4004 BC

[handy]

Saying "I don't know" a cop-out?

About what the age of the earth is?

Nope!

Rather, anyone, scientist or creationist, who says, "I know what happened" is more than a little foolish.

The scientist can look at data and make expound a hypothesis based upon what is currently understood.

A creationist can look at the Bible and make a statement of faith.

But, only God was there, so only God knows for sure what exactly happened.

During our catechism lesson tonight, we studied the creation story a little more in-depth. We covered some interesting, (well, at least to me) things. I don't want to de-rail this thread as it is about the age of the earth, so I think I'll make another.

 

[coffeeelover]

While "I don't know" may be a cop out, saying that "scientists have demonstrated" anything regarding the age of the earth or evolution is simply wrong. Consider this example:

A fossil of a previously unkown species is found. An evolutionist looks at it and, although he sees many differences, he also notices a few similarities to modern man and declares "this was our ancestor". A creationist looks at the same fossil and, although he notices a few similarities, he also sees a large number of differences and declares "this was not our ancestor, but is an extinct species of ape".

On what grounds can we say that "scientists have demonstrated" anything? Why do we say that the evolutionists are always right and the creationists are wrong? Some scientists interpret things one way and other scientists interpret the same things differently. Nobody has really "demonstrated" anything.

You want to equate the science of determining the age of the universe and of Earth to that of evolution. While it is true that the theory of evolution absolutely depends on an old Earth. The science behind the age of the earth in no way depends on anything to do with evolution.

There are many things that point to an old earth. Take the Hawaiian Island for example. The Hawiian islands are a chain of volcanoes that sit on a hot spot. As the plate moves over the hot spot volcanoes form. These erupting volcanoes build new land and form the islands. This takes longer than six thousand years, and that is just to form the new land. Once the land is there it is just dead rock, and it took many thousand of years for plant life to take hold and create the lush topical forests.

Info on the islands can be found here. The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands

Scientists have recently completed another study of a way to calculate the age of the universe. SPACE.com -- Galactic Lenses Confirm Universe's Age, Size

For a more evidence and more technical explanation of how the age of the universe is determined look here Age of the Universe

Then there things like Ice cores from Glaciers that date back tens of thousands of years, fossilized trees that them selves were thousands of years old not to mention the time it took for them to fossilize. Or the fact that things like diamonds, coal, oil, which are made from dead plants and animals that take millions of years to form naturally.

 

[Pard]

fossilized trees that them selves were thousands of years old not to mention the time it took for them to fossilize.

You have not been updated, even evolutionists admit fossils do not take that long any more. Think about it... the minerals have to totally replace the organic matter before it can rot...

 

[coffeeelover]

You have not been updated, even evolutionists admit fossils do not take that long any more. Think about it... the minerals have to totally replace the organic matter before it can rot...

More with equating the theory of evolution to the science behind the age of the Earth and the Universe. Why not read the myriad of links that demonstrate actual science. If you want to argue with The University of Hawaii, or UCLA physicists please do.

 

[Sparkey]

I don't mind if you make yourself feel smarter by labeling me as one who "cops out" (interesting expression, by the way).

It is the simple truth. I was not there.

The term you choose, "cop out" has a precise meaning. Are you aware of it?
Cop out means to present an excuse, a pretext, a going back on your responsibilities to avoid trouble, a cowardly or feeble evasion.

Wherein is any pretext, will you wish to posit that I was there? Ha!

 

[coffeeelover]

I don't mind if you make yourself feel smarter by labeling me as one who "cops out" (interesting expression, by the way).

It is the simple truth. I was not there.

The term you choose, "cop out" has a precise meaning. Are you aware of it?
Cop out means to present an excuse, a pretext, a going back on your responsibilities to avoid trouble, a cowardly or feeble evasion.

Wherein is any pretext, will you wish to posit that I was there? Ha!

I am not trying to attack you. I do think that fence sitting on the issue of the age of the earth is a cop out. There is plenty of information from all fields of hard science that says the earth is indeed older than 6000 years. The dismissal of the evidence with a simple I wasn't there IMHO is indeed a feeble evasion.

 

[Sparkey]

The term you chose includes presenting an excuse (which I admit to - in all honestly I was not there) but the excuse MUST include a pretext to be rightly classified as a "cop out". So in direct answer to your question, no it is not a "cop out".

Now, onto the next, since you asked me a question - it is fair for me to ask you one. What exactly are your credentials? Do you have your Masters Degree? If so, in what branch of science?

