Age of the Earth and all that

[Technomancer]

Well evolution's a whole different debate

For my own part I have no trouble with the findings of the physical or biological sciences on this issue. I tend to concur with Northtrop Frye's view (see 'Creation and Recreation') that Genesis is most useful to us when we don't consider it to be factually true, but rather to be a book speaking in the language of myth. The creation story, to continue using Frye's words, is more a mirror on man than a window on the natural world. It is about telling fundamental truths to us about ourselves; our own natures, our relationship to each other, and our relationship to God.

Personally, I believe that our eyes are already open to the natural world: both through God's gift of reason, but also by virtue of the fact that He made the physical workings of the universe within the grasp of the human mind. This is something that is witnessed not only in the day-to-day practice of human scientific and technological achievement, but is also attested to by scripture.

[Shinja]

i think this debate really has no end too it, if you argue for the said bible version of creation you will be discredited by scince for beliveing a fancifull myth that couldn't happen. while if you argue for science, weather for or aginst creation, there just inst enough eveidence either way to prove what happened. there is just not engough know about or planet for anyone to make such judgement. as well as the fact that scientist rarely agree with each other. thier ideas about how things work is also biased due to thier belief on wheather there is a God or not.

thats just the way i see it. im not really one for debates

[Technomancer]

Not at all, there is overwhelming agreement among scientists about the age of the Earth, and about evolution. There are disputes on the particulars of course, but there is no longer any serious questioning of the overall framework. Moreover, there is no issue of conflict or bias when it comes to these issues and the belief in God. It is a false dichotomy to say that the choice lies between science and God; there are many thinkers who see in the natural sciences not a contradiction, but a confirmation and a celebration of God's creative power.

On the issue of proof: it is well known that science doesn't offer proof, and cannot do so. The scientific method is about falsifying theories, that is disproving them. In that sense, evolution as well as modern theories of geology cannot be proven to be true. However, they are supported by an abundance of evidence, and moreover have not been disproven. On the other hand, the issue of a young earth and the Noachian flood have been disproven; that is if you assume someone wasn't been jiggering with the laws of physics on a regular basis (and there is zero evidence for this).

[Spiritsword]

Yes, this is where I run into trouble. Where to draw the line, or if a line can even be drawn, in regard to literal vs. figurative interpretation of scripture. This may be a whole other topic, though. I had a friend cite to me a passage about "all scripture being God-breathed" or "God-inspired", and thus argued that all scripture should be taken as the word of God, at face value. But then I have trouble resolving some of these issues, such as the age of the earth. But can we say, "Okay, so the story about Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt or of Moses parting the Rad Sea are true, but the flood story is not""? Where do we draw the line as to when it goes from literal to the language of myth. And if all scripture is on the same level, that is, God-inspired, aren't the accounts of creation as true as the accounts of the resurrection? I'm not arguing a side here, I'm just pointing out things I often wonder about, or questions I struggle with.

Spiritsword

[Gypsy]

Anyone looking into this subject seriously should really listen to either Chuck Missler or Dr Kent Hovind. This site is awesome http://www.drdino.com/. If he ever comes to a church in your area, be sure not to miss it.

[Technomancer]

Well, first it has been a principle from antiquity that the literal sense is not the only one available to us. There are also the moral, allegorical, and anagogical senses. These may be present at multiple levels in the text, and in the same place.

As far as interpretation goes, it has generally been held that one takes the text as literal (making allowances for historical context and genre), except where it does not make sense to do so. Clearly, observation indicates that certain cosmological statements made in the bible are strictly poetic: "he stretches out the heavens like a tent" (or something like that) for example. Clearly, neither sky nor space bear any physical resemblance to a tent, except perhaps for someone on the ground. In the same way, modern science demonstrates that certain parts of the text cannot be taken literally. This does not apply to Christ's death and resurrection however, since by definition he's outside of the limits of science. Hmm, if I had the time maybe I should try writing a bible study on this or something.


