6000 Years vs. Millions of Years

[kari21]

And the debate goes on, Jukia...

Please just keep in mind that what science is saying today to be true, may not be that way tomorrow. It is ever changing. Heck, science still can't tell us if an egg is bad or good for us to eat!

Keep an open mind...and don't discount your own common sense.

Actually, I see no real debate.

My common sense tells me that a literal reading of Genesis is nonsensical.

I'm talking more about being taught that the universe created itself from nothing, Jukia.

[mikerunk]

I guess my problem with the created with the appearance of age is that you can never substantiate that. So why bother. If things are not old, but look old, and our science tells us they are old, then our science is unreliable and really can't tell us much of anything. The evidence tells us that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe 14 billion. But if it only looks that way, then science is wrong. And there is no way to be sure.

Science doesn't just look at something and go "O its old" thats not science thats just guessing. The reason we know the world is old and no its not an exact science is because we can carbon date things and use thousand other factors to judge how old something is. I'll give you an example; Scientist use the rings in a tree not only to tell how old a tree is because can also tell what the weather condition is during various points in history, its bit technical for me to explain but sure you can find loads of resource on subject.

Another example is soil, we can take samples from the ground and look at the layers and there it paints use a picture of what was going on different periods of time.

another example is Scientist will take ice samples from Antiartica, and these samples can date back almost 10,000 years.

These are just to name a few methods science use to understand just how far back the world really goes, its not an exact science, they can't say "The world was created april 5, 1000000000 BC. What can do is get an a ruff idea for how old things are and how old the world is.

It is a slow painstaking process of following cluse, keeping records of fossiles, ground soil, Ice samples, and many other things that give use a ruff time frame of how old the world is, when life begin.

The reason we know that Dinosaurse were here long before man and that the two didn't co-exist is because we have never found any human remains that date back to the Jurassic period. I think the earliest record human remains is like 10,000 years give or take a few, the Jurassic period was like a 1 million years ago so there is a massive time gap between the two. This alone dispproves the theroy that God created the world in 6 days, which means either A.) the bible is a lie (which it isn't), or that 6 days to God is something like 60 million years (We don't really know what 6 days is to God, I just giving you an example).

Im sorry Jukia but there is more to science then just guessing, there is a lot of proof that the world is far older then what the bible claims if you take it literal. Its not an assumption that the world is old, the world is old because all the evidence points to that fact, we just estimate based on the evidence at hand how old the world is untill science can provided use with a way of being more Accurate.

[Jorge S]

You're not going to tell me how information relates to thermodynamics, are you Jorge? The first time you didn't answer I thought maybe you just overlooked my question, but it's clear by now that you're avoiding it. I'm disappointed.

Your disappointment notwithstanding, I did elaborate upon the question but it looks you hold a card up your sleeve. There's no naturalistic explanation for such a conundrum. KL von Bertalanffy -a Biologist concerned with the formulation of the General System Theory and its applicability to Biology, Cybernetics and Social sciences- was quoted saying that "the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory [is] one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in Biology".

...the Theory of Evolution specifically concerns changes in allele frequencies, which happens only in living entities.

That's an oversimplification, a sugary coating to mask the bitterness of the pill we are expected to swallow. We both know that within the context of Creation-Evolution debates the latter refers to molecule-to-man evolution over incredibly long time spans. The concept includes Cosmology, Geology and Biology. Restricting the definition to Biology alone doesn't make the cut. The authors I quoted clearly established that point.

Not at all. Evolution doesn't have a position on the existence of God, Allah, or Brahma, so how can it possibly be atheist? (That's not rhetorical; please answer.) And the fact that Charles Darwin wasn't even atheist doesn't help your case. Nor would the existence of theistic evolution be possible if evolution was atheist. Most Christians, myself included, believe in both evolution and God. According to you, we don't exist.

Current mainstream Science is secular and attempts to explain the processes of our physical reality as caused by purely naturalistic mechanisms, which obviously leaves God out of the picture. That's how Darwin 'evolved' from non-ordained priest to agnostic.

I do acknowledge the existence of Theistic Evolution as a religious position. I'm only pointing out its errors on both accounts: biblical (for disregarding the historicity of Genesis) and scientific (for taking at face value a questionable theory.)

Have you tried the theistic element on atheistic circles? What responses do you get?

