The Glade 4.0

How old is the world? How did we get here?

Although I don't think it was intentional, I find the "creative" interpretation of the Bible thing to be rather inaccurate. I don't think there's anything terribly 'creative' about noting that the human author of the text A) obviously was not present for the events and B) races through them fairly quickly and without a lot of detail. Everything up to Moses is contained in that initial book of Genesis.

I think a better term would be "Allegorical" or simply "non-literal".

It also should not be placed in with Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is, for all intents and purposes, Creationism dressed up in scientific-sounding language. It is not comparable with the the simple assertion that Genesis is allegorical and intended to state only that God is responsible for the existence of the world and the universe, but not to describe how it was done. "How" is the responsibility of science. Trying to insert Divine Intervention into areas of that process science cannot, so far, adequately explain is just watered-down Creationism.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I wasn't sure how to phrase it. a number of people interpret the Biblical creation sequence describing the evolutionary chain. It lends itself to an intelligent design argument.

Rephrased to include your option.

It does, just like it lends itself to the Creationist argument. That doesn't mean that people who find the text allegorical are the same as Intelligent Design advocates, or that either are Creationists. ID tends to be dressed-up creationism, but it's still better in the sense that it at least acknowledges that the time scale is billions of years instead of a few thousand. I don't agree with ID, and most ID people would probably not agree with me either.



Thanks. I don't know that "Allegorical" and "liberal" are the same either, mainly because I don't know what a 'liberal' interpretation of Creation is, but I won't object to that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I make no bones about the fact I believe in a literal Genesis.

DE, other than "some scientists say the earth is billions of years old" why do you think those passages are allegorical?

Bare in mind I only know a little Hebrew, and he runs the deli on main st
However, I've been told there isn't a lot contextually to support that. While the word Yom is used to describe an unknown period of time, the context doesn't support that. Pretty much everywhere else in the Moasic writings, when terms such as number morning and evening are used in context with Yom it refers to a regular old day.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Honest question: how do you reconcile that with the wealth of hard, factual science that runs counter to it (the age of the Earth)?

I consider it perfectly reasonable to interpret the conflict between scientific dating and a literal read of Genesis as a test of faith. If you already believe that God *could* create the world from scratch in six days, it's not a leap at all to suggest he could create isotopes in varying partial states of decay that would look, to our dating methods, like they'd been around longer than they have. Why God would set such a thing up, I can't fathom, but I can say that about a lot of things relating to God... it's approaching tautological to point that out.

As for whether I personally do believe that rationalization, I haven't ever cared enough about the age of the universe to settle on a yes or no.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I understand that, but, well...that's rather my question. As a Young Earth Creationist, do you (general "you," not you!Kaffis) believe that:

A) the science disproving such an age of the Earth is a trick of the Devil to test a believer's faith
B) the science disproving such an age of the Earth science is a test from God
C) all of the science is simply wrong, and our testing methods are wholly failures (no divine or profane influence, just human ignorance)
D) something else

I'm just curious. It's completely unthinkable to me to write off the science that has led to our understanding of the Earth as being 4.5 billion years old, and while normally I'm pretty good at putting myself into a different mindset to understand an alternate point of view, around some things (like this) I just can't wrap my head. Hence the asking.

Any of the 3 probably have proponents. B is the one I'd personally be most comfortable with.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

By the way, my answer to the poll is "creationism by way of science," but I'm not sure if that fits into option two or three.

I chose 'Other', only because I really have no idea...

It's not as if those scientists just say it for the hell of it. There's enormous observational evidence to support it.

I also think that the way in which Genesis was written indicates the earliest parts are the least important. Essentially, the author seems to be trying to get that out of the way so as to get to the important parts starting with Abraham. The earliest parts are simply there to tell us that sin did come into the world, that redemption is needed, and that God is responsible for creation. It is not there to tell us the means by which this was accomplished. As far as I am concerned, the existence of the universe is God's responsibility and doing, and everything about how that universe works is the responsibility of science. The book is 50 chapters long and only the first 11 or so really pertain to creation; to say nothing of the rest of the Bible.

I see no theological advantage whatsoever in literalist Creationism, and in fact I think it's a theological distraction from the far more important issues. I do not see that the issue of when the Earth was created is theologically important; I do not see that it helps either individuals or the Church in their relationship with God, and I think it creates a very convenient strawman for nonChristians to attack, both by inflating the importance of creation relative to Christ, and by loudly insisting that a very short, very vague part of the Bible is there to, for some unknown reason, contradict what we can readily observe.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Other, because I consider Big Bang Theory ->Evolutionary Theory alone to be insubstantially proven, at least if we're talking about the well known, whole theories.

