10 Basics Every Creationist Must Know
- 17 views
[Mark_Smith]What are you thinking, 10K years, 100K?
Where YEC goes wrong is that it starts mixing up science. I would say that the Bible is not conclusive on the age of the universe nor does it purport to show an age whatsoever. What we do know is that both the NT authors and Christ indicate a relatively young universe. What that age is, is up for grabs. I don’t think Millions of years would qualify, but could it be 100K years? Who knows. I wouldn’t argue with someone who thought that. But I would also not try to entertain arguments that “prove” a certain age.
[GregH]GregH, the reality is that no one is free of presuppositions. As long as people are involved in the process, there’s no such thingas completely “objective science—measurements, recording, processes, etc.” In this case or instance, it ceases to be objective when meaning is attached to the measurements.pvawter wrote:
For instance, you point to ice cores as evidence of non-Darwinian old earth evidence, yet the assumption that layers=years is based on a paradigm that is heavily influenced by Darwin’s theory. The reason scientists entertain old earth interpretations of that evidence rather than young earth is that they are operating within a paradigm of old earth assumptions.
Really? So you don’t think that scientists can come to an objective opinion about how long it takes to make a layer of ice? There have to be presuppositions? I strongly disagree with that. It is just objective science—measurements, recording, processes, etc. It is what scientists do best.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]GregH, the reality is that no one is free of presuppositions. As long as people are involved in the process, there’s no such thingas completely “objective science—measurements, recording, processes, etc.” In this case or instance, it ceases to be objective when meaning is attached to the measurements.
So if I go into the kitchen and measure 1 cup of water, it is impossible for me to do so without presuppositions. And we wonder why some Christians are accused of being anti-science….
What is the place for science at all if that is how you feel about it? Why would you believe anything a scientist tells you?
[GregH]Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
GregH, the reality is that no one is free of presuppositions. As long as people are involved in the process, there’s no such thingas completely “objective science—measurements, recording, processes, etc.” In this case or instance, it ceases to be objective when meaning is attached to the measurements.
So if I go into the kitchen and measure 1 cup of water, it is impossible for me to do so without presuppositions. And we wonder why some Christians are accused of being anti-science….
What is the place for science at all if that is how you feel about it? Why would you believe anything a scientist tells you?
There are a few presuppositions that you have. The key one, is that the measuring cup for your water is accurate. I doubt you validate that your measuring cup is accurate. You assume it is accurate. If you want to get very technical, a measuring device is only accurate within a range. When we talk about something like water, it is accurate to a given temperature (typically 25 degrees Celsius).
In terms of ice cores, you could make a fairly compelling argument that the actual sampling of the ice cores are relatively accurate and free of most suppositions. Where the strain becomes is in the analysis of the data and interpretation of the results. In that case, there are significant presuppositions, such as uniformitarianism. In order to interpret the results we must build models, those models are filled with presuppositions and limitations. In fact you could argue that every single scientific model is flawed. They all have limitations, some are solved with things like constants, some have flaws. This is what makes science fun. It is ever evolving as new models are developed to address the flaws of the current models.
I figured someone would point out that the accuracy of the measurement tool itself was based on a presupposition. But the truth is that it is not the same thing as a faith-based presupposition or for that matter, a Darwin-induced presupposition and we all know it. The accuracy of the measurement tool is itself based on previous science that was itself objective. That is not to say it is error free but there is no agenda there. No faith and no Darwinism. Same goes for ice cores. No agenda—just some cold scientists sitting out on an ice block measuring things. As far as the interpretation goes? Yes, there is an opportunity for an agenda but really, where is the evidence that scientists are involved in a conspiracy to hide the age of the earth? You figure out how ice layers are formed and start counting. Can you come up with the exact age of the earth? No, but why would they not be able to at least disprove a 6,000 earth, especially when combined with 40 other dating mechanisms that say the same thing?
If you can’t accept that scientists really are trying to get to truth objectively and without an agenda, why would science be of any value at all?
I would say that the Bible is not conclusive on the age of the universe nor does it purport to show an age whatsoever.
Dave, what do you believe is the purpose giving the age of people at death in the early genealogies? It traces it in years all the way back to Adam. If not somehow related to an age, what would that be for?
