Young Earth,Old Earth Which Is It?

[freezerman2000]

The God who inspired the manuscripts was shown to us.

We believe, not because of the presence of the manuscripts, but because of the presence of the God who inspired the manuscripts.
Yeah, He did it with dark-matter and dark-energy.

Genesis tells me that God is the creator of Jesus too. Care to explain what physical science says about his virgin birth and resurrection?

I didn't think so.

Physical science can take a hike.

Believe only the watered down manuscripts then if you want.
The evidence that God gave us through the majesty of His creation of the earth makes the few words written in Genesis complete..Without scientific understanding of the processes involved,we are no better than the bronze age sheep herders it was originally written for...or would you have us kept ignorant about how the earth works and is still being created? The Hawaiian Islands are still being created as we speak.

That question about science being unable to explain Christ's birth? That is a matter of faith and faith alone..Don't question mine.
There are things that science can not explain..that does not make it wrong.
There are things that the Bible does not explain that science has discovered..distant galaxies,stars still being born and dying,some quite awesomely to name a few..does that mean that the Bible can take a hike?
I didn't think so.

 

[BABerean2]

I know this is a little off topic, but is related the arguments by some of between the normal laws of physics and supernatural events.


The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Einstein's Special Relativity which has been proven to be fact by thousands of experiments, including nuclear weapons tests, states that Matter and Energy are different forms of the same thing. In particle accelerators matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa.

Therefore, Matter is a form of stored Energy.

Going back to the First Law of Thermodynamics...

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

We have just proven that the universe cannot exist, by using the Laws of Physics accepted by even secular scientists.



And we have not even touched on Redi and Pasteur's experiments which proved that life can only come from life...

.

 

[Willtor]

I know this is a little off topic, but is related the arguments by some of between the normal laws of physics and supernatural events.


The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Einstein's Special Relativity which has been proven to be fact by thousands of experiments, including nuclear weapons tests, states that Matter and Energy are different forms of the same thing. In particle accelerators matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa.

Therefore, Matter is a form of stored Energy.

Going back to the First Law of Thermodynamics...

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

We have just proven that the universe cannot exist, by using the Laws of Physics accepted by even secular scientists.

Matter is created and destroyed all the time. But supposing you were right, this proof is incorrect. Rather, we have proved that the universe is eternal. Obviously the universe exists.

And we have not even touched on Redi and Pasteur's experiments which proved that life can only come from life...[/COLOR][/B]

.

These experiments demonstrated, with very high confidence, that spontaneous generation of life was incorrect. They did not demonstrate that self replicating proteins could not form under specific conditions. Pasteur wasn't looking for that.

 

[BABerean2]

Matter is created and destroyed all the time. But supposing you were right, this proof is incorrect. Rather, we have proved that the universe is eternal. Obviously the universe exists.



These experiments demonstrated, with very high confidence, that spontaneous generation of life was incorrect. They did not demonstrate that self replicating proteins could not form under specific conditions. Pasteur wasn't looking for that.

In relation to your comment about the creation of matter, are you speaking of vacuum state fluctuations on the quantum level where particle pop into existence for a miniscule period of time and then disappear, or are you talking about the macro-scale that we live in?

My training was in biology education, so I am familiar with the Urey-Miller experiment. There are a few things that we usually do not hear. Due to the chirality of organic proteins, half of the proteins created in this manner would be toxic to life.

Their experiment was more like the growth of mineral crystals within the matrix of slowly cooling magma inside the earth. Getting to a self-replicating system is many orders of magniturde more difficult.

Scientists have taken living cells and modified them, in some cases even producing man-made DNA and injecting it into the cell. Some have even called this creating life, however that is bending the truth.

No one has ever taken raw chemicals and produced a living cell. However, we are expected to believe that it occurred on it's own, within the primordial soup.

It would take a true leap of faith to believe this scenario.

.

 

[Willtor]

In relation to your comment about the creation of matter, are you speaking of vacuum state fluctuations on the quantum level where particle pop into existence for a miniscule period of time and then disappear, or are you talking about the macro-scale that we live in?

I mean the former, but it applies just as well to the latter, with low probability. A similar (albeit more primitive) basis for thinking about the universe was used by Aristotle (cause-and-effect being the principle) to show that the universe was infinitely old. It would not have made sense for him to conclude from cause-and-effect that the universe did not exist. Likewise, if you say that matter is never created nor destroyed, this is the foundation for a proof that that the universe has always existed -- not that it does not exist.

My training was in biology education, so I am familiar with the Urey-Miller experiment. There are a few things that we usually do not hear. Due to the chirality of organic proteins, half of the proteins created in this manner would be toxic to life.

Their experiment was more like the growth of mineral crystals within the matrix of slowly cooling magma inside the earth. Getting to a self-replicating system is many orders of magniturde more difficult.

Scientists have taken living cells and modified them, in some cases even producing man-made DNA and injecting it into the cell. Some have even called this creating life, however that is bending the truth.

No one has ever taken raw chemicals and produced a living cell. However, we are expected to believe that it occurred on it's own, within the primordial soup.

It would take a true leap of faith to believe this scenario.

It is right to say that they have not made life. But it would be a mistake to think that the various barriers to learning how to make life from lifelessness are not coming down. It's like fusion power. Peoples' abilities to predict when it's going to happen seem to be very poor. But the barriers are falling. The track record of barriers inhibiting progress is very poor. It's _going_ to happen. If it takes faith to believe, it doesn't take much.

 

[BABerean2]

I mean the former, but it applies just as well to the latter, with low probability. A similar (albeit more primitive) basis for thinking about the universe was used by Aristotle (cause-and-effect being the principle) to show that the universe was infinitely old. It would not have made sense for him to conclude from cause-and-effect that the universe did not exist. Likewise, if you say that matter is never created nor destroyed, this is the foundation for a proof that that the universe has always existed -- not that it does not exist.



It is right to say that they have not made life. But it would be a mistake to think that the various barriers to learning how to make life from lifelessness are not coming down. It's like fusion power. Peoples' abilities to predict when it's going to happen seem to be very poor. But the barriers are falling. The track record of barriers inhibiting progress is very poor. It's _going_ to happen. If it takes faith to believe, it doesn't take much.

Are you saying you do not believe that the universe was created ?

I never said the universe has always existed.

Your knowledge of probability should allow you to see the impossibility of spontaneous generation by mere chance.

.

 

[Doveaman]

Believe only the watered down manuscripts then if you want.

I’m not the one who believes it is watered down. You are.

The evidence that God gave us through the majesty of His creation of the earth makes the few words written in Genesis complete.

It should, but for scientists it doesn’t. That’s because scientists interpret creation just as bad as they interpret the Bible.

Without scientific understanding of the processes involved,we are no better than the bronze age sheep herders it was originally written for...

In that case, scientists are no better than bronze age sheep herders since they are clueless about how the universe was formed or how it works.

or would you have us kept ignorant about how the earth works and is still being created? The Hawaiian Islands are still being created as we speak.

Human babies are still being created too. But that doesn’t tell us how Adam and Eve were created, does it.

That question about science being unable to explain Christ's birth? That is a matter of faith and faith alone. .Don't question mine.

Do you accept Christ’s birth and resurrection blindly? Those things were observed by eye witnesses and recorded for our benefit. Faith is based on observed evidence, the very evidence that scientists reject because it doesn't fit into their myopic box.

There are things that science can not explain..that does not make it wrong.

Then you should stop trying to reinterpret the creation events in Genesis and accept them as they are.

There are things that the Bible does not explain that science has discovered..distant galaxies,stars still being born and dying,some quite awesomely to name a few..does that mean that the Bible can take a hike?
I didn't think so.

If the science supports the biblical account, fine. If it does not, the science can take a hike.

 

[Willtor]

Are you saying you do not believe that the universe was created ?

No. Or, at least, if there is nature beyond the universe, I believe that God is the ultimate source of it.

I never said the universe has always existed.

I know. But that would have been the correct conclusion of your proof.

Your knowledge of probability should allow you to see the impossibility of spontaneous generation by mere chance.

If, by spontaneous generation, you're talking about the traditional idea of that name, then obviously. If you actually mean abiogenesis, then I don't see why not.

 

[freezerman2000]

I’m not the one who believes it is watered down. You are.
It should, but for scientists it doesn’t. That’s because scientists interpret creation just as bad as they interpret the Bible.
In that case, scientists are no better than bronze age sheep herders since they are clueless about how the universe was formed or how it works.
Human babies are still being created too. But that doesn’t tell us how Adam and Eve were created, does it.
Do you accept Christ’s birth and resurrection blindly? Those things were observed by eye witnesses and recorded for our benefit. Faith is based on observed evidence, the very evidence that scientists reject because it doesn't fit into their myopic box.
Then you should stop trying to reinterpret the creation events in Genesis and accept them as they are.
If the science supports the biblical account, fine. If it does not, the science can take a hike.

Now you are sounding like dad..
Dadology can take a hike,as well as accepting Genesis with religious blinders on.

 

[BABerean2]

No. Or, at least, if there is nature beyond the universe, I believe that God is the ultimate source of it.



I know. But that would have been the correct conclusion of your proof.



If, by spontaneous generation, you're talking about the traditional idea of that name, then obviously. If you actually mean abiogenesis, then I don't see why not.

If abiogenesis is a viable process, all you have to do is come up with the particulars of the process. Then gather the materials required and produce life in the laboratory. If it happened by chance, you should be able to demonstrate the simple process in the laboratory. Next you will need to demonstrate how it happened by chance, since you had to set up certain conditions to make it occur.

There could be a Nobel Prize in your future for the effort.

However, it could be like "cold fusion". (considered an oxymoron by many) When the scientists claimed to have achieved the scientific breakthrough other scientists asked for their procedures and materials list so the experiment could be replicated.


There was just one little problem...

If the experiment had really occurred as claimed, the two experimenters would have received their prize posthumously due to the radiation exposure.


Is controlled fusion a possibility? It is highly likely.

However, containing the power of the sun without producing the effects of the Hydrogen bomb will be a tremendous challenge.

While in college over 30 years ago, I attended a lecture presented by the head of the SHIVA laser fusion project. At that time it was his belief that controlled fusion would have been a reality long before now.

Sometimes the laws of physics do not bend easily to our will.

I suspect synthetic life may face the same challenges.

 

[Willtor]

If abiogenesis is a viable process, all you have to do is come up with the particulars of the process. Then gather the materials required and produce life in the laboratory. If it happened by chance, you should be able to demonstrate the simple process in the laboratory. Next you will need to demonstrate how it happened by chance, since you had to set up certain conditions to make it occur.

There could be a Nobel Prize in your future for the effort.

I'm not a biologist, so I don't know what all this stuff about "me" is. Anyway, my point stands -- they're not so far away from knowing how it works. If you base your argument on the fact that scientists don't know how it works, yet, you're only asking to eat crow.

However, it could be like "cold fusion". (considered an oxymoron by many) When the scientists claimed to have achieved the scientific breakthrough other scientists asked for their procedures and materials list so the experiment could be replicated.


There was just one little problem...

If the experiment had really occurred as claimed, the two experimenters would have received their prize posthumously due to the radiation exposure.


Is controlled fusion a possibility? It is highly likely.

However, containing the power of the sun without producing the effects of the Hydrogen bomb will be a tremendous challenge.

While in college over 30 years ago, I attended a lecture presented by the head of the SHIVA laser fusion project. At that time it was his belief that controlled fusion would have been a reality long before now.

Sometimes the laws of physics do not bend easily to our will.

I suspect synthetic life may face the same challenges.

Fusion and cold fusion are not the same thing. I'm talking about fusion power. This is already done -- there's a lab where this happens at my school -- but they don't get as much power out as they put in.

But I use this as an analogy to abiogenesis. It's clearly going to happen, even if people are bad at predicting when.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm not a biologist, so I don't know what all this stuff about "me" is. Anyway, my point stands -- they're not so far away from knowing how it works. If you base your argument on the fact that scientists don't know how it works, yet, you're only asking to eat crow.



Fusion and cold fusion are not the same thing. I'm talking about fusion power. This is already done -- there's a lab where this happens at my school -- but they don't get as much power out as they put in.

But I use this as an analogy to abiogenesis. It's clearly going to happen, even if people are bad at predicting when.

As a trained biologist I do have some knowledge of the complex machinery inside of cells. Building a self replicating machine from organic chemicals is not as simple as it might seem. Even the cell membrane, which was once thought to be just a bag holding the cell together, is extremely complex.

Fusion is fusion. Fusion occurs on a regular basis on a small scale from cosmic radiation. Even a small particle accelerator can fuse a few atoms.

Nuclear fusion merges the nuclei of small atoms forming larger atoms and releasing energy in the process. Some of the mass has been converted to energy. However, a tiny mass contains a great deal of energy. Einstein's famous equation describes the transformation.

The sun and the hydrogen bomb use fusion. The problem is that the positive nuclei of the atoms repel each other. Normally, high temperatures are required to overcome this repulsion when large amounts of energy are needed. In this case we are talking temperatures in the millions of degrees Celsius. To build a fusion power plant, the reaction has to be done in a container that will not be destroyed in the process.


Fusion power production is not happening at your school until they get more energy out than they put in, on a continuous basis.

That has always been the problem.

.

 

[Willtor]

As a trained biologist I do have some knowledge of the complex machinery inside of cells. Building a self replicating machine from organic chemicals is not as simple as it might seem. Even the cell membrane, which was once thought to be just a bag holding the cell together, is extremely complex.

Self-replicating molecules aren't necessarily cells. The simplest self-replicating RNA strands observed are between 48-54 nucleotides in length.

Fusion is fusion. Fusion occurs on a regular basis on a small scale from cosmic radiation. Even a small particle accelerator can fuse a few atoms.

Nuclear fusion merges the nuclei of small atoms forming larger atoms and releasing energy in the process. Some of the mass has been converted to energy. However, a tiny mass contains a great deal of energy. Einstein's famous equation describes the transformation.

The sun and the hydrogen bomb use fusion. The problem is that the positive nuclei of the atoms repel each other. Normally, high temperatures are required to overcome this repulsion when large amounts of energy are needed. In this case we are talking temperatures in the millions of degrees Celsius. To build a fusion power plant, the reaction has to be done in a container that will not be destroyed in the process.


Fusion power production is not happening at your school until they get more energy out than they put in, on a continuous basis.

That has always been the problem.
.

Did I say something contrary to this? Again, it'll happen. Just like people will eventually make living organisms from non-living materials. They're both natural processes. They will both be understood and replicated, eventually.

 

[BABerean2]

Self-replicating molecules aren't necessarily cells. The simplest self-replicating RNA strands observed are between 48-54 nucleotides in length.



Did I say something contrary to this? Again, it'll happen. Just like people will eventually make living organisms from non-living materials. They're both natural processes. They will both be understood and replicated, eventually.

You are ignoring the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics in that RNA does not self-replicate outside of a lab-based set of conditions needed to drive the experiment to that end. Cars in the junkyard do not get together and make a new working car without a little help. Robotics engineers have discovered that making a self-replicating robot may not be impossible, however it is not a simple process.

When I was a child in the 1960's Science Digest contained several articles stating that most of us would be using "flying cars" to get from place to place "within just a few years".

Their assertion ignores a few of the basic principles of Physics and reality, based on what we see today sitting in the driveway of most American homes.

Declaring it, does not make it so.

 

[Papias]

BB wrote:

No one has ever taken raw chemicals and produced a living cell.

There is not a consensus as to how the first life came about. Many different routes seem possible, and it is possible that more than one produced a cell, but that those from one or another route had more of a head start and ended up destroying the others. A lot of evidence suggests that several of the routes are plausible, but evidence that one was taken instead of the others is hard to come by because molecules don't fossilize well. A good overview is at:


The Origin of Life


It is, of course, an interesting historical question to some of us, just as it is interesting whether or not Cathage won the war against Persia, or whatever.

It's true that we don't know if it was a chemical route or a miracle. However, look at the progression here:

our understanding in the Year 1500:

Lightining - divine intervention?
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention?
Age of the earth - ~6,000 years
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?



our understanding in the Year 1800:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution?
Age of the earth - ~6,000 years? starting to look like at least millions of years.
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 1900:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution? Evolution by natural selection?
Age of the earth - ~at least millions of years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 2000:

Lightning - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria.
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - evolution by natural selection.
Age of the earth - 4.55 billion years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention? An RNA world? endosymbiosis? Micelles?
etc.

See how it goes? Hanging your faith on pockets of ignorance makes a continually shrinking "God of the Gaps". There is no need to do that - especially when realizing that God works through all things, all the time (see John 5:17) makes all these things the creative action of God anyway. To miss that is to fall for the atheist's line that God is banished from everything, when instead He is omnipresent.

The fact that there are multiple plausible routes to the first cell makes it pointless (and dangerous to one's faith) to require a miracle there. It's kind of like asking how I went from my house to the movie theater. There are several possible road routes I may have driven, or I may have rode my bike, or I may have been miraculously teleported there by God. With that question, don't we all guess the more normal routes before saying that God intervened by teleporting me to the movie theater - especially after seeing my warm car outside? Of course we do.

To be clear - I think the TE position that "God intervened against his natural laws to make a miraculous first cell, which then evolved to give us the life we see today" is a plausible TE position. I just don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith. I think it is better to allow for the possibility of God using his natural laws to build the first cell, just as he did to knit you in your mother's womb, or to bring life to the forms we see today. That avoids any evidence denial, giving you a robust faith in a constantly active God.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Willtor]

You are ignoring the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics in that RNA does not self-replicate outside of a lab-based set of conditions needed to drive the experiment to that end. Cars in the junkyard do not get together and make a new working car without a little help. Robotics engineers have discovered that making a self-replicating robot may not be impossible, however it is not a simple process.

