Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/10/2001 3:33 AM (GMT -6)

my email was down. this is a paper I wanted one of my philosophy profs to read so he could give me advice before I turned it in to another philosophy prof.

I'm posting it here 'cause I have no other way to get it to him as my email is down. I don't think I will spend much time if any at all defending it here. So if anyone critisizes this and whether they are smoking crack or not, I may not respond or attempt to defend it. But nevertheless, input would be appreciated.

The Age of the Earth
By
Rob R

The age of the earth is a fundamental question for Six-Day Creationist, hence they are often also known as Young Earth Creationists. If they could establish the validity of their preferred range of dates for the earth, they could very well neglect other areas of the evolutionary paradigm since evolution requires vast amounts of time. Of course this would be a tremendous boon for theism as it is the three great theistic religions of the world, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, that share the creation tradition that lends itself to such an interpretation where the vast number alternatives do not. Of course there are many theists that argue that a young earth is not necessary to the Christian perspective as well as the other theistic perspectives. This is a significant avenue to explore since it is a viable possibility that the earth is in fact ancient and of course the majority of scientists hold this as a conclusively established fact. Given the high regard for the opinions of the scientists because of the tremendous success they have had in explaining very significant features of the universe, many theologians, conservative theologians of significant importance, have justifiably attempted to accommodate the claims of these scientists.
Still though, there is merit considering the possibility that the Bible is not compatible with various features of the evolutionary paradigm and the truth of one may negate the truth of the other albeit it is the old earth paradigm that gives us a good reason for taking a closure look. In other words, is of value to consider what is essential to the purpose of scripture without attempting to mold that purpose towards compatibility with evolution. In doing so, we can more objectively approach the question of the compatibility of various aspects of evolution and the Bible. In fact, it would seem to be very beneficial to view this as three separate debates that should be considered independently of each other and after consideration of these, apply the outcomes arrived at to each other to view the implications. These three debates are, science and the Bible: are they compatible, do they have implications for one another; Evolution and the Bible: do they have implications for one another, are they compatible; Evolution and science: should evolution be considered scientific and if so, are we compelled by science to accept evolution (now although I use the term evolution I don’t mean to imply by this that anyone who believes in the ancient earth is a biological evolutionist, but I have lumped them into this category for simplicity’s sake. In other contexts, I would be horrified with such a simplification. Young Earth Creationists are on the other hand far to willing to do so and this comes across as pure rhetoric against Progressive Creationists and Intelligent Design theorists. I do not intend to use the term in a derogatory fashion).
In this paper, I will approach this topic in three main sections. In the first section, I will explore the question of the Bible and evolution, in particular, for the first part, what it is that we can arguably discern as conclusive from the text and then considering one implication of certain texts for evolution. In the second part of this paper, I will spend a brief amount of time on whether or not evolution should be considered scientific and in the last part, I will discuss whether science compels us to believe in an ancient earth.
The aspect of the Bible that many creationists will point to is of course the genealogies. The Bible provides genealogies from the time of Adam all the way to Abraham and this will no doubt be the most contested part of the genealogies as far as this debate is concerned. Traditionally, many theologians have calculated the age of the earth to be around 6,000 years due to these genealogies. Davis Young, however cites scholarship by William Henry Green that builds the case against the possibility of dating events such as the flood and the creation via the genealogies since comparison of other Biblical genealogies reveal that “gaps and omissions are commonplace in biblical genealogy.” (Young 59) Young also makes the claim that the chronologies shouldn’t be taken in a “rigidly literal fashion,” but unfortunately, Young does not explain what it means for the genealogies to be something other than literal.
But are gaps in the genealogies enough to show that the genealogies are useless in at least providing a rough estimate of certain dates? Evidently, young earth creationists are willing to admit that the genealogies could realistically allow a stretch of at the most 12,000 years. Even progressive creationist, Hugh Ross finds the geneologies useful:
The Bible indicates, that the first spirit-man, Adam, was created about 15,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years. Science gives a similar date for the appearnce of modern man. (Morris 27)

