[__ Science __ ] Age of earth

[Who Me]

Which is contrary to God's word in Genesis.

Only by your and others who believe in evolutions interpretation.

 

[Who Me]

Ham did the usual thing creationists do when presented with evidence. He stopped arguing against the evolution of new species and even higher taxa, but claimed it wasn't "real evolution."

So what you are saying is that dog breeders have bred numerous new species of dogs and that evolutionary biologists etc are unable to present to someone like Ken Ham clear evidence that biologically speaking creature 'x' is a new species.

Because we observe it happening. It's a natural phenomenon.

Again so clearly visible that it cannot be clearly presented to creationist or even worse to creationist with scientific credentials.

 

[Who Me]

There is nothing in the Bible that says that plants, marine life, and animals were supposed to be eternal or not.

As God gave plants to All animals to eat, there was No death among creatures with the breath of life prior to adams fall.
It can be assumed that they would be as immortal as Adam and Eve.

 

[Barbarian]

So what you are saying is that dog breeders have bred numerous new species of dogs

No, I'm pointing out that evolution, and even the evolution of new species and genera are so well-documented that even organizations like Answers in Genesis now admit these facts. They just insist that it's "not real evolution."

evolutionary biologists etc are unable to present to someone like Ken Ham clear evidence that biologically speaking creature 'x' is a new species.

As you just learned, Ken Ham changed his story.

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

He now correctly insists that the Bible does not deny the evolution of new species and higher taxa. He just won't use the "e-word", for obvious reasons.

 

[Barbarian]

Again so clearly visible that it cannot be clearly presented to creationist or even worse to creationist with scientific credentials.

Well, let's ask a YE creationist with scientific credentials:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

 

[JT4444]

As God gave plants to All animals to eat, there was No death among creatures with the breath of life prior to adams fall.
It can be assumed that they would be as immortal as Adam and Eve.

It can be assumed to be the case, but there is no basis for it. The opposite could be true based on what scripture actually says. You're trying to bend reality to fit your beliefs.

 

[T.K. Brown]

I would just add that "young Earth creationism," is a modern phenomena, a reaction to scientific progress. Evolution was seen as a threat to faith for reasons other than "it would imply that the six days was longer than 144 hours." Rather, atheists used evolution to make a host of claims about the universe, chiefly the existentialist dogma that the universe is "inheritly meaningless, valueless, and absurd."

Because this sort of philosophy (e.g., Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, etc.) was extremely popular in intellectual circles in the early 20th century, and because it offered a religion-like explanation for the human experience, it has entrenched itself as sort of a dogma in the sciences. The current war in biology over Extended Evolutionary Synthesis has a lot to do with the desire to "keep teleology and purpose out of science," a fact critics and advocates for EES acknowledge in key papers related to the controversy.

A lot of the claims made about "what evolution says about values and meaning," also rely on reductionism and smallism, the claim that all facts about large things are reducible to facts about smaller, "fundemental" things. Reductionism is no longer nearly as popular in the sciences as it was 70 years ago. It has particularly lost ground in physics, where pancomputationalism (a process metaphysics) is all the rage. For example, in quantum field theory, the universal field is more fundemental than "particles." The part(icle) is only definable in terms of the whole, instead of vice versa. And indeed, a majority of chemists think molecular structure is an example of "strong emergence," a phenomena that can not be explained wholly in terms of "parts."

But most of the scientific "laity" still think the reductionism is "what science says the world is like," and that it is an empirical fact that "biology, neuroscience, etc. can be reduced to little balls of stuff bouncing around." This is hardly the case, but it is a paradigm that has stuck around through intertia.

Why is this important? Because a lot of the loaded claims about free will and value attached to evolution hinge on smallism and reductionism being true. So the argument goes, atoms are not concious and do not have values. If our entire mental life is just the result of atoms "bouncing around" then any appearance of meaning or value are illusory. Man can't be created in any sort of meaningful diving image, because man reduces to little balls of stuff.

However, there is not actually a very good empirical case for smallism. Rather, it's an idea that became popular because it is "neat and tidy," "easy to fathom," and dove tails nicely with existentialism is some key ways.

With that in mind, it's worth noting that "young Earth," views were by no means universal in ancient or medieval Christianity or Judaism. Right from the outset, you see folks questioning the idea of a set 144 hours, or whether there might not be a deeper meaning portrayed in the Scriptures re creation. Origen and Saint Augustine would be examples of influential early writers who didn't hew to extremely literal interpretations of Scripture on this topic (a strict 144 hours). Indeed, I would argue that a strict "young Earth view," was probably a minority opinion among the early theologians.

In any event, there is no real way to "always" read the Bible as strictly "literal." Doing so you run into immediate problems. On Day 3, we see the Earth putting forth grass in Genesis 1. However, in Genesis 2 there are no plants because man has not been created yet. A straight forward reading runs into a contradiction here.

It's important to note that these two passages are not necessarily contradictory. There are many ways to harmonize them. Rashi had it that the plants were created on Day 3 but were dormant until man was created. Others have it that Gen 1 is about divine Logos speaking essences into existence, while Gen 2 is about material creation. Others say God made man in a barren area of the world, but that plants already existed elsewhere.

