Part 2 - The Creator has Invalidated Knowing Earth's Age Through Scientific Enquiry

[Ophiolite]

How are you going to do that by knowing the age of the earth?

Knowing the age of the Earth may assist with this - Obliquinaut has offered an example. However, I made no such claim. I thought I had written very clearly, but is seems that is not the case. Let's work through my observation.

"Knowledge of the age of the Earth informs the development of hypotheses and theories that, in turn, can deliver practical benefits, such as improved identification of mineral potentials."

In this context "informs" means "to be a formative or characterizing presence in"* . What does the age of the Earth inform? It informs hypotheses and theories in geology. It is these hypotheses and theories, in turn, that can help us better identify where to find desirable minerals.

If this were not the case it would mean that exploration geologists were just making lucky guesses when they found eocnomic mineral deposits.

*informs

 

[Astrophile]

As far as what? Their characters (assuming they were real people)? And did Shakespeare write those as historical novels or as plays for their customers entertainment and which is now looked at for Education people in an English Literature class? They certainly weren't about life in general or even for teaching philosophy. Another ridiculous comparison. Some of you guys think I was implying that the only significant thing about Christ is the number of books written, but there's a lot more than that, the number of books written about him (and still being written about him today) may be one of the least things but it still is a thing. And his books are not used as textbooks which are required in the secular classroom so they really can't be compared to each other. Although it is thought that the total # of Shakespeare's combined works (37 plays and 154 sonnets which were 14 line poems) were between 2-4B, most of his characters were 1) fictional and 2) were distributed among the 2-4B. Other than Antony and Cleoptra, Julius Caesar

Out of Shakespeare's 37 plays (and 157 sonnets (all 14 line poems), scholars claim that only 11 of them could be considered "historical" and are the ones written about Kings (Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, Henry V, Henry VI Part 1, Henry VI Part 2, Henry VI Part 3, Henry VIII, John, Richard II, Richard III). Again, I don't see how those figures and those works measure up to Jesus and the Bible. I think you're wasting your breath trying to salvage this useless analogy (or maybe it's me who's wasting mine in this instance).

A lot of people think that Shakespeare's plays were about life in general; they deal with such familiar matters as friendship, love, marriage, parenthood, jealousy, ambition, anger, revenge, and the class system, which we all have to deal with. Personally, I have learnt a great deal about what it is to be human from Shakespeare's plays. The fact that most of Shakespeare's characters were fictional is irrelevant: the reality of Hamlet's indecision, King Lear's madness, Othello's jealousy and Coriolanus's pride doesn't depend on the historicity of their characters.

In fact, the total of Shakespeare's combined works was about 38 plays (including The Two Noble Kinsmen, but excluding the lost works Cardenio and Love's Labour's Won), the 154 sonnets, the narrative poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and other poems such as A Lover's Complaint, The Passionate Pilgrim, and The Phoenix and the Turtle.

What do you mean when you say 'it is thought that the total # of Shakespeare's combined works ... were between 2-4B'?

As you say, a great many books have been written about Jesus, and the authors of these books differ widely in their interpretation of the man and his teaching. (So far as I can judge, these interpretations range from the historically plausible to the utterly fantastic.) Exactly the same is true of Shakespeare's works; there have been many books and articles written about them, with a very wide range of interpretations. The sheer range of interpretations casts doubts on all of them and suggests to me that we should be cautious in adopting a particular interpretation of Jesus (or of Shakespeare's works, for that matter).

What seems to me to be the fatal flaw in Christianity is that Jesus, and all the New Testament authors, taught that the end of the world was coming, that Jesus would return to judge the world in the lifetime of his hearers (Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, Luke 21:32, Revelation 22:20), and that after his return everything would be different. However, at least 1980 years have passed since Jesus's death and he has not returned. More seriously, since Jesus did not give instructions to his followers about what system of government they should have, or what type of church organisation there should be, European societies for more than a thousand years after his death were modelled on the Roman system, for want of anything better, and the expectation of a supernatural intervention discouraged any human attempts to develop a better society.