Geologist John D Morris places the possible range 6000-12,000 years. So it is not clear that gaps in the genealogies are sufficient to render them useless for the purposes of dating various events in Genesis.
A classic argument for a literal approach to the first chapters of Genesis is the notion that if we do not take Genesis literally, we cannot be sure that other parts of the Bible are to be taken literally for which a literal translation is essential to basic Christianity. For example, should we take literally the notion that Jesus is God, that He really died for us on the cross, and that he was resurrected from the dead? If events in the Genesis really didn’t really happen like they have been literally written down, we could conclude the same about such essential historical events to the Christian tradition. Of course there is something of a naivete in this approach. One should be aware that different texts in the Bible have different purposes and represent different genre of writting. It is fairly obvious from the writtings of Paul for example that the historical events of Jesus’ life are essential, particularly his death and ressurection.
In the past, the six days of creation have been alleged to be poetic and thus need not be taken literally. This certainly isn’t very tenable though since the distinguishing feature of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. Genesis lacks this structure. Dr. John Sanders in some of his classes points out the fact that Genesis has certain polemic elements to it. For example the sun and moon are not even named in Genesis. They are merely called the “greater light” and the “lesser light.” This seems to be a mockery of the significance of the Sun and Moon when other pagan peoples around the Jews worshiped the Sun and Moon. Also, there is no drama in Genesis with gods warring with each other carving one another into the various parts of the world. God merely speaks, and it is so. Not only is there a polemic element to Genesis, there is sort of an idealized element to Genesis such as the amount of time for the project, seven days which is a number that represents wholeness. Also, one may take note that in the first three days, God created various places, and in the subsequent three, he filled those places. On the first day, God created light and darkness. On the fourth day, He made the Sun and the Moon. On the second day, God created the sky and seperating upper and lower water levels above it and below it. The fifth day corresponds to this with the creation of the birds and the fish. And finally, on the third day, God created the land which corresponds to the creation of to land creatures on the sixth day.
So the purpose according to this view, of the early chapters of Genesis is not necessarily to give a literal chronological sequence but to show that God is the creator who created by his own free will. The world is not some accident of the turmoil of the gods but a deliberate act. Since the world is the result of a deliberate act, it and its creatures, particularly the crowning element, man, have a great significance. We need not find ourselves bound by the sequence of events since it is arguably the result of a Hebrew aesthetic. The Hebrew mind is not as highly concerned with a historically accurate sequence of events anyway considering the discrepancies of various accounts of the sequence of the plagues of the exodus. Even the Gospels are not written with precise sequence in mind and Matthew in particular groups together various events in Jesus’ life such as His miracles, sermons and parables.
This approach has significant advantages over the Gap theory and the day age theory given that those who wish to hold to the evolutionary interpretation of the geological problem won’t be hard pressed to make these fit an awkward concordism or read large scale events into passage that does not intuitively lend itself into that direction at all.
Of course the polemic style of Genesis and the interesting sequence in which the creation event is narrated are not enough to demonstrate that the creation event did not proceed in the manner indicated by a straightforward reading. Nevertheless, these observations do lend themselves rather well to the notion that we can accept Genesis taking it seriously without feeling constrained to take the sequence literally and the twenty four hour day would reasonably follow.
One very good contention though that the creationists have refers to the character of God. To creationist objections on account genealogies and the sequence of days, a prudent critic would challenge the creationist on the nature of revelation. The age of the earth and the sequence in which it was made doesn’t seem to reveal anything essential about the character of God and yet that is the primary purpose of the scriptures. The Bible is the biography of God and his relationship to us. In light of this, the fuss about the age of the earth and the sequence of the creation event seems to pale in significance and importance. However a very significant creation objection relies upon the very character of God as revealed through scripture. The evolutionary process involves huge amounts of suffering and death. However, the Bible links the entrance of suffering and death with sin. Death is the last enemy to be defeated. So affirming of life is God that Jesus made a rather indirect proof for the resurrection of the dead from this aspect of God insisting that since God was the God of the living, and since God was called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there had to be a resurrection because the God of the living can’t possibly be the God of the dead, thus these men had to be resurrected. It is certainly resonable to draw implications from this aspect of God for his creative methods. Of course, as surely as the God of the living couldn’t be the God of the dead, surely it is very questionable that he could be the God who creates via a process in which death is essential.
One objection to this was suggested by Dr. Hasker to his philosophy of religion class. One of the psalms speaks of the Lord providing for the lions which shows that this is a part of his creative order. Nevertheless, we could compare this to the way in which God supports the warior for His causes such as samson who’s might even used in the killing of philistines could be viewed as bringing glory to God. But these things have their place in a fallen world which is not the way God created the world and not the way he will leave it.
Another objection posed by Progressive Creationist Hugh Ross, is that we should not be compelled to view animal death as significant enough that we should view it as compromising God’s stance against death as intentional for the created order. Also, Doctor Woodruff, pointed out that the suffering of animals is not quite comparable to ours since a fox causght in a trap may chew its leg off, but a Human in a similar situation would pass out trying to gnaw a limb off even though impending doom was approaching. But the Bible does reveal that God finds the death of animals as rather significant. For example, one would may feel pity for Balaam’s ass when the ass received beatings from Balaam for veering off the road to save balaam from impending doom. Also, in the law we find protection for the dignity of animals in the prohibition against boiling a calf in its mother’s milk. But probably a highly significant consideration is the nature of atonement for sins. The church father Anathanius, in his defense of the Godhood of the Son against Arius questioned whether we could really be certain of our salvation if the sacrifice, Jesus was not truly God. In Christian theology we believe that all sin even before Jesus death is atoned for even long before his death. But before Jesus came into the world, God set up a sacrificial system whereby the slaying of an innocent animal would make a temporary cover for sins. But here one can ask in a similar spirit of Anathanius, if the death of an animal is an intrinsic part of nature intended by God as evidenced by his pronouncement at the finish of creation that all was very good, could that death have enough weight in significance to to even temporarily take the place of the son of God in covering sins? The sacrifice of the lamb because of sin seems to at least show that in God’s forgiveness of sin, loss must be taken and something gentle and pure must be mangled. But if this is the natural way of things, if God originally intended for baby sheep to be tossed around in the jaws of lions, the significance of the sacrifice seems to be lost or at least reduced.
One may wonder what relevence this has to the age of the earth. Of course this is a significant challenge to theistic evolution but why can’t one still hold to an ancient earth like progressive creationists. The problem is that any view that the earth is ancient is going to involve massive amounts of suffering and death in the created order before the fall
Now creationists often challenge the notion that evolution should be considered science. They claim that science should only involve what can be tested here and now and since we do not have direct access to the past, we cannot say with scientific authority what went on then or even how ancient the earth is. Although this is a claim worth examining, this same contention could be be used against scientific investigations into atomic structures and the interior of stars, neither of which we direct access to and yet both are areanas for significant scientific inquiry that even creationists are going to want to look into. Also, by Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy, Evolution is very much scientific theory. It functions as a guiding paradigm through which the data is interpreted.
