Featured Young Earth - Old Earth

Yeah, so have I, but none that amount to much. They certainly all have limitations, and some calibration may yet be needed, but not six orders of magnitude, not even five.

Here are a couple of references. The latter may be a bit dated (pun intended).
General Reference (2011)
Dating Methods That Work
Detailed Reference (1996)
The Dynamics of Dating

 

Seems like a talking past each other moment. In and of itself, entropy is not an end of the world/universe issue. Entropy is a fundamental of thermodynamics. Energy transfer is never 100% reversible. There are always losses in potential. This is why you are not allowed to apply for a patent for a perpetual motion machine. There is no such thing. It’s a general principle. It would require miracle.

Universal heat death would seem to be the final result, if nothing else were to happen. Everything at the same energy level, no potential for transfer, maximum entropy. But science can say nothing about whether or how God might intervene. Without revelation, no one can. However, this is a completely separate issue, and has nothing at all to do with entropy before the fall, except that the theory you seem to have suggested would also need revelation to support it.

Well, now that I’ve said all that, I’m beginning to suspect what the “non-entropy” theory entails, and doubt I’d bother trying to dissuade someone from it. Instead, I’ll go back and list another point to why I can accept an old earth/old universe interpretation. It’s probably the most important one, but I may yet add another.

 

6. This is probably the most important point of all. Bible interpreters work diligently to harmonize seemingly contradictory passages within the Bible, often arriving at conclusions that could never be the result of reading the isolated passages. The creation being God’s awesome handiwork, there is no good reason for me to be surprised at the need to do the same here. And it could just as easily be that those accusing of man-pleasing are instead themselves guilty…of hypocrisy.​

 

Roby, how far is it to the sun?

 

Isn't it odd that the Bible is the only book that seems to need teams of "interpreters" in order to try and understand it?
I remember the first time I stood back and objectively thought about the concept of a "bible college", and realized that.

 

I’m not sure of what you are getting at, but in my statement the term “interpreters” can be taken collectively or independently--it doesn’t matter. That is, those that interpret the Bible, whether together or separately, are all included.

The point I’m making is that harmonization is required where passages seem to contradict, and many times the result is not at all what you would get from any passage taken just by itself. As a good example, just look at the “Christmas” story accounts in the Gospels.

 

I take them as a "composite", because every word of God is true.
There are no contradictions, only seeming ones.
Understanding takes time, but it isn't impossible.

As for the Creation, 6 literal days, and a "young Earth" is what I believe by faith, because that is what I see in the book of Genesis.


May God bless you.

 

You're confusing GR and SR. Special Relativity is what says the speed of light is constant with reference to the observer. That was postulated as a possible explanation for the failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment to detect the motion of the earth. (They weren't testing for the Ether.)

To test GR, one would have to travel all over the universe. But one test appears to have falsified SR. Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS

Like I said, you're just citing the fragmented and incomplete info you've been fed.

If all motion is relative (because one cannot say with absolute certainty our observation platform is a moving platform) we can assume our platform to be motionless in the center of mass of a rotating universe, and still explain the observations in accordance with GR, which allows c to assume tremendous values at great distances because of the centrifugal forces.

These are not "discoveries." These are theories postulated to explain the observations of astronomers in accordance with the Cosmological Principle, which is an arbitrary, non-Creationist presupposition.

In short, distant starlight does not prove an old universe.

 

Yes, as I already intimated, there are no contradictions, only seeming ones.
Every word of God is true, but is every work of God true as well?
When God spoke everything into existence did it then become a lie?
In this some may differ and thus in their harmonization.
I have relied on an untold number of people for the witness and writings available to me.

May God bless you as well.

 

Creation was a series of miracles. Their first cause was God and His will. He is an active agent in the account. He didn't just speak things into existence and let things happen. He formed things like a potter with clay. The clay jar isn't there because of natural laws and the properties of clay. It's there because of a potter.

And so it is with the Creation Account. God created the heavens and the earth. The word "deep" means a heck of a lot of water. That was the heavens and the earth in one. You couldn't locate the earth, because it wasn't yet formed and not yet divided from the heavens.

I drew a picture.

Then He created light. There is no sun or moon. But there is water. So there is light in the deep now, and there is day and there is night. And that's the first day. Water and light. No preexisting, decimated terrain left desolate by some celestial war. (There is no 'caelum.')

Then He created the expanse. This expanse is in the middle of the waters. That, in turn, means the universe, contrary to the Cosmological Principle, has a center. (And because it has a center, it also has an edge.) This expanse divides the waters which are above it, from the waters which are below it. He called the expanse, "Heaven." We call it, "Space."

The waters which are below the expanse are gathered into one place and are called "seas," and dry land appears. There is our earth taking form. One big ocean and one big super-continent which was later broken up by the Deluge.

Then God caused the land to bring forth plants in one day. Didn't have to wait years for a tree to grow. The term "bring forth" implies that there was growth, but it was supernatural. They didn't suddenly appear with pyrotechnics and Irwin Allen sound effects.

And the fourth day, God put lights expanse of Heaven—er—I mean—in the expanse of space. Their purpose? To shine on the earth. Now God didn't create the light in transit. Just like He didn't make plants appear fully formed. The plants were brought forth supernaturally in one day. And so the lights gave their light upon the earth. The light traveled. It traveled supernaturally in one day. It was an act of God. It is Creation for Heaven's sake. And all attempts at naturalistic explanations have failed. We're in the last days of Big Bang cosmology as well. It's looking much like the portrait of Dorian Gray.

Anyway, there is too much about cosmology that cannot be tested for it to qualify as science. The constancy of the speed of light and the universal speed limit is part of that.

 

Old earthers have sixty theories of the Ice Age because they can't agree among themselves. They say Woolly Mammoths were instantly frozen which would need a temperature of something such as 150 below all of a sudden. Deep time has more scientific problems than answers. It is a facet of evolution predating DNA, which rendered evolution as scientifically backward.

 

Einstein and Hawking would disagree. It's the preferred model, but it's far from a scientific certainty.

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.

Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.​

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. ... one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.

Hawking, The Grand Design.
​

Einstein's theory of general relativity ... asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false.

Geocentricity and Creation
​

God can, and most likely did on Day Four. And according to GR, gravity can speed it up many times faster than the SR speed limit.

I'm done, though. Go on with your the-speed-of-light-proves-an-old-universe-despite-Genesis notions. You've obviously independently verified each postulation of Relativity and now know certain things are absolute facts despite the assertions by Relativity's own apostles to the contrary.

 

This is almost an apocryphal account by now.
Carbon dating is fairly reliable within certain parameters.
Dating shellfish falls outside of these parameters for obvious reasons, the shell is composed of aquatic materials found to be rich in older carbonates.
There are many factors that contribute to inaccuracies in the results of Carbon14 dating, even the location, marine, estuary, or fresh water river source needs to be factored into the analysis.

Scientific Creationism has a reputation for the casual dismissal of any scientific evidences which negate its theories.

Rob

 

ANDROMEDA 2.537 million light years away, estimated to contain 1 trillion stars.

 

And all this time I was thinking they lived to be thousands of years old!

 

Granted the two quotations (of the quantum denier Albert “God does not play dice” Einstein and the oracular professor Stephen “philosophy is dead” Hawking) allow that mathematically Earth can be considered motionless, untilted, while the massive Sun dances and races round it daily (from 93 million miles away!) and yearly to simulate our tilted, rotating, revolving Earth. But that hardly sounds reasonable from a physical standpoint, nor does the apparent retrograde motion of the other planets made physical reality. The Moon should still work well with a geocentric model, though, so there’s that.

 

Scientific Creationism should be willing to discuss anything since Evolution has been rendered impossible by DNA. Deep time has so many scientific problems. For example, for the last almost 15 billion years they have been unable to explain the origin of the moon.