John Piper says "young Earth" is viable biblical view

[Jig]

To date something by starlight and the known principles of physics is "speculation", but to date something by religious belief as defined by the literal interpretation of an ancient semitic mythology is God's truth?

*expresses skepticism*

I'm fully aware of my assumptions. It just seems many people aren't aware of theirs.

 

[Mikecpking]

The source of light in the universe is stars NOW. The Bible says BEFORE the sun and the stars were formed and commissioned to do this duty that God Himself was the maintainer of this light.



To date something by starlight is pure speculation. Assumptions must be made.

So you are saying that the speed of light and geometry is subject to speculation?

Distances by triangulation, brightness of supernovae etc and the speed of light is a very accurate science.

 

[Jig]

So you are saying that the speed of light and geometry is subject to speculation?

Distances by triangulation, brightness of supernovae etc and the speed of light is a very accurate science.

The issue doesn't have to be the consistency of the speed of light itself - though there still seems to be some unknowns here. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. I'm concerned with the assumptions with time. Does time flow at the same rate in all conditions? How about synchronization, is it absolute? The answer to both is no.

 

[Mikecpking]

The issue doesn't have to be the consistency of the speed of light itself - though there still seems to be some unknowns here. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. I'm concerned with the assumptions with time. Does time flow at the same rate in all conditions? How about synchronization, is it absolute? The answer to both is no.

Unless time is being distorted around a black hole, then time slowing down would be an issue, but not for deep space objects. Objects in orbit round the earth has time running faster at a rate of 3 billionths of a second per day compared to us on the ground, but that amount is miniscule. It has nothing to do with synchronisation as 2.5 million years of light having to travel really is in the order of magnitudes compared to a 6,000 year old earth.
Stephen Hawkings universe (great DVD) covers all these points and I would say its a worthwhile investment for anyone to make.

 

[Jig]

Unless time is being distorted around a black hole, then time slowing down would be an issue, but not for deep space objects. Objects in orbit round the earth has time running faster at a rate of 3 billionths of a second per day compared to us on the ground, but that amount is miniscule. It has nothing to do with synchronisation as 2.5 million years of light having to travel really is in the order of magnitudes compared to a 6,000 year old earth.
Stephen Hawkings universe (great DVD) covers all these points and I would say its a worthwhile investment for anyone to make.

I have made the assumption that the universe and the Earth were created supernaturally and came about as literally described in Genesis 1. I do not adhere to an all-encompassing philosophy of naturalism - especially when it comes to origin science.

When dealing with the supernatural it is impossible to determine "how" things happened using a purely natural understanding and there is certainly room for any number of possible explanations.

The question isn't whether or not there are stars VERY far from us. That is established quite well. The true question is "how" did the light get from there to here. Was it through purely natural means? Or did God in His sovereignty do something supernaturally, as with His creation of a mature human - Adam. Adam's physical maturity did not equate to actual age.

I think that we have to remember that the unit light-year is not a unit of time but a unit of distance. The term was defined under natural circumstances and only under such circumstances does it correlate to any sort of elapsed time.

Steven Hawkings assumes that there is only the natural realm.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So you're basically throwing out uniformitarianism proposing the Omphalos hypothesis.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So you're basically throwing out uniformitarianism proposing the Omphalos hypothesis.

Eh?

 

[Mikecpking]

I have made the assumption that the universe and the Earth were created supernaturally and came about as literally described in Genesis 1. I not adhere to an all-encompassing philosophy of naturalism - especially when it comes to origin science.

When dealing with the supernatural it is impossible to determine "how" things happened using a purely natural understanding and there is certainly room for any number of possible explanations.

The question isn't whether or not there are stars VERY far from us. That is established quite well. The true question is "how" did the light get from there to here. Was it through a purely natural means? Or did God in His sovereignty do something supernaturally, as with the His creation of a mature human - Adam. Adam's physical maturity did not equate to actual age.

I think that we have to remember that the unit light-year is not a unit of time but a unit of distance. The term was defined under natural circumstances and only under such circumstances does it correlate to any sort of elapsed time.

Steven Hawkings assumes that there is only the natural realm.

A light year is a measurement of distance and we can safely conclude when looking at an abject thousands or millions of light years away, that is how it looked then.
This fact was proved during the Apollo missions when radio signals were transmitted to and from the Moon and there was just over 1 second delay due to the speed of light and radio waves in receiving the signals. Exactly the same principle applies. When you look at teh sun, you are seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago.

 

[Jig]

A light year is a measurement of distance and we can safely conclude when looking at an abject thousands or millions of light years away, that is how it looked then.
This fact was proved during the Apollo missions when radio signals were transmitted to and from the Moon and there was just over 1 second delay due to the speed of light and radio waves in receiving the signals. Exactly the same principle applies. When you look at teh sun, you are seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago.

My comment obviously went over your head.

