Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

[UTEOTW]

"Only one of the proofs for a YE must be proven true to invalidate OE. All of the proofs for OE must be proven true to invalidate YE."

This must be one of the most baseless things to have been claimed!

There is no reason for this to be true. I could easily turn the statement around. If I had a single persuasive item that indicated an old earth, then would you accept that th earth were old even if you felt you had scores of other items to support a young earth? Of course not.

You must go wit hthe perponderance of the data. There will always be unexplained items and anomalies. But if you have enough data, you can rule these out. And in this case, the proponderance of the data falls towards an old earth.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:


But we both know that many believers simply "tow the party line" - on gays, on Terry Schiavo, on evolution. Most of these people have already decided that they will believe the earth is young before they even consider the arguments.

Fair enough... but I would suggest the exact same thing for the 99% of scientists that you referenced. They weren't taught to be critical of evolution's presuppositions. They were taught that naturalism = science.

I would say that at least as many and maybe more believers know why they believe what they believe than do evolutionists.

But I would also dispute that "99%" estimate. That would mainly depend on whether you were talking about academians working directly with the theory or a closely related field in an academic environment or some practical field. I read statistics awhile back that suggested that a significant number (much more than 1%) of medical doctors believe in a six day creation.

One of the smartest people I have ever met was a microbiologist- and a firm believer in a six day creation.

This idea that all of the trained and intelligent people believe in evolution is not valid. It would be more accurate to say that those whose careers, funding, interests, and life's work are directly dependent upon the perpetuation of the theory universally accept it.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
My question is, why do even Young Earth Creationists frequently allude to a time period of 10,000 years? I am mostly interested in the reasons why it might be 10,000 and not the 6,000 that the Bible indicates.

So, after 140 posts, mostly of the (off topic) TE vs YEC variety, It seems to me that the only answer (on topic) is "tree rings".

As I do not have the time nor the expertise to respond to all of the various points being made, I will try to narrow my answer down to why I believe it is more in line with the 6,000 years range.

1. The straight forward reading of the Bible indicates around 6,000 years.

2. God created a working universe, light from stars already here, a man already grown, nutrients already in the ground, trees already producing, etc.

3. God is the master/inventor/manipulater of the laws of physics and is not subject to them. I, myself, being subject to them would like to know more about them, for it is a very practical and worthwhile endeavor.

4. Science attempts to explain how things work, this is a good thing. Extrapolating from those facts into the infinite past or infinite future, of necessity, precludes God, and is by definition atheistic.

5. The Bible says that Jesus walked on water. This is a scientific impossibility, I agree whole heartedly. The Bible says that it happened, I agree wholeheartedly. It is when scientists say that it DID NOT happen because it CANNOT happen that science becomes "science falsely so called".

These are not my only reasons but they are sufficient.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Only one of the proofs for a YE must be proven true to invalidate OE. All of the proofs for OE must be proven true to invalidate YE."

This must be one of the most baseless things to have been claimed!

There is no reason for this to be true. I could easily turn the statement around. If I had a single persuasive item that indicated an old earth, then would you accept that th earth were old even if you felt you had scores of other items to support a young earth? Of course not.

This is simple mathematics UTE.

If your equation says that no number in a set can be less than 10 then any answer less than 10 within a given set falsifies that set.

Things can be made with the appearance of age. However, anything with a starting point can never be younger than it is.

IOW's, if something appears old then there is an explanation in creationism for it. However if something is young that is necessary under evolution to be old... then evolution has no means to account for the youth.

You must go wit hthe perponderance of the data.

Nope. You must go with the math. One piece of evidence can falsify the interpretations of all the other data. This is done all the time in criminal investigations. Only one proof against one's ability to have committed a crime to nullify volumes of information that suggests he did.

There will always be unexplained items and anomalies. But if you have enough data, you can rule these out. And in this case, the proponderance of the data falls towards an old earth.

No. It leads you to a position of faith based on human interpretations of the data.

