Young Earth or Old Earth Poll

[WishboneDawn]

Anti-intellectual in what way? I didn't say it's all just about opinion, but I believe there is room for error.

 

Of course. But there being room for or the possibility for error does not mean there IS error. The possibility of error is a spectre anyone can summon without the onus of producing actual proof or support for the actual existence of error. If that's allowed then why bother attempting to know anything? Why bother examining our belief or opinions or debating them with others?

 

I think that's what I would maintain is anti-intellectual.

 

 

"Scientific" research contradicts itself all the time. New evidence emerges, new technology emerges, scientific thought changes - as it should.

 

Except there's another step - consensus emerges. Science is not as slippery as your statement seems to claim. We've got this impression of science as one study contradicting another these days but it's less about science and more about how we and the media choose to view it. Science isn't one study. Science is in part a method for gathering a body of evidence, many repeated and peer-reviewed studies and observations that give us the basis from which to construct a theory. At that point, the point we've reached for the age of the earth but not yet for something like gravity, there is a general consensus.

 

 

I think of the book title "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict". If it wasn't possible to come to different conclusion via science and the evidence then there would be no debate.

 

Honestly, on this side of the fence, there isn't a debate. The evidence for an older earth is solid. The case for an young earth contains at it's heart an appeal to a supernatural cause (which science can not deal with in any capacity) and a core belief in a certain interpretation of Christian scripture. It's an inherently unscientific claim for those to reasons. I have no issue with those who choose to believe in a YE, but I'd argue that's a (respectable to my mind) faith-based belief, not a scientific one.

 

The methods of dating were created by humans - infallible humans.

 

One of the primary methods of dating depend on a natural constant - the rate of decay of certain isotopes. Humans may have created the method of measuring those rates of decay but the actual rates are not something we created. Saying humans are fallible (I assume that's what you meant :)) does not mean we've made a mistake here. again it's appealing to some general truth and attempting to apply it to a specific instance where it doesn't belong. It's like saying humans are capable of hate and so I likely hate my family.

 

Honestly, we use the same knowledge everyday in other situations where there's a universal acceptance that they work. Think of how Japanese officials measured levels of radiation with the recent disaster there. If our knowledge about isotopes was so fallible we would not be able to do that, let alone be generating nuclear power to begin with.

 

Science and it's processes are not without potential for error. And while I make sure my children are aware of all the different theories out there, I'd feel mendacious teaching them they evolved from ape over millions of years.

 

I wouldn't teach them we evolved from apes either. That's simply misleading and wrong. We evolved from a common ancestor. :)

 

I don't mean to convince you with any of this, just hopefully give you an insight into the POV of those of us on the other side of the fence on this issue. :)

Edited July 2, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[*~Tina~*]

 

 

Except there's another step - consensus emerges. Science is not as slippery as your statement seems to claim. We've got this impression of science as one study contradicting another these days but it's less about science and more about how we and the media choose to view it. Science isn't one study. Science is in part a method for gathering a body of evidence, many repeated and peer-reviewed studies and observations that give us the basis from which to construct a theory. At that point, the point we've reached for the age of the earth but not yet for something like gravity, there is a general consensus.

 

 

 

Honestly, on this side of the fence, there isn't a debate. The evidence for an older earth is solid. The case for an young earth contains at it's heart an appeal to a supernatural cause (which science can not deal with in any capacity) and a core belief in a certain interpretation of Christian scripture. It's an inherently unscientific claim for those to reasons. I have no issue with those who choose to believe in a YE, but I'd argue that's a (respectable to my mind) faith-based belief, not a scientific one.

 

 

 

One of the primary methods of dating depend on a natural constant - the rate of decay of certain isotopes. Humans may have created the method of measuring those rates of decay but the actual rates are not something we created. Saying humans are fallible (I assume that's what you meant :)) does not mean we've made a mistake here. again it's appealing to some general truth and attempting to apply it to a specific instance where it doesn't belong. It's like saying humans are capable of hate and so I likely hate my family.

 

Honestly, we use the same knowledge everyday in other situations where there's a universal acceptance that they work. Think of how Japanese officials measured levels of radiation with the recent disaster there. If our knowledge about isotopes was so fallible we would not be able to do that, let alone be generating nuclear power to begin with.