Now, although evolution is deserving of the designation of a scientific theory, does this mean that christians must be compelled to accept it? Although it has been demonstrated that significant portions of the Bible can possibly be viewed as compatible with evolution and an ancient earth, Christians do have at least one very significant reason for skepticism about the ancient age of the earth.
One of the most important methods for dating the earth and even fossils involves dating the rocks via measuring the ratios of radioactive elements to their byproducts. Creationists are always going to point out that these methods rely on three assumptions. The first assumption is that the rate of decay has always remained the same throughout the past. Davis Young mentions that creationists have tried to suggest that cosmic radiation can cause the rate of decay to increase but cosmic radiation cannot penetrate the earth’s surface very well. (Young 97) John D Morris in his critique of Radio-isotopic dating calls this the safest assumption and is not willing to challenge this assumption until more is known. (Morris 52-53) Physicist Russel Humphreys however has proposed that the stretching of space could cause an increase in the rate of decay. (Humphreys 36).
The second assumption suggests that the ratio of the parent to daughter has not been changed via contamination or loss of parent or daughter atoms from the rock. Davis Young claims that we can never be sure that this didn’t happen but we could reduce that probability by carefully selecting materials for testing (Young 98) However, Geologist, Andrew Snelling has claimed that “it is impossible to be sure of the precise status history of any piece of pitchblende selected for dating.” (Morris 53)
Thirdly, the geochronologist must assume that he can know the original composition of the rock.. For some dating methods, there are some simple explanations for why scientists believe this to be the case. In potassium/argon for example, before lava cools and becomes rock, the argon gas should be able to escape. For uranium/lead found in certain rocks, the crystalization should force the particular isotope of lead in question out of the system that is dated.(Young 98-99). We can test this assumption and creationists are going to capitalize on the various anomalies when we have rocks hot out of the oven. Although Morris gives examples of these anomalies, some of them are not that impressive. He talks about dates for rocks from recent volcano eruptions that give dates that are off by the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands. But the method in question for most of these bad dates, potassium/argon has a range as high as a billion years.
Other anomalies include conflicting dates. Hansruedi Stutz went on a geological excursion in 1984. He collected some samples from the Upper Tertiary System in Magenwil, Switzerland which is dated at 20 million years old. Most geologists wouldn’t attempt to radiocarbon date something that should be 20 million years old since carbon dating only goes back 100,000 years. Nevertheless, Stutz sent a sample of coalified wood from this area to be carbon dated at the Physikalisches Institut of the University of Bern, Switzerland. The result of the testing was 36,440.
Morris has a chapter that covers these three assumptions as well as another and he records more anomalies but he concludes at the end of this chapter “…please don’t get the impression that radioisotope dating techniques have been disproven because they sometimes do yield results which are consistent…” He goes on to explain that the early makeup of the earth and flood dynamics are not fully known and insists that until then, we cannot fully understand what these isotopes mean. Nevertheless, this admission is exactly what we should expect from someone who is serious about wrestling with the scientific conundrums for a paradigm.
However, critic of the paleoanthropology, Marvin L. Lubenow is not so kind. In an appendix of his book Bones of contention, he tells the story of the attempts to date the skull known as KNM-ER 1470. This skull was discovered by Richard leaky in the KBS Tuff. The first radio-isotopic date of this area was 212-230 million years by J.A. Miller and F.J. Fitch who were recognized as authorities in potassium/argon dating. However they rejected this date due to the fact that it conflicted with the prescribed ages for the fossils found in this layer. (Lubenow 249) Fitch and Miller received “fresher” materials for redating of the area and “securely dated” the layer at 2.6 m.y. In 1972, skull, 1470 was discovered in this area. By 1974, the KBS tuff had been dated and redated 5 different times. (Lubenow 253) By that time the date of the skull was at 2.9 m.y. This however did not fly with the paleoanthropological community because this skull looked too modern. (Lubenow 253) So the date of the skull was eventually revised even though Richard leaky fought this revision. (Lubenow 253). Dating and redating of the tuff went on though and did not end until 1981. (Lubenow 260) Lubenow concludes that “whereas the public is lead to believe that these dating methods are highly objective and accurate, the scientific literature itself reveals that they are highly subjective.” (Lubenow 264) Lubenow considers that many evolutionists would find him unfair due to the fact that East Turkana, the site of this controversy, is exceedingly complex in its geology. (Lubenow 265) Lubenow would counter that this is not the only geologically complex fossil site. Lubenow claims that what makes this situation unique is that this area was dated before a significant fossil was found and he implies that had it been found earlier, none of this would’ve happened or had the skull not been found at all. (Lubenow 265-266)
Creationists also incorporate various processes by which to date the earth and they believe that many these processes support a young earth against an old earth. One of these processes is the salt content of the sea. A paper by physicist Russell Humphreys and Geologist Steven Austin seemed to be carefully worked out by the reckoning of Carl Weiland. (Weiland 23) However Clarence Menninga has criticized this view accusing Humphreys of not doing his homework in a book he co-authored, Science Held Hostage. But Humphreys said that he had talked to many other scientists who were evolutionists and found that the evolutionists had no data to offer on this. However after corresponding with Humphreys, Menninga, admitted that he had no data but was instead arguing from statements made by other evolutionists…who of course had no data themselves. (Weiland 23)
One of the most monumental obstacles for creation science is that of starlight. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, How can we see starlight that apparently has been traveling extremely long distances for billions of years. One classic answer is that God created the universe with maturity. This should not be confused with the appearacne of age. Maturity is not so much about an implied past as it is about functionality so this does not immediately yield itself to weird theological implications where God tries our faith with a deceptivly old looking universe. Certainly the light of stars in the picture presented by Genesis is essential to their functionality. But how God would work this out seems to be problematic. If the stars where static and unchanging, perhaps this would be an excellent asnwer but since we view the stars in motion, one must wonder if the the light that we see is syncronized with what is really going on with these stars. If they are, we do have an actual idea of what is going on in the universe but this would have the weird consequence that the motions of stars would have two sets of light representing them and in a few billion years, when light from the actual interior of the star reaches us, we would see cosmic reruns.
An ancient age for the universe seems to be very unavoidable. Russell Humphreys however has presented a new and unique answer to this question which could very well be called a compromise, because the answer to question of whether the universe is ancient or young in his hypothesis becomes yes. The universe is young and the universe is ancient. What makes the difference is the clock by which you measure the universe. By the earth’s clock, the universe is only a few thousand years old. According to clocks at the edge of the universe, we obtain an age of a few billion years. How is this accomplished?
Humphreys calls his theory “white hole” cosmology. According to this theory, God created the world as a huge mass of water two light years in diameter. This giant sphere of water has so much mass that the gravity virtually makes this a black hole. According to white hole cosmology. This mass began to collapse in on itself forming the heavier elements. Next, God, through a special act of intervention stretches space out rapidly and much of the water is pulled away from the center of the universe. This expansion of the universe is in the form of a white hole, which could be understood as the opposite of a black hole. Now white holes and black holes have a border surrounding them where the gravity is so strong that it is a point of no return for even light. This is called an event horizon. Event horizons also have another interesting effect for time. The closer one is to an event horizon, the slower time proceeds. If one reaches an event horizon, time will stop. Humphreys believes that on the fourth day of creation, the event horizon from the white hole reached earth. At this time, time for the earth would have stoped while billions of years could have passed by in the universe.
According to Humphreys, White Hole Cosmology is based on the same observations and equations that the big bang is based on. The difference is that what whole cosmology assumes that the universe is three dimensionally bounded vs. the big bang, which holds that the universe is unbounded.
In this paper, I have not attempted to demonstrate that there are no good scientific reasons for holding that the earth is ancient. I haven’t demanded on biblical grounds that an ancient earth

