More brilliant scientists admitting they really have no clue

[TheCalvinator24]

that fairly easy response is "appearance of age." If one accepts the possibility of a Creator (whether an all-powerful being or not), then it should not be that hard to accept that said Creator could (and did) create an earth that appears to be older than it really is. When Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, the other animals and plants that were already in existence would have appeared to be much older than 1 or two days old. I fully concede that this is a belief based on faith, but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

2. You are creating a false dichotomy when you say that one has to believe "either" in science or the Bible.

No, I'm not. Mainly because I never said what you say I said.

[earendel]

that fairly easy response is "appearance of age." If one accepts the possibility of a Creator (whether an all-powerful being or not), then it should not be that hard to accept that said Creator could (and did) create an earth that appears to be older than it really is. When Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, the other animals and plants that were already in existence would have appeared to be much older than 1 or two days old. I fully concede that this is a belief based on faith, but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

2. You are creating a false dichotomy when you say that one has to believe "either" in science or the Bible.

No, I'm not. Mainly because I never said what you say I said.

You said:

...but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

Seems to me like you have made an "either/or" statement - science or the Bible. That is a false dichotomy IMO.

[mrkelley23]

I feel exactly the same way about "young Earth" creationists as I do about people who believe the Earth is flat. Maybe I'm validating your point, or BiT's. But the two notions are comparable.

I think the fact that you consider these two issues comparable is telling. We know the earth is not flat because we sail around it, or fly around it. Some believe the earth is old because scientists have said that certain rocks, fossils, layers, etc. are of certain ages, but there is no way to verify that contention.

IOW, the two issues are completely different.

"We" don't sail around it, or fly around it. We trust the evidence of those who have. There are many, many ways to verify the age of rocks, the age of strata, the age of icebergs and ice floes and even space itself.

There are actually alternative theories to explain some of the evidence for a round Earth -- a disc-shaped Earth, for instance, with a strange but not unknowable topology. There is no credible alternate theory for a relatively old Earth. Only magical thinking.

Do you ever find it odd that those who adopt archaic philosophies seem to lose ground, oh so incrementally, over the years? When President Bush first came to office, he and his allies claimed that there was NO SUCH THING as global warming. Then it was, sure the Earth is warming, but most of it's not man-made. Now it's, sure the Earth is warming, and most of it is man-made, but we can fix it with market-driven strategies.

Thirty years ago, the anti-evolutionists said that evolution just could not be true! Where are the missing links? I'm not gonna believe in this hooey until you show me the missing links? So scientists did. Now it's well, there may be microscopic evolution, but not macroscopic.

Young-Earthers started with the fact that there was no way to know about the age of rocks. Then, after carbon-14 dating was developed, they said, well, that method's faulty. Then several more methods were developed. So now it's, well, God still created the Earth 6000 years ago, but he created it OLD, don't you see? Because he's MAGIC! He can do ANYTHING!

I will listen to any credible evidence anyone wants to put forth. I will not seriously consider magical thinking when it comes to the natural universe. I'm sorry.

[earendel]

Folks, if Kroger can bake a loaf of bread that feels and tastes 10 days old after 3 hours, no doubt an all powerful God could create a rock that seems 2 billion years old after 6,000 years.

Of course God could do so. But then one would have to ask why God would do so.

[Bob Juch]

Folks, if Kroger can bake a loaf of bread that feels and tastes 10 days old after 3 hours, no doubt an all powerful God could create a rock that seems 2 billion years old after 6,000 years.

Of course God could do so. But then one would have to ask why God would do so.

She has a sense of humor.

[TheCalvinator24]

2. You are creating a false dichotomy when you say that one has to believe "either" in science or the Bible.

No, I'm not. Mainly because I never said what you say I said.

You said:

...but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

Seems to me like you have made an "either/or" statement - science or the Bible. That is a false dichotomy IMO.

you have focused on the wrong word.

[TheCalvinator24]

I feel exactly the same way about "young Earth" creationists as I do about people who believe the Earth is flat. Maybe I'm validating your point, or BiT's. But the two notions are comparable.

I think the fact that you consider these two issues comparable is telling. We know the earth is not flat because we sail around it, or fly around it. Some believe the earth is old because scientists have said that certain rocks, fossils, layers, etc. are of certain ages, but there is no way to verify that contention.

IOW, the two issues are completely different.

"We" don't sail around it, or fly around it. We trust the evidence of those who have. There are many, many ways to verify the age of rocks, the age of strata, the age of icebergs and ice floes and even space itself.

There are actually alternative theories to explain some of the evidence for a round Earth -- a disc-shaped Earth, for instance, with a strange but not unknowable topology. There is no credible alternate theory for a relatively old Earth. Only magical thinking.

Do you ever find it odd that those who adopt archaic philosophies seem to lose ground, oh so incrementally, over the years? When President Bush first came to office, he and his allies claimed that there was NO SUCH THING as global warming. Then it was, sure the Earth is warming, but most of it's not man-made. Now it's, sure the Earth is warming, and most of it is man-made, but we can fix it with market-driven strategies.

Thirty years ago, the anti-evolutionists said that evolution just could not be true! Where are the missing links? I'm not gonna believe in this hooey until you show me the missing links? So scientists did. Now it's well, there may be microscopic evolution, but not macroscopic.

Young-Earthers started with the fact that there was no way to know about the age of rocks. Then, after carbon-14 dating was developed, they said, well, that method's faulty. Then several more methods were developed. So now it's, well, God still created the Earth 6000 years ago, but he created it OLD, don't you see? Because he's MAGIC! He can do ANYTHING!

I will listen to any credible evidence anyone wants to put forth. I will not seriously consider magical thinking when it comes to the natural universe. I'm sorry.

Nobody is asking you to agree with it. (well, some might be, but not around here). What BiT and I are asking is for people to stop assuming that we are stupid merely because we choose to accept some things based on Faith in God instead of faith in science.

[BackInTex]

There is no credible alternate theory for a relatively old Earth. Only magical thinking.

Exactly what I've been saying! Glad to have you on board.

Thirty years ago, the anti-evolutionists said that evolution just could not be true! Where are the missing links? I'm not gonna believe in this hooey until you show me the missing links? So scientists did.

They did? They have traced man as we exist today back to fish? Wow, I missed that.

[wbtravis007]

If you can show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is not flat, then I might believe that it's not. If you can't, then I'm just gonna continue to assume that it's flat, and that God has just made it seem like it's not, through optical and other illusions.

It's my faith, so I know it to be true. If y'all can't see this, and want to treat me like an idiot, then I pity you (for being such an idiot).

[TheCalvinator24]

If you can show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is not flat, then I might believe that it's not. If you can't, then I'm just gonna continue to assume that it's flat, and that God has just made it seem like it's not, through optical and other illusions.

It's my faith, so I know it to be true. If y'all can't see this, and want to treat me like an idiot, then I pity you (for being such an idiot).

Go ahead wb, mock what you don't understand.

[wbtravis007]

If you can show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is not flat, then I might believe that it's not. If you can't, then I'm just gonna continue to assume that it's flat, and that God has just made it seem like it's not, through optical and other illusions.

It's my faith, so I know it to be true. If y'all can't see this, and want to treat me like an idiot, then I pity you (for being such an idiot).

Go ahead wb, mock what you don't understand.

I don't expect you to be able to understand my faith.

[BackInTex]

If you can show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is not flat, then I might believe that it's not. If you can't, then I'm just gonna continue to assume that it's flat, and that God has just made it seem like it's not, through optical and other illusions.

It's my faith, so I know it to be true. If y'all can't see this, and want to treat me like an idiot, then I pity you (for being such an idiot).

Does the Bible say the earth is flat?

[earendel]

Does the Bible say the earth is flat?

Specifically no. However most early Christian writers believed it to be so - John Chrysostoam, Athanasius, and Augustine, to name but three. Certainly there is evidence in the Hebrew scriptures to indicate that the Hebrews believed the world was flat - the word for "firmament" in Genesis is best translated as "dome" - it would be hard to put a dome over a spherical body. There is also reference to "the waters under the earth", implying that, like other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Hebrews believed that the earth was a disk floating upon primordial waters.

[BackInTex]

Does the Bible say the earth is flat?

the Hebrews believed that the earth was a disk floating upon primordial waters.

Early plate tectonic theory. Revised by updated scientific evidence. See?

[earendel]

Does the Bible say the earth is flat?

the Hebrews believed that the earth was a disk floating upon primordial waters.

Early plate tectonic theory. Revised by updated scientific evidence. See?

elwing has asked for a globe for Christmas - but as a Bible-believing Christian I'll just have to give her a painted dish. It would certainly take up less space - she could hang it on the wall rather than display it on a stand.

[silvercamaro]

I have no problem with people whose beliefs are based in faith. I have no problem with people whose beliefs are based in scientific evidence. I do have a problem with faith folks who want the schools to stop teaching every kind of science with which they disagree, and I have a problem with the evidence people who want references to God to be removed from all public spaces and ceremonies.

