate were variable, then either early earth would have been lethal to our first parents or God planted daughter isotopes in such a way that we could not help but reach false conclusions about the planet’s age.
 
Monkey1976 said:
But when we take the results of our reason, and see that they work for things like nuclear reactors and radiation therapy, and find that applying those exact same rules to the problem of earth’s age gives a result that is - according to your model - wrong, what should we conclude? We know how much radiation has been released over the earth’s lifetime. If the rate changes to fit a 6,000-year timeline, then the dosage of radiation received by our first parents would have killed them instantly. If the amount of radiation released is incorrect, then either our model of how radiation works is incorrect and nuclear power stations, atomic bombs, and radiation therapy don’t really work at all or God planted the “daughter” isotopes that we see in such amounts that we would come to a false conclusion about how much original material was present. There are only four terms to the equation: Remaining = Original - (rate of decay x time). We can measure the original amount from the daughter isotopes. We can directly measure the rate of decay and the amount of material remaining. From those terms, we can calculate time. Which term is incorrect?

No, but neither should he conclude that he is a monoped without supporting evidence. If the revelator tells us something specific about the physical universe in the context of imparting physical knowledge, we should see clear evidence supporting it - such as looking down and seeing two feet.

The “paradigm” never said that there were no more impacts on the moon after a given point. In fact, there are records of an abbey in Canterbury describing a fairly spectacular lunar impact event in 1178.

Of course. But if he tells us that the water washed them away, then we should find water. If we find no water, then is he still worthy of trust, or was he referring to something else?
Click to expand...
I really think you do understand the issue. 😉

Now we know about general and special relativity and the scale difference. Perhaps radioactivity is the same. What we do know know is the sun has influenced decay rates here on earth and they vary, (in the scale of the universe a very local system).
 
Monkey1976 said:
If the decay rate were variable, then either early earth would have been lethal to our first parents or God planted daughter isotopes in such a way that we could not help but reach false conclusions about the planet’s age.
Click to expand...
Why planted? As a deception, or with other unknown purpose?
 
edwest2 said:
You’ve missed the whole point entirely. When the earth formed, how did all the elements in it form? I think you should look at the different, recent theories of planet formation.
Click to expand...
The elements within the earth accreted from the debris within the solar nebula. We can see these protoplanetary disks that look exactly like we would expect around other stars today.
edwest2 said:
Second, your statements are just the same, old and reworded: “Your Bible is wrong. Here, here and here.”
Click to expand...
I never said that Scripture is wrong. Not once. I ask you to retract such a hurtful and uncharitable accusation.

What I have said is that Scripture is silent on the means God used in creation, and science is how we understand the rules God wrote to govern His universe.
edwest2 said:
If Jesus Christ could bend physical reality by His will, you prefer science? Show me the peer-reviewed paper titled: “A Scientific Analysis of the Claims made in the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.”

All your statements offer is the GOD DID NOTHING IN GENESIS claim. God couldn’t do this and God couldn’t do that. Really? So what powers does God have? None? If so, how can He act as a God?
Click to expand...
Again with the accusations. Show me where I said these things - you’re accusing me of the sin of heresy, so either show me the evidence or retract these accusations.
edwest2 said:
This debate is entirely about: “You better believe science. We must stamp out young earth creationism everywhere and anywhere.”

SO WHAT if some people believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old? What if your coworker revealed that to you one day? What would be the practical outcome? He’s been doing the same job for a long time and now that it turns out he’s one of “them,” how does it affect his job performance, his ability to drive or use a cell phone? Answer: IT DOESN’T.
Click to expand...
What I’m arguing against is the abuse of our reason through willful ignorance. Reason is given to us as a free gift by God so that we can better understand and appreciate the beauty of His creation, and so better understand the His Glory as Creator. Just as it it wrong to ignore Faith because of what some think reason tells us, it is wrong to ignore reason because of what some think Faith tells us. Faith and reason inform and complete each other.
edwest2 said:
So, there is obviously a payoff to putting in the time and effort to leave God out of the picture in Genesis with zero peer-reviewed scientific papers titled: An Analysis of the Christian God and HIS Powers and Abilities."

Ed
Click to expand...
God is not subject to science. The fact that He seems to have created the universe in such a way that there are physical laws present which we are capable of understanding and putting to use is a testament to His Glory. God, being omnipotent, could indeed have created the universe in 6 literal, 24-hour days, placing the Sun in orbit about the earth, and so forth. But when we apply the gift of reason He gave us to the task of understanding His creation, we see that He didn’t do that - He gave us the gift of a universe that operates under laws we can understand.

This was a very hurtful post, Ed. You accused me multiple times of heresy. I ask you to either retract these accusations or show me exactly where I denied God’s omnipotence.
 
Heresy? I just pointed out that your slightly reworded post has been posted here in other forms a lot.

This isn’t about appreciating God’s works at all. It’s about the “let’s stamp out young earth creationism” campaign. As a character recently said on TV, “The Church is against gays, women and science.”

And we’re a bit overdue for another run of women deacons/priests.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Heresy? I just pointed out that your slightly reworded post has been posted here in other forms a lot.

This isn’t about appreciating God’s works at all. It’s about the “let’s stamp out young earth creationism” campaign. As a character recently said on TV, “The Church is against gays, women and science.”

And we’re a bit overdue for another run of women deacons/priests.