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

Edited by - geebob on 11/10/2001 1:13:40 PM

Edited by - geebob on 11/10/2001 1:22:10 PM

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 11/10/2001 4:04 AM (GMT -6)

You mispelled answer

quote:
asnwer

Good paper, way better than I could ever imagine doing. I hope some trained philosopher like a Greg Boyd gives you more insight.
God Bless

Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny.1Corinthians2:14

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/10/2001 8:06 AM (GMT -6)

thanks fs.

dad gummit though! I went over to my profs house this morning to help him with some work in his woods and after we finished and had lunch, we went to his computer to look at it and we couldn't access this page! Oy Vey!

Hey, If Greg Boyd wants to comment, that would be great!

just some notes to anyone interested. my conclusion isn't finish and of course there are things elswhere that I would have to finish

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 11/10/2001 10:55 AM (GMT -6)

, If Greg Boyd wants to comment, that would be great!

Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny.1Corinthians2:14

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 11/10/2001 10:59 AM (GMT -6)

I am no longer a neophyte, THANK YOU JESUS!!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!(I am getting a little choked up here)

It tis all down hill from here.

Hey Bob! What is your view on the age of the earth? Was that it or is that something you had to do for school? What are your views? Hey man God Bless, talk to you soon.
Peace

Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny.1Corinthians2:14

Edited by - faithfullservent on 11/10/2001 4:01:55 PM

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/10/2001 4:42 PM (GMT -6)

The views expressed here are pretty much the views that I hold currently. I used to be extreme on this. After my first Ken Ham (he is a young earth creationist) seminar, I didn't think you could be a christian and an evolutionist even though Ken Ham would not support this view. Now I feel that some of what goes on in the creation science movement is unnecesarily divisive. But I still find myself believing that God created a utopia in six days where animals did not kill eachother and all of nature was congenial to man and I think that nature today is significantly different than nature as God originally created it before he cursed the ground and casued throns to grow on plants in response to the sin of man. The notion that creation had such unusual and deliberate and obviously miraculous elements is very appealing to me. Theistic evolution with Gods subdued and subtle guidance just seems to pale. I just think it creationism is a better story.

Of course my primary objection is the issue with suffering and death before the fall as I have elaborated.

And of course, as I have argued in my paper, the creationists do have a compelling case all though it is not as air tight as I thought it was. I find that many people who critisize the creation science movement aren't aware that there is significant research that goes on in that movement that I think deserves to be considered scientific.

