Age of the earth?

[Glee]

Yay new thread. Also, another one about the age of the earth
Looking over the results of other threads, it seems that the defining point of the argument for both sides is the age of the earth. Sort of a global flood verses millions of years sediment buildup.

If the Earth is proven to be millions of years old, and the sediment has built up over time, then the fossils found would seem to imply that evolution happened, as they seem to be structured in an order of complexity, development over time, etc.

If the Earth is only thousands of years old, then fossil evidence is irrelevant because the flood was the sole creator of most of the fossils, and they were deposited in their consecutive layers due to how long they would float for/how easily they mixed with the liquidfied layers of the ground during the flood.

Without fossil evidence, and without proof that the earth has had millions of years of existance, evolution cannot be proven. If the earth is in fact millions of years old, and the fossil record is indeed correct, then creationism as it currently stands would be invalidated as well.

SO: Is there a single piece of evidence that comprehensively proves that a global flood happened / did not happen? Is there a lay-man, easy to identify, unrefutable piece of evidence that can be used to show the age of the earth?


I always thought that underground salt deposits were a great proof of a old age earth. Salt was the leftover from an evaporated sea, which was then covered with subsequent layers of sediments, etc.

Case in point: the Michigan Basin Salt mines. See http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html for some fairly straightforward pictures about how the michigan salt mines were supposedly formed, and how many layers of sediments are layered on top of it. Note the size, shapes and locations. (And http://www.beg.utexas.edu/indassoc/agl/agl_if.html for some nifty animations of salt in general)

It is interesting to note that there are 6 different layers of salt in the area, meaning at 6 different times through history there inland seas at this location, each of which subsequently evaporated.

The creationist answer to salt deposits, at least by Walt Brown ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view7.html ) also involves evaporation, however, only part of the sea is evaporated and the salt is precipatated due to the water becoming superstaurated. This "thick pasty" precipetate is then buried under heavier sediments(!) during the flood.

I don't see how this could lead to multiple layers of salt forming, nor why the salt precipatate would even form a layer, much less 6 differernt ones in this particular area alone, whilst the majority of other areas have no salt deposits at all. A global flood I would have thought using this model would no doubt have had a fairly even distribution of salt deposits.

The locations of salt deposits are a telling factor that it was not laid down in a global flood - as (from the first link) clearly shows:


Actually, looking back at that, im not sure if its lay-man enough. Any other simple irrefutable examples for/against?

[Cathar1950]

hannahjoy wrote:

Any Biblical creationist will tell you that science accurately and honestly studied will support God's Word.

They tell you that but it does not mean it's true.

it's "God says versus scientists say".

If your defining God's word=bible then I disagree with you.
I don't think God is saying anything about it.
I am sick and tired of people saying the bible is God's word and really mean that their interpretation of a collection of writings are God's word.

[McCulloch]

I don't see it as a 'God says versus science says' controversy.

Neither do I - it's "God says versus scientists say". I am so sick and tired of creationism being falsely defined as "God versus science". I challenge anyone who thinks it is so to find one creationist who will agree that science (not scientists) and God are at odds. Any Biblical creationist will tell you that science accurately and honestly studied will support God's Word.

Science - A systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experiment, observation, and deduction, to produce reliable explanations of phenomena, with reference to the material and physical world.
Science - a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Science - A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation.
Definitions for Scientific Research, Scientific Knowledge, Scientific Method, Scientific Model, Scientific Proof, Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Experiment

The Institute for Creation Research has on it's home page

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

It is clear from this statement that they are not seeking objective truth but seeking to support their pre-existing bias with scientific evidence. On the home page there is a link to an article entitled The Wonderful Truth of the Trinity. This article has nothing to do with science or the scientific method and much to do with theology.

[micatala]

Quote micatala:
I don't see it as a 'God says versus science says' controversy.

Neither do I - it's "God says versus scientists say". I am so sick and tired of creationism being falsely defined as "God versus science". I challenge anyone who thinks it is so to find one creationist who will agree that science (not scientists) and God are at odds. Any Biblical creationist will tell you that science accurately and honestly studied will support God's Word.