I know that this is a long way from the topic of the possibility of knowing the Earth's age, but it seemed to me that your post demanded a long and careful reply.

 

[Joseppi]

I think that apparant age is an assumption.
Reaching a conclusion based on assumption is not scientific reasoning.
If this is realized then all fake scientific claims can be ignored as they should be.

 

[Joseppi]

One reason for misunderstanding the Holy Bible is when it is read based on assumptions made by the readers.
It seems to me that fairminded folk would read a book based on its author's stated purpose.
One thing noted is that without faith no one can please God.
That explains why not believing God leads to every sort of error when reading the scripture.
The first verse of the Holy Bible states, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Is it not obvious that only God can state that truth?
That being true, please note that the first verse forces the reader to accept that this book is based on God's word not man's.
I for one accept what God has written in the Holy Bible and have found no need to believe the myths of modern Science which is falsely so called. The scientists of today have no science of the past nor the future available to them.
You might notice that the Holy Bible is based on two testaments rather than on what men call science.
True sciences produce technologies while false sciences produce "just so" stories. I admit that I can tell the difference. But, can you tell?
There isn't any non assumptive dating of created things.
I reject the notion of God having created false appearances in nature. He has no motive to do so does he?
We are all forced to rely on faith, either, faith in God's written word, or faith in someone else's written word.
I believe what God has written and don't live in doubt since what God has told us makes perfect sense far as I can tell.

For example, I reason that God created within six days as he states.
I reason that God could've created in a moment of time or over some eons of time.
But both of those choices teach man nothing.
That is, God created in six days as pleased him in his desire to communicate with pitifully ignorant creatures that know so little.
God didn't say of his creation that "It is perfect"', instead he said, "It is good."
Good for what?
Well, for one thing its good for man to prove himself willing and able to find the truth the only way it can be found.
True science deals with created things and therefore it is of little value except in helping man be good stewards of created things.
Since there exists both good and evil it is useful to liars also. My read of history leads me to suspect that scientists left to their own whims often attempt to become an austere priesthood of occultic knowledge by which means they gain both prestige any power in the eyes of men.
I don't find science to be contrary to the Holy Bible, nevertheless, I see many Christians swallowing a lot of camels that narrowminded theorists of modern mythologies serve up one gnat at a time, so to speak.
In my time here I hope and pray to wake some folks up out of their self imposed delusions about creation and the predicament we all find ourselves utterly stuck in.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If a Modern Day Earth Scientist was placed before Eve 1 day after her Creation and they asked her how old she was, when the Modern Scientist heard Eve say 24 hours he probably would have called her a liar to her face. And probably would have felt justified in calling her a liar. She would not look 24 hours old - but much older.

I do not know where you get this 24 hour thing. I see nothing about that in the Bible. The point is that God created Adam and all the other animals from the ground. Eve came from Adam, from his side. It could have taken God hundreds of thousands of years to create Eve. The Bible is going to be around for another 1,000 years. Eventually man will fully understand.

 

[joshua 1 9]

God didn't say of his creation that "It is perfect"', instead he said, "It is good."

Perfect in the Bible means whole, complete and mature. Perfection means to produce fruit. When we are told to be perfect this is not as much about sanctification and holiness as it is about growing up and being mature. This does indicate a fullness of time. Spot, blemish and wrinkle has to do with our garment or flesh. We are to put off the old and put on the new and walk in the Spirit not the flesh. Washed and cleansed in the Blood of the Lamb.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What does the age of the Earth inform? It informs hypotheses and theories in geology.

There is no one location on the earth that is a reflection of all the ages. We have to go by cosmic events like the receding rate of the moon and the spin down rate of the earth if you want to determine the age of the earth. That can help us to determine a better understanding of the geological ages. The age of the earth is more a question of cosmology then geology.

