Nice broad sweeping smack across the face to all creationists. Did you leave anybody out?
I think part of it has to do with funding issues, and having to counter the more and extremely well funded propaganda machine which proclaims the "theory of evolution" as being indisputable fact. Since they say just because they can't explain some of the holes inherent in such a theory doesn't mean it isn't valid, I like to think that just because we can't immediately explain the consistency of radiometric methods doesn't mean no explanation can ever be discovered to debunk their worth.
Earlier, even if one day in Genesis was a thousand years, 1000 isn't 1 million or 1 billion. I don't think the thought of the earth being millions and gabillions of years old ever occurred to anyone until the advent of evolutionary thinking.
Mac,
Nice broad sweeping smack across the face to all creationists. Did you leave anybody out?
Yes, I left the vast majority of them out. I only took a swipe at the scientists at the heart of the creation science industry.
Earlier, even if one day in Genesis was a thousand years, 1000 isn't 1 million or 1 billion. I don't think the thought of the earth being millions and gabillions of years old ever occurred to anyone until the advent of evolutionary thinking.
I don't see how 1000 year day, or an instantaneous day, or anything other than a 24 hour day is "better" than an old earth, after all the crux of the charge is non-literality.
You are wrong about the idea of an old earth originating with evolution. There was already both geological and physical/astronomical data (fairly good estimates of the speed of light were already available) suggesting an old earth and universe.
It's a constant frustration how evolution and an old-earth are often regarded as interchangeable. I, like most of the old earth intelligent-design proponents, believe in an old earth but not in macro evolution.
I could see the plausibility in believing that the earth itself is millions of years old, while life on earth in comparison had only been around for several thousand years.
Given science's batting average in the past 100 years though, I can barely trust anything they say these days.
Thought experiment. How old was Adam a few moments into his creation?
Adam was formed as if he were already a 30 something human. Should we say that Adam was a "baby" as we know it an hour into his creation? If a scientist were to observe Adam an hour into Adam's creation, would that scientist conclude the Earth was at least 30 years old? If a scientist were able to see and cut down a redwood tree a few seconds after it was created and counted the rings, would that scientist say the earth was at least 200 years old?
The same thought could apply to the radioactive elements and their half lives.
From my experience there are a lot of people who are simply scared of science and 'creation science' is merely an excuse for obscurantism. They don't want to look too closely at it, they have a sneaky suspicion it might fall through, but they want to be persuaded. It is a security blanket for fundamentalists. Fundamentalists cannot cope with how complicated the real world is.
I have never trusted people who try to make their opponents look really stupid, particularly when they are leading scientists. I have always sought to operate on the charitable presumption that your opponents may be wrong but they are never stupid. By mocking science, an immunity to reason is developed which bolsters the creation science cause. Creation science often limits itself to attacking views which many scientists who hold to evolution would distance themselves from. This does not win them any praise from me.
What particular annoys me is that six literal day young earth creationism is exalted to the level of a shibboleth of true evangelical Christianity. [Admittedly, for many evangelicals theirs is the only type of Christianity]. Apologetics begins focusing on this one point. The problem is that a position has been created from which people cannot climb down. Knowing human nature, I have no doubt that the quantity of humble pie that would have to be eaten would overface anybody.
I am someone who believes in the authority and inspiration of Genesis 1. However, I am increasingly persuaded that six literal day young earth creationism is not necessitated by Scripture. By exalting the issue to such a level creation scientists have done us no favours whatsoever. We will all be hurt as they are proved to be wrong.
Ed made my argument before I could. It's not that I doubt that radiometric methods can produce data that shows that something is a billion years old. The question is whether God created things that were already old. All the living organisms God created were already old (fully grown trees, animals, humans, etc) so what is to say that He did not create the earth at a certain age?
The assumption that Christians and science don't mix is wrong. The Bible is full of science that is glossed over. For example, when the church didn't believe in the earth was round, the Bible does state that the earth is a sphere. Those kinds of thoughts are human born not based on the Bible.
There are many Christians who are excellent scientists who also adhere to a young earth concept.
Don't look at Creation "scientists" who just use rhetoric to justify a position and have them represent all Creation scientists. There are many Creation scientists who use good science to explore how it fits into the young earth concept.
Just as Creation scientists shouldn't look at scientists who hold evolution near and dear, and attribute that to old earthers.
Too many generalizations in the strings that deal with Creation.
See the thought experiment a few postings up.
The thought experiment that God creating things with apparent age is very popular. There are some subtleties, however.
It is not in the realm of science at all, because it is unfalsifiable. That is not meant as an attack, but rather that this view brings to a quick end all discussion. Science itself sometimes makes such arguments, such as saying (as an alternative to intelligent design) there are infinite parallel, incommunicado universes, most infertile, but we're in one of the lucky ones. That is not science either, because a test cannot be devised to disprove the theory.
Yes Adam may have looked like a 30 year old man. But did he have false memories of his childhood? I don't thinks so.
The universe has memories of its childhood. When we see a super nova explosion, it actually took place millions of years ago. Thus God would not only have had to place the light in transit from a star millions of light years away, He must have also "shaped" the light to reflect an incident that did not actually occur. It is then a false memory. Do you think God placed false memories in the universe just to test our faith?
The apparent age theory also opens the counter argument that perhaps God just created everything six microseconds ago complete with the universe's and our false memories.
Mac,
You seem to trust science enough to use devices (computers and the solid state componenets within) which are understood and designed based on the laws of quantum mechanics.
On the subject of Adam, we are starting to stray a little from the point of young earth and old earth. It's a specific item, when we see Adam in Heaven we can ask about his "childhood."