 

 

 

I wouldn't teach them we evolved from apes either. That's simply misleading and wrong. We evolved from a common ancestor. :)

 

I don't mean to convince you with any of this, just hopefully give you an insight into the POV of those of us on the other side of the fence on this issue. :)

 

It's the bolded parts that confuse me. If something was scientifically positively accurate and could be proven without a shadow of doubt, there would be no point of debate. General consensus or universal acceptance aren't equivalent to fact or perfect science. There was somewhat of a consensus during the Holocaust, demonstrating that people are easily led one way or the other in so many situations, particularly if the condition or mindset is imposed, exposed and presented in a way to induce unanimity.

 

 

I don't take the current universal acceptance as incontrovertible fact. It's not that I take a "side". I have questions, I wonder, but at the end of the day I'm okay with accepting that I'm not meant to know everything and don't need to know everything about His creation.

 

I'll leave the common ancestor thing alone ;)

[WishboneDawn]

It's the bolded parts that confuse me. If something was scientifically positively accurate and could be proven without a shadow of doubt, there would be no point of debate. General consensus or universal acceptance aren't equivalent to fact or perfect science.

 

If you're expecting perfection from science then I think you may have set the bar just a tad to high. :) I'm a little unsure of what your expectations of science are. :confused:

 

Regardless, you're still stating the same fallacy, that because there's not perfection, that because there's the possibility of error, it's still valid from a scientific POV to question the idea that the earth is very old or (I'd guess) the theory of evolution. A crack in a wall is just a crack, it's not a doorway you can march elephants through. Nevermind that by focusing on that crack, that possibility of error, you're ignoring the whole wall.

[simka2]

If you're expecting perfection from science then I think you may have set the bar just a tad to high. :) I'm a little unsure of what your expectations of science are. :confused:

 

A crack in a wall is just a crack, it's not a doorway you can march elephants through. Nevermind that by focusing on that crack, that possibility of error, you're ignoring the whole wall.

 

This is my new favorite line! Someday I may have to turn this into my signature! :D

[AvasMom]

It's the bolded parts that confuse me. If something was scientifically positively accurate and could be proven without a shadow of doubt, there would be no point of debate. General consensus or universal acceptance aren't equivalent to fact or perfect science. There was somewhat of a consensus during the Holocaust, demonstrating that people are easily led one way or the other in so many situations, particularly if the condition or mindset is imposed, exposed and presented in a way to induce unanimity.

 

 

I don't take the current universal acceptance as incontrovertible fact. It's not that I take a "side". I have questions, I wonder, but at the end of the day I'm okay with accepting that I'm not meant to know everything and don't need to know everything about His creation.

 

I'll leave the common ancestor thing alone ;)

 

In the world of research (or at least in my limited experience...which was at the NIH) the word "prove" is used so rarely it's practically a 4-letter word. Scientists don't *expect* to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science looks for the best evidence and is constantly refining the findings. Debate using evidence is encouraged in science.

[WishboneDawn]

It's the bolded parts that confuse me.

 

Me too. :)

 

I had to come back to this even after I switched off the monitor and walked away from the computer. :D

 

Yes, knowledge in science is often a matter of consensus (and yes some bad things have been decided by consensus but that's a straw man. Bad things have happened as a result of many things, from Christian fervor to ingesting peanuts. It's sort of a meaningless line to draw). But how else would it happen?

 

There is a common misunderstanding out there that a scientific theory is somehow an unproven or not-quite-there-yet law. That if a theory really were good enough then it would attain the status of law or fact. That's simply not true. From a blog post I wrote about this issue a few years back (quote id from Dan Berger at MadSciNet):

Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

 

Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

 

You don't get perfection from science. It's not on offer. What you do get is a rational, systemized look at the evidence, data, laws to create an explanation, a theory. Once that theory has been reviewed and a consensus emerges about it then you're as good as it gets.

 

The fact, that possibly perfect bit you're looking for, is the very first step. Heck, we had that step for ages. Watch an apple fall from a tree and where does that get you scientifically? Nowhere. It's a perfect fact but it's just an apple on the ground in the end. Maybe it's lunch, but that's it. Apply the reason of fallible, error-prone humans and you come up with the idea, law and eventually theories (we haven't got a really good, generally accepted one yet) of gravity.

