6,000 Years?

[Job 33:6]

It is something that I have looked into a lot, but I am not an expert or a biologist. This is not an in depth link tree, but here are two links that talk about some of the studies that can be looked at in more detail. LINK and LINK

Again I will lean on my current belief that YEC matches with my understanding of scripture and my world view. I will freely admit that I am not a trained biologist. I was a zookeeper for a while in the mid-late 1990's and I am an amateur paleontologist, but none of that is formal training at all. Much of the details of biology and other natural sciences are something that I am interested in but I am absolutely not a expert in the subjects.

If your a primary concern is about evolution, why not just be an old earth with creationist?

Even someone who understands the Genesis days to be 24 hours, would still additionally have to hold to the independent clause interpretation of Genesis 1:1. Which is also highly speculative and not really contextually substantiated.

 

[Jerry N.]

Biologists are not trying to lead people away from God. We go to work and do our jobs like just about anyone else.

I suppose it comes down to what science is being used to accomplish. Some want to make a better battery, and some want to lead people away from God. Most just want to do science, but they are not always the ones promoted in media. The other posts clarify things much better. Why did people keep asking Hawking about God? It is not the motivation of scientists to deny God in many cases. For example, Darwin was more interested in biology, and Huxley was more interested in moving society away from religion. It is complicated, but practical science is harder to use for ideologies, not counting making things to kill people.

 

[Jerry N.]

By the way, is there any significance of the half-life of C-14 being about 6000 years?

 

[River Jordan]

It is something that I have looked into a lot, but I am not an expert or a biologist. This is not an in depth link tree, but here are two links that talk about some of the studies that can be looked at in more detail. LINK and LINK

Thanks for posting those, but it seems to me there's a disconnect between what you said earlier about your ""beef" with mainstream science is the way that things are talked about as certainties" and what's at those links.

Looking at those two I see the opposite of "certainty". The UoM link even has its Conclusions with a question mark, as well as specifying that the consensus "leans towards hybridization" followed by a question mark. Isn't that the opposite of presenting things as certain? In the second link there are lots of phrases like "fossil evidence suggests" and "fossil evidence indicates". Or this:

Based on the limited set of specimens available for analysis, prior to contact with modern coyotes, populations of Canis rufus could be morphologically distinguished from Canis lupus using canonical discriminant analysis. ​

So I guess I'm a bit confused about what sort of "certainty" you saw as problematic in those links.

 

[tampasteve]

If your a primary concern is about evolution, why not just be an old earth with creationist?

Even someone who understands the Genesis days to be 24 hours, would still additionally have to hold to the independent clause interpretation of Genesis 1:1. Which is also highly speculative and not really contextually substantiated.

I'm not against OEC, and I could swing back at some point. Evolution is a issue, in terms of evolving from one thing into an entirely differnt thing, IOW evolving from a dinosaur into a bird or from a ape to a man, et. It does open up issues as to when Man became Man, when exactly did Man achieve humanity? YEC has a pretty easy time explaining that, in as much as they can just say "day 6".

Thanks for posting those, but it seems to me there's a disconnect between what you said earlier about your ""beef" with mainstream science is the way that things are talked about as certainties" and what's at those links.

Looking at those two I see the opposite of "certainty". The UoM link even has its Conclusions with a question mark, as well as specifying that the consensus "leans towards hybridization" followed by a question mark. Isn't that the opposite of presenting things as certain? In the second link there are lots of phrases like "fossil evidence suggests" and "fossil evidence indicates". Or this:

Based on the limited set of specimens available for analysis, prior to contact with modern coyotes, populations of Canis rufus could be morphologically distinguished from Canis lupus using canonical discriminant analysis. ​

So I guess I'm a bit confused about what sort of "certainty" you saw as problematic in those links.

Meh, to be truthful that was just a quick google search and some information that I had read in the past, I don't have ready links to what I read before. Some was in casual conversation, outside of peer-reviewed studies, being in the "zoo world" still I have those conversations with people working with or having worked with the animals.

 

[River Jordan]

I suppose it comes down to what science is being used to accomplish. Some want to make a better battery, and some want to lead people away from God.

As far as I know, no one in their actual work as a scientist is trying to lead people away from God. Dawkins and others who argue for atheism do so in their personal capacities, and not in their professional roles.

Most just want to do science, but they are not always the ones promoted in media. The other posts clarify things much better. Why did people keep asking Hawking about God? It is not the motivation of scientists to deny God in many cases. For example, Darwin was more interested in biology, and Huxley was more interested in moving society away from religion. It is complicated, but practical science is harder to use for ideologies, not counting making things to kill people.

I think the media asked Hawking about God because of how his work on the origin of the universe may have implications for a lot of religious beliefs. But that certainly doesn't mean his work was anti-God or anything like that.

