David,
Go back and read my post again. I did not "impugn" your motives, although
I'll admit to having questioned
your competence a few times.
As you admit to no uniformitarian assumptions, a discussion with you about
how those assumptions have
influenced your thinking would be fruitless, don't you think. Again, I
have no interest in playing your, or
anyone else's, silly little game.
Allan
re:thinking
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/3/00 2:55:06 am)
Reply
Adam and age
David,
Since you argue that nothing has an "apparent" age, and that "Even though
Adam was created as a fully
mature man, that does not suggest that Adam possessed any 'apparent age,'"
you have put yourself in a
position of defending the incredible idea that one year after Adam was
created a fully mature man, he could
not have appeared to be any older than one year. Seems to me like you have
reduced your own argument
to an absurdity. Look at it: "no object or entity in the universe has apparent
age"; "Even though Adam was
created as a fully mature man, that does not suggest that Adam possessed
any 'apparent age'"; and, "One
year after Adam's creation, Adam was only one year old." Something has
to give here, David. If you can't
see the problem with this, there are more serious things to discuss. You
have a one year old, fully mature
man, who could not have appeared to be older than one. How Adam's body
would differ otherwise is
irrelevant at this point. Either he "appeared" to be a mature man, or he
appeared to be a one year old
infant, even though he was a fully mature man (unless you believe a one
year can appear to be a fully
mature man without looking older than one). After you tell us which one
he "appeared" to be, then you can
explain how either one was not a "deception."
You are only confirming my suspicions that the real issue comes down to
our concepts of God as Creator.
You say, "My presupposition is not that God could not have anything to
do with the age of the Earth and
its maturity level. My presupposition is that God did not have anything
to do with the age of the Earth and
its maturity level." So, David, are you saying that God "could have" had
something to do with the maturity
of the universe (even though you believe he "did not")? Humor me then.
If God "could have," let's just say
for a moment that he "did." Now explain the difference between this miraculously
created universe and a
universe that has developed solely through nature without His help. (As
a miracle test case, could one
have known, simply by "observing" a lame man who had been healed, that
at one time that man had been
lame?).
I have not set up a false dichotomy. Look at my statements again on that.
1. You have excluded God from a consideration of the age of the earth,
David, not me. I was not speaking
about an initial creation. I was speaking about accepting an old earth
view based solely upon nature and
modern science. Is this not what you believe? Are you not arguing that
"God did not have anything to do
with the age of the Earth and its maturity level." That was exactly the
first option I presented.
2. The second option is to grant the "possibility" that God could have
miraculously created the universe "in
place," ready for life. You appear to be saying God "could have" done this,
but are absolutely certain that
He "did not." What I'm arguing is that if you grant that He "could" have,
then this must necessarily affect
our discussion of age. If He "could" have, He "might" have, and if He might
have, then it is possible -- just
possible -- that the earth is younger than you think.
These are the options that we appear to be discussing. I am not saying
that there exists no other possible
option, only that in our discussions, these are the two we are talking
about right now. Your response to
those options do not demonstrate a false dichotomy; they demonstrate a
faulty reading of what I said.
And so it goes...
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/3/00 8:07:36 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of Adam's Age
Doy,
I am pleased that you are willing to engage in a Metaphysical discussion.
While I was somewhat
disappointed in Allan Turner's unwillingness to engage in this type of
discussion, that was his choice to
make.
Adam was created a fully mature human. However, to say that Adam was "fully
mature" is not to suggest
that Adam had any appearance of age. I will demonstrate the absurdity of
attributing age to Adam using
the following question:
1. How Old is a "Fully Mature" human?
Supposing that Adam possessed an "Apparent Age" there is also another question:
2. One year after Adam's creation, how old was he?
Now here comes the application:
3. In Genesis God declares: "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years,
and begot a son in his own
likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the
days of Adam were eight hundred
years; and he begot sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived
were nine hundred and thirty
years; and he died." Now, I ask you: a. How Old was Adam when he died?
And: b. How Old did Adam
appear to be when he died?
I suggest that "fully mature" does not correspond to any chronological
age. Have you noticed that children
attain a mature body at different ages? Have you noticed that some exceptional
children have attained
maturity at a much younger age than others?
Considerable variation in the age of a person at full maturity excludes
full maturity from leading to any
confident conclusion about a person's age. Adam differs from modern humans
because he attained full
maturity at the creation, yet his body certainly did not display any of
the injuries and degradation that
accumulate in people today during their growth and development prior to
acheiving maturity.
I look forward to hearing your answers to these questions.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/3/00 9:20:54 am)
Reply
Re: LOOK AT THIS POST, TOM, LOOK!