The point is simply that, right off the bat, the Bible is challenging us to be active readers. We have to consider things like this.

Everyone allows for some level of allegorical readings in Scripture. I don't know any Christians who claim that Jesus' words imply that he came for actual sheep, not humans, for example. Some read more allegorically than others. E.g., Erasmus and Origen put a lot of stock in John 6:63, reading it as the "fleshly," interpretation of lines "profits nothing," while the "Spiritual meaning" gives life. In support of this, both pointed out that Jesus frequently employed allegory (e.g., "I will raise this temple up in three days") and that the prophecies pointing to Jesus were largely fulfilled in ways that would not be predicted by a strictly literalist reading of Scripture.

 

[JT4444]

I would just add that "young Earth creationism," is a modern phenomena, a reaction to scientific progress. Evolution was seen as a threat to faith for reasons other than "it would imply that the six days was longer than 144 hours." Rather, atheists used evolution to make a host of claims about the universe, chiefly the existentialist dogma that the universe is "inheritly meaningless, valueless, and absurd."

Because this sort of philosophy (e.g., Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, etc.) was extremely popular in intellectual circles in the early 20th century, and because it offered a religion-like explanation for the human experience, it has entrenched itself as sort of a dogma in the sciences. The current war in biology over Extended Evolutionary Synthesis has a lot to do with the desire to "keep teleology and purpose out of science," a fact critics and advocates for EES acknowledge in key papers related to the controversy.

A lot of the claims made about "what evolution says about values and meaning," also rely on reductionism and smallism, the claim that all facts about large things are reducible to facts about smaller, "fundemental" things. Reductionism is no longer nearly as popular in the sciences as it was 70 years ago. It has particularly lost ground in physics, where pancomputationalism (a process metaphysics) is all the rage. For example, in quantum field theory, the universal field is more fundemental than "particles." The part(icle) is only definable in terms of the whole, instead of vice versa. And indeed, a majority of chemists think molecular structure is an example of "strong emergence," a phenomena that can not be explained wholly in terms of "parts."

But most of the scientific "laity" still think the reductionism is "what science says the world is like," and that it is an empirical fact that "biology, neuroscience, etc. can be reduced to little balls of stuff bouncing around." This is hardly the case, but it is a paradigm that has stuck around through intertia.

Why is this important? Because a lot of the loaded claims about free will and value attached to evolution hinge on smallism and reductionism being true. So the argument goes, atoms are not concious and do not have values. If our entire mental life is just the result of atoms "bouncing around" then any appearance of meaning or value are illusory. Man can't be created in any sort of meaningful diving image, because man reduces to little balls of stuff.

However, there is not actually a very good empirical case for smallism. Rather, it's an idea that became popular because it is "neat and tidy," "easy to fathom," and dove tails nicely with existentialism is some key ways.

With that in mind, it's worth noting that "young Earth," views were by no means universal in ancient or medieval Christianity or Judaism. Right from the outset, you see folks questioning the idea of a set 144 hours, or whether there might not be a deeper meaning portrayed in the Scriptures re creation. Origen and Saint Augustine would be examples of influential early writers who didn't hew to extremely literal interpretations of Scripture on this topic (a strict 144 hours). Indeed, I would argue that a strict "young Earth view," was probably a minority opinion among the early theologians.

In any event, there is no real way to "always" read the Bible as strictly "literal." Doing so you run into immediate problems. On Day 3, we see the Earth putting forth grass in Genesis 1. However, in Genesis 2 there are no plants because man has not been created yet. A straight forward reading runs into a contradiction here.

It's important to note that these two passages are not necessarily contradictory. There are many ways to harmonize them. Rashi had it that the plants were created on Day 3 but were dormant until man was created. Others have it that Gen 1 is about divine Logos speaking essences into existence, while Gen 2 is about material creation. Others say God made man in a barren area of the world, but that plants already existed elsewhere.

The point is simply that, right off the bat, the Bible is challenging us to be active readers. We have to consider things like this.

Everyone allows for some level of allegorical readings in Scripture. I don't know any Christians who claim that Jesus' words imply that hTe came for actual sheep, not humans, for example. Some read more allegorically than others. E.g., Erasmus and Origen put a lot of stock in John 6:63, reading it as the "fleshly," interpretation of lines "profits nothing," while the "Spiritual meaning" gives life. In support of this, both pointed out that Jesus frequently employed allegory (e.g., "I will raise this temple up in three days") and that the prophecies pointing to Jesus were largely fulfilled in ways that would not be predicted by a strictly literalist reading of Scripture.

The idea that the universe was created in six literal days is absurd and wrong. I subscribe to the view that time is measured from God's perspective until Adam was created on the sixth day. After that, it was from mankind's perspective. Adjusting for time dilation, the first 5.5 days (Adam was created sometime on the sixth day), are equivalent to about 15 billion years. That agrees with the scientific consensus.

The Jewish sages have excluded the time up to Adam receiving his "neshama" or soul, which makes Adam different from mere animals.

Modern fundamentalists interpret Genesis as they do because they lack the historical tradition. They read the English translation and assume that Genesis is from man's perspective from the beginning of time. They don't see Genesis as a parable as it was originally understood.

Age of the Universe

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data?

jewsforjudaism.org