How Old is the Earth?

[Leonard]

Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Well, Scientificatheist, EVERYONE KNOWS that according to 'big bang' theory the physical laws were being formed, and so were different than what we observe for a few pico seconds! You knew very well what I meant, but as is typical of the 'scientific' 'rational' community, you are not interested in honest conversation and merely wish to obfuscate.

You are not intellectually honest, merely full of yourself.

This sort of pretentious, self-superior patronization is a way the scientific community can keep patting itself on the back for arriving unerringly at the conclusions with which they began, and at the same time, deflect good questions.

I think you are smarter than that, but I am beginning to question whether that appraisal was too optimistic.........

No evidence???? Explain the reverse spin of various bodies in our solar system. That seems quite difficult aside from catastrophist hermeneutic. This fact alone would seem to imply a great change in physical laws in more recent (cosmologically speaking) time.

If the physic of the universe has been altered, how would one go about arranging a test to see just how those now non-existent, and unobservable laws operated in a past beyond our ken? We do seem to see hints, but that is about all. I am not a physicist, just enjoy the reading, so I would not know how to set up such an experimental field.

Still, to claim the miraculous NEVER EVER HAPPENS, you're going to have to look under every stone in the universe, just to make sure there isn't a miracle lurking under one of them. This by definition would be a miracle, I'm afraid.

Get real.

With a blessing,

Leonard, a sinner

[nebula]

nebula

What are you doing in sales? You ought to be a teacher! You got a gift for it.

I'm very flattered, but there's more money in sales

That really is a shame - I mean anyone who can present the complex principles of physics in a way that is actually understandable . . . WOW!

But in your quest for the presentation of truth, as you say, you need to consider someting about us Christians. We hold a different pursuit of truth than you do. only rare ones like me have a care and concern for understanding the natural world - and even I've gotten flack for that!

This strikes me as strange, and it is diametrically opposed to say, the muslim world view. Islamic philosophy is very clear that, since the universe was created by God, the more we learn about it, the more we learn about God - and that is why the former Islamic Empire was technologically, scientifically and medically far more advanced than dark-ages Europe.

The bible says that Jesus is:

"the way, the truth, and the life:" [John 14:6, paraphrase]

Therefore can one not conclude that by searching out the truth in all matters - whether those matters be the truth about salvation, the truth about relationships, or the truth about nature - that one is seeking out Jesus (God)? If Jesus is the truth, in the natural and supernatural, then why should creationists seek to distort the truth and the evidence that points to it? These mysteries I suppose, shall ever be so. But perhaps you could shed some light?

:: Looking around preparing for missle fire ::

Actually, I am more in agreement with your statement here than disagreement. I recall that Isaac Newton regarded calculus as "the language of God" (I believe due to the fact that the universe can be ordered by mathematics), and to him it made the study that more of a wonder (right?). The more I study science and the complexities of nature, the more I go, "Wow! God (my Lord)! Awesome!"

I learned from a Native American Christian preacher that for their culture, there is no separation between what is sacred and what is secular. To them all is sacred. The natural world is sacred, their role in society (job) is sacred. It is a value and concept passed down to "us" from Greco-Roman thought that "sacred and secular" are two separate entities and that we should reject what is "secular" (i.e. what is of the natural world) to pursue what is sacred.

I believe that "being made in the image of God" means we are created with the power to create, that we are meant to know things, that God gave to us curiosity and such so that we may learn and grow and develop.

The problem is in priorities. When we "worship the creature and not the Creator," then there is a problem. When the pursuit of knowledge becomes an act of worship ("worship" meaning to adore; revere; reverence; give homage to; honor), it becomes - by our (Christian's) definition - an idol.

This, I believe, is what fuels the controversy from the Christian side. Because of the priority given to "the pursuit of knowledge" in our society, to our eyes it is idolotrous, and thus it becomes rejected. To some, it is an example of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. To others it is a fight against "the cultural war" for the hearts and minds of the people (who or what will you follow?).

As for the Middle Ages - most of that, I believe, was because the Church had become a political power and was using religion as a means of controlling people. If you notice the fruit of the leaders, they were more interested in their personal power than they were about developing a relationship with Jesus, and teaching others how to develop a personal relationship with Him. But this is a serious bunny trail off the original topic.

That's the best I can explain the answer to your question. I don't know if it makes sense to you or not (trying to understand the heart of a Christian).

[gypc]

Wow!!! I am impressed with all this knowledge.....from Christians and the athiest. I'm sorry that I don't know much about this stuff.

All I know is if everyone in the whole world told me there was no God and even explained in more detail than the smartest man alive, I would just say....ok and sorry that your not part of his flock. Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice" and the King of the universe told me that he loved me and to trust him as we walked along.

Noah preached to a very knowledgable world for about 100 or so years. Then all their knowledge got washed away and there was Noah, a simple man, his family and some animals.

So as knowledge increases, I'll just keep it simple as I walk along through this life with the Creator, my Savior, my friend. He has the true knowledge and I'll just trust'im . "Who else has the words of eternal life"?

In the love of Christ Jesus,

Brian

[Neil]

If the "big bang" theory is correct, then this is the work of God. Who are we to question God's ways? Probably the words in Genesis were put down in an easy way for Man to understand.

Men were put to death for stating that the world was round and that the earth went round the sun, but the idea that the earth was flat and the sun went round the earth was man's and not God's.

Evidence shows evolution, and this is all God's work and part of His plan.

At the end of it all, why should it matter so much how everything happened? What is more important is the present day, and living our lives according to the Lord's teaching.

[Bread_of_Life]

In response to Leonard's Post

Well, Scientificatheist, EVERYONE KNOWS that according to 'big bang' theory the physical laws were being formed, and so were different than what we observe for a few pico seconds! You knew very well what I meant, but as is typical of the 'scientific' 'rational' community, you are not interested in honest conversation and merely wish to obfuscate.

You are not intellectually honest, merely full of yourself.

This sort of pretentious, self-superior patronization is a way the scientific community can keep patting itself on the back for arriving unerringly at the conclusions with which they began, and at the same time, deflect good questions.

I think you are smarter than that, but I am beginning to question whether that appraisal was too optimistic.........

This passage makes up approximately half of Leonard's response to my quite detailed post, yet it makes no substantial points in reply, nor does it convey any important information or add to the argument. Rather, it is a plain and simple ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer rather than the argument. I can only presume that Leonard decided to dedicate time to writing this with a view to distracting the attention of some of the less attentive viewers of this forum away from the fact that he has largely ignored every substantial point I have made in my last reply to him.

As well as being a series substanceless ad hominem insults, it is also incorrect, and rather ironic. Apparantly I "merely wish to obfuscate", which is strange in of itself, in that I have tried hard to make simple arguments and present difficult scientific concepts in an accessible way. It is stranger still, given the fact that the accusation was made in order to obfuscate - hiding the obvious fact that Leonard has no reply to the arguments I wrote down in my earlier post.

Leonard also implies that I was unfair and dishonest by raising the example of the Big Bang as a scientific theory in which uniformitarianism breaks down. However, I do not see what is unfair about it at all. Leonard's point was that scientists deliberately ignore and dismiss any changes in physical laws and constants - whereas I have shown that scientists believe physical laws and constants have changed many times, and I'm not talking only about the first few picoseconds of the universe either. There is currently a scientific theory stating that the speed of light may also have changed through cosmological history, long after the first few picoseconds of the universe. Anyhow, the point is made and not refuted - scientists do not dismiss the possibility that physical laws or constants can change.

If the physic of the universe has been altered, how would one go about arranging a test to see just how those now non-existent, and unobservable laws operated in a past beyond our ken?

No evidence???? Explain the reverse spin of various bodies in our solar system. That seems quite difficult aside from catastrophist hermeneutic. This fact alone would seem to imply a great change in physical laws in more recent (cosmologically speaking) time.

The rest of his post Leonard dedicates to making 2 points. Both are ironic in their own way. The first point, that it would be impossible to know or test the fact that physical laws had changed in the past is ironic because it has already been answered in some detail in my last post - the which Leonard would know if he hadn't deliberately chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Past events have an effect of the future and present, therefore theories concerning past events should be able to make predictions about findings in the present. Indeed, it is on this basis that radiometric dating proceeds.

For example, when someone lights a fire, the fire will leave behind charred remains in the future, and we will be able to infer that there was a fire, without actually witnessing it ourselves. If there is a murder, then there will be a body and usually a weapon by which we can infer it happened. If animals evolved, their DNA, embryology, morphology and atavisms should leave us clues in the present to determine it. And if radioactive decay rates increased massively in the past, we would also expect that to have had noticeable and testable effects on the present, a few of which I explored in my last post, which tragically Leonard did not read.

The second point, as you can see above, is that the reverse spin of planets proves changes in physical laws in the past. Notice the irony, that someone who accused me of having blind faith in science has now made a statement about science without any backing, evidence, or explanation - and he expects us to take it on faith and his word, even though he admits later in his post that he knows little about physics.

Fortunately, I have seen similar arguments before in my time, and they have to do with a concept called "conservation of angular momentum". We all know what momentum is, it is the resistance to stopping that somthing has when it's going at speed. The great the speed, the greater the resistance to stopping. Angular momentum is this concept transported into the world of spinning. When something very heavy is spinning very fast, it has high angular momentum, whereas something light spinning slowly has low angular momentum. Now, we know experimentally that in collisions, total angular momentum is conserved - that means that say object A and B collide, A has an angular moment of a, B with an angular momentum of b, the total angular momentum after the collision will be the same as before, a+b. This is known as a "conservation law" - angular momentum is "conserved". Energy is also conserved in this universe, as it happens, and you might have heard of the law of conservation of energy.

Now, here is where the understanding of certain extremist Christians falters. They conclude that, because total angular momentum has to be conserved, that means that say, if B is rotating clockwise with angular momentum b and explodes, every single piece of debris must also be rotating clockwise at all times after the explosion. This is nonsense of course - that is not what the law of conservation of angular momentum says. All it says is that if you add up all the angular momentums of the debris, that the total will come to b - that doesn't mean that every single piece of debris has to be spinning to the same direction - some might have "retrograde" (or "reverse") spin (which would be counted as a negative quantity compared to b). As long as when you add up all the positive and negative spins you get b, then angular momentum is conserved. This is similar to the misunderstanding of entropy that some creationists seem to have btw.

Now, you might well ask "how do objects get this retrograde spin?" and there are several answers - but the main answer is through collision and interaction with other objects. However, this is rather a side point, I have proven that angular momentum can be conserved even with retrograde spin objects, QED (which was the thing that had to be proven).

So to sum up, Leonard has said three things:

a) I'm not a very nice guy (which, even if true cannot possibly hope to answer my arguments)

b) We can't tell what happened in the past (which I have dealt with twice now)

and

c) Retrograde spin proves that basic physical laws have changed in the past (which is just plain wrong).

Congratulations Leonard.

nebula

When the pursuit of knowledge becomes an act of worship ("worship" meaning to adore; revere; reverence; give homage to; honor), it becomes - by our (Christian's) definition - an idol.

Surely by idolising truth you are idolising Jesus, which presumably isn't a sin?

As for the Middle Ages - most of that, I believe, was because the Church had become a political power and was using religion as a means of controlling people.

Agreed, but if you look at the Islamic empire at the same time, whilst religion was most certainly a means of control, it didn't stunt intellectual or scientific development.

Neil

At the end of it all, why should it matter so much how everything happened? What is more important is the present day, and living our lives according to the Lord's teaching.

It seems to matter a disproportionate ammount to some people, who are willing to go to any lengths to preserve their interpretation of how it happened. I don't exactly understand why though, and I'm not surprised that you can't understand it either.

[nebula]

nebula

When the pursuit of knowledge becomes an act of worship ("worship" meaning to adore; revere; reverence; give homage to; honor), it becomes - by our (Christian's) definition - an idol.

Surely by idolising truth you are idolising Jesus, which presumably isn't a sin?

OK, new approach.

When quoting Scripture, one needs to keep things in context. Let's look at this passage.

John 6

1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going."

5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. . . ."

I am thinking that the guys who can explain this best aren't delving into this thread, but when Jesus spoke of being "the truth" He wasn't saying, "If it is a way, it is Me; you want it is Me; if it true, it is Me; if it is life, it is Me." He was saying, "I AM." That is, He is the focus of pursuit, not the other stuff to find Him.

Am I making any sense?

As for the Middle Ages - most of that, I believe, was because the Church had become a political power and was using religion as a means of controlling people.

Agreed, but if you look at the Islamic empire at the same time, whilst religion was most certainly a means of control, it didn't stunt intellectual or scientific development.

Except that pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake, I think, was more a part of their religious beliefs, isn't it? Didn't they study the stars in order to understand signs and times and stuff?

[nebula]

Yod - you think you can add the perspective of what "the way, the truth and the life" would mean to the Jews?

[His son]

And so man just keeps eating from the tree of the knowledge of, and insisting that his way is the right way. If a person would do what The Bible instructs them to do they will wind up knowing more about everything in this universe than all the man made methods put to gether. The Tree Of Life is knowing God, and of course the more time you spend knowing someone through personal relationship the more you will know about them. This can be tested out in your earthly relationships. We all know some people only through occasional meeting, and knowing about them from others. And we also know others through personal relationships spending time with them. I ask you which ones do you know the most about. And about how they doe things.

God knows this and has told us the way to know everything about Him, but it will only happen when we yield our wills totally to His will. Doesn't make any difference what our talents are, nor what any man has ever said about the issue. There is only one way, and that's God's way. Mans pride fights this so hard that when a scientist becomes a Christian, and God reveals to him some facts about Himself in regards to creation the worldly scientists go to extreme lengths to discredit the person, just like the religious leaders of Christ day did with Him. And the sad part od it all is that man just keeps on buying it, and preaching it. Christian scientists have proven in the lab instant creation, but man refuses to accept that fact because after all it insults their intelligence. God has never, nor will He ever tell us to study anything other than how we can spend more time with Him untill we learn to practice His presence all the time.

[Guest yod]

Honestly, I'm starting to feel sorry for atheist. It seems like we are not listening...and that we are afraid of what the truth is as he sees it?

I think the guy has some good questions....some reasonable disagreements based on inconsistancies of science and the biblical account. It also seems like it is an honest debate instead of a hidden agenda.

I just wish we had a biologist on the boards that could hang with him.

Note to Neb: Shilo is the resident expert on the jewish perspective...I don't know any perspective but the one you already gave

[Guest LCPGUY]

I think the guy has some good questions....some reasonable disagreements based on inconsistancies of science and the biblical account. It also seems like it is an honest debate instead of a hidden agenda.

I just wish we had a biologist on the boards that could hang with him.

I agree YOD. Our new friend is honest and non-confrontational. He appears to have the gentleness that God gives, wether he knows it or not. He has, so far, never been mean or degrading to anyone here. I really think he is genuine and has an open mind, an obviously very sharp mind.

I pray that he he comes to personally know our Lord and Saviour. I also pray that none of us attack him or ridicule him. He is, after all, a person, and God loves him so much.

Bro John :il: