The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Theology > Natural Revelation and God's Creation

Natural Revelation and God's Creation Discussions regarding science and creation
The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1)

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:32 PM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,322
Thanks: 257
Thanked 433 Times in 288 Posts
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?
__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:40 PM
gene_mingo's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cottonwood, AZ
Posts: 1,435
Thanks: 890
Thanked 150 Times in 119 Posts
here is a book that attempts to justify a YEC view with an old earth appearance.

Amazon Amazon

Personally, I think it was a miraculous event and cannot be explained through science.
__________________
Josh Taylor
Verde Valley Reformed Chapel, OPC
Cottonwood, AZ
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gene_mingo For This Useful Post:
Richard Tallach (11-06-2009)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:54 PM
ChariotsofFire's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sioux center, IA
Posts: 267
Thanks: 150
Thanked 58 Times in 34 Posts
I think the earth appears young.
__________________
Josh
URC
Sioux Center, IA
www.christianhomeschoolstore.com
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 07:02 PM
YXU's Avatar
YXU YXU is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Forest Hill, MD
Posts: 279
Thanks: 68
Thanked 134 Times in 57 Posts
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.
__________________
Yigang Xu
Husband of Yele, Father of Anna (07/17/08)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Bethesda, Maryland

"Thou crownest the year with thy goodness; and thy paths drop fatness. They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness: and the little hills rejoice on every side." Psalm 65:10,11
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 07:03 PM
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,930
Thanks: 654
Thanked 684 Times in 287 Posts
This text always comes to my mind in these discussions:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

Quote:
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.
__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 07:10 PM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,322
Thanks: 257
Thanked 433 Times in 288 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by smhbbag View Post
This text always comes to my mind in these discussions:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

Quote:
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 07:41 PM
austinww's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Marcos, Texas
Posts: 891
Thanks: 392
Thanked 211 Times in 135 Posts
It's butter science based on uniformitarian assumptions. See Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics.
__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2009, 08:08 PM
Skyler's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,813
Thanks: 248
Thanked 453 Times in 308 Posts
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.
__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio

Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 03:34 AM
dr_parsley's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Africa
Posts: 444
Thanks: 122
Thanked 199 Times in 99 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
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.
__________________
Paul
No denomination, affiliated with FIEC
"Deliver me from worldly dispositions, for I am born from above and destined for glory" - Valley of Vision
"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation" - Peter
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 04:01 AM
Bern's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Thanks: 29
Thanked 55 Times in 31 Posts
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.
__________________
Bern
Evangelical
Kent UK
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 05:59 AM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by smhbbag View Post
This text always comes to my mind in these discussions:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

Quote:
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-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bern View Post
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.
__________________
Andrew Cunningham
From:Reno, NV Currently: San Deigo, Camp pendleton
Attending:seeking a church in San Diego area
"by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
"Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 06:13 AM
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 45
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 11 Posts
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?
__________________
Dave Wood
Grace Bible Community Church
Melbourne, Victoria, Antipodes

There are three kinds of people in the world.
1: Those that can count, and 2: Those that cannot.

"I will restore the years of the locust."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 06:32 AM
TimV's Avatar
Puritanboard Botanist
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,476
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 2,416 Times in 1,142 Posts
Quote:
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.
__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 06:46 AM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Internet View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the Internet View Post
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
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 06:49 AM
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 45
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 11 Posts
So is OEC = Old Earth Creation? Is there something recommended to read on what these guys believe?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 07:10 AM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Internet View Post
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.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 10:55 AM
ericfromcowtown's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 492
Thanks: 201
Thanked 139 Times in 84 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
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.
__________________
Eric
Woodgreen Presbyterian (PCA)
Calgary, Alberta CANADA
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 12:42 PM
sastark's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,302
Thanks: 685
Thanked 363 Times in 207 Posts
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).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sastark For This Useful Post:
Athaleyah (11-10-2009), Backwoods Presbyterian (11-14-2009), brianeschen (11-11-2009), Marrow Man (11-10-2009), tdowns (11-10-2009)
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown View Post
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)."

Last edited by Andrew P.C.; 11-10-2009 at 01:34 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-14-2009, 02:58 PM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,322
Thanks: 257
Thanked 433 Times in 288 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
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?

Last edited by Richard Tallach; 11-14-2009 at 03:40 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69