Maybe they are really just wishfully thinking and have a really skewed view o the data, but as a laymen I don't know that I would ever be able to make that judgement but some of these issues are just way over may head and it appears to be one scientist's word against another. This is the way I feel about Russel Humphreys' white whole cosmology. I read a few debates between him and critics but it was all scientific gibberish to me. But many of these guys are trained at universities and hold significant jobs in the scientific community. Humphreys for instance works at the Sandia National Labratories and holds several patents for inventions for physics labs

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

Edited by - geebob on 11/10/2001 9:51:47 PM

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 11/11/2001 6:23 AM (GMT -6)

geebob asked

quote:
If the universe is only a few thousand years old, How can we see starlight that apparently has been traveling extremely long distances for billions of years?

I don't pay much attention to the young earth/evolution debate, but one answer that I have heard from some of my friends who do participate in the debate is the following.

God stretched out the heavens and He did this at a speed much faster than the speed of light. This explanation is based on the following passages.

quote:
Psalms 104:2 Who cover [Yourself] with light as [with] a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

Isaiah 40:22 [It is] He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants [are] like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I [am] the LORD, who makes all [things,] Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, And created man on it. I -- My hands -- stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

Isaiah 48:13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; [When] I call to them, They stand up together.

Isaiah 51:13 And you forget the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens And laid the foundations of the earth; You have feared continually every day Because of the fury of the oppressor, When [he has] prepared to destroy. And where [is] the fury of the oppressor?

Jeremiah 10:12 He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Jeremiah 51:15 He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding.

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:

What do you think of these passages as evidence that God stretched out the heavens so that the light from the stars would be visible to us at this time (and earlier)?

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 11/11/2001 6:29 AM (GMT -6)

I enjoyed reading what you have written so far of your paper. Looking forward to reading the rest of it and passing it on to a few of my friends who are staunch YECs

.

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/11/2001 10:23 AM (GMT -6)

chance and all - I read chance's response, and because of it's inferences did not read the paper, so please forgive if my point was already covered, and I hope this serves complimentary. And forgive my lack of specific biblical reference, I also do not have much familiarity with this sort of studies. I think I heard what chance is referring to accompanied with the idea that God created the heavens (at least in part) as a sign from God to mankind (purposeful design, i.e. perhaps zodiac messages, and or creationism grander and the supremacy of the creator over the creation), surely there are references that say that the heaven's are His handiwork, and so on.

The implication is that God created the vast universe for specific observable meaning, strongly implies that God created such an expansive universe with the corresponding ability to observe these messages and signs. The notion is fascinating about the correlation of spiritual light, and that of phenomenal light. God created phenomenal light, He created the reality that the light is effected by, such as gravity, and what happens when it passes through such variables as gas formations and other optical effects, and has orchestrated all the wonder of the universe. God is necessarily far superior over it, therefore it seems to me that the suggestion is that God was also able to stretch out the light (somehow) to allow it to be meaningful and known to us according to His purposes. The element of design by way of sign or implied divine message, seems to verify God's creative hand in the light as well as in the heavenly bodies they reflect. I think to suggest that God could not have such creative control over the light, is to deny the idea of God's creative powers in the universe, and may also be found supported by other signs He gave such as the rainbow for example. If you can allow God His creative hand in that particular light show, then perhaps the light from the distant stars becomes more into focus. Blessings.

Edited by - 1way on 11/11/2001 3:44:40 PM

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/11/2001 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks chance.

I'm not quite sure how your freinds are incorporating the stretching of space to anwer this question. perhaps they are suggesting that God created the stars on the fourth day within a viewable range of earth and then stretched the universe to the extreme size that we find it today. I've never heard this and I don't know why such an answer wouldn't work as far as pysics is concerned, but I would prefer to hear that it is a physicist who is promoting this view for scientific reasons. Otherwise it is just a likely story which for all we know is grossly incompatible with the way the universe is set up today or even untenable with the laws of physics today.

Also, we see structures in the universe that appear to have been forming for eons such as the expansion of clouds left over from supernovas.

Another thing that I could think that your freinds are implying by this is that by God's stretching of space faster than the speed of light, we get a reletavistic effect such that the stars, although are created on the fourth day, were sent billions of years into the past such that there light would reach us by now. Now I have two issues with this. first, I don't know that the stretching of space could have such a reletavistic efect. It is the traveling of objects through space that recieve this effect and not the motions of space itself. And my second objection to this is that it poses problems for presentism and I'm not too hot on that idea as you know.

But perhaps they are reffering to russell Humphreys white hole cosmology since the stretching of space is an integral part of it. But I don't see why your friends would focus on that as the stretching of space is not the significant part of Humphreys theory that solves the problem of ancient starlight. It is rather the event horizon that would have hit the earth on the fourth day which would have made that day last for billions of years measured by the clocks in other parts of the universe.

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

Edited by - geebob on 11/11/2001 3:41:43 PM

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/11/2001 10:49 AM (GMT -6)

1way,

it appears to me that you are suggesting that God created the light between us and the stars. correct me if I'm wrong.

this has been suggested, but I do find significant problems with it but you'll ahve to read my paper for that.

you won't have to read all of it though.

its in the paragragh that begins "One of the most monumental obstacles for creation science..." towards the end.