Well, I would also say that it is not a 'God versus scientists' controversy. Most scientists are not 'against God' and don't see the science they do as opposing God. Certainly there are a few scientists who might be described as hardcore atheists who use scientific arguements in an attempt to show God doesn't exist, but I think you would find most scientists see the science they do as mostly irrelevant to the question of God. Some scientists do see the science they do as a study of God's works, or even a form of worship of God, even those who are evolutionary biologists.

The particular kinds of opinions or views that scientists hold about God are arguably deeply affected by the science they do. Knowing in detail the nature of the evidence for evolution or the age of the earth or the cosmos certainly changes how one looks at the operation of the Creator. However, this is not opposing God, but only adapting one's ideas about God to the evidence we have of His work. It is the same thing we as a civilization did when the evidence for Copernicanism became compelling enough to be widely accepted.

To turn your statement around, I would say that most Christians who accept the fact of evolution feel that the Bible, properly understood, is either entirely consistent with or irrlevant to the question of evolution.

In my view, many creationists are trying to redefine science so that it fits with a pre-determined world-view that is based on biblical literalism. They are claiming that their understanding of science is the 'proper one,' but the case made for this is largely based on theological arguements and selective use of scientific evidence and the scientific method. I have never seen a creationist scientific explanation of evolutionary or geological history that explains ALL of the evidence we see in a plausible and scientific manner, without resorting to supernatural explanations based on a literal Biblical perspective.

[Jose]

I didn't hear myself say anything about Usher (I didn't see myself write anything about him either). I really must learn to pay more attention! I thought I was just responding to juliod/DanZ's question.

You were merely responding to Dan's question. I was examining the logic of your response. That being said, I accept McCulloch's mild rebuke, that the bible does imply a lineage with some sort of age span. So, my comment about Usher is probably stupid, and I stand corrected. Thank you both.

Nonetheless, one is left with an irreconcilable difference between any age calculation based on those biblical passages, and the earth itself. Various creationists have tried to reconcile the difference, in general by changing the laws of physics. You know--radioactive decay was much, much faster in the beginning, or years were much, much longer. Usher's chronology, or one that a mere fallible human builds today along the same lines, makes assumptions about the laws of physics that are hard to justify. If the laws have remained unchanged, then the evidence in the earth itself must match the story. That it does not indicates that the story was meant to be read metaphorically (or, perhaps, that the story was written by people whose scientific understanding was much less than what we know today). To make the story match the earth itself, then one must humanly, and fallibly, propose changing the laws of physics, for which there is no suggestion in scripture. Nor is there justifiable evidence in nature that such a thing can happen or has happened.

I don't see it as a 'God says versus science says' controversy.

Neither do I - it's "God says versus scientists say". I am so sick and tired of creationism being falsely defined as "God versus science".

I, too, agree. From where I sit, though, it looks like it's the hard-core creationists who insist that there is an either/or choice between evolution or religion. They insist that one cannot accept evolution and retain any religion at all. That's god vs science. It's a conundrum that many of my students face. They have been told that if they accept evolution, they must abandon faith. They leave my class thinking that, you know, evolution is not so bad, and really has no impact at all on their faith.

Sure, there's an occasional scientist like Dawkins, who allows his opinion to color his statements, and who will say that science leaves no room for god. But that's opinion, just like the theists who say that religion leaves no room for evolution. It turns out that not only do some 40% of the US public accept some form of evolution and religion, but so do 40% of scientists. (I'll try to find the source of this information if anyone asks; I heard it in a seminar). Science says nothing about god. It can't because it is able to study only the physical world.

I challenge anyone who thinks it is so to find one creationist who will agree that science (not scientists) and God are at odds. Any Biblical creationist will tell you that science accurately and honestly studied will support God's Word.

What it sounds like is that it's not science vs god, or scientists vs god, but creationists vs evolution/geology/cosmology, or creationists vs scientists. I suspect that most creationists do believe that science supports god's word. The difficulty is that their definition of science is not the definition of science that is used by scientists (or the science classrooms). We all have the same data to work with. It seems to me, that anyone who believes in god must believe that the earth and its data are god's creation. Therefore, the data must be right. They are facts. The difference between creationists and scientists is how much of the data they look at, and what they do with data that don't fit their model. If the data are valid, scientists throw out their model and develop a new one; creationists declare the data to be invalid if it doesn't support their model. Scientists assume they do not know the answer, and try to find it; creationists think they know the answer, and accept only that science that fits it.