 

So yes, it's about consensus. Consensus on how to go about science and consensus on the ideas that emerge about it.

[WishboneDawn]

This is my new favorite line! Someday I may have to turn this into my signature! :D

 

:lol: It's yours! :D

[WishboneDawn]

In the world of research (or at least in my limited experience...which was at the NIH) the word "prove" is used so rarely it's practically a 4-letter word. Scientists don't *expect* to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science looks for the best evidence and is constantly refining the findings. Debate using evidence is encouraged in science.

 

From what I've read (No research here. I'm a housewife with a high school diploma :D) truth is another one of those words.

 

Part of the blame goes to science enthusiasts though I think. I often hear words like that, words that hint at absolute certainty, being tossed around like rice at a wedding when they get arguing about something like evolution.

 

I also get irritated at, "I believe in evolution." No. Don't do that. Accept the evidence for and the the theory of evolution but don't believe in it. It's not a religion.

[Coffeemama]

I love the way you put this. I truly believe that 7 days as mentioned in the Bible does not necessarily mean a week as in modern times. The Biblical account actually does state that everything happened in the right order (according to science).

 

:iagree: God's time is not necessarily the same as our concept of time.

 

I also believe that some things will remain a mystery...and that is fine with me.:001_smile:

 

ETA, I teach my children that the earth is billions of years old and God is responsible for all of creation. I am Catholic and don't see anything wrong with holding both views.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Coffeemama

[Aelwydd]

I just wanted to tell you, WishboneDawn, that I heart your brain.

[*~Tina~*]

If you're expecting perfection from science then I think you may have set the bar just a tad to high. :) I'm a little unsure of what your expectations of science are. :confused:

 

Regardless, you're still stating the same fallacy, that because there's not perfection, that because there's the possibility of error, it's still valid from a scientific POV to question the idea that the earth is very old or (I'd guess) the theory of evolution. A crack in a wall is just a crack, it's not a doorway you can march elephants through. Nevermind that by focusing on that crack, that possibility of error, you're ignoring the whole wall.

 

I didn't set out to practice logic and reasoning skills here, but I certainly do think it is valid to question the age of the earth with what is currently referred to as evidence.

 

I too liked your crack and elephant analogy but disagree with it as it is used here ;)

 

 

In the world of research (or at least in my limited experience...which was at the NIH) the word "prove" is used so rarely it's practically a 4-letter word. Scientists don't *expect* to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science looks for the best evidence and is constantly refining the findings. Debate using evidence is encouraged in science.

 

I'd rephrase the bolded part to - Debate using that which is universally accepted as evidence. ;)

 

 

On this topic I sense that science is closed to new interpretations or evaluating evidence to refine the findings. The old earth theory seems to be set in stone. So if you're going to draw the line like that, there ought to be irrefutable evidence. That's what I expect from science.

 

Debate is encouraged in the field of science in most regards, but this topic in particular seem taboo. Discussions often turn to insults and gestures of ignorance, particularly when faith is a factor.

 

We can agree to disagree on this, and that's okay too. I do appreciate that you've shared and maintained a respectful tone and I appreciate the thoughtful conversation.

Edited July 3, 2011 by *~Tina~*

[HRAAB]

I'm Catholic and believe in theistic evolution. For us there is no specific teaching on the age of the earth.

 

This.

[catz]

I just wanted to tell you, WishboneDawn, that I heart your brain.

 

:001_wub: Me too! I usually don't get into threads like this since they just seem to run in circles, but I'm totally on board with Dawn's thoughts! I'm Unitarian and old earth (obviously).

[kiana]

I would like to thank Dawn for saying what I've been thinking, except more eloquently. :)

[creekland]

It's not that science depends upon the age of the earth, it's that the tools of science are what lead scientists to the conclusion that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. If we decide that we think that our interpretation of the Bible is a better way to attain knowledge about the age of the earth than the tools of science, then the idea is that we cannot trust the tools of science to provide us with at least somewhat-reliable information about the natural world and its processes. Once you decide that, then science really ceases to matter at all.