Some of the work I do has implications for YEC, but that doesn't mean it's anti-God. In both cases we're just doing our work, proposing hypotheses, and reaching conclusions. If some of those conclusions have implications for some people's religious beliefs, that doesn't mean that was the intent of our work.

 

[River Jordan]

Meh, to be truthful that was just a quick google search and some information that I had read in the past, I don't have ready links to what I read before. Some was in casual conversation, outside of peer-reviewed studies, being in the "zoo world" still I have those conversations with people working with or having worked with the animals.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

Yep, I have colleagues who sometimes talk that way in conversations. But that's just how some people are, regardless of their profession. However, when those types of people are in professional settings like meetings or are writing a paper, that sort of thing doesn't fly and gets called out pretty quickly (and harshly).

 

[River Jordan]

By the way, is there any significance of the half-life of C-14 being about 6000 years?

In what context? It's obviously significant for the pros who work with it.

 

[Jerry N.]

As far as I know, no one in their actual work as a scientist is trying to lead people away from God. Dawkins and others who argue for atheism do so in their personal capacities, and not in their professional roles.


I think the media asked Hawking about God because of how his work on the origin of the universe may have implications for a lot of religious beliefs. But that certainly doesn't mean his work was anti-God or anything like that.

Some of the work I do has implications for YEC, but that doesn't mean it's anti-God. In both cases we're just doing our work, proposing hypotheses, and reaching conclusions. If some of those conclusions have implications for some people's religious beliefs, that doesn't mean that was the intent of our work.

I understand and accept what you wrote for the majority of scientists. However, Dawkins arguing for atheism is his primary role, but that wasn't the case for Hawking. He was anti-God, but it probably didn't have to do with science. I suppose it is like Nobel and his explosives. Other people use their work for unintended purposes.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not against OEC, and I could swing back at some point. Evolution is a issue, in terms of evolving from one thing into an entirely differnt thing, IOW evolving from a dinosaur into a bird or from a ape to a man, et. It does open up issues as to when Man became Man, when exactly did Man achieve humanity? YEC has a pretty easy time explaining that, in as much as they can just say "day 6".

Sure but why, is it more fair to say that you're in the fence about the age of the earth then?

Because many OECs also take Adam to be a literal man and things of this nature, apart from evolution.

If for example, Genesis 1:1 were translated as "When God began to create" or "in the beginning when God created", to say "the beginning is when God created" as opposed to "the beginning is the beginning of the age of the earth".

Do you see what I mean?

With the Bible, these two topics aren't really linked. Because someone could just look at this:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

And someone could easily just conclude that Genesis doesn't say anything about how long the earth was around prior to "when God began" creating it. Which doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm claiming because of its inherent limitation it holds no authority

Which does not impair its usefulness today as well as into the past.

It seems to me you are searching for absolutes which are not in the domain of science. Science isn’t about absolute truths; it’s about iteration, degrees of confidence, and refining our current understanding.

You should be careful not to get rid of something valuable while trying to get rid of something unwanted.

 

[River Jordan]

I understand and accept what you wrote for the majority of scientists. However, Dawkins arguing for atheism is his primary role, but that wasn't the case for Hawking. He was anti-God, but it probably didn't have to do with science. I suppose it is like Nobel and his explosives. Other people use their work for unintended purposes.

Dawkins has been an evolutionary biologist for far longer than he's been a celebrity atheist, so I think we'll just have to disagree there. With Hawking, I wasn't aware that he was anti-God, although I confess I've not read much of his material.

You're definitely correct about other people using someone's work for unintended purposes. It happens all the time.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science seems to have two sides. One side makes us marvel at God, but the other side, which is often more theoretical (e.g., evolution), tries to lead us away. The first seems to be primarily in the practical realm, and the latter is more of a mixed bag. I haven’t figured it out, but these discussions help.

Science does not inherently support or contradict religious beliefs as its focus is on studying the natural world through evidence-based methods, while religion deals with spiritual and metaphysical concepts that cannot be scientifically tested.

Science focuses on explaining the natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence. It seeks to understand how things work, not why they exist. Even so, I do understand, some Christians hold a more literal interpretation of the Bible and reject evolution entirely.

 

[Jerry N.]

In what context? It's obviously significant for the pros who work with it.

I just noticed that we are discussing life on earth for 6000 years and that the half-life is about 6000 years. Is it like 1.618? Carbon (12) is the building block of life and C-14 can be used to measure time. I was just wondering. I wrote before that I believe there are 6000 years between Adam and us, but I'm still uncertain about the time before Adam. The first three days of Genesis still give me trouble for a 24-hour day. The Great Year (25,800 years) also seems to fit in somewhere. The Bible and archeology have to fit better more than 6000 years ago. I trust the Bible, but I don't think all scientists want to deceive.

