Why I think the Age of the Earth Matters

[anochria]

I'm just now reading the last two posts here. And I'd like to say that I'd love to dialogue with any of you about whether or not the old earth view "does violence" to Scripture (perhaps needless to say, I don't think it does).






I guess it would depend on whether you believe the bible lists every Patriarch from every generation since creation or only that it highlights the more important Patriarchs and their generations.

Well, we know for sure that some of the biblical geneologies have omissions, so there is clearly biblical precendent for selective geneologies.

[thrombomodulin]

If gravity distorts space, and space is curved, who is to say that time cannot also be curved? What if there is a steep, smooth time gradient centered around our solar system that makes time pass more slowly here than in the rest of the universe?

I would recommend examining "starlight and time" by Russell Humphrey's and "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by Dr. John Hartnett. Which utilize the theory of relativity to make a case of time differences occurring in the past to attain an old age of the universe and retain a young age of the earth.

But I do think there are compelling biblical reasons to reject the ... the macroevolution young earthers must support to get speciation from the ark

All YEC's that I have read support the idea of speciation on the basis of the loss of genetic information - which is the opposite of macroevolution. For macroevolution involves the creation of new information that had not formerly existed (e.g. at the time of creation).

[Erik]

Here's what I said on another discussion forum:

People who are ignorant of genetics may often claim that it is the ability to breed that is the dividing line between micro- and macro-evolution. But I don't think that's the line. A horse and a donkey can mate, and they're two different species. I have no problem with the idea that a single species could individuate so much that their remote ancestors could no longer interbreed, and thus be officially labeled by some self-congratulating human organization as "two different species." But that's not macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution can be stated to have occurred when an organism acquires a new level of ability or structure that its built-in informational organization system could not code for.

Let's say I write a recombinant computer program, with a certain basic operation. If I go set it loose and it eventually comes back to me very different from before, even having new "abilities" (say, a resistance to a particular antibiotic that it previously was susceptible to), but when I examine it I see it's still running the same hardware and the instruction set on the processor is the same, then it's not new. It hasn't evolved. It's my program doing what it was designed to do. Changing, for sure. Macro-evolving, no.

When a bacteria acquires never-before-existing cellular machinery, perhaps that would be a good example of macro-evolution. Perhaps bacteria not only operating in colonies but actually differentiating to become a multi-celled organism. Perhaps acquiring a new, complex locomotion apparatus using wheels or electricity or reaction mass. Something actually NEW that isn't just a side-effect of scrambling DNA around (the underlying system I'm talking about).

How about 6-acid DNA instead of 4-acid DNA? Instead of the boring adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (forgive me if I'm listing RNA here instead of DNA), why not more? Where did the quaternary system come from in the first place? Why not binary like computers, or octenary or something else, for that matter?

Look at dogs--their variety can all be explained by distortion or degeneration of a basic program. Floppy ears = loss of cartilage. Flat faces = deformation of facial bones. Oversize, undersize, short legs, spots, too much hair, too little hair, all variations of the same thing.

Now, dogs that can meow! Hermaphroditic dogs. Dogs with wings. Dogs with six functionally useful legs that are healthy and reproduce. Dogs with feathers. Dogs with venom. Dogs that lay eggs. Dogs with a beak. Dogs with feet oriented for walking upright like human feet. Dogs with scales, gills, claws that retract, talons, something, *anything* actually new that wasn't possible by a simple mixing or degradation or bacterial exchange of DNA.

That would be macro-evolution.

[NevadaDad]

Steve7150 wrote: I guess it would depend on whether you believe the bible lists every Patriarch from every generation since creation or only that it highlights the more important Patriarchs and their generations.

I'm not exactly sure how to reconcile this statement to Matthew Chapter 1 or Luke Chapter 3. The geneologies there strike me as comprehensive, not selective. There are scoundrels as well as heroes listed. It seems to me that if the writer wished to be selective, he would have omitted the embarrassing relatives and highlighted the high-achievers.

I realize the list in Matthew starts only with Abraham, not Adam, but this is not true of the list in Luke. However, my question remains: what would lead one to believe that the Bible does not list its geneologies comprehensively? It seems to me that this is an assumption one would have to bring to the text externally, rather than derive from the text itself.

[NevadaDad]

Anochria wrote: Well, we know for sure that some of the biblical geneologies have omissions, so there is clearly biblical precendent for selective geneologies.

Please elaborate. Where are there "selective geneologies" and in what context are they used? See also my remarks in the immediately preceding post.

[steve7150]

I'm not exactly sure how to reconcile this statement to Matthew Chapter 1 or Luke Chapter 3. The geneologies there strike me as comprehensive, not selective. There are scoundrels as well as heroes listed. It seems to me that if the writer wished to be selective, he would have omitted the embarrassing relatives and highlighted the high-achievers.





If i remember correctly Matthew did leave out people , not by accident but the issue isn't Matthew it's whether the bible has every patriarch.

[Apollos]

P.S. If gravity distorts space, and space is curved, who is to say that time cannot also be curved? What if there is a steep, smooth time gradient centered around our solar system that makes time pass more slowly here than in the rest of the universe?

I really liked this post. But a question. How do we really know that gravity distorts space, and that space is curved?

[steve7150]

I really liked this post. But a question. How do we really know that gravity distorts space, and that space is curved?





That's the crux , is there any real basis to presume theories like this. I think if you want you can take the position God created the universe with the appearance of age built in or accept that the scientific testing of universe age is reasonably accurate and that "day" means "epoch".

[Apollos]

I really liked this post. But a question. How do we really know that gravity distorts space, and that space is curved?





That's the crux , is there any real basis to presume theories like this. I think if you want you can take the position God created the universe with the appearance of age built in or accept that the scientific testing of universe age is reasonably accurate and that "day" means "epoch".

I learned about that stuff in college, but can't really remember all the arguments. What I would like to see is a list of evidence used to support it, complete with alternative explanations of the evidence. I found in college that they did not do this to my satisfaction, and that alternatives were usually dismissed, if mentioned.

[IsaacJ]

It is true that Matthew's list is not exhaustive. Looking back at Chronicles you'll find that at least Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are left out. Why they are left out is another question for another time. But leaving a few people out definitely doesn't add huge amounts of time to our estimated age of the earth. Even if the earlier lists just mention some key people, it's hard to imagine you're adding a lot of time there.

To add my two cents...I can't find a reason to take the text non-literally in the Genesis creation account. The genre of the book and the way it reads give me no reason to guess it might not be a six day creation. I'm not obsessed with taking everything hyper-literal in the scriptures, but this seems clearly historical narrative, not prophetic or apocalyptic. I believe the same word is used in Exodus when God sets up the sabbath for Israel...do we have a reason to take it literally there but not in Genesis other than what some scientists have suggested?

I'd echo Steve's comment about it not mattering much to me whether the earth is old or young, to me the 'mattering' of the debate how much we're willing to alter scripture and for what reasons. An infinite, omnipotent God is capable of absolutely anything and if it says He made the earth in six days and doesn't give much hint of using just concepts or imagery it's my guess that He really did.