I am not sure astronomical evidence contradicts the creation record from the Torah. Does a young earth have to be contrary to science?

I thought I read where the(our) moon & earth are the same age?

quote:

Originally posted by matai:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by matai:
Apologies, I incorrectly assumed my sarcasm would be picked up.

Sarcasm or no, you interjected politics into an apolitical thread.

Firearms were also interjected into a non-firearm thread. I apologized, calm down.

Now you're just being a complete idiot, making shit up. Whatever you're referring to has nothing to do with this. You watch your mouth, man. Stick to the subject and don't give me any lip, and if you feel this is a good time to be obstinate and continue on, I can tell you that you're guaranteed to lose. Cut it out, and take your "calm down" and stick it where the sun don't shine. I know what I'm doing and I admonish members when admonishment is due. You managed to wedge climate change (which is an inescapably political topic) into a subject which is altogether different. Don't do that and then you won't hear me bark.

I have been previously mildly ridiculed when mentioning the documentary "Is Genesis History?". I found it compelling and an alternative approach to the historical theory the earth is billions and billions of years old. I don't discount the historical theory...I just found the notion that the earth might be younger than "we" think based on some semblance of scientific fact/theory a very interesting and debatable point.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by matai:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by matai:
Apologies, I incorrectly assumed my sarcasm would be picked up.

Sarcasm or no, you interjected politics into an apolitical thread.

Firearms were also interjected into a non-firearm thread. I apologized, calm down.

Now you're just being a complete idiot, making shit up. Whatever you're referring to has nothing to do with this. You watch your mouth, man. Stick to the subject and don't give me any lip, and if you feel this is a good time to be obstinate and continue on, I can tell you that you're guaranteed to lose. Cut it out, and take your "calm down" and stick it where the sun don't shine. I know what I'm doing and I admonish members when admonishment is due. You managed to wedge climate change (which is an inescapably political topic) into a subject which is altogether different. Don't do that and then you won't hear me bark.

You're being ridiculous, I won't feed into your tantrum anymore. Go ahead and ban me or delete my profile, whatever you want, I'm out.

I'm not going to ban you but you're going to be quiet, and don't think you can ever pull this shit with me and that it will go unanswered. If you want to call enforcing the well-known rules of this board a "tantrum", then enjoy your fantasy world. Again, don't violate the rules and you won't hear me bark.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
I thought I read where the(our) moon & earth are the same age?

They are now thought to be much closer in age than previously thought, but they couldn't be the same age, as it is believed the moon was created some time after the formation of our solar system (a collision between the earth and some planetoid).

The age of the moon is an important marker in evolutionary theory, as a massive collision like that would have made the earth quite uninhabitable to life for some time afterwards.

And this still integrates with the Bible (if you use the heavenly calendar), as the moon was created the day after the earth was completed.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
if God had created it in 4004BC or whenever,

Why do we argue about this stuff? You were in grade school about then, weren't you?

Bite me, Richard.

I voted that I’m fairly certain the earth is old. I don’t dispute the science but also know there is no such thing as settled science, so how old is always questionable. Nevertheless this doesn’t change anything with relation to creation stories. I am not religious and don’t particularly believe in God. But if there is a God time is irrelevant to him. People just can’t fathom a Being that is outside of our realm and so different that normal physics don’t apply to him. Whatever’s been written and religious texts is simply a tool for humans to try to make sense of something unimaginable.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm not going to ban you but you're going to be quiet...

You are a much more patient man than I.



.

I am not sure if I should wade into this or not, but here it goes.

This argument, is rooted, IMNSHO, in a fundamental mis-understanding of what, precisely, science and religion are, and what their purpose is.

Science, in its most basic form, is the study of the world as we observe it. The value of science is its ability to explain and predict. It must explain the observations we have made, and predict the outcomes of events not yet observed. The latter is crucial. In the mathematical field of interpolation and approximation, it is clear that it is easier to interpolate, that is “fill in the gaps” between known data points, than it is to extrapolate, that is, to predict into the future, if you will. In science, experiments play a crucial role in validating a scientific hypothesis that has been proposed to explain past observed phenomenon, by testing its ability to predict. A hypothesis that both adequately explains the past, i.e. already observed data, as well as successfully predicts the future, ie. the results of experiments not yet conducted, on a consistent basis becomes a theory. That’s it. Science’s job is to explain the workings of the world as we see it. A theory is only “true” to the extent that it explains the past and predicts the future. When it fails to do that, it is modified or discarded. In order for an experiment to validate a prediction, one must be able to conduct repeatable and controlled experiments to assure that the only thing they are testing is the hypothesis itself. Proper experimental design and practice is difficult and involved.

Religion, in its most basic form, is the study of existentialism. We take their tenets on faith, that is without verifiable, testable proof. Some religions postulate the exist of a diety, others don’t. Their primary function is to provide answers to things we cannot know about, e.g. “why are we here?”

