Earth, Mars and the Universe

[Maccie]

Scientists in the UK and the US, and probably elsewhere, are getting very excited over the possibility that Mars is still volcanically active. Apparently volcanos last erupted only 2 million years ago, which, as they say, is only yesterday in the scheme of the age of the universe.

Now, how do YEC's understand this? Is this all rubbish, and the universe is much the same age as the earth, i.e. a few thousand years, or did God insert a fully-made earth into the solar system between Mars and Venus a few thousand years ago, the whole universe being the millions of billions years old already? Oh, and the moon, of course.

 

[2Pillars]

Scientists in the UK and the US, and probably elsewhere, are getting very excited over the possibility that Mars is still volcanically active. Apparently volcanos last erupted only 2 million years ago, which, as they say, is only yesterday in the scheme of the age of the universe.

Dear Maccie,

What is the basis of your assumption with regards to your statement of "probability" and "possibility"? Could you please provide the YECs foundation for the basis of your pre-conceived notion. I also like to hear their side.

Now, how do YEC's understand this? Is this all rubbish, and the universe is much the same age as the earth, i.e. a few thousand years, or did God insert a fully-made earth into the solar system between Mars and Venus a few thousand years ago, the whole universe being the millions of billions years old already? Oh, and the moon, of course.

IMHO, I believe they would tell you that it is just plain RUBBISH on your part Maccie, since you have not provided your foundation for the basis of discussion nor any link to look into your source.

The universe is generally accepted by scientists to be apx. 15B years old, while, our earth is about 4.5B years of age - give and take.

The point is -- it's still be irrelevant whatever they think at this time unless you support your claim as facts. Just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Maccie]

Try here http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1378976,00.html

The universe is generally accepted by scientists to be apx. 15B years old, while, our earth is about 4.5B years of age - give and take.

I actually agree with you, 2pillars, but I wanted to know what the YEC's thought about it. After all, if the Young Earth Creationists think the earth is only 4000 or so years old, then I wondered how volcanos on Mars, as per the link above, fitted in.

Perfectly ordinary question, I thought. Perhaps you misunderstood where I am coming from?

 

[grmorton]

Try here http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1378976,00.html


I actually agree with you, 2pillars, but I wanted to know what the YEC's thought about it. After all, if the Young Earth Creationists think the earth is only 4000 or so years old, then I wondered how volcanos on Mars, as per the link above, fitted in.

Perfectly ordinary question, I thought. Perhaps you misunderstood where I am coming from?

I presume you want to know what they think about the methodology of dating via crater counting. The Article states.

"That is the date one gets from crater counting," said John Murray, of the Open University, one of the authors. "So if we now have some very young craters, it certainly does suggest that Mars has been volcanically active all the way through and possibly will be active in the future." Guardian

When a volcano erupts magma, it will cover and fill in any craters that exist at the time of the eruption. Immediately after the lava cools, you have a smooth uncratered surface. But as time goes on, meteors strike the surface and one can count how many hits on the surface, and from the known meteor flux, one can determine the approximate age of that lava surface. The equation is simple.

approximate age = # of craters per sq. km/# meteors expected per year per sq km.

We know the flux of meteors today from observations at earth. We can count the craters, so the equation and method appear very solid. So what do the YECs think?

 

[2Pillars]

Try here http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1378976,00.html

I actually agree with you, 2pillars, but I wanted to know what the YEC's thought about it. After all, if the Young Earth Creationists think the earth is only 4000 or so years old, then I wondered how volcanos on Mars, as per the link above, fitted in.

Perfectly ordinary question, I thought. Perhaps you misunderstood where I am coming from?

Actually not and I don't care! I was just trying to be of help.

 

[tryptophan]

Apparently, Olympus Mons, the largest volcano in the universe, is still relatively active. That thing is huge. It could fit over the state of Missouri.

 

[Tenacious-D]

Because they will argue, in the usual lame fashion, that since no on alive today witnessed the impacts then we don't know the rate and hence the age determined thereby is nonsense. Because the typical YEC understanding of physical processes is so limited, anything but a childlike inference to witnessing everything is their fallback position - rather like sticking fingers in ones ear and going la la la la la.

 

[bolinstephen]

If God created a tree, wou;d it have rings? I would say so. If God created a universe, would it have evidence of age? I would say so.

 

[gluadys]

If God created a tree, wou;d it have rings? I would say so. If God created a universe, would it have evidence of age? I would say so.

Welcome to the forum.

Actually if you check through some older threads (I am always too lazy to look them up myself, but perhaps another kind soul will) you will see we have been down this road before.

Appearance of age is not a problem.

What is a problem is appearance of history.

This whole idea was explored more than a century ago as the "omphalos" question.

"omphalos" is latin for "naval" as in belly button.

Question: did Adam have a belly button? If so, why? After all he never spent any time in his mother's womb.

Tree rings in themselves are not a problem. But tree rings are very informative about history. Tree rings can tell scientists a lot about the climate of past seasons---whether it was an especially cold winter or an especially rainy summer for instance.

But if this kind of information is in the tree rings of a tree that was created only five minutes ago---then it is telling us about a history that never happened. So is the Creator lying to us in his creation?

Same goes for starlight. It is not the light itself or its speed of travel that is a problem. It is the fact that light recounts the history of its origin. It tells us what was happening to its star when it left that star.