 

[Platte]

But again I have to point out that all the people across the world and across decades who do, and have done, C-14 dating for a living are very confident in its accuracy and utility. Do you think you know more about the subject than they do? Should they just stop doing their work and go find something else to do?

I learned about it as an undergrad and worked alongside some people who used it in grad school, so I know a little bit about it. But even with that I try and show some humility and I certainly don't think I'm more knowledgeable than the pros.

The professionals understand the limitations also. They expect and rely upon recalibrations. If you don’t have a verifiable starting point of the initial C14 then the results hold no authority. Professionals accept C14 as this is the best tool they have. Again unverifiable starting C14.

 

[Job 33:6]

I feel like YECism has just utterly failed it's adherents. It's just so poor in terms of exegesis, I really can't describe it but not much more than a big embarrassment for the church. And I try my best to love my brothers and sisters that are YEC. But nobody can honestly read the Bible and conclude a 6,000 years old earth.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

What do YECs do when they read dependent clause translations of the Bible?

Does anyone know the answer?

When George began to create his furniture, now the furniture was formless and in pieces, then George said, let there be a screwdriver.

So, where exactly is it, that the Bible says anything about the age of the furniture?

The answer: nowhere.

Anyone who just reads it can see, it's just obvious.

 

[Platte]

Which does not impair its usefulness today as well as into the past.

It seems to me you are searching for absolutes which are not in the domain of science. Science isn’t about absolute truths; it’s about iteration, degrees of confidence, and refining our current understanding.

You should be careful not to get rid of something valuable while trying to get rid of something unwanted.

Agreed. That’s why I’m saying you can’t argue against Creation using carbon dating as your authority

 

[Platte]

I feel like YECism has just utterly failed it's adherents. It's just so poor in terms of exegesis, I really can't describe it but not much more than a big embarrassment for the church. And I try my best to love my brothers and sisters that are YEC. But nobody can honestly read the Bible and conclude a 6,000 years old earth.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

What do YECs do when they read dependent clause translations of the Bible?

Does anyone know the answer?

When George began to create his furniture, now the furniture was formless and in pieces, then George said, let there be a screwdriver.

So, where exactly is it, that the Bible says anything about the age of the furniture?

The answer: nowhere.

Using the Bible as your source are you able to give any estimate as to the date of Abraham’s birth and death? If so what approx year?

 

[tampasteve]

Sure but why, is it more fair to say that you're in the fence about the age of the earth then?

Because many OECs also take Adam to be a literal man and things of this nature, apart from evolution.

If for example, Genesis 1:1 were translated as "When God began to create" or "in the beginning when God created", to say "the beginning is when God created" as opposed to "the beginning is the beginning of the age of the earth".

Do you see what I mean?

With the Bible, these two topics aren't really linked. Because someone could just look at this:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

And someone could easily just conclude that Genesis doesn't say anything about how long the earth was around prior to "when God began" creating it. Which doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

I feel like YECism has just utterly failed it's adherents. It's just so poor in terms of exegesis, I really can't describe it but not much more than a big embarrassment for the church. And I try my best to love my brothers and sisters that are YEC. But nobody can honestly read the Bible and conclude a 6,000 years old earth.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

What do YECs do when they read dependent clause translations of the Bible?

Does anyone know the answer?

When George began to create his furniture, now the furniture was formless and in pieces, then George said, let there be a screwdriver.

So, where exactly is it, that the Bible says anything about the age of the furniture?

The answer: nowhere.

Anyone who just reads it can see, it's just obvious.

I'll be honest, I feel that reading the scripture to mean anything other than that it began on day one and then day two is dishonest reading and trying to shoehorn in the concept of evolution into the scripture. We try and use a gap to put the idea in there, but I just can't read it that way - I don't think the scripture really supports that idea independent of an idea of macro evolution. IOW I don't think that the idea of a gap would exist independent of the idea of a secular view of evolution. I can't see how they can be un-linked, which I understand is the opposite view from you.

I feel like OEC is a Biblical veneer with a root secular world view.

 

[Job 33:6]

Using the Bible as your source are you able to give any estimate as to the date of Abraham’s birth and death? If so what approx year?

Abrahams age does not correlate to the age of the earth no more does Adam's. Because though Adam was present "from the beginning" as we can see, "the beginning" is a dependent clause. It's the beginning when God created, not the beginning of matter itself.

Again:

"When George began to create a piece of furniture, now the furniture was formless and broken, and George said, let there be a screwdriver"

"When George began to create the furniture" doesn't say anything about the age of the furniture before George began to create it.