The reason I ask, is that my position, that I don't know and I was not there, supports itself. Nobody needs to examine my credentials when I say, "I'm not certain."

You, on the other hand, want to present yourself as some kind of expert. It then becomes critical that your credentials are examined in order to detail the level of expertise.

 

[coffeeelover]

The term you chose includes presenting an excuse (which I admit to - in all honestly I was not there) but the excuse MUST include a pretext to be rightly classified as a "cop out". So in direct answer to your question, no it is not a "cop out".

Now, onto the next, since you asked me a question - it is fair for me to ask you one. What exactly are your credentials? Do you have your Masters Degree? If so, in what branch of science?

The reason I ask, is that my position, that I don't know and I was not there, supports itself. Nobody needs to examine my credentials when I say, "I'm not certain."

You, on the other hand, want to present yourself as some kind of expert. It then becomes critical that your credentials are examined in order to detail the level of expertise.

I have an MBA. It isn't science, but it did teach me a lot about evaluating evidence, and making decisions. I would also counter that one does not need a degree in science to make a judgment concerning evidence that includes science.
For example, juries must weigh scientific evidence to reach conclusions all the time.

For example, Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. A jury was able to weigh both the scientific and circumstantial evidence and reach a consensus. Why would you not be able to do the same? You would have to excuse yourself as you weren't there how could you know.

 

[Sparkey]

I have an MBA. It isn't science

I thought as much. I did graduate 8th grade. Did not graduate High School and only obtained my G.E.D. when I was 40 years old.

Okay, since we are peers and you have no "special knowledge" about science that you can show - your suggestion and opinion is duly noted.

The question that stumbles you could be changed to "Did Adam have a belly button?"
In other words, is it possible for God to have made the universe with the appearance of age?
To side-step the probable accusation that this would be "dishonest" on God's part - please... it's the only way that it could work.
If God wanted us to be able to see the stars that He made - He would have to have created the photons between the stars and the earth, right?

 

[coffeeelover]

I thought as much. I did graduate 8th grade. Did not graduate High School and only obtained my G.E.D. when I was 40 years old.

Okay, since we are peers and you have no "special knowledge" about science that you can show - your suggestion and opinion is duly noted.

The question that stumbles you could be changed to "Did Adam have a belly button?"
In other words, is it possible for God to have made the universe with the appearance of age?
To side-step the probable accusation that this would be "dishonest" on God's part - please... it's the only way that it could work.
If God wanted us to be able to see the stars that He made - He would have to have created the photons between the stars and the earth, right?

If one is just going to posit further supernatural explanations to back up your fence sitting for not being able to come to a conclusion between observation and supernatural explanation. well I guess God could have just made us all computer programs and life is really like the Matrix, or we are just a dream.

In such a set of circumstances yes God would indeed be dishonest. Why would God make a universe that have observable laws if they don't mean anything? I don't think God is trying to fool us into thinking the universe is old when it isn't.

 

[Sparkey]

I don't think God is trying to fool us into thinking the universe is old when it isn't.

I specifically said that God did NOT do this, but again, your thought is taken for what it is worth.

 

[Theofilus]

You want to equate the science of determining the age of the universe and of Earth to that of evolution. While it is true that the theory of evolution absolutely depends on an old Earth. The science behind the age of the earth in no way depends on anything to do with evolution.

I chose the example of a fossil primate because it is so obvious and easy to understand, even for those who don't know a lot about the science behind it. The same principal applies to things like radiometric dating or other methods of determining the age of the earth. Different people can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

There are many things that point to an old earth. Take the Hawaiian Island for example. The Hawiian islands are a chain of volcanoes that sit on a hot spot. As the plate moves over the hot spot volcanoes form. These erupting volcanoes build new land and form the islands. This takes longer than six thousand years, and that is just to form the new land. Once the land is there it is just dead rock, and it took many thousand of years for plant life to take hold and create the lush topical forests.

That's your interpretation. I can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. Just presenting your interpretation doesn't prove anything. Also, you are totally wrong about it taking thousands of years for vegetatioin to take hold. In 1963 there was an underwater eruption off Iceland's south coast. It formed a new island which is already covered with vegetation. When scientists saw how quickly plants colonized the island, they were amazed.

Then there things like Ice cores from Glaciers that date back tens of thousands of years, fossilized trees that them selves were thousands of years old not to mention the time it took for them to fossilize. Or the fact that things like diamonds, coal, oil, which are made from dead plants and animals that take millions of years to form naturally.