I believe them, generally, but on the scale we're talking about here, they're not well fleshed out or proven enough for me to wholeheartedly support their current forms.

Especially since you're combining a much less supported theory (Big Bang) with a much more supported theory (Evolution), and not specifying exactly what you mean when you say Evolution in that context. Especially since most people usually use "evolution" to refer to genetic evolution, rather than epigenetic evolution, which leaves any changes in the last 50,000 years or so out in the cold. Of course, epigenetic-based evolution also brings in some measure of "guided" or "directed" evolution, since it's possible for developed traits to be passed on to children, especially obesity and addictions.

And while Intelligent Design is interesting, it's got a ton of holes as well, but I think the idea that complete reliance on "random" chance is iffy.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

DE-
Nothing in the bible contradicts what we readily observe. We haven't observed one kind of animal turning into another or how old the universe is (as Nephyr aluded to). People who believe in Creationsim look at observable reality through their own biblically based assumptions, and draw certain conclusions. Those who support the theories follow certain assumptions as well (That certain things have always behaved in certain ways for example) and draw their own conclusions from that.

For example, observable reality tells us that their are billions of dead things, laid down in rock layers all over the earth. The evolutionary scientist says that certain of these things lived at certain times in the past and tries to use tests (based on assumptions) to determine how old these different things might be.

Those of us who believe in a literal Genesis believe this supports the idea of a global flood, a catalismic event the likes of the which the world had never seen before or since. Its possible that such an event could have changed the face of the earth in ways we can't begin to understand.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

which parts of the Big Bang theory are you finding are not well fleshed out or supported?

As I got finished telling DE, they are based on assumptions, that the earth pretty much acted the way it always has. If there was a perfect world, free of death, disease, suffering, decay, etc. who is to say that carbon 14 always decayed at the same rate (especially when it didn't rain for ~1700 years) or that God created the earth with the balance of certain istopes and elements that suited His purposes. After all Caesium 137 didn't exist on earth until humans started doing nuclear fission.

That aside the devil probably does use the idea of an earth older than the bible claims to shoot holes in the character of God. After all if suffering existed before sin instead of a consquense of sin, then it challenges the nature of God.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Um, the part where it doesn't explain what made whatever was or wasn't there before (and before is a terrible word to use, because the bang presumably created time) whatever it was went bang.

I mean, I find the big bang theory to likely be a good theory to describe what we believe the first moments of the universe were like based on our understanding of the rules of reality...

But it doesn't answer any questions about how the bang itself came to be, which leads us right back to leaving a door wide open for "Something made a bang." At which point, you're basically talking Intelligent Design.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

That's not Intelligent Design. You're probably thinking of something more like theistic evolution.

_________________

Hmm. Yes, sort of, though I'd always considered one a subset of the other.

When you get into things like trying to wrap your head around omniscience, "random chance" kind of becomes meaningless, IMO. Predestination vs. free will, too. I find it completely reasonable to suggest that not only could an omniscient God sit back at the beginning of time and know how a coin flips or a quantum string vibrates millions of years later, but that he could also know, through his perfect knowledge of me, what I choose to have for breakfast on a given day. It's the sort of contradiction that I consider theistic presences sort of bend the rules to allow for a sensible resolution of what we consider to be a nonsensical conflict of possibility to our perceptions.

Now, perhaps that means that I consider "theistic evolution" to be a subset of "intelligent design," because apparently progressives aren't the only ones doing crazy things with defining terms in defiance of the English language, but... whatever.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I voted other. My personal belief system could be compared to theistic evolution. Basically, I believe some sort of supernatural creator (something not part of our universe) created the universe, in that it set the various rules of nature and set it running. Kind of like a programmer writing a simulation and running it. So basically everything in the universe can (eventually) be explained naturally, but the rules themselves are of supernatural origin.

_________________

Not necessarily. However, we have made certain observations about the state of existence that do not readily conform to a literalist reading of the first 20% or so of Genesis.



Not directly, no. Of course not. However, we can look at the available evidence and make deductions based upon that. I do not believe science has answered the questions that exist about how the universe works terribly well as of yet. I think that one of the biggest weaknesses of scientists (not science) is that they are entirely too eager to talk about what they do know or what they think they have figured out, and wildly overestimate the level of understanding we actually have. I feel that science is in its very earliest stages right now; it has just barely begun being science. That, however, is not a reason to reject observations and deductions that follow from the available evidence.



This is true. However, all assumptions are not created equal. The assumption that the universe adheres to its own laws and that those laws are constant is one we have no choice but to make. Because we are beings of the universe, we are entirely at the mercy of those laws, and we cannot assume that if they DID change that we could observe that they had done so, as even our memories function only according to those laws.

