quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This thread is absolutely mind boggling to me. I'm frankly stunned at some of the answers.

As am I,Sir, as am I.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This thread is absolutely mind boggling to me. I'm frankly stunned at some of the answers.

As am I,Sir, as am I.

I can't believe the legs this thread has. A lot of discussion about numbers that are sort of incomprehensible.

The decay rate of radioactive materials is well known, well documented, and accurate enough to place a reasonable age on a wide variety of materials. There is an incredible volume of evidence from multiple sources -- scientific discovery, atomic analysis, theoretical knowledge, and field observations that support the Earth's age at 4.5-ish billions of years. Even if this collection of information is in error by quite a bit, the Earth is still really frickin' old.

OK, so maybe someone doesn't believe in sub-atomic analysis and radioactivity. Observation of geologic records reveal the Earth ain’t no spring chicken.

Tree ring analysis shows seasons back 11,750 years in North America. There may be records of ring analysis going back 12,000 or 13,000 years.

Ice cores from Greenland reveal seasons going back 130,000 years. Ice cores from Antarctica go back 800,000 years.
I don’t recall the source, but there are drilling records for sediment cores in major river deltas that go back tens of thousands – even hundreds of thousands – of years. I recall that some of the core samples were obtained from the Mississippi delta, related to all the oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tree/ice/mud layer analysis doesn’t require rocket science, nuclear physics, or doctorate degrees. Just Joe Bob or Sally Sue counting the seasonal rings/layers. The earth is really old.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Just Joe Bob or Sally Sue counting the seasonal rings/layers.

Amen.

Gets very confusing when you factor in defining time itself.

Perhaps the devil planted all that evidence, to lead people astray! :-\

I cant believe no one suggested that the earth is only 25 years old...we may be living in a computer simulation!

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
Perhaps the devil planted all that evidence, to lead people astray! :-\

That is yet one more of the rationalizations people are prepared to make that I find so puzzling.

The other common explanation for the (overwhelming, massive) evidence of the Earth’s great age is that it was planted by God directly. In either case, whether he did it or permitted Satan to do it, he was equally complicit in deliberately leading us to believe that what we can see ourselves is true rather than believing ancient writings that are full of descriptions of things far outside anything that any living person has ever seen.

If we humans were created with the ability to obtain and evaluate the evidence provided by our inquires, where did that ability come from, and why? Satan is identified in the Bibles as the deceiver, not God, so is it more reasonable to believe that God decided to play along in the deception—or perpetrate it himself—or that like everything else that we must perceive correctly to live our lives as we do, the evidence of great age is also true?
I have always thought that the “God lied to us” accusation is blasphemy, pure and simple, and should be an outrageous affront to true believers.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
Perhaps the devil planted all that evidence, to lead people astray! :-\

That is yet one more of the rationalizations people are prepared to make that I find so puzzling.

The other common explanation for the (overwhelming, massive) evidence of the Earth’s great age is that it was planted by God directly.

I was being a little flippant. I've had this very conversation with some of my friends.with regard to both the age of the earth, the universe, and the plausibility of evolution.

The planting of evidence theory, as a tool of deception or as a test of faith invariably gets used.

Ah.
I did not realize that you were perhaps being sarcastic because the idea has been expressed so often.

OP here. Thank you to those who have put your opinions out there, and thank you for remaining mostly civil in the discussions. Since I started the brush fire, it's only appropriate for me to put my thoughts out there for public display and ridicule as well.

I believe that this world is a created place and that the Creator has revealed Himself to us through two books, the Bible and the book of nature. Nature tells us "what", the Bible tells us "why". Romans 1:20 says of God, "his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." To study the creation is to study the Creator.

Where I believe many go astray is to separate one book from the other. Science and religion don't have to be at odds. Too often the choice is given as faith vs. science. That is a false dichotomy.
Since the same God authored both books, there can be no contradiction between them. That doesn't mean I have the answer for every mismatch, but it means that where there appears to be a difference between them, the cause is that we are either a) interpreting the science incorrectly, or b) interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

On the one hand, scientists often treat thing as "law" that are not. Our understanding of this dynamic and complex universe is constantly changing. Sometimes theories are more accurate than laws. To give one example, Newton's Law of Gravity was accepted for many years as being an airtight law of the universe. Within the realm of our ability to measure, it seemed to be correct and repeatable. Except that we now know that it is wrong. If you plan an interplanetary mission using Newton, you will miss your mark. It's close, but not exact. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity gives more accurate predictions of gravitational forces, even though it can't be proven as fact. The theory is sometimes better than the law.