 

[juvenissun]

longer time than what?

then 6000 years.

 

[juvenissun]

Hmmm, let's take an example. Say I'm looking for petroleum (granted not a mineral deposit, but a geologic resource). If the earth is only 6000 years old there's no reason to believe oil could form in the organic rich shales and migrate out to a reservoir rock. It simply takes too long to do all that. AND you often have to subside the carbon-rich shale source rock deeper into a given basin in order to put it in the proper "oil generation" window (temperature and time).

What if the earth is 10 m.y. old?

 

[juvenissun]

In this context "informs" means "to be a formative or characterizing presence in"* . What does the age of the Earth inform? It informs hypotheses and theories in geology. It is these hypotheses and theories, in turn, that can help us better identify where to find desirable minerals.

If this were not the case it would mean that exploration geologists were just making lucky guesses when they found eocnomic mineral deposits.

In resources exploration, the only thing people need to know is which layer is younger or older than which layer. They DO NOT need to know the age of the earth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

then 6000 years.

Sounds like if we drop the "6000 years" assumption, all the evidence falls into place, and this argument becomes moot.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like if we drop the "6000 years" assumption, all the evidence falls into place, and this argument becomes moot.

Not at all. We need to drop that 4.5 B.Y. number too.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not at all. We need to drop that 4.5 B.Y. number too.

We could do that; start from scratch. Then the next step is that we'll just have to go back to the evidence and start over... and the evidence will lead us to 4.5 B.Y... again.

 

[Joseppi]

The oil was produced by the flood of Noah.
It was made for the end of days when God allows globalization to occur to bring in the great harvest of souls unto God.
The diiscussion about appparent age is meaningless since the global flood of Noah laid down all the continent wide complex of water lain sediments of the earth that overlap continents.
Now I know some try to say there wasn't a global flood but, there exists no other mechanism by which to lay down sorted sediments on a global scale. Global sedimentation equates to a global flood.
Men may be unable to comprehend the catastrophy of the great flood, but its evidences are seen everywhere.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think that apparant age is an assumption.
Reaching a conclusion based on assumption is not scientific reasoning.
If this is realized then all fake scientific claims can be ignored as they should be.

Agreed -- it's not an "apparent" age, it's the age. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, just as it appears to be.

 

[TLK Valentine]

One reason for misunderstanding the Holy Bible is when it is read based on assumptions made by the readers.
It seems to me that fairminded folk would read a book based on its author's stated purpose.

Nathaniel Hawthorne stated that The Scarlet Letter was historical. Just sayin.

 

[Obliquinaut]

What if the earth is 10 m.y. old?

Why would you think it was 10MY old? There is nothing that supports that hypothesis.

There's science which says 4.5Billion years old and the Bible which (based on Ussher's calculations) leaves us with only about 10,000 years old.

If the game is to just randomly pull out numbers then you have to show me why you gave the number.

Otherwise the discussion is pointless.

 

[Joseppi]

Perfect in the Bible means whole, complete and mature. Perfection means to produce fruit. When we are told to be perfect this is not as much about sanctification and holiness as it is about growing up and being mature. This does indicate a fullness of time. Spot, blemish and wrinkle has to do with our garment or flesh. We are to put off the old and put on the new and walk in the Spirit not the flesh. Washed and cleansed in the Blood of the Lamb.

I'am referring to Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 

[Joseppi]

Agreed -- it's not an "apparent" age, it's the age. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, just as it appears to be.

It appears to be that old to whomever accepts the age dating assumptions used in making the 4.5 billion year earth age claim.
I do not agree with those assumptions as grounds for any conclusion about age.
The truth is that no one knows when and why radioactive elements on earth were formed.
My understanding is that radioactivity on earth is a result of geologic crushing events the occurred in the flood of Noah.

 

[Joseppi]

Nathaniel Hawthorne stated that The Scarlet Letter was historical. Just sayin.

??