Hyper velocity stars like LMC runaways ...

[Teallaura]

Okay, I'm not going to be able to prove diddly here - but it strikes me that you're leaving out an option. The assumption that the appearance of age must be deceptive leaves out a alternate possibility - that the 'appearance' is a misunderstanding of the actual process(es).

That, of course, may not be the case - but to leave it out as a posit frames the argument poorly. It also creates a rather tunnel view on both sides - without acknowledging that hey, maybe, just maybe, all the evidence isn't in (and by both sides I MEAN both sides. Seriously, using Scripture to ascribe something it never specifically addresses - or seems to care about - is really shaky at best).

And for the record, I'm an AoE agnostic - I don't think either side truly knows enough to conclusively date the Earth, the Universe or the average lonely geek.

[rogue06]

Okay, I'm not going to be able to prove diddly here - but it strikes me that you're leaving out an option. The assumption that the appearance of age must be deceptive leaves out a alternate possibility - that the 'appearance' is a misunderstanding of the actual process(es).

That, of course, may not be the case - but to leave it out as a posit frames the argument poorly. It also creates a rather tunnel view on both sides - without acknowledging that hey, maybe, just maybe, all the evidence isn't in (and by both sides I MEAN both sides. Seriously, using Scripture to ascribe something it never specifically addresses - or seems to care about - is really shaky at best).

And for the record, I'm an AoE agnostic - I don't think either side truly knows enough to conclusively date the Earth, the Universe or the average lonely geek.

That would require pretty much not knowing anything about a very wide ranging number of processes. But more importantly, these various dating techniques provide the same consilient answer which would be, to say the very least, incredibly remarkable if we were reading everything completely wrong. Under the scenario that you propose we should be getting wildly different answers.

[Just Passing Through]

[TheLurch]

Are you prepared to reject all of modern medicine? Throw away whatever device you typed that on? Condemn billions to starving by rejecting the green revolution? Because the scientific process that tells us the age of the earth and universe is the same scientific process that has provided the foundation for all modern technology. If it's a tool of Satan, why are you willing to use its fruits?

You're setting this up explicitly to be a war between rational thought and your religious faith, which is the surest route to fanaticism. We've got too many fanatics in the world right now, so please reconsider.


NB: that's not an attempt to quote mine; it's an attempt to get at the heart of the matter.

[Just Passing Through]

NB: that's not an attempt to quote mine; it's an attempt to get at the heart of the matter.

[rogue06]

Christians have been debating the meaning of what God said pretty much from the start of Christianity. There was a great deal of disagreement among the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) over a great many things especially the stuff that wasn't considered essential. A good example of this concerned the nature of the days mentioned in the creation account. While indeed many saw the days as representing literal 24 hour long sequential days, but this wasn't even close to a unanimous view. Many others saw the days as representing a thousand years each and had different reasoning for doing so. Others said that the entire creation was instantaneous while other declared that it took place outside of time.

In fact with all the various ways of looking at them it might seem odd that it wasn't until Henry Morris (the father of the modern young earth creationist movement), at the 1982 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in Chicago, did anyone ever propose making a 144-hour creation an issue when he moved to make it an essential component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy. It should be noted that every single member, including John C. Whitcomb who co-authored The Genesis Flood (basically the second bible of the YEC movement), voted against the idea.

And we've been comparing what some folks claimed what the bible said with what evidence God provided through His creation for a long time as well. Far longer than when Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler demonstrated that the earth wasn't immobile and the sun and everything else orbited it. St. Augustine brought up the issue on more than one occasion with probably the most notable one in his aptly titled De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

But there is another mention in De doctrina christiana ("On Christian Doctrine") worthy of pointing out:

At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth." That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram]

[oxmixmudd]

Okay, I'm not going to be able to prove diddly here - but it strikes me that you're leaving out an option. The assumption that the appearance of age must be deceptive leaves out a alternate possibility - that the 'appearance' is a misunderstanding of the actual process(es).

That, of course, may not be the case - but to leave it out as a posit frames the argument poorly. It also creates a rather tunnel view on both sides - without acknowledging that hey, maybe, just maybe, all the evidence isn't in (and by both sides I MEAN both sides. Seriously, using Scripture to ascribe something it never specifically addresses - or seems to care about - is really shaky at best).

And for the record, I'm an AoE agnostic - I don't think either side truly knows enough to conclusively date the Earth, the Universe or the average lonely geek.

The issue that is hard to recognize without significant study is the amount of self-consistent evidence all pointing at the same conclusion. It is simply improbable on a scale that is beyond comprehension that that could be the 'accidental' result of some other process. This is what YEC is all about. The hope there is some way what we see could accidentally be the result of God's six day creative process. And even they realize that hope is hopeless - that is why they distort the truth through quote mining and don't tell their audience the truth about the scientific illegitimacy of the arguments they try to use.

There are only two options. That God has some legitimate purpose for faking a billion year old universe, or a billion year old universe.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Okay, I'm not going to be able to prove diddly here - but it strikes me that you're leaving out an option. The assumption that the appearance of age must be deceptive leaves out a alternate possibility - that the 'appearance' is a misunderstanding of the actual process(es).

That, of course, may not be the case - but to leave it out as a posit frames the argument poorly. It also creates a rather tunnel view on both sides - without acknowledging that hey, maybe, just maybe, all the evidence isn't in (and by both sides I MEAN both sides. Seriously, using Scripture to ascribe something it never specifically addresses - or seems to care about - is really shaky at best).

And for the record, I'm an AoE agnostic - I don't think either side truly knows enough to conclusively date the Earth, the Universe or the average lonely geek.

Teal,

I want add also that it is the language of Genesis as it describes the sky in the first chapter that frees me to be able to say there is no theological reason to hold out the typical YEC hope that nearly all the conclusions of science as regards the history of the universe are flawed. It is clear to me through the language used that God was not communicating technical data there. He allowed the writer to describe the creation itself in terms derived from the culture of that time. A description that is wrong* in terms of scientific correctness. If we belive the text to be inspired, then this scientific inaccuracy tells us scientific knowledge is not the targeted truth of the text.

Jim

*wrong here gets complicated. The Sun appears to rise in the morning, so we still say sunrise. But we no longer belive the earth is a flat plate abd the Sun moves across a domed sky. So descriptive language is not wrong as long as it is limited to being a description of what is seen and no expectation exists that such a description can be used to derive a factual representation of the underlying mechanism that produces the observation.

[Just Passing Through]

Christians have been debating the meaning of what God said pretty much from the start of Christianity. There was a great deal of disagreement among the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) over a great many things especially the stuff that wasn't considered essential. A good example of this concerned the nature of the days mentioned in the creation account. While indeed many saw the days as representing literal 24 hour long sequential days, but this wasn't even close to a unanimous view. Many others saw the days as representing a thousand years each and had different reasoning for doing so. Others said that the entire creation was instantaneous while other declared that it took place outside of time.

In fact with all the various ways of looking at them it might seem odd that it wasn't until Henry Morris (the father of the modern young earth creationist movement), at the 1982 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in Chicago, did anyone ever propose making a 144-hour creation an issue when he moved to make it an essential component of a fundamentalist belief in inerrancy. It should be noted that every single member, including John C. Whitcomb who co-authored The Genesis Flood (basically the second bible of the YEC movement), voted against the idea.

And we've been comparing what some folks claimed what the bible said with what evidence God provided through His creation for a long time as well. Far longer than when Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler demonstrated that the earth wasn't immobile and the sun and everything else orbited it. St. Augustine brought up the issue on more than one occasion with probably the most notable one in his aptly titled De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis"):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."


But there is another mention in De doctrina christiana ("On Christian Doctrine") worthy of pointing out:

At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth." That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram]

Augustine made several attempts at his own allegorical layering on top of the historic meaning of Genesis, and he never succeeded in forming a satisfactory framework for that. And from that he extended the warning not to turn such interpretations into infallible doctrine, in particular in scientific matters where your speculation might be provably false. But he kept going back to the literal meaning as foundational and said,

There are only two options. That God has some legitimate purpose for faking a billion year old universe, or a billion year old universe.

I want add also that it is the language of Genesis as it describes the sky in the first chapter that frees me to be able to say there is no theological reason to hold out the typical YEC hope that nearly all the conclusions of science as regards the history of the universe are flawed. It is clear to me through the language used that God was not communicating technical data there. He allowed the writer to describe the creation itself in terms derived from the culture of that time. A description that is wrong* in terms of scientific correctness. If we belive the text to be inspired, then this scientific inaccuracy tells us scientific knowledge is not the targeted truth of the text.

Jim

*wrong here gets complicated. The Sun appears to rise in the morning, so we still say sunrise. But we no longer belive the earth is a flat plate abd the Sun moves across a domed sky. So descriptive language is not wrong as long as it is limited to being a description of what is seen and no expectation exists that such a description can be used to derive a factual representation of the underlying mechanism that produces the observation.

That seems a rather odd take on it. Apparently we are allowed to say the sun rose because we know that its not scientifically accurate, but the Spirit (who knows science better than we do) is not allowed to inspire authors to describe creation in purely descriptive terms unless the writers had full scientific knowledge of the mechanisms behind that description? And that allows you to conclude that the description is not only not scientific but it is not actually describing anything at all?