PS. I don't know about Missler, but Kent Hovind is someone to be avoided. On the honesty scale he's even worse than Baugh (the PhD is also a fraud). Even the AIG (Answers in Genesis) won't have anything to do with him.

[Shinja]

>In the same way, modern science demonstrates that certain parts of the text cannot be taken literally.

that is only if you believe said sceince to be true. in the end all such arguments fall to what an individual believes, some believe that science shows one view, while others follow a more direct scriptural belief, but who is to say which is right, i believe that the earth was made in six days, and i believe that the stars lit upon a word, while one who believes in science may say the world is old because it would take billions of years for the light from such distant stars to reach earth.

[Gypsy]

PS. I don't know about Missler, but Kent Hovind is someone to be avoided. On the honesty scale he's even worse than Baugh (the PhD is also a fraud). Even the AIG (Answers in Genesis) won't have anything to do with him.

Hmm, I'd be inclined to wonder about that. I've met the guy and he seems pretty straight forward. I'd really be interested in where you got that info.

[Technomancer]

The following is a response from AIG regarding Kent Hovind

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Also:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

And yes, this is an actual photograph of Hovind's Alma Mater (Patriot University)
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm

As an intersting aside, consider Hovind's laughable understanding of fundamental physics:

If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.
Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996.

[Gypsy]

Interesting stuff, I have to say. Did you look anything up on Missler? Regardless of which way you believe, Missler is always an interesting listen/read. You can also download his sermons (or teachings, whichever you prefer to call them) from a number of places. He deals more with the nature of God and how He is in His creation rather than creationism vs. evolution.

Regardless of the info and theories being swapped around here - which, actually, I think we probably should have carried this to another Christian board ... too late now - I'm still clear on what I believe. I believe that God created the world in six days. I take Genesis to be factual and will not for one second believe that it is a Biblical illustration of fundamental truths. Why? Because of my faith in God. I don't need science to tell me that He exists and that His Word is true. Don't get me wrong, I love science and I love the endless quest for knowledge, but my belief in God and the Bible does not fluctuate according to the latest science newsletter.

[Technomancer]

He sounds like he might be interesting. Could you post a link (preferably one with text documents, I'm on dial up). It's obvious what my own opinions on the issue are; namely that there need be no contradiction between modern science and the bible.

Another document that I've found useful myself is Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus (which concerns the study of scripture). I know that for most people here, it represents a very different denominational viewpoint (then again, I suspect there is a similar theological gap between Missler and myself), but I think some parts at least me of some benefit. The most important part starts at Paragraph 9, although P. 17-18 is probably the most relevant as far as this discussion goes.

[uc pseudonym]

I'm curious, Technomancer, in regard to your opinions on the beginning of life. This is one area that at least has some interest to me. Outside of "fixed dice" so to speak, do you think that life would originate from given building blocks? This is one area in which I was pretty sure I couldn't find a suitable explanation. Of course, my data isn't current, as my real study of this happened years ago. But in general I had thought that even given a long time, the odds were just too great.

[Gypsy]

This is Chuck Missler's offical site.

http://www.khouse.org/

[Technomancer]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the site.

Yes, I think life could arise anywhere so long as the right conditions are met (planetary composition, stability, solar longevity, etc). The trouble with the calculations regarding the odds of life is that they're basically junk, even the ones that support a high probability of abiogensis. Many of these models assume completely random interations, which is completely wrong. Chemical reactions proceed from a set of known physical laws; randomness plays a role, but it is not the principal issue. Also, these models are trying to calculate the odds of an unknown process occuring in a system of unknown composition under unknwown conditions. That's about as hopeless a task as you can find. It gets even worse when you consider that some of the abiogenesis models incorporate surface chemisty, which can be extremely compicated.

This is not to say that abiogensis is more a matter of faith than science; it isn't, although I'll freely admit there is no small amount of it in this field. However, there are good reasons for believing that it can/did happen. You're probably already familiar with the Urey-Miller experiment, so I won't go over it, but even then using a very unsophisticed model they were able to achieve compelling results. It's also well known that various (sometimes complicated) organic molecules form in outer space (in comets, carbonaceous chondrites, the outer planets and their moons, etc). Even "cell-like" bi-layers can self organize from naturally occuring compounds. Add this to the fact that your labratory is essentially the size of an entire planet with billions of parallel trials occuring over a massive period of time, to say nothing of what may be occuring in solar systems.

As for the question of fixing the dice, my answer is that I don't think it's something He needed to do. All that was necessary was to design the physical laws of the universe in such a way that biological life is certain to arise. It's sort of the like difference between playing pool and sinking all of the balls one after the other, or getting them all on the first shot.

[Rashiir]

If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.

LOL.

[Technomancer]

It's less funny when you realize he taught high school science.

[Rashiir]

Or funnier...ROFL...

[EireWolf]

Where do we draw the line as to when it goes from literal to the language of myth. And if all scripture is on the same level, that is, God-inspired, aren't the accounts of creation as true as the accounts of the resurrection?

I think a problem arises when we associate the word "myth" with "untruth." Myths and stories are/were often used to convey truth. Think of something like "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis. Clearly fiction, right? Yet it conveys truth about how the enemy subtly attacks believers. We don't consider it Scripture, but I think it was probably inspired by God. It's fiction, but it isn't untrue.

God used human beings to write Scripture -- human beings who were not very scientifically inclined at the time. In some cases (like the Creation story), God used timeless stories that would convey truth in a way that people would understand. Jesus told such stories all the time -- the Parables. His stories were not "true" in the sense that they actually happened, but they were true in that they transcended fact.

The Bible contains various means of conveying truth -- some "myth," some history, some poetry, some prophecy. Let us not shove God into a box of our own making by saying that He would only do things one way.

[Bobtheduck]

Were the world's supplies of crude oil to go "poof", I agree it would be a major catastrophe for civilization. However, given time (and forewarning) we could adapt by implementing a variety of different measures (alternate fuel sources, life style changes, etc.). This may be overoptimism on my part though given our current experience with the global warming issue.

I agree with what you don't want me to. I agree you are too optimistic. You have too strong a belief in people's ability to change on their own. We don't really. We are tied to bungee cords as far as our will goes. We can go a little this way and a little that way on our own, but we eventually give in to our carnal nature. It is impossible to get everyone to cooperate BECAUSE of that leeway of the bungee cord, and because of our own desires (apart from the Holy Spirit of course) to look out for ourselves and do things our own way.

If we elliminated our need for oil, the blessing of the Muslim nations would disappear, and I don't think that's possible biblically. God Blessed ishmael and he doesn't break his promises, and they don't fade away.

In regards to the New earth Old Earth theory, I won't touch it. I have believed both sides at one time or another, and I honestly don't care. People make too big of a deal about it. And I believe there is reasearch on both sides...

For Technomancer, do you know anything about the reforming of the old "Aether" theory? There is a "new" Aether theory now and it was gaining popularity. My point in this is that even the physicists know that the laws they give are only as they have observed and studied. For what they know, they are right, but they may have missed something that will throw their work in the absolute opposite direction. People have for a long time been saying that Aether was a midaevel concept and no one gave it any credibility, but in different clothing, it has ressurrected itself. We don't understand all of the physical world yet, and until we do we're working out of context.

[Mithrandir]

In regards to the New earth Old Earth theory, I won't touch it. I have believed both sides at one time or another, and I honestly don't care. People make too big of a deal about it. And I believe there is reasearch on both sides...

I can so completly relate to that...

[Technomancer]

It is true that people, and thus necessarily, societies are flawed. In social affairs, the prisoner's dilemna still applies, to people as well as to nations. However, it would be wrong to give into defeatism, to retreat into enclaves and await the final judgement. We are after all, called to begin the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth.