God made Adam with the knowledge that he needed. Adam didn't get to go to school to learn things in his "childhood." Adam talked. Adam communicated with God. Adam named the animals. God gave Adam that knowledge. Having that knowledge should not be considered false memories, but God given knowledge.
Again, just to emphasize, Creation scientists do not foresake science. There are those who do, but don't generalize that all Creation scientists are like that. Just as Creation old earthers shouldn't all be lumped under the evolutionist title.
OK, so I have to teach both of these views to high school kids. I'm not a scientist, heck I don't have any kind of degree. I have to go from the safe position that I am not sure if God really meant 6 - 24 hour days when He explained this all to Moses or if it was just a representative analogy that Moses could understand. What I do believe and teach is that if God wanted to create the Universe in 6 - 24 hour days He could have.
Any opinions on this?
David says "Thus God would not only have had to place the light in transit from a star millions of light years away, He must have also "shaped" the light to reflect an incident that did not actually occur. It is then a false memory. Do you think God placed false memories in the universe just to test our faith? "
Could we not counter by saying "Did God mean to mislead us by saying the world was created in seven days?" Should he not have been more specific?
Good to see a "debate" on Creation where Creation is the accepted truth and the debate is over young earth and old earth versus teaching the theory of evolution as being truth that we get so much of in the media.
We just have to be careful not to let this debate over young earth and old earth among fellow Christians get out of hand.
People in the old days knew time. They knew time, days, weeks, months, years, etc. Moses understood time and didn't need an analogy for him to understand. People were just as intelligent back then as they are today. They may not have had the gadgets we have today, but that doesn't make them any less intelligent. Structures such as the pyramids were built back in that time that architects of today have a hard time comprehending.
Let's take out the "false" piece. We get ourselves into trouble by saying there are "false memories." We then get into "false growth" when the other items were created (trees, animals, humans). Would the tree rings be "false memories" when the trees were created? If we accept the Creation for trees, humans, animals, why not the universe? For me "false memories" is a bad term to use.
When Adam was created, we all acknowledge he was a full grown adult with the mental capacities in place as a functioning full grown adult. Adam's knowledge was not "false knowledge." That knowledge was put into Adam by God - God given knowledge.
As for the people in ancient times, they were just as intelligent as we are today. Just because they did not discover what we have today yet, didn't make them any less intelligent. They are able to comprehend time. So, for me, up at the beginning of the Bible when God created in days, that is the term for 24 hour periods as we know it.
> Madness. Anti-science madness. Propagated by the ignorant.
> silliness
> Fundamentalists cannot cope with how complicated the real world is.
Christians can agree to disagree, but I don't like the extreme generalizations. Why must so many old-earth Christians take the Richard Dawkins-style approach: "Young-earth creationists are ignorant rednecks"?
If they are all silly ignoramuses who can't cope with real life, how did Kenneth Cumming and Kurt Wise of ICR get PhDs from Harvard? How did Ray Damadian manage to serve as a Fellow in Biophysics at Harvard and invent the MRI? How could UCLA grant John Baumgardner a Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics if he's a simpleton? He's even fooled Los Alamos National Labs into letting him work there for almost a decade.
Why did Sandia National Labs hand out an award for excellence for Russell Humphreys' contributions to light ion-fusion target theory? After all, he's just a dumb creationist who snuck through Duke and Louisiana State before somehow stumbling into a nuclear physics job.
Why hasn't Danny Faulkner been fired as Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster? Surely his dissertation on Violet Opacity Problems in Red Giant Stars must have been plagiarized.
The bottom line is that we can agree to disagree while discussing aspects of the theology and science, but let's not resort to mockery of those on the other side (and yes, I know both sides have been guilty of this in the past). There are obviously brilliant men on both sides, and yes, there are ignorant bozos on both sides. Let's just not confuse the two.
Randy,
You are correct. I was wrong. I apologize for the language I used.
David, I understand how easy it is to post emotionally and then regret it later. Been there, done that.
With that out of the way, how do you explain Christians in your field (physics) holding such divergent views? Hugh Ross thinks YEC (Young Earth Creationists) are simpletons, and they think he either makes incredible blunders or is disingenuous. As a non-physicist (I was a biology major until I switched to Sec Ed/English), I'd like to learn more about your perspective--not that I don't know where you fall on the spectrum. 
Also, have you read any of Halton Arp's stuff about redshift problems?
The HUMAN PARADIGM Psalm 25:12
Consider:
The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future.
Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image
is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...
there are results.
In an effort to diminish the multiple and persistent
dangers and abuses which have characterized the affairs
of man in his every Age, and to assist in the requisite
search for human identity, it is essential to perceive
and specify that distinction which naturally and most
uniquely defines the human being. Because definitions
rule in the minds, behaviors, and institutions of men,
we can be confident that delineating and communicating
that quality will assist the process of resolution and
the courageous ascension to which man is called. As
Americans of the 21st Century, we are obliged and privi-
leged to join our forebears and participate in this
continuing paradigm proclamation.
"WHAT IS MAN...?" God asks - and answers:
HUMAN DEFINED: EARTH'S CHOICEMAKER
by JAMES FLETCHER BAXTER (c) 2004
Many problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-
made religions and humanistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The
balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason
cannot fully function in such a void, thus, the intellect
can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives
and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However,
as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater
than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance
and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason
to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the
rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot
invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks
a predictive capability. Without instinct or transcendent
criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight
and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight,
man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly
committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and
worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a
functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-
dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith,
initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His
Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the
choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-
made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival eq
Commenting by HaloScan