 

I certainly believe there are questions that are outside the realm of science or are not best answered by science. I'm not going to turn to science for answers about ethics or beauty or the nature of God. But, when we're talking about attaining factual information about the natural world, then science, while certainly not perfect, is the best means we have. Deciding that we will only turn to science for information on the natural world when its conclusions conform to our theological presuppositions doesn't work.

 

I'm just going to agree to disagree as I find no need to get involved in these types of debates. However, as many know, there are plenty of real, working, degreed scientists who disagree with you. They don't all belong to Creationists organizations or work for them. Many come from secular Unis. I know one who teaches at one IRL (though his fellow workers don't know). The bias out there is real. The reason I switched my personal beliefs from theistic evolution to creationist is due to the evidence, though yes, there are issue with either side and I sort of follow them at times just out of curiosity. I was fine with the Bible either way. ;) I'm still fine with the Bible either way. I'm still fine in a discussion either way. I still teach evolution when needed at our public high school.

 

It's only a big deal to a few people out there in the grand scheme of things - even in the science world. I know that's difficult to believe when one only reads or hears certain authors (either side), but it's what I see in reality. For 1%, it matters. For the rest, it is an interesting curiosity, but nonetheless, just history more than science. (Science needs reproducible results.)

[albeto]

On this topic I sense that science is closed to new interpretations or evaluating evidence to refine the findings. The old earth theory seems to be set in stone. So if you're going to draw the line like that, there ought to be irrefutable evidence. That's what I expect from science.

 

I would respectfully disagree. Information that has undergone rigorous research is used to support research in which new interpretations are offered. The circulatory system, for example, was fundamental for the science that discovered blood types which in turn helped to develop the understanding of cellular biology. There were many theories and research ideas that contributed to these findings and others that were discarded (such as the proposed idea of Phrenology). Diabetes was discovered by using the scientific method and today we know about diabetes but we're still working out more specific details. Each study is very particular, eliminating all but one variable and these findings undergo peer review and scientific scrutiny before the consensus finding Dawn spoke of earlier allows information to be accepted and taken as fact, allowing another variable to be isolated.

 

Geology works the same way. Discoveries made centuries ago, long before Charles Darwin (or his grandfather, whose generation had already advocated the idea of the theory of evolution), geologists had laid the foundation for the understanding and acknowledgement of a very old earth. The question of the age of the earth had been settled with the fact that it was far, far more ancient than the Christian Bible story tells. Scientists are still working out details but with each discovery, more specifics are uncovered. No one expects to know everything there is to know, but we can expect to continue uncovering facts.

 

As new ideas are conceived, they are presented. Those ideas conceived by Christians who advocate a very young earth have been put to the test, if for no other reason than a scientist who can prove one particular religion's creation story as being factual would be worth a far greater reward than any other discovery in the history of humanity. Greater than the discovery of the rotation of the earth, greater than the discovery of fire. No scientist would want to pass up the opportunity to lay this to rest if it were possible to offer irrefutable evidence to support the hypothesis of the Jewish God creating the world with his breath.

 

Panspermia is another idea that is being presented to the scientific community. The idea that life on earth began from life on another planet, making its way to earth via meteors is a viable idea that is getting attention. Should that research offer any conclusive information, the scientific community would take a close look at it as warranted. To the best of my knowledge (useless), these claims have no real support. However, should there be a kind of "smoking gun" evidence discovered, the scientific community would put it to the test and let the information speak for itself.

 

In my experience taking with those who advocate a creationist hypothesis, the scientific information they've been given, through companies like Answers in Genesis, is misleading or simply mistaken. Small details are left out of the premise, allowing for a kind of "hole" in the theory to be exposed. Sometimes it's outdated information (like carbon dating) and sometimes it's false information (like the explanation of pseudogenes), and sometimes information is simply neglected altogether. In any case, the conclusion "it just couldn't happen" is then applied as a conclusion which is then used to support the greater hypothesis. That's not how the scientific method is used, which is why this information isn't considered. It's been offered and found irrelevant to the research at hand. It's not so much that it's "set in stone" as it is very insistent upon using the scientific method accurately.