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

Edited by - geebob on 11/11/2001 3:51:58 PM

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/11/2001 11:30 AM (GMT -6)

geebob - First, I suspect, much like the evolution's unfoundedly inflated time schemes, such figures as "starlight that apparently has been traveling extremely long distances for billions of years." is biased and errant and ultimately false. I am going off of second or third hand info, so please take this as my impression and not otherwise, to the point, could you verify that no creationism scientific models exist that suppose an outside distance of some 8-13k light years? And if you can't, then obviously you have some homework to do before you claim things that simply may not be so. My inference comes from Bob Enyart, and that is if I remember it correctly, but I well imagine that other creationists are more dedicated to such a field of study than he is. Again, this is tentative yet, a potentially squashing notion. As to

quote:
One classic answer is that God created the universe with maturity. This should not be confused with the appearance of age. Maturity is not so much about an implied past as it is about functionality so this does not immediately yield itself to weird theological implications where God tries our faith with a deceptively old looking universe.

I find this rather contrary to a most significant example of God doing just what you appear to say is theologically weird. My view is that God created Adam and Eve fully functioning and advanced in maturity. There is nothing weird about that. God made malformed stub after the elbow into a full grown fully functioning hand, right in the midst of men watching it happen. That is weird according to the natural progression of life, but it is not in the least bit theologically weird according to God's powers and creative capacity.

Sorry to be arguing from a standpoint of hypothesis and unfounded referencing, but, if what I suggest is true, then all your so called problems are easily done away with as spurious errant inventions. I suggest that you need to establish that the universe is as you say, way way way beyond the young earth model in age, and then your arguments would present more weight. As it is, it seems to me that doubt remains that the universe may well be only as young as 8-13k years range, according to the young earth and universe model. Also, I know of an extremely bright, more like brilliant creationist and astrophysicist, Bob Ball. He is active over at theologyonline.com under their creationism forum. He surely must have some information about all this. He is a retired rocket scientist and a strong intelligent Christian. Additionally, he may be one of the nicest and most humble people I have ever met, a real joy to be around, chance and I met him at his home one evening a while back.

BTW, Bob Hill read and notably appreciated Greg Boyd's book, I think it is called, a God at war, and Bob told me that it is a very insightful book, and most notably, he made it a point to stress how it was that Mr Boyd's arguments about the young age of the universe helped him much get over the ideas about an older universe. Bob said that he had been a young earth guy for some time but still had some questions about the young universe ideas. He said that Greg's book was very helpful and strengthened if not led him to his stance on the young universe!

So, if you know of that book, or someone who read it, you might get even more insight that way as well. God is more brilliantly awesome and capable than His creation, the rest seems subsequent and downhill from there.

Edited by - 1way on 11/11/2001 4:37:26 PM

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/11/2001 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

geebob - First, I suspect, much like the evolution's unfoundedly inflated time schemes, such figures as "starlight that apparently has been traveling extremely long distances for billions of years." is biased and errant and ultimately false.

these things are established very well and deserve to be taken seriously. But I don't believe that the universe is ancient. I think it is at least young if you measure its age by the earths clocks.

quote:
could you verify that no creationism scientific models exist that suppose an outside distance of some 8-13k light years?

I have read several books and periodicals by creation scientists and I know of none that find this a viable alternative.

quote:
And if you can't, then obviously you have some homework to do before you claim things that simply may not be so.

IF there are such scientists who defend this than point them out but otherwise, I would have to track down every single scientist in the world to verify that there are none that believe this. But I see no reason to research this scheme since there is currently at least one scheme that appears to have some promise in handeling these issues effectivly.

quote:
I find this rather contrary to a most significant example of God doing just what you appear to say is theologically weird.

in the passage you quoted, I didn't say the argument from maturity had theologically weird implications. I said quite the opposite. I was contrasting it with the the notion that God had created the universe with the appearance of age. That is what I said was weird. But I don't find the argument from maturity solves the problem with apparently ancient starlight.

quote:
I suggest that you need to establish that the universe is as you say, way way way beyond the young earth model in age, and then your arguments would present more weight.

1way, my paper argues that the universe is young and reasonably so from 6-12 k years.

quote:
Also, I know of an extremely bright, more like brilliant creationist and astrophysicist, Bob Ball. He is active over at theologyonline.com under their creationism forum. He surely must have some information about all this.

I've conversed with bob many many moons ago and although my memory is a little rusty, my recollection is that Bob feels that the evidence for an ancient earth is significant has not yet been challenged effectivly by young earth creationists. I could be wrong about that but I do recall that he was little critical of white hole cosmology. That's fine, but for the time being, it is the best hypothesis young earth creationists have and is defended by a very capable physicist. As to whether or not his defences are scientifically succesful is beyond my ability to asess.

quote:
BTW, Bob Hill read and notably appreciated Greg Boyd's book, I think it is called, a God at war, and Bob told me that it is a very insightful book, and most notably, he made it a point to stress how it was that Mr Boyd's arguments about the young age of the universe helped him much get over the ideas about an older universe. Bob said that he had been a young earth guy for some time but still had some questions about the young universe ideas. He said that Greg's book was very helpful and strengthened if not led him to his stance on the young universe!

I have the book and have read the part up to his discussion of creation. He uses the Gap theory to support his warfare worldview. But the Gap theory is historically a biblical attempt to reconcile an ancient earth and the Genesis account.

