Thread: Science on the Age of the Earth

This is a spin off from the "Tim Keller Shocked Me!" thread, rather than the "Benny Hinn Shocked Me!" thread.

It seems much easier for conservative evangelicals and the Reformed, to dismiss the current "science" on evolution, than the current "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos.

Why is this?

The "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos must be perceived by the Reformed and conservative evangelical community to be much harder science than the science for evolution, which must be looked upon by the Reformed and conservative evangelical community as soft science bordering on butter or blancmange science (?)

Is the science for the age of the earth and cosmos really hard science, or is it butter science?

here is a book that attempts to justify a YEC view with an old earth appearance.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Omphalos-Attempt-Geological-Originally-Published/dp/1881987108]Amazon.com: Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot (Originally Published: London: J. Van Voorst, 1857) (9781881987109): Philip Henry Gosse: Books[/ame]

Personally, I think it was a miraculous event and cannot be explained through science.

I think the earth appears young.

Without a conviction that the Bible is the truth, there are all kinds of crazy answers. The earth should be around 6000 years old, and the flood should not be over 4000 years from our days.

This text always comes to my mind in these discussions:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Originally Posted by smhbbag

This text always comes to my mind in these discussions:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

I'm a YEC, but are you implying that all OEC's are going to Hell?

I think I'd disagree about that.

It's butter science based on uniformitarian assumptions. See Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics.

The distinction between "hard science" and "butter science" seems utterly unscientific to me.

I mean, what's *really* the difference between them? One attacks more foundationally at the doctrines of Christianity than the other. That's all I see.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Is the science for the age of the earth and cosmos really hard science, or is it butter science?

I don't think 'hard' and 'butter' are useful terms. One hypothesis can be more or less supported by the evidence; a theory can be strong or weak. For example, old earth science is much stronger than evolution science, which is in turn slightly stronger (or less weak) than big-bang science. I'm not aware of a way to measure the strength of the evidence of a hypothesis but it would be very interesting if someone were to develop one. e.g. some function of the strength of other hypotheses that depend on the hypothesis in question, how many observations the hypothesis has predicted and how otherwise unpredictable they were, etc, etc. In the absence of such an objective measure, it is down to the judgment and understanding of an individual assessing the situation, taking into account ones presuppositions as best as one is able. If you don't have the scientific understanding to make an assessment, then I think it's a good idea to ask Christians who do and who you trust to know their own presuppositions.

This may not be considered a helpful answer, but the only science that is "hard science" is the science which supports the truth. So much these days passes for science, when it really isn't, its just a collection of facts that have been interpreted in a different way to how someone else has interpreted them.

I've got a degree in bio sciences, so I'm not anti science by any means, but I like to keep things simple where possible. Its over complicating things that leads to the average man on the street just believing what scientists tell him... under the impression that it must be too hard to understand, so he better just trust the brainy guys. Nobody can really know how old the earth is by scientific methods... we weren't there when it was created, and any calculations are based on assumptions, not observable methodology.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by smhbbag

This text always comes to my mind in these discussions:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

I'm a YEC, but are you implying that all OEC's are going to Hell?

I think I'd disagree about that.

In all honesty it depends what they believe concerning OEC and doctrines that are affected by OEC i.e. Original Sin. No one can determine who's going to hell and who isn't but their belief in certain doctrines gives way to heresy.

So the question would be, does one go to hell for heresy?

-----Added 11/10/2009 at 04:59:30 EST-----

Originally Posted by Bern

This may not be considered a helpful answer, but the only science that is "hard science" is the science which supports the truth. So much these days passes for science, when it really isn't, its just a collection of facts that have been interpreted in a different way to how someone else has interpreted them.

I've got a degree in bio sciences, so I'm not anti science by any means, but I like to keep things simple where possible. Its over complicating things that leads to the average man on the street just believing what scientists tell him... under the impression that it must be too hard to understand, so he better just trust the brainy guys. Nobody can really know how old the earth is by scientific methods... we weren't there when it was created, and any calculations are based on assumptions, not observable methodology.

