Trusting science

[Assyrian]

The Tree of Life is not for those who are dead spiritually. In fact, it is for those who have glorified bodies, as it was made off-limits after the Fall, and will be placed back on-limits in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Imagine Adam eating of that tree after he died spiritually, and his body now being subject to decay.

Still alive today --- no teeth --- body completely eaten up with cancer [or whatever] --- every bone in his body a brittle mass --- screaming in pain --- begging to die --- etc.

Have you ever thought that through?

My mother died of advance emphysema, caused by technologically-produced units of tar, placed in very thin tubes of paper and flavored with a highly-addictive substance called nicotine, and packaged in nice red packages researched by color psychologists, and sold under the name Pall Mall.

Imagine if she were still alive today --- struggling to catch even a tiny bit of air in her lungs.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. You don't think the Tree of Life would have healed Adam's bad teeth and cancer too? Come to think of it, why did God plant a tree whose leaves are for healing in the garden?

 

[pgp_protector]

Why?

Because that's what the evidence would show.

 

[juvenissun]

Because that's what the evidence would show.

What are the evidences that the aliens could see from the space? (to conclude that the Earth is much older than the Mars?)

 

[gluadys]

Yes. But, the "very old" age estimated before the radiometric dating IS still within the acceptable range of YECism, at least, to me.

And, no. Without radiometric dating, the "million years" age is only a wild guess.

Not a wild guess. (It is more right than 6,000 years and it was based on their best estimates of sedimentation and erosion rates). But definitely underestimated by far.

And you are a very unusual YECist. Did you notice that I said "hundreds of millions" not "a million"? In any case, most YECists would consider your comfort with that age range makes you OEC.

At what point do you become uncomfortable with the age of the earth? 1 million, 10 million , 100 million years? If you are comfortable with 100 million years why not with a 1,000 million?

 

[pgp_protector]

What are the evidences that the aliens could see from the space? (to conclude that the Earth is much older than the Mars?)

Are you changing the quesiton now ?

If an alien visited the solar system, and see the difference between the Mars and the earth from the space ship, does the earth look "very old"?

So are yo looking to see if the earth is Old or if it's older than Mars ?

Sorta dishonest to change what you're looking for after the question is answered isn't it ?

 

[philadiddle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNKSzmM44gE

I think the black knight is the best analogy of the YEC position that I've ever seen.

 

[champuru]

Yes. But, the "very old" age estimated before the radiometric dating IS still within the acceptable range of YECism, at least, to me.

If I'm not mistaken, they had it dated to be several million years old in the 19th century.

And, no. Without radiometric dating, the "million years" age is only a wild guess.

Well you're right on that, as the earth is dated at billions of years.

 

[philadiddle]

And, no. Without radiometric dating, the "million years" age is only a wild guess.

Are u serious?

 

[gluadys]

If I'm not mistaken, they had it dated to be several million years old in the 19th century.

Actually, you can increase that by a couple of magnitudes. The 19th century estimates were not just "millions of years". They were "hundreds of millions of years". Quite a difference.

 

[champuru]

Actually, you can increase that by a couple of magnitudes. The 19th century estimates were not just "millions of years". They were "hundreds of millions of years". Quite a difference.

thanks for the correction

 

[juvenissun]

Not a wild guess. (It is more right than 6,000 years and it was based on their best estimates of sedimentation and erosion rates). But definitely underestimated by far.

And you are a very unusual YECist. Did you notice that I said "hundreds of millions" not "a million"? In any case, most YECists would consider your comfort with that age range makes you OEC.

At what point do you become uncomfortable with the age of the earth? 1 million, 10 million , 100 million years? If you are comfortable with 100 million years why not with a 1,000 million?

Good question.

I do think radiometric dating means something. After all, it is a model of physics and the data are statistically consistent. But I don't think the calculated dates are real. I only take them as indicators. For example: 500 million to 200 million is not that much different from 5000 to 2000. So, one piece of earth could be dated as 500 million years old, but it could also only be 5000 years old.

I think OEC is a better defined group. They accepted the radiometric date as the true age. YEC is more scattered. Even ICR people don't think the 6000 years date means much. However, I am not sure why would 10,000 years be better to them than 100,000 years as the age of the earth.

-----

By the way, as I studied sedimentary processes for many years, I don't think the old idea (as you said) of erosion rate or sedimentation rate is true either. For example, one may suggest that somewhere is eroded at a rate of 0.001 inch per year. Most likely, it is an over simplified statement and is not much different from saying that the St. Andreas Fault moves 1 cm per year.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you changing the quesiton now ?