But if the light was only created a few days ago---that star never existed and its whole history is totally imaginary.

There are many many many other examples of creation telling us the history of this planet. This is not like creating Adam or any creature with an appearance of age. It is like creating Adam (with or without belly button) with the scar from an accident that never happened, and with implanted memories of a childhood that never was, with a history that never took place.

And that goes against a lot of traditional Christian beliefs about God and creation such as:

God always speaks the truth, in his works as well as his words.
God made a real world not an illusory matrix of a world.
This real world is truly knowable through God's gifts of sensory perception and a rational mind.

I want to speak a little more of that last point, for it is often disputed. Jesus told us that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind and our neighbour as ourself.

Strength to me implies the body and the body includes our senses. God gave us senses to explore creation so that we would be aware, through creation, of his majesty, power and glory. Paul even says to the Romans, that people who have never heard the word of God preached, never heard the law or the gospel, are still without excuse before God's judgment, because they have the revelation of creation.

If the senses God gave us as a means of awareness of creation are so faulty and unreliable that we can never trust them---how can anyone be without excuse before God? How can anyone worship and love God with all their bodily strength--including the strength of sight, of hearing, of touch and so forth?

The same applies to the conscious mind and the power of reason. Surely God gave us this ability so that we could gain knowledge, understanding and wisdom. If it cannot be trusted, no matter how many checks and balances we put in to avoid bias and subjectivity, to what end is this gift given? How can we worship God with a mind so disabled that it cannot reason that 2+2=4? How can God ask of us "Come let us reason together..." if we cannot reason?

I freely admit that both senses and reason can be fooled. They are not perfect. But scripture itself tells us that they are not incapacitated either. By comparing notes and using methods that screen out subjective perceptions such as dreams, hallucinations and personal bias, we can use the gifts God gave us to his glory.

So when I see that scientists have discovered a history in nature, and I know that nature cannot lie about itself, then I take that history to be real. To do anything else would be to call nature's Creator a liar.

 

[Maccie]

Brilliantly put, gluadys!

 

[California Tim]

The universe is generally accepted by scientists to be apx. 15B years old, while, our earth is about 4.5B years of age - give and take.

Think long and hard about this conclusion. Just HOW do they arrive at this number for the age of the universe? Do they even know the size of it? It is such a monumental task to even begin to comprehend its size it makes one wonder how anyone can make a serious guess at its age.

But if this kind of information is in the tree rings of a tree that was created only five minutes ago---then it is telling us about a history that never happened. So is the Creator lying to us in his creation?

Not a bad question to ask, but then if I planted a flower garden with mature plants and you saw it only after completion, that garden might cause you to jump to the wrong conclusion about how old the garden is too - that is unless I TOLD you when it was created. Likewise, we've been told by our Creator when He created the Earth so as to preclude the possibility of accusing Him of misrepresenting His creation.

 

[Vance]

There is a HUGE difference between being created in maturity (which all could accept as a practical and even necessary method of special creation if He had chosen that route), and creating with evidence of a history. The embedding of artifacts entirely unecessary for practical "mature" use. Varves, impact craters, dead stars, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

As for WHEN God created, even the YEC's can't come to an agreement. Some agree with Usher's very precise calculations using the genealogies. Others see that this won't work because we have very convincing evidence going back to before that date, so they push it back, some as far as 13,000 years ago. But, then, those YEC's are allowing extra-Biblical information to influence their interpretation, which you don't agree with, so I am sure you stick with Ussher's calculation of October 23rd, 4004 B.C. At 2:30 p.m. :o)

So, even for YEC's God is not always so clear.

 

[California Tim]

As for WHEN God created, even the YEC's can't come to an agreement.

I take it you meant this to be humorous and it is funny. The YEC'ist differ on as much a few thousand years while the TE'ists are rounding to the nearest Billion years.

 

[gluadys]

Think long and hard about this conclusion. Just HOW do they arrive at this number for the age of the universe? Do they even know the size of it? It is such a monumental task to even begin to comprehend its size it makes one wonder how anyone can make a serious guess at its age.

Yes, it is quite amazing that we can do such things as weigh a planet, analyze the chemical composition of a distant star, determine the average colour of the universe, even estimate how many electrons there are in the whole universe.

Yet amazing as it seems, there is really nothing mysterious about how it is done. An understanding of basic physics and some mathematics is all it really takes. Since I don't do well at math, I can't demonstrate. As soon as Greek letters start showing up in equations, math is all Greek to me. (Yeah, go ahead, groan!) I'm not even sure how to find a square root or solve a quadratic equation.

But physicists do this sort of thing and more all the time. There are some really excellent books for laypeople on topics like these. And believe me, if a mathematically-challenged person like myself can follow them, most anyone can.

A good place to start would be Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It is really brief and quite readable. Another one I like is Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos. Longer and covers more topics.

Not a bad question to ask, but then if I planted a flower garden with mature plants and you saw it only after completion, that garden might cause you to jump to the wrong conclusion about how old the garden is too - that is unless I TOLD you when it was created. Likewise, we've been told by our Creator when He created the Earth so as to preclude the possibility of accusing Him of misrepresenting His creation.

Not necessarily. I would not presume you grew the plants from seed. You could have bought them at a nursery. So there is not a necessary relationship between the creation of the garden and the age of the plants in it.

And, yes, we have been told by our Creator when he created the Earth----in the history of the rocks he created.