Perhaps some of the "laws" used to date the world are not entirely correct? However, I believe that, as a general rule, scientists are trying their best to understand the rules of the game as they can be observed today without any malicious attempt to mislead. And there is certainly a wealth of information to support an old earth position. So much so that it would seem deceitful of God to have placed it all there if it was not true.

On the other hand, while I believe in the complete inerrancy of Scripture, I don't believe in the complete inerrancy of man's interpretation of Scripture. When the sums are totaled and the books are closed, I don't think there will be any discrepancies between what God is trying to tell us in Scripture and what he's trying to tell us in nature. When I look at the days of Genesis 1, I don't think Scripture requires those to be 24 hour days. Could they be? Absolutely. But I don't think a sequential order of creation is what God is telling us.

We tend to interpret things through our own worldview, and we miss so many things in Scripture when we do that. Rather, we should try to see what the words meant to the people they were written to at the time that they were written. I've sought out the opinion of many respected Hebrew scholars, and my conclusion is that a Hebrew living at the time of Moses would probably not have thought of the creation narrative as a literal account. It would have made no sense to them based on their vision of the world at that time. For example, research the Hebrew word "rāqîa", translated "firmament" in the old KJV. In my case, it was actually a deeper study of Scripture, not science, that led me to lean towards an old earth viewpoint.

Still, I always leave the door open to being wrong. Hopefully we all do.

And for the record, I voted, "I'm fairly certain that the earth is old" to my poll question.


Let me add one more comment: If you hold to an old earth view, don't assume that somebody who holds a young earth view is ignorant or uninformed. Many of them have researched the matter more deeply than you would believe. There are many quacks that give young earth science a bad name, but there are also many very gifted scientists who hold that viewpoint.

Have the Gap Theory or Canopy Theory been discussed?

sigfreund: [/QUOTE]I have always thought that the “God deliberately deceived us” argument is blasphemy, pure and simple, and should be an outrageous affront to true believers.[/QUOTE]

A question that always arises within me. And I'm sure it won't be answered here. Is why an all knowing God Created the Evil one in the first place. After all, time is eternal and singular at the same time. To God a single moment ever eternal is time, which he created. The Book has a beginning and a end certain. Where we fit in the mix is the opportune question.

quote:

Is why an all knowing God Created the Evil one in the first place.

Ever seen a superhero movie with no villain? A book with no antagonist? A song with no tension?

Maybe so, they are usually boring and not compelling. They make no point.

A question that always arises within me. And I'm sure it won't be answered here. Is why an all knowing God Created the Evil one in the first place. After all, time is eternal and singular at the same time. To God a single moment ever eternal is time, which he created. The Book has a beginning and a end certain. Where we fit in the mix is the opportune question.[/QUOTE]

I’ve read some of the Bible. I thought Lucifer was created as an angel and then rebelled against God. So he was not always evil, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
Have the Gap Theory or Canopy Theory been discussed?

I don't think anybody has discussed them at length. Just a reference or two.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:


Correct, and for simplicity's sake. The point being is that the inner workings of a specific atom, either losing energy or day-to-day ops, is a fairly established constant, not subject to belief, vagaries of time or location, or significant variation within this particular Universe, discounting quantum interactions. Hence can be - very - accurately measured. And based on that foundation, and others, the calculated age of the observable Universe is estimated at just shy of 15 billion years, with the earth about a third of that age. The calculations are accurate based on what we know of physics, today. There is absolutely no debate or doubt regarding that. The underlying premise can of course be wrong. The Universe could have been created yesterday by an all-powerful Being, as has been suggested, with suitable clues withheld or introduced. It's a matter, as they say, of faith.

I agree with your agreement. Although, again, to be more accurate, the half-life decay isn't about an atom losing energy but rather the actual loss of matter and conversion of mass into energy. That's why a half-life is defined as the length of time for the mass of a given element / isotope to be half of what it was.

And I would like to point out that the calculated age of the universe is yet a third issue different from the previous two (carbon dating and atomic clock accuracy. The age of the universe is based on the distance between us the the farthest edge of the universe that we can see.

Being that the universe is about 28 billion light years end to end and assuming the universe came from the big bang, then the diameter 28 divided by 2 gives us 14 billion light years which means from the time of the big bang to where the edge of the universe is now is 14 billion years which is how we come to the figure "just shy of 15 billion years." But one key assumption in that calculation is that the speed of light has always been constant. There is debate regarding that assumption.

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
I have always thought that the “God deliberately deceived us” argument is blasphemy, pure and simple, and should be an outrageous affront to true believers.