[oxmixmudd]

You don't seem to have understood my point or the comparison you make here has somehow become something other than what you intended. Either way, I'd be shooting in the dark if I tried to repond to it as is. Could you clarify?

Also, If you won't take the few extra seconds to create separate replies to different people's posts, then neither will I bother to edit them so that only your reply to me is the only text of yours in my response.

Jim

[Just Passing Through]

[tabibito]

Scripturally, faith is supposed to have its foundation in evidence.

God tells us plainly that miracles do not create faith. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham said people would not believe even if someone came back from the dead.

Agreed. It is a matter then, of working out what role miracles and evidence play in faith.

To those who chose to believe, these things were considered a creditable witness.

I find a more likely explanation to be that God does not act independently of those whom he appoints to make him known.

In general, the only miracles unbelievers are allowed to witness, as an unmistakable miracle, are miracles of judgment. Even when God spoke directly out of heaven at times, the unbelievers present only heard the sound of thunder. Whether the lack of evidence for a miraculous origin is judgment against unbelief or merely patience, giving his Word time to convert without miracles getting in the way, is an individual matter.

And yet, miracles were performed under the very noses of those who opposed Christ, and still they did not accept the witness of the Holy Spirit . They considered the miracles to be evidence of sorcery that Christ had learnt in Egypt - and in this age "unexplained natural causes" would replace the allegations of sorcery.

The evidence does not contradict the existence of a creator: scientism, not science, makes that claim.

But God did make his presence and care known, and moreover, while God criticised Job, Job was nonetheless declared by God to be in the right. Adversity (im)proves faith - it doesn't have a lot to do with establishing faith.

Again - we are given cause to trust by the evidence and experience (both direct and indirect) that God is trustworthy.

[TheLurch]

Well, i'm sorry i misunderstood you then.

But i still don't get why you're willing to accept the products of science (both practical and knowledge-wise) in some contexts but not others. Couldn't it be that the discovery of the Higgs in the LHC didn't actually take place, and was the result of a miracle that made it look like the Higgs? How do you tell which cases are miraculous and which are not?

[Teallaura]

Teal,

I want add also that it is the language of Genesis as it describes the sky in the first chapter that frees me to be able to say there is no theological reason to hold out the typical YEC hope that nearly all the conclusions of science as regards the history of the universe are flawed. It is clear to me through the language used that God was not communicating technical data there. He allowed the writer to describe the creation itself in terms derived from the culture of that time. A description that is wrong* in terms of scientific correctness. If we belive the text to be inspired, then this scientific inaccuracy tells us scientific knowledge is not the targeted truth of the text.

Jim

*wrong here gets complicated. The Sun appears to rise in the morning, so we still say sunrise. But we no longer belive the earth is a flat plate abd the Sun moves across a domed sky. So descriptive language is not wrong as long as it is limited to being a description of what is seen and no expectation exists that such a description can be used to derive a factual representation of the underlying mechanism that produces the observation.

Jim,

I have no investment in either approach - I meant exactly what I said - I don't see a Scriptural justification for a reliable dating system and I'm equally unconvinced by systems that rely on extrapolations based on assumptions. I don't know or care how old the Earth/universe are - it's theologically unnecessary and beyond my expertise otherwise.

And I'm perfectly good with 'not a text book, get over it' so long as we don't go totally to the other extreme of 'it's all metaphor'.

I get that you have cause to accept the old universe dating systems - nor do I argue that they are necessarily wrong. Again, beyond my scope. However, the biggest mistake we make sometimes is assuming too much about what we 'know' - and forgetting that certainty is a scale, not a point. To omit the possibility that there's something you missed is not a good plan - and neither is obsessing over that possibility when it seems remote. For personal effort, skip the unlikely - perfectly reasonable choice. But to omit it from debate is poor argumentation - even if it's nothing more than a bullet point in the list.

Personally, I find JPT's argument - awkward. But I haven't had time to dig through all of this thread so he may be doing much better and I just didn't get it. If it's based in the idea that God intended to deceive, that I reject as theologically untenable. I think it's more 'God doesn't have to play by your rules' which is true but pointless. Like I said, I'm not sure enough about his argument.

It's a big, cool, universe - my hope is that we get to play explorers in the New Creation. I just doubt its age will mean much then, either.

[TheLurch]

I'm equally unconvinced by systems that rely on extrapolations based on assumptions.

I'm just curious as to what assumptions you consider to be in operation for various methods of dating.