 

[mark46]

I do not believe in a young earth. However, there is no tortuous logic required to accept the possbility of a young earth. Consider that God is certainly able to create fossils.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

My comment obviously went over your head.

Most of my posts on GT tend to do the same thing, so don't feel alone

 

[Dark_Lite]

I do not believe in a young earth. However, there is no tortuous logic required to accept the possbility of a young earth. Consider that God is certainly able to create fossils.

That is the tortuous logic. The only way a young earth works is if you dance around the evidence and logic so much that you forget it exists. "God created the world with the appearance of age" is probably the biggest cop-out answer ever. Not only does it make God a deceiver, but there is no actual reason to believe in it.

 

[Jig]

So you're basically throwing out uniformitarianism proposing the Omphalos hypothesis.

I take a slightly different approach as I believe that most current mountains and canyons were formed by a global aquatic catastrophe and erosion. Though I would agree that both the original pre-Fall Earth and Adam were created fully functional and thus inherited ingrained maturity sine qua non. I do not assert that God created the Earth to "look old", in much the same way He didn't create an adult Adam to "look old". There was a real purpose for this prompt maturation. He created Adam with the requisite physical qualities and gave him the resources needed to meet the goal of life. No need for God to wait billions of years. Remember, age is subjective.

 

[Jig]

I do not believe in a young earth. However, there is no tortuous logic required to accept the possbility of a young earth. Consider that God is certainly able to create fossils.

Who said God created fossils? A past global Flood provided the means to encapsulate millions of living creatures quickly and with great pressure...exactly what you need for fossil creation.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I take a slightly different approach as I believe that most current mountains and canyons were formed by a global aquatic catastrophe and erosion. Though I would agree that both the original pre-Fall Earth and Adam were created fully functional and thus inherited ingrained maturity sine qua non. I do not assert that God created the Earth to "look old", in much the same way He didn't create an adult Adam to "look old". There was a real purpose for this prompt maturation. He created Adam with the requisite physical qualities and gave him the resources needed to meet the goal of life. No need for God to wait billions of years.

The first half of this post contradicts the second half of this post.

Remember, age is subjective.

No it isn't, unless perhaps you are living in a black hole. Time can flow differently in different conditions, but none of those conditions even come close to applying in the formation of the world or the solar system.

 

[Jig]

The first half of this post contradicts the second half of this post.

If you feel this way then you have misunderstood my comment. A mixture of supernaturally imposed maturity, past catastrophic events (including a global Flood), and thousands of years of normal and natural "wear and tear" have been misinterpreted as representing billions of years of natural "age".

If such supernatural events occurred, of course a purely naturalistic method of interpreting the evidence will lead to the exclusion of any supernatural occurrences (and their effects) - thus a faulty conclusion of age.

No it isn't, unless perhaps you are living in a black hole. Time can flow differently in different conditions, but none of those conditions even come close to applying in the formation of the world or the solar system.

Maybe if we explain our existence on purely naturalistic methods...sure. I, however, believe a powerful sovereign God had His hand in the mix. What this entails and how it would look is beyond me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Who said God created fossils? A past global Flood provided the means to encapsulate millions of living creatures quickly and with great pressure...exactly what you need for fossil creation.

Now that sounds logical

 

[papakapp]

Piper presumes Romans 5 is trustworthy, therefore he concludes that Adam must be historical.

I did just the opposite. I started by presuming Genesis 1-2 was trustworthy. From there I concluded that the rest of the bible (including Romans 5) was historical. (i.e. written by real historical figures about factual events whenever the events were presented as factual. Not compendiums of ancient fables written by ghostwriters, or deliberately modified to suit generational proclivities.)

 

[Assyrian]

Have to agree with Dark_Lite here, explaining fossils and rock strata by the flood, and explaining them by creation with apparent age, are two mutually exclusive explanations. You can try to use one, or the other, but not both.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If you feel this way then you have misunderstood my comment. A mixture of supernaturally imposed maturity, past catastrophic events (including a global Flood), and thousands of years of normal and natural "wear and tear" have been misinterpreted as representing billions of years of natural "age".

Ok, so you have half of an Omphalos hypothesis. Whatever. The end result is the same. Any introduction of the supernatural on such a scale that it would drastically change the "truth" about the natural world from what is plainly observable turns God into a deceiver. "Evidence says Earth is 4.3 billion years old, so let's inject a bit of Goddidit dust and everything's fine" doesn't sound like a good line of thought to you, does it?

If such supernatural events occurred, of course a purely naturalistic method of interpreting the evidence will lead to the exclusion of any supernatural occurrences (and their effects) - thus a faulty conclusion of age.

Maybe if we explain our existence on purely naturalistic methods...sure. I, however, believe a powerful sovereign God had His hand in the mix. What this entails and how it would look is beyond me.

And what is your basis for this speculation? On what grounds do you adhere to it? Is it simply because you can't wrap your head around a non-literal Genesis? You yourself have admitted there's no actual observable evidence for this notion.