katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 i dont think that earth is only 7000 years old... i also dont think that we should believe the mayan's calendar which says that earth will destroy in 2012. what you people say? ?Ask us again in a year!
Cobalt-70 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Anyone interested in the subject of the Gospel and the Scientific Worldview should read this article from the Ensign:The Gospel and the Scientific Worldview: How the Earth Came To BeThis article provides what I would describe as a "if you cover your ears long enough and hum something repeatedly, modern science will go away" answer. He's saying that the laws of nature were different back before the Fall, so anything that scientists might have discovered prior to 4004 BC or the date of the Deluge is simply wrong, because the scientists are using the wrong laws of nature. But that doesn't explain why all the dating methods--fossil age, radioisotope, tree ring, sedimentary layer order, element marker, etc.--are consistent with each other. Also, nobody has discovered a discontinuity around 4004 BC or 2249 BC. Also, the Deluge supposedly happened in historic times, and there is no discontinuity in written records from the time it was supposed to have happened. Edited January 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70 1
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 This article is also thirty two years old. Cleon Skousen's books were in their heyday then, and, well, pseudoscience was pretty popular. I entertained that type of thinking back then.
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) dtorge26:The basic assumption of all science is that the world/universe is understandable and quantifiable. Remove that assumption and your better off painting yourself blue and dancing naked around trees to placate the Gods. Edited January 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Freedom Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 But even these secondary methods rely on key assumptions about the 'starting' condition of that which they are measuring. The only real piece of data they have is the 'current' condition. Their default position is that both the starting condition, and all subsequent processes, are influenced by strictly natural means, with zero influence from God. And their calculation of age flows from these assumptions. That's why it is very unreliable.If there is no doctrinal support for the notion that God changes the laws and if the evidence suggests that there was no changing of the laws, then I think it is a good assumption to make that the laws were not changed. 1
Rivers Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 But even these secondary methods rely on key assumptions about the 'starting' condition of that which they are measuring. The only real piece of data they have is the 'current' condition. Their default position is that both the starting condition, and all subsequent processes, are influenced by strictly natural means, with zero influence from God. And their calculation of age flows from these assumptions. That's why it is very unreliable. That's kind of what the article that cinepro posted argues.
Ron Beron Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) But even these secondary methods rely on key assumptions about the 'starting' condition of that which they are measuring. The only real piece of data they have is the 'current' condition. Their default position is that both the starting condition, and all subsequent processes, are influenced by strictly natural means, with zero influence from God. And their calculation of age flows from these assumptions. That's why it is very unreliable.If God could be measured then we would have little need of any other measuriing means. Since the opposite is true we will have to depend on that which we have. If the provence of an item can be absolutely determined to be a certain age by means of historical or literary measurement and C14 agrees with that then the dating is more or less accurate. Edited January 5, 2012 by Ron Beron
TAO Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) dtorge26:The basic assumption of all science is that the world/universe is understandable and quantifiable. Remove that assumption and your better off painting yourself blue and dancing naked around trees to placate the Gods.The sometimes saint, yes, that is correct. But it doesn't mean the assumption shouldn't be removed. The initial assumption is important, because it shows us the nature of what scientific truth is - a trust in the senses to observe correctly, and the brain to think correctly. Edited January 5, 2012 by TAO
dtorge26 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 If there is no doctrinal support for the notion that God changes the laws and if the evidence suggests that there was no changing of the laws, then I think it is a good assumption to make that the laws were not changed.I actually don't believe the laws have ever changed. (In fact, I believe even a step further that laws are unchangeable, even by God.) The implications of my statements are really in regards to our knowledge of initial conditions, in that we have none. The scientist's method of computing age is to "assume" a starting initial condition, and then apply knowledge regarding the rate at which natural processes impose change on the measured object(s). Our knowledge about natural processes can be extremely sound and accurate, yet our computation of "age" could be completely off if our assumption about the initial condition is off.
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 TAO:Sometimes I'm a Saint and sometimes I Ain't. I too recognize that initial assumptions are important. That is my point. In my scientific world the initial assumption can be either right or wrong, but only testing can show it. Therefore if God really does play tricks with the universe. I'm better of painting myself blue, and dancing around the trees to placate the Gods like my long ago ancestors did.PS. I have two cats of my own. I swear if the Hindu's are correct. Then I'm coming back as a cat in one of my kids household.
dtorge26 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 That's kind of what the article that cinepro posted argues.It is to a degree, but I diverge with him in that I don't believe that laws ever change. For example, I don't have a problem with the idea that heaven exists under our same set of physical/spiritual laws.My main beef with science's computation of "age" is its absense of allowance for any intelligent influence on the initial or historical configuration of the Earth, for which we have no scientific ability to confirm.For example, science tells us that natural processes took roughly 2.5 billion years to enable an atmosphere with oxygen. The modern Mormon view seems to be that God created an Earth with no oxygen in the atmosphere, then He allowed natural processes to work for 2 billion years towards the end of having an atmosphere with oxygen. This makes absolutely no sense to me, when God has the power to create an Earth directly with an atmosphere of oxygen already there. But, in doing so, He is also probably locked into creating an Earth with the appearance of age built in.
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 It is to a degree, but I diverge with him in that I don't believe that laws ever change. For example, I don't have a problem with the idea that heaven exists under our same set of physical/spiritual laws.My main beef with science's computation of "age" is its absense of allowance for any intelligent influence on the initial or historical configuration of the Earth, for which we have no scientific ability to confirm.For example, science tells us that natural processes took roughly 2.5 billion years to enable an atmosphere with oxygen. The modern Mormon view seems to be that God created an Earth with no oxygen in the atmosphere, then He allowed natural processes to work for 2 billion years towards the end of having an atmosphere with oxygen. This makes absolutely no sense to me, when God has the power to create an Earth directly with an atmosphere of oxygen already there. But, in doing so, He is also probably locked into creating an Earth with the appearance of age built in.What scientific assumptions specifically are you questioning? Your scenario just doesn't make any sense because there is just no evidence that at any time the scientific laws we know were suspended. The theories we have in place do a perfectly good job of explaining a very old earth, and the geological layers, plate movements, appearance and extinction of known life forms, information from ice cores, etc. all support the current train of thought.
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) dtorge26:Why not? You seem to be asking why God took so long. Time, as we know it, is essentially irrelevent to God. Think of the largest number you can imagine. That number whatever it is( Mine is a Googleplex to the Googleplex power, or 1 followed by a million zeros to the 1 followed by a million zeros power) is vanishingly insignificant when compared with eternity.What make the most sense; to instantly make everything just how you want it, or to use a process to make everything just how your creation needs it? Edited January 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint
LeSellers Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) . Edited January 5, 2012 by LeSellers
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 dtorge26:Why not? You seem to be asking why God took so long. Time, as we know it, is essentially irrelevent to God. Think of the largest number you can imagine. That number whatever it is( Mine is a Googleplex to the Googleplex power, or 1 followed by a million zeros to the 1 followed by a million zeros power) is vanishingly insignificant when compared with eternity.What make the most sense; to instantly make everything just how you want it, or to use a process to make everything just how your creation needs it?I agree. There are obvious advantages that the Lord can see that perhaps we cannot that seem to come from creating our environment and our bodies through processes that last thousands, millions and even billions of years in earth time. I don't want to go OT, but being a believer in human evolution, I believe our bodies going through this process has endowed us with abilities and instincts that perhaps we could not have if we had been "poof"ed in to existence.
dtorge26 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 What scientific assumptions specifically are you questioning? Your scenario just doesn't make any sense because there is just no evidence that at any time the scientific laws we know were suspended. The theories we have in place do a perfectly good job of explaining a very old earth, and the geological layers, plate movements, appearance and extinction of known life forms, information from ice cores, etc. all support the current train of thought.I'm not questioning the laws, rather I am questioning the initial 'state' of any object for which science has ventured an age. For a chunk of carbon, I'm questioning the initial level of radioactivity. For geological layers, I'm questioning whether they weren't placed that way from the get go. For fossils, I'm questioning whether they weren't placed there by God from day one. In short, I'm stating that we have no scientific evidence that God didn't create the Earth 'in place' at a single moment. And that the result is the appearance of age, but not real age.I do this not because I doubt science, but because I embrace the inherent link between function and form in the Earth. And I embrace that fact that Man/Woman's existence is reliant on very specific forms/functions on the Earth.I also embrace this theory of creation because it seems most compatible with a God who creates within the constraints of quantum physics. Quantum physics informs us that there were many possible outcomes for the development of our solar system, and only a relatively small few outcomes were amenable to life as we know it. When the laws at the smallest levels have uncertainty built-in, as a creator, you need to create your object directly.
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I'm not questioning the laws, rather I am questioning the initial 'state' of any object for which science has ventured an age. For a chunk of carbon, I'm questioning the initial level of radioactivity. For geological layers, I'm questioning whether they weren't placed that way from the get go. For fossils, I'm questioning whether they weren't placed there by God from day one. In short, I'm stating that we have no scientific evidence that God didn't create the Earth 'in place' at a single moment. And that the result is the appearance of age, but not real age.I do this not because I doubt science, but because I embrace the inherent link between function and form in the Earth. And I embrace that fact that Man/Woman's existence is reliant on very specific forms/functions on the Earth.I also embrace this theory of creation because it seems most compatible with a God who creates within the constraints of quantum physics. Quantum physics informs us that there were many possible outcomes for the development of our solar system, and only a relatively small few outcomes were amenable to life as we know it. When the laws at the smallest levels have uncertainty built-in, as a creator, you need to create your object directly.This really isn't a theory. At best, it is a hypothesis, and not a good one at that because it is not based on observation. You are looking too narrowly. You should step back a bit and get a different perspective.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 For example, science tells us that natural processes took roughly 2.5 billion years to enable an atmosphere with oxygen. The modern Mormon view seems to be that God created an Earth with no oxygen in the atmosphere, then He allowed natural processes to work for 2 billion years towards the end of having an atmosphere with oxygen. This makes absolutely no sense to me, when God has the power to create an Earth directly with an atmosphere of oxygen already there. But, in doing so, He is also probably locked into creating an Earth with the appearance of age built in.If God wanted to blink into existence an Earth with an oxygen atmosphere, he would also have had to blink into existence the ancestors of cyanobacteria, or some similar organism capable of conducting photosynthesis to metabolize carbon dioxide and produce oxygen as a waste product. An oxygen atmosphere is unstable, and cannot exist without life-forms spending a tremendous amount of energy and continually pumping the air with oxygen. But photosynthesis is a very complex process that needed a very long period to evolve. If we are resigned to the fact that God doesn't just "blink" new species into existence, then it is not surprising at all that it took 2.5 billion years for photosynthesis to develop.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I'm not questioning the laws, rather I am questioning the initial 'state' of any object for which science has ventured an age. For a chunk of carbon, I'm questioning the initial level of radioactivity. For geological layers, I'm questioning whether they weren't placed that way from the get go. For fossils, I'm questioning whether they weren't placed there by God from day one. In short, I'm stating that we have no scientific evidence that God didn't create the Earth 'in place' at a single moment. And that the result is the appearance of age, but not real age.It's fine to question modern scientific theories, but the questioning leads nowhere unless you can come up with a superior alternative that explains the facts better and more naturally than the current theories. In other words, you have to explain why God would create geological strata, containing fossils at various layers, with deeper layers having isotope compositions consistent with greater age (with no exceptions), with fossils placed to create an apparent story of branching and radiating species. The existence of humanity does not depend upon the existence of fossils and geological strata. Why would God go through all that trouble to create such a contrivance?Also, why would God plant genetic markers in all species that appear to confirm the story of branching and radiating species that is found in the allegedly contrived fossil record? If the human was created six or seven thousand years ago out of clay, then why do we share so much "junk" DNA with the chimpanzee, slightly less "junk" DNA with the gorilla, and even slightly less "junk" DNA with the gibbon? This "junk" DNA does not actually code for any proteins, yet why would God have given Adam "junk" DNA having a sequence calculated to make it look like humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor about 6 million years ago?
Calm Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 As far as the time issue and any concern that God might get bored and wander off on to some more interesting and dynamic project, forgetting about us and leaving us in mud and rocks and if we were lucky some trees here and there.....It wasn't as if all God was doing during this time was waiting around for the earth to get done so he could finally send the kiddies off to boarding school. I suspect he efficiently used to the time to get us through our First Estate as well as do the same for all the other worlds and people he has been dealing with. If he's been creating worlds without number, it seems to me the most efficient way to do it is to get the thing going at the most basic level possible with the least amount of work and resources needed and then let it percolate as long as it needs to get to where it can carry or is carrying the type of life you need it to carry for the next step of creation where it is more likely to need a bit more time and attention to detail what with humans being involved.....and doing this over millions of times, he's probably very efficient at it the whole process.
dtorge26 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 If God wanted to blink into existence an Earth with an oxygen atmosphere, he would also have had to blink into existence the ancestors of cyanobacteria, or some similar organism capable of conducting photosynthesis to metabolize carbon dioxide and produce oxygen as a waste product. An oxygen atmosphere is unstable, and cannot exist without life-forms spending a tremendous amount of energy and continually pumping the air with oxygen. But photosynthesis is a very complex process that needed a very long period to evolve. If we are resigned to the fact that God doesn't just "blink" new species into existence, then it is not surprising at all that it took 2.5 billion years for photosynthesis to develop.Yes, thanks, you proved my point for me. The creation of an Earth with an atmosphere of oxygen required a corresponding creation of 'apparent' ancestors of cyanobacteria. Function follows form. And God had a specific form in mind when He created the Earth, one that supports functions required by man/woman. Unfortunately, this also necessitated the 'appearance' of age.
katherine the great Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Yes, thanks, you proved my point for me. The creation of an Earth with an atmosphere of oxygen required a corresponding creation of 'apparent' ancestors of cyanobacteria. Function follows form. And God had a specific form in mind when He created the Earth, one that supports functions required by man/woman. Unfortunately, this also necessitated the 'appearance' of age.I think you are pulling our leg.
dtorge26 Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 It's fine to question modern scientific theories, but the questioning leads nowhere unless you can come up with a superior alternative that explains the facts better and more naturally than the current theories.So, are you saying that the more 'natural' a theory is, or the less it relies on intervention of an intelligent agent, the better it is? Why is that so?When our laws of physics are so incredibly amenable to the emergence of intelligent creatures, why is a theory not better as it increases its involvement of intelligent creatures? The god of the gaps is one that is surely withering away as He has less and less of a role to play.In other words, you have to explain why God would create geological strata, containing fossils at various layers, with deeper layers having isotope compositions consistent with greater age (with no exceptions), with fossils placed to create an apparent story of branching and radiating species. The existence of humanity does not depend upon the existence of fossils and geological strata. Why would God go through all that trouble to create such a contrivance?First of all, 'contrivance' is hardly accurate when we talk about the various ways that an apparent history contributes to the form/function of the Earth. We mentioned oxygen already. How about soil? What good is the Earth to man without soil? How about petroleum? Should God provide an Earth without that? And how do you provide petroleum without the apparent historical processes of breaking down carbon over millenia? Why should God be asked to 'hide' the accompanying appearance of age when it contributes to the functions used by man/woman? Should we require Him to sift through the sands of all the world's beaches to remove any fossil fragments, just so its easier to believe in Him? I don't think so.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 So, are you saying that the more 'natural' a theory is, or the less it relies on intervention of an intelligent agent, the better it is? Why is that so?When our laws of physics are so incredibly amenable to the emergence of intelligent creatures, why is a theory not better as it increases its involvement of intelligent creatures?I use "natural" in the sense that the explanation fits the data using as few assumptions and ad hoc insertions as possible. If something can be explained by scientific principles, then there is no need to require God to have micromanaged the process. We're actually doing God and Goddess a favor by giving them more leisure time.First of all, 'contrivance' is hardly accurate when we talk about the various ways that an apparent history contributes to the form/function of the Earth. We mentioned oxygen already. How about soil? What good is the Earth to man without soil? How about petroleum? Should God provide an Earth without that? And how do you provide petroleum without the apparent historical processes of breaking down carbon over millenia? Why should God be asked to 'hide' the accompanying appearance of age when it contributes to the functions used by man/woman? Should we require Him to sift through the sands of all the world's beaches to remove any fossil fragments, just so its easier to believe in Him? I don't think so.I'm not quite sure I understand your thought process here, so correct me if I am totally misreading you....If God can create man out of clay, then certainly he can create soil or petroleum through some other alchemical process. So why go through the charade of making a young earth appear old?It is not a question of God removing fossils from the geological record. It is about God planting fossils in an arrangement that shows a radiation of species, within their appropriate layers, surrounded by soil in each layer with just exactly the right isotopic composition to mislead humans into thinking that the planted fossils are the age that science would suggest they are. And then planting genetic misinformation in our genome, and the genome of every animal on earth.As to petroleum, if the burning of petroleum is part of God's plan, why would he have to concoct a story that would mislead scientists into believing that this oil was created by decaying plankton in the Mesosoic era? Why did God have to plant the oil so deeply, and under the ocean crust? And why did he put most of it under Muslim countries? If America is the Chosen Country, then why didn't he give us more oil, or at least put more petroleum under Christian nations?
dtorge26 Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 If God can create man out of clay, then certainly he can create soil or petroleum through some other alchemical process. So why go through the charade of making a young earth appear old?Yes, in fact I'm asserting that He did create soil and petroleum through some 'other' process. If clay is matter, and matter is energy, then the energy of the clay can be reorganized into man.And there is no charade here. I don't care what the physical object is, nor how it was created, it will always appear to have an age. There will always be assumptions made as to how that object came into being, and the assigned 'age' will correspond with the assumed genesis.And that's essentially why I'm asserting that you can't confirm or deny that the Earth is 7,000 years old. It's because we don't know 'how' God created it.It is not a question of God removing fossils from the geological record. It is about God planting fossils in an arrangement that shows a radiation of species, within their appropriate layers, surrounded by soil in each layer with just exactly the right isotopic composition to mislead humans into thinking that the planted fossils are the age that science would suggest they are. And then planting genetic misinformation in our genome, and the genome of every animal on earth.I guess my language reflects my own personal hypothesis as to how God created Earth, which is that He did it using the information from an original template Earth. I believe the Lorenzo Snow couplet 'As man now is, God once was' should be extended even further back to include the idea that man originally came out of elements of the Earth. This means there has always been an intimate link between man/woman and the Earth. And it means the best way to create an Earth is to create a copy. Under this hypothesis, God is burdened with the question of which elements He should "remove", rather than which elements He should "plant". When you see it from this view, you'll start to see why the burden of hiding 'age' conflicts totally with the objective of providing a functioning Earth for man/woman.
Recommended Posts