[QED]

I don't see it as a 'God says versus science says' controversy. This is partly because, although I believe in the Bible as God-inspired, I am not a literalist or an inerrantist (if that is a word). I just don't see the theological need to deny that evolution has occurred.

A thorough reading of evolution would seem to me to undermine much of the core beliefs in the status of mankind. I'm always fascinated by the way Christianity has dealt with the self evident animalistic nature of man. Despite the protestation of others here I have yet to be persuaded that the concept of original sin is anything other than an naive reflection on our primitive origins.

[Cathar1950]

I love fossils. Don't remember much about them but I think plant fossils are beautiful so I have some hanging around. Come to think of it I am starting to feel like an old fossil.
Thanks McCulloch for the site on the Trinitarian controversy. It seems that the good Dr. must have got his Ph.D. in preachology(Homiletics).
I found another of his articles interesting and much more representative of his thought and battle tactics.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469
Irrational Naturalism (#201)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

His problems and complains against "Irrational Naturalism" sometimes know as scientist goes like this:

Evolutionists will usually admit that they don't know how this happened. For example, the cosmologist Paul Davies admits their utter ignorance on this vital subject:

It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts [he might just as well have said there are none] when it comes to the origin of life. . . . Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously or-ganised themselves into the first living cell.1

Nevertheless, Hazen has to conclude that:

Scientists are still far from understanding the ancient, intricate processes that led to the origin of life.4

For example, George Cody, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, tries to discuss certain geochemical processes which conceivably might generate organic-type reactions which could lead to primitive metabolism. For example:

Natural transition metal sulfide minerals can promote a broad range of organic reactions, either catalytically or as reaction participants.5

But then he says:

Whether and how this chemistry may have aided the emergence of life remains a mystery.6

He had already noted, in beginning his article, that:

At present there is no completely satisfactory theory for the origin of life.7

The above is just a small sample of his complaints about what science doesn't know. What I found interesting is that he doesn't really understand what they are talking about and offers no other explanation that present any form of related data.
Instead he offers:

Only the Living God can create life! "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4).

Here the goal is to win by default. They don't know something completely, therefore he is right.
But what if we were to say that the gods fought, killed and made the universe out of the dead god's body?
Science doesn't yet know all the answers therefore this must be correct.
Irrational Naturalism my butt.

[QED]

I love fossils. Don't remember much about them but I think plant fossils are beautiful so I have some hanging around. Come to think of it I am starting to feel like an old fossil.

The thing is you don't stand much chance of being a fossil. That's one of the most frustrating things about fossil evidence. If every man woman and child alive in the US was out roaming in the wild (rather than being buried or cremated!) maybe one or two would end up getting fossilised (by dying in just the right spot) -- such are the narrow set of conditions required. Of these few the chances of them being dug-up by some future paleontologist are vanishingly small given the size of the planet and number of places to hide. So little wonder the fossil record is so fragmentary. The good news is that this means many discoveries are of previously unknown species. I think that this should be more than a little unnerving for those with a great deal invested in the "special creation" of man.

As to the history of man, I found this very useful timeline. For me it puts much of what is debated here into a context that raises many questions. For example the Great Flood is supposed to have happened after the construction of Stonehenge, The Great Pyramid of Cheops and the Sphinx.



This being the same flood that is also supposed to carve the Grand Canyon!

[Woody]

Hello friends,

My information here comes from The Urantia Book. The 3rd main section of this tome covers the history our world and associated solar system from the time it was formed up until modern times. It indicates that Earth is right at 1 billion years old with the first true human pair appearing right near the 1 million year mark. A most facinating read. Quite.

Cathar ! You surprise me bud !! You state here in one of your replies that you appreciate the difference between the religion OF Jesus as opposed to Christianity, which is mostly the Pauline version of a religion ABOUT Jesus. Yes Yes Yes ! That is exactly correct !

