Best postive scientific evidence for an old universe/ earth

[mattrose]

Actually I have a good friend who is a practicing geologist from Penn State University. After he became a Christian he heard some YECist arguments. His response was that he had never heard such things in all his schooling. But he then spent some years analyzing the claims and evidence. He actually became a YECist. And now he spends his free time roaming all over Western NY and Western PA giving seminars on YECist geology.

So stories like yours can go both ways

Feel free to email him at creationandevolution@hotmail.com

His name is Chris Miller

As for relying on uniformitarian-like patterns to do the work, neither group would resist that since neither group denies uniformitarianism (just like neither group denies catastrophism). It's not a matter of denying one or the other, it's a matter of which one explains the most.

[AaronBDisney]

As for the biblical considerations, Genesis 1:16 says "[He made] the stars also." Since this is mentioned in connection with the sun and the moon, on the fourth day, I once thought that this was affirming that the stars (and, by implication, the universe) were no older than the earth itself. Some years ago, it occurred to me that this statement about the stars may be something of an "aside"—simply pointing out that the stars (whenever they may have come into existence) were also made by God.

I understand what you're saying here, Steve. But in Exodus 20:11 which states...
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
it seems that the stars being made at the time that the sun and moon were made is the right way to understand it. I'm just curious what your understanding of the Lord making ALL that is in heaven extends to, if not including the stars as well.

[steve]

Hi Aaron,

I had thought of that verse, and considered that it might create difficulties with my suggestion. Perhaps it does. I am not committed to any specific age of the universe or of the earth. It does seem probable that "all that is in them" does include the things in the heaven. I thought it just possible that "them" might refer to the earth and the sea.

[darinhouston]

Actually I have a good friend who is a practicing geologist from Penn State University. After he became a Christian he heard some YECist arguments. His response was that he had never heard such things in all his schooling. But he then spent some years analyzing the claims and evidence. He actually became a YECist. And now he spends his free time roaming all over Western NY and Western PA giving seminars on YECist geology.

So stories like yours can go both ways

Feel free to email him at creationandevolution@hotmail.com

His name is Chris Miller

As for relying on uniformitarian-like patterns to do the work, neither group would resist that since neither group denies uniformitarianism (just like neither group denies catastrophism). It's not a matter of denying one or the other, it's a matter of which one explains the most.

I certainly don't know the man, but from web reports, (if true of course) it seems he is a geologist by training but doing core sample work -- that is more akin to a technician and is beside the point I was making as to reservoir geophycists who are actively interacting daily with geomechanical theories to do inferential work from those theories -- that's where the rubber meets the road, in my opinion. I am a civil engineer by training, and someone could convince me easily that conventional stress/strain analysis was wrong and it would take nothing for me to believe such a thing. If I was doing design work every day, I think I might be less inclined to accept such a notion. I'm just saying that this normative reality (even if there are a few exceptions) highly informs the credibility of OEC geophysical analysis (not soft sciences/academic arts like zoology or anthropology or the like) and also adds to my suspicion of some of the work I see out of the YEC camp. I'm not trying to prove anything further by this, but the thread was about positive scientific evidence and this informs my evaluation of that evidence. If I thought it conflicted with biblical texts, I'd have a different approach, but I see nothing to preclude biblically an old earth.

[TK]

darin- just curious-- do you know how long it takes oil to form?

my question reminds me of the King Kong remake- not the latest one but the one in the 70s with Charles Grodin and Jeff Bridges - anyways they went to kong island to look for oil- and it turns out that they did find oil, but the geologist said that it needed to "cook" another 10,000 years or so before it would be usable as petroleum. charles grodin, the rapacious oil hound that he was, was a tad upset.

TK

[TK]

as far as evidence goes, i just think the plethora of very strange and awesome and weird variety of prehistoric animals (dinosaurs, for the simplest example) that seemingly go without mention in ancient historical records (fleeting-- possible--maybe references like leviathan and behemoth and dragons don't count) are a pretty major convincer for me.