Data doesn't say anything. It has to be explained. Explanations are either consistent with it or not. If they are not contradictory to it then we might consider explanations improbable but we cannot say they are impossible nor say that the data definitively supports a more likely alternative.

As I said, you and I have reached points where faith and trust take over. You may feel that you have a more objective basis than I do but your conclusion is based on faith none the less.

I place my faith in God and the Bible He gave me. You have placed enough trust in men and their intelligence to accept their explanations over things that are consistent with the plain sense of scripture. I have said that the theories of men must be consistent with the plain sense of scripture in order to be acceptable. You have said that scripture must be consistent with the theories of naturalistic scientists in order to be acceptable.

You are entitled. I simply think you have made a foolish decision about where to place your faith.

 

[Helen]

The reason the estimate is often given as "less than ten thousand years" is because that is, first of all, a nice round figure that definitely disallows long ages and evolution without getting into exact years.

However it also is a reference in many cases to the fact that the Alexandrian LXX (the ancient translation, about 250 years before Christ) contains longer years in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (which I mentioned on an earlier post) and this corresponds to a time frame of closer to 8000 years since creation. It appears that the Masoretic and Masoretic-inspired texts have dropped the cipher for 100 from a number of the genealogies.

The early church fathers all referenced closer to the Alexandrian LXX timing than a shorter timing as researched and referenced here:
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm

 

[Helen]

UTE, it is not the 'preponderance' of data which determines the truth, but finding the reasons behind the 'anomalous' data which will show you where the truth is. It only takes ONE exception to disprove a rule. It only takes ONE white dog to show that 'all dogs are black' is false.

This is why the quote on Barry's front page is actually very important:

It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech: "Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage." To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo.--Barry Setterfield, March 7, 2002

 

[UTEOTW]

"You must go with the math. One piece of evidence can falsify the interpretations of all the other data. "

I still disagree with your assertion that one piece of data that indicates young is sufficient but one piece of data that indicates old is insufficient. You are applying different standards.

But it really does not matter. I have yet to see a single piece of data that actually indicates a young earth. So the set of indications for a young earth is null. Most of what you see are snippets around the edge of science, based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of science, that try and poke some sort of hole in the broadly accepted theories of biology or geology or astronomy. These snippets fall apart like a house of cards when examined. Just look at Grubbs list of "proofs" from page 8 if you want quite few examples.

Very rarely do you get an answer from a YEer for data that actually indicates a young earth when asked. Very rarely do you ever get those nebulous better interpretations of the data that they always claim exists. You just get the groundless snipping around the edges. It is full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing concrete when examined.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"You must go with the math. One piece of evidence can falsify the interpretations of all the other data. "

I still disagree with your assertion that one piece of data that indicates young is sufficient but one piece of data that indicates old is insufficient. You are applying different standards.

No. I am allowing the different paradigms to limit themselves.

If we find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils and soft tissue cannot survive for more than X number of years... then that precludes dinosaur fossils from being a proof for millions of years of earth history. If we did not find this soft tissue, that would not constitute a proof against a younger age for the earth.

But it really does not matter. I have yet to see a single piece of data that actually indicates a young earth.

That is a biased statement. The data doesn't indicate anything until interpretted. Accurately, you have not seen a piece of data interpretted under naturalistic presuppositions with deference to biological evolution that indicates a young earth.

So the set of indications for a young earth is null.j

If you actually believe that, it is more an indication that you are close-minded than that there is no data that can be explained to support a YE.

Very rarely do you get an answer from a YEer for data that actually indicates a young earth when asked.

Wait. You said that the indications were null, not rare.

Very rarely do you ever get those nebulous better interpretations of the data that they always claim exists.

They don't have to be "better interpretations". They just have to be plausible possibilities.

You believe evolution by faith. You may think you have a sounder basis for your belief than I do mine (I do in fact believe the opposite) none the less, you are operating in the realm of faith.

Though I have seen significant weaknesses in evolution demonstrated even with naturalism's bounds, I am not saying that it is not possible within the realm of all possibilities.