Trouble comes about when one uses science when religion is called for, and vice-verse. For example, one wondering why the apple falls to the ground might use religion to say, “because Allah wills it.” But this is a question for science, because it is seeking an answer to explain an observable phenomenon, not an existential one. The spectacular success of science in the last 200 years to bring about unprecedented changes in technology and our way of life has lured some people into thinking of science more like a religion. They have a faith in science and its abilities to answer all questions, not just those limited to the observable world. A good current example is so-called “climate science.” It is true that many meteorologists and atmospheric scientists use well-established science to study their subject, but they lack one fundamental aspect to make them a true science. They cannot conduct actual experiments on the climate, and cannot test their ability to predict, except by making a prediction and waiting to observe. But, it is not a repeatable experiment, and they cannot isolate all possible variables that impact their prediction and observation. Hence, they lack the fundamental ability to conduct proper experiments to validate their hypotheses. Unfortunately, some have taken the tact that the first half of a scientific theory, that of being able to explain, is sufficient to believe in its power to predict. But anyone that plays the stock market knows that past performance is no guarantee of future results. This same fundamental difficulty arises in psychology, geology, and many other studies of phenomenon whose time or spatial scales defy proper testing, or are so complex as to defy our current abilities. None of this is meant to knock these subjects, but it is imperative to understand their current capabilities and limitations.

Climate studies are easy compared to the study of living objects, especially ones that have the ability to adapt to their environment over time. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the past, and is tested on its ability to predict. Since the belief in how evolution led to the origin of species involves a long time, it, like climatology, suffer from difficulties in experimentation. A now retired well-known Professor of Biology once explained to me that evolution isn’t a great theory. It has lots of problems, but it is still the best one they have.


So, to answer the OP. I believe the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and I also believe the Judeo-Christian God created it. Out current understanding of the earth’s age and how it works is not at all in conflict with the Bible. If one cannot tolerate uncertainty, don’t study either religion or science.

^^^
Yes.

Science helps us understand, "why, the apple falls".
Religion helps us understand, "why, the apple".

Obviously the fossil record contradicts a literal interpretation of Biblical history, with remains of creatures (even "humans"), turning up, of demonstrably ancient lineage, that are much older than 6,000 years. So we are left with "believe a lie and be damned" for some. This has historically caused the same debate for not a few centuries. My own personal thoughts, of a more general nature, are the wonder I feel when considering that an agrarian people, some marginally literate, who had no knowledge of Quantum mechanics or nuclear physics, a few thousand years ago penned the words, historically translated, "And God said, let there be light." And we now know, as near as possible, what we did not know even a hundred years ago - at some point, from an infinitesimally small "nothing," out of "nothing," in an inconceivably brilliant burst of unfathomable power, the Universe exploded in essentially an instant into being - everything we can see or imagine - from a point of....light.

quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:

A very simple reason why it matters is that if you can convince people that what is told in the Book of Genesis is not true, then it becomes easier cast doubt on the rest of the Bible.

This is a basic difference between science and religion. Science seeks to prove itself wrong where as religion must always be right.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
I believe that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. But if God had created it in 4004BC or whenever, couldn't He have also created the fossil record, etc., as if it were billions of years old?

The fossil record is not the only evidence for an old earth.

But yes, we must concede an all-powerful god could create evidence to trick us. For all we know, the creator has made us brains in vats, and put everything we think we know into those brains. Maybe even math isn't real.

DrDan has done a nice job of explaining why we shouldn't use science to explain religious questions and religion to explain what are scientific questions. Either will lead you very far astray.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

But yes, we must concede an all powerful god could create evidence to trick us.

Yep, he is all mighty, powerful, loving, forgiving, and a bit of a prankster

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:

Yep, he is all mighty, powerful, loving, forgiving, and a bit of a prankster

That's not the dude from the Old Testament!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
I believe that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. But if God had created it in 4004BC or whenever, couldn't He have also created the fossil record, etc., as if it were billions of years old?

Yes, but why would He? The God I worship is a benevolent parent--I don't believe He would deliberately want to confuse and deceive us.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
I believe that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. But if God had created it in 4004BC or whenever, couldn't He have also created the fossil record, etc., as if it were billions of years old?

Yes, but why would He? The God I worship is a benevolent parent--I don't believe He would deliberately want to confuse and deceive us.

flashguy

I agree with flashguy. There have been many attempts to reconcile the mainstream scientific understanding with a literal interpretation of Genesis, of which the Appearance of Age theory that Shugart references is one. However, it runs into theological problems in that it denies the very nature of God as described in the Bible. It fails philosophically as well. We might as well say that God created the world yesterday but that he created it to look old and gave us all false memories of a history we never experienced. There's no end to the rabbit hole.

I went with "positive it's old". I don't see any contradiction. The Bible was written for simple people, so had to be kept simple. "Live this way" they could understand, eventually. "Integral Calculus" would be pushing it.

The Hebrews that recorded the story of Genesis had to be told - and told repeatedly - to stop screwing their sheep. Which are they going to understand and remember, "4.5 billion years" or "7 days"?