Alright, just as a basic question: Why do we believe that the earth is young compared to what atheists commonly believe? I mean scientifically. i don't need the classic: "because the bible says so" or "carbon dating is unreliable." What about the supposed "proof" that atheists find in the layers of the earth supporting the evidence that it shows billions of years of development? Any intelligent points?
Because I think you ask something impossible if you don't want to hear the 'classic answers' in any of this.
The common foundation for young earth creationism is, apparently unfortunately for you, grounded in Biblical thought. It necessitates a literal, 'day' creation as well as genealogical mathematics. Once genealogies are calculated and you add in the week of creation, we arrive at an age around 6,004 years, I believe.
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.
Carbon dating rests on essentially the same foundations and isn't any more reliable.
So it really goes back to your world view. I'm going to believe the Bible in a dangerously literal sense, as Tom Harpur would say.
Biogenesis and evolutionary Creationism I find incompatible with Biblical teaching. I don't have as 'much' of a problem with things like Nebula theory. The issue with that is that I remember reading that God spoke things into existence. I don't see the purpose in speaking things into existence which then needed to be further refined for apparently billions of years (14.5, or are they up to 15 now?).
'Evidence' can be dually interpretation, and I think that if we are to believe in a world wide Flood, then all of that evidence has been 'hampered' with. If you take into account the Flood, then rock striation and strata are accounted for, same with fossils, geologic columns and the like.
In response to to the 'proof' of scientists (which, all aren't atheists). I would call it just that 'proof'--in quotations. It's grounded in assumption, not testable, not verifiable.
One site I've come across often in 'refuting' the 'proof' of big bangisms is talk of origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Might allow you to see something you didn't know before.
First, though you used the word "WE" (seemingly to describe Christians), it should be noted that Christians have many different views of the age of the earth. Some Christians believe it is old and some that it is young.
Second, the statement 'carbon dating' is unreliable IS a scientific statement, so it is odd that you asked for scientific reasons but then dismissed that as a possible answer. Furthermore, carbon dating can only give a max age of about 50,000 years, so that's not really at issue when talking about thousands vs. millions of years.
a) Uniformitarianism- This view observes present processes (like erosion) and assumes that such processes are responsible for what we observe (things like the grand canyon). But these processes work very slowly and, if they ARE responsible for what we observe, millions of years are necessitated. Present observations is the key to the past.
b) Catastrophism- This view observes present topography (things like the grand canyon) and assumes that historical records about a worldwide flood are correct. If, indeed, there was a worldwide flood, the geological consequences of such an event would have been catastrophic and what we now see is explained by what happened then. The past is the key to understanding the present observations.
In other words, all scientists agree that the world's topography looks messed up. It either looks messed up b/c it went through a terrible event (a worldwide flood), or it looks messed up b/c it's just very old.
Lots of articles here (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/) that should be helpful. When it comes to dating or historical science there is no such thing as "proof" of age. Scientists gather evidence to try and support their presupposition that the earth is old or young. So old-age earthers start with the assumption that the earth or rocks are billions of years old because they are committed to the belief of evolution which requires immense amounts of time to work. Yet young-earth creationists use the very same evidence (rocks, fossils etc.) to support their belief that the earth is only about 6,000 years old according to the Biblical chronology.
Well, assume for a moment that God is an Indycar fan.
Seriously, what I mean is that one possible theory can be explained by the difference between Formula 1 and IndyCar. In F1, the race begins with a standing start. The lights go green, and off they go.
In IndyCar, they have a "flying" start. They run through a few pace laps, and then the field takes the green flag at full throttle.
What if God created everything that way? What if God put dinosaur bones in the earth? What if God, instead of forming the sun out of a hydrogen molecular cloud 4.59 billion years ago, spoke it into being fully lit? What if the light from the Pleiades, which are 440ly away, was created en route?
This is certainly within God's power, right?
There may be Biblical authority that contradicts this hypothesis (and I haven't found any *yet*), but there is no scientific evidence that could refute it, because it's beyond the realm of science. How could you prove or disprove it?
My point is not to propose some radical theory on earth's creation. My point is to show that faith and science are two different discussions. Right now, the prevailing theory is an old-earth one. That may contradict the Bible (and then again, by some interpretations, it may not), but it is the prevailing theory. Yes, there is proof against it, but there is also proof in favor of it. Like all scientific theories, though, it is simply waiting to be disproven, to the point that the general scientific community no longer accepts it.
The real problem is that the general scientific community is polarized. There are some that are staunch defenders of the Bible, but there are many more who mistakenly put their faith in science. Our mistake is in cornering them. Rather than approach the issue on their grounds, we often start with the assumption that the Bible must be interpreted a certain way and work from there. That *may be correct* but it's bad salesmanship when dealing with people whose faith rests in science.
For my part, I DON'T CARE how old the earth is. It has very little impact on my relationships with my wife, my children, my extended family, my friends, and those non-Christians that I'm trying to reach. I'm much more interested in the Great Commission than how precisely to interpret the first few chapters of Genesis. When I get to heaven, I'll ask God about it. Until then, I'm content in not knowing.
Oh, and my other point is that IndyCar is the best form of racing in existence.
Actually a couple of Christ's miracles support it - He made wine out of water - as well as lots of baked bread - two items that "naturally" would take some time to reach their final state - yet he created them in an instant, already fully "developed"!
Uniformitarianism or catastrophism are not the main philosphies of geology any more, although uniformitarianism forms the basis of modern geological inquiry. All geologists (at least the ones I know) accept that there are cases of catastrophism (meteorite impacts, volcanics eruptions, landslides), but these tend to be few and far between.
Sorry, you got is backwards. The conclusions of an old earth is based on the empirical evidence and observations, not on presuppositions.
Nothing I said goes against this. I was simply stating the 2 major explanations for what we see. Of course it is true that both groups of scientists recognize the reality of both. It's simply a matter of what the ratio is.
My point that I didn't make too well is that it is not an either/or philosphy - either you are uniformitarian or you are a catastrophist. Your original post seemed to suggest that.
Catastrophism has much of its roots in religious thought as it was the prevalent explanation of the physical world up until Hutton formerly proposed the uniformitarian model in the late 1700's.
No, I wasn't saying everyone had to be either one or the other absolutely. Hutton, for instance, believed what we see is 95% the result of uniformitarianism. I am quite sure, of course, that he'd change that estimation to a lower percentage if he were alive today.
OK, all clear here. Interesting take on Hutton, should he be around today.
Well you couldn't be more wrong actually. Empirical science by definition involves observation and/or experimentation to prove a theory. Dating rocks involves historical (not empirical) science since the only way to prove the age of something that is millions of years old is to observe its formation. Radiometric dating produces dates based on many assumptions about the rocks origin and past history and is therefore not empirical in any sense of the word. Furthermore, certain dates are accepted and others rejected based on how old the researcher BELIEVES the rocks or fossils should be. So bias or presupposition is very well intrenched when it comes to the study of origins, yet most old-earthers don't even realize how much their worldview or belief-system effects the conclusions they make.
On samples of known age (eg. recent lava flows) radiometic dating has been shown to be very unreliable, so the whole methodology behind it is obviously flawed but it is still widely used because it can provide dates that scientists need to back up their unsubstantiated theory that the earth is billions of years old.
I stated my question in a very narrow minded and immature manner. Sorry guys. Thanks for the thoughts!
What about the supposed "proof" that atheists find in the layers of the earth supporting the evidence that it shows billions of years of development? Any intelligent points?
So not only does the geologic time scale need "reappraisal" but all the other 'proofs' (as scientists and media would have us believe) about our past that are dependent upon the universally accepted geologic time frame are now under serious doubt and will likely be rejected at some time in the future. At least the scientists here are honest enough to admit that these "past" events are only 'inferred' by the geologic data rather than proven beyond all doubt, which is what the public are usually led to believe.
I have spent countless hours studying old vs young earth, evolution and everything in between. One thing that I can be sure of is I do not blindly trust scientists. They are in such a massive political game and competing for grant money it's ridiculous. I found many instances of biologists that did not support macro evolution HOWEVER they openly admit to just going with the flow so they would keep their job and grant money. What is really scary is they teach this stuff as being true.
Just because muds are found to able to settle in more energetic environments does not mean all mudstones and clays were now created in energetic environments but without seeing the actual Science journal, it's hard to come to any actual opinion. I didn't see any link, but I'm sure you have to subscribe to actually see the article.
But the point is that it throws evidence in the face of assumption.
The truth about the scientific method is that as great as it is, it is widely ignored. Time, chance and matter plus near statistical impossibility seem to be the currency of today.
The scary part of it all?
Most of the presumptions of biogenesis and cosmology aren't actual science either.
Yet there I was, learning the theories in high school.
The "assumption" was never such a thing. If you take very fine clay, mix it in a big pool of water, it will take a significant amount of time to settle out, and that is a low energy environment. This type of experiment is what was used to establish the original hypothesis that mudstones and claystones are deposited in quiet environments. The new evidence only suggests that muds and clays can be deposited in active environments.
Thinking about it, I don't know why this new finding is a big deal. Every stream has back-eddies and quiet pools. We regularly collect silt samples from high energy creeks. Again, I would have to see the actual article.
As far as biogenesis and cosmology, I have no technical knowledge there and these has little relevance toward this topic.