[Jorge S]

The bible says God created the world in 6 days but what the bible left out was that in human years or in Gods years. I mean lets face 60 million years may equal to 6 days to God.

Why should an Eternal Being talk to finite creatures in equivocal terms? What do we know about 'God's time'? He dwels outside His Creation while we are bound to the finite dimensions of our physical world. When He speaks about time He is referring to human time, the one He created for us:

And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen 1:14)

The textual evidence for the 24h-duration of the creative days is fourfold:

1- They are individually defined as one cycle of darkness -'the evening', plus light -'the morning'. (Jews counted days from sunset to sunset.)

2- Each one is called a day. Words signifying durations longer than a day were available to Moses, or he could have qualified day with an adjective meaning longer periods of time, yet he used a word that his hearers could undoubtedly understand as an ordinary solar day.

3- The same expression "and the evening and the morning were the ... day" is used both before and after the creation of the sun in the fourth day, which means that we are to take the duration of all days as equal, e.g. 24 hours.

4- The days are chronologically added to conform the first week of history. A week is a fairly unaffected time counter because whatever the duration of a month or a year it is always the cyclical repetition of 7 days.

There are instances of prophecy whereby a day means other than 24h but usually the interpretative key is also provided. This is not the case in Genesis.

Also keep in mind from The creation of Adam and Eve to the fall of man there is recorded lenght of time. So adam and Evil could have existed for hundreds if not millions of years before they committed the first sin.

Wrong. They were childless at the fall. See how there's no mention of children when God clothed them before their eviction from Eden (Gen 3:21.) We don't know how old was Adam when Cain and Abel were born but the Bible says he was 130 years when he fathered Seth (Gen 5:3)

... were did this wife come from. The only two recorded humans beyond Adam and Eve is Cain and Able. What did this women just magically appear out of thin air.

Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And

he fathered sons and daughters.

I personally believe that Science and Religeon go hand in hand and that if the two would work together that more answer would be revealed then if they argued with one another.

I personally believe almost the same. I would just substitute 'Religion' for 'The Bible' in your statement.

[The Lorax]

Your disappointment notwithstanding, I did elaborate upon the question but it looks you hold a card up your sleeve. There's no naturalistic explanation for such a conundrum. KL von Bertalanffy -a Biologist concerned with the formulation of the General System Theory and its applicability to Biology, Cybernetics and Social sciences- was quoted saying that "the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory [is] one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in Biology".

Let me get this straight. Earlier you were claiming that prebiotic increases in complexity (a concept which relates to information theory) violated entropy laws (which fall under thermodynamics). So you were using a connection between information theory and thermodynamics as the basis for your claim that abiogenesis is untenable. But you just admitted there is currently is NO well-defined connection between info and thermo theory.

You've blatantly contradicted yourself, basing an argument on what you yourself admit is a "conundrum." And you want me to believe that that conundrum is somehow a card up my sleeve, not a gaping hole in your argument? Wha???

...the Theory of Evolution specifically concerns changes in allele frequencies, which happens only in living entities.

That's an oversimplification

That's theory, take it or leave it.

Restricting the definition to Biology alone doesn't make the cut.

Of course it does! The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory! Evolution by natural selection is a strictly biological phenomenon!

We both know that within the context of Creation-Evolution debates the latter refers to molecule-to-man evolution over incredibly long time spans. The concept includes Cosmology, Geology and Biology.

Do you admit that your definition of evolution represents a "concept" (your word), not an actual theory?

As I've said before, I am very aware that many things evolve and as such can be termed evolution. But I've made it clear that I've been debating biological evolution, a la the Theory of Evolution. You can expand the debate to the cosmic, geological, abiotic and prebiotic if you'd like, but I won't be commenting on them, as I'm just a biologist. Nor will I pretend they are part of the Theory of Evolution, which is strictly biological despite your beliefs about it.

Current mainstream Science is secular and attempts to explain the processes of our physical reality as caused by purely naturalistic mechanisms, which obviously leaves God out of the picture. That's how Darwin 'evolved' from non-ordained priest to agnostic.

Yes, science is secular, not atheist. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but you know there's a difference. And since you mentioned Darwin, I should mention that in the first chapter of his Origin of Species he implies natural selection accounts only partially for the complexity of life on Earth. He doesn't rule out ideas like vitalism, Lamarckism, or straight up ID.

Have you tried the theistic element on atheistic circles? What responses do you get?