 

Debate is encouraged in the field of science in most regards, but this topic in particular seem taboo. Discussions often turned to insults and gestures of ignorance, particularly when faith is a factor.

 

Frustrations can run high, it's true. Scientists have this little habit in the community of looking past one's personality for the sake of analyzing the information offered. A person can be the most likable character but if their information is useless, then no amount of persuasion will be successful in the long run. Consequently, the biggest pain in the neck diva scientist who picks his nose and belches constantly will not be dismissed if his or her information is solid, supported by the evidence. Name calling is a personality issue that can strike any profession, but scientists generally look past that to analyze the information and accept or reject it based on the merits of the science presented.

[texasmama]

I'm not voting because I wasn't around for the beginning of the earth and I have no idea how old it is. I'm non-religious.

 

:iagree: Except I am Christian. I'm certain that many good arguments exist for both sides. I don't feel the need to choose. It is not a "salvation issue", and I typically don't spend much time on those. I live in the gray areas in most parts of my life, though. It's maddening at times, but it does help make clear the things which I truly need to seek an answer for and those which I do not.

 

(I speak only for myself. I don't have any negative perceptions of people who seek answers of any type regarding anything really. It just doesn't work for me to try to research and decide too many issues. I can almost always see both sides of every argument. The one benefit to this vexing personality trait is that it makes me a pretty neutral marital therapist.:tongue_smilie:)

[astrid]

I love the GFSM! Every time I go to that site, I can't help LOL. Freakin' brilliant parody.

 

I'm a liberal Christian, so it doesn't offend me at all. Honestly, atheists and agnostics have a very good point, when they talk about the totally subjective nature of faith and religious beliefs.

 

Yes, we've been touched by His Noodly Appendage as well.

Old earth, Catholic-----> Protestant-----> Agnostic------>heading rapidly toward atheist here.

 

astrid

[Aelwydd]

Yes, we've been touched by His Noodly Appendage as well.

Old earth, Catholic-----> Protestant-----> Agnostic------>heading rapidly toward atheist here.

 

astrid

 

That shirt on the website that says, "He was boiled for our sins"?

 

I want it. Badly.

[WishboneDawn]

On this topic I sense that science is closed to new interpretations or evaluating evidence to refine the findings. The old earth theory seems to be set in stone. So if you're going to draw the line like that, there ought to be irrefutable evidence. That's what I expect from science.

 

Science isn't closed to new interpretations of the evidence but quite frankly, there haven't been any in this case. There have been piecemeal attempts to explain some pieces of evidence like fossil layers but there is no comprehensive alternate theory that satisfies the demands of all the evidence other then an old earth. Maybe YE apologists will get to that point one day but it isn't here now. I just need to look up into the night sky to know that. Any YE theory would have to completely gut what we know of light and how fast it travels because those stars would have to be absolutely tiny and ridiculously close to make a YE hypothesis fit with what we currently know about light.

 

 

We can agree to disagree on this, and that's okay too. I do appreciate that you've shared and maintained a respectful tone and I appreciate the thoughtful conversation.

 

I know this wasn't directed at me but ditto! :D

Edited July 3, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[WishboneDawn]

I just wanted to tell you, WishboneDawn, that I heart your brain.

 

LOL! The kids are away so I had a chance to blow the dust off and polish it up a bit. :D

[WishboneDawn]

That shirt on the website that says, "He was boiled for our sins"?

 

I want it. Badly.

 

Oh. Wow. Now I know what to get my minister for Christmas. He would LOVE that.:D

 

I was going to get him a Jesus toaster this past Christmas but his wife beat me to it.

[eternalknot]

I was raised Buddhist.

 

I have no clue how old the Earth is. I'm not particularly interested :blush:

 

I always thought "old" (generally, not x-thousands-billions-whatever specific number of years) was the accepted answer, and didn't realize there were people who believed in a "young" until I moved to the American South/Bible Belt.

[Aelwydd]

Oh. Wow. Now I know what to get my minister for Christmas. He would LOVE that.:D

 

I was going to get him a Jesus toaster this past Christmas but his wife beat me to it.

 

I...I never knew such a thing existed. Where does one purchase a Jesus toaster (and do you have a link)?

