Exactly. This is ironclad proof that all the physical evidence points to an old universe, and he knows it.
Indeed.
1 Like
Well in order for this to be true, the science would have to prove this because God doesnât lie. So, if scientists somehow stumbled on to the âtruthâ that the earth is really young (and if was verified through all the normal scientific methods) Iâm assuming I would just go on about my business like normal - only now, I would argue that the earth is young instead of old.
I trust that God wouldnât mislead us to believe a lie about his creation so Iâm assuming that scientists would have just found a piece of evidence in nature that confirms the (young) age of the earth.
This perplexes me.
If it turned out that God indeed created Adam as a fully-functioning adult - that is, without having him go through conception, gestation, birth, and maturation to adulthood - would we say that all the knowledge we have of human anatomy and procreation would thereby be rendered useless or untrustworthy?
1 Like
I know from personal experience what it means to âdo the very hard thing of changing our most deeply held beliefs.â I did so not only when I began to follow Christ in earnest at age 28, but also years later when as a pastor with two seminary degrees at age 41 my study of the Bible convinced me that everyone is going to heaven. (If you want to know more go here for where you can get my book The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven.) I was a pastor and lost my church and friends and more.
I say this not to elicit sympathy or praise - I do not deserve, nor do I want, either. (Neither do I want to be railed at as a heretic; you can do that on my website, not here.) Rather, I say it as proof that when I come here telling you that I am willing to reject a long-held view that I thought was biblical for a more truly biblical one, there is reason to take me seriously on that point.
P.S. I take no money for my books; neither do I accept donations of any kind. The mention of the book therefore is in no way a commercial plug.
2 Likes
This response to @Swamidass is a complete non-sequitor.
How do you even get to that proposed conclusion? Because God miraculously makes rain, we canât trust the laws of nature regarding the water cycle? How exactly does that follow?
What youâre quoting from me was not a response to @Swamidass; rather, I was responding to @Casper_Hesp. Here is his original post, and my response to it.
My apologies. Referencing Swami instead of @Casper_Hesp was a mental error (or an unconscious finger-memory error).
My statement that your proposed conclusion is a non-sequitor still, however, stands.
Why would Godâs creation of Adam have anything to do with having confidence in natural laws as used and understood by humanity?
That was my point.
2 Likes
I think Casper is in a different position in that his career is dependent on the observations of science being true as observed. In the medical field, little I see is directly dependent on an old earth, though newer technologies such as genetic and immunologic therapy have some close ties, as well as diagnostic technologies such as MRI depends on our knowledge of physics being true and predictable.
I think a good example of the other side of the coin would be to ask a member of AIG, such a Dr. Purdom or Ken Ham how they would live life differently if they were to accept an old earth. It would mean a career change, loss of financial stability, etc. as well as a big loss of face in the community, which sad to say we are all self centered enough to make that sort of shaming very traumatic.
4 Likes
@Mike_Gantt, as per comments from @jpm, perhaps a clearer way of rejecting his position would have been:
âJust because I reject the validity of applying Geological science and its related disciplines regarding age of the Earth, why canât I fully accept the evidences of other sciences?â
I now assume that this is what you meant by what you wrote.
Correct me if Iâm wrong. On the assumption that Iâm in the right ballpark now, I would say that your expectation to be able to pick and choose which fields of science you want to rely upon fails on several points:
-
Itâs obviously cherry-picking.
-
You have no system for being skeptical about Geology, but happily accepting of nuclear medicine?
-
Your appoach is not internally coherent.
@Mike_Gantt the difference is that @Casper_Hesp is an astrophysicist and we are talking about the age of the earth. It is impossible at this time to conceive of mathematically coherent physical laws at the scale of the universe if the universe is just 6,000 years ago. The distant starlight problem is widely acknowledged as unsolved in YEC cosmology (even by most YECs), but that is the center of @Casper_Hespâs field of study. And there is a massive amount of things have happening here, including most recently in the news the detection of gravity waves. None of the field makes sense of the universe is just 6,000 years old,. He would have to through away all the physical laws he has learned that explain so much of what he sees in the world. It would change everything for him.
2 Likes
No. But if we say God created everyone that way, then yes. Your analogy is nothing like the situation facing us if the entire universe is only 6,000 years old.
In an earlier formulation of the question that lies at the heart of the OP, I asked "Other than the arguments we have about it, how would you live differently if your view of the age of the earth turned out to be wrong? I wish I had retained the italicized part in the OP because it would have clearly kept out of scope situations like that of people like you mention: Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, and so on. I certainly understand that those whose livelihood is dependent on public perceptions of the respective staked out position would face enormous changes. However, my interest was in how we live - entirely independent of factors such as the shame in having been wrong.
In other words, the age of the earth per se sounds like such an esoteric subject to me. Thatâs why Iâm searching to find if there are people for whom the perceived age of the earth changing had practical implications.
You seem to be saying that @Casper_Hesp would face special challenges, but I canât tell how many of them fall in the âout of scopeâ category as opposed to practical challenges. It looks like Iâll be told in posts farther down this string.
1 Like
Not at all. Iâm just asking how ignoring projections in the past beyond 6,000 years invalidates or makes useless everything else?
Why would anyone trust observations about the present if observations about the past have no connection to reality?
1 Like
I still donât understand. It sounds like a flat-earther saying, âIf the earth is round, I canât walk to work anymore.â
First of all, I think youâve lumped two separate things into one category. Itâs observations about the present and projections (or assumptions, or estimates) about the past. Second, we would only be saying that projections beyond a certain point would be unreliable.
Not really. Itâs observations, period. Then there are projections (or estimates, or whatever) about the very recent past â last week, a minute ago, a nanosecond ago, whatever. Whenever the events happened, your conclusions about them are mental reconstructions based on observations taken at a later time.[quote=âMike_Gantt, post:38, topic:36307â]
Second, we would only be saying that projections beyond a certain point would be unreliable.
[/quote]
Sure. And Iâm asking how you could know that they were unreliable at one time and reliable at another.
3 Likes
I like your reply â pithy, that! You do have a good way with words and I think I understand pretty well the spirit of your question. For most of us our practical daily lives do not hinge on the conclusions from these âesotericâ subjects.
That said, your hypothetical walker, when she arrives at her teaching job at school - having had no problem walking on the earth she had formerly thought flat - had probably better rip up her flat-earth promotional materials and start teaching her students about globes instead. She might say her life has been impacted by that point.
I understand how there can be observations from the past, but I donât understand how there can be observations of the past. Seems to me the past is too late to observe something - just like the future is too soon to observe something. Of course, we can project the future, and in due time, compare our projections with observations. But I canât imagine how to do something similar with respect to the past.
If God tells us theyâre unreliable beyond a certain point.