The 4th section of the UB, The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, brings back the badly needed entire life story of Jesus from the time He was born, His childhood and teenage years, His entire adult life of ministry and service...everything He did whose restatement today is of value to mankind....which is alot of material.

As to the scientific content of the UB, which is considerable, I can present this information, again, as a recommendation. Whether or not any individual wants to accept any of this information as being useful for incorporation into their lives.....will be up to them.

The UB speaks much of truth and facts. In one section it relates an example about facts thusly and I will paraphrase for you:

You pick up a book of trustworthy information (whatever), and it procedes to tell you about a city and country called Tokyo, Japan, which is on the other side of the world (from the perspective of a resident of the Americas).

So how do you KNOW that it is there? You've never been there. So how do you KNOW that it's there? Does this question-reasoning sound absurd? Why? Some folks demand scientific proof ! Well to the individual scientist....the pure rules of science might suggest that the scientist must be able to reliably and demonstratably be able to prove things to himself (herself). So where does ordinary reason come into to play into this equation? To what extent are you willing to "trust" or acceed to the works and efforts of others to "borrow" their work and accept things as being so?

You see, the leading scientific community of the day (back in the day). once declared that the Earth was flat Uh.....they were wrong wern't they? So what is yor explanation now for willingness to accept the scientific work of others without proving their [ claims ] for yourself?

In the Tokyo case, Bob of Tennessee is compelled to accept contemporary accounts of its factual existence even though Bob of Tennessee has never been there himself. And Bob would be correct in doing so for Tokyo does in fact exist.

Interesting how we can agree to accept the fact-truth work of others in one case wheras in the next case over some are very quick to poo poo stuff off as " show me proof gall darnit "

Curious


Learn well my friends, thanks

Woody

[McCulloch]

...
You pick up a book of trustworthy information (whatever), and it procedes to tell you about a city and country called Tokyo, Japan, which is on the other side of the world (from the perspective of a resident of the Americas).

So how do you KNOW that it is there? You've never been there. So how do you KNOW that it's there? Does this question-reasoning sound absurd? Why? Some folks demand scientific proof ! Well to the individual scientist....the pure rules of science might suggest that the scientist must be able to reliably and demonstratably be able to prove things to himself (herself). So where does ordinary reason come into to play into this equation? To what extent are you willing to "trust" or acceed to the works and efforts of others to "borrow" their work and accept things as being so?

You see, the leading scientific community of the day (back in the day). once declared that the Earth was flat Uh.....they were wrong wern't they? So what is yor explanation now for willingness to accept the scientific work of others without proving their [ claims ] for yourself?

In the Tokyo case, Bob of Tennessee is compelled to accept contemporary accounts of its factual existence even though Bob of Tennessee has never been there himself. And Bob would be correct in doing so for Tokyo does in fact exist.

Interesting how we can agree to accept the fact-truth work of others in one case wheras in the next case over some are very quick to poo poo stuff off as " show me proof gall darnit "

I know people who have been to Tokyo. There are too many of them to discount what they say. I can make a telephone call to Tokyo.

I have asked for some substantiation and evidentiary support for the Urantia Book. These requests have been ignored and refused. If I had asked for substantiation and evidentiary support for the existence of Tokyo, I am sure that it could be supplied. Eye witness accounts from living humans. Historical records. Literature. Legal records. Manufactured goods. Bills of lading. What does the Urantia Book have? So far, the only evidence is in the form of "I've read it and it makes sense to me."

How many people have met the alleged superplanetary beings alleged to have written the UB? SETI is still coming up empty handed.

Do the superplanetary beings speak English? Or did they translate their meanings into English for Earthly consumption? If they translated, then why would they not translate the name of our planet? It is called Earth in English not Urantia.

[Woody]

Hi McC,

You have asked for some proof-validation of the effacy of UB material.

1) Well why don't you make your own effort to prove it to yourself?

2) Site member Rob has promised to answer your questions when he gets around 2it. Yesterday he was all tied up playing with his kids which is fine. Perhaps sometime over the weekend he will find some time to devote to your query. Rob is after all a UB expert and reader believer himself.

Thanks