Ed
Click to expand...
It seems to me like the only one trying to do any “stamping out” is you. I don’t think anyone here said the bible was wrong. One can agree with the evidence science shows us on the age of the earth without being against the bible. You are being very insulting and accusing us of trying to “stamp out” your belief. When all anyone has done so far is answer questions or refute accusastions
 
Gricken said:
It seems to me like the only one trying to do any “stamping out” is you. I don’t think anyone here said the bible was wrong. One can agree with the evidence science shows us on the age of the earth without being against the bible
Click to expand...
Exactly, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and believe in it fully.

That being said, I also believe that science teaches us those things that the Bible does not. The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they compliment each other quite nicely.
 
Gricken said:
It seems to me like the only one trying to do any “stamping out” is you. I don’t think anyone here said the bible was wrong. One can agree with the evidence science shows us on the age of the earth without being against the bible. You are being very insulting and accusing us of trying to “stamp out” your belief. When all anyone has done so far is answer questions or refute accusastions
Click to expand...
You don’t know what my beliefs regarding this subject are. When I was first studying science in school, I just took it for granted that my teachers were telling me factual information. No one was there when the earth formed. No one knows - and I’d be glad to review anything about the formation of heavy/radioactive elements - how any of the high atomic weight elements formed.

To me, this is like: I like apples and you like oranges. It doesn’t matter in the long run if people are young earth creationists. It just doesan’t. And I never get an answer to the following question: What are the practical, real world results of anyone believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago?

Why is this so important? And all I get to that is some non-believers might be turned away from believing if they - gasp - found out the person talking to them believes the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

I have never encountered that in street witnessing. There, the only question is: Do you believe Jesus Christ is God who died for your sins and wants to be in a relationship with you?" Go to any non-theist web site, or read some comments here: “You mean your invisible friend” or “that book of fairy tales.” or “don’t you try to shove your religion down my throat.”

OR this parenting cue.

shine.yahoo.com/parenting/losing-religion-why-im-raising-child-believe-science-162300943.html

Yeah, that was worth covering… but apparently, someone decided it was important enough to post, not on Bob’s blog but yahoo.

Ed
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Exactly, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and believe in it fully.

That being said, I also believe that science teaches us those things that the Bible does not. The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they compliment each other quite nicely.
Click to expand...
Really? Where? The Biology textbook and the astronomy textbook say it all happened by itself. No God required. No connection whatsoever.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Really? Where? The Biology textbook and the astronomy textbook say it all happened by itself. No God required. No connection whatsoever.

Ed
Click to expand...
It says it happened. It doesn’t say it happened on it’s own. it doesn’t even touch the subject.
 
edwest2 said:
You don’t know what my beliefs regarding this subject are. When I was first studying science in school, I just took it for granted that my teachers were telling me factual information. No one was there when the earth formed. No one knows - and I’d be glad to review anything about the formation of heavy/radioactive elements - how any of the high atomic weight elements formed.

To me, this is like: I like apples and you like oranges. It doesn’t matter in the long run if people are young earth creationists. It just doesan’t. And I never get an answer to the following question: What are the practical, real world results of anyone believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago?

Why is this so important? And all I get to that is some non-believers might be turned away from believing if they - gasp - found out the person talking to them believes the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

I have never encountered that in street witnessing. There, the only question is: Do you believe Jesus Christ is God who died for your sins and wants to be in a relationship with you?" Go to any non-theist web site, or read some comments here: “You mean your invisible friend” or “that book of fairy tales.” or “don’t you try to shove your religion down my throat.”

OR this parenting cue.

shine.yahoo.com/parenting/losing-religion-why-im-raising-child-believe-science-162300943.html

Yeah, that was worth covering… but apparently, someone decided it was important enough to post, not on Bob’s blog but yahoo.

Ed
Click to expand...
I could ask you the same. Why do you get upset in people believing the world is old? And we have pointed to applications of our knowledge of the age of the earth. I don’t get why non-theist websites have to do with this, other than that some people can be jerks. You seem to think that everyone who thinks the earth is old is out to stamp out religion. I don’t know why you get so upset at the idea of an old earth and frankly it doesn’t matter. What I would like is if you could please stop switching the subject away from science and onto the way some “non-theists” act
 
edwest2 said:
Really? Where? The Biology textbook and the astronomy textbook say it all happened by itself. No God required. No connection whatsoever.

Ed
Click to expand...
No, they actually don’t. At least not the ones that I have read. They describe the scientific event that took place. They do not say that God did not cause those events. They also do not say that God did cause those events. Every textbook I have read, and I have read many, leave God out of the discussion altogether. This is not because they are trying to disassociate the creation from the Creator, but because they are sticking to science and not delving into Philosophy and Theology as it is not the area that they cover.
 
edwest2 said:
Really? Where? The Biology textbook and the astronomy textbook say it all happened by itself. No God required. No connection whatsoever.

Ed
Click to expand...
Thus showing the problems of reason without faith. To me, young-earth creationism in the face of so much evidence opposing it is an example of faith without reason. In both cases, one is denying a gift of God, and nothing good can ever come of that.
 
Monkey1976 said:
Thus showing the problems of reason without faith. To me, young-earth creationism in the face of so much evidence opposing it is an example of faith without reason. In both cases, one is denying a gift of God, and nothing good can ever come of that.
Click to expand...
But there really isn’t “so much evidence” as you claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top