Doy:
I salute you, my brother! Your focused polemics have brought us tantalizingly
close to a handshake on the
point of this dispute. It is not even impossible that we shall shake hands
about more than that! I pray that
this response will take us even closer to that epiphany.
I have four less-important matters to get out of the way first.
1. You point out: “One’s philosophical worldview is a part of reality no
matter what, married to physical
reality or not.” I could quibble that a “useful worldview” was the point
under discussion, but it would be
churlish of me to do so. Two points for you (ka-ching!).
2. An appendectomy. Your analogy of the appendix with “created appearance
of age” fails, I am afraid,
though it was a very good try. “Created” is the key word. An appearance
of age such as you postulate
would be a (to our observational powers) non-functional component of a
created artifact. But in the first
place we cannot know that God created Adam with an appendix, and in the
second place we cannot know
that if He did so the appendix was non-functional. The appendix is the
sort of structure which is within the
capability of microevolution to produce or to allow to atrophy functionally
within a few thousand years.
Furthermore, the appendix today is (apparently) nonfunctional, whereas
avoidable appearance of age (if
there is such a thing) is NOT nonfunctional: its function is to testify
of antiquity.
3. You ask: “Exactly how do you tell the difference between something miraculously
created and something
that has ‘naturally’ (over eons of time) developed to its present stage.”
While I could never be CERTAIN
that I could tell the difference (I do feel the force of your argument
about not being able to query God on
such points directly), I know from the Bible that God is holy and therefore
that He would not create
something in a way which would cause a pious investigator with a good and
honest heart (recall my little
story a few posts back) to reach a false conclusion. I would thus expect
that a created object would not
display characteristics, which that pious investigator knows from observation
are produced by natural
processes, which are not necessary to the mature functioning of that created
object. Just-created
artifacts would exhibit false-but-unavoidable signs of apparent age: Adam
would be sexually mature, and
the trees in the Garden would look like they were 100 years old. But it
would be possible by investigation to
determine that these objects were created: Adam would have had no navel,
he could have told you that
he wasn’t alive yesterday, and if you cored the trees you would not find
knots. A navel is not necessary to
Adam’s maturity and points deceptively to a birth; memories of a childhood
are unnecessary and point
deceptively to a non-existent past; and knots are unnecessary and point
deceptively to limbs which never
were there. Size and sexual maturity are false but unavoidable appearances
of age and therefore are not
deceptive; a navel, childhood memories and knots are unnecessary appearances
of age and therefore are
deceptive.
4. Your response to David was clever but, alas, irrelevant. (David will
point this out, but less gently than I;
in our game of “good cop-bad cop” I get to be good cop this week; we switch
alter-egos next week).
Adam isn’t here; our context is the things we can see today. In another
post I may address the issue of
what God told us He did in six days. But I want to get myself focused on
the MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT
point.
Doy, I do not want to misunderstand what you have said. I asked the difference
between “avoidable” and
“unavoidable” appearance of age. You replied, “…in practical terms, there
would appear to be no difference
between ‘avoidable’ and ‘unavoidable’ appearance.”
Now this is very important (to me … I have a dull life, don’t get out very
often, spend all my time creating
databases and reports for the HR department … oh, never mind!). Are you
certain that you want to take
the position that there is in a practical sense no such thing as unnecessary
or unavoidable appearance of
age? Is any and all appearance of age in a just-created object by definition
necessary? Or, to put it
another way, would you claim that there is no way that we could, by any
investigation, determine that the
objects in the Garden of Eden were created objects and not the results
of the “ordinary” process of
birth-and-maturation?
I ask that you think about your answer very carefully, because we are very
close to the nub of the issue. I
do not doubt, as I said, that God could have created a mature universe,
ready for life. But I think that
universe would betray its miraculous provenance. You appear to be suggesting
that a just-created mature
universe, ready for life, must contain characteristics which mask its just-created-ness.
Is that your final
answer (Sorry! Couldn’t resist!)?
Your grateful brother,
Tom
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/3/00 10:07:34 am)
Reply
Re: A reply for Tom
Allan:
Thank you, sincerely, for your kind response. As far as our being candidates
for the Multiple Personality
Disorder Hall of Fame, we were nominated, but since this is a Presidential
election year there are too many
other candidates who are shoo-ins, so no chance in the short term. We did
make a declining speech,
though: "If nominated we will run in circles; if elected we will continue
to run in circles." But two of the
candidates had already claimed that speach. So it goes.
Allan, I really am uncomfortable with philosophical discussions. I realize
that no-one involved in the present
thread is a professional scientist, and only David comes close to being
a professional metaphysician. But
preachers do have to practice that “black art” more than people in the
pews like me. For whatever reason,
Doy and I have “connected” more easily than have you and I as disputants.
