Apparent Age of Universe and Earth

[juvenissun]

If that is so, then why do you reject science so frequently?

Wow, I don't know where does this one come from. When did I reject science?

 

[lucaspa]

Wow, I don't know where does this one come from. When did I reject science?

Whenever you say the earth is young! When you deny evolution as a valid theory. Whenever you say the earth only looks old.

Think about that last one, Juvenissen. If science is "I the expression of wisdom given to us by God.", then God didn't give us "wisdom" when science says the earth is old, did He? Instead, God gave us deceit because, according to you, the earth isn't really old, but only looks old.

Juvenissen, do you see that you don't think thru the consequences of what you say? You react to statements of the moment. As a friend, I would urge you to stop and think about the consequences of what you say. Compare what you say about science is the wisdom given to us by God to what you say about the earth only appearing old.

Partly I'm concerned for how this makes you look. But mostly I'm concerned for 1) what happens to your relationship to God and 2) what your statements may do to the relationship of others to God. I have a responsibility to you as a member of the flock. I don't want you to go astray. But I also don't want the flock to go astray. Right now chasing you helps the flock (all the others reading these posts). That is good; I can discharge both of my responsibilities.

But if you go too far and refuse to come back, in order to protect the flock I may have to let you go. I'd hate it if that happened.

So please start thinking more about the consequences to God and Christianity about what you say.

 

[lucaspa]

OK But, all those arguments could not rule out the possibility.

Yeah, they do. The Palisades can't be there if a global flood happened.

If the earth surface were leveled, there would be enough water, after the global flood, to cover the whole earth.

But the Palisades in New York are NOT level, are they? Also, the surface of the earth was NOT level according to a literal Genesis 6-8, because the text says there were mountains! Genesis 7:19: "And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heavens were covered."

If Venus and Mars have it, why couldn't the Earth?

1. Mars has mountains.
2. If the earth were level when Noah built the Ark, why did the text say there were mountains?
3. If the earth were level then, then where did the mountains we see now come from? Genesis does not say anything about making mountains. If you invoke super rapid plate tectonics, then you also have to deal with the accompanying earthquakes! Think how the earth shakes today when the plates move just a couple of inches. Imagine what happened if they were moving far enough to make our modern mountain ranges.
4. If all the mountains came after the Flood, why do some -- like the Appalachians -- show so much more erosion than others, like the Rockies. All would have faced the same time for being eroded. The rocks of the Appalachians are not softer than the rocks of the Rockies.

Do you see, Juvenissen? Consequences. We test statements by assuming the statement is true, then deducing consequences of the statement. We then look for the consequences. If and when we find consequences contrary to the ones that should be there if the statement were true, we must conclude the statement is false.

You think we know the science well to reject YE. I don't think so.

Now we are getting to your opinion. There are 2 things here:
1. The evidence and whether the evidence is sufficient to reject YE.
2. Whether you accept the evidence.

It is possible that both are correct. Yes the evidence is sufficient but you don't think so. Let's take this out of YE for a minute. You think we have sufficient evidece to reject atheism. Yet atheists don't. Do you let their opinion cast the evidence into doubt?

Now, in addition to evidence on the websites I provided (have you looked at them?), let me give you an example I gave earlier about isotopes.

There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. You may object to specific dating procedures, but this data indicates that the earth is well over 50 million years. In fact, for the half-life decay of nuclides with 50 million year half-lives to eliminate those nuclides, the earth has to be very old. Current estimates, from several sources, are 4.5 billion years.

Or consider this by Kenneth Miller:

" Since the discovery of radioactivity by A. Henri Becquerel in 1896, it has been obvious that the radioactive decay process provides an excellent opportunity for estimating the age of this planet and the dates of formation of specific rocks. For example, let us consider the process of radioactive decay starting with the isotope of uranium known as uranium 235. This atom decays through a series of intermediates to an isotope of lead known as lead 207. The half-life of this complete series is 713 million years. From this one fact, coupled with the observation that there are significant amounts of U235 available in the crust of the earth, we can make a bold, and unequivocal statement: The earth could not have existed forever!
"Because the rate of decay of U235 into Pb207 is constant, if this planet had existed essentially forever, then by now all of the U235 would have decayed and we should not be able to find it in any significant amount. Our problems with the machinery and weaponry of the atomic age, however, show quite clearly that there is more than enough U235 around. Therefore, the beginning of this planet is not in the infinite past. Can we go a little further and make some estimates as to just how long ago the planet might have been formed?
"In order to do this , we must put together a method for estimating the amount of Pb207 which was present when the planet was formed, and then using that amount to determine how much "new" Pb207 has been added by radioactive decay over the ages. The initial Pb207 is known as primordial lead, and the ""ew""Pb207 is termed radiogenic lead. There is no way to distinguish chemically an atom of one from an atom of another, so a direct determination is not possible. Fortunately, there are several ways to make reasonable estimates of the amounts of primordial lead in the crust or in a specific rock. For example, one of the isotopes of lead, Pb204, is nonradiogenic, meaning that it is not formed by any known decay process. Therefore, all of Pb204 is primordial. When a mineral is formed, it will incorporate Pb and U in a specific ratio, and among the lead molecules there will be a ratio of Pb204 to Pb207 determined by the abundance of these isotopes in the crust at that time. Once the mineral is formed, U235 will decay to Pb207 over time. Many, many years later a geologist may analyze the mineral, and if billions of years have passed, he will discover that (1) the mineral seems to be deficient in uranium, and (2) the ratio of Pb204 to Pb207 is very low. If the planet were recently formed, then all minerals should show lead isotope ratios and uranium/lead rations which are reflective of the current abundance of these materials on the surface of the earth. Instead, the ratios indicate clearly that the most reasonable date for the formation of the planet is 4 to 5 billion years ago."

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, they do. The Palisades can't be there if a global flood happened.

But the Palisades in New York are NOT level, are they? Also, the surface of the earth was NOT level according to a literal Genesis 6-8, because the text says there were mountains! Genesis 7:19: "And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heavens were covered."

What about Palisades?
Yes, there were mountains before flood. But those mountains may not be the same as today's mountains. Their defintions are different. So are the mountains on Mars and Venus. They are different mountains.

OK, let's forget this topic. You are not a geologist and you do not understand what my argument is about. Let's go to your forum, and you can answer my question about biology.

Of course you may continue on this one and I would answer your question whenever I find it. (But I guess you won't).

 

[juvenissun]

The Image of God is not physical, but spiritual.

What about spiritual? Love? Wisdom?

How about animals they also have a small part of these characters?

I do think there is probably a physical part of it. What do our body look like? I would say our body shape is probably similar to that of God. Of course, we know the projection of an object could result in an image of almost any shape. It would still be hard to imagine how does God look like just by seeing ourselves.

This could be a very important question. What would Christian think if there indeed are other intelligent beings in the universe? One thing we may ask is: Do they hold the image of God?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. "image of ..." is a phrase that is not used anymore but was quite common when Genesis 1 was written. I once had a Biblical scholar explain to me that "in his image" had a definite meaning in that time. Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant. Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his image" of the king or merchant. So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment. God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment. That what they do they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing. This is seen in the juxtaposition in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..." We tend to separate the image from the dominion, but it appears that those were two ways of saying the same thing. To be "in his image" was also to be given plenipoteniary powers and have dominion.

Thanks for the interpretation.