Wait, no. RNA can self-replicate. That's the most basic kind of life we're aware of. I'm not clear on why you say this, or what the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with it? Can you explain in more depth?

When I was a child in the 1960's Science Digest contained several articles stating that most of us would be using "flying cars" to get from place to place "within just a few years".

Their assertion ignores a few of the basic principles of Physics and reality, based on what we see today sitting in the driveway of most American homes.

Declaring it, does not make it so.

Sure, there are lots of reasons it didn't come to pass. But, if I'm understanding rightly, you're saying that flying cars are impossible?

 

[BABerean2]

Wait, no. RNA can self-replicate. That's the most basic kind of life we're aware of. I'm not clear on why you say this, or what the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with it? Can you explain in more depth?



Sure, there are lots of reasons it didn't come to pass. But, if I'm understanding rightly, you're saying that flying cars are impossible?

The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics is about Entropy, which is the tendency of everything to go toward a state of disorder. Go into a teenagers room if you want to see an example. Most good things do not happen by chance.

We could take a lawn mower engine apart and then put all of the parts in a big box. If we start shaking the box, just a few of the parts could get back together by random chance. How long do you think it would take for all of the parts to get back together by chance? Do you think it is even possible?


Flying cars exist now. However, they are very expensive and not practical for most people.

Nuclear fusion occurs every moment in the sun and could occur in the nuclear weapons that we hope are never used.

.

 

[Willtor]

The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics is about Entropy, which is the tendency of everything to go toward a state of disorder. Go into a teenagers room if you want to see an example. Most good things do not happen by chance.

That's in a closed system, though. You can have pockets of increasing order when energy is flowing into the system, right?

We could take a lawn mower engine apart and then put all of the parts in a big box. If we start shaking the box, just a few of the parts could get back together by random chance. How long do you think it would take for all of the parts to get back together by chance? Do you think it is even possible?

Building a lawnmower is different from building a strand of RNA. Someone who was skeptical about crystal formation might make the same comparison to lawnmowers. But they aren't really analogous.

Flying cars exist now. However, they are very expensive and not practical for most people.

Nuclear fusion occurs every moment in the sun and could occur in the nuclear weapons that we hope are never used.

.

So, as this applies to human attempts at abiogenesis, you're saying you believe that it will be possible but not practical on a wide scale?

 

[BABerean2]

That's in a closed system, though. You can have pockets of increasing order when energy is flowing into the system, right?



Building a lawnmower is different from building a strand of RNA. Someone who was skeptical about crystal formation might make the same comparison to lawnmowers. But they aren't really analogous.



So, as this applies to human attempts at abiogenesis, you're saying you believe that it will be possible but not practical on a wide scale?

The sun works due to it's chemical composition and mass, which produces the internal temperatures required for fusion to occur on a long-term continuous basis, so it is close to your closed system. However, due to entropy it will eventually stop working.

Building a strand of RNA from scratch without a natural piece to copy is probably more difficult that building the lawnmower.

Building a cell from scratch may be possible one day.

Our conversation started with the comment that it could happen naturally, by chance.
That is the part that I have the most problem with, based on our current understanding of the laws of probability and physics.

 

[Willtor]

The sun works due to it's chemical composition and mass, which produces the internal temperatures required for fusion to occur on a long-term continuous basis, so it is close to your closed system. However, due to entropy it will eventually stop working.

Building a strand of RNA from scratch without a natural piece to copy is probably more difficult that building the lawnmower.

Building a cell from scratch may be possible one day.

Our conversation started with the comment that it could happen naturally, by chance.
That is the part that I have the most problem with, based on our current understanding of the laws of probability and physics.

The Earth is not a closed system. Because we have so much input energy, entropy is basically irrelevant. The same entropy-based argument that is used to undermine abiogenesis can also be used to argue against mitosis. But we observe mitosis. The reason that entropy doesn't apply to the mitosis argument (and by extension, the abiogenesis argument) is that non-closed systems don't necessarily have abide by the conclusions of entropy. In fact, they are basically guaranteed not to do so.

As to the last bit, there's nothing in physics that prohibits it. After all, if it turns out that we can do it, physical laws must by definition allow it. The probability argument is more reasonable, however.

The question is, what are the conditions necessary to form life in the laboratory? Are they consistent with the conditions believed to be present on the Earth a few billion years ago? If not, is there a place in our solar system that did have those conditions at that time?

If we find consistency, then the probability is really not that low, especially given the time frame, and also the number of solar systems that are likely to have produced those conditions in the universe. If we don't find consistency, then the probability is vanishingly small.