[Sir_Galahad]

I have no problem with people whose beliefs are based in faith. I have no problem with people whose beliefs are based in scientific evidence. I do have a problem with faith folks who want the schools to stop teaching every kind of science with which they disagree, and I have a problem with the evidence people who want references to God to be removed from all public spaces and ceremonies.

I completely agree. I believe we should present all sides to our kids and let them, eventually, draw their own conclusions and follow their own beliefs.

Living here in the Bible Belt, you would be amazed at the looks you would get if you espoused any belief other than what the commonfolk do. So, I tend to try to keep my mouth shut.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Mr K said

Do you ever find it odd that those who adopt archaic philosophies seem to lose ground, oh so incrementally, over the years? When President Bush first came to office, he and his allies claimed that there was NO SUCH THING as global warming. Then it was, sure the Earth is warming, but most of it's not man-made. Now it's, sure the Earth is warming, and most of it is man-made, but we can fix it with market-driven strategies.

Oh no! Now you are using AGW as a example and G. Bush as the measure of scientific acceptance. AGW hasn't gotten incrementally better scientifically, if any thing the evidence is swinging the other way and Bush is once again behind the curve. Or maybe I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist, as I sometimes wonder. But every time I look for the evidence its not there and I'm not willing to put my faith in computer models.

[wintergreen48]

There is a fairly easy response to the mountains of evidence. But, in my experience, those who support science-based beliefs aren't willing even to consider the possibility.

that fairly easy response is "appearance of age." If one accepts the possibility of a Creator (whether an all-powerful being or not), then it should not be that hard to accept that said Creator could (and did) create an earth that appears to be older than it really is. When Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, the other animals and plants that were already in existence would have appeared to be much older than 1 or two days old. I fully concede that this is a belief based on faith, but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

A big problem with that approach— of accepting everything in the Bible as literally true and disbelieving anything that contradicts it— is that you also have to accept that God gives us senses, and the power to reason, for no reason at all, just— it appears— for the purpose of misleading us, to make us think that things are a certain way, when in ‘fact’ they are not that way at all.

The literal interpretation requires us to believe that God ‘makes it appear’ that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years but that, in ‘fact,’ the Earth (and creation as a whole) is just 6,008 years old: but why would God do that? What is the point?

We see stars that our God-given senses tell us are billions of light years away, but God for some reason apparently decided to let us see those stars billions of years before their light could possibly have reached us. Why? After all, He didn’t let us see all of the stars at once, just the ones that you would expect to see if the universe is the age that science estimates it to be (that is, new stars— being further distant— appear every day, as their light finally completes the journey to our part of our galaxy).

In creating the Earth, why did God go to the trouble of planting fossils that our God-given senses tell us are hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old? Just to fill space in the ground? And why did he plant every single one of those fossils in a way that is consistent with the evolutionary record (i.e., not a single human fossil has ever been found at the same geological levels as any dinosaur fossil; not a single mammalian fossil has ever been found at the Cambrian level, which science tells us ended before mammals appeared; not a single dinosaur fossil has ever been found higher than the Mesozoic level, which science tells us marks the end of the time of the dinosaurs; etc.) Why go to all that trouble, to make it ‘appear’ that the Earth is far older than 6,008 years, and that life developed and evolved over that far longer span of time? Just ‘because’?

Science tells us that green plants need sunlight to grow, but according to Genesis 1, plants grow without sunlight (plants were created on the third day, the sun on the fourth day). Sure, God can override the basic principles of botany, but why?

Which raises the question: if you are going to accept the literal truth of the Biblical creation of the world, which version is the right one? In Genesis 1, God creates ‘light’ on the first day, heaven on the second day, Earth and the plants on the third day, day and night (and the sun, moon and stars—God only knows what ‘light’ was around on the first day) on the fourth day, the creatures of the sea and the air on the fifth day, and terrestrial creatures (including both man AND woman) all on the sixth day. In Genesis 2, we don’t know exactly when God created the world, or night and day, but after he created the them, he first created Man (Adam), and after that he created plants, and after that he created birds and animals, and after that he created Woman (Eve). So the question arises, did plants come before animals who came (shortly) before people (as Genesis 1 says)? Or did people (well, man) come before plants who came before animals who came before woman (as Genesis 2 says)?