By contrast, the assumptions of those who look at reality in a "biblicly based" way not only make that same assumption regarding the universe, but also assume that the Bible is necessarily a literal document.



The assumptions that this scientist makes are those necessary to conduct observation in the first place.



The problem with this lies in the fact that while the flood certainly could have changed the earth, it could not have changed the universe outside the earth, and the laws according to which that universe operates. Furthermore, just the fact that something is possible, in the sense that we can imagine that it could have happened, is not a good reason to think it DID happen.

Cesium 137 may not have existed on Earth prior to human action but it very well may have existed elsewhere, and in any event, human action did not change the laws that made that isotope possible, we only exploited them.

Now, its possible to argue that the flood really meant some major change in universal laws entirely, but that would make the flood precisely what I have stated: allegorical.

I tend to agree with Kaffis and Mookhow in this regard, but frankly, I think that the entire debate over creation is silly. Being a Christian is about Christ, and Christ did not come to Earth and lecture us on how the world was created. That is not what being a Christian is about. As to the idea of it being a test of faith, I think that the idea that God would create a test based on believing, in the face of everything to the contrary, that Genesis is literally true, is utterly contradictory to the message of salvation through Christ, and furthermore, necessarily creates the idea that God invented a test of faith that would only pertain to those people unfortunate enough to be born in times where scientific knowledge was sufficient for literalism to be called into question at all.

I think the real "test" of faith is really that one must recognize the ability of science to explain the universe, but at the same time not fall into the trap that God is bound by the universal laws He created. In other words, we should focus on Christ, and what it means to follow Him, rather that tie ourselves to the idea that we must obstinately insist that the literal accuracy of 11 or so chapters of Genesis somehow is the foundation of our faith.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Speciation is somewhat limited, but has been observed on small scales. But evolutionary theory doesn't suggest that one animal changes into another.

The age of the universe is observable to be well outside the biblical record--Our observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius, (no, that's not a contradiction with the 13.7 billion year age of the universe, blame expanding space-time) For the light to have reached us from the edge of our own galaxy, its 130,000 light years give or take.

None of that really matters in day to day life.... Omniopotent makes any 'logical' argument useless, except when it comes to world view. Do the sciences of evolution or cosmology provide us with a way forward that makes accurate predictions about the rest of the universe about the way species interact, about the future of said species.

Even if we assume God >poofed< the universe into existence as is and in motion as it is 4000 years ago, or yesterday, the scientific models that we've built that accurately make predictions about future discoveries are therefor valid. It doesn't matter if God poped the universe into existence yesterday, the models and the universe for all intents and purposes operate as if they happened as science describes it. Evolutionary science, astrophysics, cosmology accurately predict what will is going to happen as far as we can determine.

I believe in the big bang -> evolution path. My understanding of the quantum mechanics behind matter being able to "pop" into existence is very limited, but I've read a few books on the subject and they seem to make more sense than the bible to me. In the end we can only look back so far, and some things may always be unprovable. I personally prefer subscribing to an ideology that strives to find those answers (possible or otherwise), rather than being part of an ideology of ignorance (we don't know how; God did it). I apologize if that comes across offensively.

I should also point out that next year the Gaia satellite will begin being able to directly measure the distance to stars by the method of trigonometric parallax to tens of thousands of light years, giving the first direct confirmation of distance by geometric means of distance in excess of the age of world as given by Genesis. (current limit of trigonometric parallax using the Hipparcos satellite is ~1600 light years)

Depends what underlying mechanics you want to attribute things to.

String Theory is fascinating, but really needs a lot more work.

For me to fully believe in a theory, the mechanisms have to be worked out. While people are still arguing over competing mechanisms and pathways, I consider the theory not well fleshed out or supported.

As we say when we're talking about a theory paper that's interesting but really unsupported: "Arm waving!" (with a jazz hands type movement). You can play with the math and the models to match lots of observables, that's not too hard. But until you have a theory that consistently explains WHY, you need to do more work fleshing things out.

Same problem with evolution- see my argument about genetic vs epigenetic change.

If you want to take a few dozen steps back, and try to look at the theory as presented in a few lines, then sure, environments effect change on living organisms, that then pass those changes on. Similarly, if you want to condense the Big Bang Theory down to "there was an exceptionally condensed cloud of matter, it expanded, heat happened and then things cooled off" then sure, that's plausible.

But when you get closer to it and start to try to explain how and why and things start falling apart, then you have an interesting theory that needs more fleshing out. And as our models and observation methods improve, we strengthen some parts of our theories, and tear gaping holes in other parts, which then need to be refined.

And TheRiov is right, speciation is not part of evolutionary theory perse, but a separate and closely related theory. And speciation has no bearing on my belief or disbelief in evolution.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.