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

Edited by - geebob on 11/11/2001 11:18:13 PM

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 11/11/2001 7:07 PM (GMT -6)

Sorry to hear about the computer trouble at the Prof's house. You're doing good.
-S

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/12/2001 9:22 AM (GMT -6)

geebob - I don't speak to Bob Enyart that much so I am not certain that I recalled it correctly or not. And forgive me for remaining skeptical, but concerning the evolutionary model for an ancient earth, I have to wonder if corresponding similar errant thinking has led to the same sort of terrible distortions about the size of the universe. Kepler did not discover the truth about planetary orbits by accepting previous majority opinion, he simply let the facts speak for themselves and proved how everyone else was wrong. We would all do well to be as objective and non-assuming.

I'm happy to see you agree that the universe is young, apparently you place it's age close to the earth's? How old do you suggest that the universe is? And do you hold to a gap theory?

About your mention of theologically weird, sorry for mixing that up the way I did. Perhaps I still don't understand that well. You said

quote:
One classic answer is that God created the universe with maturity. This should not be confused with the appearacne of age. Maturity is not so much about an implied past as it is about functionality so this does not immediately yield itself to weird theological implications where God tries our faith with a deceptivly old looking universe.

But how God would work this out seems to be problematic. If the stars where static and unchanging, perhaps this would be an excellent asnwer but since we view the stars in motion, one must wonder if the the light that we see is syncronized with what is really going on with these stars. If they are, we do have an actual idea of what is going on in the universe but this would have the weird consequence that the motions of stars would have two sets of light representing them and in a few billion years, when light from the actual interior of the star reaches us, we would see cosmic reruns.

Again, sorry for mistaking your position earlier, and thanks for kindly helping me understand. Maturity by way of distance and size of the universe, does not necessarily translate into age, and I agree and I think I understand your position better. I decided to try to call Bob E., but the line was busy over the last hour. I am interested in this and will try to get ahold of him, although it's easier said than done. Even just to help me understand for myself. And I don't know Bob Ball's number, and about Bob Ball, perhaps I should steer you towards Bob Enyart, as I scantly recall that you may well be right about Bob Ball's suggestions. But I think I heard that from Bob Enyart and how Bob E differs with him on some things. I will be so embarrassed if I am wrong on this, but it's still my best recollection. And I still think you should examine this line of argumentation to better eliminate it's potential for upsetting your views of the so called truth. Which is why I am doing the same thing. (smile)

But what about second quoted paragraph. They are pushing me into areas I have not experienced yet, to your credit and my appreciation, so please take what I say accordingly. My first remark remains about my humble submission that the universe may only be "young earth model" light years in distance from us. Because that possibility seems to remain between us, I must submit that such a model, especially because of it's total squashing effect on the two light problems, needs to be substantiated with sufficient research. Objective concern about the truth, like Kepler, implies that the truth is certainly worth the hassle.

Forgive me if I say this wrong, but allow me to make sense in my own words your intended meaning. Because of the motion we still observe today from millions of light years away, therefore it might be implied that God has been sort of constantly tricking us into seeing a light show that may not be according to the truth in reality.

That is a trickier question. Again, if you accept millions and millions of light years of distance, then I would tend to agree that this is a problem. I think that Bob E. rejects the existence of black holes, and the expanse of the universe that you mention. I seem to recall that he even gave some rational about it, but that rational was somewhat sketchy itself, not by way of conviction, but by way of a detailed account. Bob seems fairly knowledgeable about the young earth model, so it seems likely he is interested in a young universe model as well.

I will try to substantiate my reasoning and learn more about the truth. Any help you may offer me in terms of understanding your theory that the universe should be understood as being millions and millions of light years apart, would be helpful as I start this endeavor for the truth.

Although our conversion was bried, Bob Hill gave me no indication about a "gap theory" from that book. I know for example that W. Hasker (one of the openness contributing authors to "the Openness of God", Pinnock) affirms evolution instead of the standard creationism model. I am for creationism, the more literal the better. :) Thanks for your time and thoughtful assistance, and best wishes on your report.

Edited by - 1way on 11/12/2001 2:38:49 PM

geebob
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94

Posted 11/13/2001 6:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Kepler did not discover the truth about planetary orbits by accepting previous majority opinion, he simply let the facts speak for themselves and proved how everyone else was wrong.

Kepler was an excellent mathematician. Those of us who do not have advanced trainging in the sciences are rather dependent.

quote:
I'm happy to see you agree that the universe is young, apparently you place it's age close to the earth's?

It's not that I place its age close to the earth's. Its that if we measure the age of the universe by E.S.T., we get a young universe, that is precisely the age of the earth. This is white hole cosmology, which is an alternative to the big bang. The earth and the unverse began at the same time but different clocks at different parts of the universe at different times run at different speeds. Clocks higher up in altitude go slightly faster than clocks at lower altitude because gravity warps time. In a sense, the whole universe is the same age because it all has the same birthday although in another sense, the universe as a wide range of ages.

I don't know if this scheme is going to be succesful and currently, even creation scientists are critical, but Russell Humphreys who formed this hypothesis continues to work on it and tune it and really is the first true YEC cosmology.

quote:
How old do you suggest that the universe is? And do you hold to a gap theory?