Perhaps the way that Doy has
approached the philosophical issues is easier for me to deal with than
the way you have approached them.
I hope that you feel that Doy and I are making satisfactory progress in
each others’ direction, and I believe
that we will shortly reach an agreement about the point at issue, which
would be more than I had hoped
for from this thread.
Whatever you or anybody else may think, I truly am a “reluctant” OEC. Since
you persist in asking me to
give a defense of my own peculiar brand of “uniformitarianism,” I shall
do so (I don’t have time right now,
but sometime before Monday morning). That defense will constitute the “admission”
of my metaphysical
presuppositions which you continue to request, which I have never denied
anyway, but which will provide
you with something to point at (“you said this. See! See!”) (you’re supposed
to laugh) in future
discussions.
Since you are planning a “Part III” with a hermeneutical slant, perhaps
we should save the discussion of
helio-centrism for that phase. My position is that the Bible teaches geo-centrism
much more clearly than it
teaches or implies an age for the earth. You will probably want to be preparing
yourself to address that
issue, because I wouldn’t want to be looking at the sky from where you
stand.
Obviously, I have not been able to make my point clearly on the application
of the principle of apparent age
to specific phenomena. I agree with you and Doy that created objects must
possess false but unavoidable
indications of apparent age. The issue—which Doy and I are on the verge
of engaging—is whether among
those false indications are unnecessary indications of apparent age. Since
some false indications of
apparent age will be, I concede, necessary and therefore not deceptive,
but some false indications of
apparent age would be, I would assert, unnecessary and therefore deceptive,
and since one cannot specify
an indication of apparent age without specification of the object of which
that indication is an attribute, it
is only by naming a specific phenomenon and telling us which indications
of age possessed by that
phenomenon you consider to be unavoidable that we have anything to discuss.
It appears to me that you
continue to argue the abstract point. But I don’t disagree with you on
the abstract point. What I want to
know is: “Tell me what you specifically consider to be an unavoidable appearance
of age in some
phenomenon which we see today.” Why is that so hard to understand?
Thank you again for your work in maintaining this forum, and for your defense of the gospel.
Your brother,
Tom
allanita
Administrator
(3/3/00 11:07:03 am)
Reply
Re: David's March 2 post
David,
You say, "There are no supernaturally created rocks present on the Earth's
surface." How can you be
sure and what specifically do you mean when you say, "Earth's surface"?
You say, "The rocks of the Earth's surface display every evidence necessary
to demonstrate natural origin
and modification." What is the "every evidence" of which you speak? Please
elaborate. Incidentally, it
sounds to me like all you're saying is that matter existed at the beginning,
not that matter was created by
God in the beginning. Is this correct?
You say: "There are no supernaturally created continents: The continents
display every evidence of a
history of growth and development which involves the origin, modification,
erosion, transportation,
deposition, and lithification of rocks over a time span of billions of
years." What specifically is the "every
evidence" of which you speak? Are not the "billions of years" of which
you speak based on the assumptions
of your uniformitarianism, which is, in turn, a metaphysical construct?
David, how does one date the rocks? Is it by...
their appearance?
their petrologic characteristics?
their mineralogic contents?
their structural features?
their adjacent rocks?
by vertical superposition?
radiometric measurements?
their total fossil contents?
any physical characteristics at all?
You say, "Science and Religion are two separate and distinct disciplines." There you go pontificating again.
You say, "There exist [sic] no such thing as a Biblically-Based Philosophy."
There you go again. It exists,
but evidently not in your repertoire.
You say: "I do not know of any such thing as True Science and True Religion.
"True Science" is, and
always has been, an imaginary concept." This is a very interesting and
informative statement coming from
someone who says the Earth IS billions of years old. Incidentally, I didn't
capitalize either true science or
true religion, so those are your own constructs. How about pseudo-science,
does it exist?
The answer to your "What Physics?" question: I had mentioned physics in
the context (actually, the
preceding sentence) of the "modern scientific method." In your reply, you
implied that I was being too
vague and went into a long soliloquy about the origination of methodological
rationalism and physics being
prior to New Testament Christianity, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. David,
you may have thought my
answer vague, but did you think it vacuous also? Did you really think I
didn't know that mankind was
involved in systematic thinking and physics before New Testament times?
It appears that all this boils down
to the fact that I made an argument you didn't like and, instead of dealing
with it, you went into your now
infamous song and dance routine (and before you tell me one more time,
let me tell you that I know you're
going to tell me that you don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking
about). By modern physics, I
mean the physics of the last three hundred years. Although I'm not a physicist,
I do know something of the
paradigm shifts taking place in the field, so there is no need for you
to get me up to speed on these. I also
know that, apart from theoretical physics, a good portion of practical
physics still relies on the Newtonian
paradigm, and I'm at a loss to know why you would argue that this is "altogether
incorrect."
You say, "The 'compartmentalized worldview' which you complain about is
a necessary component of a
philosophical discussion." No sir, what it is IS the figment of your own
imagination.
You say, "When I said that the Bible does not give any certain age for
the Universe, I was not speaking
about 'a specific year, month, day, hour.'" If you weren't, and I'll take
your word on it, then I apologize for
accusing you of equivocating, but that's precisely what I thought you were
doing. You go on to explain
that you were talking about "extraordinary ambiguity of the Young Earth
position as it is displayed by its
proponents," but in the context of your original statement (the very sentence)
you wrote about "the
ambiguity of the Biblical chronology and the lack of any certain age for
the Universe derived from the
Scriptures." So, if you were just talking about the Young Earth position,
and not the Bible, as you claim,
then I hope you can see why it is so hard sometimes to understand just
what you are, in fact, saying.
You say: "Supposing that you are a proponent of the Young Earth position,
I only ask that you present an
age for the Universe consistent with the Scriptures and accurate to within
100,000 years. For example,
you can defend the proposition: 'The Earth is at most 100,000 years.'"
I'll tell you what's 'extraordinary,'
David, and it's the fact that you've been discussing this issue with me
all this time and you're still supposing
whether I'm a proponent of a Young Earth position. I've said I believe
the Earth is probably somewhere in
the vicinity of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, as I understand the Scriptures.
Is that close enough for you? Has
this not been mentioned several times in this discussion? Now, could I
defend a proposition that says, "The
Earth is at most 100,000 years [old]"? No, I most certainly could not and
if you've been paying attention,
you know I can't. Why? Because I think there is a possibility you may be
right about the Earth being very
old. So, and please excuse me if I'm wrong on this, but it appears that
all you want to do is play silly,
unproductive games. Frankly, my patience is beginning to wear a little
thin. So, David, let's get serious, my
brother!
Finally, you say: "The Biblical chronology is ambiguous. For example, in
2 Chronicles 13:1: "In the
eighteenth year of King Jeroboam..." and other examples throughout the
Old Testament. When was the
eighteenth year of King Jeroboam? We cannot know with much certainty exactly
what year that was." If
my math is correct, Jereboam reigned from 931 until 910 B.C., making 913
B.C. the eighteenth year.
Although this answer doesn't come up to your very restrictive criterion,
it's still pretty good as history
goes. You continue: "This contrast [sic] greatly with the modern emphasis
upon having exact, universal
and consistent means of dating the occurrence of an event. For example,
this post was written on "March
2, 2000.'" So, what's your point? Namely this, "Modern chronology is specific,
ancient chronologies were
ambiguous." And by saying this, you hope to convince someone that biblical
chronology is so
"extraordinarily ambiguous" that it is probable that thousands, millions,
or even billions of years can be
fitted in the gaps? I don't think so.
David, will you please give me a definition of science and then explain
briefly how the scientific method
differs from other ways of knowing? Thank you.
Allan
re:thinking
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/3/00 11:25:02 am)
Reply
More about Adam
David,
Your response to my point about Adam misses the point I was making. You
know I was not attributing a
"specific" age to Adam. I was contrasting the difference between a one
year old (which, in every case I
know of, appears to be an infant, or at best a toddler), and a "man" who
is grown, whether he looks like
he's in his twenties or thirties or older. How old he would have looked
specifically is irrelevant. The question
is, did he "appear" to be older than one? If he did, then your proposition
fails.
1. How Old is a "Fully Mature" human?
Older than a child and a teenager. A specific age (as in 21 or 42) is not
required. You can tell when
someone appears to be an adult.
2. One year after Adam's creation, how old was he?
He was one. But I believe he would have "appeared" to be older than that. Do you?
a. How Old was Adam when he died? And: b. How Old did Adam appear to be when he died?
a. He was 930 when he died. b. He appeared to be old, I would think. But
just what exactly does a 930
year old man look like? I don't know, and neither do you. That is irrelevant
to the proposition, however,
because I was not trying to give a specific chronological age appearance
to Adam. I was only saying that
he must have "appeared" to be older than one, regardless of a lack of "navel"
or other features typical of
the aging process. I don't care about those other features right now. My
only question was this: did he
"appear" to be older than one when he was, in fact, one? If he did, your
proposition fails, and there is such
a thing as "apparent" age.
Doy
allanita
Administrator
(3/3/00 12:00:46 pm)
Reply
Re: A reply for Tom
Tom,
I think it is great that you and Doy have 'connected.' I'm happy things
are finally progressing to your
satisfaction. I'm pleased you're looking forward to Part III, as we'll
be able to get down to the business at
hand without having to hear all the complaints about why we ought not to
be having the discussion.
Incidentally, who says that old "bad cop, good cop" routine doesn't work?
I have not been avoiding your question about "unavoidable appearance of
age." Back on March 1, which
seems like billions of years ago, I wrote, in a post directed to you specifically:
On the "apparent age" thing, I don't know how to tell the difference between
a created rock
and a rock that might be the result of natural processes, and I don't think
you do either, and
this ought to give you some pause for caution in your uniformitarian assumptions.
So, what I'm saying is: I don't know. And to use your expression, "Why is that so hard to understand?"
Allan
re:thinking
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/3/00 12:39:47 pm)
Reply
Lookie Tom...
Tom,
Let me say again, at the start here, that I am not a die-hard YEC. I am
in the "uncomfortable" position of
being between two entrenched positions, getting shot at from both sides.
I lean toward a younger earth,
to be sure, but, like Allan, concede that the earth "may" be older than
what the typical YEC position
demands. I look at some evidences and think, "looks young to me." Then
I look at other evidences and
think, "looks pretty old to me." (In my opinion, astronomical arguments
are far better than geological. If I
were a committed OEC, that's where I would hang my hat.) But the one matter
that gives me pause is the
need to leave God in the equation (I cannot accept the "God had nothing
to do with earth's development"
position. I think it is a foolish one to take, if I may be so blunt.).
With Him, I would think it should give OECs
a humble spirit to admit that the earth "may" be younger than they think
by looking at purely naturalistic
causes and effects. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with dogmatism about
it, and when asked, like you,
Tom, I simply say, "I don't know." But I will tell someone that we should
never factor God out of the
equation, since, after all, He is the ultimate reality. And as Creator,
He has discretion to do as He pleases,
including creating a fully grown universe primed for life. My view of Genesis
puts me pretty much in this
camp.
Now then, thanks for giving me two points. Is this like "Who's Line is
it Anyway?" Everything is made up and
the points don't matter? (Oops, did I just admit that I've seen that?).
I made the vestigial organ argument not as a point by point, across the
board analogy, but simply as a
consideration that there may be things for which we do not understand or
readily observe the purpose.
This does not, therefore, mean that there is no purpose. Therefore, a dogmatic
position that "there is no
purpose for this organ" is a foolish one. God is not under obligation to
tell us why He made certain things in
particular ways. So I will continue to press the point about what I may
call the "Creator's discretion." Who
are we to question Him and His creative ways? As for the appendix, who
knows? It may yet be revealed
that there is a purpose for it (speculating: perhaps it has a purpose in
the infant's birthing process). I don't
know, but I will not dogmatically say, there is no purpose. Why is it even
necessary to do that? I'd have to
eat my words later if and when they do finally understand a purpose.
Once again, and this may frustrate you, I do not know about "avoidable"
vs. "unavoidable" appearance; and
may I kindly say, neither do you, ultimately. If Ross is correct, his book
argues for "necessary" age, so
maybe those things are "unavoidable." Now, let me clarify, Tom. I do not
think that God just put fossils in
rocks just so we can have something to debate about. I believe fossils
testify to living things in the past.
However, I do have my questions about the dating processes applied to them,
and so remain unconvinced
that multiple millions of years should be applied to fossils. Allan has
appealed several times to polystrates,
and I think that is a thorn in your side. And there have been enough "oopsies"
that we should give pause.
But be that as it may, I am not arguing that God just put those things
there without there actually being
life. I would agree that such would be deceptive. My issue there is the
dating processes themselves, not
the reality of those creatures.
I am glad you can admit that you could not be certain about telling the
difference between something
created and something that has developed over eons of time. I think it
here that you are a reasonable
man. It would be foolish to think we could ultimately know so much about
how God does everything He
does. Our finite brains would probably explode if God did tell us everything
we'd like to know. I commend
you for this. I could not say that trees would have no knots and Adam must
NOT have had a navel, though
you may be right. I would say that it's possible God could have put those
things there to correspond to the
way that all mature things look (and I don't think that would demand deception).
I might doubt that Adam
had a navel, but since neither of us knew Adam, I'll forego an absolute
conclusion on that. It's not
something I would debate.
My response to David had to do with his proposition, which was an absolute
statement. My appeal to Adam
was to show the fallacy of the proposition. Remember, it was his proposition,
not mine. He should have
anticipated that Adam would be mentioned. It was too easy to prove false.
Once again, on the "avoidable" vs. "unavoidable." I don't know, Tom. If
by "avoidable" you mean "fossils," I
would agree. I wouldn't put that in the same category as a navel (insert
some wry comment here). But
when it comes to astronomical considerations, I don't know if either of
us could adequately answer this
question. I am simply not comfortable "going where no man has gone before"
in terms of how God created
the universe. There may be factors from God's viewpoint that we don't even
have the ability to dream up.
What is man? And though we may have the ability to study God's creation,
are we so puffed about about
our methods that we think we can completely understand everything about
it? Do we really think that's
what modern science can do for us? I would shudder at the arrogance of
someone who thought that.
You said of a miraculously created universe, "I think that universe would
betray its miraculous provenance."
Ok, but how? What exactly would it look like? If you say you don't know,
then you and I are pretty close
on this one. So what do you think? Would you like to phone a friend or
go fifty-fifty?
your brother,
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/3/00 6:24:52 pm)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of Adam
Doy,
Supposing that you were to argue that: A one year old human always looks
like an infant, it would
follow quite naturally that Adam must have looked like an infant at his
creation. Given that Adam had a
mature body at his creation, he must have had some appearance of age.
I would argue that: Created humans may differ substantially from humans
that form according to
natural processes. For that reason, Adam's body would not serve as a reliable
indicator of his actual and
only as a vague indicator of his apparent age.
In addition I would arge that: Modification and degradation serve as universal
indicators of the age
of an object or entity. Adam's body at the creation did not display any
of these indicators of modification
and degradation. For that reason, Adam's body would differ distinctly and
unmistakably from that of other
humans.
I would summarize the argument into this form: A created object or entity
will display no evidence of
modification or degradation which would serve as an indicator of apparent
age or history.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/3/00 7:18:49 pm)
Reply
Apparent age
David,
You've come a little ways, perhaps (?). Your original proposition was "no
object or entity in the universe
has apparent age." Then you argued that "Even though Adam was created as
a fully mature man, that does
not suggest that Adam possessed any 'apparent age.'" Now you have stated,
"Given that Adam had a
mature body at his creation, he must have had some appearance of age."
Very well then, you went from
"no object" and "any apparent age" to "some appearance of age." You've
denied your own proposition, and
I commend you for that admission. The rest of the details in this case
are irrelevant in my mind, as I have
stated before. My original point stands: A miraculously created object
will inherently display some
appearance of age. If it was true of Adam, I believe it can be true of
the universe, which "may" mean it is
younger than you think.
Thanks,
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/3/00 7:41:56 pm)
Reply
Re: David's March 2 Post
Allan,
I am pleased to see that you have resumed arguing on behalf of your position.
In response to your question: "How can you be sure and what specifically
do you mean when you say,
"Earth's surface"?"
My answer: I can be certain because the rocks of the Earth's surface display
evidence of modification,
interaction and degradation such as would not exist in a rock which was
created ex nihilo. When I speak
about "Earth's surface" I mean the rocks of Earth's crust and the mantle
adjacent to the crust.
In response to your second question: "What is the "every evidence" of which
you speak? Please elaborate.
Incidentally, it sounds to me like all you're saying is that matter existed
at the beginning, not that matter
was created by God in the beginning. Is this correct?"
My answer: The evidence includes the chemical and crystalline structure
of the rocks, the location of the
rocks on the Earth's surface, the location of the rocks relative to other
rocks (stratigraphy) and other
historical evidences regarding the rocks' origin.
My position does not require or imply that matter was not created.
In response to your third question: "What specifically is the "every evidence"
of which you speak? Are not
the "billions of years" of which you speak based on the assumptions of
your uniformitarianism, which is, in
turn, a metaphysical construct?"
My answer: Evidence of the origin of the continents is contained in the
crust, composed as it is of tectonic
plates and divided into continental crust and oceanic crust. Continental
crust is complicated, revealing a
history of continents colliding and dividing, of the creation and destruction
of the crust, and of the origin
and erosion of mountain chains.
Geology is not a metaphysical construct. There exists physical evidence
of creation, modification and
destruction operating in perpetual cycles powered by the internal heat
of the Earth and punctuated
occassionally by catastrophic events such as the collision of extraterrestrial
bodies such as asteroids and
comets. Historical evidence present in the Earth corresponds to events
which continue to occur today.
In answer to your fourth question: "David, how does one date the rocks? Is it by..."
I must answer: Yes, these are means by which a scientists may successfully
date rocks both relatively and
absolutely.
You made some comments about my rejection of True Science and True Religion
and asked a question:
"This is a very interesting and informative statement coming from someone
who says the Earth IS billions of
years old. Incidentally, I didn't capitalize either true science or true
religion, so those are your own
constructs. How about pseudo-science, does it exist?"