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

[Guest]

"I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD." Psalms 116:13

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:13

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:10-11

I assume you have seen the original text. Please provide a reference to it. Thanks ever so much.

Got Bible?

As For Me

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

And My Family

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

We Confess And Believe

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Our LORD The Creator

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:9-14

For He Is Worthy

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Revelation 4:11

Dear Jukia

..... What think ye of Christ? .....

Matthew 22:42

Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[Guest]

I think he is very unhappy with many people who use his name and claim to be Christian. He is amazed at the nastiest exhibited by some fundamentalists, he is astonished when fundamentalists refuse to use their intellect to understand the world but rely upon a literal interpretation of Genesis when it is clearly not appropriate, and he is angry at those who ignore the least of his people.

Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Jorge S]

Let me get this straight. Earlier you were claiming that prebiotic increases in complexity (a concept which relates to information theory) violated entropy laws (which fall under thermodynamics). So you were using a connection between information theory and thermodynamics as the basis for your claim that abiogenesis is untenable. But you just admitted there is currently is NO well-defined connection between info and thermo theory.

Physical laws are universal, Lorax. There's no scientific answer as to how life (non-random, code-bound, complex information) could have spontaneously emerged against the odds of entropic principles.

Evolution by natural selection is a strictly biological phenomenon!... I've made it clear that I've been debating biological evolution, ...

The biological realm of evolution is likewise untenable. Descent with modification is limited. There's NO way the diversity of life could have sparkled from a single cell.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

Atheists use evolution as a naturalistic substitute for God. How do they react when you preach them theistic evolution?

[Jorge S]

I think he is very unhappy with many people who use his name and claim to be Christian. He is amazed at the nastiest exhibited by some fundamentalists, he is astonished when fundamentalists refuse to use their intellect to understand the world but rely upon a literal interpretation of Genesis when it is clearly not appropriate, and he is angry at those who ignore the least of his people.

Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

Yes, brother Joe. I can second that: AMEN!

[The Lorax]

There's no scientific answer as to how life (non-random, code-bound, complex information) could have spontaneously emerged against the odds of entropic principles.

Information theory and thermodynamics have two different ideas of entropy. Which entropic principles are you talking about here?

The biological realm of evolution is likewise untenable. Descent with modification is limited. There's NO way the diversity of life could have sparkled from a single cell.

This is pretty much what you said when we first started this discussion. Then I asked you what your specific problems were with evolution, and you talked about entropy. Clearly that discussion hasn't gone too far. Now, we could approach the discussion from a different direction, Direction B, with me taking the affirmative position and attempting to somehow prove that the first proto-cell developed naturally and spontaneously (which I do not necessarily believe, by the way) and that, as a result of natural selection and genetic drift, it evolved and diversified into all the forms of life we know today. That's a lot of work. I think Direction A is a little more realistic. You pose apparent problems with evolution and then I attempt to show that those problems are surmountable or illusory. I thought that was what we were doing, anyway.

Atheists use evolution as a naturalistic substitute for God. How do they react when you preach them theistic evolution?

I don't preach, but I have been interrogated about my views by curious and/or antagonistic nonbelievers. I tell them I believe in evolution by common descent, the Big Bang, and all the scientific stuff they believe. I just don't believe it was an accident; it was INTENDED to happen by a certain all-seeing, all-knowing Creator. He had Us in mind from the beginning. After that they tend to attack some tenet of Christianity, but rarely am I attacked for being a theist in the broadest sense, or for being a theistic evolutionist. I mean, they can't offer any explanation as to where the Big Bang came from. Or why the cosmological constants are so perfectly suited to the existence of life.

The only complaint I've gotten about theistic evolution per se is that it somehow rules out free will. That is because theistic evolution generally relies on determinism and determinism is generally but not universally agreed to exclude free will. For instance, in order to believe that the initial conditions of the universe could reliably lead to the evolution of humans purely through the playing out of physical law, I must believe in a completely predictable universe. And how could free will exist in a perfectly predictable universe? But that's not what I believe. I think that when free-willed beings--humans--entered the picture, things were no longer perfectly predictable. When God gave us free will he sacrificed his ability to perfectly predict our actions. (If he could always predict our actions, then presumably we wouldn't be free.) But in the end, we will have to answer to the Lord for our use of his gift, free will. That much is clear. It's late. I'm probably ranting. Enough for now.