The Age of the Earth - alternatives, anyone?

[prodromos]

but then by definition there would be no way to study that statement scientifically.

Herein lies the problem. Science deals with the natural, but in the creation of the earth and universe we are now dealing with the supranatural. I don't think there is a solution to this particular quandry

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John

 

[The Lady Kate]

Herein lies the problem. Science deals with the natural, but in the creation of the earth and universe we are now dealing with the supranatural. I don't think there is a solution to this particular quandry

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John

Are we? Couldn't a supernatural source (God) accomplished it through natural means?

 

[shernren]

Well Remus it's more of the whole "age of the earth" thing. You see, one major argument I was taught against evolution was that it was "incredulous" ... "how could this have happened" "how could that have happened" but when I began to read up about the age of the earth I realised that given 4.55 billion years, and that God started life (i.e. a rejection of abiogenesis) I realised that pretty much anything could happen. Isochron dating was a big part of it, partly because I had been taught that one assumption of radiodating was the amount of daughter element, and I'd never seen anything about isochrons anywhere in the creationist literature I had. That alone smelt funny.

Now Prodromos there's your problem: I'd say about 90% of mainstream Christian creationism is "creation science", dominated by organizations such as AiG and ICR who are committed to researching this origins issue scientifically. If there really is "no answer to this quandary" as you say, shouldn't you go tell them to stop barking up the wrong tree?

 

[Remus]

Well Remus it's more of the whole "age of the earth" thing. You see, one major argument I was taught against evolution was that it was "incredulous" ... "how could this have happened" "how could that have happened" but when I began to read up about the age of the earth I realised that given 4.55 billion years, and that God started life (i.e. a rejection of abiogenesis) I realised that pretty much anything could happen. Isochron dating was a big part of it, partly because I had been taught that one assumption of radiodating was the amount of daughter element, and I'd never seen anything about isochrons anywhere in the creationist literature I had. That alone smelt funny.

I believe that ICR has a few articles dealing with isochrons. Although I didn't read it in detail, I seem to remember seeing at least one there.

If I may ask, did you form your opinion based mainly on articles from TO, AiG, ICR, etc...?

 

[shernren]

Mostly from TO. Though I'd bet anybody who cares to look at the links I often recommend would be able to guess this straight away ... hmm i'll mosey over to ICR and see what they have.

 

[depthdeception]

Possible... but that translates to "God is fooling us."

Not really an option I'd want to consider...

Amen! If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, most likely it is a pig that God has dressed up in a duck costume...LoL!!!

I always laugh when I discuss origins theology with individuals who wish to resolutely maintain a "literal" reading of the Genesis accounts. However, they are forced into a most awkward position, for they have to insist that before the creation of the sun, God sustained plant life (photosynthesis, etc) through a source of light other than the sun, and that one day later, God changed plans and decided to use the sun from then on. According to the logical conclusion of such a position, there is no reason to believe that the sun, as a giant body of gas, will "rise" tomorrow, for God just as well might decide to provide light, heat, etc. throught a giant ball of cheese...

 

[Remus]

Mostly from TO. Though I'd bet anybody who cares to look at the links I often recommend would be able to guess this straight away ... hmm i'll mosey over to ICR and see what they have.

I didn't want to assume. Do you believe TO to be unbiased?

BTW, I noticed a few articles on TrueOrigins as well. Might be worth reading.

 

[depthdeception]

Herein lies the problem. Science deals with the natural, but in the creation of the earth and universe we are now dealing with the supranatural. I don't think there is a solution to this particular quandry

This conclusion is only necessary if one believes that "the creation of the earth and universe" can only be explained by the supernatural. I for one do not see that this is the only way to view the creation of the universe.