A question that always arises within me. And I'm sure it won't be answered here. Is why an all knowing God Created the Evil one in the first place. After all, time is eternal and singular at the same time. To God a single moment ever eternal is time, which he created. The Book has a beginning and a end certain. Where we fit in the mix is the opportune question.[/QUOTE]

Strictly speaking from a biblical perspective:

All of creation (space, time, matter) is separate from the creator.

Skipping over the technicality of God creating evil for the moment, the unifying perspective that ties everything in the bible together is to understand God's goal in the first place.

It would appear that God wanted to gather a group of beings that would be his companions / worshipers of their own volition and self-identification. Why that would be his criteria, i don't know, except maybe there's not much satisfaction from robots without a will or coerced slaves under duress.

Given that goal, God designed an optimal plan to achieve this goal and had everything figured out even before step one. This included creating beings that had to exercise their volition. To believe in God or not. And God even had to figure how to redeem this group of beings for his purpose in a manner suitable for his purpose.

God allowed evil to occur knowing it would occur and he provided the answer for it because it would give him his ultimate goal - that group of special people.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
I have always thought that the “God deliberately deceived us” argument is blasphemy, pure and simple, and should be an outrageous affront to true believers.

A question that always arises within me. And I'm sure it won't be answered here. Is why an all knowing God Created the Evil one in the first place. After all, time is eternal and singular at the same time. To God a single moment ever eternal is time, which he created. The Book has a beginning and a end certain. Where we fit in the mix is the opportune question.

Strictly speaking from a biblical perspective:

All of creation (space, time, matter) is separate from the creator.

Skipping over the technicality of God creating evil for the moment, the unifying perspective that ties everything in the bible together is to understand God's goal in the first place.

It would appear that God wanted to gather a group of beings that would be his companions / worshipers of their own volition and self-identification. Why that would be his criteria, i don't know, except maybe there's not much satisfaction from robots without a will or coerced slaves under duress.

Given that goal, God designed an optimal plan to achieve this goal and had everything figured out even before step one. This included creating beings that had to exercise their volition. To believe in God or not. And God even had to figure how to redeem this group of beings for his purpose in a manner suitable for his purpose.

God allowed evil to occur knowing it would occur and he provided the answer for it because it would give him his ultimate goal - that group of special people.[/QUOTE]

Thanks but I have read and heard this my whole adult life. Question remains why create the bad dude. God for sure has a sense of humor (-;

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:


Correct, and for simplicity's sake. The point being is that the inner workings of a specific atom, either losing energy or day-to-day ops, is a fairly established constant, not subject to belief, vagaries of time or location, or significant variation within this particular Universe, discounting quantum interactions. Hence can be - very - accurately measured. And based on that foundation, and others, the calculated age of the observable Universe is estimated at just shy of 15 billion years, with the earth about a third of that age. The calculations are accurate based on what we know of physics, today. There is absolutely no debate or doubt regarding that. The underlying premise can of course be wrong. The Universe could have been created yesterday by an all-powerful Being, as has been suggested, with suitable clues withheld or introduced. It's a matter, as they say, of faith.

I agree with your agreement. Although, again, to be more accurate, the half-life decay isn't about an atom losing energy but rather the actual loss of matter and conversion of mass into energy. That's why a half-life is defined as the length of time for the mass of a given element / isotope to be half of what it was.

And I would like to point out that the calculated age of the universe is yet a third issue different from the previous two (carbon dating and atomic clock accuracy. The age of the universe is based on the distance between us the the farthest edge of the universe that we can see.

Being that the universe is about 28 billion light years end to end and assuming the universe came from the big bang, then the diameter 28 divided by 2 gives us 14 billion light years which means from the time of the big bang to where the edge of the universe is now is 14 billion years which is how we come to the figure "just shy of 15 billion years." But one key assumption in that calculation is that the speed of light has always been constant. There is debate regarding that assumption.

New math - and actually a minor - or not so - correction there - the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs, or well over (and growing) 90 billion light years in diameter (measured). While matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light (in this particular Universe), expanding spacetime initially did - a lot. Hence the (measured) size of the Universe is greater than it's measured age. I know - spacetime is a rather odd duck, and relativity is a bitch, but there it is, and nothing else fits. Newtonian physics out the window sometimes, but expanding galaxies aren't breaking the speed limit, because spacetime is expanding with them according to the redshift of distant galaxies, so they aren't traveling "through" anything. But travelling really fast. And 90-plus-billion-ish light years is just what we can "see," with everything we can now "see" with. The "Universe" itself continues far beyond that limit, presumably. Very, very far. Perhaps infinitely far. The Creator didn't mess around.