Science tells us that, except perhaps for identical twins, every person’s DNA is unique, but that certain traits carry over from generation to generation and can be tracked to identify lineage. But according to the Bible (well, Genesis 2), every person on Earth is a lineal descendant of a single human being (Adam) and his clone (Eve), and thus, should have the same or nearly the same DNA. Sure, God can override the basic principles of genetics (perhaps by, um, evolution?), but why?

The Bible is clear about the dimensions of Noah’s Ark: it was a box about 450 feet by 50 feet by 30 feet, but somehow he managed to fit at least two (for some animals more) of every single species of animal on the planet into that space. Sure, God can override basic laws of physics as they apply to mass and volume, in order to fit everything in, but why? Well, perhaps there were a lot fewer species at that time, and many more have evolved since then?

After promising Noah that He won’t ever drown the Earth again, God created the rainbow. Science tells us that rainbows are the result of refracted light, but rainbows did not exist until Noah’s time, at least a thousand years after the other laws of physics were in place (other than the laws related to mass and volume, which apparently did not apply to Noah’s Ark, see above). Why did God create an entirely new principle of optics at that point?

According to the Bible (the dietary laws of Leviticus), rabbits chew the cud. As it happens, no cud-chewing rabbit, whether living or fossil, has ever been found. But since the Bible says that they do chew the cud, I suppose we are expected to believe that they are cud-chewers, and that rabbits only ‘appear’ not to be chewing a cud, we just can’t see it. So why does God go to all the trouble of telling us that rabbits are cud-chewers, but make it impossible for us to see them doing it? Or have modern rabbits evolved from some earlier species that did, in fact, chew the cud (but left no fossil record)?

According to the Bible (again, the dietary laws), winged creatures (birds? insects? both?) that walk on all fours are unclean and cannot be eaten, unless they have jointed legs and can jump; according to the Bible, this would include locusts, crickets and grasshoppers. As it happens, every (normal) locust, cricket or grasshopper on the planet has SIX legs, not four, and in fact there are no four-legged insects (or birds). I supposed you could believe that locusts, crickets and grasshoppers only ‘appear’ to have six legs, but in fact (per the Bible), they have four, but why would God make that happen? Or perhaps things have changed since Leviticus was written, and since that time locusts, crickets and grasshoppers have evolved into a form that has six legs rather than four?

According to the Bible, the sun moves around the Earth (the ‘Joshua Incident,’ which got Galileo in trouble). Sure, you can try to interpret that passage to mean that it ‘appears’ that the sun moves through the sky, and on that day it just ‘appeared’ that the sun had stopped moving, but the original Hebrew does not say that—it says that the sun and the moon both stopped moving and stayed in place in the sky for a full day. Science tells us that the sun does not, in fact, move around the Earth, but perhaps this, again, is an example of God just making it ‘appear’ that the Earth moves around the sun, when in (Biblical) fact the sun moves around the Earth.

Solomon’s Temple was 60 cubits long by 20 cubits wide (about 90 feet long by 30 feet wide, which is less than twice the size of my house), but it took 153,300 people 7 years to build it, and they used (at least) 3,750 tons of gold and (at least) 37,500 tons of silver on it, and when built it took 28,000 people to keep it running (plus 6,000 who acted as judges and officials and 4,000 who played music). You would think that the wisest man in the world could have managed things a bit more efficiently. Why would God insist on such waste? Well, perhaps the problem had to do with the furnishings of the Temple: one of the artifacts within the Temple was the ‘molten sea,’ a bronze basin ‘that measured ten cubits from brim to brim, that was circular in form, and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits’: that would fit nicely in a Temple that was only 60 cubits by 20 cubits, but by my calculations, if it was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around, then the ratio of its circumference to its diameter was 3:1. Sure, God can override the laws of mathematics (which tell us that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is something on the order of 3.1415…:1), but why would He do this? Maybe that explains why it took so many people, and so much material, to build the Temple: violating basic principles of mathematics can’t be easy.

According to the Bible, in the original Hebrew, Ahaziah became king at the age of 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2), succeeding his father Jehoram, who became king at 32 and died 8 years later… making Ahaziah 2 years old when his own father was born. Sure, God can override the basic laws of human reproduction, but why?

According to the Bible, the light of the moon will eventually be as bright as the sun (which will grow even brighter). Science suggests that the sun’s light will actually increase over time, but science also tells us that the moon has no light of its own—the ‘light’ of the moon is just the reflection of the light from the sun. Sure, God can override the basic laws of physics, especially optics (like with that rainbow business), but why?

This is why I have a problem trying to accept this stuff as being LITERALLY true—it simply does not work, it requires too many unnecessary leaps of faith (including leaping over places where the stuff that is supposedly LITERALLY true contradicts other stuff that is also supposedly LITERALLY true).