Oil, coal and diamonds can all be made synthetically, and it doesn't take millions of years. As for the ice cores, I would like to point out the obvious (at least, it should be obvious to anyone who reads the Bible's creation account with his eyes open).

• Adam and Eve were already sexually mature when they were created
• The animals were already sexually mature when they were created
• There were plants, which implies the existance of soil (which is suppsed to take a long time to form)
• Trees were already bearing fruit
• Stars that are thousands or even millions of light years away were already visible

In other words, all of creation had the appearance of age right at the beginning. Why would glaciers be any different?

 

[handy]

Theo, I too, thought of Surtsey when Coffeeelover brought up that it would take thousands of years for vegetation to take hold on a newly formed island.

Here are some pics of how Surtsey is coming alive since its formation in 1963

The volcano-island Surtsey, Iceland. Plants.

Also, your point regarding Adam, Eve and the beasts being created sexually active is well taken.

As per the plants though, to me, there is still some mystery about Genesis. Genesis 2:5 states, "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

We then see that God planted the Garden of Eden specifically for man and the beasts.

This seems to suggest to me that, while the Garden of Eden flourished for Adam, Eve and the beasts, at least for awhile, the rest of the earth was fairly barren. We know that God created plants and trees and such on the 3rd day, not after Adam and Eve.

Some like to point to Genesis 1 and 2 as being contradictory, but really, Genesis 2 is just a far more detailed account of the same story.

But, when we consider those details, we see that there was perhaps far more of a process than our old Sunday School coloring pages would suggest.

When I read Genesis 1:11-12 in the light of Genesis 2:5, I see that whilst God created the earth and created the vegetation for the earth, and created earth and vegetation during the 3rd day, the vegetation was such that it would not support animal life, at least not yet. Thus the need for the Garden of Eden on the 6th day, once the animals and Adam were created.

Which makes me pull back from making any hard and fast statements about what the earth looked like at the end of the 3rd day of creation.

Which also makes me believe that perhaps there is a vast amount of differences between what the earth looked like from those creation days, to the time that Adam and Eve, as well as the animals, left the Garden of Eden.

Which brings me to another point that is often overlooked when considering Genesis, the fact that many times what we think is part of the story, isn't.

For instance, we tend to think that Eve was tempted by Satan fairly early on Sunday morning. The thing is, the Bible nowhere gives us a time-line on how long Adam and Eve and those animals were in the Garden prior to the Fall. People make the assumption it wasn't long, because Eve didn't get pregnant until after they left. But, that is an assumption.

We also do not know how long the earth was in the darkness prior to God stating "Let there be light".

I think about these things, and I think I begin to understand why our earth seems so geologically old, and yet all agree, scientists and creationists alike, that mammals and man are relative newcomers, even if there is disagreement as to what constitutes "new".

 

[coffeeelover]

That's your interpretation. I can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. Just presenting your interpretation doesn't prove anything. Also, you are totally wrong about it taking thousands of years for vegetatioin to take hold. In 1963 there was an underwater eruption off Iceland's south coast. It formed a new island which is already covered with vegetation. When scientists saw how quickly plants colonized the island, they were amazed.

It isn't just my interpretation, it is also the interpretation of the geologists at the University of Hawaii, and of pretty much all geologists. You also didn't provide a viable interpretation of your own. Please enlighten me on the young earth view of how the Hawaiian islands formed.

Oil, coal and diamonds can all be made synthetically, and it doesn't take millions of years. As for the ice cores, I would like to point out the obvious (at least, it should be obvious to anyone who reads the Bible's creation account with his eyes open).

• Adam and Eve were already sexually mature when they were created
• The animals were already sexually mature when they were created
• There were plants, which implies the existance of soil (which is suppsed to take a long time to form)
• Trees were already bearing fruit
• Stars that are thousands or even millions of light years away were already visible

In other words, all of creation had the appearance of age right at the beginning. Why would glaciers be any different?

If God made the world old then it is old. Also, I find that argument more or less a cop out. It really boils down to your always having the supernatural argument only. It doesn't matter what we observe or discover. God did it is always your fall back position. The universe doesn't simply have an appearance of age it is actually old.

 

[Sparkey]

...
As per the plants though, to me, there is still some mystery about Genesis. Genesis 2:5 states, "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

We then see that God planted the Garden of Eden specifically for man and the beasts.

This seems to suggest to me that, while the Garden of Eden flourished for Adam, Eve and the beasts, at least for awhile, the rest of the earth was fairly barren. We know that God created plants and trees and such on the 3rd day, not after Adam and Eve.