So are yo looking to see if the earth is Old or if it's older than Mars ?

Sorta dishonest to change what you're looking for after the question is answered isn't it ?

No no. I did not change the question as it apparently does. You are avoiding the question.

Look at the earth, it is beautiful, active, dynamic and full of lives. But the Mars is dead. Which one is younger?

Well, I don't like this line of argument. I am going to stop it right here.

 

[pgp_protector]

No no. I did not change the question as it apparently does. You are avoiding the question.

Look at the earth, it is beautiful, active, dynamic and full of lives. But the Mars is dead. Which one is younger?

Well, I don't like this line of argument. I am going to stop it right here.

Neither one, they're both around the same age IIRC.


EDIT:
Also Last time I checked Neither the Earth itself or Mars was alive or dead (as you've got to be alive before you can die)

 

[mindlight]

Regarding the essential question of trusting science.

Of course we should trust good science done in a professional manner. Creationists do noone any service when they criticise science per see or professional scientists.

So for example Galilleo was right and the sun does not go round the earth but rather the other way round. The evidence for this is overwelming and only an idiot would deny it. Christians look stupid if they argue differently and worse make the good news seem stupid to those who know better about the science.

But scientists flushed with the success of their naturalistic methodology overextend themselves when they discuss things beyond basic full sensory perception and checking.

The following are purely speculative realms in which science can offer only provisional theories:

1) Remote Cosmology
2) Origins theories

Creation science has one advantage over the macro-evolutionary old earth mainstream - eyewitness testimony from the Creator. However much of creation science has strayed beyond the realm of what good science can say and is more theological in content than scientifically reliable.

 

[gluadys]

Good question.

I do think radiometric dating means something. After all, it is a model of physics and the data are statistically consistent. But I don't think the calculated dates are real. I only take them as indicators. For example: 500 million to 200 million is not that much different from 5000 to 2000. So, one piece of earth could be dated as 500 million years old, but it could also only be 5000 years old.

So a difference of 6 magnitudes is "not that much different"? Why stop there? Why not go one more magnitude and make it 5 billion is "not that much different" from 5000? What useful meaning could be derived from an indicator that cannot distinguish 500 million from 5000? You might just as well be saying that radiometry means nothing at all.

But according to the physicists it dates the earth within 1% of error.

By the way, as I studied sedimentary processes for many years, I don't think the old idea (as you said) of erosion rate or sedimentation rate is true either. For example, one may suggest that somewhere is eroded at a rate of 0.001 inch per year. Most likely, it is an over simplified statement and is not much different from saying that the St. Andreas Fault moves 1 cm per year.

Well, one has to consider averages since particular events could occur at different rates. And I forgot rock formation. I think the question posed to you earlier about Glen Morton's post on the Grand Canyon is relevant here. Just how does one account for these processes without a lot of time?

 

[The Barbarian]

I do think radiometric dating means something. After all, it is a model of physics and the data are statistically consistent. But I don't think the calculated dates are real. I only take them as indicators. For example: 500 million to 200 million is not that much different from 5000 to 2000. So, one piece of earth could be dated as 500 million years old, but it could also only be 5000 years old.

That's sort of like saying something 2 to 5 kilometers long might be less than six yards long.

By the way, as I studied sedimentary processes for many years, I don't think the old idea (as you said) of erosion rate or sedimentation rate is true either. For example, one may suggest that somewhere is eroded at a rate of 0.001 inch per year. Most likely, it is an over simplified statement and is not much different from saying that the St. Andreas Fault moves 1 cm per year.

On the average, it does. Or something close to that. Likewise, the erosion rate will vary, but an average will still exist.

 

[shernren]

Of course we should trust good science done in a professional manner. Creationists do noone any service when they criticise science per see or professional scientists.

So for example Galilleo was right and the sun does not go round the earth but rather the other way round. The evidence for this is overwelming and only an idiot would deny it. Christians look stupid if they argue differently and worse make the good news seem stupid to those who know better about the science.

But scientists flushed with the success of their naturalistic methodology overextend themselves when they discuss things beyond basic full sensory perception and checking.

The following are purely speculative realms in which science can offer only provisional theories:

1) Remote Cosmology
2) Origins theories

Isn't Galileo's cosmology quite remote as well? Think about it. There are about a hundred humans who have ever been to the moon. Nobody has ever set foot on Mars or Venus, much less the Sun.

So when one earthbound astronomer says that the Earth goes around the Sun, instead of the other way around - isn't that really just as remote as any of our modern theories of cosmology? The sun is supposed to be 93 million kilometers away from us. I'd say that's pretty remote to me.

Why do you think the evidence for Galileo's theory is overwhelming? Isn't it really just as circumstantial as the evidence for the Big Bang, and over some physical object that's really just as distant?

 

[mindlight]

Isn't Galileo's cosmology quite remote as well? Think about it. There are about a hundred humans who have ever been to the moon. Nobody has ever set foot on Mars or Venus, much less the Sun.

So when one earthbound astronomer says that the Earth goes around the Sun, instead of the other way around - isn't that really just as remote as any of our modern theories of cosmology? The sun is supposed to be 93 million kilometers away from us. I'd say that's pretty remote to me.

Why do you think the evidence for Galileo's theory is overwhelming? Isn't it really just as circumstantial as the evidence for the Big Bang, and over some physical object that's really just as distant?

Various observations e.g. Moons orbit Jupiter, moon orbits earth.

With trigonomtery can check relative sizes of objects and see large objects are orbited by smaller ones. I can see the size of the sun and its distance from us by using obsrrvations made at different points of day, angles and distance between two points to calculate distance and size.

I see the sun is much larger so its logical its the centre.

Add on to that space probes sent to mercury, sun , venus , mars etc using heliocentric maths and the irregular movement of planets relative to earth heliocentricism becomes the best model.

 

[Assyrian]

Various observations e.g. Moons orbit Jupiter, moon orbits earth.

With trigonomtery can check relative sizes of objects and see large objects are orbited by smaller ones. I can see the size of the sun and its distance from us by using obsrrvations made at different points of day, angles and distance between two points to calculate distance and size.

I see the sun is much larger so its logical its the centre.

No, that does not follow logically at all. Isn't an axle usually smaller than the wheel that goes around it? Admittedly the first person to try to measure how big the sun was, Aristarchus, also argued heliocentrism. But while he was right that the earth went round the sun, there is no logical connection between that and the size of the sun, as a result for the next two thousand years astronomers understood the sun was huge, but still believed the earth was the centre of the universe.

It reminds me of Calvin's Commentary on Psalm 93:1

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."
​

The immensity of the heavens revolving around the earth simply made God's creation seem more wonderful.

Add on to that space probes sent to mercury, sun , venus , mars etc using heliocentric maths and the irregular movement of planets relative to earth heliocentricism becomes the best model.

Until sputnik was launched in 1957 we simply had no direct experience of how the laws of physics operate in space, even then it was in earth orbit. It was only in 1966 that luna 10 became the first man made object to orbit the moon, showing for the first time in human experiment that Newton's law of gravity, which were supposed to explain heliocentrism, did in fact work in space and could be used to send spacecraft around the solar system.

Should science have stuck with geocentrism until we had this experimental proof of heliocentrism? Should the church have continued to preach geocentism until there was this direct experimental evidence? Or should it have gone with the science when science said the evidence supported heliocentrism?

 

[juvenissun]

So a difference of 6 magnitudes is "not that much different"? Why stop there? Why not go one more magnitude and make it 5 billion is "not that much different" from 5000? What useful meaning could be derived from an indicator that cannot distinguish 500 million from 5000? You might just as well be saying that radiometry means nothing at all.

But according to the physicists it dates the earth within 1% of error.

Well, one has to consider averages since particular events could occur at different rates. And I forgot rock formation. I think the question posed to you earlier about Glen Morton's post on the Grand Canyon is relevant here. Just how does one account for these processes without a lot of time?

Radiometric dating is meaningful. It gives orders or sequences to events and gives relative magnitude of time intervals in between. It works slightly better than what's called the "relative time" in geology. It gives a sense of time. But it does not give the true meaning of time.

The Grand Canyon sequence apparently needed some time to be composed. We could give different models to suggest a needed period of time of its formation. Within the internal logic system of geology, the general argument (not on details) by Morton makes sense. But again, my response is the same: the apparent age for the Grand Canyon system does not have to be taken as the true age. Without radiometric dating, the known geology of the Grand Canyon system still holds and it will fit YEC models as well.

Basically, this could be the only way that the Noah's Flood would work. The Biblical description includes a synthesis of different time scales (could this be true in the world of 5-dimension?). So, for example, the PreCambrian geological events could coexist with behaviors of angel, human and animals. Creation scientists have a God-giving advantage to explore this possibility, which is flatly rejected by Non-creation scientists whose reality are confined to the 3.5 dimensional world.