As Mr. Kelley noted elsewhere, on the one hand you have (literally) mountains of evidence that tell you one set of facts, and on the other hand you have a book that is not only contradicted by those same facts but that contradicts itself internally: why would a reasonable person— using his God-given gift of reason— choose to reject the first in favor of the second?

[TheCalvinator24]

There is a fairly easy response to the mountains of evidence. But, in my experience, those who support science-based beliefs aren't willing even to consider the possibility.

that fairly easy response is "appearance of age." If one accepts the possibility of a Creator (whether an all-powerful being or not), then it should not be that hard to accept that said Creator could (and did) create an earth that appears to be older than it really is. When Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, the other animals and plants that were already in existence would have appeared to be much older than 1 or two days old. I fully concede that this is a belief based on faith, but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

A big problem with that approach— of accepting everything in the Bible as literally true and disbelieving anything that contradicts it— is that you also have to accept that God gives us senses, and the power to reason, for no reason at all, just— it appears— for the purpose of misleading us, to make us think that things are a certain way, when in ‘fact’ they are not that way at all.

It hurts your case a lot when you start with a straw man.

[wintergreen48]

There is a fairly easy response to the mountains of evidence. But, in my experience, those who support science-based beliefs aren't willing even to consider the possibility.

that fairly easy response is "appearance of age." If one accepts the possibility of a Creator (whether an all-powerful being or not), then it should not be that hard to accept that said Creator could (and did) create an earth that appears to be older than it really is. When Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, the other animals and plants that were already in existence would have appeared to be much older than 1 or two days old. I fully concede that this is a belief based on faith, but if I have to choose whether to put my faith in the Bible or in science, I have no qualms making that choice.

A big problem with that approach— of accepting everything in the Bible as literally true and disbelieving anything that contradicts it— is that you also have to accept that God gives us senses, and the power to reason, for no reason at all, just— it appears— for the purpose of misleading us, to make us think that things are a certain way, when in ‘fact’ they are not that way at all.

It hurts your case a lot when you start with a straw man.

Then I misunderstood what you have said before: I thought that this was your point and that of BiT.

But if you do not accept it all as literally true, then on what basis are you picking and choosing what you do accept? That is, you apparently accept the Biblical creation story (at least one of them) as being literally true, to the extent of the timing of the date of the creation), so I would wonder, on what basis do you accept that, but do not accept the other stuff? That is, why, really, do you believe that the Earth is but 6,008 (or some other number less than a million) years old?

[BackInTex]

Lot's of stuff cut and pasted from some other website. Lot's of "why"s.

You are questioning God. I can not answer for him as to why. But some of your questions are easily answered if you really are looking for one.

[Bob78164]

[His usual careful and erudite analysis, I think]

This, this, is why I'm really pissed off at myself for forgetting to bring my reading glasses to the office today. It's gonna be hours before I get home, and until then, my eyes start to burn after extended reading so I'm limiting it to essentials (which include maintaining my sanity, which is my excuse for being here at all). --Bob

[Bob78164]

I have no problem with people whose beliefs are based in faith. I have no problem with people whose beliefs are based in scientific evidence. I do have a problem with faith folks who want the schools to stop teaching every kind of science with which they disagree, and I have a problem with the evidence people who want references to God to be removed from all public spaces and ceremonies.

My reason for believing such references are inappropriate for public schools and the like aren't based on the faith/evidence dichotomy. The question I have is, which god (or gods)? Under the First Amendment, government shalt not choose among religions. So any time someone wonders whether a reference to a god may be appropriate, remember that next time, the group asking for recognition of their deity may be a coven of practicing Satanists.

It's no answer to rely on majority rule. All that does is give a preferential position to the majority religion, and I trust we can all agree that that's a bad idea. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

I acknowledge that a Divine Being capable of creating the universe either 6000 years ago or five billion years ago is capable of making it appear as if the earth is a lot older than it is. Such a Being could even make it appear that the universe exists in such form if, in fact, all we have are the few planets we have tangible proof of.

The question I have is Why? Why would the Divine Being want to trick us into believing the earth was older than it was?

The ancient Greeks and Romans anthropomorphized their gods, ascribing human characteristics like greed, lust, and anger to them in order to explain their actions, but I find it hard to believe that a Divine Being capable of doing something as amazing and intricate as creating the earth would engage in a series of petty mind games that took thousands of years to develop (carbon dating and other techniques of measuring age would have been pretty useless before we developed the technology to measure them).