There are reasons for hope too. Technological progress has improved the lives of many and given us the means to build a more just society. At the same time, we are increasingly aware of its negative aspects, and in many cases there has been movement to mitigate or eliminate them. Social progress too, has improved the lot of most people: church leaders, trade unionists, and social activists have fought for, and have won, greater justice within society. The life of the average citizen, materially, politically, and socially, is much better than it was even 100 years ago.

I'm afraid I'm unaware of a new "Aether" theory, although I may know it by another name. Are you referring perhaps to quantum mechanical theories of the vacuum (Casimir effect, etc)? If not, what journals has it been published it, and by whom?

[Bobtheduck]

I don't believe technology aids a more just society. Merely a more comfortable society, which I believe is even more dangerous.

As for the New Aether theory, I'd have to look it up. I honestly don't remember.

[MasterDias]

This forum wouldn't exist if we didn't have computers and television, although alot of the technology we possess is truely devastating(IE. nuclear, biological, chemical weapons).

An interesting point to be made however is this. In some ancient societies, technology wasn't always inferior. The ancient Maya civilization's obsidian blade, for example, has a cleaner cut than a modern-day surgeons scalpel.

Eh, according to my college history professor anyway...

[Bobtheduck]

I didn't mean, in case anyone was wondering, that "comfort" was the only output of technology. I meant "comfort" instead of "justice"

[uc pseudonym]

Perhaps the Christian perspective can be easier summed up as "God did nature." Assuming one was a believer in God, how difficult is it to say that he set up the universe so that it would work?

You need to talk to Technomancer. He's more educated on the issue than I.

[Rashiir]

Eradon, the information you have is outdated. The experiment was stacked, wherein the scientists used gases that they knew would work. However, new evidence has shown that the gases used in that experiment were not at all the gases present 4 billion years ago. In fact, oxygen gas, which was kept out of the experiment because they knew that its presence would prevent the amino acids from forming, has been found to have been present at the time life was supposed to form. Even the head scientist that ran the experiment has admitted that it no longer holds any relevance to the current scientific theories of the origin of life.

[Stephen]

Watch the language chief

[Michael]

I believe God created the Earth with age. Like Adam.

[Technomancer]

Wow. It seems to have been a busy night here. I don't think there's any reason to leave Eradon*, the conversations just getting interesting here.

First I'll say that I am convinced on the basis of the evidence that the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old, that the big bang happened etc. I think that the current science is more or less correct. Moreover, there is no necessary conflict between the current scientific understanding and the Christian faith. This is not a new opinion BTW, but was held by the great doctors of the Church, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. This opinion has been reaffirmed in the modern era.

Now, as for Urey-Miller and abiogenesis. The presence of oxygen in these experiments is irrelevant. We know that it cannot have been present in the early atmosphere. This knowledge primarily comes from so-called 'banded iron formations' and other metalliferous sedimetary deposits that have been dated to the early Pre-Cambrian; the metals aren't oxidized, so there was no oxygen. Also these formations occur only in rocks from this time period, and not at all in later Pre-Cambrian or Phanerazoic rocks. Also, life itself is a prerequiste for an oxygen atmosphere. Molecular oxygen is simply too reactive to exist long in the atmosphere on its own, without a constant source of replenishment (see: "The Spark of Life" for info on abiogenesis, also "The Cradle of Life" for info on the earliest single-celled life of the Pre-Cambrian)

*edit: oops, sorry to those misnamed. But St. Peter, Creation is not what I doubt, but Creationism

[Technomancer]

However, I do not think we are mere matter, any more than we are simply animals. We are both to be sure, but not only such. We have evolved intelligence, and language, but there is something else to us as well. We have a conscience, a soul. Not only do we make tools for our survival, but as a species we ask questions that constantly draw us towards something. The pull of the divine, the grace of God.

Hmm. I'll stop here for now, and try to collect my thoughts on this matter (assuming any one wants to hear my ramblings), and try to write more later when I have a clearer head.