[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You're confused again. But since you decided not to leave us, how about answering the question you keep dodging? Why are so many predicted transitionals found, but never a transitional where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any? You ready to face that one?

Wrong thread---and off topic.

You'll continue to be reminded that you dodged the question, in the slight hope that you might actually answer it.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

 

[zeke]

He was an orthodox Christian. He rejected the idea of Genesis as a literal history, claiming that the "days" of creation could not be periods of time.

You didn't answer the questions - what did Augustine mean when he said "though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" since creation? Was Augustine a Moonie? Are you not capable of articulating an answer?

 

[Barbarian]

You didn't answer the questions

That reminds me. You still haven't answered the question. Why do we find so many transitionals that were predicted by evolutionary theory, but none at all where the theory says they shouldn't be? When do you think you'll be up to answering that question?

what did Augustine mean when he said "though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" since creation?

Augustine, like most people of his time, had no idea of the evidence for the age of the Earth. So he tried to estimate by his idea of what the times were in Genesis.

Later Christians, like the great Baptist leader, Spurgeon, argued for millions of years.

Was Augustine a Moonie?

No, he demonstrated that the YE idea of Genesis as a literal history was incorrect.

Are you not capable of articulating an answer?

I've answered your question twice, now. Isn't it time you answered mine?

 

[zeke]

Augustine, like most people of his time, had no idea of the evidence for the age of the Earth. So he tried to estimate by his idea of what the times were in Genesis.

Then he consider the earth to be 'young' according to the word of God - thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Then he consider the earth to be 'young' according to the word of God -

But he showed that Genesis could not be a literal history. This is the difference between the Christians who thought the Earth was young and the modern revision of Christianity invented by the SDAs; YE creationism. The difference is that Augustine knew that Genesis could not be a literal history.

So now you understand.

thanks.

You're welcome. BTW, when are you going to answer the question? Why do we find so many transitional fossils that were predicted by evolutionary theory, but none at all where the theory says there should be none?

 

[zeke]

But he showed that Genesis could not be a literal history.

Then we agree Augustine considered the earth to be 'young' according to the word of God. Very good.

I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that ~ Dr. John Eddy (solar astronomer)​

 

[lordkalvan]

Then we agree Augustine considered the earth to be 'young' according to the word of God. Very good.

I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that ~ Dr. John Eddy (solar astronomer)​

Do you have a citation for the Eddy quote? In other words, can you tell us from where you are sourcing it?

ETA Oh, and can you tell us it's context, that is in relation to what argument and evidence is it made?

 

[Barbarian]

Then we agree Augustine considered the earth to be 'young' according to the word of God.

No. God never said how old the world is. Augustine assumed that that.

 

[zeke]

Do you have a citation for the Eddy quote?

Raphael Kazmann, Geotimes. Is Eddy's point valid in your mind?

 

[zeke]

No. God never said how old the world is. Augustine assumed that that.

Augustine "assumed that that"?? Do you assume the earth is 4.5 bn years old or given some new results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment you could go a little younger?

 

[lordkalvan]

Raphael Kazmann, Geotimes.

Do you have a more specific citation, namely issue date, number and article? And what about the context of the comment and its relation to whatever argument Eddy is making and the evidence he is basing it on?

Is Eddy's point valid in your mind?

On the face of it no, because even if he is correct about the direct evidence, there is ample indirect evidence (such as the length of time photons require to reach the surface of the Sun) that indicates that the Sun is much older than 6000 years. I would also point out that, from the quote as given, Eddy would seem to be saying that 'new and unexpected results to the contrary' and 'frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment' would be required to validate this dating. But absent the requested information about context, argument and evidence, there seems to be no basis on which to suppose that Eddy is actually suggesting that this is the case.

 

[Sparkey]

The "Eddy quote" appears to be a secondary source. A little research (google) shows that Larry Pierce of the “Online Bible†quoted Eddy:

Astrogeophysicist Dr John Eddy, who was at the time solar astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, Colorado, made some revealing comments at a symposium in 1978, as reported in Geotimes, Vol. 23, September 1978, p. 18.

There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 10^9 years old. “I suspect,†he said, “that the Sun is 4.5-billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.â€

​

According to don-linsay-archive.org, Eddy was talking about "The Shrinking Sun," and the research that he and his co-author were working on for a paper that was never published. The same source states that he did publish an abstract for the paper in 1979 (Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953, Eddy and Boornazian, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 11:437 (1979)) but didn't follow through and publish the intended paper.

The article goes on to state:

First, Eddy's paper was in fact never published. He and his co-author published an abstract in 1979, but it quickly became clear that their data was wrong. A 1980 paper pointed out that the data had been gathered across 90 years by 7 different astronomers, and they used several slightly different methods. When you correct for these differences, there is no shrinkage.