[Larry]I would say that the Bible is not conclusive on the age of the universe nor does it purport to show an age whatsoever.
Dave, what do you believe is the purpose giving the age of people at death in the early genealogies? It traces it in years all the way back to Adam. If not somehow related to an age, what would that be for?
A caveat: there is more to the genealogies than meets the eye. Here’s one examination:
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/The-Genesis-Genealogies.pdf
I would say that the Bible is not conclusive on the age of the universe nor does it purport to show an age whatsoever.
Thanks, Larry. I am aware of the issue with genealogies. My question was to Dave about what he (who thinks the Bible does not purport to show an age whatsoever) makes of the genealogies. The dating of the early genealogies is not easy to dispense with by using the “gap theory” of genealogies. It’s a little tighter than that,.
[GregH]I figured someone would point out that the accuracy of the measurement tool itself was based on a presupposition. But the truth is that it is not the same thing as a faith-based presupposition or for that matter, a Darwin-induced presupposition and we all know it. The accuracy of the measurement tool is itself based on previous science that was itself objective. That is not to say it is error free but there is no agenda there. No faith and no Darwinism. Same goes for ice cores. No agenda—just some cold scientists sitting out on an ice block measuring things. As far as the interpretation goes? Yes, there is an opportunity for an agenda but really, where is the evidence that scientists are involved in a conspiracy to hide the age of the earth? You figure out how ice layers are formed and start counting. Can you come up with the exact age of the earth? No, but why would they not be able to at least disprove a 6,000 earth, especially when combined with 40 other dating mechanisms that say the same thing?
If you can’t accept that scientists really are trying to get to truth objectively and without an agenda, why would science be of any value at all?
Of course I was being a bit facetious in my response. I am also not saying that science is not trying to get to the truth. But I would also say that I would be hesitant to say that science is getting to the truth objectively. I think that you may be giving science more credit than it deserves. I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but there are a lot of assumptions that are made. Sometimes those assumptions are okay, but in the end science is always in a state of flux. Assumptions are constantly being challenged and new models are being created every day. In terms of truth objectively we could get into a whole discussion around truth. I would say that science is not objective truth, but it would depend on how you define truth. My personal belief and one that I feel is backed up by Scripture is that truth is only found in Scriptures.
[Larry]I would say that the Bible is not conclusive on the age of the universe nor does it purport to show an age whatsoever.
Thanks, Larry. I am aware of the issue with genealogies. My question was to Dave about what he (who thinks the Bible does not purport to show an age whatsoever) makes of the genealogies. The dating of the early genealogies is not easy to dispense with by using the “gap theory” of genealogies. It’s a little tighter than that,.
I am not proposing a gap theory, and I have never proposed some form of gap theory. But I am also not proposing that Usher’s genealogy narrative should be dogmatic. By the whatsoever, I mean that the purpose of genealogies was never meant to deliver an age of time with certainty. The purpose of genealogies is to show a distinct lineage, not an exact passage of time. Since it’s purpose is not to show an exact passage of time, it cannot be used as a basis of age. I think the co-regency of the kings of Israel is a prime example. Is the age 6,000 years or 10,000 years or 20,000 years. I don’t know, I don’t believe Scripture indicates any specific age, and so I see no reason to be dogmatic about it.
[dgszweda]GregH,GregH wrote:
I figured someone would point out that the accuracy of the measurement tool itself was based on a presupposition. But the truth is that it is not the same thing as a faith-based presupposition or for that matter, a Darwin-induced presupposition and we all know it. The accuracy of the measurement tool is itself based on previous science that was itself objective. That is not to say it is error free but there is no agenda there. No faith and no Darwinism. Same goes for ice cores. No agenda—just some cold scientists sitting out on an ice block measuring things. As far as the interpretation goes? Yes, there is an opportunity for an agenda but really, where is the evidence that scientists are involved in a conspiracy to hide the age of the earth? You figure out how ice layers are formed and start counting. Can you come up with the exact age of the earth? No, but why would they not be able to at least disprove a 6,000 earth, especially when combined with 40 other dating mechanisms that say the same thing?
If you can’t accept that scientists really are trying to get to truth objectively and without an agenda, why would science be of any value at all?
