Morris walks out on thin ice IMO when he begins to talk about appearance of age.
While there is no question of God's creative abilities, the question as to the purpose of a deceptive appearance of age remains unanswered. To suggest that God, who reveals truth and only truth, would create with real built-in age markers is troubling. We cannot simply cast aside an apparent age thesis glibly.
For example, the source of the verse (3) light is very problematic because Morris holds that light sources (sun/moon/stars) were not created until several days later.
No desire to start a heated debate here.............
However, I think there are good number of reasonable answers for this (a win-win) that will bring the brethren together rather than separate us further.
shot from the hip answer:
perhaps it's not really a problem with God creating a "deceptive appearance of age"; but rather our measuring stick's are all wrong. I strongly suspect we are measuring age with the geologic (or carbon decay equivalent) of a fishermans ruler.
We suspect we know that something means a billion years when it really means we didn't know the true variables involved.
Submitted by gephartr on Mon, 11/12/2007 - 4:19pm.
As I have been saying in discussions recently: "what we know is truth today is not the truth that we will know tomorrow." The purpose of both science and religion is the search for truth. We base our thoughts on the best truth that we can define and as we grow we learn how dumb we were in the past.
What I find amazing reading the older literature (Apostolic Fathers, etc) is how much I don't know in the modern era. I have Biblical training, but we don't teach or discuss what was known in the past. We are still trying to return to a level of knowledge that Jesus taught while he was here, but in that return we ignore (for a large part) the knowledge that is written from the past because it is not the canon. It seems to be a great shame to me.
Thus the work that I am doing in getting the "ANF" series available for PBB. Hopefully I can get the whole series done this year yet.
We do refine both science and religion as new data and discoveries roll in, as we better understand history and language, as we improve our measuring sticks, and as more illumination/understanding becomes available to us.
I guess my point here is – as long as we don't off-handedly toss out all new data, rolling in from a number of widely diverse disciplines, just because it does not line up nicely or suit our comfort-zone position is all I'm asking.
To stand against nearly all contemporary data suggesting the universe is both vast and old may be asking more from scripture than intended. There are abundant scriptures which support science’s claim for an ancient creation; while in my opinion, we find only a few controversial and somewhat poetic verses from which many draw a young model.
As science continues to employ ever more technical and sophisticated methodologies (all agreeing on an old universe), I believe our resistance to these findings may very well be Galilean in nature. We may well be setting up the church for another unneeded blackened eye especially if we harshly censure those with opposing views.
It may prove wise in the end for us to give honest audience to differing views (as long as they are not in opposition to Christian 'essentials'). The divisiveness of this topic has become overly contentions in some circles, even to the point of error. And I pray and trust (actually I know) that here at ‘stilltruth’ we may discuss this topic as if we were sitting down at a friendly table of cordial brotherly discussion rather than a forum of heated debate.
Just as the confirming data against the heliocentric model grew, which final overwhelmed the church in her dug in stance (much to her embarrassment), I think light-travel time, distant galaxies, geologic timescales, and other evidences for an old creation are just as problematic for the church today. We do not need to make ‘age’ a matter of orthodoxy when we actually have non-compromising-to-scripture models worth discussing, none of which support either evolution or some random, mechanistic accident for the origin of the universe.
As I said, I believe there are win-win solutions to this seemingly problematic issue. We can easily agree on common measuring sticks and we will find that scripture and science do not have to be in warring camps - especially among the brethren.
We are not nearly as far apart as some would have us believe.
Submitted by gephartr on Wed, 11/14/2007 - 8:36am.
I believe that I am in agreement. I also have seen much debate lately over this issue. Both sides bring their evidence - neither of which is truly conclusive, as this is not an issue that can be proven to the appropriately levels of proof for both sides.
As a side note, there is a third theory that the universe is truly as old as science says but that this creation is young. Just as at the end of this creation a new one will be created (within this universe) - so it has happened since time immemorable. I also stumbled across this basic thought in the ANF series as I have been converting. Didn't read the whole thing due to time - but it was there even 2000 years ago.