At the same time we have evidence for a based assumption. These assumptions aren't just randomly blind estimations, they are based upon scientific data.

OEC = Old Earth Creation??

I find the notion of an old earth creation to be ridiculous.

1: Adam and Eve committed the first human sin. Sin brought about death. That makes it impossible for death to have been around prior to sin.
2: Even if we allow death prior to Adam, the second law of thermodynamics, and observation of reality, demonstrates that earth and the rest of the known universe is in a spiral of decay and disintegration. Yes we know that Adam's sin destroyed what was as perfect as the creation could be i.e. no decay prior to Adam's sin, therefore a 'new' earth just especially for Adam.

Is it this obvious, or did I miss something?

This is a spin off from the "Tim Keller Shocked Me!" thread, rather than the "Benny Hinn Shocked Me!" thread.

It seems much easier for conservative evangelicals and the Reformed, to dismiss the current "science" on evolution, than the current "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos.

Is there really that much difference? Keller come right out and says he believes in evolution in chapter 6 of The Case For God.

Originally Posted by the Internet

2: Even if we allow death prior to Adam, the second law of thermodynamics, and observation of reality, demonstrates that earth and the rest of the known universe is in a spiral of decay and disintegration. Yes we know that Adam's sin destroyed what was as perfect as the creation could be i.e. no decay prior to Adam's sin, therefore a 'new' earth just especially for Adam.

True, but this is not a case against OEC. OEC doesn't deny this fact. Actually, they admit it and put it in their theory.

Originally Posted by the Internet

1: Adam and Eve committed the first human sin. Sin brought about death. That makes it impossible for death to have been around prior to sin.

Death and OEC are not in the same catagoery. They are not mutually exclusive but they are in two different "sub" catagories. The understanding of Adam, death, original sin, etc. would follow under the idea that "evolution" is wrong. Not all OECs believe in evolution.

This is a little off of OEC but here is a good article involving certain aspects of this topic:

Why Darwinism is False by Jonathan Wells

So is OEC = Old Earth Creation? Is there something recommended to read on what these guys believe?

Originally Posted by the Internet

So is OEC = Old Earth Creation? Is there something recommended to read on what these guys believe?

Not that I know of(there are people on here who probably know) but there are people you can read that do advocate OEC in different aspects such as Meredith G. Kline, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke. You can describe some of these guys as either theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists. Alot of these guys support something called "Framework" theology which gives way to OEC.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

This is a spin off from the "Tim Keller Shocked Me!" thread, rather than the "Benny Hinn Shocked Me!" thread.

It seems much easier for conservative evangelicals and the Reformed, to dismiss the current "science" on evolution, than the current "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos.

Why is this?

The "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos must be perceived by the Reformed and conservative evangelical community to be much harder science than the science for evolution, which must be looked upon by the Reformed and conservative evangelical community as soft science bordering on butter or blancmange science (?)

Is the science for the age of the earth and cosmos really hard science, or is it butter science?

Scientifically there are more holes in evolutionary therory than in mainstream geology.

For example, evolutionary biologists still struggle with how non-living matter could have given rise to the first life forms. As well, there are periods in the earth's history where the fossil record suggests that very rapid evolution occured (Cambrian Explosion), which has forced theories like punctuated equilibrium (slow steady evolution and then relatively rapid change and speciation), which still has mainstream scientists scratching their heads.

That isn't to say there aren't holes in mainstream geology, however, they are less glaring.

Robert Dabney, "Geology and the Bible".

A MUST READ for anyone interested in this topic (it's only 25 pages long, so take the time and read it).

Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown

As well, there are periods in the earth's history where the fossil record suggests that very rapid evolution occured (Cambrian Explosion), which has forced theories like punctuated equilibrium (slow steady evolution and then relatively rapid change and speciation), which still has mainstream scientists scratching their heads.

The interesting thing is that the Cambrian explosion is supposedly suppose to explain the complexity of different species. The only problem with this theory is that it reverts back to the fossil record. It's a circular argument because the fossil record doesn't have legitimate transitional fossils.

Excerpt from the book Darwinism, Design, and Public Education:
"First, as the name implies, the fossils of the Cambrian explosion appear
suddenly or abruptly within a very brief period of geologic time.
As recently as 1992, paleontologists thought the Cambrian period
began 570 million years ago and ended 510 million years ago, with the
Cambrian explosion itself occurring within a 20-to-40-million-year window
during the lower Cambrian period. In 1993, radiometric dating of zircon
crystals from formations just above and just below Cambrian strata in
Siberia allowed for a precise recalibration of the age of Cambrian strata.
Radiometric analyses of these crystals fixed the start of the Cambrianperiod
at 543 million years ago and the beginning of the Cambrian explosion
itself at 530 million years ago. These studies also
showed that the Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow
window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years. Geologically
speaking, 5 million years represents a mere 0.11 percent of Earth’s
history. As Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has explained, “compared
with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period [of
the explosion] can be likened to one minute in 24 hours of one day.” Yet
most of the innovations in the basic architecture of animal forms occurred
abruptly within just such a small fraction of the earth’s history during the
Cambrian. Due to the suddenness of the appearance of animal life in the
Cambrian, the Cambrian explosion has now earned titles such as “The Big
Bang of Animal Evolution” (Scientific American), “Evolution’s Big Bang”
(Science), and the “Biological Big Bang” (Science News)."

Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

This is a spin off from the "Tim Keller Shocked Me!" thread, rather than the "Benny Hinn Shocked Me!" thread.

It seems much easier for conservative evangelicals and the Reformed, to dismiss the current "science" on evolution, than the current "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos.

Why is this?

The "science" on the age of the earth and cosmos must be perceived by the Reformed and conservative evangelical community to be much harder science than the science for evolution, which must be looked upon by the Reformed and conservative evangelical community as soft science bordering on butter or blancmange science (?)

Is the science for the age of the earth and cosmos really hard science, or is it butter science?

Scientifically there are more holes in evolutionary therory than in mainstream geology.

For example, evolutionary biologists still struggle with how non-living matter could have given rise to the first life forms. As well, there are periods in the earth's history where the fossil record suggests that very rapid evolution occured (Cambrian Explosion), which has forced theories like punctuated equilibrium (slow steady evolution and then relatively rapid change and speciation), which still has mainstream scientists scratching their heads.

That isn't to say there aren't holes in mainstream geology, however, they are less glaring.

This is what I'm getting at in this thread.

There seems to be a more confident rejection of evolution than of old earth/old cosmos ideas by conservative evangelicals and the Reformed, otherwise there wouldn't be so many going for things like the Day Age Theory and the Framework Hypothesis.

Obviously the YECs aren't getting their message accross in this area as well as with evolution, or many think that the current "science"/science is so strong in this area, that they just have to adjust their interpretation of the Days.

I think the dating techniques intimidate many believers.

Believers and unbelievers agree for all practical purposes on most science until you get down to fundamental matters like the origin of all things.

When an unbeliever says that the boiling point of water is 100 centigrade we're inclined to agree. There's nothing in the Bble that contradicts this, and it's hard science. It can be repeated over and over in the lab to show it's true.

When an unbelieving archaeologist says that Moses never lived, we know what the Bible says, and we know archaeology is a soft science anyway, full of speculation.

When an unbelieving or believing geologist or paleantologist says that this fossil/these fossils are 65 million years old, many believers cave in, and reinterpret the Bible, because they must think that this dating and agreeing on dates by so many believing and non-believing scientists must be true. This type of science must impress them much more than archaeology or evolution.

Do they think it's a much more difficult nut to crack or take on, more like taking on the widely accepted belief that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade?