What I found was that not one person was able to refute any of the evidences for an old earth and nobody was able present any valid evidence for a young earth.
I'm trying to be objective here, so if you disagree with what I've said, above, please let me know. Given the opportunity, not one person was able to make a basic case as to why people should consider a young earth over an old one.
Now, if the earth really were young, don't you think it would be the other way around?
I hear a lot of creationists talking about design and 'fine-tuning' these days, which I find ironic. Almost all of the derived values for universal constants and laws have been found through the process of methodological naturalism, the same process that tells us that the world is very old. Now, if you want to claim that the universe is 'fine-tuned' for life (us) then you have to acknowledge that the information you're basing this on is correct, right? Well, that information is how we know that the world is ancient. So you have two choices;
Either you accept that the universe is almost 14 billion years old and that the science that tells us this also provides data that you consider to be evidence of 'fine-tuning' (presumably by a Designer),
Or, you disregard the scientific age of the universe and all the associated data that goes with it and cling to you belief that the world was specially created, in the recent past, by way of a process that we can never understand through science (ie, chaos)
It's your choice.
Regards,
9 comments:
You mean you can't pick and choose what science you like from what you don't like?!!?!?!!!? *GASP*
Word ver: gleing
Hey Matt,
Just want to point out a possible generalization.
"I hear a lot of creationists talking about design and 'fine-tuning' these days, which I find ironic. Almost all of the derived values for universal constants and laws have been found through the process of methodological naturalism, the same process that tells us that the world is very old."
I don't think you mean old earth creationists do you?
DB
Da Bomb,
You are quite correct, this post is referring to Young Earth Creationists who posit that the world was created between 6-10,000 years ago and was once flooded, globally around 4,000 years ago.
With that said, would you agree with the position I've stated?
Cheers,
I think I have already answered you on my blog that I am tending more towards an old earth creationist view but there are still exceptions to the situations you lay out.
Some people believe in the antique theory that says that our universe looks old but is not. Eg. when God made the trees...how many rings did it have?
Also remember that people like myself are not scientists and hugely familiar with young earth old earth arguments...there may be someone else out there who knows more who might give old earthers a run for their money :)
But yes, you bring up good points Matt.
Cya,
DB
Matt:
Been reading a book called "20 Compelling Evidences for the Existence of God" by Ken Boa and some other fella.
Check it out.
I have to say that in reading so far, the authors assume the premises of the old Earth atheists, but do so in a logical method of reducto ad absurdum. Even assuming the premise of several necessary elements of old Earth cosmology, the atheists' model falls far short of feasible.
I'll leave it there, only wanted to point out that oft times it's best to let the opponent speak for him/herself and prove that the argument or "evidence for no design/designer" is, at bottom, ridiculous.
But I recommend the book to you, because you still sound as if the premise of a Desinger behind an otherwise impossible universe with equally impossible life in it is somehow absurd.
For the record, though, as a young Earther, until God has proven Himself to be a liar, it is enough for me that the conservative theologians by and large still maintain a young age for the Earth.
It is enough for me that God made Adam with apparent age: He didn't make an infant and wait around for Adam to grow up. Is it impossible for God to make the world with apparent age? Of course not: that's no trouble for the God of Scripture.
The real trouble here, it seems, is that the scientist seems to think his autonomous reason is alone sufficient to account for and explain the existence of life. By and large, all the collective "genius" of modern and ancient science still can't even account for the generation of primordial life.
Then again, Matt, you're committed as I to your presuppositions. I recommend the book to you as it has a nice bibliography, and it isn't put out by Ken Ham (sacrilege to the atheist, I know!). For that reason, I personally don't think it goes nearly far enough, but for someone with the skepticism of agnosticism or atheism, I think it will provide, with its bibliography alone, some good food for thought in the least.
Take care.
Brazen,
I don't know what a 'old Earth atheist[s]' is.
All non-YEC Christians (and some Muslims) accept that the world is very old because that's what the scientific evidence tells us. So using the phrase 'old earth atheist' as if an old earth is part of some atheist agenda to disprove God is a little bit dishonest - especially since the idea of an old earth was originally put forward by Christian creationists who were out looking for evidence of The Flood.
Anyway, it's not the 'atheists' model, it's the scientist's model and that includes a lot of Christians.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'm always on the look-out for some new reading. But I note that you haven't offered any actual evidence or rebuttals of old earth evidence.
My lack of belief in God is a conclusion, not a presupposition.
Cheers,
Hey howz it going?
Long time no see. I've been bogged down a bit with your friends :)
Hey man,
I've been pretty busy of late although I've been keeping tabs on the goings-ons at your blog.
I didn't feel it would be too helpful to add my hat into that crowded ring when you guys seemed to be having a good discussion.
I'm sure I'll be back over there soon enough though.
Don't mind Stan, he can be foul-mouthed and sarcastic and all that, but his logic is sound, his points arational and he's funny to boot.
Zilch is also a really good guy with a quirky sense of humour and GE knows his science and is well worth listening to.
Take care,
I find they seem (some) to be willfully missing my points?
And Stan's logic seems to be off. Sounds smart, but off.
At least when I say things to you like "I don't believe in God as like Allah (no free will...Allah wills it)"
You wouldn't ram it back down my throat saying "you I can't believe that! you have to believe God is like Allah!"
Even when I am a christian and the Bible says that God is not like Allah!
Have a great weekend :)
Post a Comment