There exists no such thing as "True Science" because truth belongs to philosophy,
not science. In answer
to your question: "Pseudo-science" does exist. Pseudoscience is defined
by The American Heritage
Dictionary as: "A theory, methodology, or activity that appears to be or
is presented as being scientific."
When people attempt to contain science within some concept of truth, they
often create a pseudoscience.
"True Science" is often not science at all.
The sixth and seventh questions: "David, you may have thought my answer
vague, but did you think it
vacuous also? Did you really think I didn't know that mankind was involved
in systematic thinking and
physics before New Testament times?"
Vague answers are always potentially vacuous. I make no assumptions about
what you know or don't
know.
You then answered my question and commented: "I also know that, apart from
theoretical physics, a good
portion of practical physics still relies on the Newtonian paradigm, and
I'm at a loss to know why you would
argue that this is 'altogether incorrect.'"
Einstein's physics replaced Newton's physics. And do not forget Quantum Physics ...
You oppose my statment: "The 'compartmentalized worldview' which you complain
about is a necessary
component of a philosophical discussion." by claiming: "No sir, what it
is IS the figment of your own
imagination."
I do not feel any compulsion to argue this point.
You are troubled that I would call both the Young Earth position and the
Bibilical chronology ambiguous. In
response, you conclude by saying: "So, if you were just talking about the
Young Earth position, and not
the Bible, as you claim, then I hope you can see why it is so hard sometimes
to understand just what you
are, in fact, saying."
Allan, I was talking about both. The Young Earth position is ambiguous.
The Bible's chronology is also
ambiguous. The Young Earth position is ambiguous specifically because the
Bible does not make any distinct
claim about the Universe's age.
I was pleased to find that you have declared your opinion regarding the age of the Universe:
I'll tell you what's 'extraordinary,' David, and it's the fact that you've
been discussing this issue
with me all this time and you're still supposing whether I'm a proponent
of a Young Earth
position. I've said I believe the Earth is probably somewhere in the vicinity
of 6,000 to 10,000
years old, as I understand the Scriptures. Is that close enough for you?
Has this not been
mentioned several times in this discussion? Now, could I defend a proposition
that says, "The
Earth is at most 100,000 years [old]"? No, I most certainly could not and
if you've been paying
attention, you know I can't. Why? Because I think there is a possibility
you may be right about
the Earth being very old.
Do I understand you correctly? When asked "How Old is the Universe?" you
answer: "The Earth is
probably somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, or possibly vastly
older."
I can understand why this issue is so difficult for you: You have not resolved
it in your own mind yet. When
use words such as "probably" and "possibly" it is evident that you are
equivocating.
My position is much different from yours: The Earth and the Universe are
billions of years old. Once you
acknowledge that my position may be correct you have demonstrated that
our disagreement is only
superficial.
In response to the example of the ambuity of the Biblical chronology, you
argue: "If my math is correct,
Jereboam reigned from 931 until 910 B.C., making 913 B.C. the eighteenth
year. Although this answer
doesn't come up to your very restrictive criterion, it's still pretty good
as history goes."
I must say that you cannot rescue an ambiguous chronology by appealing
to a specific chronology. We do
not know, and can not know, that the event in question actually happened
in "913 B.C." instead of 914,
912 or any number of other potential dates.
You then argue: "Namely this, "Modern chronology is specific, ancient chronologies
were ambiguous." And
by saying this, you hope to convince someone that biblical chronology is
so "extraordinarily ambiguous" that
it is probable that thousands, millions, or even billions of years can
be fitted in the gaps? I don't think so."
The ambiguity of the Biblical chronology reveals a different attitude towards
time and history among
ancient people. This difference of perspective may allow for alternative
interpretations of the creation
account.
I will get to your final question in a separate post.
Thanks,
David Mathews
dmathews
Global user
(3/3/00 7:47:07 pm)
Reply
Apparent vs. Actual Age
Doy,
The argument which was initiated with the proposition:
1. A created object or entity will display no evidence of modification
or degradation which would
serve as an indicator of apparent age or history.
Will continue with the additional proposition:
2. Objects or entities which display evidence of modification, interaction
and degradation possess
actual age equivalent to the time required to produce the modification,
interaction and
degradation present in the object or entity.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/4/00 10:15:13 am)
Reply
Apparent vs. Actual
David,
I take it that you concede the proposition that a created object inherently
displays some apparent age.
The corollary to that would be that therefore whatever contains apparent
age (of any kind) will "look" older
than it actually is. If it was true of Adam's body, why could it not be
true of "earth's" body?
As to your further propositions:
1. A created object or entity will display no evidence of modification
or degradation which would serve as
an indicator of apparent age or history.
This, of course, is an assumption. It may or may not be true, but the only
way to know this absolutely is to
have a "created" object against which to test it. If the earth was miraculously
created as a mature entity,
then you have a problem with this proposition. Now my question is this:
does this proposition imply that the
earth is not created? You say a "created" object will display no evidence,
etc... But I know you think the
earth contains indicators of great age, which would imply that you do not
think it is "created" by the
wording of this proposition. Now I will give the benefit of the doubt,
because I do think you believe there
was, at some point in history, an initial "creation," but this initial
creation, according to your position, could
not have contained any apparent age. That's where I disagree with you.
2. Objects or entities which display evidence of modification, interaction
and degradation possess actual
age equivalent to the time required to produce the modification, interaction
and degradation present in the
object or entity.
To prove this proposition in line with your position, you must first accept
other metaphysical assumptions:
a. Uniformitarianism. If, at any point in history, rate of modification
and degradation occurred at a faster
pace, the the "time" required is less than you assume.
b. You must know what the "original" condition of the object or entity
was. If you do not know this
absolutely, then you do not know the starting point for this modification.
Doy
dmathews
Global user
(3/4/00 11:29:00 pm)
Reply
Apparent vs. Actual
Doy,
I am very pleased with your post and must say that we are now entering
into an actual metaphysical
discussion. You have made some observations and asked several very important
questions. I will attempt to
answer them to the best of my ability.
1. "I take it that you concede the proposition that a created object inherently
displays some
apparent age. The corollary to that would be that therefore whatever contains
apparent age
(of any kind) will "look" older than it actually is. If it was true of
Adam's body, why could it not
be true of "earth's" body?"
I agree absolutely that Whatever contains apparent age must "look" older
than it actually is, my
agreement with that proposition is made necessary by the very definition
of "apparent": "Appearing as such
but not necessarily so" (American Heritage Dictionary).
For a created entity such as Adam "apparent age" is meaningful relative
to Adam's mature body which was
not formed through the normal processes of growth and maturation. Since
words such as "mature" and
"adult" imply a certain state of physical development and from common experience
that state of physical
development is not acheived until a certain age is reached, Adam must have
possessed some appearance
of age. Adam's created body was not altogether like that of a mature adult
that develops naturally simply
because created objects are perfect, lacking any modifications or degradations
which are a common,
universal and unavoidable characteristic of human life even among those
who have not yet acheived
adulthood.
When speaking on an object, such as the Earth, "maturity" and "adulthood"
are meaningless concepts.
While planets may be said to experience a process of growth and development,
these processes do not
result in a uniform, consistent or predictable form of internal structure,
crustal structure or atmospheric
structure. For entities such as humans, "adulthood" implies a certain state
of physical development with all
of the attendant physical manifestations of that development, no such meaning
is possible in reference to a
planet. For that reason, "apparent age" is a meaningless concept when applied
to a planet or any other
object in the Universe.
2. "This, of course, is an assumption. It may or may not be true, but the
only way to know this
absolutely is to have a "created" object against which to test it. If the
earth was miraculously
created as a mature entity, then you have a problem with this proposition.
Now my question is
this: does this proposition imply that the earth is not created? You say
a "created" object will
display no evidence, etc... But I know you think the earth contains indicators
of great age,
which would imply that you do not think it is "created" by the wording
of this proposition. Now I
will give the benefit of the doubt, because I do think you believe there
was, at some point in
history, an initial "creation," but this initial creation, according to
your position, could not have
contained any apparent age. That's where I disagree with you."
This paragraph was written in response to the proposition: "A created object
or entity will display no
evidence of modification or degradation which would serve as an indicator
of apparent age or
history."
I do not believe that the proposition is dependent upon direct examination
of a created object. The
proposition is derived from the principles: Nonexistent objects are not
subject to modification or
degradation, and: Created objects are perfect and complete. The argument
would then continue:
Therefore, A created object or entity will display no evidence of modification
or degradation which
would serve as an indicator of apparent age or history.
In answer to your question, the proposition does not imply that the Earth
is not created. The proposition
does lead to the conclusion that the Earth's present crust is not a product
of creation ex nihilo. Support for
that conclusion is readily available: Portions of the Earth's crust have
formed and are forming naturally and
these processes of crustal formation may be observed, measured and verified.
I am certain that (regardless of the initial condition of the Earth's crust,
which is a matter of pure
speculation) the present crust of the Earth is not the initial crust of
the Earth. There are sections of the
Earth's crust which are only days, weeks, months, years or centuries old.
There are also sections of the
Earth's crust which was destroyed days, weeks, months, years or centuries
ago. These processes of
creation and destruction are sufficient in themselves to demonstrate that
the present crust of the Earth is
not the initial crust of the Earth.
3. "To prove this proposition in line with your position, you must first
accept other metaphysical