You are misunderstanding our disagreement, as I have no issue with the above. I am challenging the logic of your previous question. I have no issue with your observation here or @Bill_II’s observation regarding the logic or the process of using the age of rocks as “evidence” to determine the age of fossils, whatever the specific methodology involved…
But once you have used the age of rocks to determine the age of fossils…
…you cannot then use the age of fossils as “evidence” to determine the age of rocks (or of the earth itself)!
So again, back to your original question…
Again, no. I do not agree that fossils “are evidence of an earth that is billions of years old.”
Randy, appreciate your kind interest as always… forgive my length, but perhaps you may find all this interesting…
i’m afraid I can’t give much opinion about @gbob’s post, sorry. I have enough training and education in biology and organic chemistry that I am conversant enough with genes, alleles, ATP, mutations, genetic code, protein transcription, genetic drift, etc., to weigh arguments with at least some insight and form my own relatively informed opinion on them.
When we get into the realms of either geology or physics, I recognize I am out of my league, and thus hold any opinions very loosely. @gbob’s posts are indeed impressive, and sound very convincing, but I am simply not conversant enough to know what I’m looking at, and whether or not his observations would be indeed devastating to a YEC conversant with the geology.
For instance, many YEC’s make a big deal about polystrate fossils, and claim that at face value this proves beyond debate that layers of sediment that are normally claimed as having been laid down how many ever thousands or millions of years old can and must have been laid down very quickly, else the organism would have decayed before it could have fossilized.
This sounds very convincing to me on its face, but likewise, I simply don’t have enough familiarity in the field to know how convincing this should or shouldn’t be to me, similar to @gbob’s excellent posts. They impress me, but I am just not conversant enough to know how hard or easy they would be to refute, nor about the quality of any refutation. But i am conversant enough with biology to know when something just doesn’t pass the proverbial “smell test” to me.
Thus for me, the question of YEC/OEC is simply not important to me personally, partly because the questions involved there are out of my league, partly because to me it makes very little difference theologically or otherwise, and partly because given Einstein’s principles of relativity, there may not even be one correct answer!
But that said, I am indeed open to the observations, considerations, and hypotheses of YEC, though for certain reasons I don’t fall easily “into their camp”, so to speak…
I fully agree with YECs, as I understand them, that when Scripture speaks about historic or scientific matters, it does so unerringly.
I disagree with YECs to the extent that they seem to believe that they can tell, unerringly, when the Bible is indeed speaking about historic or scientific matters, rather than using metaphor, poetry, etc.
I agree with YECs to the extent that I believe that Scripture (“special revelation”), as inerrant revelation, absolutely should inform, qualify, and sometimes overrule or correct our understanding of science.
I disagree with YECs to the extent that they seem not to acknowledge the reverse truth: that science (“general revelation”) is also inerrant revelation from God, and should likewise inform, qualify, and sometimes correct or overrule our understanding of Scripture.
Thus, in just the same way I always try to qualify my understanding of one part of scripture given another, using the principle of allowing “scripture to interpret scripture”, and give no automatic preference to one part that always overrides another, I likewise try to allow general and special revelation to mutually interpret each other, giving no absolute preference to one over the other, as both are inerrant revelation from God, being interpreted by fallible humans.
Thus why, unlike many here, I do not automatically dismiss the observations, hypotheses, or arguments of YECs… I do not listen to “science alone” to answer such questions. I am entirely open to the idea that Scripture may be speaking on scientific or historical matters here, and thus indeed may need to correct our understanding of science.
But neither do I fall easily into the YEC camp, because they go further than I could… I agree that science can never correct or contradict the Bible… but they seem to, in effect, claim, “Science can never correct my interpretation of the Bible.” I hope that is not uncharitable, but it is my impression. And I am always ready to modify any interpretation of Scripture that I hold, based on other clarifying revelation, be that revelation special or general. I am entirely open to the idea that science may need to correct our interpretation of Scripture at certain points, something YECs seem unwilling to entertain.
(But no matter how tentative and untrained my knowledge of geology and physics, I can still spot faulty logic when I see it… hence my objection to the claim that the mere existence of fossils, on their own, could somehow be “evidence” that the earth is some billions of years old.)
I think that @Chris_Falter and @Bill_II were not implying that the existence of fossils alone was the proof–that’s perhaps an instance of GK Chesterton’s illustration of how we miscommunicate by assuming the other person knows what we mean. The evidence of fossils being old is quite strong (interesting quote on the age of the Earth’s core that I had not considered before, but as it’s been validated so much, it’s not likely to affect age of the universe), so I think they meant that with the evidence of age, one would expect the earth to be equally (and more) old. I’d be interested what you think of the varves and illustration in the Biologos excerpt. Glenn Morton’s point was that it takes more than a day to lay down each layer of sediment, with extensive worm tunneling; and so that doesn’t fit in the YEC narrative in the enormous, marvelous detail seen.
I understand your concern about inerrancy and interpretation; it’s better put than many explanations I have read. I wonder if you have read the Counterpoints series on Genesis? “Four Views on the Historical Adam,” and “Three Views on Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?”. I have both books, but haven’t yet read the second. We’ve had a good conversation on inerrancy in the past. I think that some of the issue is, again, language; it seems to me that God uses language appropriate to our understanding. It would not help me now to have Him communicate regarding quarks or, much less, some other scientific theory that will be discovered in the future. I would not understand it. Perhaps that’s why He used the language of the day to communicate with the folk of the day.
Again, thank you for your discussion.
Addendum: I came to geology from a very YEC stance at my first college level course in 1991. I was rather obnoxious, most likely, because several times I asked YEC type questions of the very kind prof, John Bartley. I recall that he unfailingly responded with kindness and patience. (Some of the other students were not so patient). Finally I began to realize that his approach was sincere, and that he was not only concerned with truth, but excelled compared to me in empathy. I was better able to learn the science as a result.
Appreciated, thanks. Again, I’d have to do some kind of deep study of worms and sediment and varves and the like as I am entirely unfamiliar… and with anything like this I would also want to study a response from a YEC who is familiar with the concept, and even then, I would not have a good frame of reference to judge between the two perspectives to have a valuable opinion. All I could do in such settings is to see if one side appears to be hand waving evidence, or making unwarranted assumptions, or the like. I’ll take a look at some point perhaps if and when I have time.
That was certainly not @Bill_II’s point in the least, and I don’t think @Chris_Falter was trying to suggest that fossils were the only proof of an old earth. But I bristled (and still do) at his suggestion that the existence of fossils in the ground, with no further qualification than that, could in any way be considered “evidence of an earth that is billions of years old.”
If the age of fossils is determined from the age of the surrounding earth, their age simply can’t be used as evidence for a certain age of the surrounding earth. Whatever I do or don’t know about geology, I do know something about circular reasoning.
On the other hand, if he is not claiming anything about the age of the fossils as determining the age of the earth, rather, simply that their existence is evidence of “scars” in the world that demonstrate non-instantaneous creation, then his claim is simply a non sequitur. I could just as likewise claim… “There are stone arrowheads in the ground. So would you agree they are evidence of an earth that is billions of years old?”
You have no problem with the dating of particular fossils when the layers above and below the fossils can be dated. Correct?
You object to the use of index fossils which are used to date the layers of rocks above and below them. Maybe?
Edit to add:
On a second reading of this I am not sure I am understanding you correctly. When you say “evidence for a certain age of the surrounding earth” do you mean a certain age for planet Earth? To me once a date can be assigned to any part of the planet there are two possibilities. The planet is older than that date or the planet was created with a false evidence for its age. Since we are told we can see God in His creation I have to reject the second option.
Actually, you can. And we have discussed why at some length.
Recall that we have been using an analogy of trying to determine whether the man standing in front of you is in fact 30 years old, or whether he was miraculously created a minute ago with a mere appearance of age.
In the same way, we are discussing in this thread whether the earth we inhabit is truly 4+ billion years old, or whether it was created merely 6000 or so years ago with the apparent age of 4+ billion years.
How would we determine whether the man standing in front of us was truly 30 years old rather than created ex nihilo a minute ago? Here’s one way: Check his arms and hands for scars. If you see numerous scars, you would conclude that they point to events (wounds) that occurred months or years ago. The scars would help you decide that the man is well and truly 30 years old, and not created ex nihilo a minute ago with an apparent age.
In the same way, fossils point to events that happened millions and billions of years ago. At one point you seemed to think that fossils could not be dated by any method other than radiocarbon (maximum span of 50k years), but in your last post you grasped that the fossils point to lives lived in deep time, just as the radiometrically dated geological strata that sandwich them were formed in deep time.
To summarize:
The radiometric dating of geological strata tells us an age of billions of years.
The fossils (are like scars that) tell us that the age is real, not merely apparent.
Appreciate the thoughts… No, as understand the concept of an index fossil, I don’t even object to that, as there is still nothing particularly circular, so long as the reasoning and procedure is done properly. Radiometric dating is used as you describe to date an index fossil, then that index fossil is used to estimate that other certain strata are likely similar in age, if for whatever reason those strata can’t themselves be dated by such radiometric manners. In and of itself, I have no objection, and that process is not circular, though I can see potential of various assumptions or estimations that must be carefully corrected for. There may indeed be difficulties or problems, but no, that is not my objection.
For as I understand it, that is not circular… the “starting point” is not the conclusion… certain rocks are dated as some 500 million years old by radiometric dating, this is then used to date an index fossil, and this is then used to date other strata.
My objection is rather when someone, for instance a YEC, doubts the starting point… in the case above, let’s say my YEC friend doubts that the age of the first rock, used to date the fossil, is in fact 500 million years old.
At that point, it becomes circular reasoning to argue that “of course that rock is 500 million years old, because look, it has a 500 million year old fossil in it!”
Do you follow me thus far, and why I would find any argument circular that suggested that fossils could ever be used as evidence for the old age of the earth?
So their actual objection is to the method used to date the rock, not the age of the fossil. So they object to radiometric dating. And using radiometric dating is just one method that can give us the age of the Earth with no reference to fossils.
Which is why fossils are not used to directly show the age of the Earth (except perhaps in an Internet discussion). But you will agree that when fossils are dated using radiometric dating methods that places a lower bound on the age of the Earth correct? All of these lower bounds being much greater than 6,000 years.
It is geology and not biology that establishes the age of the Earth. And it was geology that first brought into question the 6,000 year old Earth long before Darwin.
I wish you could stand back and look at the big picture. You can argue about one particular elapsed time clock all you want, but even if you are not convinced about the rationale behind its mechanism, that does not invalidate (pun not intended ) all the rest of the daters. There are a slew of them, and, significantly, they are not interdependent!
I find it interesting (from what I observe) that YEC like to talk about process: why does the earth look and act the way it does, but old earthers like to talk about age. Speaking as a YEC, an old earther needs to convince me of the how and why the earth looks and acts the way it does before I can consider an old age of the earth.
Geology is all about the process and how things ended up to be how they are now. The age is merely one parameter, so you are correct to say that “old earthers” do discuss age. YECs do not talk about age because there is very little difference in age for anything. Everything is essentially the same age… The Hawaiian Islands were all created in the same year, according to YEC, as the Pacific plate moved along at several meters per second, while the island chain was created. This as opposed to the Pacific Plate moving at mere centimeters per year, as it is currently measured to be moving.
A process that has to get the Earth looking like it does in a matter of a few hundred years. And the process that they come up with is rather hard to believe.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
99
Were a tree created “mature”, would it have rings? Would the summer wood be thick or thin? Would the rings be perfectly matched, or would some be wider than others? Would carbon dating show younger rings to the outside? Would any scientific test whatsoever distinguish a genuinely old tree from a freshly created mature tree?
I have always thought that Henry Gosse has been somewhat unfairly maligned, as his book promoting the Omphalos theory incorporates a much deeper consideration of the implications of maturity than the generally found in other writings about creation ex nihilo. The main objections are 1) a misleading creation is incompatible with the character of God, and 2) it logically leads to an unfalsifiable Last Thursdayism. I agree with these criticisms, but think that Gosse was correct about the implications of age in “poofing” creation. This is in part why I hold that the age is indeed genuine, that God is eternal and He has the patience and timelessness to let the earth unfold over billions of orbits about the sun.
Hi Klax - Numerous threads are flying around, so you might have missed that I already addressed Daniel’s latest volley in my post #92
Since @Daniel_Fisher has chosen not to respond even though he has addressed several other comments in the interim, my working assumption is that Daniel has finally perceived my logic and accepts it. Whether I was communicating poorly or Daniel was misreading is irrelevant; we seem to have come to an agreement, and that’s what counts. Please correct me if you think otherwise, @Daniel_Fisher
Chris, I’m baffled by your logic on many fronts… this one included. Firstly, unless I’m mistaken, I have not addressed “several other comments in the interim.” I responded to @Bill_II’s comment, which was posted before yours, and am now just getting back to this thread. And I’m baffled that you can rationally allow a silence of some 9 hours to become “evidence” that I have “chosen not to respond,” and further drawn from that a working assumption that I perceived your logic, from which you have proposed the working hypothesis that we have come to agreement? Might you have considered the obvious alternate hypothesis that some of us have jobs?
Forgive me if I remain a bit skeptical of your understanding or use of logic.
So if I may be so bold, to your other fallacy…
This is essentially a straw man fallacy, as you are describing the YEC position in ways that they themselves would most vehemently deny. I don’t know if this is because you are so unfamiliar with their position, or simply misunderstanding them. But either way, you are making a terribly false analogy here: YECs believe the earth is young, they don’t believe it is pristine. They do not claim that the earth is currently unscarred. they may indeed believe it was unscarred 6,000 years ago, but they do indeed believe it has endured 6,000 years of scarring. Indeed, they go to great lengths to affirm that Noah’s flood did tremendous amounts of “scarring” (i.e., fossil creation) in this world.
Therefore… the analogy between those that believe in a world 4+ billion years ago and a world 6000 years ago is not analogous to a man of 30 and a man created a moment ago, with no time to have developed scars, but rather to a man created say 3 years ago with apparent age, but who has had time over those last two years to sustain injuries and heal and form scars.
So let me fix the analogy, and then we can return to your question…
How would we determine whether the man standing in front of us was truly 30 years old rather than created ex nihilothree years ago? Here’s one way: Check his arms and hands for scars . If you see numerous scars, you would conclude that they point to events (wounds) that occurred months or years ago. The scars would help you decide that the man is well and truly 30 years old, and not created ex nihilothree years ago with an apparent age.
I trust you might see how the existence of scars, in and of itself, simply could not help distinguish between a man actually 30 years old, and a man created ex nihilo 3 years ago with apparent age at that time?
Similarly, the mere existence of fossils cannot, alone, distinguish between a world 6,000 years old and one billions of years old.
If you genuinely cannot still see any problem with your original analogy, we will have to simply end here.
By your analogy, if the earth was created with apparent age 6000 years ago, all the scars should show up in strata dated 6000 years or less, correct? I think Chris’s point is that fossils (scars) are found in layers going back billions of years. So was your apparent age earth created with fossils embedded of animals that never existed?
I have no problem with the idea of God creating a 30 year old man who would then gain scars over the next 3 years. But if that man has a healed broken bone with enough calcification on it to suggest it happened 20 years ago, then that would be evidence that he wasn’t created 3 years ago, correct? We would expect any scars to have 3 years or less apparent healing time.
essentially, that is what I understand… (Of course, I imagine they would likewise doubt any and all other methods that would give an old age of the earth.)
But yes, insofar as they doubt the original radiological methods for various reasons, they would doubt what those methods could tell us about the age of any particular fossil, if I am representing them accurately.
You may have to clarify for me… when you say “when fossils are dated using radiometric dating methods”, I’m assuming you mean C14 dating which can, in fact, be used on fossils?
If so, then yes, those methods can date fossils to well past 6,000 years (up to about 50,000 years if I understand correctly). But of course, YECs would raise the same doubts about C14 radiological methods that they would about the other methods used to date rocks far further back.
If I misunderstood you, I must beg your pardon and ask you to further clarify.
Sure, and to me, it is the distance to distant stars that seems to establish the age of the universe. It is just that I am careful to hold even these beliefs tentatively, given that I do believe in a God who has occasionally brought things into this world instantaneously, with apparent age. (The miraculous fish and bread being one poignant example). Thus I personally am very willing to entertain the observations and hypotenuses of YECs, even if I am more skeptical of their overall scheme than they seem to be.
Also, a few things I consider…am baffled by relativity and time dilation, and i have no idea if we could even guess just how that would impact the creation or apparent age of the universe, light from distant stars, different ages in different parts of the universe, etc. also, I am tentative in my beliefs when i consider how significantly einstein over encompassed Newton’s theories. Strictly speaking, Newton’s genius principles were not wrong, so much as incomplete, and reflected what we now recognize as a small sliver of reality. it could be that other things we examine are similar… we have great confidence in them now, but we have no idea if we are seeing but a small sliver of reality. for all these reasons, i hold much of these things tentatively.
(And yes, I know I wrote “hypotenuses” above. I tried to write hypotheses, but it got spellchecked to “hypotenuses”, and i thought that was too funny to correct.)
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
105
The moderators’ opinions are the best you can hope for by a country mile here gracez. And those of biologists.
well, if we’re assuming the YEC position for the sake of argument…
If the earth was, in fact, created with apparent age 6,000 years ago, then all strata are 6,000 years old or less, no?
And then all scars would be showing up in strata that was indeed 6000 years old or less, regardless of what we erroneously dated them as.
This is indeed a good argument, and valid, and that would be a good refutation. Alternately, one might examine the number of scars, and recognize that the sheer number are beyond what we would expect a person to sustain in 3 years… or perhaps that some scars healed over others, implying that one had to have completely healed before the second injury could have been sustained and subsequently healed, etc. Those kinds of observations about the nature, or number, of scars would indeed be good and valid counter examples.
So by analogy, i think these types of specific observations about fossils are valid arguments that could show them as inconsistent with the YEC position.
But the mere existence of fossils, as Chris seemed to suggest, simply does not logically flow.
additionally, though, as mentioned above, I do harbor skepticism of “dating” the earth by fossils, when it was conclusions about the age of the earth that was the basis on which we dated the fossils.
So I am not sure of the analogy to fossils, but I am not sure how one would demonstrate the analogy/equivalent of 20 years of calcification in a way that was not derived from the prior determination that the man was 30 years old, but i’m certainly willing to entertain any thoughts you might have?
) all the rest of the daters. There are a slew of them, and, significantly, they are not interdependent!