I suspect its 6-12k yrs. I don't hold to a gap theory. I think its contrived. But I found Greg Boyd's defence of it rather interesting especially since the primary goal was not to accomodate an ancient earth albeit he allowed that as a bonus.

quote:
And I don't know Bob Ball's number, and about Bob Ball, perhaps I should steer you towards Bob Enyart, as I scantly recall that you may well be right about Bob Ball's suggestions.

well Bob B has a scientific background. If Enyart doesn't, I would at least hope he is supported by some who do.

quote:
Forgive me if I say this wrong, but allow me to make sense in my own words your intended meaning. Because of the motion we still observe today from millions of light years away, therefore it might be implied that God has been sort of constantly tricking us into seeing a light show that may not be according to the truth in reality.

what I was doing there was refuting a possible solution to this problem which I don't think anyone has infact suggested. The first part has been suggested that God created the light between the stars and the earth. The problem with this is that when we see a supernova, the light we would be seeing is light that God created and not from the star itself so we have no direct reason to think that that event ever happened. I took the old answer further and suggested that God created the light in transit to represent what was actually taking place so the light of the supernova, although not caused by the supernova. This though kind of has the absurd consequence that the light that is infact from the supernova will tell the story all over again. Hope this makes ore sense

quote:
I think that Bob E. rejects the existence of black holes, and the expanse of the universe that you mention. I seem to recall that he even gave some rational about it, but that rational was somewhat sketchy itself, not by way of conviction, but by way of a detailed account.

Well I am curious but again, I have to wonder what authority Bob is relying on if he himself doesn't have the credentials. Also, if any of this is plausible, I would expect other scientists to support it and as there is a significant body of creation scientists, we know that there should be trained and skilled persons who are open minded enough to give this a fair evaluation.

quote:
Any help you may offer me in terms of understanding your theory that the universe should be understood as being millions and millions of light years apart, would be helpful as I start this endeavor for the truth.

Off hand, I couldn't tell you why this is believed to be the case. All I can offer is that I know of no respected and skilled scientists who hold that it is otherwise. If I were to consisider that the universe were small, I would at least want to know that a skilled scientist has worked out the details for this and that he has support from other scientists, even if that is just the creationists.

quote:
I know for example that W. Hasker (one of the openness contributing authors to "the Openness of God", Pinnock) affirms evolution instead of the standard creationism model.

Hasker is very much opposed to creation science as well. But that's not all. Pinnock makes significant usage of evolution in his chapter and John Sanders could care less either way, but he is critical of a literal interpretation. I wouldn't be surprised if Rice and Basinger are also evolutionists.

quote:
I am for creationism, the more literal the better.

I for the most part concur.

I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.

-Wimpy

1way
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299

Posted 11/13/2001 12:56 PM (GMT -6)

Geebob - Sorry, my bad, after talking with a person who knows Bob pretty well, he believes that Bob was probably speaking about super nova's, and that we should expect to find them only within the young earth model time frame in light years. And when he said that, I realized that was what Bob was saying, it was not about the size of the universe. I misunderstood and I respectfully withdraw the suggestion as per my misunderstanding accordingly.

I agree that relative gravitational forces have a changing effect upon an aspect of clocks. As you said, higher and lower altitude clocks have been shown to alter their rate according to the relative variance in gravitational forces. Just a small amount of conjecture on my part. I would guess that at the atomic level, atomic energy or rate of orbits of the electrons for example, and corresponding activities can be slowed down or sped up dependent upon the relative amount of the forces of gravity (force of acceleration). I agree that the universe is as young as some 6k old, and that because of relative differences in gravitational forces, some parts of the universe would have grown older quicker, but because of relatively greater gravitational forces, did not. But I would also speculate that such differences may be rather insignificant. Regardless, for such differences to become significant, I would think that the evidence of huge relative gravitational differences would necessarily need to be forthcoming and well founded. (?) And I also agree with saying that any such alterations in apparent age, should stick to terms of differences in apparent "age", not actual "time" span.

I don't believe that time it's self is an alterable dimension, I simply believe that at least in atomic reaction, like the movement within the atomic clocks are subject to what I would assume to be very minuet alterations in event processes. Plainly, although I have a limited background in debunking the time as a relative dimension that is associated with the theory of relativity, I feel that the better arguments say that time is a constant, but that certain aging process may indeed appear to alter in certain unusual circumstances. My theory on time is that it is just a logical construct in order to describe reality. It's more of an idea that is accurate of reality, than it is a thing that exists in reality that can also be altered. But I digress. And again, sorry for chasing up the wrong tree. :) And forgive me if I started another disagreement about time, if you disagree, please feel no need to spend time on it, you've already been very gracious.

My friend suggested that I read a book called "In the Beginning" by Walter Brown, and is associated to the center for scientific creation, and evidently his book is fully available/readable on the web! But he encourages folks to buy the book as it has supplemental charts and illustrations and such, and is easier to read paper anyway. He said that this guy has an interesting theory about the speed of light changing, and at one point, it became significantly slower. He is strongly creationistic, and takes a very comprehensive approach and his theories and reasoning, and evidently holds huge implications for many related models of geology and such, and unlike what I assume to be true now for example, he does not believe in the pre-flood water canopy which I believe has been commonly taught theses days. He says that folks like Ken Ham (for example) and others won't debate him. I just heard about it today, so I really don't know more about all that. I hope this helps.

1way

Edited by - 1way on 11/13/2001 6:14:28 PM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual