Are young earth creationism and dispensationalist eschatology to blame for our conspiracy theory problem?

“Caught between the (semi) proverbial rock of Ham and the hard place of LaHaye, many Christians–especially American fundamentalists and evangelicals–have been progressively conditioned to resort to conspiracy as an explanatory heuristic” - Conciliar Post

Discussion

Measure the age of the largest surviving stars in a globular cluster. We know the Sun is about 4.6 billion years old. That comes from measuring the age of meteorites in the solar system. The Sun must be slightly older than the oldest of them… That is done by radiometric dating (which you probably reject). Based on the fuel burn rate of the present Sun, and using models of nuclear fusion, we can reasonably estimate the lifetime of the Sun to be 10 billion years. Well, the less massive the star, the longer it lives. So stars smaller than the Sun live longer. More massive stars live shorter lives.

Globular clusters are large collections of hundreds of thousands or millions of stars that form at about the same time as the host galaxy. We can measure the Spectral class and Luminosity of all the stars in a cluster and plot that on an H-R Diagram. Clusters reveal their age by when stars “turn off” the main sequence and start dying. All bigger stars would have died already since they ran out of fuel. See the “Globular Cluster” wikipedia page to see the diagram.

If you survey the globular clusters we can make this measurement to, you get that stars of about 0.7 solar masses are the largest left in clusters (other than blue stragglers which I add for completeness… but they come from another mechanism). This correlates to an age of somewhere between 11-17 billion years. Not the most precise measurement, but one completely separate from Hubble’s Law, expansion, and the like. Star age betrays the universe’s age. Billions brothers!

[Mark_Smith]

A fact is a measurement in science. For example, I measure the distance to the Moon reflectors left by Apollo astronauts by way of the travel time of light.

But what is your point? I suspect it is to weaken the “billions” claim in preference of a smaller number. Am I correct?

Here is what you said:

[Mark Smith] Facts are things that are directly observable. They require no “faith.” Examples (these are going to make most of you mad at me):

-The universe is 13.8 billion years old (measured observation by multiple independent methods… not opinion… its a fact)

You made a measured observation regarding something directly observable then applied that to something else that is not directly observable and called it a fact. Facts are things no one should be able to argue with. If you want to say the astronomical age of the universe, meaning the age determined by a certain set of astronomical-related measurements/calculations given current scientific understanding, is 13.8 billion years, that is OK. The astronomical age may or may not be equal to the actual age, though.

[AndyE]
Mark_Smith wrote:

A fact is a measurement in science. For example, I measure the distance to the Moon reflectors left by Apollo astronauts by way of the travel time of light.

But what is your point? I suspect it is to weaken the “billions” claim in preference of a smaller number. Am I correct?

Here is what you said:

Mark Smith wrote:Facts are things that are directly observable. They require no “faith.” Examples (these are going to make most of you mad at me):

-The universe is 13.8 billion years old (measured observation by multiple independent methods… not opinion… its a fact)

You made a measured observation regarding something directly observable then applied that to something else that is not directly observable and called it a fact. Facts are things no one should be able to argue with. If you want to say the astronomical age of the universe, meaning the age determined by a certain set of astronomical-related measurements/calculations given current scientific understanding, is 13.8 billion years, that is OK. The astronomical age may or may not be equal to the actual age, though.

And why do you think that, ie that there is a difference between “actual” age and “astronomical age” , whatever that made up thing is?

[Mark_Smith]

And why do you think that, ie that there is a difference between “actual” age and “astronomical age” , whatever that made up thing is?

The Bible says God made everything 6 days. That is why.

[AndyE]
Mark_Smith wrote:

And why do you think that, ie that there is a difference between “actual” age and “astronomical age” , whatever that made up thing is?

The Bible says God made everything 6 days. That is why.

And there is no way your interpretation of that is wrong? No other possibility?

Example: Do you know Hebrew, brother? If so please explain the first word of the Bible, בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית

It is often translated as “in the beginning.” Ok, reshit is beginning. B is in. What is “the” in Hebrew? “He” correct. When Be and He go together, what is the verbs for that combination? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student. Then look at what this word has… is the He subsummed into Be?

The point is, “in the beginning” is could possibly be more properly translated as something “during the beginning” or “at the beginning”. That is to say the reference is to a general point in time, the beginning of things, rather than a specific moment everything happened to start from.

[Mark_Smith]

The point is, “in the beginning” is could possibly be more properly translated as something “during the beginning” or “at the beginning”. That is to say the reference is to a general point in time, the beginning of things, rather than a specific moment everything happened to start from.

It’s not just Gen 1, we also have a pretty clear statement in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

I don’t know any legitimate way to explain away the clear statement here.

If your argument rests on complex rules of Hebrew grammar (e.g. compensatory lengthening, propretonic reduction, virtual doubling, etc.), you’ve already lost the argument.

[Mark_Smith]

And why do you think that, ie that there is a difference between “actual” age and “astronomical age” , whatever that made up thing is?

It is because the age is based off of the Hubble Constant. The Hubble constant, which is not really a constant, is re-evaluated as new data and understanding is understood. It is not simply based off of measurements that are facts. The Hubble parameter is also highly susceptible to the models that we use, such as different gravitational models. I have spent way too many hours in college and in my professional life deriving all sorts of equations and completing calculations off of this. To just state that 13.8B is fact is being disingenious to other scientists and published scholars who have equally compelling evidence and measurements for shifts in the Hubble constant.

[Mark_Smith]

Example: Do you know Hebrew, brother? If so please explain the first word of the Bible, בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית

It is often translated as “in the beginning.” Ok, reshit is beginning. B is in. What is “the” in Hebrew? “He” correct. When Be and He go together, what is the verbs for that combination? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student. Then look at what this word has… is the He subsummed into Be?

FWIW, I could be wrong, but I don’t see the Hebrew definite article with this word. There is an inseparable preposition, but there is no change of the tsere vowel under the guttural resh or a change in the shewa under the bet. With a definite article and guttural along with a preposition, there should be some vowel changes. There are none.

[AndyE]
Mark_Smith wrote:

And why do you think that, ie that there is a difference between “actual” age and “astronomical age” , whatever that made up thing is?

The Bible says God made everything 6 days. That is why.

As a scientist, who both studied and worked in this space, I literally don’t have an issue with this at all. I am 100% fine with saying that the earth has a cosmological age of 13.8B year, and all evidence points to this, and in order for my calculations to work, I need to take the same assumptions and leverage those. All the while saying that my faith is rooted in a miraculous event that took place outside of science and natural events that created the universe in 6 literal 24 hour days and that the age of the universe according to my faith is most likely considerably younger than 13.8B years. I don’t feel the need to resolve the tension here. I don’t feel the need to scientifically resolve this. I also don’t feel the need to Scripturally resolve this. I believe that Scripture is clear that my faith creates a tension between those things that are not seen with those things that are seen. It also doesn’t force me to come up with crazy notions on how to make both things the same and it doesn’t force me down conspiracy rabbit holes. I love science. I believe in much of science and it is extremely important for our daily lives. God gave us the ability to both study and use science to better ourselves. People may think I am crazy because I don’t argue either side of this, but I am comfortable in the faith that I rest in and the science that I use.

[T Howard]
Mark_Smith wrote:

Example: Do you know Hebrew, brother? If so please explain the first word of the Bible, בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית

It is often translated as “in the beginning.” Ok, reshit is beginning. B is in. What is “the” in Hebrew? “He” correct. When Be and He go together, what is the verbs for that combination? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student. Then look at what this word has… is the He subsummed into Be?

FWIW, I could be wrong, but I don’t see the Hebrew definite article with this word. There is an inseparable preposition, but there is no change of the tsere vowel under the guttural resh or a change in the shewa under the bet. With a definite article and guttural along with a preposition, there should be some vowel changes. There are none.

exactly… no definite article!

Hence the phrase is more akin to “while beginning to make the universe…” rather than “In the beginning…” No specific start time is mentioned.

[T Howard]

If your argument rests on complex rules of Hebrew grammar (e.g. compensatory lengthening, propretonic reduction, virtual doubling, etc.), you’ve already lost the argument.

I am asking are you so sure your interpretation is the only possible one… because you are banking everything on it. You throw reason out the door by rejecting sound scientific measurements in favor of your theological interpretation… are you so sure you are right?

[AndyE]
Mark_Smith wrote:

The point is, “in the beginning” is could possibly be more properly translated as something “during the beginning” or “at the beginning”. That is to say the reference is to a general point in time, the beginning of things, rather than a specific moment everything happened to start from.

It’s not just Gen 1, we also have a pretty clear statement in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

I don’t know any legitimate way to explain away the clear statement here.

You presume the only interpretation that is valid is yours. Genesis 1 clearly shows a parallelism between the days 1-3 and 4-6. What is God communicating? 6 literal 24-hour days? Or the idea that he created the universe? If the latter how is Exodus 20:11 violated? BUt you know all of this. Its been argued for centuries…

https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-scientists-big-reveal-maybe-photo-milky-way-black-hole-2022-5\

Image of Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy (25,000 ly away by the way) has just been released. Turns out the features they have measured so far conform exactly to the theory of General Relativity 100%. Einstein wins again! The universe is made up of spacetime… wow. Confirmed again.

Question: if our science is so bad we can’t measure time how is all of this working?

[Mark_Smith] exactly… no definite article!

Hence the phrase is more akin to “while beginning to make the universe…” rather than “In the beginning…” No specific start time is mentioned.

That’s not how Hebrew (or Greek) works. There are other ways of communicating definiteness other than using the definite article. Hebrew has two other ways of expressing definiteness. Greek has other ways as well. JW’s go to town on John 1:1 because the Geek doesn’t have an article before theos. They believe that proves that Jesus is A God but not THE God. They don’t understand Colwell’s Rule.

That said, even if the Hebrew word rʾšyt is not definite, you have to consider the bet preposition and use the context to determine the meaning. In temporal phrases, such a construction specifies the beginning of a particular period (e.g. Deut 11:12, Jer. 26:1), and the context of Genesis 1 suggests it refers to the beginning of time itself.