Some like to point to Genesis 1 and 2 as being contradictory, but really, Genesis 2 is just a far more detailed account of the same story.

But, when we consider those details, we see that there was perhaps far more of a process than our old Sunday School coloring pages would suggest.

...

I think about these things, and I think I begin to understand why our earth seems so geologically old, and yet all agree, scientists and creationists alike, that mammals and man are relative newcomers, even if there is disagreement as to what constitutes "new".

Somebody pointed out (or I have read somewhere) their observations during our discussions comparing the bible stated order of creation regarding plants, insects and birds. They basically contrasted what was taught in elementary school with what was taught in Sunday School.

The thrust was that insects, without their major natural predator (birds), could be expected to have eaten the plants (or those plants that didn't have natural defenses built in) much faster than the fauna could have "evolved" and thereby survived. The fossil evidence of the rapid growth of plants in what is called the Cambrian period shows that this didn't happen but until now, I've not been able to think about an exact 'why' of it all. Of course we know that God created, but looking closely at how is always amazing.

Handy, you've just now pointed to what the Lord said about plants and that had escaped my notice. Thanks, it does help me.

"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

_______________________________
QUOTE:
"The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form in the fossil record is what we see, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level."**

______________________________
FOOTNOTES // ACCREDITATION // CREDITS
** Quote from article, "The Cambrian Explosion" first posted by The Virtual Fossil Museum

DISCLAIMER:
Please note that although I am familiar with scientific terms and have enjoyed thousands of discussions with others who share similar interests, in no way does my use of these terms or quotes suggest nor imply that I think that God is a liar. He simply can not lie.

 

[jasoncran]

while this is a thread on 4004 bc, if it gets too scientific in discusiion i will move it to the science forum where it should be. if you want to acess to that forum ,pm rick w or free. most of the person in this thread have acess already.

this isnt the appropriate section for scientfic thread, even though it was a more apologetic in nature at first.

 

[coffeeelover]

Also, you are totally wrong about it taking thousands of years for vegetatioin to take hold. In 1963 there was an underwater eruption off Iceland's south coast. It formed a new island which is already covered with vegetation.

I think you being a little less than accurate, but I will clarify. I don't think it will take thousand of years for the first moss or grass to grow. I think it will take thousands of years to look like Hawaii does presently. Let's compare and see the difference.


Sertsey 2008

http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/168-surtsey.jpg


Hawaii

http://thundafunda.com/33/World-tour/download/Fern Grotto, Kauai, Hawaii pictures.jpg

 

[jasoncran]

i do and i shall ask that then if one can desist from the science debate here, and if one wishes to continue start a similiar thread in the appopriate section.

 

[handy]

I think you being a little less than accurate, but I will clarify. I don't think it will take thousand of years for the first moss or grass to grow. I think it will take thousands of years to look like Hawaii does presently. Let's compare and see the difference.


Sertsey 2008

http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/168-surtsey.jpg


Hawaii

http://thundafunda.com/33/World-tour/download/Fern Grotto, Kauai, Hawaii pictures.jpg

Frankly, I think a rather than time, the real difference between the rate of growth on Sertsey and the rate of growth on the Hawaiian Islands would be zone.

Hawaii...Tropic of Cancer
Sertsey....North Atlantic Ocean

And, Sertsey has much more than just moss or grass. Check out the link that I shared, Sertsey has a wide variety of flora and fauna.

Keep in mind, I'm not being dogmatic about a young earth...I lean towards a very old geological earth. But, I don't think that it would take thousands of years for a new island in the tropics to become a tropical paradise.

 

[Elijah674]

Job says God hung the earth on nothing. How long did that take?

David said that God SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE! (or stood fast) And how long did that take?

Think that Adam was formed of God, and that he was perfect in Their image. And not alive yet. (very good) Lets just say he was a giant in todays sight? Maybe 16' tall, & #1000 in weight, & would soon be how old when God Breathed the Breath of Life into his nostrils???

Perfectly Full grown & one day old, and with [NO MATURITY!] is as 'i' see it! Yet, how old would these Jer. 17:5 men document his age to be?

OK: God spoke the Earth into existance! Man brings a rock or some debris from outer space to look at. How old was it when God spake it into existance? And you are telling us that these ones know more that God does, huh? Not much different than Gen. 3:4 of satan calling God a liar with many believers of his teaching.

--Elijah

PS: See Psalms 33:6-9 + Job 26:7! You might even understand God some in Psalms 139:15-16??