 

 

Here's the icon of the parboiled GFSM. Enjoy.

[Wheres Toto]

I would like to thank Dawn for saying what I've been thinking, except more eloquently. :)

 

:iagree: I keep trying to find the words to say what I'm thinking and Dawn goes and beats me to it. And says it way more eloquently.

 

Oh. Wow. Now I know what to get my minister for Christmas. He would LOVE that.:D

 

I was going to get him a Jesus toaster this past Christmas but his wife beat me to it.

 

Your minister sounds like he's a lot of fun and doesn't take himself too seriously. :lol:

 

 

And, as far as the original poll - I'm old earth. Raised United Methodist, currently agnostic and searching for answers. I also happen to have a degree in Biology. One of my big pet peeves is "neutral" science curriculum because I just think about all the things it must be leaving out.

[WishboneDawn]

I...I never knew such a thing existed. Where does one purchase a Jesus toaster (and do you have a link)?

 

Jesus toaster :D

 

 

Here's the icon of the parboiled GFSM. Enjoy.

 

That is awesome!

[*~Tina~*]

Oops, still getting use to this Imac, reposted hereafter...

Edited July 3, 2011 by *~Tina~*
untrained Mac users, lol!

[albeto]

Jesus toaster :D

 

And because man cannot live on bread alone...

[*~Tina~*]

I know this wasn't directed at me but ditto! :D

 

Oh, I see what I did. That actually was intended for you. I enjoyed hearing your point of view and appreciate the respectful tone that was maintained. :)

[WishboneDawn]

 

Oh, I see what I did. That actually was intended for you. I enjoyed hearing your point of view and appreciate the respectful tone that was maintained. :)

 

:001_smile: I actually think there's a lot of beauty and religious truth in a creationist POV. I may not agree with it from a science POV but I've foudn my discussions with creationists to be enriching to my faith.

[justamouse]

I'm Catholic and believe in theistic evolution. For us there is no specific teaching on the age of the earth.

:iagree:

[justamouse]

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power....the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

 

 

I'm a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

Man, I forgot about him! That's awesome. :lol:

[foxbridgeacademy]

4.5 Bil. y.o.

Very non-religious.

[Forget-Me-Not]

LDS theistic evolutionist here, although I don't think it matters one way or another to my salvation, so if in the end I find out I'm wrong I'm not too fussed about it.

 

Yup, this

[HappyCamper]

Interesting poll results

[regentrude]

IIf something was scientifically positively accurate and could be proven without a shadow of doubt, there would be no point of debate.

 

Science does not PROVE things. A scientific theory can not be proven (something that students should learn early in their science education). A scientific theory explaining certain phenomena can be used to make predictions, and if the predictions agree with the observations/experiments, the theory can be accepted as a good explanation of the observation/experiment. If, OTOH, the theory does NOT agree with the observations, the theory needs to be discarded or improved, or its range of validity limited.

The predictive power is what makes science a science and distiguishes a scientific theory from a religious explanation. (So, while the creation of Earth is obviously not something that is reproducable in labs, a scientific theory could, for instance, predict where certain minerals or deposits or formations should be found - and this can be checked against actual observations.)

Which also means that "God doing something according to his will which we humans are unable to understand" is automatically outside the realm of science.

Edited July 3, 2011 by regentrude

[creekland]

Science does not PROVE things. A scientific theory can not be proven (something that students should learn early in their science education). A scientific theory explaining certain phenomena can be used to make predictions, and if the predictions agree with the observations/experiments, the theory can be accepted as a good explanation of the observation/experiment. If, OTOH, the theory does NOT agree with the observations, the theory needs to be discarded or improved, or its range of validity limited.

The predictive power is what makes science a science and distiguishes a scientific theory from a religious explanation. (So, while the creation of Earth is obviously not something that is reproducable in labs, a scientific theory could, for instance, predict where certain minerals or deposits or formations should be found - and this can be checked against actual observations.)

 

 

:iagree: Although scientific laws come as close as possible. Even then, if, for whatever reason, empirical data suddenly (or slowly) showed a change, the laws and/or theories would need to change.

 

I absolutely love science - the discoveries, the theories, the predictions, the sheer thinking it lends itself to. ;)

[regentrude]

if, for whatever reason, empirical data suddenly (or slowly) showed a change, the laws and/or theories would need to change.

 

 

What happens usually is not that the data change, but that NEW data are found - often because new technology makes observations possible that could not be made with the older instruments. One prime example is the discovery of Jupiter's moons with the improved telescope - which was important in the development of a heliocentric world view.

 

Often, new technology enables observations that end up limiting the validity of accepte theories, but not invalidating them. For example, Newtonian mechanics, which very nicely predicts the behavior of larger objects such as balls and boxes, does not adequately describe the behavior of elementary particles and light; in this range, quantum mechanics becomes important (but Newtonian mechanics STILL remains a valid description for macroscopic objects)

[creekland]

What happens usually is not that the data change, but that NEW data are found - often because new technology makes observations possible that could not be made with the older instruments. One prime example is the discovery of Jupiter's moons with the improved telescope - which was important in the development of a heliocentric world view.

 

Often, new technology enables observations that end up limiting the validity of accepte theories, but not invalidating them. For example, Newtonian mechanics, which very nicely predicts the behavior of larger objects such as balls and boxes, does not adequately describe the behavior of elementary particles and light; in this range, quantum mechanics becomes important (but Newtonian mechanics STILL remains a valid description for macroscopic objects)

 

Definitely true when talking real situations - and another reason science remains so interesting to me and two of my boys. (I'm not certain where our genetics went wrong on the other!) I was talking hypothetical situations - just showing what would trump IF it were to happen.

[nansk]

I'm not voting because I wasn't around for the beginning of the earth and I have no idea how old it is. I'm non-religious.

 

Like!

[Jennifer3141]

What happens usually is not that the data change, but that NEW data are found - often because new technology makes observations possible that could not be made with the older instruments. One prime example is the discovery of Jupiter's moons with the improved telescope - which was important in the development of a heliocentric world view.!

 

Or Neptune's day!! They lost about 6 minutes a day this week because someone finally figured out to to calculate a day with all that gaseous cloud material. :)

 

I'm with a lot of you. I LOVE the science. I love how we expand our knowledge every day and that there is someone out there studying just about anything on the planet or in space. I am incredibly grateful for scientists who delve into the deepest part of the ocean and other scientists who spend their lives with their necks craned towards the sky.

 

I also got a pause out of the National Geographic article this month about ancient spirituality and what came first, temples or farming. Good stuff!

[twoforjoy]

Science isn't closed to new interpretations of the evidence but quite frankly, there haven't been any in this case. There have been piecemeal attempts to explain some pieces of evidence like fossil layers but there is no comprehensive alternate theory that satisfies the demands of all the evidence other then an old earth.

 

This. I think the idea that there's evidence for a YE but it's being kept secret by the scientific establishment just misunderstands how science works on a practical level.

 

You don't make a name for yourself by repeating what other people have said. Sure, you can make a living doing that, but that's not how you get famous. What gets you famous is coming up with a credible new paradigm. If there was actually evidence that indicated that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and somebody could come up with a comprehensive explanation like you mention that was better than the OE explanation, than that person would become immensely famous. That's Nobel Prize stuff. That's your-name-in-every-history-book stuff. That's the kind of discovery people would dream of making.

 

Do we really believe that every mainstream scientist in the entire world, across the religious and political spectrum, is so committed to perpetuating what would have to be a multi-generational international conspiracy to deny the evidence for a YE (for no other reason than to discredit one particular way of interpreting the Bible that really only a small number of modern American Christians hold to), that they would turn down the chance for that kind of personal glory? There's just no way.

[Recovering Sociopath]

Anglican theistic evolutionist here.

[asta]

 

Geology works the same way. Discoveries made centuries ago, long before Charles Darwin (or his grandfather, whose generation had already advocated the idea of the theory of evolution), geologists had laid the foundation for the understanding and acknowledgement of a very old earth. The question of the age of the earth had been settled with the fact that it was far, far more ancient than the Christian Bible story tells. Scientists are still working out details but with each discovery, more specifics are uncovered. No one expects to know everything there is to know, but we can expect to continue uncovering facts.

 

As new ideas are conceived, they are presented. Those ideas conceived by Christians who advocate a very young earth have been put to the test, if for no other reason than a scientist who can prove one particular religion's creation story as being factual would be worth a far greater reward than any other discovery in the history of humanity. Greater than the discovery of the rotation of the earth, greater than the discovery of fire. No scientist would want to pass up the opportunity to lay this to rest if it were possible to offer irrefutable evidence to support the hypothesis of the Jewish God creating the world with his breath.

 

 

 

... and on that note -

 

hasn't anyone else ever wondered why you (general you - dang I get tired of writing that, I'm just going to start writing "vous") - vous never hear bubkus about a young earth vs old earth debate anywhere BESIDES Christianity?

 

I thought it was weird enough coming in late to the homeschooling game (5th grade) and discovering all of the... interesting differences and dynamics running about, but seriously -- has ANYONE ever heard a YE/OE (oe oe o, break it down now...) debate outside of Christianity?

 

 

a

[*~Tina~*]

... and on that note -

 

hasn't anyone else ever wondered why you (general you - dang I get tired of writing that, I'm just going to start writing "vous") - vous never hear bubkus about a young earth vs old earth debate anywhere BESIDES Christianity?

 

I thought it was weird enough coming in late to the homeschooling game (5th grade) and discovering all of the... interesting differences and dynamics running about, but seriously -- has ANYONE ever heard a YE/OE (oe oe o, break it down now...) debate outside of Christianity?

 

 

a

 

The first and only place I've ever heard it was inside homeschooling circles :) YE/OE has never been a sermon in any church I've attended or any Christian circle I've been a part of.

[Parrothead]

-- has ANYONE ever heard a YE/OE (oe oe o, break it down now...) debate outside of Christianity?

 

 

a

I'd never heard of the debate outside of this message board until a couple weeks ago.

[AvasMom]

The first and only place I've ever heard it was inside homeschooling circles :) YE/OE has never been a sermon in any church I've attended or any Christian circle I've been a part of.

 

We had the guy from doinggood.org at two churches we've been in. Both had far more PSers than HSers.

[WishboneDawn]

The first and only place I've ever heard it was inside homeschooling circles :) YE/OE has never been a sermon in any church I've attended or any Christian circle I've been a part of.

 

I think maybe the other poster meant as opposed to other relgions. Not that it's preached on but that creationism is almost an exclusively Christian movement.

 

Tina - I listened to a TTC course a couple of years back that might interest you. I think it was the History of Science one. It's excellent. I don't mean it would bring you over to my way of thinking but that it's a wonderful tour through science and touches a lot on how interconnected it and religion have been. It even addresses the evolution/creation issue but not from a debate perspective but from the perspective of what was behind the puch for creationism and push back on evolution initially. It's a tremendously respectful look at both that had me looking at creationism in a new light. It didn't change my mind on it of course but it opened my eyes to the fact that creationism is not a boogeyman and it was very often an appeal to compassion for fellow humans.

 

Again, I don't think it would change your mind but I think you'd probably find it engaging and interesting. I'd be interested in what someone from the "other side" got from it.

[creekland]

... and on that note -

 

hasn't anyone else ever wondered why you (general you - dang I get tired of writing that, I'm just going to start writing "vous") - vous never hear bubkus about a young earth vs old earth debate anywhere BESIDES Christianity?

 

a

 

Debate? No. But I've had Muslim students at school tell me they don't believe in evolution. It never occurred to me to ask if they believe in an old or young earth. School's not in session now. I can't ask. Unless they start the conversation, I don't think it's right for me to ask in school anyway.

[asta]

Debate? No. But I've had Muslim students at school tell me they don't believe in evolution. It never occurred to me to ask if they believe in an old or young earth. School's not in session now. I can't ask. Unless they start the conversation, I don't think it's right for me to ask in school anyway.

 

But Islam is an Abrahamic religion, so I'm not sure where to go with that one.

 

I guess I was thinking of religions outside of Abrahamic religions.

 

And by debate, I don't mean people standing at opposite podiums, I mean firmly held premises and conclusions (eg: convictions) that are in opposition to other premises and conclusions (eg: convictions).

 

We're not talking about the formal rules of debate here.

 

 

asta