Of course I was being a bit facetious in my response. I am also not saying that science is not trying to get to the truth. But I would also say that I would be hesitant to say that science is getting to the truth objectively. I think that you may be giving science more credit than it deserves. I don’t think it is a conspiracy, but there are a lot of assumptions that are made. Sometimes those assumptions are okay, but in the end science is always in a state of flux. Assumptions are constantly being challenged and new models are being created every day. In terms of truth objectively we could get into a whole discussion around truth. I would say that science is not objective truth, but it would depend on how you define truth. My personal belief and one that I feel is backed up by Scripture is that truth is only found in Scriptures.
Every scientist acknowledges the presence and influence of presuppositions in their work. Go pick up any research report, and one of the key sections will always be an explanation of the various influences that could have impacted the science they were doing, including presuppositions.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[GregH]I figured someone would point out that the accuracy of the measurement tool itself was based on a presupposition. But the truth is that it is not the same thing as a faith-based presupposition or for that matter, a Darwin-induced presupposition and we all know it. The accuracy of the measurement tool is itself based on previous science that was itself objective. That is not to say it is error free but there is no agenda there. No faith and no Darwinism. Same goes for ice cores. No agenda—just some cold scientists sitting out on an ice block measuring things. As far as the interpretation goes? Yes, there is an opportunity for an agenda but really, where is the evidence that scientists are involved in a conspiracy to hide the age of the earth? You figure out how ice layers are formed and start counting. Can you come up with the exact age of the earth? No, but why would they not be able to at least disprove a 6,000 earth, especially when combined with 40 other dating mechanisms that say the same thing?
If you can’t accept that scientists really are trying to get to truth objectively and without an agenda, why would science be of any value at all?
Greg,
the problem with your assertion is that the scientist who drills the ice core never actually observed the ice forming. Every conclusion he draws about the ice core is based upon many other aspects of his worldview including his preconceived notions about the relative age of the earth. If he believes that the earth is billions of years old, then he will naturally conclude something different than if he believes that the Bible teaches the earth to be much, much younger. His presuppositions drive his interpretation, and that is true of every scientist. It doesn’t require a grand conspiracy (something which you suggested, not me) to see that the majority of the scientific community operates on the basis of certain assumptions which, I believe, are inconsistent with a direct and plain-sense reading of Scripture.
The fundamental assumption which supports every one of the 40+ methods of dating that you mention is that we can conclude things about the past by observing the present. This would seem to be a reasonable approach if indeed all natural phenomena have continued unchanged since creation, but we really have no way of knowing that, do we? Thus the philosophy of uniformitarianism, which undergirds the entire old earth perspective, is nothing more than an unprovable assertion about things in the past which cannot be directly observed.
Would you acknowledge that two scientists who sit in the cold and observe the freshly drilled ice core might come to two very different conclusions about the age of the ice layers if one believes in uniformitarianism and the other in catastrophism? If so, then do we not have a responsibility to consider which set of presuppositions has greater validity before we automatically conclude one’s interpretation better than the other?
The purpose of genealogies is to show a distinct lineage, not an exact passage of time.
The Genesis genealogies are tight, though with exact years given from birth to death and it can be calculated. IT seems like there is (almost) no room for gaps in those genealogies, which make them different than other genealogies that don’t have the years. It’s also different than the “Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,” to borrow Thiele’s title. The co-regency is real and solves a lot (though not all) of the problems. But again, I think the genealogies in Genesis 5 are tight without much room for skips.
[Larry]The purpose of genealogies is to show a distinct lineage, not an exact passage of time.
The Genesis genealogies are tight, though with exact years given from birth to death and it can be calculated. IT seems like there is (almost) no room for gaps in those genealogies, which make them different than other genealogies that don’t have the years. It’s also different than the “Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,” to borrow Thiele’s title. The co-regency is real and solves a lot (though not all) of the problems. But again, I think the genealogies in Genesis 5 are tight without much room for skips.
I won’t go into detail here, but this is a well documented contentious point. I just don’t think it is a sword I want to fall on personally. Either way it doesn’t hurt a young earth, it just removes an exact date from being an element of dogmatic theology.
I just don’t think it is a sword I want to fall on personally. Either way it doesn’t hurt a young earth, it just removes an exact date from being an element of dogmatic theology.
I agree with you on this.
Discussion