Second, all of the data available in 1979 is now obsolete. Ultra-precise astronomical measurements were made in the 1980's and 1990's with new high-tech equipment. For example, the Solar Disk Sextant project used balloons to carry special telescopes to 120,000 feet, above most of the Earth's atmosphere. The shrinkage implied by Eddy's data is totally ruled out by the new data.
​

 

[zeke]

But absent the requested information about context, argument and evidence, there seems to be no basis on which to suppose that Eddy is actually suggesting that this is the case.

No one is claiming he believed the Sun was less that 4.5 bn years old. On the contrary he clearly stated he suspects "that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old". The point he makes is this---"I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that" - "that" being Ussher’s notion for the age of the Earth and Sun. Eddy appears to caution against the dogma some express in their interpretation of the scientific data.

 

[Barbarian]

Augustine "assumed that that"??

Yep. God doesn't say how old the world is.

Do you assume the earth is 4.5 bn years old

No assumption necessary. The evidence shows that nicely. Would you like to learn about how we know?

 

[lordkalvan]

No one is claiming he believed the Sun was less that 4.5 bn years old. On the contrary he clearly stated he suspects "that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old". The point he makes is this---"I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that" - "that" being Ussher’s notion for the age of the Earth and Sun. Eddy appears to caution against the dogma some express in their interpretation of the scientific data.

Sadly, yet again you appear to have been misled by whatever source you used to provide this alleged statement by Eddy. Sparrowhawke has already pointed out that this appears to be a secondary citation and a little research establishes that Eddy never uttered the quoted statement as such: the entirety of the comment attributed to Eddy conflates words attributed directly to Eddy and Kazmann's interpretation of what Eddy was saying, subsequently presented by young Earth creationists as a direct comment by Eddy. More detail here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14672

So once again context and intent of the quoted authority are shown to be important and simply quoting scientists from secondary sources promoting particular agendas is shown to be fraught with perils for the unwary and uncritical who simply take these secondary sources' misrepresentations at face value.i

 

[zeke]

Sadly, yet again you appear to have been misled by whatever source you used to provide this alleged statement by Eddy. Sparrowhawke has already pointed out that this appears to be a secondary citation and a little research establishes that Eddy never uttered the quoted statement as such: the entirety of the comment attributed to Eddy conflates words attributed directly to Eddy and Kazmann's interpretation of what Eddy was saying, subsequently presented by young Earth creationists as a direct comment by Eddy. More detail here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14672

So once again context and intent of the quoted authority are shown to be important and simply quoting scientists from secondary sources promoting particular agendas is shown to be fraught with perils for the unwary and uncritical who simply take these secondary sources' misrepresentations at face value.i

Lol - what part of Dr Eddy's words below are not Dr. Eddy's words? Please be specific you may be confused.

I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that ~ Dr. John Eddy​

 

[lordkalvan]

Lol - what part of Dr Eddy's words below are not Dr. Eddy's words? Please be specific you may be confused.

I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that ~ Dr. John Eddy​

Pointing out the pitfalls of relying on secondary sources seems to be wasted on you, despite the number of times this has tripped you up. Unless, of course, you want to insist that you sourced this directly from Geotimes?

Also, it may have occurred to you (or maybe not, I don't know) that research into and understanding of the Sun may have progressed somewhat in the last 30 years. Do you think that's at all possible?

 

[zeke]

Pointing out the pitfalls of relying on secondary sources seems to be wasted on you, despite the number of times this has tripped you up. Unless, of course, you want to insist that you sourced this directly from Geotimes?

Also, it may have occurred to you (or maybe not, I don't know) that research into and understanding of the Sun may have progressed somewhat in the last 30 years. Do you think that's at all possible?

You didn't answer the question - what part of Dr Eddy's words quoted are not Dr. Eddy's words? Please be specific you may be confused. Is the question too hard for you?

 

[lordkalvan]

You didn't answer the question - what part of Dr Eddy's words quoted are not Dr. Eddy's words? Please be specific you may be confused. Is the question too hard for you?

The point is, if you had read the links, that we can be certain neither of what his exact words were nor of the context in which he uttered them. Do you understand this?

Do you think that solar research has progressed at all in the 30 years since the Geotimes' article? Did you research the relevant article directly yourself, or did you rely on a secondary source? If so, what was this secondary source? Please be specific, as you may mislead us otherwise, or are these questions too hard for you?

 

[zeke]

The point is, if you had read the links, that we can be certain neither of what his exact words were nor of the context in which he uttered them.

No - the point is you haven't answered the question - try it one more time. What part of Dr Eddy's words quoted are not Dr. Eddy's words? Please be specific you may have confused yourself again. If the question is too hard for you just say so and I will not ask again.