As to both sides bringing evidences to the table (neither of which you wrote are truly conclusive) -- I would propose that old evidences are growing and strengthening while young evidences weakening and waning.
The 3rd theroy for a very ancient universe and a very young earth seems to be pretty much unsupported and appear speculative at best, since Genesia 1:1 clearly tells us that both universe and earth were in the original creation plans -- earth was not an afterthought. Much like the gap theroy which breaks down rather rapidly under scrunity.
Submitted by gephartr on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 2:20pm.
RE: 3rd theory
I certainly was not of the statement that the earth was an afterthought under this theory. What I meant to say is that what will happen at the end of this age is what has happened at the end of previous ages (or Aeons). It actually is stated in Revelation to happen, and I believe was discussed by the early church fathers as having happened previously. Again, just another theory - and not really a new one either.
But as I blogged last night, it is just as Solomon stated - there is nothing new under the sun. All arguments today have been argued in the past as well. There is no original thought, action, deed. :)
No intention to misstate. I was not even suggesting that you embraced the theory of a truly old universe, wherein this creation is young. I was just poking at the theory, not at you.
Albeit there is nothing new under the sun as in how we relate to God or to our fellow humans, there are things new under the sun. Solomon never saw astronauts space walk, never typed a note like I'm doing on stilltruth.com, or never drove a car, etc. I'm not trying to be silly here, but am making a point about science, innovation, and our ability to better understand our world through new technologies, discoveries, and inventions which give us (not God) new things to consider.
God is certainly the same yesterday, today, and forever with no shadow of change. For example, man continues to need atonement and salvation will ever reside in Christ alone - there is no mistake in this and therefore -- nothing new under the sun in this respect. And as far as God’s truth and revelation, it has been fully established to us (all of that is finished so to speak - nothing new).
New theories crop up as new discoveries are made using tools that our ancestors did not have at their disposal. We recently uncovered the mystery of DNA’s code -- we may discover a new star never before logged. Yes DNA was always there (part of the Master’s design - not new) and that star may have been around long before we spotted it with the new Hubble telescope, but these things are new to us.
They are not ‘new’ in that they could possibly change God. They are, however, new in that they have never before been perceived, spoken of, or studied. These new discoveries reveal clarity, they give us new understanding about our world, they may one day soon even illuminate (pun intended) the true age of our universe and earth, for example. The age won't change, but we just will better understand and measure it.
The planets did not take on 'new' motions and begin to revolve around the sun when Galileo was proven right, but the world came to a new and correct understanding about the motions through Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler via their new thinking, new mathematics, new proofs, and findings.
And these new discoveries also give us new insights to appreciate and worship God (they don't change God or make Him something new) for there is nothing new under the sun in this regard – to His Glory.
I would offer that we often do know the true variables involved (not always - but often)
When we have multiple independent, unrelated disciplines all confirming an old earth, it has more validity than just a lone scientist who is solely looking at carbon decay. Each discipline has its own measuring stick (set of rulers, so to speak). Today only a small niche group depends on carbon decay.
So, since all scientists don't carry the same ruler, it is highly unlikely that they are all using faulty measuring sticks and thus 'all' getting false or inaccurate reads. Not saying you suggested this, just a point of clarification.
To pose a challenge to carbon dating is, I suppose, somewhat valid -- but since decay dating tools (many non-c14) have become ever more sophisticated, I would offer that carbon decay still has at least some minor validity, at least in providing some confirming support for other dating techniques.
For example, if you sent chunks of the same rock (which other methods suggest is 40,000 years old) to testers all across the globe and they all used carbon or some decay dating method, I would agree that you certainly may find some variance in the range of dates they came up with. Yet I suggest that you would also find it interesting that none would return a date range of under 30,000 years. For example, no one would report back something under 6000. Thus decay dating can be used at least as a confirmation that other disciplines are in relative agreement on the ballpark dates.
My main point here remains ---- a challenge to appearance of age ---- especially in relation to the vastness of the universe...