I am saying that when there are two possible explanations with one being attested to by an infallible, honest eyewitness though the other might seem more likely to me based just on the data... I will choose the second.... You can have the first and the incumbant insenuation that the witness is not being completely honest.

 

[Scott J]

Oh... and btw, you might get more of those interpretations if creation science was funded to even a small percentage of evolution's funding.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

This idea that all of the trained and intelligent people believe in evolution is not valid.

True. Perhaps I should put it another way.

Most trained and intelligent people would probably admit that there are things that seem at face value to support an old earth, whether or not they actually believe that the earth is old.

Helen conceded that most scientists do believe that the earth is old - but she (if I read her right) rather challenges that they have a biased interpretation and thus predetermine their viewpoints. Thus the fact that most believe the earth is old does not make it more likely.

I agree at least in theory with that. But I tend to see the bias on the part of old earthers to be less; at least less than Helen and you see it.

 

[Scott J]

Thanks Charles

I can very agreeably disagree with you due to the humility reflected in this post.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
UTE, it is not the 'preponderance' of data which determines the truth, but finding the reasons behind the 'anomalous' data which will show you where the truth is. It only takes ONE exception to disprove a rule. It only takes ONE white dog to show that 'all dogs are black' is false.

This is why the quote on Barry's front page is actually very important:

It is never good science to ignore anomalous data or to eliminate a conclusion because of some presupposition. Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London, made an important comment in his retirement speech: "Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage." To do so may not place one in the mainstream of modern science, but at least we will be searching for truth and moving ahead rather than maintaining the scientific status quo.--Barry Setterfield, March 7, 2002

I am just asaying that you should not throw out well supported theories just because there are unexplained parts. That is why research is done after all. We do not know everything!

Anomalies usually indicate some unknown aspect of the science or some mistake in the gathering of the data. But what is unkown one year or generation is often figured out eventually.

The missing solar neutrinos offer a good example lesson. For years, we were unable to measure a large enough flux of neutrinos coming from the sun. It was at odds with theories of how stars work. But we did not throw out the whole theory. Evntually, an ingenious set of experiments showed that the various neutrinos oscillate between the thre forms. What was once an anomaly that was a serious problem, and often thrown out by YEers [you can still see leading YE organizations that promote this idea years after science has solved the problem - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=405 ], was nothing more than a measurement problem. We were only measuring one form of the neutrinos because our standard model for subatomic particles was insufficient, not because the sun was young.

Such examples should be cautionary tales about resting hopes for YE evidence on things which are not yet explained. They have a habit of being explained eventually.

 

[UTEOTW]

"If we find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils and soft tissue cannot survive for more than X number of years... then that precludes dinosaur fossils from being a proof for millions of years of earth history."

I can remember finding some very well preserved dinosaurs. One recently was well preserved enough that when the minerals from the fossilization process were dissolved there remained some form of flexible material. But I do not know of any unaltered soft tissue being found that the finders that posed some sort of problem. DO oyu?

" That is a biased statement. The data doesn't indicate anything until interpretted."

I am still waiting for the interpretations that better fit the data.

" If you actually believe that, it is more an indication that you are close-minded than that there is no data that can be explained to support a YE."

Nope. I started out looking with a mind to support my own YE beliefs. I was biased towards YE. The inadequacy of their work first convinced me that something was amiss. I have since examined countless YE claims. Each one has made me more certain that YE has nothing evidential to offer.

" Wait. You said that the indications were null, not rare."

Let me be more clear.

When pressed, rarely do YEers actually present data that shows a young earth. They usually trot out supposed problems with mainstream science that they feel should cause doubt. Even if all of these assertions were true, they still do not add up to data indicating a young earth, merely that another explanation is needed. (The problems never stand up to scrutiny, either.)

On the rare occasion that they do offer something that if true would actually be evidence for YE and not merely evidence against something else, it turns out to not be factual when examined.

" They don't have to be "better interpretations". They just have to be plausible possibilities."

If you do not think that there is a measure of how well a given explanation fits the facts then I am quite surprised.

I also want you desparately on the jury if I ever commit a crime. I mean, if the quality of the explanation does not matter, merely that it is remotely possible, then it should be easy to get you to see reasonable doubt.

It just not true that all you need is any explanation. You need one that better fits the observations. Furthermore, most YE explanations do not even rise to the level of an alternate interpretation. They are specious. They are arbitrary. They are capricious. They have no bearing on reality. No ability to be supported or falsified. No way to be tested. They are the worst kind of ad hoc explanations.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"If we find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils and soft tissue cannot survive for more than X number of years... then that precludes dinosaur fossils from being a proof for millions of years of earth history."

I can remember finding some very well preserved dinosaurs. One recently was well preserved enough that when the minerals from the fossilization process were dissolved there remained some form of flexible material. But I do not know of any unaltered soft tissue being found that the finders that posed some sort of problem. DO oyu?

Could be the same instance, I don't know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

This is not the original article I read but one that appears to have been written prior to the one I read.

None the less, this tissue should not have been there after "70 million" years... no one in the article even attempted to address that problem. On another note, the original article I read said that no one had been looking for soft tissue. This one indicates that the discoverer had been.

I wonder what her agenda is? Could she be a closet creationist? Or maybe just someone who would like to play with dinosaur dna?

 

[Scott J]

On further research, it seems clear that the researcher is faithful to evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


" They don't have to be "better interpretations". They just have to be plausible possibilities."

If you do not think that there is a measure of how well a given explanation fits the facts then I am quite surprised.

There is. However, you can't draw concrete conclusions from the "preponderance" of the evidence.

I also want you desparately on the jury if I ever commit a crime. I mean, if the quality of the explanation does not matter, merely that it is remotely possible, then it should be easy to get you to see reasonable doubt.

I can assure you that if you were on trial and all of the evidence appeared to suggest you were guilty but your defense proved that another person could have been proven guilty by the same evidence... even if not with equal strength then I would probably vote to acquit. Further, if your defense put someone on the stand who had never lied and he said that you were not guilty and the other person was... then I would be even more likely to vote to acquit.

It just not true that all you need is any explanation.

Of course I didn't say that. I said you need an explanation that conforms to the data.

You need one that better fits the observations.

Unless you can say "exclusively" fits the data, you are still operating in the realm of faith.

Furthermore, most YE explanations do not even rise to the level of an alternate interpretation. They are specious. They are arbitrary. They are capricious. They have no bearing on reality. No ability to be supported or falsified. No way to be tested. They are the worst kind of ad hoc explanations.

Helen's husband and other serious scientists appear to contradict this blanket accusation.

Are there quacks? Yes.

Is there group think among evolutionists? Yes.

 

[Scott J]

The inadequacy of their work first convinced me that something was amiss.

This tells me that you are impressed with the high sounding, educated, technical parlance of evolutionists. Notably, they aren't the only ones who attempt to impress their fans and overwhelm their critics by using technical jargon.

The very simple fact is that I will not consider evolution's arguments seriously until they are honest about their philosophical presuppositions in a consistent and public way. It is inherently dishonest to say "these are the conclusions from the evidence" without acknowledging that you have set aside a whole set of legitimate possibilities for nothing but philosophical reasons.

 

[El_Guero]

Scott

That is well said. And your logic is honest and appealing.

I too am surprised by the dishonest methods that exist in both camps. But, I have always felt betrayed by those that hide their philosophical presuppositions and intend to mislead.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Scott, scientists do not have a uniform block of philosophical assumptions. They vary tremendously among themselves about all kinds of things, except they agree to follow the evidence.

 

[El_Guero]

Ute

As you do occasionally, you made a truthful statement.

Such examples should be cautionary tales about resting hopes for YE evidence on things which are not yet explained. They have a habit of being explained eventually.

That statement fits both OE and YE models of Science.