T. rex would be a pretty hard thing not to mention.

TK

[AaronBDisney]

Hi Aaron,

I had thought of that verse, and considered that it might create difficulties with my suggestion. Perhaps it does. I am not committed to any specific age of the universe or of the earth. It does seem probable that "all that is in them" does include the things in the heaven. I thought it just possible that "them" might refer to the earth and the sea.

I suppose that is a possible interpretation. The plainest and most natural way to understand the Scriptures on this subject (even though it is indirectly and vaguely mentioned) seems to indicate a young earth. I could see that Scripture could possibly allow an old earth, but just reading the Bible without any input from the majority of scientific interpretation of geology would most naturally lead you to a young earth interpretation. At least that's how it seems to me.

[darinhouston]

darin- just curious-- do you know how long it takes oil to form?

my question reminds me of the King Kong remake- not the latest one but the one in the 70s with Charles Grodin and Jeff Bridges - anyways they went to kong island to look for oil- and it turns out that they did find oil, but the geologist said that it needed to "cook" another 10,000 years or so before it would be usable as petroleum. charles grodin, the rapacious oil hound that he was, was a tad upset.

TK

I'm not an expert in that area, but I understand it depends greatly on the environment -- in some cases, it's not all that long (geologically speaking) and in others it's quite long. There's also a very large difference between a tarsand and a methane. One thing surprising to me when I came to the industry was the wide variety of environmental conditions and wide varieties of hydrocarbons formed by them. That alone is a sign of a long period of time with widely divergent environmental factors. One thing I used to think was that "dinosaurs turned to oil." In fact, most of the lifeforms that becomes hydrocarbons are vegetation.

[thrombomodulin]

Hi Aaron,
I had thought of that verse, and considered that it might create difficulties with my suggestion. Perhaps it does. I am not committed to any specific age of the universe or of the earth. It does seem probable that "all that is in them" does include the things in the heaven. I thought it just possible that "them" might refer to the earth and the sea.

Humprey's resolves this difficulty in his theory by postulating that the time at which the white hole event horizon passes over the earth had occurred on day #4. Clocks located at the event horizon more or less stand still relative to clocks in the distant universe. This allows for the passage of a great deal of time in the distant universe, while little time accumulates on earth. Hence, it is conceivable that billions of years of physical processes occurred in the distant universe (covering star creation) while simultaneously clocks located on the earth would measure the passing of 24 hours - day #4.

[steve]

Hi TK,

as far as evidence goes, i just think the plethora of very strange and awesome and weird variety of prehistoric animals (dinosaurs, for the simplest example) that seemingly go without mention in ancient historical records (fleeting-- possible--maybe references like leviathan and behemoth and dragons don't count) are a pretty major convincer for me.

I am curious as to why you rule out the historical references to "leviathan and behemoth and dragons " when looking for historical references to dinosaurs. I realize that dragons may be written-off as mythical, and the two biblical creatures are not precisely identifiable with any known species, but, if you were looking for historical references to dinosaurs, wouldn't references like these be what you would hope to find? I don't think you are likely to find ancient documents using the words "tyrannosaurus rex."

T. rex would be a pretty hard thing not to mention.

So would a giant rhinoceros or a wooly mammoth, but I do not know of any ancient records that mention them—though it is generally assumed that they lived alongside humans. If you were writing a taxonomic catalogue of living creatures, and there were dinosaurs roaming around in your day, then I would have to agree that failure to mention T. rex would be an unthinkable omission. But we probably don't have very many writings surviving from the days when dinosaurs were common. I am pretty sure we don't have any ancient, comprehensive lists of living animals from such an early period. Job may be one of the most ancient books we know of, and it does mention leviathan and behemoth, which are hard to identify as any known living species. Mention of dragons, in ancient literature and in widespread legends, must also be explained some way. The occasional encounter with a terrible lizard would be one way to explain them. I am not sure of a better explanation, though I would be willing to consider any suggestions.