Comments
Appearance of Age
Morris walks out on thin ice IMO when he begins to talk about appearance of age.
While there is no question of God's creative abilities, the question as to the purpose of a deceptive appearance of age remains unanswered. To suggest that God, who reveals truth and only truth, would create with real built-in age markers is troubling. We cannot simply cast aside an apparent age thesis glibly.
For example, the source of the verse (3) light is very problematic because Morris holds that light sources (sun/moon/stars) were not created until several days later.
No desire to start a heated debate here.............
However, I think there are good number of reasonable answers for this (a win-win) that will bring the brethren together rather than separate us further.
good point
shot from the hip answer:
perhaps it's not really a problem with God creating a "deceptive appearance of age"; but rather our measuring stick's are all wrong. I strongly suspect we are measuring age with the geologic (or carbon decay equivalent) of a fishermans ruler.
We suspect we know that something means a billion years when it really means we didn't know the true variables involved.
Good thought
As I have been saying in discussions recently: "what we know is truth today is not the truth that we will know tomorrow." The purpose of both science and religion is the search for truth. We base our thoughts on the best truth that we can define and as we grow we learn how dumb we were in the past.
What I find amazing reading the older literature (Apostolic Fathers, etc) is how much I don't know in the modern era. I have Biblical training, but we don't teach or discuss what was known in the past. We are still trying to return to a level of knowledge that Jesus taught while he was here, but in that return we ignore (for a large part) the knowledge that is written from the past because it is not the canon. It seems to be a great shame to me.
Thus the work that I am doing in getting the "ANF" series available for PBB. Hopefully I can get the whole series done this year yet.
Fair Enough
We do refine both science and religion as new data and discoveries roll in, as we better understand history and language, as we improve our measuring sticks, and as more illumination/understanding becomes available to us.
I guess my point here is – as long as we don't off-handedly toss out all new data, rolling in from a number of widely diverse disciplines, just because it does not line up nicely or suit our comfort-zone position is all I'm asking.
To stand against nearly all contemporary data suggesting the universe is both vast and old may be asking more from scripture than intended. There are abundant scriptures which support science’s claim for an ancient creation; while in my opinion, we find only a few controversial and somewhat poetic verses from which many draw a young model.
As science continues to employ ever more technical and sophisticated methodologies (all agreeing on an old universe), I believe our resistance to these findings may very well be Galilean in nature. We may well be setting up the church for another unneeded blackened eye especially if we harshly censure those with opposing views.
It may prove wise in the end for us to give honest audience to differing views (as long as they are not in opposition to Christian 'essentials'). The divisiveness of this topic has become overly contentions in some circles, even to the point of error. And I pray and trust (actually I know) that here at ‘stilltruth’ we may discuss this topic as if we were sitting down at a friendly table of cordial brotherly discussion rather than a forum of heated debate.
Just as the confirming data against the heliocentric model grew, which final overwhelmed the church in her dug in stance (much to her embarrassment), I think light-travel time, distant galaxies, geologic timescales, and other evidences for an old creation are just as problematic for the church today. We do not need to make ‘age’ a matter of orthodoxy when we actually have non-compromising-to-scripture models worth discussing, none of which support either evolution or some random, mechanistic accident for the origin of the universe.
As I said, I believe there are win-win solutions to this seemingly problematic issue. We can easily agree on common measuring sticks and we will find that scripture and science do not have to be in warring camps - especially among the brethren.
We are not nearly as far apart as some would have us believe.
All Good Points
I believe that I am in agreement. I also have seen much debate lately over this issue. Both sides bring their evidence - neither of which is truly conclusive, as this is not an issue that can be proven to the appropriately levels of proof for both sides.
As a side note, there is a third theory that the universe is truly as old as science says but that this creation is young. Just as at the end of this creation a new one will be created (within this universe) - so it has happened since time immemorable. I also stumbled across this basic thought in the ANF series as I have been converting. Didn't read the whole thing due to time - but it was there even 2000 years ago.
3rd Theory
As to both sides bringing evidences to the table (neither of which you wrote are truly conclusive) -- I would propose that old evidences are growing and strengthening while young evidences weakening and waning.
The 3rd theroy for a very ancient universe and a very young earth seems to be pretty much unsupported and appear speculative at best, since Genesia 1:1 clearly tells us that both universe and earth were in the original creation plans -- earth was not an afterthought. Much like the gap theroy which breaks down rather rapidly under scrunity.
Good fodder for thought, however.
Misstated?
RE: 3rd theory
I certainly was not of the statement that the earth was an afterthought under this theory. What I meant to say is that what will happen at the end of this age is what has happened at the end of previous ages (or Aeons). It actually is stated in Revelation to happen, and I believe was discussed by the early church fathers as having happened previously. Again, just another theory - and not really a new one either.
But as I blogged last night, it is just as Solomon stated - there is nothing new under the sun. All arguments today have been argued in the past as well. There is no original thought, action, deed. :)
No original thought, action, deed
No intention to misstate. I was not even suggesting that you embraced the theory of a truly old universe, wherein this creation is young. I was just poking at the theory, not at you.
Albeit there is nothing new under the sun as in how we relate to God or to our fellow humans, there are things new under the sun. Solomon never saw astronauts space walk, never typed a note like I'm doing on stilltruth.com, or never drove a car, etc. I'm not trying to be silly here, but am making a point about science, innovation, and our ability to better understand our world through new technologies, discoveries, and inventions which give us (not God) new things to consider.
God is certainly the same yesterday, today, and forever with no shadow of change. For example, man continues to need atonement and salvation will ever reside in Christ alone - there is no mistake in this and therefore -- nothing new under the sun in this respect. And as far as God’s truth and revelation, it has been fully established to us (all of that is finished so to speak - nothing new).
New theories crop up as new discoveries are made using tools that our ancestors did not have at their disposal. We recently uncovered the mystery of DNA’s code -- we may discover a new star never before logged. Yes DNA was always there (part of the Master’s design - not new) and that star may have been around long before we spotted it with the new Hubble telescope, but these things are new to us.
They are not ‘new’ in that they could possibly change God. They are, however, new in that they have never before been perceived, spoken of, or studied. These new discoveries reveal clarity, they give us new understanding about our world, they may one day soon even illuminate (pun intended) the true age of our universe and earth, for example. The age won't change, but we just will better understand and measure it.
The planets did not take on 'new' motions and begin to revolve around the sun when Galileo was proven right, but the world came to a new and correct understanding about the motions through Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler via their new thinking, new mathematics, new proofs, and findings.
And these new discoveries also give us new insights to appreciate and worship God (they don't change God or make Him something new) for there is nothing new under the sun in this regard – to His Glory.
- Regards -
Deceptive Ruler
I would offer that we often do know the true variables involved (not always - but often)
When we have multiple independent, unrelated disciplines all confirming an old earth, it has more validity than just a lone scientist who is solely looking at carbon decay. Each discipline has its own measuring stick (set of rulers, so to speak). Today only a small niche group depends on carbon decay.
So, since all scientists don't carry the same ruler, it is highly unlikely that they are all using faulty measuring sticks and thus 'all' getting false or inaccurate reads. Not saying you suggested this, just a point of clarification.
To pose a challenge to carbon dating is, I suppose, somewhat valid -- but since decay dating tools (many non-c14) have become ever more sophisticated, I would offer that carbon decay still has at least some minor validity, at least in providing some confirming support for other dating techniques.
For example, if you sent chunks of the same rock (which other methods suggest is 40,000 years old) to testers all across the globe and they all used carbon or some decay dating method, I would agree that you certainly may find some variance in the range of dates they came up with. Yet I suggest that you would also find it interesting that none would return a date range of under 30,000 years. For example, no one would report back something under 6000. Thus decay dating can be used at least as a confirmation that other disciplines are in relative agreement on the ballpark dates.
My main point here remains ---- a challenge to appearance of age ---- especially in relation to the vastness of the universe...
Heady stuff- Thanks