"What has been is remote and exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it?"

- Ecclesiastes 7:24

AiG, apparently.

Originally posted by geochron

AiG, apparently.

Good point, G. What would Ecclesiastes 7:24 mean if in fact the modern YEC interpretation were the correct one, the Earth and Cosmos in fact are only 6007 years old? (BTW, Happy Birthday Earth and Cosmos -- October 22, 2004 is their 6007th birthday according the Ussher interpretation!)

R

Originally posted by rogero

Good point, G. What would Ecclesiastes 7:24 mean if in fact the modern YEC interpretation were the correct one, the Earth and Cosmos in fact are only 6007 years old? (BTW, Happy Birthday Earth and Cosmos -- October 22, 2004 is their 6007th birthday according the Ussher interpretation!)

R

How much do you know about events that happened 1,000 years ago? Better, how much do you think you would know if your knowledge was mostly acquired by listening to your elders (who learned it from their elders, etc.)?

Originally posted by One Bad Pig

How much do you know about events that happened 1,000 years ago? Better, how much do you think you would know if your knowledge was mostly acquired by listening to your elders (who learned it from their elders, etc.)?

How much do you know about such events? You are referring to events in human history, no? Most details of this are not known. Agreed.

On the other hand, when one is considering history of Earth and Cosmos, it is important to consider the broad outline and what it tells us. The evidence of geology, chemisty, physics, astronomy point to an ancient (billions --- not thousands, not millions, not trillions, not quadrillions of years). The data are most assuredly not complete -- is that your point? But they are complete enough to conclude such an age (+/- a few percent). Do you think we need to have all the data to conclude this? Do you think that any reasonable person could take the scientific data we have now and come up with a wildly different interpretation --- say that the Cosmos is 6007 years old?

It seems your attempt at an argument from the relaying of human knowledge over the generations could better be used against a literal inerrant infalliable reading of Scripture, since it is a document written by various individuals over many years and whose original writings are in dispute or non-extant. Such cannot be said for the history left behind in the rocks and stars and seas and atmosphere.

It was a nice try at an argument though.

R

TO: Rogero

Here is something I wrote in the archeology forum:

I think some individuals have some misperceptions regarding Bible chronologies in terms of the date of the Biblical flood:

I cite the following:

"....What is often forgotten is that in Hebrew tradition many generations are unreported. Often only the famous or infamous are counted. A comparison of the biblical genealogies confirms this technique (compare 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 with Mathew 1:8 and Genesis 5 with Genesis 11 and Luke 3).2 Also, the Hebrew words for “father” and “son” are less specific than modern usage. For example, the Hebrew for “father” could mean “grandfather” or “great-grandfather,” (in other words “father” can mean ancestor). Young-earth scholars do not deny these gaps, especially before the time of Abraham, out of necessity to make sense of the chronology of events in the Bible.3 Some accounts, such as those describing Adam, his life and children, only make sense if the verses are compressing time."

taken from: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../4264/cr3.html

I cite the following supporting information although this webpage takes a different interpretation other than the gap in genealogy position:

"1. Gaps in Genealogies

"He first mentions the fact that in some of the "begatitudes" of the Bible, generations are left out for some reason or other. Matthew 1:8 and 11, for instance, each skip a generation or two. Ruth 4:18-22 is incomplete."

taken from: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch5_06.htm

TO: All


My position is not hyper historical skepticism. I think that would be overstating the spirit of what Solomon said in my first post. I merely think that the EXACT age of the earth/universe is extremely hard to ascertain. The creationist attack the assumptions used in the evolutionists dating of the universe and the evolutionists attack the assumptions the creationists take in their dating methodologies.

addendum to my previous post

TO: ALL

I guess the real question is whose dating methodologies have the best assumptions.

By the way, if anyone wants to see the creationist dating methodologies here are some common ones cited (I do not attest to the accuracy of all of them)

YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTS FOR YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM

http://www.age-of-earth.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defd...1/dd-01-16.htm

Originally posted by kendemyer

...

My position is not hyper historical skepticism. I think that would be overstating the spirit of what Solomon said in my first post. I merely think that the EXACT age of the earth/universe is extremely hard to ascertain. The creationist attack the assumptions used in the evolutionists dating of the universe and the evolutionists attack the assumption the creationists take in their dating methodologies.




Sincerely,

Yeah, the EXACT age is hard to determine, but the empirical data point to an age of Earth close to 4.53 billion years (could be off by 10 million years or so) and NOT 6007 years (nor 10000 years, nor 100000 years.) This is not a philosophical issue. It's based on observed data in a consistent paradigm.

R

Originally posted by kendemyer

TO: Rogero

Here is something I wrote in the archeology forum:

I think some individuals have some misperceptions regarding Bible chronologies in terms of the date of the Biblical flood:

I cite the following:




I cite the following supporting information although this webpage takes a different interpretation other than the gap in genealogy position:

"1. Gaps in Genealogies


...

So, I take it your point is that the Ussherian 6007 years may be wrong -- the "real" age could be 10000, 15000, maybe even 30000, depending upon how one adds up the begats and accounts for discrepancies in genealogical language? All of these are WAY off the mark from the date range obtained from empirical data, through which I believe God does not intentionally deceive.

My surmise is that you believe otherwise.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Originally posted by rogero

How much do you know about such events? You are referring to events in human history, no? Most details of this are not known. Agreed.

On the other hand, when one is considering history of Earth and Cosmos, it is important to consider the broad outline and what it tells us. The evidence of geology, chemisty, physics, astronomy point to an ancient (billions --- not thousands, not millions, not trillions, not quadrillions of years). The data are most assuredly not complete -- is that your point? But they are complete enough to conclude such an age (+/- a few percent). Do you think we need to have all the data to conclude this? Do you think that any reasonable person could take the scientific data we have now and come up with a wildly different interpretation --- say that the Cosmos is 6007 years old?

It seems your attempt at an argument from the relaying of human knowledge over the generations could better be used against a literal inerrant infalliable reading of Scripture, since it is a document written by various individuals over many years and whose original writings are in dispute or non-extant. Such cannot be said for the history left behind in the rocks and stars and seas and atmosphere.

It was a nice try at an argument though.

R

Interesting, since I wasn't trying to argue either way. I was trying to point out that, from Solomon's point of view, 3,000 years or 3 billion doesn't make much difference; both times are too far in the past to know much at all about. That was ken's point, which you (and geochron) missed the first time around. Apparently, you were too busy slamming YEC to think about my question.

Originally posted by One Bad Pig

Interesting, since I wasn't trying to argue either way. I was trying to point out that, from Solomon's point of view, 3,000 years or 3 billion doesn't make much difference; both times are too far in the past to know much at all about. That was ken's point, which you (and geochron) missed the first time around. Apparently, you were too busy slamming YEC to think about my question.

3,000 0r 3 billion years doesn't make much difference? Ok, whatever you say, Pig. My point was that we CAN know ENOUGH about the physical history of Earth and Cosmos to rule out the few thousands of years option. You can argue the semantics and poetry of Solomon (which I find very beautiful and spiritually meaningful) all you want, it's not going to change the facts of nature. If you want to debate those, go right ahead.

R

• Edited by a Moderator •
The Big Bang or an alternative origin theory is not the point here, at least as I can see it. But, it's rather can we know ENOUGH about the past history of the Earth and Cosmos to rule out the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture which includes (incredibly) a 6000- (maybe) 20000 or so year old Universe.

Ultimate origins are not something that science can address well. The Big Bang is still the most widely accepted theory (at least back to 10^(-43) second) but other ideas are being advanced. None of these have the least bit to do with geological, physical, and paleontological evidence for a billions years old Earth, which completely obviates an chronology based on a fundamentalist/fideistic interpretation of Scripture.

To reiterate --- a billions years old Earth and Cosmos does NOT depend on the Big Bang, which is/was a tentative conclusion based on the best available data over past few decades. If the Big Bang is discarded or modified by more observation, this does NOTHING to change the data for an a billions-year old Earth.

R

Originally posted by kendemyer

"What has been is remote and exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it?"

- Ecclesiastes 7:24

I consider this to be a poor translation of the verse. The verse is not particularly refering to inference of events in the past; but to the impossibility of attaining wisdom.

I don't recognize the translation used above, but here is the verse in some more well known translations.

Ecc 7:23-24 (NIV)

All this I tested by wisdom and I said, "I am determined to be wise" -- but this was beyond me.
24Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound -- who can discover it?

Ecc 7:24 (KJV)

All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.
24That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?

Ecc 7:24 (NRSV)

All this have I tested by wisdom: I said, "I will be wise"; but it was far from me.
24That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep, who can find it out?

The whole discussion here seems to be based on the mistaken premise the Solomon, (or "the philosopher") was speaking of finding out empirical details of past events.

If that were the case, I would have no hestitation in saying that the Philosopher was wrong. We can find out details of the past. Not every last detail, but plenty to get real and exciting insights into events in the long history of our universe.

The giant strides in understanding that have been made with the development of science over the last few centuries does not, however, undermine the real point of Ecclesiastes. We have learned a lot about how the world was formed, and how old it is, and what materials it is made of, and much else besides.

But we have not learned wisdom; Glenn's posts on oil show this plainly. We have not learned how to live; and the futility seen by the philosopher is only deepened by the bare scientific account of the universe.

The retreat behind the bible, in a futile attempt to deny all that we have learned about the universe and continue to learn, is intellectual suicide. But more to the point, it is rarely fair to the themes and issues considered in the bible.

Cheers -- Sylas

I thought we weren't supposed to argue by weblink.

Following some of Kendemeyer's links above leads to some hilarious arguments...

"In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people. "

"Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings? "

I think you'd have to have your brain liquidised not to laugh at those two, for instance.

Originally posted by geochron

I thought we weren't supposed to argue by weblink.

Following some of Kendemeyer's links above leads to some hilarious arguments...

"In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people. "

"Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings? "

I think you'd have to have your brain liquidised not to laugh at those two, for instance.

You can keep your brain, just install an off-on switch or check it in at the door.