Friday, January 17, 2014
A lot of Christians think (based on the bible) that the earth and our universe are young. But the Bible was never meant to tell us the age of the earth. Science tells us the earth is very old, and therefore many see a schism between faith and science. This need not be however, unless we are trying to make the bible say something it was not designed to say. If we want to know the age of the earth, we need to look at God’s “general revelation”, not at His “special revelation”.
The Bible is God’s “special revelation”. The earth and the cosmos around us are God’s “general revelation”. The very first verses of The Book of Romans make clear that people can look at what has been made (the cosmos), and they can see the evidence and existence of God based on what God has created, and that which God supernaturally sustains today.
Though the cosmos and the earth are surely quite old, that does not mean that humanity is that old however. In fact, the oldest found human remains are in the thousands of years as compared to the millions of years which date back to a “Big Bang”. Yes, I said “Big Bang”.
Big Bang Cosmology harmonizes with “special creation” by God. In the beginning of the creation of our cosmos, matter that was created by God was highly condensed in a supernaturally tight and tiny arrangement, then exploded, starting the expansion of our universe, which we can observe today. The Big Bang, requires a Big Banger. That’s God!
All I have stated at this point has nothing to do with an evolutionary paradigm. In fact, both Darwinian Evolution and Theistic Evolution (evolution led along by God), are both against science and against our faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth. However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations. It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It’s all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess. But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the old-earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous, yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes. old-earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It’s human nature. It is also true that some of the young-earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally trained scientists—experts in their fields—are accepting a young-earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling. Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:
Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).
ReplyDeleteSubterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.
Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.
Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at http://www.creationscience.com/). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.
Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.
ReplyDeleteFirst, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past (see our article on Radiometric Dating). One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.
Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column). These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.
Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteThe genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda.